Lords Sitting of 29 January 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Turnpike Roads (Scotland); High Constables.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Jedburgh and Melrose, praying for Repeal of so much of the General Turnpike Act (Scotland), as authorizes the Granting of Ale and Spirit Licences to Toll House Keepers.—From Landowners, Tenants, Labourers, and others interested in Protection to Agriculture, residing in the Parishes of Woodburgh, and several other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From West Harley, for the adoption of a Measure to prevent the Unconstitutional Proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, in relation to the Corn Laws.—From Bolsover, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—From the Royal Burgh of Stranraer, for Repeal of the Corn Laws.

CORN LAWS—PETITION.
The DUKE of RICHMONDpresented a petition, signed, he said, by a large number of gentlemen, farmers, and labourers of West Harlsey, praying the House not to consent to any alteration in the Corn Laws, and complaining of the unconstitutional course of the Anti-Corn-Law League. The noble Duke, in continuation, said, he had had opportunities of seeing a very large number of the gentry and tenantry of the country since the opening of the "comprehensive scheme," as it was called, of the Ministers had been made known in another place, and he could only say that that "comprehensive scheme" had been repudiated by every one of these individuals who came from every part of England. They viewed the proposed measure with strong indignation, and, one and all, they were prepared to stand to the last to maintain protection, not only for themselves, but protection for the domestic industry of the country. They considered they had been grossly ill-treated and deceived: for the men who by their support were sent into the House of Commons upon the faith that they would maintain the protective system, were — at least many of them—now wavering and doubting; and they thought that the men who had made such pledges were bound to resign their seats in order to see whether they would again be returned. He entirely
338
concurred in these opinions. He thought the abandonment of the system of protection would have an injurious, indeed a ruinous, effect upon the great interests of the country; and the manner in which the subject had been agitated by the Anti-Corn-Law League ought to be one reason, even if there were no others, that the Ministerial measure should be thrown out. At all events, he called on their Lordships to pause before they gave the people of this country reason to suppose that no confidence could be placed in their public men. That feeling would be most injurious. He contended it was most inconsistent, seeing we had enjoyed great prosperity under the present Corn Law, to seek now to repeal it. The time for it was badly chosen; and the arguments and statements by which the repeal was supported, would prove upon examination most fallacious. He did not intend to go into details at the present moment, because he hoped the subject would be discussed upon the principle of protection or no protection; then would be the time to go into details. There should be no compromise at all. To talk of compromise was ridiculous. The compensation offered to the agriculturists for the loss of protection was absurd. The highways were to be put under surveillance, and the parishes were to be relieved of half of their apothecaries' bills, or some nonsense of that sort. But would Her Majesty's Ministers tell him what they believed would be the price of corn under the new law; for unless they could tell that, how on earth could they say whether they were not giving too much to the manufacturer, and too little to the agriculturist? They must make up their minds what would be the price; and he should like to know their expectations in this respect, because then he could tell whether it would remunerate the British farmer, or whether it would throw out of cultivation a large surface of land. He for one was decidedly opposed to this country being dependent upon foreign nations for supplies of food. He was for protection to native industry; and the same views were maintained by a very large body of the people, men not easily roused, but who were now roused because they felt they had been deceived and ill treated. It would be most dangerous for Parliament to carry the present measure against so marked an opinion against it on the part of a great body of most respectable, quiet, and unobtrusive men—men not open

339
to the bribes of the Anti-Corn-Law League, but who felt it their duty to protect themselves and their brother men, be they manufacturers or agriculturists. He hoped, then, that their Lordships would not scruple to give the country an opportunity of judging whether the protective system was right or wrong, by throwing out the measure when it came before them, and thus force the Minister to a dissolution. Let the question be made the subject of discussion at the hustings. If it were said that exactly the same question was discussed at the hustings in 1841, he denied the assertion. The questions were not identical. The men who supported the Government measure at that time voted against the proposition for a fixed duty of 8s., on the ground that the protection which it afforded was not sufficient; yet these very same men were now found ready to vote for a repeal of the Corn Laws which was to take place in three years. If protection was "the bane of agriculture," he should have preferred the more open, manly, and straightforward course of its abolition altogether, rather than the Ministerial scheme, for he was convinced it would be less mischievous.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, the noble Duke had thought proper to attack the Anti-Corn-Law League, and to charge that body with the use of bribes. He (Lord Kinnaird) was a member of the League, and he was willing to stand by its conduct as a body, and he positively denied that it employed bribes, or did anything either illegal or unconstitutional. He would not go so far as to render himself responsible for the statements made or the language used by individual members of the League, because that could not be expected from any man; but he would ask the noble Duke whether he considered himself responsible for the language used at the meetings of the Protection Society?
The DUKE of RICHMOND: Yes; I am prepared to be personally responsible for any language I ever heard at any meeting of any protection society.
LORD KINNAIRDthought the noble Duke deserved credit for his chivalry, because language had been used at some of those meetings which no man and no Christian ought to have used. Was the comparison of an hon. Member of the Legislature to Satan, language for which the noble Duke would be responsible? Such language as that had frequently been used
340
in meetings of protection societies. The noble Duke, at no very late period, was not so willing to offer his responsibility, for he formally repudiated the responsibility of the language used at a protection meeting at which the Times newspaper had been burnt, in paltry spite; but now he rendered himself liable for all the foolish language of the farmers, and he wished the noble Duke joy of his now undertaking. He (Lord Kinnaird) should be sorry to render himself responsible for the expressions of any party; but at the same time he could undertake to deny positively that the Anti-Corn-Law League gave or offered bribes. Their object was a constitutional one, and they were carrying it out legally: it was merely to facilitate the creation of votes to act upon the Legislature; and the protectionists had openly avowed their determination to adopt the same course. It was somewhat extraordinary to hear the League charged with interference at elections, whilst he (Lord Kinnaird) would venture to say that there were not twenty Peers, Members of that House, who had not subscribed towards the expenses of elections. The country could not be ignorant that in so subscribing those noble Lords subscribed beyond the legal expenses of the election; and he ventured to say there was no Member of that House, either on one side or the other, who had not subscribed either to the Reform or the Carlton Club.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: I never have.
LORD KINNAIRDknew that most of the Members of that House had. They all knew how elections were carried. They all know that at the time of an election parties went to the committee sitting at one of those clubs, stating the price of their boroughs. That had been done over and over again, and he had known individual instances of it. Yet many of those same parties—he would not say individuals for whose language the noble Duke was now responsible—were the people who complained it was illegal and unconstitutional to facilitate the registration and the purchase of freeholds. Talk of interfering at elections! Why, they knew that the elections for counties in Scotland were carried by faggot votes which were systematically created for the purpose; and at the present moment they were qualifying their own servants to vote. The League, he repeated, merely facilitated a legal and constitutional right, and he denied

