Sitting of 19 April 1821

PETITION FROM LONDON AND WESTMINSTER RESPECTING FINING A DEFENDANT DURING HIS DEFENCE.
Mr. Hobhouserose, to present a Petition, to which he requested the attention of the House. It was upon the same subject as that which, some days ago, he had presented, with respect to the power of a judge to fine a defendant in the course of making his defence, and which be had been urged to withdraw, because it was deemed inadmissible, in consequence of an impression that there were some words in the petition which implied an irregular allusion to the speech of a right hon. member of that House. These words were therefore omitted in the petition which he held in his hand, and which was signed by a number of the respectable inhabitants of Westminster and London. This petition did not indeed contain any thing against which the most scrupulous person could make any objection. Upon the merits of the petition or the object which it had in view, he would not then trouble the House with any observation; but seeing the hon. member for Surrey in his place, he thought it right to take that opportunity of correcting the misrepresentation to which that hon. member had called his attention with regard to the remarks imputed to him as to the conduct of the chairman of the Surrey sessions. He had never said, as was alleged, that this magistrate had sanctioned, or had been in any degree concerned in, packing juries, but that he was under a mistake as to the extent of his power to impose a fine upon any person for contempt of court. The conception therefore of the chairman was quite erroneous. The hon.

457
member concluded with giving notice of his intention after the holidays, to make a substantive motion with respect to the power improperly assumed by the judges of fining for contempt.
The petition was then read, setting forth "that the petitioners have heard with deep regret that a petition to the House has been rejected without being brought up, and read; the petitioners will on this occasion say nothing of the right established at the Revolution in 1688, but the petitioners are the more aggrieved at such a determination on the part of the House, inasmuch as they have heard that the said petition prayed for the interference of the House on a subject of the highest importance, not only to the petitioners, but to the whole community; the petitioners beg leave to state, that without entering into the particular case of Thomas Davison they have always been taught to believe, and do believe, that summary fining a defendant during the course of his defence is not sanctioned by any principle of English law, or by any practice; they apprehend that such a power ought not to be lodged in the hands of any judge, it being inevitably liable to abuse, and tending to produce greater mischiefs than those of which it intends to prevent; the petitioners have always understood that even the meanest of the people had a right to apply to the House of Commons, for the purpose of causing to be corrected the errors into which even the highest public functionaries must occasionally fall; and they have also been informed, that, for the especial purpose of guarding the administration of justice from abuses, the House has at this time sitting a committee, to which in their judgment, the petition of the said Thomas Davison might have been wisely and safely referred; the petitioners would press upon the reflection of the House, that if the people of England should adopt the opinion that the House will hear no complaint against any person entrusted with the administration of justice, the House will then totally lose its importance in the eyes of the nation, and will be regarded rather as the encourager than the corrector of the worst abuses; the petitioners are satisfied that no decision of the court of King's Bench can sanction an act which is an innovation upon immemorial' usage, and although they are aware that a judicial appeal lies from that decision to the House of Lords, yet they also know that the House has
458
the means of checking any practice in any department of the executive government which may appear to infringe upon the rights of the subject; the petitioners therefore pray, that the House will be pleased to direct the committee for the administration of justice to institute an inquiry into the claim set up by the judges summarily to fine a defendant during the course of his defence, the said practice appearing to the petitioners to be wholly arbitrary, illegal, and unjust."
On the motion, that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Sumnersaid, he thought he could not better vindicate the conduct of the chairman of the quarter sessions, than by reading to the House the statement which that gentleman had drawn up, in consequence of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster, on a former night. Mr. Harrison admitted, that he told Mr. M'Creery, that if he pursued the line of observations which he was addressing to the Court, he would render himself unfit to serve on any jury, and that if he did not sit down, he would fine him. When Mr. M'Creery afterwards called upon him to explain these expressions, the chairman told him, that in his opinion, he did not possess that temper which was requisite for the proper discharge of a juryman's functions; upon which Mr. M'Creery rudely retorted, that Mr. Harrison stood precisely in the same situation. The hon. member panegyrised the conduct of the chairman, and observed that the county of Surrey was under great obligations to him for his services.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, he had never imputed to the chairman any thing but a mistake as to the extent of the power which he possessed. He begged to observe, however, that he knew Mr. M'Creery, and that his claim to respectability was fully as great as that of Mr. Harrison.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, that to assert that a court of civil or criminal jurisdiction could not fine persons for any contempt or breach of order, was a most extraordinary doctrine. He believed the power of courts to fine for contempt Was as indisputable as any point in the law of England; for how could they vindicate their authority, if they had not the power to fine? Undoubtedly there were ceases in which commitment was necessary, but surely the more lenient course was, to fine.
Mr. Serjeant Onslowsaid, that all courts of record, from the highest to the lowest, had the power both of fining and imprisoning for contempt, and he believed that was the first time the power was ever doubted.
