Commons Sitting of 3 March 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Worcester County (Western Division), Viscount Elmley.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Payment of Wages; Fisheries (Ireland); Places of Religious Worship Registration; Judges Exclusion; Cathedral Appointments.
Reported.—Commons Inclosure (No. 2)

CONVOCATION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I rise, Sir, to put the question, perhaps I should
978
rather say the three questions, to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, of which I have given him notice, and I am sure that in putting a question upon a subject so delicate and so important as this, I may be allowed to disclaim the slightest intention to show any disrespect, or anything that can approach to disrespect, towards the distinguished prelates to whom I refer. I wish, also, to disclaim the least intention to prejudge in any way the important question whether it is desirable or not for the interests of the Church that the powers of Convocation should be enlarged, or its constitution remodelled. I wish, firstly, to ask the noble Lord whether the attention of the Government has been called to the proceedings of the Upper House of Convocation which took place on the 16th ultimo, and which were of a somewhat unusual character, and the legality of which was very strongly disputed by some of the prelates there present? I wish to ask the noble Lord, secondly, whether the Government are of opinion that in appointing a Committee to transact business during the prorogation, and to report to Convocation at their next meeting in August next, the Upper House acted legally, and whether that Committee can legally execute the functions so assigned to it? And I wish to ask the noble Lord, in the third place, if it is the intention of the Government to take any steps in this matter?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in answer to the question of the right hon. Baronet—although he has already once postponed it—at present I can only say that the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the subject to which he refers; that the Law Officers of the Crown have been asked their opinion as to the legal power of Convocation respecting the Committee which is to sit from the 16th of February to some day in August next; but at present, although the question occupies their attention, the Government have not yet received their formal opinion on the subject. I therefore wish the right hon. Baronet to defer asking his question till to-morrow.

TURKEY AND MONTENEGRO.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he rose in pursuance of notice to call the attention of the House to the affairs of Turkey, as affected by the contest now proceeding in Montenegro. He regretted that this subject had not been taken up by some much more able and influential Member of

979
the House than himself, because it must be obvious to every mind that this question was one involving the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire—objects which it had always been the policy of all Governments in this country for many years past to regard as being of paramount importance. Those objects, however, were now greatly endangered. They had heard that large armies of Austrians were marching towards her frontiers in one direction, and that Prince Menzikoff was at the head of three corps d'armée of Russians in another direction, and that an ultimatum, in terms the most peremptory, had been addressed to the Ottoman Court, to be answered in the space of a few days. The most prominent cause of these proceedings was the present state of the small province, or part of a province, called Montenegro—so small in extent, in importance, and in population, that under other circumstances it might be described at Vienna as a geographical atom. Now Montenegro was within the Turkish territories; it was about sixty miles long by thirty broad, with a population of 100,000 persons, half barbarous and uncivilised. It had formed part of the province of Scutari, and was won from the Venetians in 1478. Several treaties, from that of Carlovicz in 1699, and of Passarovicz in 1718, down to that of Sisrow in 1791, had recognised the dominion of Turkey over this province; and in the last-named treaty signed between Austria and Turkey, under the mediation of England, Holland, and Prussia, there was the following clause:—
"Art. 1. There will be henceforth a perpetual and universal peace on land, sea, and rivers between the two Empires, their subjects and vassals—a true and sincere friendship—a close and perfect union—a suppression and a full and general amnesty of all hostilities, violence, and injuries committed during that war by the two Powers, or by the subjects and vassals of the one which have sided with the other, and especially the inhabitants, of any condition, of Montenegro, Bosnia, Servia, Wallachia, and Moldavia, who, in virtue of this amnesty, can repossess any ancient dwellings, possessions, and rights, and enjoy them peacefully without ever being disturbed, molested, or punished for having declared themselves against their own Sovereign, or for having taken an oath of allegiance to the Imperial and Royal Court."
To this treaty was appended the following declaration of the negotiating Ministers:—
"We, Plenipotentiaries of His Majesty the King of Great Britain, of His Majesty the King of Prussia, and of the High Powers the General States of the United Provinces, having served as
980
negotiators of this work of pacification, do declare that the above treaty between the Imperial and Royal Court and the Sublime Ottoman Porte, with all the clauses, conditions, and stipulations which are therein contained, has been concluded by the mediation of their Majesties the Kings of Great Britain and of Prussia, and of the High Powers the General States of the Provinces. In testimony whereof we have signed these presents with our hands, and caused the seal of our arms to be set to it.
"Done at Sistow this 4th of August, 1791.
"ROBERT MURRAY KEITH.
"JEROME MARQUESS DE LUCCHESSINI.
"R. DE HAEFTEN."
Since that time there had been no treaty signed between Austria and Turkey which could in any way affect the subject. True, the Montenegrins had at various times endeavoured to gain their independence, and had to a certain degree enjoyed it, but they had always been entirely under the suzerainty of the Porte. The treaty of Vienna in 1815, which defined the limits of Austria, left Montenegro as it was before—a portion of the Turkish Empire. Of late the Montenegrins had endeavoured to pursue a course which evinced a disregard of the authority of Turkey, and had done so under very peculiar circumstances. Montenegro was governed by a bishop, whose authority was hereditary. Now, the Greek bishops were not allowed to marry, and, of course, could have no issue, so the right of rule over the country descended, not from father to son, but from uncle to nephew. The late bishop, or Vladika, as he was called, having died last year, his authority had devolved upon his nephew, Prince Daniel, who was a young man about thirty years of age. It. appeared that this young prince had no desire to be a bishop; the nolo episcopari with him was much more sincere than with some Protestant bishops, however conscientious they might be; and Prince Daniel had conceived the desire of becoming the head or prince of the country without assuming episcopal functions. With that view he had repaired to St. Petersburgh, probably to consult the Czar upon the subject, and to obtain his sanction to this new arrangement—a mode of action which might appear very natural to those who, like the noble Earl lately Secretary for Foreign Affairs, were so ignorant as to suppose that the Emperor of Russia was the head of the Greek Church. He said so ignorant, though in using that phrase he would not be thought to speak in any manner offensive to the noble Earl; but it was undoubted that in another place the Earl of

981
Malmesbury described the Emperor of Russia as head of the Greek Church. That was a complete error, and he believed that the noble Earl was now convinced of the blunder he had made. The fact was, that all the Emperor of Russia could claim was to be the head of those persons professing the Greek faith who were subjects of his own own; but legally he had nothing whatever to do with any members of that religion who were the subjects of any other country, these persons looking up to the patriarch of Constantinople as the head of their religion. It was said by persons well informed, that when Prince Daniel was at St. Petersburgh he received advice from the highest quarters to adopt a rebellious course with regard to the Sultan, and to act as if he were independent. However that might be, it was certain that soon after his return from St. Petersburgh those disturbances arose which had led to the present uneasy state of the East, and had called for the active interference of Turkey with a large force. It was also said that the Czar, having given this counsel to the Vladika, gave precisely the contrary advice by his ambassador to the Sultan, and urged him to put down by force the Montenegrins, who endeavoured to throw off his authority. Thus we saw the Emperor of Russia giving one kind of advice at St. Petersburgh and another at Constantinople; and so pursuing that course which history told us had always been the course of Russia with regard to those countries not ruled by herself, with a view of creating animosity and discord, in order either that she might be called in as a mediator, or that those States not subject to her might be weakened by internal disorder. We had seen this same line of policy pursued in Poland; we had seen it in Turkey previous to the present emergency, and we had seen it in Hungary lately, when it was well known that, having interfered most unjustly with her army to put an end to the struggle of the Hungarians for their constitutional rights, she did everything she could to represent the Austrians to the inhabitants of Hungary in the worst possible light, and herself as their saviour and defender. The Montenegrins having received the advice he had alluded to, acted upon it. They began to make incursions into the neighbouring territory of Turkey, they began to commit acts of robbery, pillage, and murder, and went so far as to surprise the Turkish fort of Zabljak, and to put to death the small garrison which it
982
contained. The Sultan thereupon sent a considerable force to re-establish order, under the command of Omar Pasha, who was one of the ablest generals Turkey possessed, and who as early as 1839 had commanded a brigade in Syria, and in 1846 had led an expedition into Kurdistan for the deliverance of the Christians persecuted by Bader Khan Bey. This expedition into Montenegro it was which had occasioned the interference of Austria. That country had made complaints upon the subject, and had addressed demands wholly incompatible with the respect due to Turkey, if it was to be considered an independent State. It appeared that Austria complained that a large army should be assembled in that part of Turkey without previous notice to her, demanded the removal of certain Hungarian refugees, who were serving against the Montenegrins, and called for the concession of certain points on the coast; or, if those points were not conceded to her, she demanded an engagement from the Turks not to use those places in any way. It was reported that these demands were urged so peremptorily that the ambassador of Austria required an answer in five days, or he was to withdraw from Constantinople. Now, undoubtedly, it was usual to ask for explanations, if a neighbouring country assembled upon its frontiers a large body of men; but if the country asking for these explanations meant to be on terms of amity with its neighbour, and to treat it as an independent Government, these explanations must be demanded in a proper manner, and with the courtesies usual between nation and nation; and no ultimatum must be given, or threats held out, as had been the case in this instance. No doubt, if such explnnations had been asked for at Constantinople in a proper manner, they would have been given, and Turkey would have given every assurance that this army was not intended to threaten Austria, but only to put down the disturbances which had arisen in Montenegro, and to re-establish a peaceable state of things among those whom she considered her own subjects. That the idea of Turkey having any design upon the Austrian Empire, or any design of disturbing its peace, or making an incursion into its territory, was absolutely preposterous, must be admitted by anybody who knew the relative forces of the two Kingdoms. As to the force under Omer Pasha being large, that might be satisfactorily explained, for

983
the Montenegrins were admitted to be a very martial and brave people, and Turkey had previously experienced the difficulty of subduing these warlike mountaineers. Could it be supposed that Austria had any right to tell the Sultan he was not to put an end to the lawless state of things which existed in Montenegro? Did Austria pretend that Montenegro was an independent State? Why, all the maps and the geographical works of any credit, placed that country in the Turkish dominions as part of Turkey; and he had seen the official map published at Vienna, which laid down Montenegro in no other position. But it was certainly a strange thing to see Austria contending for the independence of a State like Montenegro. Why, this was Austria, which a short time ago spoke of another independent State as a "geographical atom," and which, notwithstanding the obligation of treaties formed with every State in Europe, and notwithstanding her own obligations to protect that State, did without scruple violate the independence of what she called a "geographical atom,"—the Republic of Cracow—and violently annexed it to her own dominions; a proceeding which called forth a protest from the Government of this country and of Prance, which was now a matter of history. And whom had Austria sent to interfere on behalf of the independence of Montenegro? Why, as if to turn all the obligations of treaties into ridicule, the ambassador sent to defend the independence of Montenegro was no other than Count Leiningen, the military governor of Cracow. As to the demand for the removal of certain Hungarian refugees from the army of Turkey, those refugees had probably embraced the Mussulman faith; and it was a well-known law of Turkey that, by so doing, they acquired all the rights and privileges of Turks, and the Turkish Government, therefore, was perfectly justified in considering those people in the same light as native Turks. Certainly she might remove them, and place them elsewhere, in order to conciliate the feelings of Austria; and no doubt, if such a demand had been properly urged, it would have met with attention. There was another demand which it was said had been made—namely, that Austria should be considered the protector of all Roman Catholics in the Turkish dominions. The Turks might well say, in reply to this, that any such protector was altogether unnecessary. Could Austria show that those persons had been
984
ill-treated? Had they been interfered with in any one way in the exercise of their religion? He believed that, on the contrary, there was no Government so tolerant of all religions as the Turkish Government. The Roman Catholics in that country were allowed to worship without let or hindrance; and in Constantinople religious processions might be seen passing through the streets without being interfered with or molested by any of the inhabitants. That toleration was given to every sect, was further proved by the fact that at Jerusalem there was a bishop of the Anglican Church; and Protestants, Roman Catholics, and members of the Greek Church, all enjoyed the freest exercise of their own religion. They were never interfered with in any way, and he only wished that the same thing could be said of every Christian Government. The Turks had always shown this toleration; let it not be said that it was only lately that it had been evinced, because they were weak, and wanted to conciliate other Governments. History told us the contrary. When they took Constantinople they did not expel the conquered race, as the conquered race had been expelled from Spain, although in the one case there was a treaty, and none existed in the other. When, again, the Turks took Jerusalem, they established liberty for all religions; and he was afraid the consequence of this had been such contests between the Christians themselves, as were not only disgraceful to the religion they professed, but had led to discussions and disputes which turned out very injurious to the Turkish Government. He alluded to the quarrels in regard to the Holy Sepulchre which prevailed between France and Russia; and Turkey was threatened first by one and then by the other of those two Governments, in a manner which seemed to involve the loss of her independence, and which, he feared, was the result of her own tolerance. But by whom were the present pretences in regard to Turkey put forward? By the most intolerant Power which existed, or which ever did exist. Austria had been doing nothing ever since the Reformation but persecuting the Protestants, and thousands had lost their lives by her persecutions. Let the House remember the Protestant persecutions under Charles V. in Flanders, the religious persecutions in Bohemia, and those under Ferdinand II. in Hungary. To whom was it owing that the Protestants in Hungary were not exterminated by the Austrians? It was owing to the Turks, who gave them

985
assistance and support for the one hundred and fifty years during which their dominion in Hungary lasted, and who had always allowed the Protestants the free exercise of their religion. Now what was the reason of this hostility to Turkey on the part of Russia and Austria? Had she done anything to give offence to those Powers, which they took this opportunity to resent? Who was there that supposed that the pretexts put forward had any sincerity in them? Who was there who did not feel that there must he some secret motive urging Austria to take this tyrannical course? Had not Austria demanded that certain Hungarian refugees should he delivered up to her in order that she might slake her vengeance upon them; and had not Turkey nobly resisted that demand? Formerly she made similar demands about Ragotzi, to which Turkey replied with the same dignity. At the bottom of all the talk about religious freedom and national independence was a vindictive spirit on account of Hungary and Kossuth. Hid Turkey address any demand to Austria at the time she had insurgents to deal with similar to those which Austria was now addressing to Turkey? Did she find fault with Austria because that Power had large armies in Hungary, and even marched them on to Turkish territory, when flying before the irresistible banner of the brave Bern? They could not but regard the proceedings of Austria against Turkey as those of might against right, unsanctioned in any way by justice or public law. He wanted to know how the Government regarded these matters. Hid England hold the same conviction of the necessity of maintaining Turkish independence as hitherto? He believed we were bound by the faith of treaties to adhere to that ancient policy, and these our obligations had been often insisted upon in speeches from the Throne, and in Ministerial declarations from Governments of every description—Liberal, Tory, and Peelite. We were indeed no less bound by good faith than by good feeling to give that support to Turkey which we had been accustomed to afford her. If we did not, the great Powers would divide Turkey between them, and the equilibrium of Europe would be entirely destroyed. Some hon. Members spoke of that equilibrium with great contempt; but that was not his opinion of the balance of power. If Russia and Austria took possession of European Turkey between them, they would acquire so much
986
power that it would become exceedingly difficult to resist them, and the liberties of Europe would be placed in serious jeopardy. Again, in a commercial point of view, it was of the utmost consequence that we should maintain the rule of the Sultan at Constantinople. Our commerce with Turkey was increasing at a most prodigious rate. He had moved last year for a Return of our exports to Turkey, Russia, and Austria. It appeared from these Returns that within the last twenty years our trade with Turkey had been quadrupled, with Russia only doubled, whilst with Austria it had actually diminished. No one could suppose that, if Turkey fell into the hands of Austria or Russia, our trade with her would not suffer most materially. Did any one suppose, if such an event were to take place, that there would be any religious freedom in Turkey? Many hon. Gentlemen were most desirous to see that Protestants in every quarter of the globe enjoyed perfect toleration. He asked those Gentlemen how long they thought an English bishop would he permitted to remain in Jerusalem if Austria took possession of Turkey? A good deal had been said some years ago of Turkey being our ancient ally; could that friendship subsist if we allowed her independence to be attacked—if we allowed her to be treated in a manner contrary to the law and usage of nations? It had been also said that Austria was our ancient ally. He did not wish to see England on bad terms with Austria or any other country—far from it; but he believed it was perfectly possible frankly to extend the hand of friendship and assist Turkey, without quarrelling with any other Power. As to Austria being our ancient ally, he humbly thought this was not a correct description, for Austria herself was the most modern of existing Empires—more modern than the revived Empire of France. In the days of Marlborough our alliance was not with the Empire of Austria, but with the Empire of Germany, and Austria had no longer the same hold of Germany as in those days. Indeed, a very small portion of her dominion was German—not above a quarter. The greater part of her territories was composed of other nations, a great part of whose population detested her rule—never more would they hear the cry in Hungary, Pro rege moriamur. In. Italy, too, there was the greatest discontent; the tyrannic rule of Austria there was such that, like the crushed worm, the