341
they were guilty of bribery. Those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. He (Lord Kinnaird) did not know whether it was according to the rules of the House, but as the noble Duke had been permitted to allude to the "comprehensive scheme" submitted to the other House by Her Majesty's Government, he probably might be allowed to add a few observations. He was not going to enter into the details of that scheme. He was happy to say that, although he wished the repeal of the Corn Laws had been more immediate than was proposed, that scheme was fully satisfactory. The protectionist party called upon the Government to appeal to the country. It was, indeed, a strange doctrine, that the Government should not first try the House of Commons. If the Government were beat in the House of Commons, they would, of necessity, appeal to the country; but to appeal at once, without taking the sense of the existing Parliament, would be a practical adoption of the Chartist doctrine of annual Parliaments. As far as he had had opportunity for judging, he believed there would be a majority, both of the people and the Parliament, for the Government measure; but what would be the consequences of postponement? The noble Duke might approve of it; but how long would the question be allowed to exist? Did the noble Duke consider it was possible that the country would very long submit to delay? The consequence of delay, he (Lord Kinnaird) said, would be a sweeping reform in the Parliamentary constitution. The people, disappointed in their desires, would not submit to the continuance of protection after having had the abolition of it within their grasp; and if it were denied, they would not submit to the present constitution of the House of Commons, with regard to the number of nomination boroughs in the hands of the protectionists.
Petition to lie on the Table.

THE OREGON BOUNDARY.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, he begged to ask him a question which, he thought, would not require a very great deal of consideration. He (Lord Brougham) had purposely avoided giving notice of his intention to put the question, lest it should be considered offensive in any quarter, but he was not to be held answerable for having drawn out the truth, if the truth were offensive. There
342
had been no concert between the noble Earl and himself on the subject. Had the noble Earl seen a new argument for the American claim to the Oregon territory, in the shape of globes made and sold in London, wherein the boundaries of the Oregon were described according to the American doctrine?
The EARL of ABERDEEN(in apparent astonishment) replied in the negative.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not wonder at his noble Friend being surprised. He (Lord Brougham) would give him the name of the globe-maker in question; and he would find, upon inquiry, that the Oregon boundary had been put by the maker upon a globe before it was finished, and that same globe was purchased by no less important a person than the American Minister in this country. He did not believe that his excellent friend, Mr. Everett, was a party to the proceeding; and it might possibly prove to have been done by the tradesman out of kindness and respect for his customer.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he had heard something of this matter, but he attached no importance to it. It referred to an older transaction than Mr. Everett's time. The globe had been purchased by an American, but not by the American Minister.

THE CORN LAWS.
EARL GREYsaid, he should be sorry if the discussion commenced by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond) should have terminated before he had had the opportunity of adding one or two observations. There was one part of the remarks of his noble Friend, in which he entirely concurred; and that was, that this question, when it came on for discussion, ought to be discussed as it deserved, seriously and solemnly. He should greatly rejoice if his noble Friend, who truly stated the question really at issue to be the principle of protection or no protection, would adopt the suggestion which had been made elsewhere, and submit a resolution calling upon their Lordships to affirm the principle of protection. There was also another point on which he concurred with his noble Friend. He (Earl Grey) must say, he regarded with great satisfaction the measure which had been propounded in another place, and which was likely soon to come before that House; but, like his noble Friend, he should have been better pleased, if, when so much was proposed to

343
be done, the proposition had gone a little further. It would have been better, he thought, if the measure, which substantially amounted to the abolition of the protection on corn, had, that object being contemplated, proposed the abolition at once. For his part, he regarded the modified sliding scale, which was to be continued for three years, as neither more nor less than a mockery of protection. It was clearly considered so by those noble Lords who advocated the principle of protection, and being so regarded, he (Earl Grey) was totally at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be recommended to them. He confessed that as a landowner, this was the only part of the measure of which he was afraid. He was not afraid of a fair and free competition, for he was perfectly persuaded that the agriculturists of this country were no less able than the manufacturers to compete fairly in the market with their foreign rivals; but he was seriously afraid, when a change in the policy of the country was about to take place, and the avowal was made that protection could not be maintained, that the interposition of an interval of delay before that suggested change was carried into effect would be most injurious, by prolonging those evils with which a state of transition in commercial affairs was invariably attended. In his opinion, it was perfectly clear that during those three years it would be scarcely possible for a satisfactory arrangement to be come to between landlords and tenants. He believed also that the continuance of this modified protection, would afford an excuse for continuing the great evil of agitation; and would have the effect of throwing obstructions, by the uncertainty which it tended to promote, in the way of the extensive employment of capital in the improvement of land. No man who looked into the matter could doubt that, for some years past, since the apprehension of a further modification of the Corn Laws had become strong, that there had been an indisposition among all persons to invest any great amount of capital in the permanent improvement of the land—that there was an indisposition to make bargains for land for any lengthened periods. As he thought that any great improvement in agriculture must be founded on the granting of leases, and of thus giving the necessary security to the tenant before he could be expected to effect improvements, so he felt that whatever tended to continue agitation, and consequent
344
insecurity, must be most injurious to the landed interests. But, further, by continuing this modified protection for two or three years, it seemed to him that a considerable increase would be made in the difficulties attending the transition. They all knew that the stock of corn in foreign countries was low at present; so low, that the demands of the market in this country, even under the existing law, had completely swept all the foreign ports from which corn could be shipped, and that, therefore, an immediate alteration of the law could be made with comparatively slight effects; but if the measure that had been announced in another place became law, and a modified scale of duties were continued for three years longer, to be followed at the end of that time by a free trade in corn, the necessary tendency of such a law would be to induce the foreign grower, instead of gradually feeding our markets, and bringing his competition with our farmers to bear gradually on prices, to check and dam up the current of importation from abroad for three years, and at the end of that time to let a great quantity of foreign corn into our markets, to the great detriment of all parties; for a sudden influx of that kind would be no less injurious to the consumer than to the producer. He firmly hoped that those among their Lordships who, like himself, were deeply interested in the prosperity of agriculture, would look well into this matter. It was, no doubt, for the purpose of conciliating their Lordships' support that this scheme had been proposed; but if he were right in believing that of all plans that could be adopted such a one must be the most detrimental to their interests, he trusted they would use their influence to prevent the passing of a measure which was really calculated to injure rather than to benefit the agriculturists. There was another point on which he was nearly ready to concur with his noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond). His noble Friend had spoken with something like ridicule and contempt of what was called compensation to the landed interest in the proposed measure. Now he did not think that, on reflection, their Lordships could view this compensation in any other light than that in which it had been represented by the noble Duke; for though he thought some of the relief proposed was perfectly just, quite irrespective of the Corn Laws, still to talk of a measure involving some half a million annually, spread over all the landed interests

