Sitting of 5 March 1824

PROTESTANT CHURCH IN IRELAND—TITHE COMPOSITION.
Sir John Newportpresented a Petition from the parish of Devenish, in the county of Fermanagh, complaining that its parishioners had been long inconvenienced for the want of a Church. That parish comprehended one hundred and thirty heads of families, all Protestants, and yet was deprived of a place of worship. Formerly there had been a chapel of ease, but the ground on which it stood became the object of a Chancery suit, on which there was now an appeal depending. The rector under
730
these circumstances felt it much more convenient not to take any step towards a remedy, as he had no curate to pay. The petitioners, therefore, prayed that a grant might be made out of the First-Fruits Fund for the purpose of erecting a Church. He also held in his hand a number of petitions, all complaining of the same grievances, and seeking the same protection from the House. The petitions were from a number of parishes in the south of Ireland against the introduction of any compulsory clause in the Tithe-composition law. In some of these parishes, there was no church at all, in others the churches had been suffered to fall into decay and in many there neither was nor had been a resident rector. One of those parishes, in which there was no church, consisted of 13,000 statute acres, and it had been united to two others of larger extent. The petitioners declared, that they saw nothing of the rector, and knew of his existence, or of the church establishment itself, only by the demand of his tithe-procter for the tithe. They therefore petitioned the House against any compulsory enactment, by which a tithe average would be taken for above the present price of produce. In the parish of Ballylough, the rector, Dr. Woodward, demanded from his parishioners a sum of 2,000 l. a year, in lieu of compensation for his tithes. To this agreement the parishioners refused to accede and it had been stated to him (sir J. N.), from authority of the most respectable character, that the said rector had himself admitted, that in the year 1809, he had let his tithes to a Mr. Montgomery at 1600 l. per annum, and that the proctor lost 200 l. by the contract. That was in the year 1809, when all the articles of agricultural produce were much higher than at the present time. The petitioners therefore prayed the House, that they should not be exposed by any compulsion to such arrangements; for, bad and mischievous as was the payment of tithes in kind, it was still preferable to a system of averages so far above the value of present prices.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it was not to be expected that he should be prepared to meet every individual case that was offered by hon. members. He still, in reference to the observations of the right hon. baronet, felt himelf bound to say, that there was not in Ireland a more worthy, excellent, or scrupulous clergyman than Dr. Wood-

731
ward. All he (Mr. Goulburn) begged of the House at present was, that they would suspend their judgment on the statement which the right hon. baronet had made.
Mr. Dawsonbore his testimony also to the excellent character of Dr. Woodward. He was an English gentleman possessed of property in his own country; but he preferred for the purpose of doing good to reside on his living in Ireland.
Sir J. Newportsaid, he was not in the habit of indulging in statements without inquiring into the grounds upon which they were founded. His authority for stating to the House what he had felt it his duty to offer respecting Dr. Woodward, rested upon a communication that he had received from a peer of parliament, who was himself present at the meeting of the parishioners and who had authenticated every part of it. He should therefore have felt that he had derogated from the line of his duty, if he had hesitated to present petitions, or to enter upon the explanation he had done under such unquestionable authority.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SILK TRADE
Mr. Baringsaid, he had a petition to present on a subject of the utmost importance to the petitioners, and, as he conceived, to the whole country. It prayed the House not to consent to the proposition for taking off the prohibition on the importation of manufactured silks. The petition was signed by nearly all the most respectable individuals in London and the neighbourhood, concerned in the manufacture and trade of silk, without the admission of any of the labouring classes of the manufacturers. On the merits of the object of the petition, there was but one opinion throughout the trade; and, as he understood, the only objection made by a single individual was to some of the words used in the petition, and not in the remotest degree to the prayer, in which, on the contrary, all heartily concurred. But the question was one which affected not only a large part of the population of the metropolis, but also that of many country towns; and among the rest, the town which he had the honour to represent; in all of which, the proposition for taking off the prohibition on the importation of French silk was considered a serious grievance. Whether as the manufacturers or as the sellers of silk, they concurred in thinking that the removal of the prohibition, if persevered in, would be
732
ruinous to their interests. For himself, he had given the most attentive consideration to the subject; being earnestly desirous, if possible, to discover reasons in support of the contrary side of the question, and of the principles of free trade; but he was bound to say, that after all that consideration, and notwithstanding that earnest desire, he was of opinion, that the petitioners were in the right. What ought to be most especially attended to was this—that if we introduced so much of the principles of free trade as to allow foreign manufactures to be brought into this country, we must go the whole length of the free system, and get rid of all those laws which prevented the equalization of the terms on which labour could be procured in this and in foreign countries. As long as the laws by which that equalization was prevented existed, it was absurd to talk to those, or to other petitioners, under similar circumstances, of the advantages that would result from free trade. To the reduction of the duty on the importation of raw silk, the silk manufacturers had not only no objection, but were of opinion that such a measure would be attended with great advantage to them. Whether the right hon. gentleman would give them that part of his plan unconnected with the other part, he did not know; but he really did think that a portion of the surplus revenue of which the right hon. gentleman had spoken, could not be better employed. But, notwithstanding the relief to the silk trade which this boon would impart, they were unanimously agreed to reject it, if it must be coupled with the introduction of foreign wrought silks into the country. In the first place the petitioners were ready to show, and able to show, by a comparison of the state of the silk manufacture in this and in foreign countries, that 30 per cent was an insufficient duty on the importation of foreign silks, and that, as all travellers who had observed the condition of the manufacture in England and in France must be aware, it ought tube at least 50 per cent, to put the two trades on any thing like a footing in point of price. It might be plausibly argued, that if the silk manufacturer were not protected by a duty of 30 per cent, how was it possible that he could be protected by a prohibition, notoriously evaded? But in the first place, it was not merely the Custom-house on the coast which at present protected the silk manufacturer from the competition of foreign