987
hapless people rose up against their tyrants even without any hope of success. Austria seemed to be animated by a most inimical and unfriendly feeling towards the people of this country. In the Austrian dominions, as well as in those countries in which Austria had influence, England had just reason to complain of the treatment of her subjects. Thus, in Saxony, Mr. Paget had been treated with great indignity; in Tuscany, an Englishman had been cut down by an Austrian officer at the head of his troops, and that officer had not been so much as reprimanded; and in numberless other instances had English subjects experienced insult and outrage at the hands of Austria. It had been very much the habit to attribute bad feeling on the part of Austria towards England to his noble Friend the present Home Secretary; but it was a very remarkable thing that all those proceedings which he had mentioned had taken place subsequently to his noble Friend's retirement from the Foreign Office; and whilst there was another Government in power, which was most eager in its declarations of amity towards Austria, they had seen an affront put upon England by Austria which never could have been expected, and which the people of this country deeply felt; for Austria, be it remembered, was the only State in Europe which refused to honour the memory of the illustrious hero whom we had lost by declining to send her representative to attend the Duke of Wellington's funeral—Austria, too, which, it was no great exaggeration to say, owed her safety mainly to the victories of that great man. History showed that there were two men, who, more than any others, had saved the empire of Austria—one was the Duke of Wellington, and the other was John Sobieski—and to both these men she displayed her ingratitude. He did not bring this question forward as a party question, because the maintenance of the independence of Turkey ought to interest them all. He would say to hon. Gentlemen—are you Protestants? If so, he would show them that Protestants were better treated by the Turkish Government than by any other; to Roman Catholics he would say that there was no country in the world not Catholic itself where Catholics enjoyed such perfect toleration; Utilitarians he would remind that there were great and substantial advantages to be derived by England from Turkey remaining independent; if they were of the Peace party, he would say to them, maintain the independence of
988
Turkey, for otherwise there is every probability of Europe being involved in a general war. Those who sat on the Opposition benches he would remind of the ancient policy of their party, and of the speech of their leader during the last Session, which did him infinite honour, and in which he (Mr. Disraeli) showed the necessity of maintaining Turkish independence; those who belonged to the, present Government he would remind of their former sentiments, and he would ask all to remember the noble conduct of the Turks, and how, having first saved those poor refugees from death, they afterwards, by the advice of England, set them at liberty, when they might have won the favour and conciliated the support of powerful neighbours, by detaining them in captivity. The Government of this country—representing the feelings and wishes of the people of this country—backed Turkey in her gallant refusal to deliver up those men We had advised her throughout—we were now bound in honour to see that she did not suffer for that chivalrous conduct in which we counselled her, and promised her our support. He was sorry to see that a certain portion of the press of the metropolis viewed the question in a different light. He considered we were bound to uphold the independence of Turkey upon the faith of treaties; but he now found that in the London newspapers the partition of Turkey was calmly discussed, as if such a thing were admissible, even if it wore our interest—which it clearly was not. The only advantage we could hope from it would be a passage to Egypt, which we now had. He trusted England would never give its consent to any proceeding so flagitious, and that the good understanding which he had heard with so much pleasure existed between England and France, would he exerted in behalf of Turkish independence; for it was no less the interest of France than of England that her independence should be maintained, and the faith of treaties observed. And here he would take leave to observe that the French nation and the French Government, ever since the peace, had adhered to treaties most creditably—to treaties which, according to French views, it was disagreeable to observe; and this honourable fidelity to international compacts had not been evinced by either Russia, Prussia, or Austria, which had all repeatedly and openly violated the treaty of Vienna, and thereby endangered the peace

989
of Europe. He hoped France and England would unite together to protect Turkey, and to induce that Power to do everything which could be done to ameliorate the condition of the Christian population in the Turkish territories. He believed the Turkish Government was well disposed to listen to such advice; it had shown a disposition to do so, and he had not the least doubt that if such advice were tendered in a proper and amicable mode—not a demand in a peremptory way by an ultimatum—not made by the general of a largo army, with insolent threats, but friendly advice—if so, he bad no doubt that the Turkish Government would at once attend to that advice, and by ameliorating the condition of its Christian subjects, and attaching them to its rule, consolidate the internal strength of the empire, and give a fresh proof to the other Powers of Europe of its desire to conciliate their good opinion.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that while he admitted that be could not fully adopt some of his noble Friend's observations, nevertheless, with much cordiality, he would second the Motion. He thought that the question relating to Montenegro had considerable importance attached to it. Here was a small mountain district, about sixty miles long, and between thirty and thirty-five broad, placed almost upon the frontier of the great Turkish dominions, and nominally conquered at as early a date as the year 1398, though it was rather surrounded by conquered territories than itself subdued. The district had derived much consideration, as well from its peculiar situation as from the character of its people. A portion of its territory abutted upon the Adriatic, thus affording to the Power possessing it excellent harbours. The circumstance, however, which invested this small district with most interest was the peculiar and indomitable character of the inhabitants, who had always succeeded in maintaining themselves in a state of quasi independence. The plain truth was, that the Turkish dominion bad always existed in Montenegro de jure, but hardly ever de facto. The inhabitants were a wild and courageous people, and had preserved then independence, more or less, down to the present day. Another singular circumstance in the history of Montenegro was, that Powers had affected to cede it by treaty who bad never had it in their possession. Thus it was ceded to Turkey
990
by Venice in 1718, and by the Emperor Leopold in 1791, without either party having themselves over been in possession of it. He did not believe, however, that the Turks would ever have interfered with the Montenegrins if they had kept themselves quiet; but like other brave mountainous races, they wore little civilised, being governed rather by customs and traditions than by laws. This being so, they were continually descending into the plains to destroy Turkish harvests, and committing other outrages in the Turkish territory. By this conduct, therefore, they made themselves extremely obnoxious to their neighbours. For a long period of history, however, dating from the time of the Czar Peter, the authority of the Russian monarch had been more or less acknowledged by the Montenegrins—and hence, in 1812, having applied to Russia for assistance, they received it—and in the Austrian and Russian war, towards the end of the last century, the population of Montenegro gave effective aid to Russia It was on account, then, of this influence of Russia, that he considered it essential that English diplomacy should be made to interfere. For, on the one hand, if the large Turkish army which had been sent to the frontier should possess itself of Montenegro, the greatest excitement would naturally prevail among the Christian population of that part of the Turkish dominions. And, on the other hand, there was the precedent of the year 1716, when a large Turkish army of 30,000 men was destroyed by a small band of mountaineers—a fact which ought to induce those who wore friendly to the existence of that Empire to take the question into their most serious consideration, and this, he owned, appeared to him the more probable result of the two. Thus he thought it would have been very well if the united diplomatic action of France and England at Constantinople had been brought to bear to prevent that army from departing for Montenegro. And he could not help thinking that if England had been as active during the last year at Constantinople as she had been during former years, that Turkey would have been saved the great outlay on account of this expedition. He hoped that the efforts of the British Government would be directed to maintain the Montenegrins in that state of modified independence in which they had so long sustained themselves. The European Christian subjects of Turkey

991
in general had no taste or desire for the bureaucratic system of either Austria or Russia; they preferred the temporary inconvenience and temporary degradation of submitting to a heathen monarch, to being incorporated with either of those despotic Governments, when their present individuality, and their hopes of future independence, would be alike annihilated. He believed it might be very possible that Her Majesty's Government would be unable to lay the papers asked for on the table of the House, for the reason that negotiations had not as yet come to a conclusion. Nevertheless, he trusted that they would assert that it was the duty of this country to protect the Turkish territory from the invasion of either Austria or Russia. He trusted that British influence would be supported at Constantinople as it had heretofore been by the distinguished representative of the Crown who had been for some time residing in this country. He was also glad to see that the interests of France were about to be represented at Vienna by M. De Bourqueney, a gentleman who had been long known and esteemed in this country. He rejoiced to see that gentleman restored to the diplomatic service of France, because he knew him to be at the same time a friend of England. As to the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire, which had lately been alluded to, the ways of Providence were not as our ways; such a catastrophe could not occur without convulsing Europe to its very centre, and the interests of England required that every means should be employed to avert that event.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of any Communications addressed by the Austrian or Turkish Governments to the British Government on the subject of the question of Montenegro, and of any replies thereto."
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I trust that my noble Friend who has brought forward this Motion will not feel it necessary to press for the papers asked for, as the negotiations on the subject have not yet come to a termination. I will, however, follow my noble Friend in his remarks upon the subject to which he professes in his notice to call the attention of the House—namely, the affairs of Turkey as affected by the contest now proceeding in Montenegro. I
992
agree in the general principles laid down by my noble Friend, that this country ought to be cautious to maintain the independence and integrity of Turkey. Turkey has long formed an important part of the European system. Its independence and integrity have been repeatedly affirmed by treaties, and sanctioned by a convention of the general Powers of Europe, no longer ago than in 1840. I trust that that independence may long be maintained, and I own I could not conceive any greater calamity falling on Europe at the present time than that the necessity should arise of considering what should be done in such a case as of a proposal for the dismemberment of Turkey. I have seen, therefore, with much pain, the speculations that have been recently put forth upon this subject. In my opinion we could not attempt the dismemberment of Turkey by force and aggression without committing a great crime and breach of faith towards Turkey, and a violation of all the ties which bind nations together. I trust there is no Englishman who wishes to be a party to such transactions as those which accompanied the partition of Poland. But if unfortunately Turkey should fall to pieces from her own weakness, a question of very-great importance might arise; and for my own part I own that it appears to me a question of such great gravity that I can hardly expect it to be solved without exciting a war in Europe. I am afraid, looking at the position of the different Powers, that it would be hardly possible to provide for such a case without producing in Europe such a preponderance of one Power as would naturally raise the envy and opposition of all the other European States, and without producing such a state of anarchy in Asia as it is fearful to contemplate. For my own part I think, therefore, that on grounds of right, of international law, of faith towards our ally, and also on grounds of general policy and expediency, the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Turkey should be a great and ruling point in the foreign policy of England. Sir, with respect to the transactions which have lately occurred, I will state to the House, without going into the particulars of these negotiations, the general outline of what has occurred with respect to Montenegro. I will not enter into questions relating to the other Powers; but with regard to the relations between Austria and Turkey I think I can give at least some explanations to the

993
House. The little territory of Montenegro has been, as my noble Friend described it, inhabited by a very hardy race of mountaineers belonging to a Christian Church, but certainly departing from the Christian precepts, for it has been their custom to commit robberies upon and to pillage their neighbours, and to enrich themselves by the most lawless proceedings. However, although acknowledged by the treaty of Carlovicz and several others—the latest being that of Sistow—to be under the sovereignty of Turkey, they have for a long period maintained a de facto independence. For about a century this independence appears to have been acknowledged by Russia. There is this difference between the relations of Austria and those of Russia towards Montenegro—that while Austria has at all times, and up to the present day, acknowledged that Montenegro was subject to Turkey, the Russian Government does not appear to have acknowledged any such claim on the part of the Sultan of Turkey, but, on the contrary, has treated Montenegro as an independent State. For a long time the bishops of Montenegro, who have combined both the civil and the ecclesiastical power, have been accustomed to resort to St. Petersburg, to the Russian patriarch, to obtain investiture, instead of going to the Patriarch of Constantinople, or any other patriarch of the Greek Church equal in authority—indeed, perhaps, as to the Patriarch of Constantinople, superior in authority—to the Russian Patriarch. On the occasion of the last vacancy in the see, by the death of the late bishop, who is generally described as having been a very remarkable man, his nephew went to St. Petersburg, there declared that he did not wish to enter into the ecclesiastical state, and that his friends and follow countrymen in Montenegro were willing to acknowledge him as chief without his holding the episcopal dignity, and proposed that he should therefore rule the people as an independent chief, and that another person should become the Bishop of Montenegro. To this arrangement the Emperor of Russia appears to have lent a willing ear; and, according to the statement of the Russian Government, the Emperor dismissed the young man with many words of civility, advising him at the same time not to attack his neighbours, or to commit any acts of aggression upon them, but to live in peace with Turkey and all the other countries near him. This
994
young prince does not appear to have profited by that advice, for we very soon hear of attacks that were made by the people of Montenegro upon the neighbouring villages and towns in Turkey—of property being destroyed and houses burned to the ground; and evidence was given of the inhabitants having been injured, and in some instances killed, by those who called themselves the subjects of this chief of Montenegro. The Turkish Government, as I think most justifiably, determined to meet this aggression, and to punish those who had been guilty of those attacks upon the subjects of the Sultan; but in doing so it adopted the plan of attempting the complete conquest of Montenegro. It raised a very large force of 50,000 men; it placed a very able chief at the head of it, Omer Pacha, who is supposed to have promised the Sultan that he would utterly subdue what the Sultan considered the rebellious part of his dominions. It appears to the British Government, and likewise to the French Government, that this was an imprudent proceeding on the part of the Porte. In the first place, on a consideration of the state of the financial resources of Turkey, and of its military forces, it was thought that it would be an effort that must be accompanied by a great drain on those resources, and, therefore, was in itself an act not justified by prudence; in the next place, it appears very probable, as my hon. Friend who seconded the Motion (Mr. Monckton Milnes) said, that the destruction and the utter subjugation, and probably the driving away of a great part of the 100,000 inhabitants of Montenegro, would excite great alarm on the part of the Christian population of the neighbouring districts, and that a religious war might thus be excited. A representation and friendly advice to the Sultan, not to attempt this expedition on so large a scale, was made and given under the Government of the Earl of Derby, and was repeated by me when I held the seals of the Foreign Office. I believe that the French Government, which has generally taken the same view as the British Government has taken, gave at the same time similar advice. However, the expedition went on. I will not now enter into the military events that followed, but the next matter of great importance to which the attention of Her Majesty's Government was called was the mission of Prince Leiningen to the Porte. Whatever may be the object of that mission, it was evident from the first commu-

