Commons Sitting of 15 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Grand Jury Cess (Ireland).
2° Tithe Rent Charge Assessment.
3° Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive were agreed to.
Clause 10 was postponed. Clauses 11 and 12 were agreed to.
On Clause 13 being proposed (the effect
778
of which, is to exempt from the operation of the measure the provisions of the 9th and 10th Victoria, by which no person is entitled to practise in a county court "unless he be an attorney at law, or a barrister instructed by such attorney, or, by leave of the Judge, any other person allowed by the Judge to appear instead of such party; and no barrister, attorney, or other person, except by leave of the Judge, is entitled to be heard as counsel for any other person"),
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he wished to explain to the Committee his motives in bringing forward this Clause, which had been exposed to a great deal of misrepresentation and misconception. He certainly did not wish to create any undue monopoly, but, on the other hand, he desired, and he trusted that House participated in the feeling, that the Bar might not be destroyed. He was desirous, therefore, of explaining the precise position in which the Bar was now placed in consequence of the passing of the Act 9 and 10 Victoria. There was a general understanding that the Bar might practise in the County Courts, and that suitors were at liberty to employ them as advocates. Such, however, was not the case. The Statute 9 and 10 Victoria provided that no one should he heard as an advocate in those Courts unless he were an attorney, or a barrister instructed by an attorney, or, by leave of the Judge, any other person. The practice, however, which had prevailed since those Courts were established, evidenced a wide-spread conspiracy on the part of the attorneys for the purpose of wholly excluding the Bar as advocates; and inasmuch as no barrister was permitted by the Act to which he had referred, to practise in those Courts unless he were instructed by an attorney, the attorneys, in order to exclude the Bar, had come to a general determination not to employ counsel in any case. He was not speaking without authority in saying so; for in a pamphlet which he held in his hand, he found an extract from the County Courts Chronicle of February, 1850, where, in an address from an attorney practising in those Courts, he pointed out to his colleagues throughout the country, that all they needed to do was to carry out the provisions of the Act in their favour, and they would effectually and for ever exclude the Bar from any share whatever in the County Court business. In a letter which had been addressed to him that day, there

779
was another statement, which showed that these tactics had been acted upon with success. A tradesman told his informant that he wished to sue a debtor in the Westminster County Court for 48 l. The tradesman went to an attorney, and asked him to employ a counsel; but the attorney told him he would have nothing to do with it unless he consented to the employment of an attorney as his advocate, and if he persisted in his desire to have a barrister employed, he would throw up his case. In a word, it might be affirmed that from the infinite majority of these courts barristers were excluded; and the question was, whether, for the sake of the public itself, this was a desirable thing? It appeared to him simply as a general proposition, that the business of the advocate in all our courts, superior or inferior, should be conducted by men of trained education as advocates, of established position as gentlemen, as men of honour. He did not believe that any one was visionary enough to imagine that it would be an advantage to dispense with the advocacy of a class of men who had enjoyed the highest education, and who were known to be influenced by the highest feelings. If that were so, he did not think there could be any desire on the part of the Committee to confine the advocacy in these Courts to persons who practised as attorneys, because he must say that it was not the highest class of attorneys who practised in those Courts. He could not persuade himself that it would be for the benefit of the public that an inferior order of men should monopolise the practice there, unless possibly in an economical view of the case, such a monopoly should be found to be desirable. He begged, however, the attention of the Committee to this view of the case, because he agreed that it was essential to the good working of these Courts that the proceedings in them should be economically conducted. He had received a letter from a gentleman whose name would be a satisfactory voucher for his veracity, but he did not wish to mention it unless it were insisted on. That gentleman stated that at a certain provincial town where a County Court was held, there was a snug party of seven attorneys, and that one of them had confessed to him that they had leagued together to accept no retainer unless it were accompanied by a fee of three guineas, and that though this regulation somewhat limited their business, they found it answer very well in the long run. Another at-
780
torney told him that he always demanded three guineas for any work done in the County Court, and that this kind of business paid him better than anything else. It was a fallacy, therefore, to suppose that economy was consulted in behalf of the public by the exclusion of barristers, for the fee which would be received by counsel would be no greater in amount than that which the attorney duly pocketed when he appeared as attorney-advocate, and therefore the expense was precisely the same to the client whether he was heard by attorney-advocate or barrister-advocate. He might be answered that monopoly was not desirable; but he should be disposed to join issue with hon. Members on that point, and he would tell them in a few words why. It was of the greatest importance that a class of men should exist, not only trained to legal advocacy, but capable of acting as Judges; but the public would neither have good advocates nor efficient Judges, unless means were taken to support a body of learned persons whose occupations allowed them to acquire the greatest amount of legal knowledge. It was impossible that any one whose time and attention were devoted to getting up the details of cases, and the preparation of documents, should be as competent to deal with questions of law as parties who had greater leisure on their hands. They might rest assured that the principle of division of labour which had done such wonders in art and manufactures, would be found to work equally well in the administration of justice. It had been found hitherto beneficial to both branches of the profession that the functions of attorney and advocate should be kept distinct; and be believed that all the great leading members of the profession concurred in this—that it was desirable that the barrister and the attorney should each limit themselves to their own branch of practice. Hitherto the Bar, with a high feeling of professional etiquette, had abstained from accepting briefs without the intervention of an attorney; but the County Courts Act had positively placed a statutable impediment in the way of their doing so. The attempt to prevent monopoly had therefore failed, for, instead of being destroyed, it had only been transferred from the Bar to the attorneys; and if any monopoly at all were allowed to exist, it would surely be better to place it in the hands of a highly-educated class of men, rather than in those of an inferior class. The Committee might,

781
however, adopt one of two courses: they might either put the barrister on the same footing with the attorney, or they might provide that if a party wished to employ his own attorney, who was bonâ fide such, the attorney might he allowed to act also as advocate; but that in cases where it was desired that the functions of attorney and advocate should be separated, then the privilege should be given to the Bar which they enjoyed in other courts. He (the Attorney General) was satisfied that the tendency of recent legislation had been to carry justice home to every man's door. That tendency he considered a most proper one, and he had always stood by the County Courts Bill; but, at the same time, he could not but protest against an attempt to destroy a noble profession, the history of which was intimately associated with the brightest annals of our country; and he warned the Committee to be cautious how, in putting down one monopoly, they made room for a much worse.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had left the Committee rather in the dark about his intentions as to whether he meant to give exclusive audience to barristers in these courts. If, however, he meant to propose the clause as it stood in the Bill, he should certainly oppose it, as it would defeat entirely the object of the Bill. The object of the County Courts Act was to combine speed with cheapness in the administration of justice—an object which was incompatible with exclusive audience on the part of the Bar. Enact that cases were not to proceed unless a counsel was heard on either side, and the delay would become such as altogether to deter persons from seeking that remedy with which these courts were at present more and more effectually providing them for the attainment of their rights, and the vindication of their wrongs. No complaints had been made by the public of the manner in which the advocates in the County Courts had conducted their business. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked about the combination of attorneys against the Bar; but was not the real fact this, that the public preferred attorneys as their advocates? By the Act, defendants were allowed to settle proceedings by the payment of the demand within five days of the meeting of the Court; and it often happened that suitors, in the hope that their debt would be paid them without litigation, contented themselves with taking no further trouble than lodg-
782
ing the plaint until the day for the hearing drew nigh. Thus an attorney was frequently instructed on that morning, and often after the Court had actually been sitting some time. The attorney was able at once to proceed with the case; whereas it would be impossible for him to instruct a barrister. He should certainly look upon the destruction of the Bar as a great public calamity; but still the public interests were paramount. If the Committee should adopt the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Attorney General, it would be in the power of any two barristers to monopolise the practice of a County Court, because, so long as they attended, the public would not be at liberty to retain the service of any other advocate. He contended that the Bar had no right to restrict the public in their choice of an advocate. A monopoly of this kind did not stand on better ground than a commercial monopoly. He believed that the County Court Judges were perfectly satisfied with the conduct of attorneys as advocates, and would be very sorry to see any change take place. There was nothing at this moment, he believed, to prevent barristers from practising in the County Courts; it was within his own knowledge that in the Oxfordshire County Court circuit barristers practised, without encountering anything at all resembling that persecution at the hands of the attorneys which the hon. and learned Gentleman had, properly enough, denounced.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDsaid, he viewed this as a contest between cheap justice and dear justice. The Courts at Westminster were jealous at the well-established and well-deserved popularity of the new Courts, and seeing that their occupation was gone, or almost gone, they stepped in and said, "Give us a monopoly." Now, whenever he heard the word "monopoly," he felt certain that "something was rotten in the state of Denmark." The Courts of Westminster had brought this upon themselves. They had refused to reduce their expenses, to reform their technicalities, and, above all, they had clung to that antiquated rule of refusing to permit parties to suits to be themselves examined. The Courts of Westminster had refused to simplify their proceedings, and the consequence was, they would be swamped. There was an old saying, that when persons of a certain description fell out, honest men would get their own; and he had no doubt that the result would be beneficial to the public. Besides, it was a

783
very pretty quarrel as it stood—attorneys versus barristers—and he hoped the Committee would not interfere. He trusted that they would not stultify themselves, after they had given such a vast boon to the public, by trying to introduce the technicalities which they had so wisely swept away. If the Courts of Westminster would only reform themselves, they might depend upon it they would continue to be respected and frequented.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that as he saw the sense of the Committee was against exclusive audience being given to the Bar, he was quite willing to substitute for the clause before the Committee a clause that had been drawn up by a County Court Judge, and its purport was, that in all cases where the parties chose to employ an attorney to act both as attorney and advocate, they might be allowed to do so; but if the parties desired the assistance of an advocate in addition to their attorney, that advocate should be a barrister. The clause—which only applied to the extended jurisdiction of the Court—also authorised other persons to appear, with permission of the Judge. He (the Attorney General) must say, that the observations of the hon. Baronet who had last spoken had greatly astonished him. The hon. Baronet had talked about the Courts of Westminster reforming themselves; but surely he must know that they could do nothing of the kind. Heaven forbid that they should have any more judge-made law! They had had plenty of that in times past, and it was the worst of all law. No; it was the province of the Courts to administer the law, and of the Legislature, if necessary, to amend it.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he must confess that his own wish, and that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), who was unable to attend, was, that both attorneys and barristers should have a fair field, and no favour, and that if the suitor liked to go to a barrister, he should go to a barrister, and vice versâ. That, he believed, would have been the best course for the public, and would have secured the attendance of a Bar. If, however, the hon. and learned Attorney General thought it better to frame the clause in a more restrained sense, he, for one, saw no objection to that course. At present, no doubt, the Bar were virtually excluded from practising in the County Courts by the words introduced in the Act 9 & 10 Victoria. He believed, however,
784
that the success of this experiment would mainly depend on having a Bar in these Courts, which he considered to be a great security for the due administration of justice. At present, the Judges were fresh from Westminster Hall, and came prepared to administer justice in a spirit of energy and efficiency to which they had been accustomed; but in the course of time they would become rusty, and, without the attendance of a well-qualified body of practitioners, in ten years' time he feared that the County Court Judges would not deserve the same respect which they now enjoyed.
MR. HUMEthought that the alarm of barristers on this question was unnecessary. They could protect their own interests most effectively if they would only consent to adopt a liberal and enlightened policy, such as was suited to the spirit of the times.
The CHAIRMANsuggested that the Clause should be postponed, the Committee not having had an opportunity to see it in print.
MR. EVELYN DENISONentirely approved of the suggestion. He would not show exclusive favour either to barristers or attorneys; but he could not help thinking that the interests of the public would be materially promoted by the presence of a respectable Bar in the County Courts.
MR. FRESHFIELDwas certainly not prejudiced against the attorneys, for, though on his appointment as Chairman of a Quarter Sessions he had thought it his duty to be called to the bar, he had practised as a solicitor for thirty years. Nevertheless, he preferred the hon. and learned Attorney General's original clause to the proposal to remove all restrictions.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he should support the proposed Clause. Let the Committee recollect that it was to the Bar of England that we owed in a vast measure the great liberties of this country. It was Lord Coke who framed the Petition of Right; it was Lord Somers who prepared the Bill of Rights. It had ranked amongst its members the most eminent supporters of our liberties. But, further than that, he would ask, what would be the state of property in the country if they allowed it to be disposed of by Judges who had not the responsibility of giving their decisions in the presence of a Bar? The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) who had had experience of that, had told the Committee his opinion on the point;

