Lords Sitting of 21 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—Reported.—Chelsea Hospital Out-Pensioners; Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland); Foreign Jurisdiction Amendment; Municipal Corporations.
3a. and passed:—Poor Relief (Ireland); Customs; Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Public Notaries; Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
Private.—Reported.—British Iron Company.
3a. and passed:—Liverpool Fire Prevention.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Brougham, from Liverpool, against the Liverpool Fire Prevention Bill; and from Cork, against the Repeal Agitation, and in favour of the Irish Arms Bill.—From Limerick, in favour of the Limerick Church Bill.—From Kingstown, against the Atmospheric Railway about to be constructed between Kingstown and Dalkey.—From Cambridge, for Extending the Operation of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act.—From Waterford, against the Irish Poor-law.

CRIMINAL LAW COMMISSION.
Lord Broughammoved for certain returns relative to the state of the appeal business in the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; and in making this motion he would take the opportunity to refer to the proceedings of the Criminal Law Commissioners. Those Gentlemen had laboured assiduously and successfully, and if their Lordships would look to their reports, they would find them to be altogether invaluable, not only in respect to the statute and common law, as it now stood, as relating to crimes, but also in respect to the discussion of the various objections to the different branches of it which had ever been suggested, and of the various propositions ever made on sound principles for its safe and wholesome improvement. He thought it fit shortly to state the different labours of those commissioners. Their first report on the Prisoners' Counsel Bill wholly exhausted that subject, and, he believed, made a convert of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. Next came their important reports on the punishment of death, which subject they thoroughly discussed; and the result of their labours on this subject was the introduction into Parliament, by Lord John Russell, of nine bills, which had had the effect of wholly abolishing the punishment of death in every case unattended with personal violence. Their next report was a general one on the statute law, with a view to a digest of that law. This report was of the greatest importance, and it contained an appendix of obsolete or partially repealed laws. There were many cases with respect to which doubts existed whether they were or were not law? and in the matter of a legal digest, there was such a great deficiency that, as was shewn by the commissioners, there did not exist anything like a correct index of the statute law. He would state a fact illustrative of the inconvenience arising from this deficiency, and it was this, that a gentleman, who was much engaged in drawing up Acts of
954
Parliament (Mr. D. Bethune), was constantly employed for one whole week in discovering, through the mass of the statute law, whether an important clause in an act of Parliament was repealed or not. It would be obvious to their Lordships that the same difficulty might have arisen on a trial, and then justice could not have been done, except in the slovenly way of convicting first and pardoning afterwards. He had been told by several judges that the book they now resorted to in order to ascertain what was not unrepealed criminal statute law, and other law as well, was the digest of these commissioners, which had been laid on the Table of the House, and the consequence of the want of such a work had been that sentences had been passed in respect of enactments which were repealed. An important and valuable digest of the criminal laws had been completed by the commissioners, with the exception of their eighth report, and which in a few months would be laid before Parliament—he meant the report on criminal procedure. It contained, under each head, a long introductory chapter explaining the general principles of the criminal law and its state in England; of the objections taken to parts, and of the amendments suggested, and in every case of statutory enactment they had preserved the very words of the statute. This had been objected to by some as conducive to wrong, and it was asked why had they not given better words. Their reason for choosing the words of the statutes was good—it was because the Legislature had chosen them, and because the decisions of the courts of justice had affixed a meaning to them, and that, therefore, though the words might have been originally wrong, defective and inaccurate, yet they retained them because the decisions of the judges had cleared up the doubts. He thought the adoption of the language was a wise and judicious course, and he was satisfied that when the commission had completed its labours a work of singular value and of great importance in the administration of justice would be achieved. From an ill-judged and inconsiderate notion of economy, it was at one time contemplated to proceed no further with the labours of the commission, and it was said by some, "We have enough of commissioners;" but he had been always anxious that the commissioners should proceed, for if they stopped from the econo-

955
mical notion of saving 2,000 l. or 2,500 l. the work, though of course not wholly useless, would be at the best imperfect, and therefore he gave great credit to those who proceeded with the commission with a view to bringing its labours to a complete conclusion. It might give some idea of what the commission had performed to state that the seven reports already furnished filled 1,100 folio pages. The labours of the commissioners had been appreciated in other countries, such as Germany, Italy, and the United States, where the reports obtained great credit, and in Germany particularly they were made the subject of lectures. He wished that he could have said more with respect to the improvement of the law during the present Session, yet some improvements had been made which were worthy of remark. That with respect to the nullum tempus of the Church was one, and it was an improvement which ought to have taken place ten years ago. Another improvement had taken place as regarded the registration of voters, and an improvement had likewise been made in the measure relating to the Judicial committee of the Privy Council. He would also admit that a great improvement had been made during the Session as regarded mechanics' institutes, public libraries, and other institutions for the promotion of knowledge and science, by exempting them from all rates, whether general or parochial.
The Lord Chancellorwas happy to join his noble Friend in bearing his testimony to the great merit and labour of the gentlemen employed in the criminal-law commission, who had been appointed to inquire into and report on that branch of our jurisprudence. It was impossible for inquiries to be more ably conducted or reports more judiciously drawn up; and he considered their labours as likely to be of the greatest importance and benefit to the country. He was anxious to take that opportunity to advert to another subject—the act appointing the judicial committee of the Privy Council as a Court of Appeal. At the time when that act was passed, it was much opposed by several members of the profession, and it was considered not likely to be beneficial without a permanent president. The result had certainly shown that a permanent president, though none had been appointed, would be advantageous. He could not say from experience, for his noble and
956
learned Friend (Lord Brougham) though not appointed, had fulfilled the duties of a president, that the result had proved that those who had framed the law were not disappointed. He thought it due to their Lordships and to his noble and learned Friend to make this statement, and to bear his testimony to the advantage which had been conferred on the country by the labours of his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Campbellmust join his testimony to that of his noble and learned Friends, and bear his share in the tribute of applause which the criminal-law commissioners justly deserved. He hoped that their labours were not to be lost, though he had heard it rumoured that a distinguished gentleman in another place had said that there were not sufficient means to carry their report into effect. He trusted, however, that there could be no objection to drawing up a digest of our criminal law, and reducing that law into a code. There was no country in Europe without such a code, and as he was persuaded that it would be very easy to make a code of the English criminal law, he hoped that this reproach would soon be wiped away from the country. With respect to the civil law the case was different, and he did not think that it would be so easy or beneficial to draw up a code of our civil laws. His noble and learned Friend had in some measure forestalled him in making some observations on the labours of the Session, and his noble and learned Friend, who was such a great master of eloquence, and could discourse equally at length on a ribbon or a rapier, had said a great deal about very small matters. Nevertheless, though his noble and learned Friend had said so much, he had forgotten several things, of some of which he must remind his noble Friend. He would not now go at length, as he had proposed, into the reforms which had been promised but not performed. If he were disposed to do so he should be deterred by the example of his noble Friend. He remembered, too, the Latin maxim: Qui procumbit humi, non habet unde cadet He was impressed with a due sense of the place occupied by his noble and learned Friend, and would not seek to place him on a lower level. His noble and learned Friend had good reason for touching the affairs of the Session so lightly, and had showed his exceedingly great discretion,