995
nication that was made by the Austrian Government that Prince Leiningen was instructed to place the demands of Austria before the Porte in a very peremptory manner, and while on the one hand it was promised that, if those demands were complied with, the friendly relations which have hitherto existed between the two countries, but which had for some time past been impaired, would be resumed on their former footing, on the other hand it was stated that the most grave consequences might follow from the refusal of those demands. Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary, on the intimation of such demands, to have at once a frank explanation with the Government of the Emperor of Austria. We communicated to the Government of the Emperor of Austria the view we had always taken of the policy of maintaining the independence and integrity of Turkey. We pointed out, without entering into the particular merits of the demands that were made, the danger of anything like a menace to Turkey, and of a collision between the forces of the two Empires. I must say that the explanations we received from Austria showed that, whatever might be the necessity for making those demands at the present time, Austria was animated, according to assurances to which we gave full credit, by the same desire as ourselves of maintaining the independence of Turkey, and expressed the strongest wish to be enabled to restore those amicable relations so very long maintained between them, and of adhering to the policy of preserving the independence of Turkey, which is known to be the policy of that great Empire. The demands made by Austria were of various kinds, to some of which I need hardly refer; but with respect to Montenegro her demand did not depart from the provisions of the previous treaties to which I have referred, nor did it depart, as might have been expected from a Power that has always maintained the greatest respect for the international law of Europe, in principle from the claims that might be justified by that law. It was said that though Montenegro de jure belonged to Turkey, yet for a long period of time the independence of the mountaineers had not been disturbed—that the invasion of a great army could not but raise disturbances on the frontier of Austria—that a great number of persons would take refuge across the frontier, so as to make the maintenance of tranquillity on that frontier extremely difficult, and make it necessary
996
for Austria to keep up a great force in order to maintain the tranquillity of her dominions. She stated likewise the danger of a religious war to which I have alluded, and which it was conceived would cause more danger than anything else. She therefore wished, that while Turkey did not depart from the maintenance of her title—while she should punish those who committed acts of pillage in the Turkish territories—she should look, as the end of the controversy, to the restoration of the quasi independence of Montenegro, and the maintenance of the independent power which Montenegro had hitherto held. With regard to two portions of territory, Kleck and Satorina, an allegation was made on the part of Austria of a complicated nature, and which depends upon complicated evidence. Those portions of territory are intermingled with the territory of Austria, and they are so intermingled because they formerly belonged to the republic of Ragusa, while other portions of territory given to Austria by the treaty of Vienna were formerly portions of the republic of Venice. The Austrian Government has always stated that the position of those intermingled territories by the Turkish Government was very inconvenient to her; and so long ago as in 1832 and 1833 she endeavoured to obtain, by purchase from Turkey, the sovereignty of this small portion of territory. Having failed in the negotiation at that time, and never having been able to accomplish her object since, she claims rights which she says were exercised by the Venetian republic, and enforced by the maintenance of ships of war upon the coast; that while the land is allowed to be the property of Turkey, no encroachments should be made on the coast for the purpose of trade or commerce by Turkey. With regard to this subject, as with regard to other subjects I mention, I am not stating that Austria is well founded in all her allegations; I am only endeavouring to give the House some insight into the nature of her claims, and the reasons which governed the mission of Prince Leiningen to Constantinople. Another complaint which was made by Austria was, that some Hungarian refugees, who had remained in Turkey from the time the war in Hungary ceased, were not only countenanced by Turkey, but allowed to serve in the army of Omar Pacha, and held distinguished posts in that army, and, being close to the frontier of Austria, were necessarily a cause of much annoyance to Aus-

997
tria. With respect to the Hungarian refugees who were permitted to leave Turkey, but had remained there, the Turkish Government had promised to make some explanation why Turkey had acted in a manner that was contrary to an engagement—not a written engagement, but. a verbal engagement—into which she had entered with reference to them. Added to these demands, there are other questions with respect to Austrian subjects who are alleged to have suffered wrongs, and who have not received redress from the Turkish Government, and for whom the Austrian Government now demands reparation or compensation. Such was the general nature of the demands which Prince Leiningin was ordered to lay before the Porte I cannot say—not being called upon to make any allegation either as to the justice or injustice of those demands, in a particular manner—I cannot say that there was any one of them that could be said to affect the independence of the Sultan, and which were not founded at least upon some allegation on which the Austrian Government might fairly rely as a Government not unfriendly to that independence. Sir, I am unable to inform the House as to the exact arrangements that have been entered into. I know that these questions were placed before the Turkish Government, and that for some days there was a great deal of consultation on them; and we have been informed by our Ambassador at the Court of Vienna that the Austrian Government is satisfied; that the mission of Prince Leiningen has been successful, and I trust those differences are now at an end. I trust that, such being the case, the relations between those countries will again be placed on their former intimate and friendly footing. With respect to other questions to which my noble Friend has incidentally alluded, I do not think that any public purpose could be served by my entering at present into them, as there are unfortunately, questions still pending which are of vital importance to the territory of Turkey. Our course throughout those proceedings has been, and our course throughout any future proceedings will be, to give Turkey the advice that is best calculated to maintain her honour and her independence, and at the same time not to expose her to the rude shock of war, for which she might not be at present prepared. No man more than Lord Stratford do Redcliffe—who is already proceeding on his voyage there—will enforce this opinion, that by the good
998
government of the Christian subjects of the Porte, by the enforcement of regular Jaws, by the maintenance of a system similar to that which prevails in civilised European communities, and by adopting and enforcing just principles, she ought to give her Christian subjects no reason to complain that they are not living unde a sovereign of the same faith as themselves. I believe, as stated by my hon. Friend who seconded this Motion, that this much is perfectly practicable; I believe it is quite possible for Turkey—discarding some of those notions that belong to times of conquest, when the Turks first got possession of those very territories—to give to its Christian subjects quite as good a government as they would be likely to obtain from those sovereigns that are the neighbours of the Porte. If she conducts herself in that way, and takes the friendly advice of the Ambassador that is now proceeding to the Porte, I need hardly say that Turkey will always find a faithful ally in Great Britain. We have no object to serve other than a most friendly one—we covet none of her provinces—we wish to share in none of her territories or provinces. It is our interest, as we conceive, in common with all the Powers of Europe, that Turkey should be maintained in its integrity, and that likewise it should be governed in such a manner as not to be visited by those insurrections, by those perpetually recurring weaknesses, and by those dissensions which have often offered the best temptation to the foreign foe to be her aggressor. I trust that the other Powers of Europe will take a similar view to ourselves. Many of the dangers which threatened her very lately, I trust are now passed, and I have the greatest confidence that the dangers which still remain in suspense may, by fair negotiation, and by a reasonable consideration of all the consequences, be brought to a pacific solution, and that the maintenance of the present territorial distribution of Europe be preserved. We have had frequent communications with the French Government during those negotiations, and I am happy to find that, with the exception of one question, which I think it is not necessary to raise at present—a question in winch we do not take an immediate interest, and which has reference to the holy places—we have acted in perfect concurrence with the French Government, and I trust that all our expectations will be accomplished.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he must be allowed to express his satisfaction

999
at the explanation which had been given by the noble Lord; but he should reserve to himself the right of again referring to the subject, should circumstances render such a course necessary.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

JUDGES EXCLUSION BILL.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, that the object which he had in view was so plain and so simple as to require neither argument nor illustration to make it intelligible. The subject was one upon which he had always had a strong opinion, and he only regretted having been prevented, by particular circumstances, from bringing it under the consideration of the House in a previous Session. It might be in the recollection of those who were in Parliament in 1840 that it was decided, in the Session of that year, that the Judge of the Admiralty Court should no longer be capable of sitting or voting in the House of Commons. It was not without reluctance that he (Lord Hotham) made that Motion, the learned Judge himself being at the time one of the Members for the Tower Hamlets. He (Lord Hotham) felt, however, that he had no alternative; for a Bill to regulate the Admiralty Court being under discussion, it seemed to be his bounden duty then, if ever, to take the sense of the House on a matter so materially affecting the position of the Head of the Court to which the Bill in question referred. In like manner, he (Lord Hotham) had been unwilling to take the next obvious step in the same direction while the Master of the Rolls was sitting among them. But as he had no longer a seat in that House, he (Lord Hotham) felt relieved from those feelings of delicacy by which he had hitherto been restrained, and he hoped that he might now, without any appearance of personality, suggest to the House the propriety of acquiescing in such an extension of the existing exclusion of Judicial Officers as should embrace all those who could properly he considered Judges of Superior Courts. He begged, once for all, to repudiate the slightest wish to cast imputation or reflection on any of those learned Judges to whose offices his proposed Bill was intended to refer; and if, in consequence of his having mentioned the Master of the Rolls, anything that might fall from him (Lord Hotham) should be taken as evidence of a contrary feeling, he trusted that hon. Members would do him the justice to bear in mind that he made this voluntary admission, namely,
1000
that although by inheritance as well as by conviction a strong party man, yet as far as his (Lord Hotham's) observation had gone, the Master of the Rolls, during the time he had been a Member of the House, and whether, as a private individual, a law officer of the Crown, or a Judge, had always set an example of moderation and good temper. But the questions which he (Lord Hotham) had to put to the House were, whether every individual, on being appointed to a high judicial station, ought not to be prepared to devote himself entirely to the duties of his office, and to renounce every other pursuit having a tendency either to create an undue pressure on his time, or to disturb that calmness and serenity which ought to be the characteristic of a judicial mind; and, further, whether it was fitting that a high functionary of this description should also he a member, and perhaps an active member, of a political assembly, subject to popular election and its various incidents, and a constant spectator of, if not a participator in, those scenes of angry and acrimonious contention which were, he feared, of increasing rather than diminishing frequency within those walls. He (Lord Hotham) might perhaps be reminded of the brilliant career of a former Master of the Rolls, Sir William Grant, in that House. He (Lord Hotham) had had the advantage of being personally known to that learned and eminent Judge, and although this was not until after his public career had closed, he (Lord Hotham) was perfectly well aware that the character of Sir William Grant in that House was second only to the character he had established for himself in the two Courts over which he so long, and so ably, and to the satisfaction of the whole country, presided. But we now lived in different times. Formerly, the close or nomination boroughs afforded a ready access to that House to those who from age, or infirmity, or from other circumstances, were unable or unwilling to encounter the turmoil of a contested election; now, those avenues were closed, and all were liable to, and many certain of, a contest on every occasion. A general election having so recently occurred, it must be unnecessary to recall to the recollection of hon. Members the humours of the canvass—the nomination—the polling day—the chairing, and the jollification in celebration of the return; but he might, without fear of contradiction, assert that there was much to be done at every contested election which

1001
it was not becoming for a Judge of tin-land to engage in. But, the election over, how was the learned Judge to perform his new duties? Was the business of the House to give way to the business of the Court, or the business of the Court to that of the House? The learned Judge would scarcely have taken his seat before he would be warned by the General Committee of Elections to hold himself in readiness to serve on an Election Committee; and this notice would be immediately followed by a request that he would inform the Committee of Selection when it would suit him to serve on a Committee on a group of private Bills, which might have to sit a week, a fortnight, or a month, as the case might be. How was this to he arranged? Was the court to be closed, or the learned Judge to be permitted to come to the table (like the Ministers of State) and make oath that so long as he holds his present office (an office for life), he could not serve on a Committee?
Again, should the new Member in question be Master of the Bolls, he (Lord Hotham) begged to call the attention of the House to another case which seemed fully to justify the course which he now-ventured to recommend. The contest had been unexpectedly severe, and instead of winning by a large majority, as the promises had led the Master of the Rolls to expect, he had narrowly escaped defeat. So soon as the borough had begun to resume its former tranquillity, the learned Judge's Committee determine to ascertain how it was that the canvass and the poll had presented such opposite results. The borough was a large one, and had within it a rich charity, the proceeds of which were dispensed among the poorer freemen, and needy inhabitants. It soon appeared that the trustees of this charity were very few in number—were active partisans of the opposing candidate, and that their influence had occasioned that whosesale defection among the recipients of the charity funds which had well nigh led to such a serious result. The Committee are immediately informed by the principal law agent, that the only remedy is to he found in an application to the Court of Chancery, and that the local knowlege of the Master of the Rolls would be highly valuable in restoring the balance of power within the borough. And from this results an application to the Master of the Rolls to appoint additional trustees. A highminded honourable man, as it was to be hoped
1002
English Judges always would he, would shrink with horror from the thought of being influenced in the discharge of his duty by private considerations; but with this feeling uppermost in his mind, he would probably decide wrong from the fear of not doing right; or if he decides ever so rightly in favour of his own friends, he is sure to be accused of partiality by his opponents; and if, fearful of falling into cither of those two extremes, he sends the case to another court, there is at once a denial of a right which every suitor possesses—the right to choose his own court. From the possible occurrence of such evils as these, he (Lord Hotham) felt himself entitled, in a constitutional point of view, to call upon the House to guard the public. He was happy to find that a very large majority of the Judges of the land were already excluded from the House of Commons. In England, the Lords' Justices, the three Vice-Chancellors, and the fifteen Judges of Common Law, were excluded. In Scotland, the whole of the Judges were excluded; and in Ireland, the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls, and all the Common Law Judges, were likewise excluded. He (Lord Hotham) proposed to add to this list the Master of the Rolls; next the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court: then (finding that the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court was only Judge for the province of Canterbury) it became necessary to add the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court of York; then, on the same grounds, the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court of Ireland, and the Judge of the Admiralty Court in England being already excluded, the Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland should be placed on a similar footing; and this was the extent to which the proposed Bill was intended to go. He (Lord Hotham) knew not what reception this proposal would meet with at the hands of Her Majesty's Government; but this was no political or party question, and the best proof of this was, that he knew as little what course would have been taken by their predecessors, who were in office when his notice was originally given. There were circumstances, however, which led him to think that if it were to be his misfortune to encounter opposition, it could not be from the Treasury Bench that such opposition would proceed. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) then, as now, representing the Government in that House, had tacitly assented in 1840 to the exclusion of the