785
he had told them that they could not have the security of an able Bench unless it were watched by an able Bar. Nothing could be done more disastrous to the suitors, nothing could be done more to degrade these Courts, and make them odious and disgusting in the eyes of the country, than to withdraw the Judges from the supervision of an efficient and high-minded Bar. The Bar was kept in order by the esprit de corps by which every barrister was the watchful guardian of the honour and integrity of his learned brethren. Besides, all barristers were obliged to be members of one of the four Inns, which were governed by benchers, who sat as judges over their conduct, and who were armed with the power of expelling them from the Inns, and so depriving them of the right to practise. In like manner, a person's own attorney was liable to an action for damages if his client suffered loss from his negligence. But this hybrid class of attorney-advocates would be liable neither to be debarred nor to suffer the pecuniary consequences to which a person's own attorney was liable. Now the persons who principally used the County Courts were singularly liable to be preyed upon by knavish practitioners; and if these latter persons were admitted into the Courts, they would soon become so debased as to he a perfect nuisance, and ere long an Act would be called for to abolish them altogether.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that having taken the attorneys and solicitors especially under his protection, it would be expected that he should express his sentiments on this question. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Freshfield) had stated that, having practised for many years as a solicitor, it might be supposed that he regarded the proposition of the hon. and learned Attorney General with some degree of disapprobation, as militating against his profession; but the fact was, that the profession generally, attorneys as well as barristers, viewed the County Courts with unmitigated dislike, for their great profits consisted in the retention of Westminster Hall as it was. He was therefore most anxious to reduce the profits of attorneys and solicitors, as he believed he was doing in maintaining the County Courts as they were. Now, as he understood the proposition, it was this: That at that moment an attorney, if he did not choose to advocate a cause himself, might ask ano-
786
ther attorney, called an advocate-attorney, or, as they had been named by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, a hybrid class, to undertake it for him; but now it was proposed that the attorney should not he able to do that, and that if he wanted assistance, it must be intrusted to a barrister. To that proposition he should most unwillingly assent. No gross case had been brought forward in which this hybrid class had abused the trust reposed in them; and having himself witnessed how well and cheaply justice was there administered, he should be sorry to alter the present method of proceeding.
The CHAIRMANsaid, that as it was not competent for the Committee to adopt a perfectly new Clause unless it were brought up at the end of the Bill, it was clear, therefore, that the object which the hon. and learned Attorney General had in view could not be effected on the present occasion otherwise than by varying the terms of the 13th clause.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, what the Government proposed was this: so far as the old jurisdiction of these Courts was concerned, a party should be allowed to employ a barrister through his attorney, if he so thought fit; but in reference to the new jurisdiction about to be established, a party should be allowed to appear either by attorney or a barrister, or any other person who should be approved of by the Judge of the Court.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that although he had come down to the House to vote against the original clause, yet he would support the amended one. If the monopoly of the Bar were to be guarded against, much more for the interests of the people ought the monopoly of the attorneys to be guarded against. The Committee was aware that complaints had been made that suitors were prevented from having a barrister for their advocate. A barrister had told him that he was waited upon by a poor man, who requested him to hold a brief in a cause that was coming on on the following morning. He refused, unless the brief were handed to him in the usual way, through an attorney; to which the poor man replied, that that was impossible, for an attorney who had almost exclusively all the practice at the Westminster County Court had told him that if he insisted on having a barrister, he would, at the last moment, throw up his case: and similar cases were continually occurring. In the Colonies a learned, in-

787
telligent, and able Bar had been destroyed by that depraved system. He knew, from his own experience, that it was the case in Van Diemen's Land; and the same consequence must follow here if the same system were adopted. Although he insisted, in the name of economy and justice, on the right of the client to employ whom he pleased, and to instruct counsel personally, and not through an attorney, still, having regard, not to a monopoly of the Bar, but to the interests of the clients themselves, he objected to arm attorneys with the great additional power which this proposed innovation would confer upon them.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, what they wanted to do was very obvious; it was to put an end to all restrictions unfairly imposed either on one class or the other. They had been told that there were combinations among the attornies to oust the Bar from these courts. Let them then put an end to all the machinery by which those combinations became possible, and then let it be equally clear that in these courts there should be no necessity for a poor client to have any advocate at all unless he chose. Surely that could be put in a short intelligible form. Let them then repeal the statutory restriction which prevented the Bar from acting as advocates in the County Courts, and then it would be for the Bar to review their own rule of etiquette which forbade the acceptance of briefs except through the hands of an attorney. He would then propose to unite in this clause the provision of the statute of the 9th and 10th of Victoria, and then let them say, "Be it enacted that the said last-recited provision be repealed," and then enact as follows:—
"And that it shall be lawful for any person or party to the suit, or for an attorney conducting the suit, or a barrister retained by or on behalf of either party to the suit, or, by leave of the Judge, any other person, to appear for him and address the Court without any right of pre-audience or exclusive audience, but subject to such regulations as the Judge should from time to time direct for the transaction of the business of the Court."
MR. J. EVANSthought it would be enough to strike out the words "instructed by an attorney," occurring in the provision referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was only one point in which the alteration proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool differed from the view taken
788
of the subject by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman proposed to apply the clause to cases under the old jurisdiction as well as to the new. Now, it might be desirable, if they put all parties on a fair footing, to have an uniform course of proceeding. As he understood the hon. Gentleman's proposition, a party would be entitled to advocate his own cause, or an attorney might be his advocate, or, if he preferred it, he might have counsel, and he might either instruct his agent to retain counsel, or might go directly to counsel and instruct him. The latter was a question of etiquette, which it would be afterwards for the Bar to determine how far they would alter the present practice of the profession, which prevented them from accepting any brief except through the hands of an attorney. That, however, was, as he understood, the effect of the clause; and he believed it would be satisfactory to everybody, and he trusted, therefore, the House would support it.
MR. CROWDERsaid, that he had received information of secret partnerships being formed between attorneys and the attorney-advocates to divide the profits between them; and there had been instances in which combinations had existed to prevent the Bar from being employed. He would agree to the Amendments as proposed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, but he did so only because the House appeared to be against exclusive audience to the Bar.
MR. AGLIONBYthought it would be better that barristers should receive their instructions from attorneys instead of from the parties themselves.
MR. COBDENwished to know whether the clause of the hon. Member for Liverpool would allow of one attorney employing another attorney to advocate a cause, or was it confined to the attorney conducting the cause? He thought the parties ought to be left to themselves. All the difficulty raised by the hon. and learned Attorney General as to barristers would be best met by leaving it to free competition.
MR. MULLINGSthought it should be as open to employ attorneys as advocates as to employ barristers in that capacity.
MR. CARDWELLexplained. There must be a security for the suitor in these courts, and that must be either by having attorneys liable to actions at law for neglect of duty, or barristers liable to the

789
control of the opinion of the Bar and the benchers of their Inns of Court, or persons who by leave of the Judge addressed the Court, and were, therefore, answerable to the Court. He believed it would meet the unanimous wish of the Committee if he substituted the words "attorney of the superior courts of record," instead of the words, "attorney conducting the suit."
The CHAIRMANthen put the Clause which, after repealing the provision contained in the Act of the 9th and 10th Victoria, was in the following words:—
"And that it shall be lawful for a person a party to the suit, or for an attorney of Her Majesty's superior courts at Westminster, retained by or on behalf of the party on either side, or for a barrister to be retained by or on behalf of the party on either side, or, by leave of the Judge, any other person, to appear and address the Court, without any right of pre-audience or exclusive audience, but subject to such regulations as the Judge might from time to time direct."
MR. CARDWELLwished, before the Committee came to a decision, to ask his hon. and learned Friends opposite whether an attorney answering the description in the clause just read could possibly escape from an action for negligence in the misconduct of a cause?
The SOLICITOR GENERALwas of opinion that he could.
MR. CROWDERsaid, he had only assented to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Cardwell) on the express ground that the person to be employed was to be either a barrister as a barrister, an attorney as an attorney, or any other person, by leave of the Court. That was what he had assented to. It was not in the same form now, as it allowed an attorney to employ any other person, with whom he might have a secret partnership. He believed that by this Clause the grossest frauds would be, as they had been, practised, and that the public would feel the greatest inconvenience from it.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
The House resumed; Committee reported progress.

SELECT COMMITTEES.
MR. EWARTbegged to move that the number of Members composing Select Committees, except under certain circumstances, be seven; that the Members appointed to serve on Select Committees be selected by a Committee of Selection; that it be the duty of the Committee of Selection to choose only such Members to serve on Select Committees as may declare their ability to give their regular attendance at
790
such Committees, and that the Committee of Selection ascertain this fact from such Members beforehand; that it be an object of the Committee of Selection, in the formation of Select Committees, to combine a due proportion of the younger Members with the more experienced Members of the House; and that three Members be held a sufficient quorum of Members for Select Committees. About fifteen years ago a change had been made in the constitution of Committees in that House. Previously they used to consist of thirty or forty Members, few of whom were in the habit of attending. On a Motion of his (Mr. Ewart's), the Members were reduced to fifteen, every Member's name being attached to whatever question was put by him in Committee, so as to fix his responsibility. The resolutions which he now had the honour to propose might be said to resolve themselves into two principal points: first, that the Committees should be rendered more efficient by a reduction of the Members composing them; and, secondly, that they might be made more just by enforcing, on the part of the House, the constant attendance of Members of those Committees. They had found the reduced numbers work very well on Private Bills, and he did not see why they should not work as well on Public Committees. At present the attendance of Members was not regular; and, therefore, some means should be adopted to enforce their attendance. A return had been moved for by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) of the attendance of Members on Committees, which had not yet been laid on the table; but he believed it would be seen by it that out of 260 Members appointed to serve on these Committees, not more than 120 had attended.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the number of Members composing Select Committees be reduced (except when special cause be shown, to the satisfaction of the House, for enlarging that number) to seven."
MR. HOBHOUSEseconded the Motion.
MR. EVELYN DENISONthought the reduction of the Committees to seven Members would leave little room for the selection of young and inexperienced Members of that House to serve. He also considered there would be great difficulty attendant upon leaving the selection of Members to serve on Committees to a Committee of Selection. Already there was a Committee of Selection for Private

791
Bill Committees, and that House reposed its confidence in the labours of that Committee, because its functions gave no scope for the operation of party spirit. The case, however, would be entirely different with a Committee of Selection selecting the Members to serve upon Committees appointed to inquire into questions of public and of national importance. It was necessary, for instance, that Select Committees on public questions should be formed with some reference to the political views of the Members. They must not only have the interests of the Government duly represented on such Committees, but also the interests of various parties in that House. The Committee of Selection, by whom the hon. Gentleman proposed that the Members of Select Committees should be named, would therefore necessarily be a body entertaining political and party considerations. He therefore doubted whether the House would like to take part with its power of nominating them in order to delegate its exercise to a Committee of Selection, for whose impartiality it would be difficult to obtain a satisfactory guarantee. Again, at this period of the Session it was hardly worth while to enter into the discussion of this Motion; but if the hon. Gentleman only brought the subject forward in order to have it considered between this period and the next Session, when it might be advisable to refer the whole matter to a Select Committee, then he should not object to give him his support.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISthought no parallel could be fairly drawn between Private Bill Committees and Committees appointed to inquire into questions of public and national interest. In the case of the appointment of such Committees as the Income Tax Committee, or the Committee on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates, it would be quite impossible for any Committee of Selection to give satisfaction to both parties in that House by their nomination of Members to inquire into any great disputed question, on which strong feelings were naturally entertained on both sides. It was, he believed, the rule of that House that no Gentleman was obliged to serve on a Committee unless it had been ascertained by previous personal communication that there was a reasonable understanding that he would be willing to serve. Great difficulty had been found in the present Session in obtaining quorums on Committees; but he thought the evil
792
would be increased by limiting in the way proposed the number of Members to serve on Committees. While on that subject, he might be allowed to suggest that every Member of a Committee who voted for or against the Committee's Report, should be required to attach his signature to that document accordingly. He concurred in thinking that an opportunity should be given to younger Members to make them acquainted with the business of the House by serving on Committees with more experienced Members. Whenever he had had anything to do with the nomination of a Committee, he always took care to select one or two young Members, in order that they might have an opportunity of learning their business; and he believed that that rule was not overlooked by other hon. Gentlemen. He agreed with the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. E. Denison), that this was not a question which the House could decide per saltum. They must have time to consider it, and it would be best to refer the subject to a Select Committee; but they wore, he hoped, too near the end of the present Session to engage in any new Committees.
Mr. HOBHOUSEwas not prepared to hear so bad an opinion of that House expressed, as that no Committee of Selection which it could appoint would discharge its duties faithfully and impartially. On the contrary, he believed that there would be no difficulty in nominating a Committee capable of selecting in a satisfactory manner the fitting instruments for conducting any inquiry which the House might require to be instituted. When they talked of reforming the representation of the people, they ought not to forget the internal reform which they might effect within their own body. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) might have selected some young Members to serve on his Committees; but the leaders of parties in that House had generally neglected to do so. Practically, the House bad surrendered the privilege of nominating members of Committees; and, therefore, he thought the ballot, or mere chance, would be better than the system which at present prevailed. He believed, if the returns moved for by the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington were laid on the table, it would be seen that, during the present Parliament, very few Members had attended public Committees. The Members who served on Private Bill Committees were very unjustly treated; they were