957
with his great powers, not to go at greater length into the subject. His noble and learned Friend had forgotten that great measure, the Affidavits Bill. Under these circumstances, when his noble and learned Friend could find nothing better to say of the Session than that it had passed the bill to relieve mechanics' institutions, he might abstain from saving anything more on the labours of the Session. When the effects of the Session were so small that his noble and learned Friend could find nothing else to praise, it could answer no purpose for him, to prove that nothing important had been done. He was satisfied the ground taken by his noble and learned Friend had entirely taken away the ground on which he meant to found his censures.
Lord Broughamsaid, his noble and learned Friend was facetious on him for having thought it his duty to attract their Lordships' attention to the criminal law commissioners, and some improvements which had been made in the law during the present Session. He did not know that, for these observations, he had deserved the attack of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend had himself forgotten one great improvement which had been made this Session though his noble and learned Friend had got a new light—he meant in the Reform Bill, which his noble and learned Friend used to think of great importance; and the Registration Bill, passed this Session, had extended the franchise, and removed many restrictions on the electors. He was always glad to promote a bill having such an effect, and he had cheerfully supported it, as it increased the number of electors, and improved the Reform Bill. With respect to the bill for relieving mechanics' institutions, that was a measure which he had presented petitions in favour of for several years, and he regretted that never till now was that measure passed. As his noble and learned Friend said, he was thankful for small mercies, and thankful to those at whose hands those blessing were received. He certainly could have wished that more had been done; but through much had been done, it was bad policy to exaggerate it. He remembered the French proverb, that "the sure way to diminish was to exaggerate." He had not, therefore, exaggerated what had been done, nor would he exaggerate. With reference to the law
958
of libel and defamation, a decided improvement had been effected, but much remained to be done. He hoped by the next Session the Members of the other House, though he was really afraid to say a word about them one way or another, lest he should be pounced upon by his noble and learned Friend, who had become of late Attorney-general for the House of Commons in that House—he trusted that the Members of the House of Commons would by the next Session have carefully perused the report on the subject, which some of them perhaps were not aware of—which was now on their Lordships' Table, and also that invaluable report on the law of libel and slander, which constituted the seventh report of the Criminal Law Commissioners. The careful perusal of these reports could not but induce them to effect further improvements upon this subject. There was another bill which had passed that House, mid which he hoped would receive the sanction of the other House of Parliament, the enactment of which would confer benefits of a widely extended nature—he referred to the bill for the more effectual suppression of the slave trade. He had seen a great many attacks made upon himself and some of his friends with reference to this subject, but neither he nor his friends cared for these attacks, so that the House of Commons passed the bill. He had, among other things, been charged with ignorance upon the subject; but though he certainly had studied the question for forty-two years, and had had a very considerable share in all the bills which had, during that period, been enacted with reference to the suppression of the slave-trade, he was willing to put up with even this terrible charge, so that the Commons passed the bill. He was quite sure that, at all events, no one would think of imputing ignorance or absurdity to his right hon. Friend Mr. Lushington, the author, or to Mr. Bilden, the framer of the bill; for himself, he was the author of only the first section, though responsible for the general superintendence of the measure in that House. Another measure of great importance would result from the present Session—the bill for the amendment of the Irish Poor-law Act. He had, in the first instance, opposed that poor-law measure, but the bill of this Session would effect such valuable improvement in it, that it well nigh removed his objections.

959
On the other hand, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the County Courts Bill, and the Factories Bill, with its education clauses, had not been proceeded with. He deeply regretted that these bills had not passed into laws, but he must really point out to his noble and learned Friend that, in point of fact, the delay which had been occasioned in the other House by the protracted discussion of a particular bill, occasioned the loss, for the present Session, of the three bills in question. It was to be observed, with reference to the bill which had occasioned this delay, that of all the divisions which were taken against it, and the discussion upon it which created the delay, not one succeeded. Clauses had, indeed, been withdrawn and alterations made by Government in other clauses, but, from an examination of the votes, he found that not one of the divisions taken by the adversaries of the bill succeeded; and the delay which had thus been occasioned might, in causing the postponement of these three measures, do more harm than the passing of the particular measure might do good.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the bill which had been described as increasing the franchises, increased, it was true, the Tory votes, by increasing the tenant-at-will votes but it greatly diminished the Liberal votes, by the clause respecting charitable trusts. He did not know whether this was what his noble and learned friend liked about it. He would just observe, that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack was somewhat in error when he spoke of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) as being de jure and de facto president of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. No one would dispute for an instant the important services which his noble and learned Friend rendered to the public as a distinguished member of that committee, or the ability and eloquence of the judgments which he delivered there: but those judgments were delivered only in his turn, as a member of the committee, and by no means in the capacity as president, whether de facto or de jure, whatever the intentions of the Government with respect to his noble and learned Friend might have been on the subject, As to the discussions on the Irish Arms Bill, which his noble and learned Friend spoke of as having in the other House occasioned the
960
loss of the three bills to which he referred, he begged to express his decided opinion that those hon. Members who opposed the obnoxious clauses of that bill so firmly were deserving of great praise. And most assuredly, whatever the fate of the divisions, these hon. Gentlemen had been successful in their object to a very great extent. Nine clauses were wholly withdrawn from the bill by the Government, very material modifications of others consented to, and the bill was passed for only two years, instead of for a much longer period. As to delay, their Lordships were as chargeable with it to the full as the House of Commons could be, seeing how late they introduced bills, and how many nights were wasted with mere half-hour sittings.
Lord Broughamsaid, that though the Members of the Judicial Committee undoubtedly took it in turn to deliver judgments, yet as to all interlocutory matters, and points of form and practice, the senior member of that committee was, de facto, its president.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that when the noble and learned Lord laid on the opposition to the Irish Arms Bill the failure of the Factory Bill, he would say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, that the education clauses at least would have been withdrawn by the Government if the Irish Arms Bill had not been in existence. The Ecclesiastical Courts Bill had also been withdrawn by the Government. With respect to the attacks that had been made on the Government on the education clauses of the Factory Bill, he thought the conduct of the Government with respect to them a complete justification of the attacks of those who blamed the Government on that subject. He said, that the Factory Bill failed from the opposition of the great mass of the people of this country, and it would have failed if there had been no Irish Arms Bill.
Lord Broughamwished to deny, that that there was any opposition to the bill on the part of the great mass of the people, though it was true that certain Dissenters were much opposed to it.