345
of Great Britain and Ireland, as one of compensation for the injury they might receive (supposing they received such injury), was, he should say, to practise a gross delusion towards their Lordships. He believed that the only real compensation that could be made to them would be that contained in the promises that had been held out, but which, he was sorry to say, appeared from the printed papers not intended to be fulfilled. He meant that if the principle of free trade were adopted with respect to corn, so it should be with regard also to other matters. It seemed to him beyond all things just, that if they were to sell their corn, regulated by competition, they should have an opportunity of buying the things they required at prices also regulated by competition; that if they sold cheap corn, they had a right to buy cheap sugar, cheap tea, and cheap coffee. He would like to know on what principle of common justice and equity, the contrary practice was intended to be maintained; more especially with regard to the Colonies. If the English landowner was expected to meet competion, and to take his chance in the market with foreign nations—if he was expected to bear with the effects of free trade, he would wish to know on what ground the Colonial landowner should not bear competition also. The English landowner was taxed largely to maintain the military and naval forces necessary for the protection and safety of the Colonies. Nor was this all: large sums of money were voted annually for the maintenance of civil and religious establishments in many of the Colonies, and when they took these burdens off the Colonial landowner, was it, he asked, common justice and equity, that when the principle of free trade was extended to the British landowner, it should be withheld in regard to them? He trusted their Lordships would insist, when the proper time arrived, for the full extension of the principles of free trade; and if these principles were, as he thought they ought to be, extended to the landowner at home, he hoped and trusted their Lordships would insist on having them carried out with regard to others also. This course was the more advisable, because the remission of protecting duties on such articles as sugar and coffee would afford great relief to the consumer, and would at the same time ensure an increased revenue to the Treasury. In fact, the Treasury and the consumer would be benefited together, and thus Her Majesty's Government would be
346
enabled to afford more easily the remission of those protective duties to an extent, which, in the absence of such an addition to the revenues, must now he regarded as impossible without—what he would much regret to see—the imposition of new taxes. He thought the continuance of protection in the manner proposed, was calculated to throw discredit on the great principle on which this important measure was said to rest, when he found that it was not finally and resolutely carried out; and, above all, it created the greatest surprise in his mind to perceive that Her Majesty's Government should still think it worth their while to cripple and diminish the efficiency of this measure by adhering to the plan—which he thought had been now completely exploded—of making a distinction between the duty on sugar the produce of free labour and of slave labour. He thought this system had been completely exploded, and that those who had first brought it forward had long since got ashamed of advocating it. Considering how much of the language of wooing, which had been adopted when the possession of office was the object in view, had been since given up; considering how many of the pledges then given had been departed from, it seemed to him to be a highly unnecessary sort of squeamishness not to have gone a little farther, and to have abandoned the most groundless of all the doctrines that had then been brought forward. He had hoped that they were now to start entirely from fresh ground, and that the just and sound principles of free trade, now announced, would be carried into effect for the benefit of the whole nation. The remarks which had fallen from the noble Duke had induced him (Earl Grey) to trouble their Lordships with these observations, and he feared that he had, perhaps, gone further than he ought to have gone on this occasion; but considering how, generally, such matters were decided—that is, practically and virtually decided—before their Lordships had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion regularly upon them in that House, he thought there was some justification for Members of their Lordships' House venturing—perhaps a little irregularly—to state their views on important questions. This principle of free trade was one on which he had always felt most deeply, ever since the first Session that he had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament. When the question of the corn trade first came before

347
the House after that period, he was one of those who had voted in the small minority by which the principle of the sliding scale had been opposed. From that time to the present, whether in or out of office, his course had been the same. His belief had always been that the whole principle of protection, from first to last, was a mistake—that it was injurious to the protected interests as well as to the consumer—and that the sooner they adopted the principles of common sense—the principles upon which every great writer on political economy for the last fifty years had argued the question—the sooner they adopted these principles in their legislation, the better.
LORD ASHBURTONsaid, that as there were millions of persons who believed that their fortunes and existence were at stake on this question, it was not to be expected that they would be very nice in the expressions they made use of when discussing it. On what might be called the main question, that of free trade, which the noble Earl contended for, the Government of the Crown could never, in his apprehension, be able to carry on the business of the State. He admitted, that the principle of perfect free trade, for which the noble Lord argued on the present occasion, and of which he was aware the noble Earl had always been a consistent supporter, was, if it could be established, the principle of common sense. It was completely undeniable that the principle of free trade was in accordance with common sense; but the question which they had to consider was, how that principle could be established in a country having such complicated interests—placed in such an artificial position with regard to other countries of Europe, which were placed in positions equally artificial, and which had interests that were fighting against this country in every possible way—this country having, too, a debt of eight hundred millions upon its shoulders. How, he asked, was it possible that the principle of free trade, even admitting—which he did—that it was the principle of common sense, could be applied in such a case? He not only admitted that perfect free trade, if practicable, would be in accordance with common sense, but that it would be consistent with the best interests of all countries. The noble Lord advocated entire free trade; but how, he would to ask the noble Lord, would he be prepared go into a Committee of Ways and Means, to pay the interest of the national debt,
348
and to maintain the credit of the country, without meeting with all the difficulties and chances of a loss of revenue, which his principle would oblige him to risk. Take, for instance, the article tea, which the noble Earl had omitted from amongst those which he enumerated; and from which millions of revenue were derived: this was an article of consumption which the British farmer required, and which those with whom he had to compete obtained at one third the price he did. The noble Earl had referred to the difficulty which the British farmer would have in meeting the corn growers of other countries in the market on equal terms. It required no great study of political economy to state the simple fact which this question involved, that while the man on the shores of the Baltic, in the north of Germany, paid his workman 6d. a day, and the Britsh farmer paid his workman 2s. a day—it required, he repeated, no great skill in political economy to perceive that these two persons did not meet each other in the market on equal terms. Again, those countries were free from tithe, from the poor-rates, and other burdens imposed upon the British farmer, the general rule being that the poor-rate was taken from the municipalities of the different towns, while the country districts were usually left entirely free. All these were difficulties which, much as he admired the general principles of free trade laid down by the noble Earl, were, he thought, insuperable in the way of establishing them in this country, under the artificial circumstances in which the country was placed. In fact, they had no wise man amongst them, who had not over and over again told them the same truths. Mr. Huskisson had in all his speeches laid down the principle, that when they no longer wanted to raise fifty or sixty millions a year of taxation, then they might demand cheap bread even on the principles of the most perfect free traders. Other political economists, down to Mr. Ricardo, had all admitted that the British farmer required some compensation for the disabilities under which he laboured. They differed much as to the amount of such compensation; but all admitted that it was to some extent or other necessary. Another difficulty in the way of free trade in corn he would also allude to, with the conviction that others who understood the subject would carry out the point more fully. Other European countries, as France, Prussia, Holland, Spain, all derived their