793
like the petty jurors who were forced to attend the Court all day, but never enjoyed the honour of serving on the grand jury. They were never allowed to serve on inquiries of public importance; and yet, while they were so unfairly excluded, there were frequent cases of some other Members being appointed to serve on several different Committees, all sitting simultaneously. The Committees of that House were of growing importance and interest in the government of the country, because there was hardly any public question which was not first considered and digested in Committees before it came to be legislated upon. For himself, he could say that he had been a Member of that House between seven and eight years, and yet he had never been called to serve upon a single public Committee. Believing the Motion of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) to be a great improvement upon the present system, he should give it his support; and he considered the period of the Session at which the subject had been introduced was most favourable for enabling them to make their arrangements and start with the new system at the beginning of the next year.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISwished to state, in a few words, the grounds why he was unable to support a proposition to apply the same rule to the selection of Members to serve on Committees of a public nature as was followed in the case of Private Bill Committees. In Private Bill Committees the business was conducted chiefly by counsel, who brought the entire case under the consideration of gentlemen sitting in a quasi judicial character, and hearing the case brought before them; but the different course adopted in Public Committees made it necessary that there persons interested on both sides should be appointed, in order that the case might be thoroughly investigated, and at the same time it was necessary to put impartial Members on, so as to check the leaning of particular parties. This latter object would make it inexpedient to reduce the numbers as proposed. He was convinced that if the proposed plan were adopted, the conduct of the inquiries would not be such as to satisfy the expectations of the House. Whatever objections, therefore, might be brought to the present plan of appointing Committees, he was afraid that the proposal of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) would lead to far greater evils.
MR. HUMEsaid, that.though they had frequently changed the number of Members that should constitute Committees, they had never as to the mode of selection adopted the right course. At present, Members had not a fair opportunity of showing their talents for business, but the difficulty really was to get Members to attend. The object of Committees was to obtain information, and to get at the truth; but as at present constituted, their Committees were not found to promote that result. In a Committee of fifteen Members, it was difficult on the average to get more than six or seven to attend. He would therefore make it compulsory on every Member to attend; but he would not appoint a Member to sit on more than one Committee. He would have the nomination made so as to give a fair chance to every Member. In America the selection was made by the Speaker, who was held responsible for the appointment of the different Members. Party considerations never entered into the nomination of Committees in America; and he thought the same practice might be beneficially adopted here, as the House must have every confidence in the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman who filled the Chair. He would merely add that he thought a quorum of three Members was not sufficient. He agreed that younger Members should serve with Members of more experience, and he thought there would be no difficulty in doing that. He should propose the addition of these words to the Motion of his hon. Friend, "That no Member should serve on more than one Committee at the same time." He believed that the system which he proposed would be beneficial to the Minister of the day; for could anything be more discreditable than the badgering which took place a short time ago in the nomination of the Income Tax Committee? There never was a more fitting time for deciding the question than the present; for the proposed alteration might be made early next Session.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, that this was an important question, and therefore, before they made a change they should be certain that the change would be an improvement. The great object was to have Committees whose report would carry weight with the House, and therefore, if there were Members who distinguished themselves by their information on particular subjects, he thought they ought to be

795
appointed on Committees on which their information would be valuable, in preference to others. He was not opposed to anything that would be an improvement, provided he was certain that it would be an improvement.
MR. EWART,in reply, said, that the proposition he had put forward was advocated in some of its parts by almost every Member who had spoken. The desirability of change was therefore admitted. It had been said that the time for this Motion was inopportune. He could not admit that; for if they made the change now, they would be ready to put it in practice at the commencement of next Session; whereas if he put off the Motion to the next Session, he would be told that the Private Committees were forming, and that his Motion was inexpedient. What he proposed would not have the effect of excluding the most competent Members from Committees.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he could not consent to the proposition of his hon Friend, which went further than he was prepared to go. He would not, however, oppose referring the subject to a Select Committee, if the House entertained that proposition—though he did not think that such a Committee would have a great attendance in the present Session. But if the hon. Gentleman brought such a proposition forward early next Session, he did not think that either the Government or the House would say that the time was not a proper one for such a Motion because the Private Committees were in course of being formed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MILLING TRADE (IRELAND).
LORD NAAS: Sir, I have no apology to offer to the House for, even at this late period of the Session, rising to move that this House do on a future day resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the present state of the milling interest in Ireland. I have been induced to do so from statements that I have received, and also from circumstances that have come within my own personal observation. One of the greatest interests of Ireland is now actually on the brink of ruin, and therefore I feel that I should ill discharge my duty to my constituents, and my country, did I not avail myself of the earliest opportunity of laying before this House the circumstances of this
796
alarming case. Sir, the industrial occupations of the Irish people have for long consisted first of agriculture, which occupies seven-eighths of the population, of the woollen, linen, and flour manufactories. These great interests our statesmen who lived in the end of the last and the beginning of this century made their especial care; and under their fostering influence they gradually rose to importance and greatness; but as those old patriots sunk one by one into their graves, their doctrines were forgotten, their principles disregarded; new theories begun to gain ground, and those great interests which they wisely thought worthy of the protection and care of a native Legislature, are now gradually falling before the baneful effects of imperial indifference. What has became of our woollen manufacture, this House is probably well aware. How our agriculture, our mainstay and chief dependence, has suffered, Her Majesty's Ministers have in their Speech from the Throne themselves deplored. I have now the painful duty of showing to this House how the most important of our manufactures, that of wheat into flour, is almost extinct; and it is with deep concern that I declare my belief that its entire loss may soon be looked for, unless something is done to avert the blow. I will commence by showing what the country has lost in the production of wheat, the raw material of the miller. I find that in 1845 the exports of wheat from Ireland amounted to 372,000 quarters, whereas in 1850 they were only 76,000 quarters; the exports of wheatmeal and flour were 1,422,000 cwts., but in 1850 they had fallen to 327,000 cwts. And, now see what in this single article of wheat Ireland has lost since the days of her comparative prosperity. Up to 1845, Ireland exported generally on an average about 500,000 quarters, which, valued at 40 s. a quarter, would be equivalent to 1,000,000 l., now utterly lost to her. Taking the import of the present year at 800,000 quarters, this would require a sum of 1,600,000 l. to pay for it, so that the entire loss, compared with the state of the corn trade a few years ago, when Ireland exported considerably, would be equal in the whole to 2,600,000 l., or one-sixth of the entire valuation of the country; and this probably far below the reality. This loss fell not altogether upon the farmer; the miller suffered too. The English market to which he was used to send his best samples, is now glutted with

797
French and American flour, with which he finds it impossible to compete. The country miller in Ireland was the farmer's best customer; he employed a large capital in his trade, and in all the great markets was the readiest buyer, and it requred the employment of considerable capital, for he was obliged to purchase his stock between the harvest and spring, thus purchasing when the farmer was most in need of money, and when it suited him best to dispose of his produce. This placed him in a very different position from the miller at the ports, who can always obtain his supply of grain to his hand at any time.
I will now proceed to show to the House the present state of this interest in Ireland, and though it is impossible for me to inform the House as to the circumstances of every mill in the country, I shall be able to bring such a statement before it, that the House can come to a very accurate idea of what is the general position of the trade. Through the perseverance and energy of certain gentlemen in London, who have taken up this subject most warmly, and to whom the millers are deeply indebted, I have been furnished with returns from upwards of 340 mills, including all the largest establishments in the country, and find that the value of 349 mills in Ireland represented a sum of 1,487,310 l., running 1,876 pairs of stones. So much for the value of only a few of the mills in Ireland. Now, what their present state is the following table will show:

TIME-WORKING OF 321 MILLS IN IRELAND.

88 Munster.

61 Ulster.

35 Connaught

137 Leinster.

321 Total.

Fulltime

12

10

2

15

39

Not full

—

—

6

1

7

Three-quarters

1

1

—

4

6

Two-thirds

1

2

—

3

6

Half-time

27

15

2

37

81

Not half

3

3

1

3

10

One-third

16

5

19

8

48

One-fourth

6

—

—

12

18

One-sixth

1

2

—

3

6

One-eighth

1

—

—

1

2

Not one-ninth

—

—

—

2

2

Partially

2

4

—

5

11

Given up and idle

12

14

2

17½

45½

Full on Indian corn

5

4

2

10½

21½

Half-time on Indian corn

1

—

—

7

8

Full on oatmeal

—

1

1

1

3

Not one-fourth on oatmeal

—

—

—

7

7

88

61

35

137

321

798

INFORMATION RESPECTING LABOUR EMPLOYED IN 318 MILLS.

Provinces.

No. of Mills.

Pairs of Stones.

No. of men employed

When in full work.

At present.

Ulster

61

289

930

573

Connaught

36

147

467

273

Munster

87

512

2267

1041

Leinster

134

705

2111

900

Total

318

1723

5775

2787

Though these are the actual numbers of men out of work in the mills, yet it gives a very small idea of the number of men actually unemployed in consequence of the reduction of mills, for none of the carmen, cornporters, boatmen, and factors' men are mentioned above.
But to give the House a greater insight into the actual state of this trade, I will read a few individual statements, taken from the handwriting of persons engaged in this pursuit, and couched in their own homely language. One gentleman writes—
"Mr. Crosthwaite, of Bagnalstown, Carlow, estimates that his mills, working 24 pairs of millstones, gives support and employment to 300 families; Mr. Malley, of Castlebar, his eight-pair mill to 100 families; Mr. Rathbone, of Virginia, Cavan, his six-pair mills to 60 families; and the Messrs. Grubbs, of Ferrybank, Waterford, their eleven-pair mills employ and support 106 families. Therefore the returns show that upon the employment of the corn mills returned, 22,512 families depended for support. We have 685 mills in the books, and averaging them each at four pair of stones—2,740 stones give labour and support to 30,880 families, and these mills will make 109,600 sacks of flour per week, or 5,000,000 sacks per annum; showing the capabilities of the mill power of Ireland with good protective laws—these may be considered the export mills. Mr. Clibborn says, there are 1,800 mills for grinding oatmeal and corn in Ireland. If these 30,880 families be taken at four each, it will show 123,520 souls depending on the corn millers directly for support.
And now, Sir, I will read to this House various notes and remarks which have been sent by some Irish millers with their statistics:—
"Ulster, Armagh, No. 7, 5 pairs stone.—This mill was built 5 years past, and in consequence of the late Bill of Sir Robert Peel, was obliged to give up making flour.
"Down, No. 14, 9 pairs stones.—2 water flour mills and wind mill idle from badness of the trade. I cannot let or sell them.
"Cavan, No. 18, 6 pairs stones.—Including carters, there are 40 men thrown out of work at the two mills of Messrs. Rathbone; but in the returns the millers only losing work are estimated at 14.
"LEINSTER, County Dublin, No. 4, 9 pairs stones.—I bought an iron wheel for 400 l. in 1847,

799
but in consequence of free trade, I abandoned the idea of putting it up; if I had, I would require more than double the hands.
"LEINSTER, County Dublin, No. 64.—I have 4-pair nearly ready for work, but will not finish them until the free-trade plague is removed—we seldom work our corn mill—since December, the price of flour being so kept down by the quantity imported, and particularly the large lots of slightly damaged coming every day into the market, must turn the mill into something else.
"Kilkenny, No. 79, 9 pairs stones.—From the great difficulty we experience in endeavouring to sell flour, we do not keep one pair of stones constantly at work; we have very much improved the quality, still we can scarcely dispose of a sack in Liverpool, where we could readily sell 200 to 300 sacks weekly before the change in the corn laws; every market seems full of French flour.
"Louth, No. 61.—Situated in one of the best wheat districts in Ireland, but owing to the large quantities of foreign flour coming into this place, and neighbouring towns, has not dressed one bag of flour since 1st of February, and at present 400 bags on hand, and not a baker or other to ask the price of it, with 500 barrels of wheat ready to manufacture, so that the flour mill is only grinding a little wheat for wheat meal to retail.
"Kilkenny, No. 59.—A mill with 7 pairs stones, now idle. French flour is selling so low, and Irish wheat not grown. From 1837 to 1845 these mills (3, with 17 pairs stones) cost for carriers' wages and men's labour 3,500 l. per annum; they now cost only 500 l. yearly: the labourers all in the poor-house or gone to America, that were then employed.
"MUNSTER, Clonmel and Neighbourhood, No. 16.—11 mills, 89 pairs stones, cost 70,500 l.; not on an average more than one-third worked for the past eight months, owing to the heavy imports of foreign flour into all our usual markets.
"Cork, No. 36.—The importation of foreign flour interferes so much with the trade, and it is so dull in consequence, that scarcely first cost can be made of the wheat, and not allowing anything to pay the expenses of clerk, millers, carters, labourers, and interest of capital. If something is not done to afford some protection to the trade, these concerns will be stopped, (9 pair mill, value 7,000 l.) which will add considerably to the distress of an already very poor district, heavily taxed with poor rates, &c.
"Waterford, No. 50.—A mill, 5 pair stones, cost 5,000 l. all idle, and remains as a monument of the baneful effects of free trade: every men discharged.
"Tipperary, No. 9.—10 pair mill, 5,000 l., about one-third worked: our export trade being totally annihilated by the immense importations of foreign grain: 100 men once employed, now 40.
"Cork, No. 28.—The water-power mills at Shannon Vale are and have been idle these three years, (worked 10 pair stones per water.) We expended over 8,000 l. in additional buildings and machinery within 16 years, after which the mill part was burnt down. We since put up the mills and machinery on the newest principles, at an expense of 3,000 l., but finding free trade interfered so much with millers, we never since worked them, and they are idle these three years. We were glad to give a surrender of these mills after all our expenditure. 40 men were employed—
800
most of the men and families are now in the poor-house.
"Kilkenny, No. 84.—I am ordered by Government to let 2 pair sleep, to accommodate the French and American millers; and also 3 pair by night occasionally to oblige the den of Cobden, Bright, and Co., the destructives. I was under pain of losing all my property, being compelled by Sir Robert Peel and free-trade millers, now repentant, to put out the fires of my steam engines, and discharge my men, in order to benefit the country with a big loaf, and no money to buy.
"Louth, No. 22.—Mills, 5 pairs stones, value 5,000 l.—all the 10 men discharged. A long time standing, from the plain fact of not being able to make a profit out of either foreign or home-grown wheat, oats, or Indian corn."
This, then, is the present state of the greatest of our mannfactures in Ireland. Is it not a state of unexampled depression? Is it not enough to alarm any true lover of his country, and make one tremble for the effect such a loss may have on an already impoverished nation? But now for the cause. It is too apparent that this loss of property and trade has been occasioned by the enormous and unexpected importation of foreign flour; a circumstance quite unforeseen by the authors of the measure of 1846, and even unlooked for by them, till within the last year. I find that a paper, supposed to represent the opinions of the Treasury Bench, and conducted by one of its most distinguished members, expressed a decided opinion on this subject, so lately as last year, after having stated that France imported annually, on an average, 650,000 quarters of wheat. The Economist says—
"As a source of permanent supply, therefore, this fact alone would not induce us to look to France, and we are the less inclined to do so, when we consider the very backward state of agriculture in that country, and the extremely small produce of the land, which appears to have been stationary for nearly 60 years."
But what is the fact?—how different the practice! I hold in my hand a return which I moved for during this Session of Parliament, and which will show a very different result from that predicted by the Economist; and here I may remark, that as the distress which I have brought under the notice of this House, dated principally from the time that French flour began to be largely imported, I shall confine myself to that part of the case, as I believe that the nearness of French ports, and other circumstances to which I will hereafter allude, renders her at present our most formidable competitor. The return I al-

801
lude to shows what has actually taken place in the importation of French:—

WHEAT FLOUR—REDUCED TO ITS EQUIVALENT IN QUARTERS OF WHEAT.