THE EARL OF LUCAN.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he had seen Lord Eliot, who returned to town on Sunday, as to the correspondence between Mr. Barron and the Irish Government, and he found that the noble Lord was utterly ignorant

961
of the existence of any such papers; the noble Lord had sought through his office in town, and there was no vestige of such papers. He was afraid, therefore, that their Lordships must wait until the Government could hear from Ireland, and obtain the documents if they were in existence. With respect to the merits of the case, he must say, that having now read the papers with consideration, he was quite ready to say, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had been justified in the course he had taken; and that he had the concurrence of the Irish Government and her Majesty's Government here in that course.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that several noble Lords had, on a former occasion, expressed themselves very strongly on this subject; but that he had felt, holding the office he had the honour to hold, that he should not be justified in giving an opinion on this matter without knowing the case, and though he had something like provocation, he had thought it his duty to refrain from giving an opinion on the occasion to which he alluded. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, whom he had since seen, had informed him that his decision was formed from the papers which were already on the Table of the House, and he must say, that with all respect for the noble Earl, for whom he had great respect, he thought upon the whole, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was bound to remove the noble Earl from the commission. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland in doing so had acted with great reluctance, and it was due to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to state, that the effect which the perusal of the papers had had upon his mind was, that he thought the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was bound to do as he had done, and he, moreover, thought that the Lord Chancellor's reasons, were justly stated in his letter.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that what was called for from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wharncliffe) was a simple statement of facts. It was extremely unfortunate that it was only now at the end of the Session that they had a declaration from the Government that they entirely approved of the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Still he did not wholly blame the Government, because it was certainly unfortunate that his noble Friend had not earlier brought the matter under their Lordships' notice; but at the
962
same time it was impossible not to perceive, that though no new fact had been communicated to the Government, some communication of considerable weight had been made to the noble Lord. Looking to the conduct of Sir E. Sugden in his court, he thought that his (Sir E. Sugden's) loss would be a severe misfortune to Ireland, and he thought that Sir E. Sugden, not only in presiding in his court, but in ordering and arranging the whole machinery of his court, acted with great judgment and propriety; but in that department of his office to which the noble Earl had been amenable, he was free to say that the conduct of Sir E. Sugden had not given general satisfaction. Generally it was not right to make such a statement as this without a direct case to support it; but the fact was, their Lordships had a direct case before them, only the state of the Session prevented it being fully discussed. He must say, that he thought the conduct which had been pursued on this occasion would give the greatest dissatisfaction to the magistrates of Ireland. With respect to the alleged reason for the dismissal, it was absurd to say that a hasty expression ought to be visited with the same punishment and marked with the same reprobation which were justly fixed upon what was regarded by the Government as the very dangerous conduct of other persons. The conduct of the stipendiary magistrates who presided on the occasion, and who appears not to have been reproved in any way, appeared to him to be a point deserving of consideration. The magistrates of Ireland had often a very difficult duty to perform, and though their conduct was watched with a rigour which neither he, nor he believed any of them, complained of, yet he thought it due to them that a slight slip, not during the performance of the magisterial functions at all, should be overlooked, and ought not to give rise to the greatest punishment which the Government could award to those magistrates who had failed in upright conduct.
The Earl of Lucanhad come down unprepared for this discussion, for he never had the least expectation that there would be ally further allusion made to the subject during this Session. Their Lordships, he thought, would agree with him, that he had sufficient cause of complaint against the noble Lord, but at any rate he greatly regretted having postponed to

963
a late period of the Session bringing his case under their Lordships' notice; but the fact was that he gave notice of his intention to do so a fortnight ago. How did the Government meet that notice? Four days after, the noble Lord quietly got up, and without any apology or circumlocution, said—"I know nothing of this business—I have not informed myself on it—I am not instructed by Sir E. Sugden on the subject. I know nothing about it." Their Lordships would recollect the feeling, not of one noble Lord, but he thought of nearly all, when he made that statement, and he believed that other noble Lords besides those who spoke would have yielded to the desire to make strong observations on his case, if they had not been met by the argumentum ad misericordiam on the part of the Government. The noble Lord had stated that the question should be considered, and that justice should be done. That happened on a Thursday. On Tuesday a noble Lord asked when they might expect to see the papers? What the noble Lord said was, that expedition had been used, that the delay arose from the necessity of hearing from Ireland; that the papers had only reached town that morning; that they required the consideration of Government; but that they would be ready by Thursday next. But what came to light next? That the papers had never been written for, and that the delay which had taken place was merely a trick and device. He was not there to make remarks on the character and conduct of the noble Lord he had nothing further to say on that subject. That the noble Lord had succeeded was clear, for their Lordships must be well aware, that it would be useless and ridiculous to attempt to bring forward a discussion of the subject at this period of the present session. For himself, he found himself placed in a very difficult situation; he had made a statement in their Lordships' House; he produced, in order to facilitate the discussion, every paper of which he had cognizance; and he thought he might say, that he very much carried the feelings of their Lordships with him. He was now told that since the production of the papers on the Table, the case had assumed a different complexion. But how was this? Had he suppressed anything? Had he misrepresented anything? Did not the papers on the Table, so far were they from contradicting, bear out his
964
statement to the letter? He challenged the noble Lord to say in what he had deviated from the truth—what he had suppressed in that statement, and how the case differed now from the statement he made that Thursday to their Lordships' House. He only said to the noble Lord that he defied him, and that he was prepared to defend his character, and to uphold his statements. The noble Lord might now triumph in the success of the trick he had played off.
Lord Wharncliffeutterly denied there was any trick, and as to imputations, he never had an intention to say a word against the character of the noble Lord; but it was quite a different question whether what the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had done in his judicial capacity could not be justified. There was no use in imputing, motives. The Government wished only to do justice. He should like to know on what grounds the noble Lord imputed to him unworthy motives. It was true, when first the subject was mentioned, he was not informed upon it; and if any blame attached to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for not apprising him, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland undoubtedly was to bear that blame; but the fact was, he came to the House not knowing anything about the matter. On the Tuesday morning following, the papers had only just been given him for presentation here. On coming down on Tuesday, he informed the noble Lord and some of his Friends also, that he had got them—nay, more, he said that they were perfectly at liberty to see the papers; and those noble lords actually came to his office and saw the papers. He also said they should be on the Table in print on Thursday. They were so. In this he thought there was no ground for alleging a trick, and he must be allowed to say, he repelled the charge. With respect to the state of the session, he regretted fully as much as the noble Lord could do, that there was not time during the present session to enter fully into the subject; but if there was not dine, it was the noble Lord's own fault. Why, if the noble Lord had been suffering for months under this degradation, did he put off taking any step until ten days before the end of the session, when he came down and called for a number of papers, to produce which must necessarily cause considerable delay? He would say, that the noble Lord had not any