349
supplies of corn in times of scarcity from the shores of the Baltic, or from the Black Sea; but principally from the former. Now, all these countries had scales of protective duties. They protected themselves against the importation of corn in years when it was not wanted; but in times of scarcity they all went for their supplies to the same shop or granary, namely, the Baltic. Now, what was the consequence? The seasons usually produced the same results over all the northern countries. The consequence was, that though while in times of scarcity they were all obliged to purchase corn at the same time, the effect in years when the crop, as in the case of last year, was pretty nearly sufficient to supply the wants of the country, would be most destructive to the British farmer. In such years, all the other countries to which he alluded shut their ports. The ports of Great Britain were the only ones open—they were, in fact, a sort of refuge for the destitute, for every thing grown in other countries in plentiful years—and that, too, not only for the corn intended for this market, but for the corn grown on the calculation of the possible wants of a large extent of Europe, in which the ports were kept closed. The markets of Great Britain would thus be paralysed, and the difficulties against which the British farmer would have to contend, would be materially advanced. The farmer would, in fact, have to go for week after week to market, without being able to effect a sale. Nothing but the very finest quality of grain would sell at all: and what, he asked, would be the consequences? The British farmers were not very rich, the greater portion of them being just able to pay their rents when called upon to do so, but no more. The fallacy, therefore, lay here, that they did not, and could not, establish free trade. So long as they had their debt, with all the rest of the world fencing and fighting with them, the Utopian scheme of which the noble Earl was the advocate, and of which they heard so much, was wholly impracticable. With regard to what had fallen from another noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) respecting the Anti-Corn-Law League, he would make but a single observation. He did not complain at all of the League subscribing money for the purpose of watching the registration, and of canvassing; but when he saw them opening in every town of the kingdom a regular shop for the purpose of furnishing what he could hardly call fictitious voters, but,
350
according to their advertisements, offering for a sum of 45 l. to give a vote in any county; and when a majority of two thousand on one side, in a particular county—Lancashire—had been by this means converted into a minority of one thousand, he would ask whether such a system ought to be allowed to continue, if the present constitution of the Empire was to be maintained?
LORD MONTEAGLEobserved, that the doctrine just propounded by his noble Friend they had often heard elsewhere, namely, that all customs duties were against the principle of free trade. Now, this opinion, which had been put prominently forward by his noble Friend, as well as by some extreme advocates of free trade, was carrying the argument in favour of free trade far beyond its legitimate principle. He protested against the assumption that the imposition of revenue duties was to be considered as obstructive to the system of free trade; and he was surprised that his noble Friend, with his extensive knowledge on the subject, and with his great experience, should have started such an objection; and he must say that it was a most unexpected and singular observation, coming from such a source. He was surprised to hear his noble Friend allude to the tea duty, and the tobacco duty, as being against the principles of free trade. These duties might, indeed, be too high to insure the largest return of revenue—they might have passed the maximum point of productiveness; but how it was possible to show that they were against free trade he could not understand. Until we could produce tea and tobacco in this country, the duties on these commodities had no more to do with protection or with the principles of free trade, than any subject of foreign policy which could be brought forward. It appeared to him that the course taken by his noble Friend was not the most legitimate mode of arguing the question. He would not refer to old doctrines; because he thought it was not very just, nor could it be very agreeable to argue the case on personal grounds; but he must say, in reference to the persons who had been lately attacked upon this subject—his noble Friend himself had often been attacked upon it—that he had known very few men indeed who had been perfectly consistent on the subject of the Corn Laws. But there was one peculiarity in these changes of opinion. They were

351
all in one direction—in favour, and not against, freedom of trade. With one exception—a very strong exception he admitted—and that was his noble Friend, all who changed their opinions were persons who had previously adopted the doctrine of protection and restriction of commerce, who had abandoned it by degrees. Even the Legislature of the country, in all its alterations of the Corn Laws, from the year 1815 up to the present time, had been departing steadily from the doctrine of protection, and gradually approximating to that of free trade. Let them compare the Bill of 1815, which his noble Friend so vigorously opposed, with the Act of 9th George IV., and again let them compare the 9th George IV., with the Act of 1842, and they would find that the cause had been steadily advancing, notwithstanding the national burdens, notwithstanding the progress of civilization, in the cause of free trade. His noble Friend considered freedom of commerce to be inconsistent with the interests of the country, and with its progress in wealth; but, without referring further to the opinions of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen, he might be permitted to direct their attention to a most important document. He referred to the celebrated petition of the merchants of London, presented to the other House by his noble Friend, at a time when the burdens of the country were greater than they are now, in which the doctrine of free trade was laid down in the most lucid, the most admirable, and, at the same time, most absolute manner. He could refer to that most important document, in which his noble Friend had entirely concurred, as a justification of his denial that taxation imposed on importation for the sole purpose of revenue was an obstacle to free trade. But supposing that these taxes were imposed only for revenue purposes, to be extended in maintenance of our establishments, and the payment of the interest of the debt, these could only be regarded as legitimate taxes, and however onerous they might be, they only furnished a stronger argument for leaving the industry of the country unfettered and unshackled—leaving every possible reward to the labours of the merchant, and to the powers of production of the farmers and manufacturers; and this he contended was best done by abandoning protection altogether. With reference to one part of the plan submitted by the Government to the other House, he concurred with his noble Friend (Lord Grey), that, viewing it as an agricultural
352
question, an adherence to the interval of three years of duty previous to the total abolition of the Corn Laws, would prove greatly prejudicial to the interests of those classes for whose benefit it was now proposed. But it was not for him to object, if those who were mainly concerned differed from him in opinion on that point: he would not reject the Bill on that account; for, taking the measure as a whole, he considered that it was the greatest step that had hitherto been taken in the improvement of the commercial legislation of the country. He should have preferred it if the measure had been brought immediately into full operation; but he trusted that the agricultural interest, when they came to consider the effect of the proposed limitation, with a free trade in corn in prospect, to be established after an interval of three years, would arrive at the conclusion that it would be better for their interests at once to bring the measure into full operation; and if it should appear that the parties most interested objected to the continuance of the interval of restricted trade, he trusted that the Government would consent to abandon it. He must protest, in passing, against the doctrine of his noble Friend, that tithes should be considered a burden upon land, for which the landed interest was entitled to protection. He could on this subject rely on the authority of Mr. Ricardo, who clearly showed that when tithes became a rent charge, they ought not to be considered as a peculiar burden on land, augmenting the cost of production. Tithes were only a different mode of apportioning the produce. They never had belonged to the landlord, and therefore neither the landlord nor the occupier of the land had any claim to protection in that respect. He could not conceive how tithes could be brought forward by his noble Friend as an argument against free trade.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that it should be remembered that the farmers were obliged to employ even more men than they really wanted. Before establishing free trade this state of things should be got rid of. If the Legislature was determined to make corn cheap, the farmers should be enabled to get their labour at the cheapest possible rate. He knew, that the lowering the wages of the labourers would be most repugnant to their feelings; but still the circumstances should be taken into consideration. With respect to the malt tax, he would ask, why not remove