Imported from France.

1849.

1850.

Into England, qrs

216,987

435,575

Into Scotland, qrs

38,089

57,682

Into Ireland, qrs.

32,426

56,793

Into United Kingdom

287,502

550,050

Imported from France.

Last qr. of 1850 separately.

First qr. of 1851.

Into England, qrs

129,346

160,409

Into Scotland, qrs

18,106

38,161

Into Ireland, qrs.

17,571

27,979

Into United Kingdom.

165,023

226,549

These returns, therefore, show that in the first quarter of the present year there was imported of wheat flour, into the United Kingdom, very nearly as much as in the whole of the year 1849. I can now show the House a French account of their exportation:—The Moniteur of June 15th, 1851, concluded the official report of the Special Committee appointed to inquire into the question of admitting foreign corn into France for grinding and exportation, drawn by M. de la Rochette:—The following are the quantities given in this report of the exports of corn for the twelve months ending August 1, 1850, and for seven months of the agricultural year 1851:—

Year ending August 1, 1850.

Seven months to March 1, 1851.

Metrical quintals.

Metrical quintals.

Flour

902,481

987,918

Wheat

943,639

1,183,902

Maslin

3,488

2,021

Rye

84,190

75,597

Barley

93,860

219,832

Buckwheat

1,032

27,388

Maize

193,187

59,466

Potatoes

638,584

315,175

Legumes

83,171

100,147

Oats

31,532

83,807

Total

2,975,164

3,055,253

It appears from these figures that the exportations from France during the seven months of the current year have exceeded those for the whole of the year 1849 by 1,080,089 quintals, showing an increase in two years of 54 per cent. In the agricultural year of 1850 the flour exported amounted to 902,481 quintals, and the wheat to 943,639 quintals. During the seven months of the agricultural year of 1851 the exports of flour from France amounted to 987,918 quintals, and the wheat to 1,183,902 quintals. These quan-
802
tities, reduced to their equivalents in imperial quarters, will stand thus:—

12 months, 1850.

7 months, 1851.

Wheat, qrs.

418,549

554,443

Flour, qrs.

506,494

525,122

Total

925,043

1,079,565

It would be seen too, by the following detailed statement, what was the exact amount of the bonus obtained in the various ports of France upon shipping flour instead of wheat, in consequence of the difference in the freight between the articles:—

CHANNEL PORTS.

Average freight of wheat per qr.

3s.

0d.

Duty

1

0

4

0

Freight on produce thereof in fine flour

1s.

6d.

Duty

0

11¼

2

5¼

Bonus in favour of the French miller

1

6¾

MARSEILLES.

Freight of wheat

4

6

Duty

1

0

5

6

Freight on fine flour

2

9¾

Duty

0

11¼

3

9

Bonus

1

9

This last table shows how great an advantage the importer of flour has over the importer of grain, and how likely it is that the French manufacturer, having discovered this mine of wealth, is likely to pursue his advantage to a far greater extent than he does at present. It has been stated by one of Her Majesty's Ministers, in another place, that the French miller was restricted in the exportation of the produce grown on the French soil. But this is not all the case. A gentleman connected with the trade, having read that statement in the newspapers, wrote to France on the subject, and here is the answer to his inquiries:—
"1st Question.—Is it permissible to receive foreign wheat in every French port to he ground in bond, or is that privilege only to be enjoyed by Marseilles?
"Answer.—Every bonded French port has the privilege. For instance, not only Marseilles, but Nantes, Havre, Dunkirk, &c.
"2nd Question.—What quantity of flour must be exported for a certain quantity of wheat imported?
"Answer.—70 per cent of wheat. For instance, for a quarter of wheat weighing 500 lbs., 350 lbs. of flour. The flour must be exported within 20 days from the time the wheat was imported. The flour must be exported from the

803
same port at which the wheat was landed, or from one of the same division. For example, it would not be practicable to import wheat into Marseilles, and avoid the duty by giving a bill of export for flour for Dunkirk. France will not allow any flour to be imported into France."
This, therefore, is nothing more nor less than a regular system of grinding wheat in bond for exportation, and there is nothing to prevent the French from grinding the wheat that was imported from the Mediterranean ports and sending it into England. I do not pretend to say that the French had availed themselves of the power to any great extent of bonding their flour, but it is too evident that the practice is gradually increasing. Now, I have received a very able communication, written by a corn factor in Dublin, to a country miller, which shows the whole case better than I could possibly express it:—
"Dublin, 26th April, 1851.
—"I believe there can be no second opinion on the subject, that the trade has been most seriously interfered with. Our sales of Irish flour are now but little above the proportion of one to three of French, and I believe the same could be said by every other commission house in Dublin, whilst in Liverpool and Manchester, the great markets for Irish flours in former years, the proportions are still less. I know several large mills unworked, and many others but partially so, and I need not tell you as a miller, that until wheat, both native and foreign, recede fully 10 per cent below even the present low rates, this state of things cannot be otherwise, improve your style of manufacture how you will.
"Much has been said about the inferiority of our system of manufacturing, and I admit with truth—and much also of our choice of wheats from the granaries of the world, which I also assent to; but unless you as a miller can buy this wheat at such price as will admit of some margin for your cost and profit in manufacturing, your skill and good wheat will do you little good.
"Now considering that our legislators in speering into the future overlooked in toto in their calculations that source of supply which I may say has inundated our markets with flour, it appears to me safer to judge of facts as we find them, and from our opinions on the experience of the past twelve months of our trade; and I maintain that no miller in this country can buy wheat in any of our markets, take that wheat to his mill, grind it and re-sell it, in competition with the French flours now offering, with a profit, but on the contrary a loss. It may be said, much of this French flour is leaving a loss to the importer, and prices will go up when present stocks are reduced. Our house, however, hold consignments direct from more than our French manufacturer; and my opinion is, that having a 'surplus' they will consign it to our markets if we do not 'buy' it; and from some knowledge of the provincial parts of France I would say that if their surplus of wheat has admitted of their immense exports to us since in 1848, moderate improvement in their system of agriculture will greatly increase that surplus.
"Again, let us look to American supplies, and
804
I think it must be admitted that barrel flour can now be bought in Liverpool, in good condition, cheaper relatively than their wheats. The same applies to French flours and wheats; for example, the wheats from both these countries could not be bought at any of our ports of discharge during the past season, to form a fair miller's average, so as to produce flour equal to the French or American under 23 s. to 23 s. 6d. per barrel. We are selling French flour of prime quality at 11 s. 6d. to 12 s. 6d. per cwt., about equal to what such wheats would produce if well manufactured; and I believe your miller will confirm my assertion, that at 11 s. 6d. the return from the barrel of wheat would not exceed 23 s. 8d., and at 12 s. 6d. but 25 s., leaving in the first case nothing, and in the second but 1s. 6d. towards working, cost and profit, supposing the buyer to be a miller at the seaport; but if (as in your own case as well as that of many others who have embarked capital in mills at greater or less distances in the interior of the country) there is to be calculated additional cost on the raw material going to be manufactured, and cost of placing the flour on a market other than that of the immediate locality of the mill, the trade would be ruinous. American flour is now selling in Liverpool, sweet and in condition, at 19 s. per barrel, or about 10 s. 9d. per cwt. These remarks apply to the general quality of flour in use by bakers, but hold good, with all qualities relatively. No doubt much foreign and also native wheats have been sold, in good condition, from 19 s. per barrel upwards; but such wheats would not give flour equal in quality to that alluded to. It may be fairly presumed that French millers, like our own, make a careful selection of the wheats in their respective districts, leaving but the middling and inferior for export, consequently the quality of their flour should be better than ours from French wheat: moreover, it is well known in the milling trade that it is on the home sale of coarse flours that the principal profit is made, the fine flour produced being sold at a comparatively low profit: the fair inference is, that the course of the French trade in this respect is similar to our own, and that they will always sell their fine flour comparatively cheaper than their coarse; in fact they must sell it, and it is more to their advantage to export flour than wheat, as in addition to retaining coarse food for their own population, there is a saving of freight of fully 8 stone on every barrel of 20 stone.
"These reasons, confirmed by the fact of continued importation on a very largo scale, say 50,000 sacks during the last 10 days between London, Liverpool and Dublin, lead to the conclusion that the pressure from the French millers will continue, and will increase; the result will be ruinous to the milling interests of this country, those in the interior falling first, coarse feeding will become scarce, and much enhanced in value, to the injury of the lower orders and agriculturists; the value of any wheat grown in these countries still further depressed, first, by the natural importation of food itself, and, secondly, by its perishable nature, as flour, unlike wheat, cannot he held over, and must at times be unfairly pressed on the markets to avoid loss by going out of condition.
"You must excuse this terrible scribble of a letter, but I have been both hurried and interrupted whilst writing.
"Yours truly,—."
I now, Sir, come to one of the most curious features in the whole of this deplorable case, and that is, that so far from the ruin of the miller having contributed to the welfare of the poorer portion of the consumers, their condition has been actually made worse, and a great quantity of the coarser sorts of flour arid breadstuffs are kept out of the country, which were usually consumed by this class. The following is an extract from the circular of the Irish millers issued last May;—
"As superfine flour only is imported, and as each quarter of wheat yields (according to the quality of extra fineness of the flour and the particular kind of wheat) from 300 down to 260 lbs. (and in some instances even less), now we take an average, and for convenience take 280 lbs. as the weight of a sack of flour, allowing the quarter of wheat to weigh 480 lbs. and waste 14 lbs., it is obvious that about 186 lbs. of the coarse flour, bran, &c, fitted for the consumption of our own population, and the manufacture of biscuit and feeding purposes, is kept out of the country by the import of the said sack of flour, instead of the quarter of wheat. This deficiency has to be met in two different ways, a certain portion of other food (Indian corn, &c.) has to be especially imported at a higher relative value than would otherwise have to be paid, in consequence of the especial demand, and the consumption has to be checked by the higher price paid for it, and by the enhanced value caused by scarcity of the coarse portion of the produce of the wheat manufactured here. This is shown by the fact that coarse flour and bran are actually as dear, and in some instances dearer, with superfines at 30 s. per sack, than when they were at 50 s. and 55 s. The working classes and tradesmen, the farmer or householder who required bran and the coarsest flour for feeding, feel this most severely. The former has to consume Indian corn or flour, almost half bran; the latter was obliged to lessen his stock of pigs, cattle, &c, and to teed those he does keep at a disadvantage."
I have also received the following letter from Mr. Robinson, of Dundalk, dated the 26th of May, 1851:—
"My Lord—I perceive with pleasure your notice of Motion for the 3rd June about the milling interest. For the last two months a hundred of bran was not to be had in Newry or Dundalk under 6s., whereas there was plenty first flour at 11 s. 6d.—a circumstance quite unprecedented. Feeders of all cattle, and the poor, are by far the worst off, from want of the coarser flours and bran, whilst we are overwhelmed with the finest."
I can also show a most true and accurate estimate of the actual loss received by the poor by this state of things. The effects produced by the imports of flour from France, might be judged by the following extract from a letter of Mr. L. Crosthwaite, a highly-respectable merchant in Dublin. It was dated May 15, 1851:—
806
"But taking the year 1850, the value of the import may be estimated as follows:—595,355 qrs. of wheat, at 40 s. 1,190,710 l.; 1,925,175 cwts. of flour, at 12 s. 1,155,105 l., making a total of 2,845,815 l. The coarse flour and offal from the wheat that would be required to make the above quantity of fine flour, may be estimated at 1,036,632 cwts.; 1,036,632 cwts. at the average value of coarse flour and bran, even when wheat was dearer than at present, was 5s. 6d. per cwt., and would make thereat 285,073 l.; but the actual.present selling price of such coarse flour and bran, is an average of 7s. 4d. per cwt., thus making 380,098 l.; being an advanced price for the coarser food of 95,024 l.; and the practical working of the system is, that the rich classes may, perhaps, effect a saving of about 1s. per cwt. on fine flour, being on 1,925,175 cwts., 90,258 l.; whilst the poorer classes pay an advance of about 1s. 10 d. per cwt. on 1,036,632 cwts. of coarse flour and bran, making 95,025 l. This shows the advanced price which the lower orders of society in these countries are obliged to pay, in consequence of the encouragement given to the import of flour instead of wheat from France alone; but as the operation of the system has an effect on the prices of the coarse flour and offal of the produce of all the wheat ground in these countries, the actual enhanced prices paid by the poorer classes in Great Britain and Ireland amount to an enormous sum in the aggregate, and, moreover, additional expense and inconvenience arise in the rearing of young stock and poultry."
Now, Sir, it has repeatedly been stated that one reason why the French miller could beat us, was that they were superior.manufacturers. An impression has gone abroad that the British and Irish millers were inferior in intelligence to their French competitors; but I believe nothing can be more unfounded than that they are inferior to any millers on earth either in intelligence, in their machinery, or in their mode of working. I do not wonder at this Argument, for it has of late been quite the fashion with a certain party in this country to undervalue and run down our own workmen. The farmer, I well remember, has constantly been described as most deficient in intelligence, ignorant of his profession, uneducated and stupid, little better than the clod of the soil, and utterly.unequal to the management of a farm, that perhaps he and his fathers had lived on in honour and comfort for thirty generations; he was opposed to all progress, a thing of a past age—brutal, boorish, and superstitious, strongly suspected of an inordinate love of beer, and a belief in witchcraft. The British sailor was also said to be drunken and mutinous, and attempts were made during the debates on the Navigation Laws, to prove that they as a class were undeserving of the countenance and protection of this House; the same course is now