965
ground to impute to the Government that they had caused the delay. As to the character of the noble Lord, he did not impute anything to the character of the noble Lord, but that was a very different thing from allowing a colleague to be attacked for something which had been done in the execution of his judicial functions in his department.
Lord Broughamthought this one of the most painful discussions that had ever arisen in Parliament; and if it was to be said, that their Lordships could not acquit one party without condemning the other, he should require more time to make up his mind upon the matter. His noble Friend, in February last, applied to him, and he advised him, as he had afforded a ground for disapprobation of his conduct (which his noble Friend had confessed frankly in his letter to the Lord Chancellor), to take no step, and in all probability he would be restored to the bench. He had a communication on the subject with his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, who wished to communicate with the Great Seal of Ireland, and thus some little delay took place, which was not attributable to his noble Friend (the Earl of Lucan) or to his noble and learned Friend. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland said he was coming over at no distant period, and would explain the matter; and then it was proposed to restore the noble Earl, and to restore Mr. O'Malley too, which would have been a stigma upon his noble Friend. The delay, therefore, had not been the fault of his noble Friend. With respect to the case itself, he denied that the act was a judicial act. The Lord Chancellor had two functions, one judicial, in a court of law, the other superintending the magistracy; and if he removed or appointed a magistrate, it was not a judicial act, though it might be said to be quasi judicial. Now, if the case before their Lordships was all the case of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he should be forced to vote against him for he differed from his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, and from the noble Lord the President of the Council. Both said the case of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had closed. Not only was it closed, but his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had pronounced judgment. [Lord Wharncliffe: "I never said so.] He had understood that his noble and learned Friend had pronounced his opinion, that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was bound to act as he did, and had given judgment against the noble earl, not so as to leave any imputation upon his character as a gentleman, or an officer, or even, he might say, as a magistrate; but he gave judgment against him on the question, whether he had done wrong as a magistrate. He was doing his duty as a judge towards the noble Earl and towards the Lord Chancellor of Ire-
966
land, and wished to do justice to both, and injustice to neither. He imputed nothing derogatory or disgraceful to the character of the Irish Chancellor, either as a judge, or a gentleman, or a magistrate; but he imputed to him an error of judgment, of which any one might be guilty. He thought it was unnecessary to have removed Lord Lucan from the magistracy, (supposing this to be the whole case); and if he had been Chancellor, he would not have removed the noble Earl; but he was prepared to say, that he should have corresponded with Mr. Barron. At the same time, he was bound to say, in justice to Mr. Barron, that since he had read the papers, he found that Mr. Barron had not been so deficient in his duty as chairman, as he had at first appeared to him; Mr. Barron had exerted himself, but he wanted firmness and vigour to maintain the dignity of the chair, and put to silence a person who was a wrongdoer from the beginning to the end. The word "miscreant" had not been used by Lord Lucan till he had been a second tone insulted, and he would ask any man of judgment and common sense, who had two or three minutes to reflect, whether that was a ground for imposing a stigma upon the noble Earl—for the removing a man from the magistracy for misconduct in a court was a stigma, and ought not to have been made. It was nothing more than a great error in judgment; but the Government would never get gentlemen to act as magistrates unless they were protected. He was certainly for protecting an absent Chancellor, but he was also for protecting a magistrate. He would observe, that when he was Lord Chancellor, he had always written to magistrates in his own name, and with his own hand; it appeared offensive in a Lord Chancellor to write to even a Lord-lieutenant through his secretary, "My Lord, I have laid your letter before the Lord Chancellor," as if he were too great a person to be approached by a Lord-lieutenant, who in his county