733
silk manufacturers; but the power existing at home to seize foreign silk articles when they made their appearance. That was their real protection. Although some individuals, principally ladies, were in the practice of using French silks, it was a practice which was not carried to any great extent, and would not be so, as long as respectable and thinking persons knew that it was a violation of the laws of the country. In the next place, it must be recollected that this was a trade of fashion. In this respect it differed totally from other manufactures—from cotton, for instance. Some of the cotton manufactures might, to a certain degree, be articles of fashion; but silk manufactures were altogether so. Now, whatever might be the ultimately successful competition of our silk manufacturers with those of France, there could be no doubt for a time, such was the prevalent opinion in favour of French silks, that although in the course of years the prediction of the chancellor of the Exchequer, of the eventual triumph of our silk manufacturers, might be verified, shops would be opened in every street in London, for the sale of French silks, and that those shops would carry away all the custom. With the application of their chemical knowledge to dyeing, and with their other advantages, the French would have such a start in all the branches of their silk manufacture, that he was sure there would be no person by whom the French silks would not be exclusively used. It was not London alone that would be affected. Many country towns owed their present prosperity to the silk manufacture. Taunton, in particular, had changed from another manufacture to the silk manufacture. It was a manufacture which employed an immense number of persons. The manufacturers were at present extremely flourishing; and all they asked of his majesty's government and of parliament, was, to leave them alone. After all, the proposed regulation was devoid of all reciprocity on the part of France. If we were to sacrifice the silk manufacture, on the condition that our cottons and our iron were to be admitted into France, that might be some argument in favour of the proposition; but here there was no reciprocity at all. He did trust, therefore, that his majesty's ministers would abandon their intention. He should vote against the system of free trade in this instance, because the necessary preliminary laws
734
were not provided. If Coventry, or any other place in Great Britain were to compete with Lyons, all the statutes establishing regulations between workmen and their masters must be done away with, in the first instance. Besides, the price of food in this country was at least double the present price in France. Taunton, formerly, was one of the cheapest places for provisions in the kingdom; but they were much dearer now in consequence of the growth of manufactures there. At Lyons and in Switzerland, the price of labour was not only extremely low, but the manufacturers obtained the raw material upon much better terms; so that, if admitted into competition, they would infallibly destroy the English trade in silk goods. It seemed that the chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted his determination in this respect, without obtaining information from any quarter; for there was not a man in the trade who would not have told him, that the project would be ruinous. The measure had no sponsor—nobody to be answerable for it but the right hon. gentleman; and, if he had taken the trouble to inquire, he would have found every body against his scheme that knew any thing of the subject. The alarm that universally prevailed ought alone to induce the chancellor of the Exchequer to take advice before he persevered. Such a determination ought certainly not to have been adopted without the previous sanction of a committee. It was fit that the decision of the right hon. gentleman to persevere in or to abandon his undertaking, ought to be made with as little delay as possible; for thousands of workmen were now in a state of the most anxious suspense.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he did not rise to object to the bringing up of the petition; for no man was more disposed, on every act of the government, whether political or commercial, that the general sense of the country should be collected and stated to parliament. He begged the House to consider in what a situation all those were likely to be placed, if the reasoning of the hon. gentleman were adopted, who were desirous of introducing a practical illustration of a liberal system of commercial policy. It should be recollected, that this liberal system had been pressed upon ministers by the whole House, and by no individual with more effect and authority than by the same hon. member who had