807
pursued with regard to the miller, and high authorities have told the British miller in (I must say) somewhat an insulting tone, that he should go to France and learn his trade. Now, Sir, I am happy to say that I am in a position to disprove this monstrous assertion, which I sincerely trust will never again be made.
The great object of the miller is the close separation of the farinaceous part of the grain from the skin, and the great test of good milling is the light weight of the bran (showing the complete separation of the flour from the bran). Tried by this criterion it was shown, by some returns laid before Sir Robert Peel in 1842, that the British millers were equal if not superior to the French. The produce of flour from the quarter of wheat of 480 lbs. was given from three different ports of the kingdom:—

LONDON.

LIVERPOOL.

NORWICH.

lbs.

lbs.

lbs.

First, of fines

313

Superfine

290

White

316

Seconds

50

Seconds

36

Seconds

63

Middlings, 3ds

17

Biscuit, 3ds

28

Coarse

24

Coarse, 3ds

15

Fine pollard

12

Sharp

14

Bran

70

Bran

70

Bran & shorts

76

Waste

15

Waste

17

Waste

14

480

480

480

This gives the total flour—London, 3801bs.; Liverpool, 382lbs.; Norwich, 376lbs. The qualities after the firsts or fines are all kept back by the foreign miller. Now, the manufacture of the Belgian and French millers is thus. From 480 lbs., a quarter of wheat:—

BRUSSELS.

LILLE AND PARIS.

lbs.

lbs.

Fine or first

260

Firsts

300

Seconds

122

Seconds

80

Thirds

Thirds

Offals

84

Offals

84

Waste

14

Waste

16

480

480

Or, flour—Brussels, 380 lbs.; France, 382 lbs. Of this, therefore, but 260 lbs. is exported by the Brussels millers, who keep back 220 lbs., and France, 180 lbs. This is the ordinary make; but of the extra fine qualities, which compete so severely at Dublin, the French millers take but 240 lbs. out of 480 lbs. weight of wheat. The Seconds and thirds named above are much inferior to the seconds and coarse of the English and Irish miller, as they contain the coarse middlings of the London miller, the fine pollards of the Liverpool miller, and the sharps of the Norfolk miller; and it will be seen that the 84 lb. weight of offals made by the foreign miller shows them to be worse manufac-
808
turers of weight than the English, as their weight of offal is but 70 to 761b., and as the price of offals is but half that of wheat, the less made of that quality the better for the miller. Taking the manufacture of flour, as made into the qualities in the most general use, which are termed households or fines—of these qualities five times more are sold than any other sort, and of this 350 lbs. are taken from a quarter of wheat. It would, indeed, be surprising if it were otherwise, for good milling depends mainly upon good machinery, and as no one who visits the Great Exhibition can fail to perceive that we have beaten every other nation in the world in the manufacture of machinery, it is to be expected that the English manufacturer, with every improvement in machinery at his door, should be able to excel the French millers, who are obliged to buy their best machinery from this country. Why, Sir, the best mill in France is M. D'Arblay's, at Corbeille, and from the superiority and excellence of its machinery, it is called "The English Mill;" and so it should be, because its machinery was almost entirely made in this country. It is said again that the English miller could not compete with the French because he does not adopt the silk sieves; but the fact is, that they have been tried in England over and over again, and there is the greatest difference of opinion with respect to their merits; some of the oldest and most practical millers in the country being of opinion that the old wire sieve, improved as it has been by new patents, was the best mode of dressing the flour. The real reason why the French beat us is, that they have labour cheaper, they are comparatively untaxed; that they enjoy protective laws, and that the French Government, instead of throwing every obstacle in the way of the manufacturer, have from time to time taken his case into consideration, and have done everything they possibly could to increase and foster the production of French flour; and you may bring as many arguments, theories, and hypothetical cases as you like, to prove that it ought not to be so, but the plain fact is not to be denied—the French miller will ruin the English one if this competition goes on. There is another point connected with this case, which is rather remarkable. It was predicted, that as soon as we adopted free trade, our example would be followed by every other nation, and that the kingdoms of the world would

809
speedily emulate each other in quickly following our footsteps. But the reverse is the case: Russia, America, and Germany are still as protectionist as ever; and so far is our new system from having been in the least degree copied by Prance, that they have actually, since 1846, taken steps to protect and foster still more, at our expense, their own millers and manufacturers. The French committee on the grinding of corn, to which I have already referred, have recommended the maintenance of the ordinance allowing the grinding of wheat in bond, under certain new regulations, the principal of which was that all hard foreign wheats, or wheats containing one-fifth hard corn, should he prohibited from being ground under its provisions. This shows, that so far is Franco from being inclined to open her ports, that she is in fact throwing restrictions in the way of importation, and is about to pass a law which will, to a considerable degree, have the effect of sending that article into our markets. The linen trade is now the only staple branch of industry left to Ireland; and what has been the effect of the measures adopted of late years upon that trade? It appears, from a return upon the table of the House, that the following were the quantities of wheat and wheaten meal, respectively imported from France into Great Britain and Ireland, during—

Wheat.

Wheaten Meal or Flour.

1842

469,707 qrs.

164,690 cwt.

1850

595,355 qrs.

1,925,175 cwt.

Of linen yarn there was exported from the United Kingdom into France during the same periods:—

1842

22,202,292, lbs.

1850

690,602 lbs.

It will be perceived that the export of linen yarns from Great Britain and Ireland to France reached its maximum in 1842, and in that year amounted to 22,202,292 lbs., but declined in 1850 to 690,602 lbs. The value may be estimated as follows:—

1842,

22,202,292 lbs.

at 1s. 5d. per lb.

1,572,661 l.

1850,

690,602 lbs.

at 1s. 5d. per lb.

48,917 l.

High duties in France gradually diminished the export. It will be seen that in 1845 the quantity exported had been reduced to about 9,000,000 lbs. Not satisfied with this reduction, on the following year an augmentation of duty of about one-third was imposed on the finest kinds, being those chiefly continued to be im-
810
ported; and thence the reduction of export still more radiply proceeded. But other and more extraordinary means were resorted to. The importation of linen yarns from Belgium was encouraged, as will appear from the following scale of duties which still exist in France on their importation from Great Britain and Ireland and from Belgium:—

From Great Britain and Ireland.

From Belgium.

1st Class 1 to 9½ less

41 f.

80 c.

19 f.

36 c.

2d Class 10 to 19½

52

80

27

04

3d Class 20 to 38

88

0

48

40

4th Class 40 to 58

137

50

33

60

5th Class 60 and upwards.

181

40

98

56

Per 100 Kilogrammes 220lbs.

It will be perceived that Belgium yarns have been, and are, admitted at little more than half the duties imposed on those from Great Britain and Ireland, and that the export from the latter countries has been nearly annihilated, having been reduced to one-thirtieth part of what it was in 1842. I do not pretend to say that our linen manufacturers have not increased. I rejoice to say that the contrary is the case; but I do say, that as far as France is concerned, she has had all the gain, without giving any corresponding advantage to us: we have taken and paid in hard cash for her flour, and she has taken less of our only manufactured production from us. This, Sir, is now the case of the Irish millers. And I now ask the House whether they will refuse to take these matters into their serious consideration? I believe that the new system of commercial policy which has been adopted, has caused great suffering in Ireland, and that it materially retarded that improvement which they had a right to expect, now that the famine was over. I believe that in consequence of that policy she is now in danger of losing her only market for her only produce. By the vote which I ask the House to come to this night, I wish you to say whether you are prepared to continue, without any hesitation or alteration, a system which I think I have proved to have been productive of such evil results. I do not attempt to conceal (indeed it would be affectation to do so) that the Vote I shall to-night ask the House to come to is a Vote of want of confidence in the new system. Has it answered any of your expectations? How many more interests will you consent to see ruined? Her Majesty's Government have already acknowledged that agriculture was in a distressed condition.

811
I have myself proved to-night that an interest second to none in the kingdom in importance—that of the manufacturer of wheaten flour—was, perhaps, in a state even still more depressed than the agriculturists; and I wish to know if hon. Members on the opposite side of the House still think their system a good one—whether they are now prepared to say how many interests they are prepared to see destroyed before they acknowledge that this system has not worked all they wished or expected from it? It may be the best system in the world; but I want to know what it is worth—what are you prepared to pay for it—what national loss it will be safe to incur in order to secure the blessings of free trade? I believe that the present is no more a system of free trade than of any thing else. It is not free trade, but a system of protection to the foreigner, which enables him to compete, on unfair terms, in our own markets, with our own people. All that I and those who act with me desire is, that the markets may be thrown open, fairly and equally, to the produce of our own industry, as well as that of foreign countries. We have been called selfish persons—the advocates of monopoly, and the opponents of unrestricted trade! Never was anything more untrue. We are desirous of competition, but it must be a fair and equal one. We do not wish to foster a class or exalt an order, or to give to one interest in the State an advantage above another. But we do say that the quarter of wheat grown on the banks of the Mississippi, the Volga, or the Elbe, should, when it appears in our markets, be subject to somewhat the same charges, and contribute as much to the revenues of the State as that grown by the Tweed, the Trent, or the Shannon. And likewise, if the produce of the French manufacturer should seek the advantage of our superior market, it should be subject to like burdens as our own. Sir, I little know what the result of the division tonight may be; but of one thing I am certain, that the principles I have this night humbly endeavoured to advocate, are everlasting—indestructible; I cannot imagine that a system under which, with God's blessing, England has attained to a degree of power and glory unknown to history, can be by a single Act of Parliament, swept from the hearts and recollections of the people of this country; I cannot believe that the nation will soon forget a system which made England the queen of
812
commerce, the mistress of the seas; a system which made your merchants princes, and enabled you to send your sons to govern, with imperial sway, distant nations in every quarter of the globe; a system based upon a principle implanted in every bosom—so deeply rooted in our hearts, that it finds expression in the homeliest proverb in our tongue, the first law of nature—self-preservation.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House will, on a future day, resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the present state of the Milling Interest in Ireland."
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that though it was not his fortune to agree with the noble Lord either in his conclusion or his argument, yet he willingly bore testimony to the industry the noble Lord had evinced in making himself acquainted with the facts of the case, as well as to the temperate manner in which the subject had been introduced. The noble Lord's Motion should have been one not to ask the House to restore protection to the Irish millers, but to ask them to restore the Corn Laws. For he thought the noble Lord himself would acknowledge that, although his Motion merely asked the House to go into Committee to consider the propriety of restoring protection to the Irish millers, it was impossible they could separate the Irish millers from the English millers; and if they restored protection to the millers of one country, they must do the same with regard to those of the other. He thought the House would go further, and, whether Protectionists or Free-traders, would be prepared to say, that if any one was to be protected, the farmer had quite as good a right to protection as the miller; and if it should be the opinion of the House that they should retrace their recent steps and restore protection, he trusted that they would take some other opportunity of expressing that opinion than by assenting to the Motion of the noble Lord; for if they did not mean to restore protection as a principle, they did nothing but delude that class of men by proposals like the present one. If they thought, however, that they had no reason to repent of the course which had been pursued—if they thought that that course had borne its fruit in the general contentment and prosperity of the great body of Her Majesty's subjects, they would ill represent the people, whose interests they were bound to protect, if they were to falter or