1003
Judge of the Admiralty Court; and he (Lord Hotham) had also had the advantage of the active support of the present First Lord of the Admiralty and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Could it be said that a rule that had been held good for the Judge of the Admiralty Court, was not equally good for the Master of the Rolls and the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court? Against the exclusion of the latter certainly nothing could be said by Her Majesty's Ministers, for he was in a condition to show that with the exception of the Chief Commissioner of Works (Sir W. Molesworth) they were all of them committed to the propriety of that exclusion. From 1830 to 1834, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and his friends were in office; and in 1835 and 1836 Ecclesiastical Court Bills were introduced by the Government. Between 1841 and 1846, when his (Lord Hotham's) lamented friend Sir Robert Peel was in office, two similar Bills were brought in by his Government; and in 1845 a similar Bill was brought in by Lord Cottenham, to whom the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) afterwards gave the Great Seal; and every one of these five Bills contained the same clause of exclusion. In alluding, however, to the tacit consent given by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) to the exclusion of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, it would be uncandid not to admit that his consent was an unwilling one, and that he said that he yielded more to the evident feeling of the House than to the conviction of his own mind. The noble Lord had said that he thought it an advantage to the constitution of the House that there should be as many men of learning in it as the people chose to send. This sounded exceedingly well as a general proposition; but the noble Lord well knew that if an individual could be found so full of learning as to be chosen by every constituency in the Kingdom to represent them, yet that if he wanted a few months of twenty-one years of age or had taken the first step in holy orders, all his talents would avail him nothing. It was therefore a question of degree—the free choice of the electoral body was and must be to a certain extent limited, and the only point to decide was on which side of the necessary limit the Judges of the land should be placed. The noble Lord had also on another occasion expressed regret at the absence of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, who might have thrown valuable light on a certain question then under dis-
1004
cussion. Now he (Lord Hotham) was ready to admit that perhaps there was no one person now excluded who might not on some particular occasion be able to give valuable information; but let it be remembered that any opinion thus given would be not a judicial but a political opinion, and that until the time came when any Member could be compelled to speak, it would be found that a Judge would never give any opinion at all unless he could conscientiously give it in support of that party with which he was politically connected. But even if any advantage which the presence of learned Judges could confer, were tenfold greater than had ever been contended for, the value of such advantage would be as dust in the balance, compared with the importance of the principle for which he (Lord Hotham) was earnestly, however feebly, contending. That principle was, that nothing was so hateful as a political Judge—that the functions of a politician and a Judge were inconsistent with each other—that when an individual accepted the office of Judge (which was a voluntary act on his part) he should thenceforward be known as a Judge and a Judge only—and that the only way of ensuring this, was to put it out of his power, let him be ever so minded, either to continue or to become a political partisan. Before he concluded, he wished to notice the opinions of two distinguished personages in reference to this subject. It was the recorded opinion of the late Sir Samuel Romilly, that a Member of Parliament was sure to be all the worse Member for being a Judge, and a Judge all the worse Judge for being a Member of Parliament: the other was the opinion of the late Master of the Rolls, who, when Mr. Bickersteth, was offered, by Lord Melbourne, the situation of Master of the Rolls, coupled with an intimation that he would be expected to give the Government his aid in one or other House of Parliament. Mr. Bickersteth said—
"I think it quite clear that the Master of the Rolls ought not to be a Member of the House of Commons. If active, he would act inconsistent with his judicial character; if inactive, he must neglect the interests of his constituents and of those who promoted him; but whether active or inactive, he might have to adjudicate upon affairs between his constituents and others. There is loss objection, upon public grounds, to the House of Lords. There is less to do, and less squabble and heat; but still, a Judge's office is enough to occupy the whole of any man's time."
It was with these feelings, and on these grounds, that he asked the consent of the

1005
House to the Motion he was about to make. It was, as he had before observed, a Motion having nothing whatever to do with party or with politics—a Motion which he made on public grounds, and on public grounds alone—a Motion which he made on his own responsibility, but in the firm persuasion that the public interest would be benefited, and under the enduring conviction that the dignity and usefulness of those learned personages who now adorn the judicial bench, would be best consulted by its adoption. He moved, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to disqualify certain persons holding judicial offices, sitting or voting in the House of Commons.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he should not oppose the noble Lord's Motion for bringing in the Bill, but would take the opportunity of expressing his opinion on the second reading.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Hotham and Mr. Hume.
Bill read 1°.

IMPORT DUTIES.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had given notice of a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Custom-house duties on various foreign manufactured articles, and also of foreign agricultural produce. Those who had attended to the progress of the free-trade principle must recollect what took place in 1840, when, in Committee of the House, he had an opportunity of bringing forward a mass of evidence, showing the manifest advantages to be derived from the removal of those monopolies which were then existing in the manufacture of many articles, by the abolition of the restrictions on the importation of similar articles from foreign countries. The result of his Motion on that occasion was the appointment of a Committee, and he considered it to have been as fair a Committee as could have been selected. The principle which had guided him on all occasions, when treating of the import duties, was to put an end to monopoly. He was as much opposed to commercial monopoly as he was to political monopoly. They were both founded on injustice, and were both equally mischievous to the general interest. It had been clearly proved, that when the duty on imports exceeded a certain amount, so far from the revenue deriving any advantage, the effect was to diminish importation, and thereby
1006
lessen the advantages previously enjoyed by the consumer, without conferring any benefit on the importer. The truth of this had been demonstrated by the fact that whenever there had been a deficiency in the revenue, the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being had been obliged to resort to an increase of the assessed taxes, and to the imposition of an additional 5 per cent on the income tax. The result of all this was, that the vast majority of the nation had come to a conclusion in favour of what some called free-trade, but which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli) had termed unrestricted competition. The Motion of which he had given notice consisted of three paragraphs. The first two were a sort of preamble, setting forth facts which would enable the House to judge on what grounds the concluding paragraph, which embodied the substance of the Resolution he had to submit to the House, was founded. By the first paragraph it appeared that there were 233 entries in the Custom-house tariff list of foreign manufactured articles charged in the year 1851 with duties of import varying in amount from 1 to 50 per cent on the value of such articles, and which articles might be classed under the following five heads:—

No.

Import duty.

1.

Each article producing under 100 l. of duty

129

articles producing the aggregate sum of

£2,349

2.

Under £500 of duty

37

articles producing the aggregate sum of

9,366

3.

Under 1,000 of duty

17

articles producing the aggregate sum of

11,351

4.

Under 5,000 of duty

30

articles producing the aggregate sum of

67,629

5.

Under 100,000 of duty

20

articles producing the aggregate sum of

343,459

No. 233

and duty

£434,154

Thus it appeared that the whole 233 articles only yielded a revenue of 434,154 l. Many leading men had asked him why he confined his views to the repeal of these small duties; why he did not at once propose taking off the whole of the duty on sugar, for instance? Now, he should be very glad to take off the import duties altogether; and the time would come, no doubt, when it would be the duty of many in that House to support such a proposition. But, at the present moment, all he asked was to carry out the principle of free trade in those manufactured articles by removing the remaining protective duties. They had done away with protection to the produce of land without injury to any class, but with great advantage to the country at largo. He had a return—not to speak of corn—of the number of cattle, sheep, and

1007
swine which had been imported, and which it was said it would be utterly impossible to admit free of duty without ruin to the country. But what were the prices of all those articles at the present time? They were much higher than they were before the introduction of free trade. Having stated the number of foreign manufactured articles still retained in the Custom-house tariff list, and shown the paltry amount of revenue which they yielded, he would now point out to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of articles under the head of foreign agricultural produce. They amounted to 62, and produced in the aggregate, as import duty, 916,435 l., as the following list would show:—

No.

Import duty.

1.

Each article producing under 100 1. of duty

25

articles producing the aggregate sum of

£382

2.

Under £500 of duty

8

articles producing the aggregate sum of

1,729

3.

Under 1,000 of duty

4

articles producing the aggregate sum of

2,911

4.

Under 5,000 of duty

11

articles producing the aggregate sum of

30,140

5.

Under 100,000 of duty

12

articles producing the aggregate sum of

533,733

6.

Under 500,000 of duty

2

articles producing the aggregate sum of

347,540

No. 62

and duty

£916,435

It was most unjust to the country at large, and to the agricultural interest especially, after having repealed the duty on the main articles of foreign agricultural produce, that Parliament should not carry out the principle of free trade in respect to all foreign manufactured articles. They were promised it at the time the principle of free trade was adopted, and it ought to be granted. By a Return to Parliament he found that the quantity of foreign cotton manufactures imported for home consumption in the year ending January, 1851, amounted in value to 20,798 l., producing a revenue of 2,079 l. It had been thrown in the teeth of the Manchester men as a reproach that they retained this duty on foreign cotton manufactures. The reproach was by no means deserved; but at the same time it was most unfair to retain this duty, when it appeared that our home cotton manufactured goods exported in 1850 amounted to not less than 769,250,000 yards, at a declared value of 9,817,197 l.; they also exported 590,500,000 yards of cotton yarn, at a declared value of 10,703,238 l. The total amount of our cotton exports for the year 1850 was 28,257,401 l. The only other article he would refer to now was glass. The Excise duty on glass had been repealed; window
1008
glass paid a duty of 3s. 6d. per cwt, which was in some instances as high as 50 per cent on its value. Now, what was the price of glass in Belgium, for example? The House would scarcely believe him when he stated that 100 square feet would cost on the average, abroad, 13 s.; the duty of 1 cwt.—the net of 100 feet—was 3s. 6d.; the duty, therefore, was about 27 per cent. But where foreign glass exceeded 1-9th of an inch in thickness—an article most valuable for horticulturists and building purposes—it was excluded from home consumption by the duties, as shown thus—100 square feet cost abroad 16 s. 6d.; the duty, at 3d. a foot, was equal to 25 s., or about 150 per cent ad valorem. The House would see from this instance how important it was that they should have unrestricted free trade in glass, as in every other article. Next came the leather duty, which only amounted to 9l. 14 s., and which by increasing the price affected very materially the comforts of the people. It was levied on boots and shoes, boot fronts, goloshes, and such articles, as well as on leather, and could not operate in any way except in preventing the introduction of articles of necessity, and keeping up prices by preventing competition. Then there were the duties on linen, which produced 4,670 l. a year. How perfectly absurd such a duty was, when it was considered that this country exported 122,000,000 yards of linen every year! In the case of silk, we exported upwards of 1,250,000 yards, but still retained the duty upon imported silk goods. The silk trade suffered most injuriously from the prohibitions under which it laboured, and the progress of this branch of our manufacture was greatly checked by the operation of this system. Upon articles of woollen manufacture a revenue was derived of 13,520 l., while the value of our exports of the latter was about 13,000,000 l. sterling. There were on the whole 233 articles, paying annual duty to the extent of 434,154 l. Sweep away all these duties and they would soon see that the revenue would not lose, while the comforts of the people would be greatly increased. As to the articles of agricultural produce, which formed the next part of the Resolutions, he could not understand on what principle or on what grounds they were maintained after the results which had followed the admission of foreign sheep and oxen. It was found that prices had not fallen, notwithstanding the fears expressed before the change was made. The

1009
duty at present derived from butter was 158,000 l., and from cheese 85,500 l. The number of eggs imported was not less than 105,780,000, and the duty received did not amount to more than 38,000 l. Seeds of various kinds were admitted at duties ranging from 2s. 6d. to 5s. per bushel, and he could not but think that in many instances the abolition of this duty would be a great relief to the agricultural interest, and especially so in the case of laying down land in grass. The duty derived from tallow was 78,270 l., and there could be no doubt that the abolition of the duty upon that article, tending as it would to reduce the price of soap and candles, would add greatly to the comforts of the community. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, judging from what had occurred in past years, when similar reductions were made on other articles, need not be afraid of striking off these duties, for the increase of revenue would exceed the amount of diminution. From 1821 to 1850, the duty on sugar was decreased from 27 s. to 11 s. per cwt.; the quantity consumed increased from 3,530,362 cwt. in the first to 6,229,094 cwt. in the last-named year; while the difference to the revenue was only the difference between 4,077,706 l. and 3,900,663 l.—or 177,043 l. The duty on coffee was reduced from 1s. 6d. per pound in 1801 to 4d. per pound in 1849; the quantity consumed increased from 750,861 lb. to no less than 34,399,374 lb., while the duty increased from 56,315 l. to 566,822 l. The duty on brandy in 1821 was 22 s. 7½d. per gallon; in 1849 it was reduced to 15s.; the quantity consumed rose from 1,013,400 gallons, to 2,187,801 gallons; and the duty from 1,031,217 l. to 1,640,488 l. The paper duty in 1821 was 3d. per pound; in 1849 it was only 1½d., and the quantity used rose from 48,204,927 lb in the first to 132,133,657 lb. in the latter year, He came now to the Excise duty on soap. In 1821 this was 3d. per lb., and the quantity consumed was, in round numbers, 93,000,000 lb., producing a revenue of 1,023,530 l. After great efforts, they had succeeded in obtaining a reduction of one-half the duty, and the 93,000,000 lb. consumed in 1821 became 197,632,280 lb. in 1849. It was true the revenue only gained to the amount of 3,000 l., the increase being from 1,023,530 l. to 1,026.080 l.; but what had been the comfort to the consumer in this reduction of duty upon that which was one of the necessaries of life? The Resolu-
1010
tions of which he had given notice were declaratory ones. The first was:—
"That whilst the agricultural produce of wheat, barley, oats, and other grain, and oxen, sheep, goats, and other animals are admitted, duty free, to compete with similar productions of the United Kingdom, it is both impolitic and unjust to the country, and to the agricultural interests especially, to continue duties of import on articles of foreign manufacture of the same kind and class with those manufactured in the United Kingdom, as by these protective duties on imports the fair competition of foreign manufactured articles with the articles of British manufacture is prevented."
The second Resolution was, however, the only one which he would submit to the House. It was to the effect—That this Mouse will, at an early period, take into its consideration the duties that are strictly protective in the existing tariff on articles of import. If we were to have free trade, let it be carried out in its entirety. He had been a humble instrument in forcing free trade upon the attention of the House, and he thought the agricultural interest had been badly treated by the non-removal of the duties upon every manufactured article. The removal of the protective duties upon manufactured articles ought to have taken place simultaneously with the repeal of the duties upon corn. It was not his fault that they had not been repealed; he had urged it strongly upon the Government; and he believed that if Sir Robert Peel had been allowed to remain in office, and had been supported as he ought to have been, the repeal of these duties would have been effected long since. By the proposal which he now submitted to the House, protective taxation to the amount of 1,340,000 l. would be abolished. The effect of this would be like sowing seed for the purpose of obtaining a rich and abundant harvest, and an increased quantity of manufactures, which would add greatly to the wealth and prosperity of the country, and at the same time benefit largely the agricultural interest. He had never yet been able to convince the agricultural interest that its members were really manufacturers. Farmers were manufacturers of corn. The machinery by which they produced the article was different in form, it was true, from that employed by other producers; but they were not the less manufacturers on that account. It was, therefore, the interest of that as of other manufacturers to have food and labour as cheap as possible, in order to enable them to compete successfully with the other countries of Europe. England was the largest market