Mr. Denmanadmitted, that courts of record had the power both of fining and imprisoning for contempt, but maintained that fining summarily might be the severest mode of punishment which could be resorted to. It might possibly happen, from the pecuniary circumstances of a defendant, that the infliction of a summary fine would have the effect of subjecting him to imprisonment for life.
Ordered to lie on the table.

COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE WITH IRELAND.
Sir H. Parnellrose to move for a select committee to inquire into the Commercial Intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland. He stated his object to be, 1st. That all goods subject to excise duties should be relieved from drawbacks and countervailing duties where the internal duties were equal; and where they were different, that the difference only should be drawn back, or paid. 2dly, That all foreign and colonial goods should be subject to the same regulations. 3dly, That the Union duties should be repealed on all articles not made in Ireland, and continued for a limited time only on those particular manufactures which actually existed in Ireland, and for which large capital and machinery were necessary. 4thly, That all the trade between both countries should be placed on the footing of the coasting trade as to Custom-house documents, port and other charges. 5thly, That the luggage of travellers should be exempt from search, except under particular circumstances of suspicion. And 6thly, That the currency of both countries should be assimilated. The hon. member said, that the policy of adopting several of these measures was so evident, that there was no necessity for making any detailed observations upon them; but on some of them there prevailed a difference of opinion, which required to be more fully discussed. As to the subject of the union duties, the question was, whether any circumstances existed to justify such a great departure from all sound principles of trade; did the interests of a few manufacturers justify she raising of the prices on all manufactured goods to the whole
460
mass of consumers? Were their interests really so much concerned in these duties as it was generally conceived they were? The act of last year continued the Union duties of ten per cent on twenty articles of industry when imported from Ireland into England, and from England into Ireland for twenty years to come. If those articles were divided into four classes, the first would contain various articles not made in Ireland, and therefore not requiring protection: these were earthenware, plated-ware, about twenty sorts of cotton manufacture, fifteen of woollen, and as many of silk and iron, not manufactured in Ireland. The second class would contain articles on which no great capital, and no machinery were employed; for instance, apparel, millinery, haberdashery, and sadlery. The third class would have articles on which the duties were positively injurious to the Irish manufacturer, namely, brass wrought, under, which was found all that English machinery, which was absolutely necessary in Ireland, and the materials of coaches, which could not be dispensed with by any good coach builder. The fourth class would contain those remaining articles which were commonly considered to require protection, namely goods of cotton, woollen, silk, glass. But there was one circumstance which made it at least appear questionable, whether any protection was really necessary for these manufactures; and that was the exportation of all these goods from Ireland to foreign countries, where they were sold with a profit, though in markets which were equally open to English manufactures. But the part of the subject which was unquestionably injurious to the Irish manufacture, was, the duty of 10 per cent on Irish goods, when imported into England. This limited the market to the market of Ireland, and absolutely prevented the possibility of any extended system of manufacture in Ireland. The whole consumption of cotton goods in Ireland, did not exceed in value 500,000 l.; and these could be supplied by one single establishment in a flourishing state of manufacture. This matter was usually overlooked; it was not known by many, that the duties were reciprocal. The policy of the Irish parliament which established this limitation of market, carried with it the prohibition of extended manufactures, when by name it professed to protect them. A greater error never was

461
committed by any legislature; and a greater misapprehension could not exist, than that which led the manufacturers of the present day to believe, that the continuance of the Union duties was of any advantage to them; on the contrary, they would fetter their efforts, deprive them of the only support of a permanent kind, namely, the only market which was worth their having. If linen, corn, butter, and provisions, were protected on a principle which would impose a duty on them of 10 per cent on their importation into England, could the production of them have ever attained to any thing like the amount which is annually imported into England? These Union duties were, therefore, wholy useless on a great many articles, because these articles were not made in Ireland; they were unnecessary on others, because they were articles not requiring capital and machinery; they were positively injurious in the cases of machinery and of the materials of coaches; and they were absolutely destructive as to cottons, silks and woollens, because they excluded them from the English market. In regard to the revenue derived from these duties, it now appeared that a great mistake had prevailed as to its amount; that in place of 400,000 l. a-year, the produce was 121,000 l., or about 95,000 l. nett revenue; and that nine articles did not pay altogether 4,000 l. For all these reasons, it was highly desirable that a minute investigation should take place without delay, into those duties, with a view of ascertaining the cases in which they might be wholly repealed, and those in which they ought to be continued for some time longer. On the subject of assimilating the currencies of England and Ireland, he admitted that a considerable difference of opinion prevailed; but he was convinced that there was no real difficulty in the way of this measure. The change would be entirely, nominal; the same quantity of money would be given and received, the same quantity of sold. No one would pay more than he now two things only were this object—the first was a new copper coinage of twelve pence to a shilling—the second a legislative provision, after the example of some old Scotch laws, which should-require every contract to be paid in the money of that period and date, in which it was made. The more this mat-
462