813
hesitate in supporting that policy. He hoped that no one would go away with the impression that they could act consistently in supporting that policy, and at the same time agreeing to such a proposal as the noble Lord had now submitted to the House. He thought that he should be able to show, not that individual millers had not suffered—for he admitted that both in England and Ireland individual millers had, from the altered circumstances of their trade, sacrificed much of their capital, and were in a condition of distress—but then he would at the same time venture to say that there was not the slightest ground for asserting that the millers as a class had not quite as much employment in the last few years as at any part of the preceding period, or that there was any reason to suppose that, as a class, they are not just as well able to compete with foreign millers as any class of English manufacturers are with any class of foreign manufacturers who may be their rivals. The argument with respect to the taxes paid in this country, and the high price of labour here, obviously applied equally to all branches of manufacture. So far from there being a special case made out for the protection of millers, nothing more preposterous was ever attempted to be urged upon the House. He thought it could be proved that the millers of the United Kingdom had as much to do since the Corn Laws were repealed, as they ever had to do before. The produce grown in the United Kingdom had not diminished in the least. It was true there had been a greater importation of breadstuff's since that period, but they had mainly come in grain, and not in flour. He would state to the House the quantity of wheat and wheat-flour that had been imported into the United Kingdom during the last ten years. In 1841, of wheat, 2,409,754 quarters; wheat-flour, a quantity that was equivalent to 360,894 quarters; in 1842, of wheat, 2,717,454 quarters; wheat-flour, 322,815 quarters; in 1847, of wheat, 2,656,455 quarters; of wheat-flour, 1,501,271 quarters; in 1849, of wheat, 3,845,373 quarters; of wheat-flour, 959,097 quarters; in 1850, of wheat, 3,754,593 quarters imported; in the shape of flour, 1,101,445 quarters; for three months of 1851, ending 5th of April, of wheat, 1,105,182 quarters; of wheat-flour, 382,575 quarters. The grain that was imported went through the hands of the millers of this country, and added to their
814
business, besides the grinding they had of the produce of their own country. So much for the United Kingdom; but he had also a return from Ireland alone. In 1846 there were imported, 82,209 quarters of wheat, and 43,885 cwt. of wheat flour; in 1847, of wheat, 238,648 quarters, of wheat flour, 442,893 cwt.; in 1849, of wheat, 543,509 quarters, of wheat flour, 218,332 cwt. In the first three months of 1851, ending 5th of April, of grain 415,662 quarters; of flour, 99,373 quarters. A great alteration in the circumstances of trade was going on; those alterations, he believed, were in operation before any alteration had taken place in the law regulating the importation of corn. In many instances the smaller millers had been obliged to give up their trade in consequence of the establishment of steam mills and the introduction of machinery. He was informed that near Black friars-bridge an immense manufactory of this kind had been established, where they could turn out 7,000 or 8,000 sacks of wheat with 60 or 70 pair of stones. They were doing1 an immense business, and supplanting a number of persons who had been doing business elsewhere. He did not complain of any want of enterprise oh the part of their millers. He felt confident that they could compete with their foreign rivals; and he believed that this competition had made them look about and adopt some improvements from their neighbours which would undoubtedly prove to their advantage. The competition had operated as a stimulus to the milling interest. It had induced the millers to improve their machinery, and he was informed that the greatest improvements were taking place in milling, both here and abroad. A very ingenious plan had been introduced in the grinding operations in the dockyard at Deptford; and from experience of it hitherto, there was reason to believe that it was eminently successful, and that the result would be such as to induce them to continue it. He therefore could have no fear that, in the long run, the millers of this country would not successfully compete with the millers in all parts of the world. The noble Lord complained that the French only sent their fine flour to this Country, keeping the coarse at home; but he thought they might leave them to do just as they pleased in a matter of this description; for if it was worth their while to send it here, it would be sent. The noble Lord said that they took flour from France, but that

815
Franco would not take their linens, and that the French had adopted a restrictive policy towards them in return for their liberal system. He (Mr. Labouchere) thought it was for their interest to pursue that liberal system. The noble Lord had alluded to the Irish linen yarns; but he did not deny that the manufactures of Ireland had greatly prospered under the commercial system of the last few years, and that their exports had expanded, and that if France did not take them, some one else did take them. Had the noble Lord observed what was the increase of exports from this country to France during the last few years? If he (Mr, Labouchere) had known that the noble Lord would have brought forward the subject so prominently, he would have been prepared with the figures, but he must quote from memory. Looking back for a period of about sixteen years—since the time their commercial system was liberalised—the exports from this country to France had increased from about 400,000 l. to 2,000,000 l. He wished it was more, for the sake of France as well as for the sake of his own country. He regretted the restrictive policy to which France clung with so much tenacity; he regretted it for the sake of France as well as for the sake of England. They had an interest in the pursuit of peaceable industry by that great and ingenious nation that was their nearest neighbour; but if they were desirous for the destruction of France, or felt an interest in paralysing the commercial power of that country, they would rejoice to see her cling to a system which was incompatible with any great extension of her manufactures or commercial interests. As long as she did not supply herself with iron and coal, the great sinews of industry, as cheaply as other countries, she could never hope to compete with those countries in the great trade that was open to all the world. France might continue her restrictions with respect to navigation, by which she was able, in petty branches of commerce, to exclude all rivals; but she would never be able to enter the great field of competition with England and America, so long as she imposed upon herself shackles which those countries had the moral courage and the wisdom to get rid of. He really did not know that it was necessary for him to detain the House at any length on this subject. He was disposed to place his opposition to the Motion on no narrow exclusion, or on minute cal-
816
culations, but on those broad principles on which he hoped the House would take its stand, and resist any attempt that was made to break them down. The noble Lord had talked of the partial injury which the free-trade measures had brought upon particular classes of the community; any change in commerce, even from bad to good, must always produce that result to a certain extent. But surely they were not without their compensation. It was but the other day he saw a document, not prepared in any Government office, not brought forward by men desirous of supporting any system of political economy or any party in the State, but by men engaged solely in a work of benevolence and charity; he meant the report that was made by those excellent persons who were occupied as district visitors, in visiting the haunts of the poorest and most distressed portions of the population that inhabit this mighty city. He was most forcibly struck with the almost uniform tenor of that report. There was a succession of queries with regard to the condition of the humbler classes of the community in this city within the last two years, as compared with preceding periods; and there were the answers given to those queries by medical men, clergymen, and men of all sorts and descriptions who were engaged in this charitable office; and they almost all stated that a great and manifest improvement had taken place in their physical condition, in their outward appearance, in their moral habits, in their cleanliness—in fact, in every particular that constitutes the well-being and comfort of human beings. In very many instances they traced the improvements that had taken place directly to the increased means of obtaining provisions cheaply which those people have had during the last three years. These were the real objects which it was worth the while of the House to legislate for; and if the House, as he believed, were satisfied that by recent legislation they had obtained those objeects, and had promoted not only the material comfort, but the moral condition and practical contentment, of the great body of their countrymen, he hoped they would pause before they were moved, by any partial case being stated of any particular set of men in this country, to sacrifice that which ought to be the main object of all their deliberations, namely, the general well-being of the great body of the people. He therefore called upon the House not to support the Motion

817
of the noble Lord, and he should feel it his duty to give it the most decided negative.
MR. JOHN STUARTwould call the attention of the House to a petition which he had presented from Newark, which stated that free trade was operating injuriously on all classes in the country. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had admitted the distress of the millers, but told them to console themselves with the general prosperity. If the condition of the London poor was improved, he rejoiced at it, but he doubted the fact. All the noble Lord (Lord Naas) sought by his Motion was an inquiry into the condition of the milling interest in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) took alarm, and said they might as well ask the repeal of the Corn Laws; but why should not the whole question be raised? The Government had admitted the agricultural distress in Her Majesty's Speech; what had they done to relieve it? The case of the miller was the same with that of the farmer, the landowner, the mortgagee whose capital was invested in land, and that of every tradesman depending on the agricultural interest. It was, therefore, no small class question, but one affecting a class three times as numerous as any other. The complaints of such a body ought at least to be respectfully attended to, and calmly and deliberately discussed. Nothing of the kind had been done in the present Session. True, the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had been defeated by only a very small majority; but in the other House the case of the agriculturist had never been brought forward at all, and hence the responsibility thrown on this House was the greater. It would never do for a Government to disregard suffering and complaining classes. Experience showed the fatal result of so doing in the case of the West India interest, which was entirely ruined. Now, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) told them, "You have nothing to do but submit to it; for there can be no great fiscal change without ruin to some class." The ruin of classes was a very formidable consideration for a Government. What was the condition of Ireland as a country? The provision trade of Ireland had been destroyed by the legislation which opened the ports of the West Indies, for by that means the Irish provision merchants were undersold in the West India market. By a singular retribution, the
818
cry for free trade had begun with the now ruined West India interest, who closed their markets against Irish produce; let another class, who had clamoured for free trade, be warned in time and open their eyes. No one would deny that the commercial legislation had seriously increased the embarrassments of Ireland. The millers of that country were deeply suffering; and those who refused their request would incur a heavy responsibility. It was truly said the millers would be the last to complain, as free trade brought them the raw material of their trade. Nevertheless, they did complain, either with or without reason; inquiry ought therefore to take place. The millers now petitioning were free-traders not long ago. The Mayor of Stockport—the borough formerly represented by Mr. Cobden—was one of those who now begged for a reconsideration of the free-trade system. Not only in France, but in the United States, all the most eminent statesmen were in favour of a protection to their own industry, and they prognosticated that before long a general change would take place in the popular feeling here, and that the Legislature would be compelled to reopen the question of free trade. The parties now complaining wished not for consideration of their own particular case, but that of the whole question. It should be remembered, that whatever might be our present prosperity, it might have been far greater but for the free-trade system. He recommended the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, to study the Transatlantic writers, one of whose works well expressed the object aimed at by his (Mr. Stuart's) noble Friend, namely, the Harmony of Interests, Agricultural, Manufacturing, and Commercial. Ministers appeared to have had for a text-book Franklin's Rules for making a Great Empire a Little One; and the rule "If people make complaints, don't listen to them, and tell them they must suffer," had been faithfully worked out in Ireland. The Minister who was the author of the recent changes in their commercial system had promised the agricultural interest compensation for some portion of the loss it had sustained, and had read from Adam Smith to show that that interest was a class the least obnoxious to a charge of monopoly. The noble Lord at the head of the Government must himself recognise the truth of the description that was referred to by the late Sir Robert

819
Peel. It was only in Ireland that the free-trade system had had its full scope, and its result was evident. It was to be feared that the fate of Ireland might foreshadow that of England, from the same cause. They admitted the distress, but applied Franklin's rule, and said that classes must of necessity be ruined by great commercial changes. But was it necessary, for the benefit of all, or compatible with the benefit of all, that class after class should be ruined? Was three-fourths of the property of the kingdom to be swept away, and the Government quietly to look on? He had never before heard it propounded as a principle of Government that you must ruin somebody. Such a course was the surest they could adopt to make a great empire a little one. What the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) said about free trade being a general benefit, was mere rhodomontade; for he had referred to no facts and adduced no arguments that established his proposition. It would be a heavy responsibility to refuse this Motion; but he trusted the Government would feel themselves bound to accede to the proposition of the noble Lord. It was said the labouring classes were better off than formerly, and no doubt there was not that distress amongst agricultural labourers that might have been anticipated; but the reason was that the landed proprietors spent their money in the employment of the labourers, without the least hope of thereby increasing the value of their estates. How did Ministers mean to answer this fact? They had reduced the value of land in Ireland to twelve years' purchase, but did they thereby enhance the value of land in England? On that very day, an English estate was put up for sale under judicial authority, and the reserved price was fixed at 70,000 l., but the highest bidding that could be obtained for this choice land in Suffolk was 60,000 l. The condition of England was rapidly approaching that of Ireland, which under the present system of commercial legislation was most deplorable. He regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, strong in the numerical force of his party, should declare his determination to negative this Motion for inquiring into the admitted distress of the agricultural class. He thought a day of reckoning would come to both Ministerial and Opposition Members, for neglecting, on both sides, the agricultural interests, He (Mr.
820
Stuart) did not envy the Minister or the individual Member who might vote against that Motion, looking forward to the day of reckoning which his constituents would certainly exact from him. The celebrated Adam Smith had stated—
"That the country gentlemen and farmers were of all people the least subject to the wretched spirit of monopoly. Dispersed in different parts of the country they could not so easily combine as the merchants and manufacturers collected in large towns, and who, actuated by that exclusive corporation spirit which prevailed, naturally endeavoured to obtain against all their countrymen the same exclusive privileges which they possessed against the inhabitants of all the other towns."
In the United States they possess most accurate information with respect to the state of trade in this country. In the Patent Office of the United States they would find a more accurate description of the trade of Liverpool than could be found anywhere else. How did it happen that in the United States—where the controversy was carried on between the opposing commercial systems by men of great intelligence and ability—the result was arrived at that our legislation of 1846, as regarded the corn laws, was based on a total misrepresentation of the facts? It was asserted by all classes that the agricultural body had been sacrificed to the manufacturing interests of Manchester, who were now engaged in forwarding subscriptions to America, there to maintain a class of writers who were engaged in the feeble attempt to disseminate to their full extent the principles of free trade in that country. He held in his hand a transatlantic publication (the author of which was Mr. Carey) warning his fellow-countrymen by the impending fate of England, showing that the manufacturers of England were engaged in a struggle to maintain themselves as the manufacturers of all the world, at the expense of the commercial interest; and the inference derived from it by the American philosopher was ruin to England. Notwithstanding the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), he (Mr. Stuart) thought that English machinery and English millers were better than the French, and in support of that assertion he referred to a statement that had been put forward by a man eminent as a miller and a capitalist in Newark, Mr. Thorpe. It was to this effect:—
"Lord Grey had told the House of Lords that the English millers did not know their business, and held up the French millers as superior. From what he (Mr. Thorpe) saw of French milling, he could only say that were English millers to per-