967
was higher than the Lord Chancellor. There were two courses to be pursued, one to pronounce a judgment at once on the papers, and the other to postpone the judgment. He preferred postponing it, otherwise their Lordships would come to a hasty vote, without notice, and it would be more satisfactory to his noble Friend, (the Earl of Lucan), to have their Lordships' calm and deliberate opinion, than to snatch a vote.
The Lord Choncellorsaid, the communication which had passed between him and Sir Edward Sugden had been his own personal act, and not as one of her Majesty's Ministers, who were not responsible for it. He had not intended to enter into the merits of the case; but he had read the papers, and he had thought it his duty to express his opinions.
Lord Campbellbelieved, that persons of all parties in Ireland admitted that Sir E. Sugden administered his functions as judge in such a way as to give general satisfaction; but he must confess that he thought that learned person had fallen into an error in judgment in dismissing the noble Earl from the bench of magistrates. No one, however, could doubt but that the Chancellor of Ireland, in the step which he felt called upon to take, was actuated by the best and purest motives.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that the proceeding of the noble Baron, the President of the Council, had not been characterized by the courtesy which was usual from one Peer to another, or towards noble Lords sitting on opposite benches. He had been allowed by the noble Lord to see all the papers on Wednesday; the noble Lord now said, that these papers formed the ground upon which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland acted, and though he was in possession of those papers on Friday, when he commented upon the conduct of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President still remained silent. The noble Earl (Earl Lucan) had not appeared in court as plaintiff in the cause, but as a spectator. Mr. O'Malley, in order the more to insult Lord Lucan, had procured the attendance of officers from the depot. After very insulting language addressed to him, Lord Lucan desired that "that man" might be put in the dock. Up to that time, the noble Earl had shown the greatest control over himself. He had at length used the term "miscreant." Would the noble Lord explain the mean-
968
ing of that term? Dr. Johnson defined it "one who had a false faith, and worshipped false gods." [Lord Brougham: It is used as a word of abuse.] He admitted that in the irritation of the moment the noble Earl had used a term of reproach, but it was not a vulgar or violent term; it was a well-chosen word, though used without reflection. His noble Friend had the honour to hold a commission of the peace for Middlesex, in which county he possessed considerable property. Had he (Lord Charleville) held a commission of the peace for Berkshire, where he had formerly resided, and had he been subjected to treatment similar to that which his noble Friend had experienced, he would not have hesitated at once to request that a supersedeas might issue, depriving him of the commission. He felt that the condition of Ireland at the present time was dangerous and alarming, and though he would not shrink from any responsibility which circumstances might impose upon him, he must say, that nothing but the most extreme necessity would induce him to enter a court of petty session in that country, and that he would not take his seat upon the bench while there was a chance that he might be subjected to such an insult as that which had been offered to his noble Friend. Though he fully concurred in the commendation which had been bestowed on the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by noble Lords on both sides of the House, he must say, that he felt no confidence in him (the Lord Chancellor of Ireland), as the head of the magistracy; and when he (Lord Charleville) found that if he was publicly insulted, and in the irritation of the moment used an unguarded expression, he was to be sacrificed, nothing should induce him to serve under such a head, unless his services were rendered requisite by the condition of public affairs; and, under such circumstances, he trusted that, as he always had done during the twenty years he had had the honour of holding the commission of the peace, he should faithfully discharge that duty which he owed to his sovereign and to his country.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that since the last occasion on which this matter was discussed in their Lordships' House, he had perused the paper which had been printed; and he would now venture, in a very few words, to express his opinion on the subject. He begged—

969
adverting to the observations of his nobly Friend who had just sat down—to call their Lordships' attention to these important facts,—that the Earl of Lucan appeared in court as an individual, as a spectator, and not as a magistrate; that being in that court as a spectator, he was most grossly ineulted; that he was treated in such a manner as clearly to deserve and to require the protection of the court that he bore all these insults in the manner which might have been expected from a man of his rank, an officer of his high character in the army; but that, unfortunately, he was betrayed by the feelings which must have been excited by the insults to which he had been subjected, and after having called upon the court for protection into the use of an expression with respect to the defendant which he certainly ought not to have used—which the noble Earl himself confessed he ought not to have used, and which expression he had no doubt was, and ought to have been so considered by the bench, a contempt of the court. He believed these were the facts of the case. His noble Friend, appearing in court as a private individual being taunted, provoked, insulted in every possible manner,—his character for honour and for honesty being attacked—his honour as a justice of the peace being impugned,—being accused of intending to become a judge in his own cause,—his noble Friend, under these circumstances called for the protection of the court against such insults; and he was eventually betrayed into the use of expression which he himself acknowledged he ought not to have uttered, but which certain) must be, and ought to have been, considered as a contempt of court. He wool also venture to justify the conduct of the noble Earl with respect to another point which had been alluded to during this discussion. It was said, that the noble Earl was induced to take the course which he had pursued in consequence of the presence in court of certain officers of regiment stationed in the neighbourhood. He entirely acquitted the Earl of Lucan of any such feeling. The noble Earl had been provoked and irritated; there was no evidence of malice prepense; he was provoked to make use of a certain expression without any regard to the persons who were present. Lord Lucan was not required to enter into any bond, but the court threatened to bind over the defend-
970
ant in the suit, and that gentleman was eventually required to promise that he would adopt no further proceedings. But it was necessary to investigate the case still further, for several noble Lords opposite had impugned the conduct which had been pursued by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in this case. The subject was brought under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland by Lord Lucan himself. The Lord Chancellor was then bound to consider the question; and Lord Lucan repeatedly urged the Lord Chancellor to take the subject into consideration, and to decide upon it previous to his departure from Ireland. The Lord Chancellor was, therefore, compelled to give an opinion upon the case. Here were two parties,—one person who grossly insulted Lord Lucan, the other Lord Lucan himself, who, being thus insulted, used an expression which was, in fact, a contempt of court; both parties standing before the Court of Petty Session, and both liable to punishment for contempt, the one being the plaintiff, present as a spectator, the other the defendant. He did not mean to compare the conduct of these parties, or the nature of the contempt of which they had both been guilty. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland was called upon to consider this case, and he said:—
"I conceive that magistrates who can be guilty of such a contempt of court in the presence of a bench of magistrates, ought not to continue in the commission of the peace, and I think my duty is to remove them both."
He did not consider that it was quite fair to pronounce judgment upon a case of this description without a full and complete examination; but he could not agree in censuring the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or in thinking that he had committed any error of judgment in the course he had pursued. The Lord Chancellor was called upon by one of the parties who was implicated in the case to institute an inquiry; and, having ascertained the facts, and finding that both parties had been guilty of what must be considered a contempt of court, he said, "I must remove you both from the commission of the peace." That was the course which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had taken, and he did not consider that any blame was to be imputed to him. Some noble Lords, in discussing this question to-night and on a former occasion, had considered Lord Lucan throughout