1011
in the world, and upon examination it would be found that in regard to cheapness, and in every other point of view, it was superior to that of any in Europe. With respect to the time for agreeing to his propositions, he might be told that the Government was about to bring forward a new Budget, and that it would be wrong for the House to come to any Resolution on the subject. He maintained, on the contrary, that whatever system of finance might be brought in, justice should be done to the agricultural interest, and free trade should be carried out fully and completely. What he wanted to obtain was an assurance that the House and the Government would not allow the agricultural interest to be unfairly or unequally taxed, and by removing those protective duties to which he had referred, they would, while fairly carrying out the principle of unrestricted competition, place the agricultural interest upon an equal footing with other classes of the country.
MR. MITCHELL, in seconding the Motion, said, the duties mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, were no other than protective duties, and so was another tax which had not been alluded to by his hon. Friend—the duty on wood. Such a tax as that now levied on corn, which only amounted to 1s. per quarter, did not require immediate attention; but there were other articles, the duties upon which pressed more severely, and one of the chief of these was the import duty upon tallow, upon which 8 or 9 per cent was levied upon the raw material, and which was then taxed on its manufacture into soap, thus paying a double duty to the revenue. Butter, cheese, and eggs, were articles which entered largely into the consumption of the lower classes, and the repeal of the duties upon those articles would conduce highly to the comforts and well-being of the people. With regard to one particular class of duties embodied in the Resolution of his hon. Friend, he concurred with him in thinking that the very first which this House ought to repeal were those upon manufactured articles imported into this country. It was a gross act of injustice to the agriculturalists to continue to impose duties, amounting to 434,000 l., upon the import of foreign manufactured articles; but there was one particular class to which he would call especial attention—namely, the ad valorem duties, which amounted in 1850 to 188,000 l., and which fell almost exclusively under the head of the
1012
434,000 l. levied upon manufactured articles. He had presided last year over a Committee which had recommended in the strongest terms the abolition of these duties. That Committee included among its Members the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and several other high ex-officials, and it was their unanimous opinion that the ad valorem duties ought to be at once and entirely abolished. From an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Horsfall), on the subject of Customs reforms, he had inferred that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no intention to carry out the reforms recommended by that Committee, and he should be very happy to have his mind disabused as respected that impression. Reverting to these ad valorem duties, he would repeat that they were open to every species of objection. The Committee had before them Sir Alexander Spearman, Sir Thomas Fremantle, and others, all of whom stated that the trouble and annoyance given by their existence was such, that they doubted whether the expense of the Custom-house staff thus rendered necessary was not equivalent to the cost of the duties themselves. These duties placed a very great temptation in the way of the inferior officers of the Customs; for, if they did not conceive the valuation made by the importers was sufficient, they might take the articles at the valuation put upon them, and the Customhouse officers got half the amount which those articles produced above their valuation; while, if they fetched less, the Custom House bore the loss. The system, therefore, afforded a direct premium to the officers to seize the goods, for in no case could they lose, and in many instances they obtained a very handsome profit. Another result of the system was, that the uncertainty entailed by it had taken the trade out of the hands of the respectable merchants and had put it into those of the lowest class of traders, who were the only persons capable of dealing with these Custom-house officers, and of wrangling and disputing with them. He did not wish to bind the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer down to any particular time of introducing the changes to which he had alluded, but he certainly thought they should be made in the course of the present Session.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House will, at an early period, take

1013
into its consideration the Duties that are strictly protective in the existing Tariff on articles of Import into this Country, both of manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly every interest in the Country."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, old birds were not to be caught with chaff. He had listened to the hon. Member for Montrose, but he was too old a soldier to trust an enemy in his camp—one too much given to setting spring guns and steel traps for the unfortunate fanners. The hon. Member for Montrose had said He was a freetrader. Now, he (Colonel Sibthorp) told that hon. Gentleman distinctly that he (Colonel Sibthorp) was no free-trader, He was against free trade. The hon. Member for Montrose now, for the first time since be (Colonel Sibthorp) had the honour of sitting in that House, talked about the injury which the Legislature had done to the farmers. Now, really that was too barefaced. When you had almost killed a man—when you had cut him up—it was too late to call in such a physician as the hon. Member for Montrose—who had come down to the House with a black draught which he (Colonel Sibthorp) was too wise to attempt to swallow. That draught was nothing more nor less than poison—and a most deadly poison too. Those import duties against which the hon. Member for Montrose had spoken, he (Colonel Sibthorp) firmly believed had been beneficial even to that class whose interest he had at heart. at least as much as had the hon. Member himself—he meant the labouring poor. He had always stood up in that House against the foreigner, and in favour of our own people, with respect to import duties. As long as duties were levied on the importation of foreign goods, this great country would be as it ought to be—not the slave of the foreigner. The hon. Member had no doubt, when at school, read of the fable of the sheep and the wolf. His (Mr. Hume's) proposition reminded him (Colonel Sibthorp) of that story. The hon. Member seemed to be desirous of acting the part of the wolf; but he would take good care not to be the lamb. We had a new Government, although he (Colonel Sibthorp) was not very partial to it, and we had also a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, of rather a free-trade cast; yet he believed the right hon. Gentleman's know ledge, judgment, and experience would prevent him from lulling into this snare. At all counts he (Colonel Sibthorp) would
1014
not be the unwary fish to swallow the bait that was held out. The right hon. Gentleman must pardon him, for although he might trust him with his purse, he could not trust him with his vote.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I feel greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down, for, if not the favourable, yet the not very unfavourable anticipations which he has formed respecting me. And I feel the more indebted to him because I remember that many years back he exercised his humour upon me with reference to the subject of free trade in a manner that was highly amusing. It was the year 1843, in which it was my lot as President of the Board of Trade to introduce a Bill to legalise the export of machinery, and with the most perfect good feeling I quote the reception which he gave to that Motion. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, that—
"The President of the Board of Trade—and I call him the President of the Board of Free Trade—has brought in a Bill to legalise the exportation of machinery. I object to any Bill to legalise the exportation of machinery, but I do not at all object to any Bill for the exportation of the President of the Board of Trade and his Colleagues."
I mention this for no other purpose than that of illustrating the consistency with which the hon. and gallant Member has adhered to his own views; to which I most frankly append an expression that I am myself still of the same opinion as I was then, and that upon the subject of free trade, I cannot recant the sentiments which then made me the subject of his wit. Before noticing the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), I will notice the observation of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell). That hon. Gentleman has referred to the answer that I made to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Horsfall), and which appears to have been misunderstood; and that misapprehension I wish at once to remove. It appears to have been supposed that I gave it to be understood that, with reference to reform in the management of the Customs Board generally, no Bill would be introduced to Parliament by the Government during the present Session. Now, I did not understand the question of the hon. Member for Derby to have any such extended scope. I believe that question referred, not to the subject of Customs reform in general, but to the subject of the constitution of the Board of Customs; and perhaps the hon. Member

1015
for Bridport may recollect that I went on, after answering that question, to detail what had been done by the Government with respect to the constitution of the Board of Customs. With respect to the constitution of the Board of Customs, I stated that I was not in a condition to say whether the decision of the Government with regard to it would entail the bringing in of a Bill by the Government or not; but with regard to the general question of reform in the Board of Customs, that when a decision was come to upon it, a Treasury Minute would be prepared and laid upon the table on the subject; but whether this further question would or would not entail another Bill, no inquiry was made of me, and consequently I returned no answer. Now, with regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, the hon. Gentleman certainly wishes to offer me something like fair terms, for he says that if I will accept his principles he does not desire to press the adoption of his Motion on the House. With respect to the adoption of this Motion, I must confess I decidedly object to it, and I trust the House will not adopt it either. The Motion itself I should object to upon the' ground which it is often the duty, and the irksme duty, of those who occupy my position to state, namely, that this House ought not to part with the standing revenue of the country until it knows and has determined what the expenditure is to be. That is not only a matter of technical arrangement, but a sound constitutional duty. The first duty of this House is to vote the funds necessary for the public service, and having done that, it is to proceed to consider in what manner the funds for these purposes shall be applied. But the hon. Gentleman says he anticipates the objection to his Motion on the ground that we cannot afford the loss here entailed—a loss amounting to no less than 1,350,589 l. He says that it will not all be lost, but will react upon the other branches of the revenue and improve it—that it will entail only the loss of a part, and that that part we can very well afford to lose. Now, I ask the hon. Gentleman how he knows that we can very well afford it? He cannot possibly have put together yet the amount of the public Estimates for the year; and I am afraid that when he puts them together he will find that the Exchequer cannot very well afford this loss. I mean to put it to the House that the subject-matter of this Motion must be left to be considered in connexion with the
1016
general financial arrangements of the year. It will be for the House to consider, when it has the financial arrangements of the year before it, the whole of the sums that will be required to meet the demands of the public expenditure; and then, if there he a surplus applicable for the remission of taxation, it will be for the House to determine the manner in which to apply it; and on the other hand, if there be no surplus, it will be for the House to consider whether or not it will reduce certain taxes and supply their place by others. But surely the hon. Gentleman will see that it would he most objectionable, apart from any question of the balance between the expenditure and revenue of the country, if we were to amuse ourselves by condemning large portions of the public income. In fact, I have a greater objection to this Resolution as it stands than I should have if it required us to deal with these duties at once. I hope that the House is not about to adopt the practice of living upon trust and credit with the people. Let not the people be left to judge of us in the matter of our legislation by what we promise, but by what we do. The hon. Gentleman asks us to pledge ourselves—
"That this House will, at an early period, take into its consideration the duties that are strictly protective in the existing tariff on articles of import into this country, both of manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly every interest in the country."
Now, I am not finding fault, in the slightest degree, with the hon. Gentleman's asking, if he thinks it necessary, for an explanation of the opinion of the Government upon this subject. All I hope is, with his great experience of public business, that he is not going to propose—and whether he is about to propose or not, I hope that the House is not going to adopt—the practice of making promises of what it will do, and of what by-and-bye it will proceed to do, instead of resting its character before the country upon its acts and performances, and instead of availing itself of every opportunity which the state of the public finances afford to earn the confidence and approbation of the public by its acts and deeds. But, having dealt with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, which, I believe—indeed he says—is not his sole object, I have no further ground of quarrel with his proposition. So far as regards his speech, and so far as regards the facts that he has adduced, and the

1017
arguments that he has urged to the House, I have really the greatest difficulty in finding anything in which I have the slightest difference with the hon. Gentleman. He has been arguing for the removal of protective duties, and contending that the reduction of them has exercised, as has been proved by happy experience, a most powerful influence in promoting self-reproduction and in restoring the revenue by the energy which it imparts to trade, and by the increased comforts of the people. I certainly am not here to dispute that, and I should almost have ventured to express a hope that now we have reached the time of day when these propositions are not necessary any longer to be sustained by detailed argument in this House, but when they might be presumed almost to take their place among the elementary truths upon which our whole financial and commercial system should be based. But there is another matter upon which, perhaps, the mind of the House is not equally made up, and that is, the question as to what is to be done with regard to minor duties. The hon. Gentleman has called the attention of the House, by the very proper and simple method of classification that he has adopted, to the fact that there is still a very large number of small and unproductive duties in existence. That is a very different question from the duties which produce a considerable amount of revenue. From his statement, there are no less than 213 articles, under the denomination of foreign manufactured articles, charged with import duties, the whole sum produced by which is not quite 91,000 l; and in addition to this there are 48 more articles belonging to the class of agricultural productions which yield no more than 35,000 l., so that in fact you have here duties upon 261 articles, yielding you but 125,000 l. or less than the sum of 500 l. upon each article. Now it is certainly a material question for the House to consider whether it be worth while to maintain the system of import duties upon articles so unproductive as these. There are, I know, many different opinions on this subject. Many persons think it is desirable to have light and small duties upon such articles, hut I confess that I am not among them, I think it is of very great advantage to get rid of nominal duties of all kinds, except in cases where they are levied on bulky articles that are largely consumed, and which bring in a considerable sum to the revenue, such as the case of the small duty
1018
now retained on corn, which cannot be dealt with in the same category as other minor duties. Where you speak of small and unproductive duties, I have a strong opinion that it is greatly for the benefit of trade, and a most economical measure of public administration, to get rid of and wipe away altogether such duties. And I say, both for myself and for those with whom I have the honour of acting, that this is no new opinion on our part; for in the year 1845, if my hon. Friend will refer to the 8 & 9 Vict., chap. 12, he will find that a list of articles was given with regard to which a great change was effected, and by that Act a great many articles in the tariff were exempted from duty. Well, whether it be as to minor duties, or as to protective duties, it is quite unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the House in canvassing or criticising in any manner, either the language of the Resolutions of my hon. Friend, or the arguments of his speech, because I entirely concur, I believe without an exception, in the spirit which breathed through them. With respect to some descriptions of articles, I am very glad that he has called the attention of the House to them, because it is not positive fraud or falsehood on the part of the manufacturers that we have to guard against, but there are exaggerated alarms and apprehensions which have the effect of inducing them to imagine themselves, and then to seek to persuade the Government, that when the duties which they regard as a protection are about to be reduced or withdrawn, they are going to be exposed to a crushing competition, which turns out, almost without exception, to have been visionary. Having shown, I hope, that it would be highly inconvenient for the House to adopt a Resolution of this character as being in the nature of a promise to carry a Motion into effect at some future period, with regard to the end which my hon. Friend has in view in raising this debate, I think that the shorter and simpler my adoption of his arguments is, the better. I have no exception to it—no qualification—I regard the removal of protective duties on manufactures the hon. Gentleman does, as an act of justice to agriculture. I regard the removal of duties on the articles of food, which are still liable to such duties (such as butter, cheese, and eggs,) as a matter of considerable importance to the comforts of the people. They must he considered whenever an opportunity may arise, with on the

1019
one side every anxiety to give complete effect to free trade, only balanced on the other side by a due regard to the imperative necessity of making an adequate provision for the public service, and by an earnest anxiety to choose, among the many competing claims for the remission of taxes, those, the operation of which is most burdensome to trade and labour, and the remission of which will be attended with the greatest benefits and advantages. Sir, these are the principles upon which the Government at the proper time will approach the consideration of any commercial legislation, or of any financial question, or any matter affecting either our Customs or Excise duties. I concur with the hon. Member for Bridport in thinking that the system of ad valorem import duties as such is highly objectionable. Undoubtedly there may be cases where public policy will not allow of it, and therefore I do not mean to lay down any universal or sweeping provision; but I accede to the doctrine that the system of ad valorem import duties on manufactured articles is highly inconvenient, that it greatly tends to the demoralisation of the operations of trade, and happily the amount realised from those duties is so little significant that any Government which may hereafter be in a position to approach the subject of their repeal, either as a whole or in part, will find the path to such a repeal far from difficult.
Mr. E. BALLsaid, that, having always taken an active part in the subject of protection, he was now anxious to address a few words to the House. He had been one of the most active opponents of the system of free trade, and was so still, believing that it had produced much injury; and if he had the power to reverse, amend, or change that system, he would do so. But as it was not in his power to do so, and the position of the question was not such that the advocates of protection could come and ask for a revocation of free trade; it was better to try what could best be done with what he considered to be a very bad measure. After 268 Gentlemen had gone into the lobby of that House affirming the prosperity which free trade had brought to the country, and he (Mr. Ball) had gone out with only 53, he thought the time had not arrived successfully to attempt to reverse the system. Such being the case, it had occurred to him that the next best thing to do on behalf of that important class of the community which had sent him to Par-
1020
liament was to consider earnestly how beet the evil might be checked, and as much good extracted out of free trade as possible; and the only method which had occurred to him was to direct against the Free-traders that artillery they had levelled at the Protectionists, and to call upon them to adopt those principles which they had forced upon others, and so endeavour if they could to prevent further serious injury falling upon them, and alleviate the pressure under which they now laboured. In this view of the case, then, he could not oppose the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. Nay, he felt bound to give what little support he could to the Resolution. He would even say more—namely, that if the hon. Gentleman was consistent and honest—and he had no reason to think but that he was—he (Mr. Ball) trusted that he would not shrink from the course he was now adopting, but fairly and manfully carry his proposition to a division; and if he (Mr. Ball) followed the hon. Member into the lobby alone, he was prepared to declare that the only mode of doing justice to the agriculturists was by carrying out the principle of free trade in its fulness to every other interest in the country. He regretted to differ from the hon and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), with whom, until this evening, he thought there had been a harmony of views. He had thought that if we were to have free trade, they all wished it should be universal, and he regretted that the hon. and gallant Colonel was not of that opinion. The hon. and gallant Colonel had observed that the hon. Member for Montrose, by this Motion, was getting "spring-guns." Now, the spring-guns had long been set, and had cruelly wounded the farmer; and those who were the farmers' friends would see how those wounds could best be healed—how their sufferings could be mitigated. Free trade, he repeated, had had a very cruel influence on the farmers, and had wounded the tenantry of this country in a multitude of instances, producing calamities which could never be repaired, and inflicting injuries which ought never to have been dealt out. For free trade ought not to have been commenced upon those least able to bear it, which he contended was the case of the farmers, but upon the manufacturers. He was told that in taking the course he had marked out for himself, with regard to this Motion, he should be opposed by some of his old friends, because a great many of the items referred to by the hon. Member