821
form their work in such a way, he, for his part, would long since have been in the Gazette. The French milling he considered would be disgraceful to English millers. Let the Government only take away the burdens under which they laboured, and place them on an equality with the French millers, and the English would soon leave them where they always left them—second."
That was the opinion of an eminent man in the milling interest; and, therefore, he did not think it fair that men suffering as they were just now, should be taunted in such a manner. The proposition before the House only invited an inquiry, and if it were negatived, a great responsibility would be incurred by Her Majesty's Ministers.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsupported the Motion, but conceived there was nothing in it which justified the allusions to the West Indies, to the cotton spinners of Manchester, to the philosopher of America, or to the shipping interest, all of which formed the staple of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart). It might be true that an estate in Suffolk which had been worth 70.000 l. was reduced by Chancery management to 60,000 l., but they had not now to consider the depreciation that had taken place in the value of that estate, or of any other estate. He believed that the Irish Members who voted for free trade did well, upon a general consideration of what was for the common good, by giving their votes for it; and in voting for the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas), he (Mr. Anstey) thought he was doing nothing to endanger that measure. He could not see how a measure that had cheapened wheat could injure the millers. He thought it could be proved before a Committee that it was not by the alteration of the Corn Laws they were a suffering interest, but in consequence of the mischievous interference of Parliament in the local concerns of the Irish people. It was caused also by the want of capital, which want was increasing; and he believed that before a Committee facts would be elicited to establish what he stated. There was nothing in the Resolution that would oblige the House to refer to any asserted case of distress; and he would be prepared to state in Committee his views of that distress, and any other Member might do the same. He hoped he should be able to satisfy the millers that they were mistaken in supposing that the remission of the former high duties on flour had any effect whatever in producing their present and undeniable distress. They were mistaken also
822
in supposing that the calamity was more than temporary, and it could be removed without interfering with that liberty of commerce from which all classes had derived such undeniable advantages.
MR. ROCHEwould not enter into the general question of free trade or protection. The hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart) said that all the distress in Ireland arose from the late changes in our commercial policy. He entirely dissented from that statement. The diminution of the population of Ireland arose first from a famine, consequent on a dreadful visitation on the staple article of food in that country, which famine was mitigated, not aggravated, by the present commercial policy, and also from the unsatisfactory relation of landlord and tenant in that country. The real question now before the House was, whether the importation of foreign flour to this country was to be prevented? [An Hon. MEMBER: No, no!] The object of the Motion of the noble Lord was to prevent the introduction of foreign corn into this country. He (Mr. Roche) had not been able to see that any special case of exemption bad been made out in favour of this particular class. As a farmer, as a producer of wheat, he denied that wheat was a raw material at all. Why was the miller to have that protection which he, as a farmer, could not have? It had eked out of the speeches of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Stuart), that the miller was no more a philanthropist than any one else. He was' a free-trader so long as he did not expect foreign competition. By specially protecting the miller, they would place in his hand a rod which he would doubtless take every opportunity of laying on the shoulders of the farmer. The noble Lord said that the British miller was more experienced, and had better machinery, than the foreign miller. Why, then, if such was the case, did he require protection? The fact was this, that the millers of Ireland had not applied themselves with the same energy to improve their machinery as the millers of France and other countries had, and they were now consequently suffering for it. At the present moment many millers in Ireland were improving their machinery, and therefore the success of the Motion of the noble Lord would be injurious; it would only tend to perpetuate a bad system in Ireland. If the country wished to retrace its free-trade policy, that question ought

823
to be decided by the country at the next election—and not by such piece-meal Motions as the present.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the hon. Member for Cork was a bad interpreter; he declared that the object of the Motion of the noble Member for Kildare was to give exclusive protection to the miller as against the farmer. The noble Lord himself had stated, that that was not his object; and the President of the Board of Trade backed the noble Lord's assertion by condemning the tendency of the Motion, as in effect proposing the extension of protection, not to the milling interest only, but to the farmer and to the agricultural interest generally. The hon. Member was reduced to the plea that the distress of the Irish millers was owing, not to the effects of legislation (though the facts contradicted him), but to the stupidity and sloth of the Irish millers. He (Mr. Newdegate) supposed the hon. Member was anxious to stimulate the Irish millers. Perhaps the millers of Cork might return the compliment with advantage, by stimulating the intellect of their Representative. The facts of the case before the House appeared to him (Mr. Newdegate) clear enough. It appeared from the return of the Board of Trade, that the importation from abroad into the United Kingdom, in 1849, was—

Wheat

3,845,378 qrs.

Wheat flour

3,349,839 cwt.

Oats

1,267,106 qrs.

Oatmeal

40,229 cwt.

In 1845 the importations were of—

Wheat

871,710 qrs.

Wheat flour

945,864 cwt.

Oats

590,466 qrs.

Oatmeal

3,052 cwt.

Showing an increase in wheat of 339 per cent; in wheat flour, 244 per cent; in oats, 113 per cent; and in oatmeal, 1,233 per cent since the repeal of the corn laws. The importation from Ireland into Great Britain in 1845 was—

Wheat

372,719 qrs.

Wheat flour

1,422,378 cwt.

Oats

1,679,958 qrs.

Oatmeal

1,059,184 cwt.

In 1849 it was—

Wheat

101,865 qrs.

Wheat flour

460,534 cwt.

Oats

666,542 qrs.

Oatmeal

715,825 cwt.

Showing a decrease in the importation from Ireland in 1849, as compared with 1845, of wheat, decrease, 73 per cent;
824
wheat flour, 66 per cent; oats, 61 per cent; oatmeal, 32 per cent. It might be said, that the increased importation of foreign grain tended to the advantage of the milling interest, though to the injury of the agricultural interest of Ireland; but the noble Mover had shown how little ground there was for this assertion; no such argument could be used with respect to the importation of wheat flour and oatmeal, the articles manufactured by the miller. The increase of the importation from abroad of wheat flour and oatmeal was scarcely less enormous than that of grain. There was an excess of importation of wheat flour and oatmeal from abroad, of 2,441,152 cwt.; while the diminution of the importation from Ireland into Great Britain in 1849, as compared with 1845, was 1,305,203 cwt. The decrease of the Irish supply of wheat flour and oatmeal was equal to one-half of the increase of the foreign supply on a comparison of 1845 and 1849. In 1849 there were imported from foreign parts, 3,390,068 cwt. of wheat flour and oatmeal, more than threefold the 948,916 cwts., imported in 1845. In 1845 there was imported from Ireland, 2,481,562 cwt. of wheat flour and oatmeal, while in 1849 there was only 1,176,359. This showed that the foreign supply in 1849 to the United Kingdom was threefold that of 1845, while the Irish supply to Great Britain had fallen off one-half. He (Mr. Newdegate) was here anxious to advert to bold and bald assertion, frequently made by free-traders, with respect to the increased importation of breadstuffs. They said, True, this increased importation of four or five million quarters has taken place, but it has been consumed: the inference is, that without it four or five million people would have suffered from hunger. But a cursory review of the state of the supply of home-grown and of the wheat imported from abroad, would show, that without this excessive importation, had the corn laws not been repealed, this country would not have suffered from famine, but would have been supplied with wheat grown at home instead of wheat imported. He (Mr. Newdegate) had not the accounts for Scotland relating to the sales of wheat, which he regretted, because the improvement and extension of agriculture in Scotland up to 1846 was proverbial, and the evidence of it would have strengthened his case. He adverted to the returns of 1849, as the last furnished by the Government to the House.

825

1845.

Wheat returned as sold in the 290 markets of England and Wales

6,666,240

qrs.

Wheat returned as sold in the 290 markets of Irish growth imported

779,113

7,445,353

Wheat and flour imported from abroad

1,141,957*

Total

8,587,310

*Equal to one-eighth of total consumption.

1849.

Wheat sold in the 290 markets

4,453,982

qrs.

Wheat sold in the 290 markets of Irish growth

233,446

Wheat and flour imported from abroad

4,835,280*

Total

9,522,708

Increase of importation of foreign wheat and flour in 1849 over 1845

935,398

qrs.

*Equal to one-half of total consumption.

The demand for and consumption of this increased quantity of foreign wheat and flour was easily accounted for by the increase of the population in the five years, which was about one million, and equal to one quarter per head. Now, this increased demand for one million quarters, would, if there is any truth in reasoning from analogy, have been supplied by the extension and improvement of our domestic agriculture, had not the corn laws been repealed, as was proved by the increased supply furnished by our own internal agriculture during the three years before the repeal of the corn laws.

THE QUANTITIES SOLD IN THE 290 MARKETS OF ENGLAND AND WALES.

Qrs.

1843

5,302,298

1844

5,456,307

1845

6,666,240*

* Increase of 1845 over 1843

1,363,942.

QUANTITIES OF WHEAT OF IRISH GROWTH IMPORTED INTO GREAT BRITAIN.

Qrs.

1843

413,466

1844

440,153

1845

779,113

Qrs.

1845

779,113

Deduct

1843

413,466

Increase of 1845 over 1843

365,647

Add increase of wheat as sold in the 290 markets in 1845 above 1843

1,363,942

Total increase of home production in 1845 above that of 1843

1,729,589

If, therefore, the improvement of agriculture had not been checked by the interference of the Legislature in 1846, there could be no doubt the home supply would have kept pace with the population; for
826
there was no reason to doubt that the increased production of home agriculture by improvement during the four years ending with 1849 would have been tantamount to the increased production of the three years ending with 1845, and more than equal to the increased demand. That was his answer to the bold assertion that the supply was wanted, and that it was eaten; and to the false inference that it could not have been supplied on reasonable terms, otherwise than from foreign countries, which was put forth in palliation of the disadvantages and danger incurred by the dependence of the people of this country upon foreigners for food. Another fact was, that France had, instead of being an importing country, become an exporting country in the last five years. Alexandre de Jonnés, the chief commissioner deputed by the Minister of Agriculture, in 1849, to take a survey of the agricultural departments, says, in his official report, L' Agriculture Française, p. 414:—
"In 1845, when I first made my official survey, I had found that France hardly produced as much corn as is necessary for her consumption. [France imported corn in 1844 in value 17,000,000f.] But since that period a new era has begun in our agriculture, owing to the repeal of the English corn laws. More than 3,000,000 of hectares (about 5,000,000 English acres) of waste land in the southern departments', from Languedoc to Avignon and Pictou, have now been cleared and made arable; and France, from being an importing country of grain, has now became an exporting, sending the produce of more than a million of quarters of wheat, besides vast quantities of flour, to the English markets."
But this evidence of the transfer of the supply of corn from our own to foreign lands was not confined to France. Baron Reden, Speaker of the Diet at Berlin, in his valuable work, German Statistics for 1850, says (p. 145)—
"How far England had benefited by the repeal of the corn laws in 1846, time will teach us, while the immediate advantages derived from it are reaped by the agricultural States of Northern Europe, such as Prussia, Denmark, and Russia. Prussia produced in 1845, 3,500,000 qrs. of wheat; in 1849, more than 5,000,000 qrs. Denmark produced in 1845, 1,700,000 qrs.; in 1850, 2,500,000 qrs. Russia exported corn in 1841, in value, equal to 10,382,000 roubles silver; in 1842, equal to 12,191,000 roubles; in 1843, equal to 18,899,000 roubles; in 1844 and 1845 nearly the same; but in 1846, equal to 20,000,000 roubles; in 1847, equal to 25,000,000 roubles; 1848, 30,000,000 roubles; and in 1849, 33,000,000 roubles."
The increased produce of France was caused by the opening of the English ports, and so was that of the northern countries