353
it, and give the labouring classes cheap beer as well as cheap bread? Why, he would ask, was it proposed to reduce the duty on brandy, unless they sought to make a greater number of drunken people about the streets? Perhaps, however, the object was to do an injury to the smugglers. Now, he regarded a smuggler and a free trader in the same light. The smuggler was a brave man, and the free trader was a reckless man. He considered that the Government should have made a reduction in the malt tax. It appeared, however, that Government would not do this, because they feared that the Leaguers would say that it was a boon to the farmers, whereas it would be only a boon to the consumers of malt. He did not think that it was generally expedient to take up the time of the House on measures of this kind; but when he was called upon to present between four and five hundred petitions from farmers demanding protection to native industry, he trusted that the House would not prevent discussion, as he conceived that those persons had a right to be heard, instead of the petitions at once being placed in the blue bag. For his own part, he thought that it would be better to have free trade at once; but this was only his own individual opinion; but he knew that the great body of the farmers did not concur with him in this opinion. The farmers were in hopes, that if the interval continued, circumstances might arise which might produce a change of opinion; and that that system of protection which had always existed in this country would be continued. All that the farmers required was fair play, and that the Legislature should not lightly overturn a system which had existed for ages.

RAILWAY BUSINESS.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, that in rising for the purpose of proposing to their Lordships to appoint a Committee for the purpose of considering the mode of dealing with railway business in that House during the present Session, he should endeavour to lay before their Lordships, and to state, as briefly as he could, the facts and grounds upon which it appeared to him to be desirable to consider the mode of dealing with that class of Private Bill business connected with railways, that was likely to occupy so much of their attention. In former years, the amount of Railway Bills brought under
354
the consideration of the House, had been but inconsiderable. In the Session of 1845, however, it appeared from the Returns on the Table, that there were deposited with the Board of Trade 248 railway projects; but during the present year, up to the 30th of November last, there were deposited in like manner with the Board of Trade the plans and sections of 815, of which 606 were for railways in England, 126 for Scotland, and eighty-three for Ireland. Before the 31st of December, there was a very considerable reduction of that number; but upon that day there were deposited in the Private Bill Office, and now stood there, Bills for railways to the number of 687. He did not wish their Lordships to imagine that that number was likely to come under the consideration of the House. Some had already disappeared. Some projects had formed junctions with others; and from the extreme haste and inaccuracy with which many of those schemes had been prepared, no doubt a very great number more would disappear from that list, when they came before the Standing Orders' Committee, before coming under the consideration of Parliament; but, after making every allowance for all these contingencies, there could be no doubt whatever that the number of Railway Bills that would come under the consideration of Parliament in the present Session would infinitely exceed the number in any previous Session; and when their Lordships considered, even with the limited number of last Session, the very great labour that pressed upon the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and of the other House especially; and when they adverted further to the fact that this enormous mass of legislation was in addition to the ordinary Private Bill business that came before Parliament, he thought it would be almost impossible to find committees enough to take these numerous schemes into consideration; or, if they could find Members enough to constitute committees for the purpose, that those committees could give to them sufficient attention to be satisfactory either to themselves, or to the public. Upon that ground, therefore, if there were no other, some interference would be necessary; but there was a still graver difficulty than that, and that was the amount of capital proposed by those Bills to be employed in the formation of lines of railway. The capital, as shown by the official statements of the different