971
the whole proceedings as a Peer of Parliament. His noble Friend must be regarded in this case merely as a private individual; he appeared in that court in the capacity of a private individual. A Peer of Parliament had no privilege in a court of justice, except that, as a matter of courtesy, he might be called upon to take his seat upon the bench. The Members of that House possessed, in common with Members of the other House, the privilege of freedom from arrest; but they could claim no other privilege, and they were entitled to no privilege in courts of justice. In this case, therefore, the noble Earl appeared before the Lord Chancellor of Ireland simply in the capacity of a magistrate; and the Lord Chancellor, in considering the case, appeared to him (the Duke of Wellington) to have discharged his duty most impartially—paying no regard to persons. In the first discussion which took place on this question in their Lordships' House, the opinion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government of Ireland was alluded to, and it was intimated, that the views entertained by that noble Lord on this subject, were at variance with those of Lord Chancellor Sugden. The noble Lord (the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland), had authorised hint (the Duke of Wellington) to say, that throughout all the inquiries instituted into this case he had fully concurred in the opinions of the Lord Chancellor (Sir E. Sugden), that he considered those two magistrates must be regarded as standing in a similar position, and that the same course must be adopted with respect to them both. It could not, he thought, be considered that there had been any intention on the part of the Lord Chancellor or of the Government of Ireland to act harshly with respect to any noble Lord. The Government had adopted the course which they conceived to be consistent with their duty, and nothing had been further from their intention than to pain the feelings of his noble Friend. The noble Lord (the Earl of Charleville) who had last addressed their Lordships had stated, that he could not think of attending to perform his duties as a magistrate at any petty Session in Ireland; and he had stated, that he considered his noble Friend the Earl of Lucan had acted most properly in tendering the resignation of his commission as a justice of the peace for Middlesex. [The
972
Earl of Charleville, had made no such statement.] Then he must have misunderstood the noble Earl. At all events, the noble Earl had stated, that he would not perform his duties as a magistrate in any county in which he held the commission of the peace. He hoped the noble Earl would reflect before he determined to withdraw his services as a magistrate for such reasons as he had assigned. His noble Friend (Lord Lucan) had unfortunately, in a moment of irritation, made use of an indiscreet expression; but he did not think there was any chance that the noble Earl (the Earl of Charleville) would so far forget himself. He hoped most sincerely, that neither the noble Earl, nor any other individual, would in consequence of the performance of this act of duty on the part of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, deprive the country of the benefit of their services as magistrates.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, as some strong expressions had been used in the course of the debate, he thought it right to state that the Government were fully prepared to justify the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, with respect to the case of the noble Earl.
Lord Broughamthought it would be well to forbear pressing this question at the present advanced period of the Session; but if he might venture to tender advice to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, he would recommend him to evince his judgment, his discretion, and, he would add, his magnanimity, by restoring Lord Lucan to the commission of the peace. He had not heard one person allude to this subject, either in or out of Parliament, who—without blaming the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland—did not sympathize with Lord Lucan, and who did not lament, on account of the Lord Chancellor rather than on that of Lord Lucan, the course which had been pursued.
Lord Campbellsaid, the noble Duke opposite had justly characterised the conduct of Lord Lucan as a contempt of Court; but he (Lord Campbell) protested against the doctrine that every contempt of court would justify the removal of a magistrate from the commission of the peace.
The Earl of Glengallcomplained that this matter had been brought forward without notice. He knew as many as fourteen Irish and English Peers who

973
would have been present had notice been given, and they were all ready to affirm resolutions in favour of his noble Friend Lord Lucan. There was only one little point in which the noble Duke had found any fault with the conduct of his noble Friend; and he believed, after what had passed, justice must very shortly he done to him. He knew of a case which had occurred about two years ago in Ireland, in which one magistrate had knocked another down upon the bench. Yet he had since been reinstated; and, after the strong provocation, which, it was allowed on all hands, had been given to his noble Friend, it was impossible not speedily to do justice to his character. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the President of the Council were little aware of the custom which prevailed nowadays in Ireland, where a class of low, ill-conditioned people, sometimes low attorneys, were engaged professionally for the very purpose of insulting magistrates, particularly at petty sessions, in order, if possible, to get them to commit themselves, that their case might be represented to the Government. If the magistrates were not duly supported after being insulted in such a manner, it would be impossible for them to discharge their duties at petty sessions. For himself he must say, he had been so disgusted with such proceedings, that the impression on his mind had been that he ought not to interfere as a magistrate in Ireland, except where violent outrages should take place in a disturbed part of the country.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that the frequency of such unseemly proceedings in courts of justice in Ireland was stated by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as one of the grounds on which he justified the course he had pursued on this occasion. For the purpose of preventing such scenes of indecorum and violence, it was the duty of the head of the magistracy to interfere especially when the case was brought under his attention by the noble Low himself.
The matter then dropped.

CHELSEA OUT-PENSIONERS.
The Duke of Wellington, in moving the committal of this bill, reminded their Lordships that those pensioners living in the country a individuals were liable to be called upon to perform their duty as special constables and in that capacity they could be armed with staves. Now, as they were generally
974
old men discharged from the service on account of infirmity, with worn-out constitutions, having served in tropical climates, if armed in that manner, however organised, however spirited and gallant they might be as men, it must be obvious they laboured under many disadvantages in comparison with those against whom they were likely to be employed—colliers, miners, peasants, and others; and it was really humanity to arm them in such a manner as would make them of some service, and likewise to give them some clothing when employed on public service, which should protect them from the severity of the weather. This was the object of the measure now before their Lordships. By an act which passed the Legislature about two years ago, the pensioners in different parts of the country were organised under officers who had charge of them, paid them, and looked over their accounts. This was with a view to War-office arrangements only. These officers would still have charge of them under this bill, and there could be no doubt with a view to the preservation of the peace, and to render this force efficient for that purpose, it was very desirable that their Lordships should go into committee on this bill.
Bill went through committee; was reported and ordered to be read a third time.

CUSTOMS.
The Earl of Dalhousiemoved the third reading of the Customs Bill. The noble Earl adverted to the general features of the bill, and particularly to the clause providing for the admission into the United Kingdom of the timber and agricultural produce of the territory lately ceded to the United States, on the same terms as if such produce were the produce of one of a British colony. Objections had been made against that clause, and he was aware I that a fear had been expressed, that it might compromise the interests of our agriculturists. No such fear need be entertained. The State of Maine, far from producing surplus corn, did not grow even nearly enough for her own consumption. The basin of the St. John was a large forest, and a length of time must elapse before, under any circumstances, the face of the country could be altered. Their Lordships might, therefore, conclude that, though the words of the bill did not