ter was investigated, the more simple and practicable it would be found to be it was an arrangement absolutely necessary for placing the commercial intercourse between both countries on a perfectly free system, and to get rid of all inconvenient restrictions; for so long as the Currencies were different, no one could tell from their fluctuations, the precise value of the dealing he was carrying on, and every thing was forced into the medium of bill brokers and exchange dealers, who by charges and delays, interrupted the natural course in which all traffic would of itself make its way.—As to another part of the general subject, namely, the searching of the baggage of travellers, this ought to be done away. No good reason could be given for such a meddling with individual comforts and feelings; the loss to the revenue could be nothing, if the search was limited to cases in which there was cause for suspicion. It ought to be remembered how many persons were compelled, against their own interests and inclination to cross the channel. An order of this House obliged twenty persons to come from Limerick, one hundred miles beyond Dublin, on a notice of a few hours, to attend as witnesses, and yet their progress was interrupted whenever a public officer appeared, in the most vexatious manner. The general scope and object of all that he had suggested to the House was, to place the commerce and general communication between England and Ireland precisely on the same footing as they now were carried on between any two places in England. Until this was completely brought about, a great defect would continue in the system; and, if it was brought about, the effect of it would be not only highly beneficial in a commercial point of view, but also inasmuch as by advancing the general wealth of Ireland, it would give her the means of paying a larger revenue out of the existing taxes—an object of no inconsiderable importance to the interests of England at the present time. In a political point of view, the effect of the carrying into execution of the arrangements he had recommended, would, at length, be, to do that which was intended by the act of Union namely to consolidate the interests of both countries, and to extend to Ireland the full advantages of the demand of England for her productions, and the extension of English capital to Ireland, in introducing a flourishing system of Irish manufactures.
Mr. Grenfellseconded the motion. He thought it most desirable that some arrangements of the nature proposed should be acceded to, more particularly that for assimilating the Irish currency to that of Great Britain, as it would have the effect of simplifying financial accounts. By means of it, they would get rid of all that machinery which made the exchange between the two countries so complex.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeragreed with the hon. baronet so far, as to think that it was highly desirable that the subjects which he had mentioned should come under the consideration of the House, but to undertake a plan of the kind proposed in the present session could only excite alarm in the minds of persons concerned in the trade between the two countries, without producing any practical result. It was necessary to hear the objections to be urged against the plan, as well as the arguments in its favour. The session was now so far advanced, that no practical result could be accomplished by a committee of parliament; but he so far coincided with the object of the motion, as to think, that upon due notice given to the parties concerned, they should prepare their several statements, and on the evidence submitted, the parliament should undertake the investigation. By such preparatory inquiries, it was likely that a considerable mass of evidence would be procured, and in the next session some practical result might be obtained. He would therefore move an amendment to that effect. As to the assimilation of the currency, it was one of great importance and delicacy, and could not be undertaken without great disadvantage, at the moment of approaching cash payments of the two banks. It would have the effect of agitating the public mind, and could not take away the necessity of exchange, as it depended on the course of payments and remittances. With respect to the Union duties, he believed there was great jealousy on the subject among the manufacturers of Ireland; it would be therefore far better to postpone the measure until both parties were prepared. He concluded by moving as an amendment, "That the House will, early in the next session, take into consideration the duties and regulations affecting the trade between Great Britain and Ireland."
Mr. Dawsonwas glad that the difference
464
was only as to the time of effecting the reformation. The mere operation of these duties in preventing the importation of cattle into Ireland was a serious evil, in preventing the improvement of the breed of cattle, which was a staple commodity of Ireland.
Mr. Philipsthought that the trade between England and Ireland ought to be as free and as open as that between Yorkshire and Lancashire; and that these obstructions ought to be abolished as soon as possible.
Mr. Gladstonethought the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance that early in the next session this subject would be amply discussed. The corn of Ireland was admitted into this country on liberal terms; and in the same way the consumer of English produce in Ireland should receive his supply of such articles without being excessively burdened by taxation.
Mr. Chichestersaid, it was of the utmost importance that the duties on fuel and machinery imported into Ireland should be removed without delay. He wished to know what were the intentions of the right hon. gentleman upon that subject. He was convinced that much of the distress in Ireland was caused by the operation of those duties.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the act passed last year provided for the gradual extinction of those duties, and that the subject might again be investigated by the committee.
General Hartwas of opinion, that the subject required immediate consideration. He should therefore vote for the original motion.
Mr. Hutchinsoncontended, that, after passing the act of last year, it would be unjust to make any alteration with regard to the protecting duties. Many persons had entered into engagements upon the ground that those duties were to be continued for the period provided by the act, and a departure from that regulation would be of the most serious consequence to them.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, he had no objection to let the matter take the course proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer. The amendment was then agreed to, and the House adjourned till the 30th.