1021
for Montrose were articles of agricultural produce, and because the amount of taxation gathered as import duty on agricultural production exceeded the amount calculated to he received upon manufacturing commodities. "Why," said those friends, "go and strike off such taxation?" Now, what he contended was, that the amount of protection on manufacturing commodities was so large, that it prevented the farmer from getting those goods cheaply—whereas, the duty on the productions of agriculture were so insignificant, were so completely inoperative as protection, that those productions came into this country in spite of the duty. For instance, there was wheat, barley, oats, beans, and maize at 1½d. a bushel, and it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that such a duty would check importation. It could be practically proved to be absurd. He was prepared to support the hon. Member for Montrose, therefore, on the ground that as the farmers of England had been compelled to compete with the farmers of other countries, the former should be allowed to procure their commodities at as cheap a rate as the latter. So to cheapen commodities and diminish prices would only be following out the doctrine which the hon. Member and his neighbours around him were in the habit of preaching. The hon. Member for Montrose had spoken, for instance, of the importance of reducing the duty on leather as a means of cheapening shoes. Might not the advantage of cheap leather be felt by the agriculturists when they paid their bills fur harness, and for the other implements of their occupation in which leather was used? In urging these considerations, he (Mr. Ball) took the only course which he believed to be open to him. He was driven to make the best of the position in which he found himself placed by the carrying of free-trade measures in that House. On behalf of protection he had used his talent (of which he might have but little), he had used his time (which had been at the service of the cause), and he had used something of his property. He had used all these for the purpose of preventing and staying the evil of free trade, believing that it had brought great calamity upon our villages and our farmers. But as he knew it was not practicable to recede—as he could not alter the decision of the House of Commons, it was for him to consider how, under all circumstances, he could best act for the welfare of that portion of the community which had done him the honour to send him to Parliament. There
1022
were two ways, as it appeared to him, of attaining this end. One was, by cheapening everything. And there was no way by which they could so well cheapen things as by taking duties off things which came to this country from abroad. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated a boon and a benefit to the agriculturists, for the right hon. Gentleman knew that they had sustained great injury, and he believed that he could not do them greater service than by taking off a portion of the malt duty. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to take off half of the malt duty; and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would prove a better one if he did that wholly and entirely which his predecessor had only proposed to do in part. If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would come forward and say that hitherto parties had compelled him to oppose the remission, but that now he was free to act, and that he was prepared to repeal the whole duty, he would be a better Chancellor of the Exchequer than the last. These were the only two ways by which the agriculturists could be relieved. They must carry out the system of free trade to its full extent. When the manufacturers had free trade, he honestly believed they would be sick of it. He could imagine their saying, when they had got free trade, "Let us forget the past. Let us have an ad valorem duty on every thing." He could imagine their crying out, "Abolish direct taxation; let us have indirect taxation." Approving of the first portion of the Resolution rather than the second, he would conclude by saying, that when the manufacturers found the system of free trade applied to themselves, they would not like it much better than the suffering interests connected with agriculture did.
MR. W. BROWNsaid he wished to inquire of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended to bring forward any Bill in reference to the Customs regulations, so that the trade might not be dependent, as they were now, on Treasury Orders? He would suggest to the Government the great importance and utility of consolidating the Customs Acts, and embodying the regulations of our commercial code in a distinct and well-condensed form. A comprehensive Act, defining and stating its provisions, would confer the utmost benefit on those engaged in carrying on the trade of the country. With regard to the observations the right hon. Gentleman had offered on the question now before the

1023
House, he begged to say that he generally approved of them.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he regretted that he could not agree in the course proposed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), with whom he had long been associated in the defence of native industry; he retained the opinions he had held throughout the struggle on behalf of protection. He felt this to be the more incumbent on him, as he represented a constituency among whom were a large body of manufacturers, who were still protected. Knowing well the sentiments of his constituents, he could not reconcile it to his conscience to betray his duty to them. For years he had denounced the system of free imports—a denunciation in which he had been fortified by the example of the Americans. He had described the application of what was called the system of free-trade to the commerce of this country as an exaggeration, and he believed the country would soon so understand it. It would ill become him, therefore, to urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to repeal, for instance, the duties on the importation of silks. He did not think the House was in a position to understand the real meaning of this proposed reduction of duty. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had brought forward, under six heads of the return upon which this Motion was founded, certain articles of foreign manufacture and certain articles of agricultural produce, imported into this country. The amount of duty levied on articles of foreign manufacture appeared to be 434,000 l. The hon. Member for Montrose had enumerated several trifling articles on which a very small amount of duty was collected. He had said very little about the duty on silk manufactures; but it was at the duties on the importation of silk manufactures that this Motion was aimed. There was a sum of 200,000 l. duty on silk manufactures, out of the sum of 434,000 l., very nearly half the amount. Now he (Mr. Newdegate) knew that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce memorialised the late Chancellor of the Exchequer for the repeal of that duty, in which course they were not supported by the rest of the silk trade in this country. When Sir Robert Peel introduced his financial reforms to the notice of the House of Commons, he went fully into this question of the silk duty. Debating the question with all the information at his command, which he had procured from the Custom House, and the
1024
inquiry into the Custom-house frauds, after having originally proposed duties at 10 per cent, Sir Robert Peel raised the scale of duties on silk, and left a protection on silk of 15 per cent. He therefore cited the authority of Sir Robert Peel that these duties should be retained. The French placed from 4s. 6d. to 12 l. a cwt. export duty on dyed silk; and if we deprived our manufacturers of their protection, we should expose them to the competition of France as respected the raw material, upon which France placed a further duty of 12 s. 6d. a cwt. He put himself in communication with the trade of Macclesfield and Spital-fields when the memorial was presented to his right hon. Friend, and they all declined to yield the point so long as they were exposed to unfair competition with France. He could explain how it was that the Manchester manufacturers sought to repeal the duties, while the rest of the trade wished to retain them. It should be known, then, that there was a low class of silk manufactured in Manchester, of dark colours; Manchester, somewhat like America, a little remarkable for sharp practice, asked for a repeal of the duty on silk—a requisition, which Macclesfield, Spitalfields, and Coventry, could not understand, as they believed that such a repeal would prove injurious. So he inquired a little into the subject, and found a singular fact in connexion with these Manchester manufactures. He had, perhaps, better read to the House a statement he had received upon the subject. It was as follows:—
"You will perceive that silk is brought up when dyed some time 40 oz. to the pound weight. Now, this is generally three-thread tram or weft, and when put into a hot liquid the threads open; and by thickening the liquor by shumac and other adulterations of a gelatine substance it gets between the fibres, and is there retained, of course making a piece of silk weigh heavier and feel thicker. It is, perhaps, needless to tell you that this deception does not add to the wearing of the cloth; it is done to deceive the eye and fingers, and not for utility. These are the low silks for which Manchester is famed, and with which they are able to compete with France; but in Spitalfields, Macclesfield, and Coventry, where they use and make light colours and better goods, such as pinks, sky blues, lilac, or more fanciful colours, the silk seldom comes up to more than 14 oz. to the pound, and in darker shades (not black) 16 to 18 oz., and wear the better for it; and upon this system the French goods are made. Now, the hon. free-traders of Manchester care nothing for their fellow-tradesmen in other towns, knowing that they may be able to put more rubbish in, if requisite for cheapness; but other towns making lighter colours could not do it without injury to the colour."

1025
That would explain to the House the reason of the memorial to which reference had been made. Foreigners had found out that there was a good deal more than silk in these manufactures; and when the Manchester manufacturers complained that their export trade fell off, which was not the case with the products of the silk manufacture generally, he would say to these Manchester men, "Put less shumac into your goods." It was proper that these circumstances should be understood, and that neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the public should he deceived as to the causes that created a difference between the goods and opinions of Manchester and those of other places. Now, to touch for a moment upon the general subject. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had long been contemplating this Motion. [Mr. HUME: For three years.] The hon. Gentleman had moved for the returns, upon which to base this Motion, in one shape; then he moved for them in another shape; on the third occasion he moved for them in a form very similar to that which he has adopted in this; and last year he moved for them in the shape in which they appeared on the present occasion. He could not for some time make out the meaning of all those preparations; but now, however, it was explained. The hon. Gentleman had divided the scale of duties which the late Sir Robert Peel established in 1846, for levying the duties on imported silk manufactures, into five of the different classes of the returns. It was obvious, however, to the House that the variations in Sir Robert Peel's scale in the amount of duty, referred only to different varieties of the same article, and differing only in their relative qualities—such as was the case with silk—that the duty levied must have reference to the value as well as to the denomination of the article. But the hon. Member for Montrose, dividing Sir Robert Peel's scale, has classed the article under five heads, without reference to the fact that the difference was only in quality. [Mr. HUME here made a remark which was inaudible.] He (Mr. Newdegate) fully admitted that the hon. Gentleman did divide the duties, but he divided the scale in such a manner as to render it utterly useless to the Custom House. He certainly hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would negative the proposition of the hon. Gentleman; but to come back to the general question, namely, was it the interest of the agricul-
1026
tural body to support the hon. Member for Montrose? What did that hon. Gentleman propose? He asked the House to reduce the duties upon the importation of foreign manufactures to the extent of 430,000 l.; but he proposed to reduce the duties upon agricultural produce to the extent of 916,000 l. Therefore, while he pretended to give the agriculturists a relief of 1l., by diminishing the price of certain articles, many of which they did not generally consume, he deprived them of an absolute protection of 2l. upon articles which they certainly do produce. Now, in the face of such facts, having been attached, and still remaining, as he hoped, attached to the agricultural interest, and always ready to vindicate them from injustice, he could not feel justified in giving his vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. But the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) expressed a hope that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would repeal the malt tax, if it were proved that the agriculturists were prepared to adopt and enforce the doctrine of unrestricted competition. Why, was it not that right hon. Gentleman who headed the combination which ousted his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire from office because he proposed to repeal half of the malt tax? And if that repeal could not be obtained in favour of the agricultural interest, why was it that he (Mr. Newdegate) should be called upon to vote for the repeal of the duties upon butter, cheese, and such other articles of agricultural produce as Sir Robert Peel had still left protected? Was he to go to his friends in the country, and say to them that this was the way he had served them? Having a moral certainty that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would not repeal the malt tax, he had consented to the withdrawal of the protective duties upon cheese and butter and other articles of agricultural produce, for no other purpose than to bring things to the dead level of free trade, and with the mere hope that the country would sicken of that system? He certainly held that the country would tire of the present commercial policy. The action of foreign tariffs on our trade would alone effect this; but he did not believe that that result would be accelerated by a policy of retaliation between the interests of this country. Protection was no longer a party question, and, in his opinion, it never ought to have been one; it was not Gentlemen on that side of the House that

1027
had made it so; it was made so by hon. Gentlemen opposite, It was made so seven years before the Protectionists moved at all upon the subject, when the Anti-Corn Law League first started into life. He believed that the beneficial effects attributed to that free-trade system had been grossly exaggerated. That exaggeration, however, he would leave to be discovered by the good sense of his countrymen.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he had no intention to prolong the present discussion, but he was anxious to reply to the inquiries of the hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. W. Brown) with regard to the Custom House Acts, the more especially as the answer of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon a former occasion, had been erroneously interpreted. He had to inform the House that there were already several Bills in preparation, and that those Bills were already in a very forward state, and only awaited the consideration and sanction of the Treasury, which must be given by a Treasury Minute, which Minute must precede any act upon the part of the Custom-house authorities.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, for his part he should be highly obliged to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would take off the existing duties upon the articles mentioned by the hon. Member for Montrose; for considering the value which British agricultural produce had latterly began to assume in foreign markets, he thought that the agricultural interest had nothing to fear. However, if the right hon. Gentleman derived a large revenue from the duties imposed upon such articles, he would rather that he retained it, in order the better to enable him by-and-by to remove some of those restrictions which were really injurious to the agriculturists of the country.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that as one of the class of manufacturers who had been benefited by the principles carried out by the late Sir Robert Peel, he wished to state to the House that the demand for flint, crown, and plate glass had increased beyond the anticipations of even the most sanguine free-traders. By means of patent machines the manufacture of crown glass had taken quite a new direction, and it had caused an enormous increase, which, as well as rough plate glass, had been used in new positions, and for novel purposes, never before contemplated, while the price had undergone a corresponding reduction. Justified, there-
1028
fore, by his experience in this article, he could have no fear of any reconstruction of the tariff which might admit the further competition of foreigners. The English people, relying upon their capital, their industry, and the talents of their workmen, no longer wished to embarrass the progress of other nations by a system of retaliating tariffs. With regard to the question of butter and cheese, there had been recently passed in Holland a law which enabled Belgium, the Zollverein, and France, to send products into that country at somewhere about 2 per cent duty, while English productions were charged 6 per cent. This was done on account of our duty on butter and cheese imported from Holland; if, therefore, these duties did the agriculturists no good, while they excluded some of our manufactures from the Dutch market, they ought surely to be removed. Having been for many years subject to the trammels of the excise, and knowing how much it cramped the springs of manufacturing industry, he was strongly in favour of the removal of the excise upon soap. Its collection was more expensive than that of any other duty. In many of the manufactures in the north of England and Scotland, soap was made under the inspection of the exciseman on one side of the building; while upon the other, where it was used, officers had also to be in attendance to pay the drawback. What benefit could the country derive from having to employ one staff to put the duty on, and another to take it off? Mr. Porter, in his Progress of the Nation, stated that there were annually taken out forty or fifty licences to manufacture soap, where the quantity made was so small as not to amount to one ton per annum under each licence. This was, no doubt, done to evade the duty; and the honest manufacturer was thus exposed to competition with the dishonest. At the present moment the English manufacturers imported soap, to meet foreign orders, from Ireland, because it was made cheaper in that country, where there is no duty. He therefore hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the propriety of repealing the soap duty, which did not amount to more than 1,000,000 l. annually.
MR. HUDSONsaid, he must deny that the manufacturers of glass sympathised with the expressions which had just fallen from the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Pellatt). They were glad to he relieved from the presence of the exciseman in their