975
formally exclude corn, the clause, so far as that article was concerned, would be a dead letter. With respect to the favourable footing on which the clause placed timber, the produce of the territory now included in the State of Maine, and passing down the river St. John, it would be recollected, that this very condition was one of those which had the greatest influence in making the province of New Brunswick favourable to the terms of the Washington treaty. The impression of the colonists was, not that it gave an advantage to a foreign state, but to the colony. He would next proceed to that portion of the bill which removed the present prohibition on the exportation of various articles of machinery. That provision had been introduced as a separate bill into the other House of Parliament, and was afterwards embodied as a clause in the bill now before their Lordships. The most ample experience—the most practical and unquestionable evidence—went to show that whether the exportation of machinery of British manufacture to foreign countries were good or bad, it was absolutely impossible to prohibit it. Whatever men might think of the principle, prohibition itself was literally impracticable and impossible. The committee of 1825, after full consideration, inquiry, and evidence, recommended Parliament to repeal this prohibition, which in reality was no prohibition. The subject had since that period been fully discussed and considered, and the facts and arguments still remained the same. Their Lordships would find, that by far the larger portion of tile articles mentioned in the schedule were already permitted to be exported by the authority of Treasury orders. Even of the limited number to which such permission was not given, it was impossible to prevent the exportation, by smuggling, or otherwise. When not smuggled out of the country by wholesale, they were exported in detached pieces, each of which pieces could not by itself be called a prohibited article, though it might be very clear to the Custom-house officer, that it was a portion of one. Indeed, one of the witnesses, when asked a question in reference to the means and facilities of exportation in this way, said that he could export Edinburgh Castle. Again, were it even possible—while on the contrary it was wholly impossible, though a whole corps of Custom-house officers were em-
976
ployed to prevent smuggling—tools, models, artisans, and steam engines could still be sent out of the country. Was it, not, then, trifling with common sense to retain nominal restrictions which it was impossible to enforce? During the progress of the Machinery Bill through the other House, not a single petition, so far as his knowledge went, had been presented against it, and very little opposition was offered to it. No injury would be inflicted on the manufacturers by the formal abolition of a prohibition which already was, practically, a nullity, for it was well known, that machinery was constantly exported in any quantities people chose. One consequence of continuing this prohibition, which, he must repeat, was no prohibition, was that foreigners would be driven to manufacture machinery for themselves, they depriving us, in the first place, of the advantage of the manufacture of these articles, and giving their own cotton, silk, woollen, and other manufactures of the great advantage of a close connection between the machine maker and the manufacturer. These were advantages which we ourselves might lose if the prohibition were continued. But let us take that course which practical reason seemed clearly to point out, and our great natural advantages of coal, iron, and other productions, would place us far above the reach of competition by foreign machine makers. In Belgium, in France, and in America, machine-making was extending, and while we maintained our prohibitory enactments these countries now exported machinery to Russia, South America, and other places, though their manufacture was dearer than that of this country, and the quality inferior. American machinery was 50 or 60 per cent. dearer, and the French and American much dearer; and yet Belgium actually exported to our own colonies the very articles with which, were it not for those obstructions, we might supply them. The present, and especially the future, interests of all classes of our manufacturers, would be materially advanced by the removal of a prohibition which they could not enforce—which they confessed they could not enforce—and which only gave rise to a demoralising and most mischievous system of smuggling. The noble Earl concluded by moving the third reading of the bill.
The Earl of Stanhoperemarked, that on

977
this occasion, when a measure, one so important in its character, was brought before the House, the attendance of their Lordships was not sufficiently numerous to constitute a jury. He would say nothing of the effect of this circumstance on the minds of the ill treated people of this country, already on the brink of starvation, and whose misery would be still further aggravated by a measure of this description. Had he been present when the bill was passing through committee, he should have proposed the omission of several of the clauses, and he should now briefly state the reasons that induced him to propose the rejection of the measure. The noble Earl had triumphed in the consideration that the bill had passed so easily, and with such little opposition, through the House of Commons. The fact was, that the latter House had been treated with some disrespect, though not with more disrespect than was richly deserved by the great majority of its Members. The course pursued in hurrying such important measures through the House at so late a period of the Session was as unnecessary as it was improper. True, had they been earlier introduced, they might have been met by some troublesome speeches from the very few intelligent and independent persons who held seats in the place he had alluded to and a protracted debate might have ensued; but there was no reason to apprehend that those who had swallowed a camel would have strained at a knot, nor that the Gentlemen who had supported a Tariff and a Corn-law, of which they did not approve, would have raised any difficulty to the passing of the present measure. He objected to the advantages given to foreign whale oil, to the detriment of English shipping, and to the 19th clause, by which our carrying trade was not sufficiently protected. As to the clauses permitting the exportation of machinery he denied that it was expedient to give away to foreigners the advantage proposed to be conferred on them by this bill, and which we might retain in our own hands. The noble Earl said, that the prohibition of exportation could not be enforced—that the machines would be smuggled out of the country—and that even if not smuggled, tools and models, and artizans would go abroad, by means of which the machines would be constructed in foreign countries. Now, it was unfortunate, but
978
by some fatality which hovered about the Board with which the noble Earl was connected, its arguments usually cut both ways. The noble Earl's argument was, that as things already stood, the exportation of machinery could not be prevented, but that it took place to a great extent, and that the bill would therefore produce no great increase of the export. But the President of the Board of Trade, and the noble Earl himself, through part of his speech, argued, on the other hand, that it was of great importance to give this country a monopoly of machine making. This would of course imply a great increase in the export, and he should be glad to hear how the argument was to apply in both ways. He maintained that without employing a corps of Custom-house officers, but by a judicious system of regulations—by providing that machine makers should supply proper officers with information as to the parties to whom the articles were furnished, contraband exportation might be prevented. It was argued that the bill would do good to machine makers, but why plunder other classes to serve one? And if such a policy were pursued, would not the people have every right to complain, if not resist? Not only the manufacturers of silk, of woollen, and cotton goods, but other of our industrial interests would be affected by this measure; and, for his own part, he should say, that if these free trade dogmas were just with respect to one measure they were so in another, and should be universally extended, or not adopted at all. It was said, indeed, why was not the bill opposed in the other House? Why did not the manufacturers resist it? And it was implied, that the grounds on which the manufacturers consented to the bill was, that exportation could not be practically prohibited. But there was another reason—a reason of a very different nature, why the measure had obtained the consent of some of the manufacturers. We had allowed the free emigration of artizans, whom, not by compulsion, but by a very considerable sacrifice, if necessary, we ought to have retained at home; and if the Bill was carried there would be nothing to prevent manufacturers from taking capital abroad to foreign countries, and with British capital, British artizans, and British machinery, to establish manufactories in foreign countries, leaving the workmen at home to starve, or be sup-