355
companies which it was supposed would be required by those 687 Bills, amounted to not less than 370,000,000 l. But he did not wish their Lordships to suppose that that amount of capital was likely to be called for; because, in addition to the number of Bills that would, no doubt, be relinquished, there were a vast number of competing schemes, one only of which could, of course, receive the sanction of Parliament. But after making every deduction from the estimated sum upon that account, and taking even the lowest sum he had heard mentioned by those who were most interested in making it appear as small as possible, it was supposed that the lowest amount of capital that would be called for, to carry into operation the schemes provided by the Bills which it was proposed to pass this Session, would be upwards of 100,000,000 l. of money. But they were not in a condition to calculate the total amount that would be demanded for railway purposes during the coming years, unless they considered the amount of their present obligations. In the last Session, there were sanctioned 118 Railway Bills, the capital of which was about 56,000,000 l., and in the previous year there were upwards of forty Railway Bills, involving capital to the amount of upwards of 14,000,000 l. In the last two years, therefore, there had been authorized to be laid out in railways very nearly 70,000,000 l. Their Lordships would recollect that the demand for that money was not gradual, so as to lighten the difficulty of meeting it. It appeared that the time employed in the completion of these railways, did not ordinarily exceed three years. The demand, then, for that 70,000,000 l. would fall within three years; and, after making a deduction for the expenditure already made for the Bills of 1844, their Lordships must calculate that during the years 1846, 1847, and 1848, there would be on an average a demand of 20,000,000 l. for each of these years, even as things stood at present. Therefore, taking the lowest estimate of the amount of capital, for the railways which would be brought under the consideration of Parliament in the present Session at 100,000,000 l., and adding it to the 70,000,000 l. already sanctioned, he thought it was impossible for any man to consider the possibility of Parliament going on to take into consideration that mass of Bills, involving so vast an amount of capital, without feeling the necessity of looking also to the effect of those schemes on the general interests of
356
the country. It seemed then to be necessary for Parliament now to consider whether the diversion of such a mass of capital into the one line of railway investment might not be at variance with the general good; whether it would not have an injurious effect upon trade generally; and whether some sort of limitation should not by some means be placed upon that extraordinary expenditure. He was not unnecessarily anticipating the inconvenience that would arise, for he was sure it must be perfectly notorious to all, that the inconvenience which he anticipated was even already beginning to be felt. It was perfectly well known, from the information which was coming from every part of the United Kingdom, or at all events from every part of Great Britain, that already the price of labour was enhanced to an extraordinary, and almost to an inconvenient degree. The price of materials was also enhanced; and if they were to have a further expenditure, it would have the effect of driving up still higher the price of labour and materials — an effect that must everywhere be felt to be most inconvenient. He would go farther than that, and say, he believed it was not for the interest of railway enterprise itself that unbounded sanction should be given to the demand of capital for it. He believed the effect of it would be to drive up prices in the manner he had described. Indeed, he had heard it said, that it was unnecessary for Parliament to interfere at all; because the price of labour would be so high as to prevent the full execution of all the plans. However, he thought their Lordships would not think it convenient that they should pass Bills for the incorporation of those companies, with vast capital, and armed with great powers—powers which, if the lines were not constructed, they would keep suspended over the heads of all those who were affected by them, whilst in the meantime they would deprive the public of the advantages which it was intended they should derive, and in consideration of which Parliament was induced to grant those great powers to them. On the other hand, there might be companies who would go on at all hazards till they should have expended all their money before they had by any means concluded their undertaking, and the consequence would be, that in both cases the railway people themselves would not be benefited, and the country would be left without the advantages intended by the Legislature

357
to be provided for them. On all these grounds—in consideration of the extreme difficulty felt in conducting the business; in consideration of the risk which he thought might be involved in the division of so great an additional capital on railways; and in consideration of the interests of parties engaged in railway undertakings themselves—it was wise to consider whether they could safely pursue the course they had heretofore followed in railway legislation; and whether they ought not to place some sort of limitation on that expenditure. It had been remarked the other evening by a noble Marquess, whom he expected to have then seen in his place (the Marquess of Clanricarde), that it was the duty of the Government to have come down with some specific plan to recommend to Parliament, and that it was unworthy of the Government to apply for the appointment of a Committee. The noble Marquess said, that it was unworthy of the Ministry to throw the responsibility from their own shoulders to those of Parliament. But it was not in the power of the Executive Government to determine what course should be adopted; nor did they shift the responsibility, for the responsibility must ultimately have rested with Parliament; and even if it had been in their power, seeing that there was already in existence a system which had worked well, and which had been approved of, and adopted by Parliament itself, it would have been unbecoming in the Government to come down with a demand for the adoption of some other plan, without giving the opportunity to Parliament to consider the system in existence, before adopting any amendments. He admitted that it was the duty of the Government to take these matters into consideration, and to arrange the mode in which Parliament could deal with them with the least possible delay; and to give their advice as to the course which should be pursued. That the Government had done, and on the very first day of the Session notice had been given in the other House of the appointment of a Committee; and a Select Committee had been then appointed to consider the existing state of Private Bill business. In the meantime, means would be afforded by the aid of maps, distinguishing the different lines of railroad already constructed, and those sanctioned by Parliament, and those now to be brought under their consideration, for knowing the districts still to be accommodated, and showing the enormity and complexity of the schemes that were
358
now to be submitted to Parliament. The schemes would also be classified as they were last year; and again it would be shown what were the particular objects of each scheme. It would have been fruitless and impossible in that or in the other House of Parliament for the Government to have laid before the House any general scheme, and to have invited discussion upon it, since the result would have been, that, after eliciting as many opinions as there were Members in the House, the scheme would have been referred to a Committee after all. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had moved for a Committee in the other House; that Committee had already entered upon its inquiries, and he now moved for a similar Committee in that House. If this Committee were granted, the Government would be prepared to lay before it all the information they had collected; and to state not only their views with respect to railroad legislation, but to suggest also the course which they thought it would be wise for Parliament, under existing circumstances, to adopt. If the views of the Committee should be in accordance with the opinions of the Government, the Report would be presented to the House, backed by the authority of those Members of the House who had most devoted their attention to the subject; but, upon the other hand, if the Committee did not approve of the views of the Government, such alterations might be proposed as should be considered to render the plan most effectual. There were other matters which might come under the consideration of that Committee; and he did not despair that some plan could be suggested, or some arrangement made, that would facilitate the transaction of railway business between the two Houses of Parliament, and not only conduce to the convenience of the Houses, but to the benefit of the parties interested. Under these circumstances, looking at the impossibility of working the system as it now stood, and looking at the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, he would move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Mode in which the House shall deal with the Railway Bills proposed to be submitted to the House during the present Session."
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire approval of the course which the noble Lord proposed to pursue. He thought this was the most convenient mode of dealing with a subject which, as every one must see, was very complicated in its details,