1029
manufactories; but they hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not repeal those duties, which at the same time benefited and protected them, and added considerably to the revenue of the country.
MR. EWARTsaid, that we ought not to take our stand upon what Sir Robert Peel had done, but should consider what he would have done had he been alive now. We should not fix the tariff where he left it, but improve it upon the principles he had bequeathed to us. He had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because so far as he wont his principles were sound; but still he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was rather hard upon those who brought forward such Motions as these, when he said that they were adventurers in commercial legislation, and that they should not let off their pilot balloons until the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad brought forward his Budget; for it was well known if they waited until then, they would be told that it was too late, for the financial arrangements for the year had been made; and thus they would have no opportunity for testing the opinion of the House. As a free-trader, he flung away the distinction between agriculturists and manufacturers; he was equally desirous that all duties that were onerous, either to manufacturers or to commerce, should be taken off. With regard to butter and cheese, the attention of the House should be called to the fact, that while the importation of these articles had lately greatly decreased, their exportation had considerably increased. He had a statement from Liverpool, from which it appeared that we were now actually exporting butter and cheese to the United States of America. Last year about 13,000 casks of butter were received at Liverpool from Canada; but this year the United States buyers had swept that market both of butter and cheese. As his correspondent observed, there was a great change taking place in the markets of the world, and a great tendency to equalisation in the price of food all over the world. This was a consummation much to be desired; and under these circumstances he thought it was most desirable that we should reconsider our tariff There were now a great number of articles in our tariff which yielded very small sums to the revenue, and the duties on which, he thought, should therefore be entirely abolished. For
1030
instance, the duties received on apples only amounted to 4,000 l.; that on boots to 8,000 l.; on cherries, 253 l. With respect to eggs, Mr. Huskisson stated, twenty years ago, that the number imported from abroad was 90,000,000; but notwithstanding the great increase which had since taken place in our population, we did not now import more than 115,000,000. The duty on eggs was only 1d. a dozen, and did not realise more than 13,000 l. a year, and he, therefore, thought that this was a duty which might very well be abolished. These were details, by attention to which great benefit might be conferred upon the country. He was glad to see that one agriculturist at least had on this occasion joined the free-traders. He hoped that his example would be followed by others, and that the agriculturists would take their proper position as reformers of our fiscal system. He believed the time was fast coming when agriculture would be acknowledged to be a trade and a manufacture; and when the ideal separation between agriculturists and manufacturers was removed, they would together pursue the common good of our common country.
MR. PARKERsaid, he could not understand how, as an honest man, he could be called upon to abandon the principles which he had adopted. He should be surprised if those Members who had lately voted in favour of the Resolution declaring that free-trade principles should in future govern the policy of the country, should so soon recede from it; and if the hon. Member for Montrose divided the House upon this Resolution, he should vote with him. He was surprised, indeed, that the hon. Member should have brought forward such a Resolution, unless he doubted the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in supporting the free-trade policy. As, however, he (Mr. Parker) did not understand political chicanery, he should vote honestly, according to the principles he had adopted, and which had lately been declared by a majority of that House to be those which should in future govern the country.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, he wished to say a few words in explanation, after the extraordinary statement of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). Perhaps some persons would think that was hardly necessary, since the hon. Gentleman was so much in the habit of making unfair and unfounded attacks on

1031
manufacturers who lived in the town which he (Mr. Bright) represented. The hon. Gentleman appeared to wish to emulate the course taken by a gentleman, formerly a Member of that House, and who sat for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), and who obtained an unenviable notoriety by his attacks on the manufacturers of this country. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire wished to make it appear that the silk trade of Manchester had a particular interest in the abolition of the duty on that article, which was not participated in by the silk manufacturers of Macclesfield and Spitalfields. The hon. Gentleman was not aware, perhaps, that a memorial on the subject, which was lately presented to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was signed by a very large number of the silk manufacturers of Manchester, and that not one of them was opposed to the objects of the petition. The hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that there was no silk manufactured in Manchester, except a coarse article, three-fourths of which was not silk. But the fact was, that the silk manufacture in Manchester, of late years, bad extended more and been more prosperous than in any other district; that it consisted of articles of every quality in the trade; and if it was true that the article manufactured was of inferior quality, and customers did not readily come to purchase it, he (Mr. Bright) thought that it would be just the one that would require protection against the foreigner. The hon. Gentleman ought, at all events, to give the manufacturers of Manchester credit for consistency in the maintenance of the principle of unrestricted competition. In the memorial to which he had alluded, it was stated that the silk trade had suffered, because there was an opinion entertained that the English silk manufacturer could not compete with the foreigner, and that their articles were not so good; and they wished that opinion to be destroyed by the repeal of that duty. These manufacturers, who had supported the Anti-Corn Law League, and had besieged that House with petitions for the repeal of the corn laws, were at least consistent when they came and asked that the principle of the tariff of Sir Robert Peel should be carried out, and stated that they were willing to accept the application of that principle to their industry. That principle the silk manufacturers of Manchester had carried out, trusting to their own energy, activity, and perseverance; and they had found
1032
those qualities produced the same results, whether they were applied to the manufacture of cotton or to silk. He was sorry, to find that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire still maintained what the; right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had called obsolete opinions; but he was glad to find that the fifty-three who could not be converted had now dropped to fifty-two by the defection of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball). He (Mr. Bright) should not have said a word, but that there were persons who might feel themselves aggrieved by the unjust observations upon them which were uttered in that House, unless some one made a fair reply to such unnecessary remarks as those of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Before sitting down he (Mr. Bright) wished to ask a question of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. This was, perhaps, a proper time to put it. It had been stated in the papers that negotiations were going on between the Governments of France and England for the reduction on articles which this country could supply to a large extent, such as coal, iron, and earthenware, and that the French were willing to make reductions in the duties on these articles, if England would be willing to reduce the duties on wines and brandy. He should be glad, as they were now on the question of free trade and extended commerce, if the right hon. Gentleman could give him, an answer on that point; and, if there were any papers on the subject, allow the House to see what was doing, for it would be better to strike down the barriers which restrict trade, than to be occupied with in creasing our armaments and military expenditure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was sorry that, in answer to the hon. Gentleman, he had but little to say. There had been, some consider able time ago, communications between the two Governments, but no definite result had been attained. All he could say was, that the subject had not escaped, the attention of the present Government.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, before the House comes to a vote upon this question, I wish to make some few observations. It is my opinion that the cultivators of the soil in this country are subjected to an undue weight of taxation. The late Government, impressed with that conviction, considered a system of taxation with a view to afford a remedy to injustice, or at least to what

1033
they conceived to be an injustice. It was their opinion that that remedy was best to be found, not by taking a partial and limited view, by looking to the immediate interests of any class, but rather by considering the principles upon which our general system of taxation was founded, They arrived at the conclusion that they would best benefit the producer by consulting the interests of the consumer. They adopted that opinion, and, considering the whole system of our taxation, they thought it their duty to propose certain measures to the House. I was the organ of the Government on that occasion, when we proposed measures which the House did not think proper to sanction. It is not true that these measures were recommended to the adoption of the House as a new financial system. They were distinctly described to the House of Commons as only the first step. Other steps, and as important ones, were expressed or intimated. We knew that, to enable the House and the country to adopt the policy which we wished them to adopt, it was necessary to make apparently some sacrifices. Nothing in this country or in the world that is great can be achieved without sacrifices. But we were convinced that in time there would be such a general sentiment throughout this great community that the principles upon which the financial policy of the late Government were recommended to the adoption of the House of Commons were sound and beneficial, that we looked with confidence for our justification to the consequences of that policy if it had been adopted. The House of Commons, however, did not think proper to adopt that policy, and we proved the sincerity of our conduct, I hope, by what took place after that vote. We relinquished power—I will not say without a pang—but we relinquished power because we were of opinion that power was valueless, unless it was exercised with the fair and generous confidence of the House of Commons. I, at least, so far as I am concerned, consider that the vote of the House of Commons upon the financial policy recommended by the late Government, of which I was the organ, was conclusive. I have still an undiminished confidence in the principles I then recommended, and the policy I then hoped the House would have adopted. But, so far as I am individually concerned, I have no wish to intrude those opinions on an assembly that has in so formal a manner resolved not to adopt the policy that we re-
1034
commended to them under those circumstances. I am equally undesirous to invent occasions to harass those who have succeeded us in office, by discussions on financial questions. That I think I, as well as those with whom it is my honour and happiness to act, showed the other night, when an hon. Member opposite brought forward a Motion which we might very consistently have supported, and which, if carried, might have very much embarrassed the Government, but which, although I had that night been accused of a factious proceeding, I was not willing in any way to sanction. The present occasion is one upon which I am called to give an opinion on a subject of the greatest interest as concerning the general principles of our fiscal system, and especially as they affect those whom we believe to have been unjustly treated, and whose interests we are bound to advocate. The right hon Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found one great fault with the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He says, "What this practical public require, and what this practical assembly should accomplish, is performance, not promise." But what, Sir, is the Resolution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly described as a promise? It is—
"That this House will, at an early period, take into its consideration the duties that are strictly protective in the existing Tariffs on articles of Import into this country, both of manufactures and agricultural produce, with the view of speedily repealing the same, as affecting unfairly every interest in the country."
Well, now, before I proceed to make a single comment upon that Resolution, let me see how the charge of making a promise, brought against the hon. Member for Montrose by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is supported. The Resolution of the hon. Member for Montrose does no doubt hold out a policy to the country, and we have to consider, first, is the policy a sound one; and, if a sound one, is it politic at this moment to hold out to the country the promise of it? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had risen and said, "This is a Motion which, if carried into practical effect, will materially influence the revenue of the country; I am the guardian of the Exchequer of the country; I will not enter into any argument on the subject, but will appeal to the confidence of the House to guard me from these attacks upon the Exchequer; I will not give an opinion; I do not think it my duty to give

1035
an opinion on the policy recommended; but I will say at once that I will enter upon no discussion, and I call upon this House to enter upon no discussion on this policy, or this promise of a policy." If he had done this, I could have understood the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that it might have been the duty of every man in this House to support him. But what is the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Declaring that the course of the hon. Member for Montrose is merely a promise, and that a promise without performance is a most dangerous course of Parliamentary conduct, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rises in his place and makes a speech which is one long promise from beginning to end. From beginning to end he has been promising what the Government will do on this particular question, when circumstances and the occasion permit them to deal with it. The whole question of policy is thus opened by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have therefore not to consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose with respect to its convenience or inconvenience to the Treasury—which is the position in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have placed it—but we are to consider this Motion as a Motion of policy, and of policy alone. Well, I approve of the policy of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. If the principles of policy which the late Government recommended this House to adopt, but which this House rejected—a policy which, some day or other, will be recognised as one beneficial to the community, and advantageous to property, because it considered the interests of industry in their proper sense; if that policy, I say, is not pursued, I must look to the other means that exist to remove that injustice from the cultivators of the soil in this country, to which they are subjected, and under which I believe they are at present suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who is not, I think, liable to those depreciating observations that have been made with respect to him by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), but who, on this as on all occasions, has shown an admirable consistency, great talents, and unwearying powers of research, has said, "This is a bad bargain for the agiculturists; remove these protective or quasi protective duties, and you only take off an amount of 434,000 l. from the importation of manufactures, while
1036
you take off double that amount which is at present imposed upon agricultural produce." Now I say, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, that the question of industry in this country has got far beyond the question of 400,000 or 900,000 l. After the immense revolution that has been carried into effect, we cannot cling to the rags and tatters of a protective system. Here is the agricultural class compelled to pay a considerable duty on articles which they wish to use. We cannot be told in answer to that, "You derive a small revenue from certain articles of foreign agricultural prodution." I deny that practically—if we could condescend to enter into these particulars—any of these duties that are levied on foreign agricultural articles are really, in the language of the Motion, of a protective character. They are not strictly protective, they are not protective at all. But I will not enter into the question now, whether the duties that are levied on foreign manufactured articles are protective—and strictly protective I believe they are—but I protest, after the Vote which the House has come to, and after the verdict of the last general election, against the cultivators of the soil being subjected to any duties that are either protective or strictly protective. We have been forced into the consideration of the policy of this Motion by the Minister. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had risen in his place, and, placing the question on fiscal considerations, had objected to all discussion, this debate might long ago have ceased; but it was because he has objected to the Motion as a Motion of promise, and then has entered into a long speech, which was only a speech of promise, that he has forced us to give an opinion on the policy which he does seem at a distant day to sanction, but which now he meets in a manner that I cannot describe, or even at this moment exactly understand. But this I understand, that, forced to give an opinion—believing that the course recommended is the course which is founded upon those principles which the people and the Parliament of England have sanctioned and adopted—believing that it is a policy which does justice to the agriculturists, I shall vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.
MR. CARDWELL: Sir, with an admirable dexterity which those who have admired the ability of the right hon. Gen-

1037
tleman might not be unprepared to expect, at a late hour, and to a crowded House, the right hon. Gentleman has given a description of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered at an early period of the evening. It would not be right in me to assume that there was any degree of ingenuity cast into the version which the right hon. Gentlemen gave of it beyond what is strictly conformable to Parliamentary practice; but this I say, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may wonder when he hears the version given by his right hon. predecessor of the speech which at an early period of the evening he is supposed to have delivered. The right hon. Gentleman says that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had rested his defence upon the simple position that he was the guardian of the public Treasury, and that at the present period of the financial year it was not right to deprive that Treasury of a sum exceeding 1,500,000 l., then the debate might have come to an immediate conclusion, and that at least the right hon. Gentleman himself would not have been found the champion of this Motion. I appeal to those who, at an early period of the evening, were present at this debate, what was the argument of my right hon. Friend. It is true he did not venture to say that the House of Commons shall not only not come to a fiscal Resolution, but it shall not presume to debate—that its Members shall not presume to express opinions as individuals upon a fiscal subject. Have we not been asked by Gentlemen who have spoken—What is the time and what is the opportunity for recommending to the House of Commons the remission of taxes? If we come forward, it is said, at an early period of the Session, you tell us we are premature, for the financial year is not closed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not ready to receive your suggestions; if we came forward at a later period the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us, "Oh, but the time is passed—the financial year is closed, our arrangements are made—the surplus of the revenue is expended, and the opportunity is gone." That is the complaint now; but what reproaches would be urged against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who went a long step further than that—who, when a Gentleman of experience and weight in this House, like my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, brings forward a long list of fiscal cases,
1038
which he thinks worthy of redress, and places them upon the notice paper of the House, and invites the attention of Parliament and the country to them, at the proper time and before the financial statement is made, that the attention of the Government may be called to them, and that by the Government and the Parliament they may be considered; saying, at the same time, only admit my principles—only lay down that this is sound legislation; grant me that commercially, and then as a question of finance, I will respect the Treasury, and not call upon the House of Commons to commit itself to a vote; and that, Sir, was the course taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—what, I say, would have been the charge against my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had got up in his place, and had said, "You have no business to bring this question before the House of Commons. You have no business to explain your opinions, or ask others to express theirs. I will give you only one answer—I cannot spare the money, and, whether your principles are right or wrong, I will enter into no debate, but will charge you with impertinence for bringing them forward." [Cries of "Oh oh!"] The right hon. Gentlemen opposite may well be astonished at that doctrin when it is placed before them in that categorical manner. I am glad to hear their cheers, and I accept it as an argument in my favour. That we should ventilate this subject in debate is not the true objection; but the true objection is, do not commit yourself by any formal Resolution to condemn any portion of your revenue until the time is arrived when you are prepared to give effect to your condemnation and relieve the people from these burdens. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is determined to give a vote in favour of this Motion, and I call upon the House to consider the tendency of the support which the right hon. Gentleman is about to give it. The right hon. Gentleman says it is too late to cling to the rags and tatters of protection; but an hon. Gentleman behind him has expressed a different opinion, if my ears did not deceive me. He has expressed his intention of giving the same vote as the right hon. Gentleman; but he made this candid declaration on the subject:—He said, I do cling to protection, but I want to see the artillery of free trade turned against those Gentlemen opposite, that it may inconvenience them, and that they may be dis-