979
ported by the poorhouse. He need not represent how calamitous must be the consequences—how fatal, not only to the peace, but to the prosperity of the country, unless they established a system of home colonisation. He with regret confessed that he was not now surprised that this measure had been brought forward by the present Government. It was the last, if not the least, of the measures that had been introduced so seriously to the injury of the country—of the character of the Ministry by whom it was proposed—and which had so deceived the hopes of those who unfortunately assisted in restoring them to office. [The Duke of Wellington—Why not take office yourself.] If the noble Duke had watched his public conduct, he might have observed that he had never been ambitious of office. He had hoped to spend the remainder of his days in the rural retirement which be best liked; and it was with regret and reluctance that, impelled by a sense of duty he had returned to that House from which he had long seceded. He was one of those who wished for nothing—who had asked for nothing—who wanted nothing that a Minister could bestow. He might be defeated, but his argument was not overthrown, and he spoke what he believed was the sincere impression of large and worthy classes of his fellow citizens. He earnestly wished that their Lordships would be convinced by experience, and by the approaching indication of events that already cast their shadows before them, and which, when they did take place, would be such, he feared, as were not now calculated on. He sought to make them ponder on the consequences of a career which was subverting, one by one, all the principles on which this country had prospered, and on which she could still hope to prosper, and which was shaking the foundations of our whole social edifice. He sought to make them seriously consider whether, if protection were withdrawn allegiance could be claimed—whether if, by legislative measures, they inflicted injustice on their fellow-citizens, they did not impose on them the duty of remonstrance, and if redress were refused, whether they might not in some cases give them the right of resistance? The noble Earl concluded by moving that the Bill be read the third time that day three months.
Lord Monteaglerose, and intimated his
980
intention of moving as an amendment on the seventh clause, that the forfeiture or penalty therein provided for, should not take effect till the rules and regulations were published in the London Gazette, &c. He complained that the Bill did not properly carry out the principle so often laid down, that all goods manufactured in a colony were to be treated as colonial produce, whether or not the raw material were the produce of the colony. Coming to the 23rd clause, which it was said was intended to carry out the terms of the Ashburton Treaty, he found that certain produce of the forest, and agricultural produce coming from the State of Maine, were to be treated as if they were the produce of New Brunswick. A more important clause had seldom been brought under the consideration of Parliament, and it was with surprise he had heard some of the arguments by which it was defended. It was said that the favourable terms granted to American timber was regarded as a boon not by the state of Maine, but by the province of New Brunswick. Mr. Webster, too, had treated the concession as unimportant, but not so Lord Ashburton—Lord Ashburton, knowing the country, said that the concession by which the State of Maine received the same terms with the Queen's subjects was treated with light indifference, but that this was not uncommon when a concession was about to be made. He further said, that the boon was not formerly thought so light of—that it had often been solicited and refused—that no Minister of Great Britain had ever before been permitted to connect this concession with the question of the boundary, and that it was always considered by the Government a very important concession. He (Lord Monteagle) considered it so too. Maine, it was argued, did not grow corn enough for her own consumption. But how long would that be the case when the country was fully cultivated? [The Lord Chancellor—In fifty years.] He could assure the noble and learned Lord that much might be done in less than fifty years—that had legislation on our part, for instance, might do a great deal before that space had elapsed. [The noble Lord read an extract from M. de Talleyrand's book on America, to show the apparently lifeless state of manufactures in America fifty years ago, and contrasted it with the rapid advance and present active condition of manufac-

981
turing operations in that country] He directed the attention of their Lordships to the progress which America had made in fifty years, in order to show that, as regarded that law in its application to Maine, they ought not to calculate on the result of its merely lasting for our time. But a very important effect which this permission to the importation of the produce of the State of Maine would have, would he its effect on those States with which we have reciprocity treaties. We by this measure allowed the importation of certain produce of a portion of the United States, as if it were colonial produce; and what answer could we give to Sweden, for instance, if she demanded a similar advantage for her produce, in accordance with the treaty which we had entered into with her, by which we promised her the same advantages, as regarded the exportation of her produce, that was possessed by other countries? We had similar treaties with Buenos Ayres, Columbia, Mexico, Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia; we promised them the advantages which we gave to the most favoured nations, and he wished to know what answer would be made to those states if they demanded advantages of a similar nature to those which we gave to the State of Maine? With respect to the export of machinery he believed that it would give a stimulus to the productive powers of the Continent, and in giving support to the clause, he did so because he was favourable to the principles of free-trade, and because, whilst he supported the clause, he was desirous of extending the principle much farther. When the tariff was passed we gave to foreign workmen an increased power of competition with our artizans—it was now proposed to pass a measure which was also calculated to give a stimulus to the powers of production on the Continent by the export of machinery. He thought that, in doing so we were doing wisely, but would the people of this country be satisfied to be obliged to pay more for their bread than other nations, when measures were introduced which exposed them more and more to the competition of foreigners? The Government would act consistently if they carried out those principles, but to expose the artisans of this country to foreign competition without giving them bread as cheap as others had would necessarily cause great dis-
982
content and dissatisfaction amongst the working-classes.
Lord Beaumontthought there would be a great difficulty in the case of Sweden applying, in accordance with our treaty, for similar advantages to those which we gave to Maine, and he did not see how the Government could get over that difficulty. He did not wish, at that late hour, to go into all the subjects which were affected by the bill, for it appeared to be a collection of "elegant extracts" from twenty other bills.
Bill read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.
The following Protest against the bill was entered.
"DISSENTIENT,

"1. Because the proposed measure would allow the free exportation of machinery, which is now absolutely prohibited, and which ought, as far as possible, to be entirely prevented, since foreign manufacturers would be thus enabled to improve the quality, and to reduce the price of their goods, and to acquire an advantage which this country ought to retain for its own manufactures.

"2. Because it may reasonably be expected that the proposed measure would render it far more difficult than it is at present for the manufacturers of this country to compete with those of the Continent, and that it might even enable the latter to undersell the former in the home market.

"3. Because the benefit, whatever it may be, which those who make machinery might derive from its free exportation would be very far counterbalanced by the injury which would be sustained by those who employ such machinery in this country, and could not, even in the contrary supposition, justify a measure which would impoverish one class of the community for the profit of another.

"4. Because, by the proposed measure, goods might he imported in any vessels into Hong Kong, and the same advantages would then be conferred upon foreigners which are enjoyed by British subjects in trading with that island, and this would be very detrimental to the shipping interest, as foreign vessels are built, repaired, victualled, and navigated at a much smaller expense than those of the United Kingdom.

"5. Because the proposed measure would inflict a further injury upon the shipping interest, by allowing colonial fishery ships to come direct from the fishery to the United Kingdom, and to enter their cargoes in like manner as vessels clearing out from that kingdom.

"STANHOPE."