359
and very extensive in its relations. He agreed, too, in the expressions of the noble Lord with reference to the point on which the greatest alarm was entertained—the immense amount of capital which had been, and was about to be, invested in these undertakings. God forbid that he should appear to coincide in any such doctrine, as that Government should in any way interfere with the application of capital. That would be the wildest, maddest, of all possible visions; but if Parliament called on to give extraordinary, nay, even extravagant powers, in certain cases, it must not, if it thought right to adopt checks and precautions, be said to interfere with the voluntary use and employment of capital, but rather to employ a salutary restraint where those extraordinary powers appeared to involve the distraction of capital from natural, and its investment in artificial employments. He had never said, and never contemplated, that it was not right to make grants for railway purposes, provided they were made with a proper degree of care and circumspection; but when he was called upon to extend those grants to the extent spoken of by the noble Lord—from twenty millions even up to fifty-three millions of money for the next three years—it did appear to him that it behaved Parliament to pause and institute inquiry before it proceeded headlong in such a career. There was another part of the subject not broached by his noble Friend, on which he (Lord Brougham) hoped he would be heard by their Lordships; or, if he were a Member of the Committee, he hoped to be heard on the subject in Committee. He thought it to be of consequence to the character of Parliament that there should be a due and satisfactory performance of its functions in dealing with that mass of business, and that they should give such skilful experience and satisfactory attention to those Bills, as he (Lord Brougham) did not think, with all possible respect for both Houses of Parliament, could by possibility be given by them if the Private Bill business was to continue precisely on the same footing as it was. He (Lord Brougham) was as jealous of the just and due privileges of Parliament as any Member of their House could possibly be. God forbid those just privileges should ever be interfered with, or that any attempt should be made to transfer them to any other quarter; but he was persuaded that to vest in Parliamentary Committees — in the very
360
worst tribunals that mortal man's wit ever devised — the entire management of so enormous a proportion of the judicial business of the nation—for judicial business it was—to permit such a tribunal to sit in judgment on such a mass of property as was daily subject to the decision of Committees of that House—property exceeding, by a hundredfold, all the property under litigation in the Courts of Law, in the Courts of Equity, ay, and in the Courts of Quarter Sessions to boot—to vest in such a species of tribunal such powers, such authority, such responsibility, was, in his opinion, an arrangement so ill adapted to public exigencies, so little calculated to satisfy suitors, that he did hope that in that House an early opportunity would be afforded him of stating to their Lordships the result of his experience, in both Houses of Parliament, and also in his professional and judicial capacity, for the purpose, and with the view, of helping them to come to an arrangement more satisfactory, and more suited, not only to the people, who were their suitors, but, he would add, to their own dignity and authority.
LORD KINNAIRDwas glad to hear of the noble Lord's intention. He thought that by bringing the subject of Private Business under the consideration of the whole House, the noble Lord would be doing an essential service to the public. With regard to this Committee, he much wished that its deliberations could be extended to the subject of consolidating railways. He believed that, in several cases, one line was now working against another; and that this was a great cause of those irregularities which resulted in accidents more or less serious. In the course of his own travelling experience, he had often found that, where there was cause for complaint, the blame was shifted to the management of some other line; and that he got no redress, because each party insisted in laying the blame upon the other. With reference to another branch of the subject, he wished to take this opportunity of giving a notice: it was, that on Monday next he would move for a Return of the Fees paid and payable in the House on the introduction of Railway Bills, and of petitions connected with them. He understood that these fees were enormous; that whilst, for instance, the expense of opposing a Bill on the part of a petitioner was about 800 l., the fees were not less than 300 l. of the money. In a matter

361
where justice was involved, no man ought, in his opinion, to be put to such costs as these fees entailed.
LORD ASHBURTONsaid, it seemed to him that something might be provided with respect to the inconvenience mentioned by the noble Lord; but not by this Committee. He approved of the appointment of the Committee; but if many of these adventures were to be put off to a distant period, and if the money was to be locked up, and professional labour uselessly expended, it was of importance that an early decision should be come to on the subject; and he, therefore, hoped that the Committee would sit assiduously. Amongst other arrangements, it was highly desirable that the railway business should be brought under the consideration of that House at an earlier period of the Session. Under the present system the Bills often came up to that House at a late period of the Session, and then they incurred much odium for their not being passed. He perfectly agreed in all that had been stated by the noble Lord as to the necessity of putting some limitation on the calls for capital and labour in this country. They must recollect a little how some of these schemes were got up. A country attorney and an engineer were all the staff necessary to prepare a "great competing line;" and surely therefore it was necessary to put a check on a system so peculiarly liable to abuse. He felt, moreover, that such a limitation was not more necessary on monetary considerations than on considerations having reference to labour. It was, no doubt, for the public interest, that there should be abundance of employment, which involved, of course, high rates of wages; and he believed that at present there was that abundance of employment with its necessary accompaniment. But how long, let him ask, was this state of things to last? If substantial good was to accrue to the country, the employment must be spread over a series of successive years, and must not merely serve the purposes of securing a temporary advantage. They must beware how they scattered away their money all at once. They might take a warning on the point of what had occurred at former periods of temporary prosperity. Any one could recollect during the last war how prosperous all appeared, whilst 15,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l. were raised and spent each year, being laid out in the expenses of that war. They knew what was the prosperity then. The same system
362
showed itself now, only in a better way. Then large sums were wasted in subsidies to Austria, to Prussia, and to other Powers; whilst at present all was spent among our own people, and in most instances with a reasonable prospect of return. He only mentioned this, because the present extraordinary prosperity was said to arise from an approximation to free trade, and that this was to be seen in the demand for labour. Any one, however, who had seen what took place during the last war would see the history of that prosperity, great as it was, in every part; and he took the liberty of admonishing their Lordships that they should not be quite sure they could scatter away the revenue, and trust to the continuance of that prosperity. This subject was not immediately connected with the measure then before the House; but those who were connected with the Government would do well to consider the suggestions he had made. It was clear that by the appointment of a Committee the subject of railway legislation would be best brought forward.
The DUKE of MONTROSEexpressed an earnest hope that the course the Government intended to pursue would be made publicly known at an early day. In a few days hence the deposits were to be paid to the Accountant General. Unless this Committee was prepared to report before the payment of those deposits, they might be receiving them under very unsatisfactory circumstances. Suppose reports were made against certain lines the money for which had been deposited; why, the consequence would be that that money would be locked up, and that great inconvenience would ensue. He must admit that by reporting in a hurried manner it would be impossible in all cases to decide properly; but, on the other hand, it was very desirable that they should learn on what principle the Government proposed to act. It was said, in the other House, that a decision would be first arrived at, as to the railways most wanted by the country; but on what principle was the decision to be made? Some would say, that the districts most requiring lines of railway were those in which the population and manufactures were the greatest; whilst others would hold to the opinion that those districts should be first assisted which had no lines of railway in their neighbourhood. Although it was true, no doubt, that some lines had been got up, as the noble Lord who had spoken last had described, yet