1039
gusted with it and that so we may get rid of it the sooner. That is not a course which it is convenient to take, nor is it desirable that we should commit ourselves by a formal vote at a time of the year when we are not prepared to give effect to it; and that was the argument which at an early period of the evening my right hon. Friend addressed to the House. When we recollect the inestimable services which my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose has rendered by presiding over the celebrated Committee which reported upon Import Duties, and the fruits which have been reaped from that inquiry, it is not surprising that with his great Parliamentary experience and sagacity he should give his own principles a fair chance, not by pushing the question to a division at a time that is convenient for his party opponents, but by resting satisfied with the assurance that has been given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer; sure, from his former experience, that the seed is sown in seed time, and will be ripened and brought home in harvest.
MR. MILESsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Member for Montrose should leave out the words "with the view of speedily repealing the same," and thereby leave the House full power to consider the subject. It should be recollected that certain articles of agriculture, as, for example, cheese and butter, were deemed to be manufactured articles, and if they were to repeal the duty upon manufactured articles, he saw no reason whatever why the duty upon those articles should not also be repealed. He must vote, if these words were maintained, against the Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, as the House was now full, which it had, unfortunately, not been when he introduced his Motion, it appeared right that he should state the position in winch that Motion now stood. He could not express too much satisfaction at the manner in which the principles he was aiming to support had been received. It seemed they were all unanimous. The only question seemed to be how they were best to carry those principles out. When he introduced the Motion, he said that, being aware that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was about to bring forward his financial scheme, he was only anxious to have the assurance that free trade would be carried out still further, and that we should not have those manacles on our free-trade system, perpetuated, and therefore, as it
1040
appeared now they were all agreed, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. ["Oh, oh!" and "Divide!"] He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), who had entirely agreed with what he had stated, to let them have a unanimous vote. With regard to the wording of the Resolution, he thought it best as it was, because it insured the removal of inequalities. He was willing to withdraw his Motion—[Cries of "Divide, divide!"]—but if hon. Gentlemen were desirous of a division, he should be happy to oblige them.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 159: Majority 58.

List of the AYES.

Annesley, Earl of

Lennox, Lord A. F.

Arkwright, G.

Liddell, H. G.

Bailey, C.

Lucas, F.

Ball, E.

M'Cann, J.

Bass, M. T.

MacGregor, J.

Bell, J.

M'Mahon, P.

Bellew, Capt.

Mandeville, Visct.

Berkeley, hon. C. F.

Michell, W.

Bowyer, G.

Miller, T. J.

Bremridge, R.

Moffatt, G.

Bright, J.

Mullings, J. R.

Christopher, rt. hon. R. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Clay, J.

Murrough, J. P.

Cobbett, J. M.

Naas, Lord

Cobbold, J. C.

Napier, rt. hon. J.

Cobden, R.

Newport, Visct.

Crook, J.

Oakes, J. H. P.

Devereux, J. T.

O'Brien, P.

Disraeli, right hon. B.

O'Flaherty, A.

Du Cane, C.

Ossulston, Lord

Duncan, G.

Parker, R. T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Peacocke, G. M. W.

Ewart, W.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Ferguson, J.

Pellatt, A.

Forbes, W.

Percy, hon. J. W.

Forester, rt. hon. Col.

Pollard-Urquhart, W.

Forster, Sir G.

Repton, G. W. J.

French, F.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gardner, R.

Robertson, P. F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Scott, hon. F.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Seymour, H. D.

Greenall, G.

Shelley, Sir J. V.

Greene, J.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Greville, Col. F.

Stafford, A.

Hadfield, G.

Stanhope, J. B.

Hall, Sir B.

Stanley, Lord

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stephenson, R.

Hamilton, G. A.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hastie, A.

Sullivan, M.

Hume, W. F.

Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

Kendall, N.

Vane, Lord A.

Kennedy, T.

Waddington, H. S.

Kerrison, E. C.

Walcot, Adm.

Kershaw, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

King, J. K.

West, F. R.

Knox, Col.

Whiteside, H.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Whitmore, H.

Laffan, R. M.

Wilkinson, W. A.

Laslett, W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

1041

Wyndham, Gen.

Wynne, W. W. E.

Wynn, H. W. W.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hastie, A.

A'Court, C. H. W.

Heathcoat, J.

Adair, H. E.

Heneage, G. F.

Anderson, Sir J.

Herbert, H. A.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Ball, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Hey wood, J.

Barrow, W. H.

Horsfall, T. B.

Berkeley, Adm.

Hudson, G.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Hutt, W.

Biddulph, R. M.

Jackson, W.

Blackett, J. F. B.

Keating, R.

Bland, L. H.

Ker, D. S.

Boldero, Col.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Bonham-Carter, J.

Kirk, W.

Booker, T. W.

Knatchbull, W. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Brotherton, J.

Langton, W. G.

Brown, W.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Browne, V. A.

Loveden, P.

Bruce, Lord E.

Lowe, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Luce, T.

Byng, hon. G. H. C.

M'Gregor, J.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Malins, R.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Mangles, R. D.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Miles, W.

Chaplin, W. J.

Milligan, R.

Charteris, hon. F.

Mills, T.

Cheetham, J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Christy, S.

Milnes, R. M.

Clinton, Lord R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Molesworth, rt. hn. Sir W.

Cogan, W. H. F.

Monck, Visct.

Cowan, C.

Moncreiff, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Monsell, W.

Craufurd, E. H. J.

Morris, D.

Crowder, R. B.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Dalrymple, Visct.

Mundy, W.

Deedes, W.

Mure, Col.

Denison, J. E.

Noel, hon. G. J.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Norreys, Lord

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

O'Connell, M.

Duff, G. S.

Oliveira, B.

Duff, J.

Osborne, R.

Dundas, G.

Otway, A. J.

Dunne, M.

Paget, Lord A.

Ellice, E.

Paget, Lord G.

Emlyn, Visct.

Palmerston, Visct.

Esmonde, J.

Patten, J. W.

Evans, W.

Phillipps, J. H.

Fitzgerald, J. D.

Phillimore, J. G.

Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

Phinn, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Pilkington, J.

Forster, M.

Pinney, W.

Fortescue, C.

Portman, hon. W. H. B.

Geach, C.

Price, W. P.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Ricardo, O.

Gladstone, Capt.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Glyn, G. C.

Russell, Lord J.

Goodman, Sir G.

Sadleir, J.

Gower, hon. F. L.

Sawle, C. B. G.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Scully, F.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymour, Lord

Grogan, E.

Shafto, R. D.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hanmer, Sir J.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hardinge, hon. C. S.

Sibthorp, Col.

1042

Spooner, R.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Warner, E.

Stapleton, J.

Wickham, H. W.

Stirling, W.

Willcox, B. M.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Wilson, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Wise, J. A.

Thompson, G.

Wyndham, W.

Thornely, T.

Wyvili, M.

Tollemache, J.

Young, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Turner, C.

TELLERS.

Vansittart, G. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Verner, Sir W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

CROWN SOLICITORS (IRELAND).
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid he begged to move for copies of the Treasury Minute of 1842, relating to the appointment of Crown Solicitors in Ireland. Late in the month of December last, the late Government appointed to the office of Crown Solicitor (an office unknown in England) for the Leinster Circuit, a gentleman of the name of Kemmis, whose father and grandfather had held it before him. The resignation of the late Government occurred just at that time, and it was not till a fortnight after their resignation that it was known they had thus appointed Mr. Kemmis. That gentleman held an office which entailed upon him a great deal of responsibility—he was public prosecutor, and his office was one, in other respects of importance. The complaint was not merely that Mr. Kemmis had been thus appointed, but also that he, a barrister, should fill an office which according to the Treasury Minute ought to be filled by a solicitor, and that the outgoing Government, on the timely resignation of the late Crown Solicitor of this circuit, appointed his son, and increased the salary to be received by the latter to 1,900 l. a year. This excited considerable surprise on all sides in Ireland; and a very respectable body, known as the Incorporated Society of Solicitors and Attorneys, presented a memorial upon the subject to the Irish Government. It was in fact suspected of being what was called "a job." He consequently wished to elicit the circumstances under which Mr. Kemmis, the elder, was induced to resign at the critical period he did. The question now was whether this office had been properly and legally filled up; and it was with the view of testing the propriety and legality of the transaction that he was induced to ask the Government to lay upon the table the papers to which he had referred. In his opinion the matter savoured of nepotism,

1043
for it was certainly open to objection that an office of this kind was to be entailed, as it were, upon a single family, and that when a Government wont out, the office was to be filled up by the nomination of a member of the same family.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to have two objects in view in making this Motion. One was to ascertain whether this appointment had been legally made, and the other the precise day on which it was made. On the first point he bad to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that the memorial to which he had referred was now under the consideration of the Lord Lieutenant and the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland. With regard to the second point, he was quite ready to produce all the papers which bore upon it; but be would prefer not giving the correspondence referred to, inasmuch as it was not exactly of the character of public documents.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he had no wish to oppose the production of any of these papers; on the contrary, his desire would be that every one of the documents in question should be laid on the table of the House. With regard to the correspondence between himself and the Treasury, he held no correspondence but what passed before the Government resigned, and while he held the office of Attorney General for Ireland. What were the facts of the case in regard to the office in question? They were these. The office of Crown Solicitor for Dublin and for the Leinster circuit had been held by the same party from the year 1801. Before that time a gentleman named Morrison, a barrister, and Mr. Thomas Kemmis, were Solicitors of all Ireland, and the appointment was made to them and the survivor of them. After that a change was made in 1801. It was then thought, advisable to have the whole of Ireland placed under one solicitor; and then there was a solicitor appointed for each circuit; but the Leinster circuit was connected with the Dublin district, and given to Mr. Thomas Kemmis and Mr. William Kemmis, and the survivor of them. They were appointed in 1801. Mr. William Kemmis in the middle of November, 1852, tendered his resignation of that branch which included the superintendence of the Leinster circuit. He had been fifty years on the Leinster circuit, and was now an old man. When the Earl of Eglintoun became Lord Lieutenant he laid it down as an inflexible rule never to receive any kind of communica-
1044
tion with regard to a public office in Ireland until it became vacant. The Earl of Eglintoun received the resignation of Mr. Kemmis, and as the appointment rested with the Lord Lieutenant, of course it was his duty to nominate a successor. Having consulted him (Mr. Napier) on the subject, he recommended to the Lord Lieutenant in the strongest manner Mr. Thomas Kemmis. That gentleman left the bar in 1843, and went into his father's office, giving his exclusive attention to the business which was transacted there until November last. He had practically conducted the business of the office for the last ten years, and the fact that he was a barrister was much in his favour. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Fitzgerald) should remember that the right of the Crown to appoint its own solicitor was not taken away by the Act of Parliament. If any one could show that there was in Ireland a man more competent to fill the office than Mr. Thomas Kemmis, then he would own, but not till then, that the appointment ought not to have been made. As to the law of the case, his own opinion was that the appointment was perfectly legal, and that the Crown had a perfect right to appoint whom it pleased; and the result really was, in this instance, that 300 l. a year was saved. The appointment, moreover, had the sanction of the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had filled so many important offices in that country.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, as a personal friend of Mr. Thomas Kemmis, he wished to say that no one could question the efficiency, integrity, or honour of that gentleman, and he believed that by no one could the duties of the office in question be performed more efficiently.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALD, in reply, said, perhaps he had used too strong a term when he spoke of this being a job; but what he meant to convey was that this appointment bad not been made public for nearly a fortnight after the late Ministers had resigned office. Although he had listen-ed attentively to the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier), he (Mr. Fitzgerald) did not hear him state when this appointment was made. When the documents were produced, he believed he should be able to show that the appointment was made in the interval while the late Ministers were holding their seals of office previous to their successors being appointed.
Copies ordered—
"Of the Treasury Minute of 1842, relating to

1045
the appointment of Crown Solicitors in Ireland, the Treasury Minute or Minutes relating to the newly-appointed Crown Solicitor for the Leinster Circuit, his Salary and Allowances; and of the Warrant, Order, and other documents making such new appointment:
"And, of the several Minutes or Warrants for the appointment of Crown Solicitors on the Home and Connaught Circuits, in respect of vacancies occurring in or since 1842."

BLACKBURN ELECTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would now move that the Minutes of the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Blackburn Election Petition be laid before this House. He made this Motion at that late hour upon the understanding that the debate would be adjourned until Monday, when this Motion and the others of a similar character that stood in his name could he made an Order of the Day.
MR. DEEDESsaid, the question involved in the Motion was a very important one. It could not be disposed of at that late hour, and he should therefore move the adjournment of the debate until Monday.
MR. SOTHERONsaid, on the adjournment he should persist in moving the following Amendment:—
"That in all cases when the seat of any Member has been declared void by an Election Committee on the grounds of bribery or treating, no Motion for the issuing of a New Writ shall be made without previous notice being given in the Votes."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, perhaps the decision in one ease would be taken as a decision in the whole, but it was too late to go fully into the matter then. If, therefore, the debate was adjourned until Monday, he would use his influence to have it placed amongst the first Orders of the Day.
Debate adjourned till Monday next.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
MR. BAILLIE: Sir, I wish to ask the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) the question of which I have given notice. The noble Lord is probably aware that the Committee now sitting on Indian Affairs will not be able to make a final report until a late period of the Session, The question that I wish to ask, therefore, is, whether it is the intention of the Government to legislate for India, permanently, during the present Session; and, if so, whether the noble Lord is able to state when the Bill for that purpose will be laid on the table of the House?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill in the course of the present Session for the government of India—I do not say the permanent government, but for a period to be named in the Bill. I cannot at present state exactly the time when the Bill will be introduced; but due notice will be given, and due time will be afforded to the House to discuss a Bill of so important a nature before the end of the Session.
MR. HUME: Will the noble Lord allow me to ask a question on this subject? The Committee, I understand, have laid down eight heads for inquiry; but up to the close of last Session they had only finished one of these heads. I therefore wish to know whether, the Committee having laid down a plan for their investigations, it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill and pass it before the inquiry has been concluded?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In answer to the question of my hon. Friend, I can only repeat what I have already said, that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the government of India in the course of the present Session.
House adjourned at One o'clock.