827
of Europe, at the expense of the English agriculturists; and if the French producer was embarrassed by lowness of price, that was occasioned by the competition of other foreign produce in our markets, which distressed the French as well as the English agriculturist. The case of the English millers had been touched upon during this debate. They had found it necessary to form a league for the common defence against the evils entailed by legislation. He (Mr. Newdegate) would not further take up the time of the House by citing their representations of distress, than by reading the postscript of a very remarkable letter, addressed this spring by a miller at Wakefield, Mr. Jackson, to the hon. Member for the West Riding. Mr. Jackson had been a free-trader and an active supporter of that hon. Member, and was one of his constituents. He had been to France, last winter, to examine the causes and state of the competition from which the milling interest suffered. This was the postscript to Mr. Jackson's letter:—
"P.S.—I had meant to have given you my reason for the superior position of the French. They have the millstones without duty; we have them from that country. They only pay their best workmen 15 francs per week, while we pay 25 s. They pay no poor-rates for their large mills, and they have advantage that we have, that I know of. I might just refer you to a distinction that has been conferred on a French miller by the President of the French Republic this last week. M. Parbleu, jun., no less than the Legion of Honour, for the impetus he has given to the manufacture of flour in France for exportation. There are no such distinctions as these in England to millers; their distinction will be the Gazette."
Such was the representation made by an English miller, a quondam free-trader, to the hon. Member for the West Riding, and his assertions and experience were supported by those of the great body of his class in England. The noble Lord the Member for Kildare had done this country good service and himself great credit by the ability, with which he had stated the case of the Irish millers; and he (Mr. Newdegate) had great pleasure in supporting his Motion.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that he could Hot possibly understand how the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House could make out that the greater importation of wheat, which he had said had taken place in 1849, as compared with 1845, could be injurious to the milling interest of this country. He knew that the hon. Gentleman also said that a great importa-
828
tion of flour had taken place; but even taking both together, the result would show an increased trade in favour of the miller. The noble Lord who introduced the question rested his case principally on the state of the milling interest of France, and on the advantages which the French millers possessed, in consequence of the state of the French laws, over the English millers. Now, it was of importance that the House should clearly understand the position of the French miller and the French law, in order that they should not be misled by the statements of the noble Lord in this respect. France enjoyed a protection to the utmost extent that the Legislature could give, and therefore, according to the noble Lord's views, that country should consequently enjoy the greatest agricultural prosperity. But the fact was not so, for if the English farmer was suffering, the French farmer was suffering still more. The last report of the Minister of Commerce described in the most deplorable terms the existing state of French agriculture, and the only suggestion made as a remedy was one which he believed the House would only be inclined to smile at—that the laws regulating the stocks to be kept on hand by millers should be made more stringent, and the stocks augmented. The noble Lord had stated correctly that, by the law of France, the millers of that country could import wheat into certain ports for the purpose of having it ground and re-exported in the shape of flour. But the farmers of France, during the recent agricultural distress in that country, conceived that the state of the law enabled wheat to be introduced which was not afterwards exported in the shape of flour, and they considered that their own distress was occasioned partly from this cause. An inquiry was consequently set on foot, and the result was that the law was modified, although the inquiry had not by any means established the fact that the privilege given to the millers was the cause of the low price of wheat. Now he admitted the fact that for three or four years the export of flour manufactured in bond in France had increased, and would probably still further increase. But what conclusion did he draw from that? The noble (Lord Naas) said, that the French mills were inferior to the English in every respect. But if French millers could bring wheat from Odessa, pay the expense of keeping it in bond, and afterwards re-export it in the shape of flour, and undersell the English

829
miller in this country, there must he a great superiority somewhere. He was willing to admit that the first-class mills of France were known as English mills, but at the same time they should not forget that foreign countries frequently improved upon the improvements originally introduced in this country. There could be no doubt that the dryness of the French climate gave the French a great superiority in the sieving of their flour; but he had that day witnessed an experiment at the Government mill at Deptford, in which by an ingenious application of machinery, that natural superiority of the French climate was more than counterbalanced. The experiment was tried by a comparison of six pair of stones working on the old system, and six pair working on the new process. The result was that by the ordinary method, 147 hours, including eight hours for dressing, were consumed in grinding 500 quarters of wheat, whereas by the new invention only 79½ hours were consumed. The labour employed under the old plan was eight men, and under the new system only two men and a boy; and the coals consumed were as twenty-six to twenty tons. But this was not all, for under the new system the dust of the mill was entirely got rid of, and wheat that produced 10 s. a quarter less in the market, was made into flour equal in quality to that of the high-priced wheat. It lost, of course in quantity, but that loss was in the offal, and not in the flour. He had been assured by a gentleman who had a mill at Reading on the ordinary principle, and a small mill in London on the patent principle, that he had ground a portion of the same quantity of wheat at each mill, and had been enabled to command a price of 2s. or 3s. a sack more in the London market for the flour ground on the new system, than for that ground at the old mill. In reply to the representations made as to the distress of the millowners, he might remind the House that during the last three or four years the millers had been rapidly extending their means of manufacture. Several large steam mills had been built in the metropolis itself, and an extensive mill, containing between sixty and seventy pairs of stones, was now in course of erection in the very heart of the city of London, within a short distance of Black friars-bridge. He thought, therefore, that the millers did not appear to be very much alarmed at foreign competition. The English millers had in many respects consider-
830
able advantages over those of France. The French millers, for instance, had to pay a large import duty upon the coal they consumed; there were also heavy taxes upon iron and machinery; and the cost of building a mill in France was, he believed, 30 or 40 per cent more than in England. The noble Lord had referred to the report to the French Government on grinding in bond; but he had fallen into a singular mistake in supposing that hard wheat, which was not to be ground in bond, was the worst kind, the fact being that it was very superior to the soft. Hence the alarm of the noble Lord at the best kinds of flour only coming here, was unfounded. It was said there were peculiar charges on wheat which did not attach to flour. The only one he knew of was the charge made by the city of London for metage, but that was purely local. A miller paid altogether 38 l. 10 s. for importing 1,000 qrs. of wheat; for 1,400 sacks of flour, which was about equivalent, the total charge was 52 l. 10 s. It was, therefore, impossible to say that the English miller laboured under any disadvantage compared with those abroad. He had one great advantage, however, for he saw how the trade must be done in future, and was preparing to do it. There were, however, some reasons which might account for the depression existing in the milling trade of Ireland at this moment. A letter quoted by the noble Lord himself who brought forward the Motion said, "French flour is so low, Irish wheat so little grown, and the labourers all gone to America." No doubt there had been a considerable diminution in the cultivation of wheat in Ireland, and this sufficed to account for much of the difficulty with which the milling interest was at present struggling. He believed that similar effects had been experienced in England. It had been calculated that the supply of home-grown wheat in the country towns had fallen off by 500,000 quarters; and he believed that the country millers had suffered in some degree from this cause.
COLONEL DUNNErejoiced that the attention of the House should have been called to this subject. All the fault he found with the noble Lord's Motion was that it did not go far enough. He had no particular sympathy with the millers, as they were at first most violent free-traders. He thought that protection should not only be given to them, but to every interest id. Ireland. He doubted the accounts which

831
had been given as to the increased comfort and contentment of the people in the metropolis; articles were cheaper, and if the shopkeepers did not lose by them, the artisan did. He advocated this as the only means of restoring some degree of prosperity to the trader, and of comfort to the working man. Where, he asked, was the increased comfort and contentment boasted of in Ireland as the consequence of free trade? Was such improvement shown by an increase in the Customs and Excise? Was it proved by the scarcity of employment—the waning deposits in the savings banks—the crime lists of the assizes, or the 2,500,000 l., which would be lost to Ireland by the falling-off in the cultivation of corn? Was it proved by the levy of 22 s. in the pound for poor-rates, and by the amount of emigration? The millers were not protected, like the manufacturers, by ten per cent duty on the manufactured articles from abroad. They purchased the millstones from France, and paid duty on them. He wished to see the inquiry proposed by the noble Lord extended to the effects of free-trade in all its branches, and he believed the result at which they arrived would be that it was ruining every interest in Ireland.
LORD NAAS:* Sir, the hon. Member for Westbury has made out a capital case for the prosperity of the milling trade, and has proved to demonstration apparently if the millers are not thriving, they ought to be. But, unfortunately for the argument, the opposite is the case, and my best answer to his assertion and his presumption is, that, notwithstanding the increased importations of raw grain, notwithstanding the many causes which, according to the hon. Member, ought to promote his prosperity, the miller never was in so evil a plight; and my statement, which has not been in the least degree controverted, is worth all the abstract theories, hypothetical cases, and ingenious calculations that can be brought against me. He has alluded to the Blackfriars-bridge mill, and says, with some plausibility, that a trade cannot be declining which can show a new manufactory rising up capable of grinding such an immense quantity of corn, and moved by such extensive machinery; but I must remind the hon. Member, that that mill was begun in 1846, before free trade was allowed, and its erection was continued during a time when the millers thought that they would profit by the new system, and make a good thing of free trade. How
832
they have altered their opinion of late, the petitions with which the table of the House is covered clearly show. Though I have an insuperable objection to mention the names of private individuals in this House, I must (as the hon. Gentleman has mentioned Mr. White's name) say that that gentleman, whose character and position is unrivalled in the trade, is not at all satisfied with the present state of things. Why, Sir, it is notorious that that gentleman attended and presided at, not very long ago, a meeting in Mark Lane, to take into consideration the depressed state of this great interest, and to devise means for bringing the case before the public. To Mr. White, therefore, I leave the hon. Gentleman—he could not be in better hands, and I can only hope that he will follow his advice and attend to his suggestions. With regard to Bovill's Patent, so confidently put forward by hon. Members on the other side as a means whereby we shall be able to compete with France, I can only say, that a considerable doubt as to its efficiency still exists. I should be very sorry to say anything calculated to injure that gentleman or his invention, which doubtless possesses merit. But I am bound to remember that it has been tried and found wanting by Mr. Kidd, of Isleworth; Mr. Thorpe, of Newark; Mr. Packman, of Eu; Mr. Charrington, of Carshalton; and several other millers of experience. It may be of some use to bad millers, but it is the greatest absurdity to imagine that it is of sufficient value to place the British miller on an equal footing with his French competitor. Sir, it may be said of this as of all other improvements in machinery and mode of manufacture, that the French will have them as soon as we ourselves, if they are of any value. Why, Sir, M. D'Arblay himself is actually at this moment in this country making inquiries regarding Bovill's Patent, in order, if he approves of it, to adopt it in his own mills; so that our improved machinery cannot alter the present relative position of the trade in the two countries. Sir, I entreat the House not to reject this Motion. My statement—my assertion—that this great interest is in a state of unexampled depression, remains uncontroverted—the Minister has himself admitted it; its importance is undoubted—its distress fully demonstrated; and I would fain hope that a House even constituted as this is, containing a large majority of Members professing to approve of the new commercial

833
system, will have the generosity to inquire into a circumstance which they themselves then never contemplated, when the measure was passed—into misfortunes occasioned by their own acts.
Question put:—The House divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 128: Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Jones, Capt.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Langton, W. H. P. G.

Baldock, E. H.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Bankes, G.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Baring, T.

Leslie, C. P.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Barrow, W. H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Bateson, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Blandford, Marq. of

Magan, W. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Meagher, T.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Mandeville, Visct.

Boyd, J.

Manners, Lord G.

Bramston, T. W.

March, Earl of

Brisco, M.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Brooke, Lord

Miles, P. W. S.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Mullings, J. R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Mundy, W.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Nugent, Sir P.

Burroughes, H. N.

O'Brien, J.

Butler, P. S.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Cabbell, B. B.

O'Flaherty, A.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Packe, C. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Conolly, T.

Portal, M.

Dick, Q.

Prime, R.

Disraeli, B.

Renton, J. C.

Dundas, G.

Reynolds, J.

Dunne, Col.

Rushout, Capt.

Edwards, H.

Scully, F.

Forbes, W.

Seaham, Visct.

Freshfield, J. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Smyth, J. G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Spooner, R.

Gilpin, Col.

Stafford, A.

Gooch, E. S.

Stuart, J.

Goold, W.

Sturt, H. G.

Granby, Marq. of

Taylor, Col.

Grogan, E.

Thompson, Ald.

Hallewell, E. G.

Tyler, Sir G.

Hamilton, G. A.

Verner, Sir W.

Hamilton, J. H.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hayes, Sir E.

Vyvvan, Sir R. R.

Heneage, E.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Henley, J. W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Howard, Sir R.

Naas, Lord

Hudson, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

List of the NOES.

Adair, H. E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

Blair, S.

Alcock, T.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Anderson, A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Anson, hon. Col.

Brocklehurst, J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Brotherton, J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Brown, W.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Bunbury, E. H.

Bell, J.

Cardwell, E.

Bellew, R. M.

Carter, J. B.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Birch, Sir T.B.

Cavendish, W. G.

834

Chaplin, W. J.

M'Gregor, J.

Charteris, hon. F.

Martin, J.

Childers, J. W.

Matheson, Col.

Clay, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Cobden, R.

Milner, W. M. E.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Cowan, C.

Morris, D.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Murphy, F. S.

Crawford, W. S.

Osborne, R.

Crowder, R. B.

Paget, Lord A.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Paget, Lord C.

Dawes, E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Denison, J. E.

Parker, J.

Duncan, Visct.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Duncan, G.

Perfect, R.

Dundas, Adm.

Pinney, W.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Ponsonby, hon. C. F.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Power, Dr.

Ellis, J.

Price, Sir R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Ricardo, O.

Evans, J.

Rice, E. R.

Ewart, W.

Rich, H.

Fergus, J.

Roche, E. B.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rumbold, C. E.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Forster, M.

Salwey, Col.

Freestun, Col.

Sandars, J.

Geach, C.

Scholefield, W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Seymour, Lord

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, J. A.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Spearman, H. J.

Grenfell, C. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grey, R. W.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Grosvenor, Earl

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Thompson, Col.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Thornely, T.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Trevor, hon. T.

Hastie, A.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Vane, Lord H.

Hawes, B.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Headlam, T. E.

Watkins, Col. L.

Henry, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Williams, J.

Heywood, J.

Wilson, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wilson, M.

Hollond, R.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Howard, Lord E.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Hume, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Kershaw, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

TELLERS.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Hayter, W. G.

Lewis, G. C.

Hill, Lord M.

The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.