363
there were other Bills which were bonâ fide—which were promoted and supported by the landowners of the districts through which they would pass, and which ought rather to be facilitated than impeded in their progress through Parliament. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would endeavour to secure an early report of the proceedings of this Committee.
EARL GREYwould give his vote in favour of the Resolution for the appointment of the Special Committee, but wished to have it distinctly understood, that in so doing he did not desire to be interpreted as giving his sanction to the principle which appeared to be advocated by many who were anxious for the formation of the Committee—the irrational, he would say rather unconstitutional, principle, that Parliament had a right to interfere in the speculations of private individuals, or to attempt to prescribe limits to the amount of capital which the British public might, in the exercise of their discretion, think fit to expend on any particular project or projects. The more arguments he heard in sustainment of that principle, the more strongly was he inclined to doubt that it had any consideration either of sound policy or common sense to recommend it. It appeared to him that what Parliament in the discharge of its legitimate duties was called upon to do was this—first, to inquire and ascertain whether the parties who had applied for Bills to enable them to construct railways, were really in possession of the capital which they professed to have at their command; secondly, whether that capital was sufficient for the proper carrying out of the project they had in contemplation; thirdly, whether that project was calculated to be beneficial to the public interests; and lastly (and this indeed was a consideration of such importance that it ought, perhaps, to take precedence of all others), whether it was an undertaking which interfered unjustly, unfairly, or unnecessarily with private property. To these considerations the House ought to limit its inquiries; and if satisfactory answers were returned to all these questions, he for his part very much doubted whether, with respect to railways, or any other description of enterprises, Parliament would be justified in exercising any interference, with a view to dissuade or prevent the people of this country from laying out their money in the manner most agreeable to themselves. It should be left to the parties who subscribed the capital, and to them exclusively,
364
to determine whether it was likely to prove advantageous to their interests, or the reverse, that they should withdraw their funds from other enterprises, and devote them to railways. This was a consideration for them, and for them alone; and Parliament, in his opinion, stepped beyond the province of its legitimate functions when it attempted to prescribe and define the exact amount of national capital which it was desirable should be withdrawn from other enterprises, to be expended upon railway projects. It was for the individuals who thought fit to embark in those enterprises to determine how far they were likely to prove profitable or otherwise. No doubt errors of judgment would occasionally be committed, but individuals were much more likely to form a just estimate of what would probably prove advantageous to them than that House could possibly be. They could better judge of matters affecting their own interest than that House could; and it should be borne in mind that what was for the interest of each individual, or of a vast proportion of individuals, was, in fact, for the interest of the public. If their Lordships should be of opinion that the rules and formularies which governed their House were not sufficiently stringent to prevent men who really had no capital at command from undertaking great public enterprises, and plunging the public in unavailing outlays, let them, with a view to the remedying of this evil, make their regulations and restrictions more severe—let them revise their Standing Orders, and take especial care not to give Parliamentary powers to those who were not in a condition to use them. But their Lordships would be entering upon an inquiry from which no beneficial results could possibly flow if they were to attempt, on a hasty and superficial examination (for such it must of necessity be) to determine which of the railway projects of this year should go forward, and which should be suspended. He thought it necessary to make these remarks, lest it should be supposed that in advocating the appointment of the Committee, he was recognising the justice of one of the principles which it appeared that Committee intended to proceed upon. Nothing could be more remote from his intention. One word now before he resumed his seat. He thought it was highly desirable that the Committee should take into its most serious consideration any measures that might be suggested with a view to those two objects—the lessening

365
of the expense of Parliamentary proceedings in railway matters, and the diminution of the labours which devolved upon Committees of the House in consequence of the great pressure of business of this description. A suggestion had been thrown out last year, which he regretted had not been acted upon, with respect to the advisability of there being a joint Committee of both Houses to decide upon matters of this kind. It had sometimes occurred in cases of competing railway companies that one House had decided in favour of one line, and the other House of another line, and the consequence was that both fell to the ground altogether, after a vast deal of expense had been incurred by the promoters of each. He suggested whether it might not be better to make some arrangement with a view to the formation of a joint Committee for both Houses.
LORD ASHBURTONobserved upon the difficulty of that House being able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion in the event of their instituting (as suggested by the noble Duke who had just sat down) an inquiry respecting the amount of bonâ fide capital in the possession of railway companies. How was the House to ascertain this? How was the capital of most of these railway schemes represented, except by an interminable list of high-sounding names, with certain figures written after each of them? In point of fact, it was with a long list of names, and not with real substantial capital, their Lordships had to deal.
LORD MONTEAGLEconfessed he thought that their Lordships were engaged in an impracticable effort. It mattered not what number of Committees they might appoint—it mattered not what improvements they might introduce into their system—they could not effect the object they had in view as long as Railway Bills were dealt with by the House of Commons as though they were money bills, which could only originate with that House. It was a mistake to suppose that such measures could only originate with the Commons. They might just as well originate with their Lordships. Some change was absolutely necessary. Even supposing that the railway business were not to exceed this Session what it had been last year—and they all knew that it would be incomparably heavier—they had not the least chance in the present state of things of being able to discharge their duties with justice to the parties concerned,
366
with satisfaction to the public at large, or with credit to themselves. The present system was a most vicious one, and he must say that, in his opinion, that House had not been treated as it should have been. Look at the period of the Session at which the railway bills were sent up to them last year from the other House. One hundred and eighteen railway bills were passed during the Session. During the months of February, March, April, and May, only eleven of those Bills came before their Lordships' House. Eighty-one were sent up from the Commons in the month of June, and twenty-five in the month of July—thus showing that the whole railway business of the country was thrown almost simultaneously upon the House of Lords at the period of their present difficulty and pressure. As long as railway bills were dealt with as though they were money bills, and that an impression prevailed that they must of necessity originate with the other House, so long their Lordships would be in a position of difficulty and perplexity, from which it would be impossible to extricate themselves. There was, at one time, an idea respecting Bills having reference to pecuniary penalties—an idea similar to that which now prevailed respecting railway bills, namely, that they were like money bills, and must originate with the Commons; but this notion had to be abandoned, and he hoped that it would be thus also with railway bills. With respect to the various projects now under the consideration of Parliament, it was of course impossible that they could all have precedence; but the peculiar position of Ireland just at present was such, that he was sure their Lordships would concur with him in thinking that it was only right that as much encouragement as was possible, under all circumstances, should be given to enterprises projected in that country. Most assuredly regard should be had to the present unhappy condition of Ireland.
LORD BROUGHAM: Oh, certainly. In coming to a decision give the cast of the balance that way, by all means.
LORD MONTEAGLEcontinued to observe that if the railway business were fairly divided between the two Houses of Parliament, reasonable progress could be given to the consideration of Irish measures, without at all interfering with the English business.
LORD REDESDALEthought that the question the House had to consider was one of possibility. There were no less than 600

367
new railway schemes to be decided upon, and he held it to be absolutely impossible that all these should be disposed of, under the present system, in the course of a single Session. The Committees last Session had acquitted themselves in a most creditable manner. Their decisions were upright and honest, and in no instance had the Members been biassed by feelings of private interest. However, the work was now so onerous as to be impossible of achievement.
Motion agreed to. Committee named. House adjourned.