735
that night displayed so much ingenuity and acuteness in arguing against it. If the proposition of the hon. gentleman were agreed to, it would be vain to endeavour to adopt a more liberal system, either with respect to silk, or to any other branch of commerce. The hon. gentleman had said, that though it was very proper to apply these general principles, yet that great injustice would be done, if they were carried into effect, to the detriment of any particular trade, or if any particular trade were left untouched, and under the old regime. He had illustrated this point by a reference to the corn-laws; requiring that ministers should undertake to re-model them, as if they had not already enough upon their hands. He had next endeavoured to show, that the silk trade ought to be excepted from the general rule, even if the general rule were established. Why the grower of corn, or the stapler of wool were to suffer, and the manufacturer of silk were to be especially privileged, the hon. gentleman had failed to show. If there were peculiarities in his situation, they ought most assuredly to be duly considered: but, even if a case were made out, showing that this specific article ought not to be included in the general principle for which the hon. member had so often and so ably contended, still it would remain to be proved that the general principle ought to be abandoned. He denied equally that any case had been made out in favour of the silk trade, because perfect freedom did not exist with respect to corn. Even as to corn, he believed, that, among speculative men, there was a concurrence in the general principle. The hon. gentleman, however, was unwilling that any change should be made, until the whole system could be altered at once. If he waited until then, he might preach to eternity, on the excellence of his general principles, with a perfect certainty that they never would be carried into execution. Although, therefore, he did not oppose the reception of the petition, he must strenuously resist the adoption of the arguments on which it had been supported.
Mr. Denmansaid, he was happy to listen to the opinions which now seemed to be the fashion on the other side of the House. It was certainly true, that parliament ought not to wait until all inconvenient regulations were removed;
736
but the question was, with regard to what branch of trade they could be removed with the least inconvenience? With respect to silk, it was quite clear, that the plan could not be carried into effect without a great deal of alarm and distress; and, if the trade could show a number of other taxes which might be remitted more beneficially to the people, it was due to Nottingham, Coventry, Taunton, and Macclesfield, that their interests should at least be considered. The chancellor of the Exchequer had not originally proposed the repeal of certain law taxes, which would operate a great relief; and what objection could any man urge to removing the imposts upon probates and legacies, upon the conveyance of lands, and indeed, all ad valorem duties of the same kind. He had no doubt that the ultimate result of this new scheme of policy would be not only innoxious but beneficial; but a conviction of the inconveniences and hardships attending the change, as applied to silk, would induce him to vote against it. Why was not the window tax repealed? Had any man, except the members of the government, the slightest affection for this impost? The question simply was, what duties could be removed with the greatest advantage, and with the least inconvenience; and, of all trades, that in silk was the last that ought to be tampered with. He, therefore, should support the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he had expected that the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, was rising to advert to a part of the speech of the hon. member for Taunton, not touched upon by the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, namely, prohibitions. He was surprised, after what the hon. gentleman had advanced upon previous occasions, to hear him defend that system. Those prohibitions gave powers to Custom-house officers which had not unfrequently been termed unconstitutional. They might search the person, or the dwelling, and resort to other modes of detection and examination, very irksome to the character of Englishmen. The hon. gentleman had applied himself altogether to the great benefit of continuing the tax, which formed no part of the plan of the chancellor of the Exchequer: he was for preserving the absolute prohibition, with all the consequences of clandestine introduction. When the hon. member for Taunton

737
stated labour to be higher in this country than abroad, he seemed to forget, that if it were dearer as applied to one branch of manufacture, it was dearer with respect to all: in this particular, silk was not peculiar, and it was strange, that a mind so acute and enlightened, should have discovered that night, for the first time (probably in consequence of some intelligence from Taunton), that the price of labour in this country, was dearer than on the continent, in the manufacture of silk alone. The cotton and woollen trades, and, indeed, all branches, laboured under the same disadvantage; yet they were able to compete with foreigners. On the authority of a French writer, speaking from official documents, he would assert that, at this moment, and subject to these restrictions and to heavy duties, the export of silk manufactured goods from Great Britain to foreign markets exceed-ed the whole export of France. Was it to be supposed, then, that with a protecting duty of 30 per cent, the British silk manufacturer could not maintain his ground? The hon. gentleman had also expressed his astonishment that the subject had been brought forward by the chancellor of the Exchequer, without consulting the patties interested, and without information before a committee. He (Mr. H.) should have thought that government had neglected its duty, if it had not, with regard to the silk trade, attended in some degree to the repeated admonitions of the other side of the House; and recollecting the inquiries that had taken place in the other House of Parliament before committees, the present could not be fairly called an attempt to legislate without due information. He protested against the assumption, that either the House or the trade had been taken by surprise. The trade, indeed, had been the first to suggest the removal of restrictions; and he believed they would be nearly the first to rejoice at their removal.
Mr. Davenportcontended, that the proposed plan would prove a damper, if not an extinguisher to the silk trade.
Mr. Ellice,although he approved of a liberal system of policy in matters of trade, was unwilling to commence the alteration with that branch of industry, which was exposed to the greatest chance of successful competition. The silk manufacture was not a native, but an exotic in this country; and in it we were still
738
inferior to other rival nations. In the cotton trade, always considered analogous, the machinery was of our own invention* and from the first we had been able to defeat all competition. He claimed, be fore the present laws should be removed, that the silk manufacturer should be put in a situation to rival the foreigner. And here it was impossible not to advert to the state of our corn laws. How was it possible to rival the principal and favourite manufacture of France, while the price of bread in England was twice as high as in any other market of the civilized world? This dearness, too, was produced by the very system of restriction, which ministers would find it difficult to remove. The load of taxation was the great bar to our entering fully into this question. While every article of the poor man's comfort was burthened with duties, it would be impossible to enter successfully into competition with foreign nations. If he were asked the cause of the flourishing state of our manufactures during the last year, he should answer, that it arose from the cheapness of provisions; and, as corn was rising, he should be much mistaken if we were not on the eve of a change. He feared that this country was approaching to the state of Holland at the time from which she dated the decline of her commercial greatness. The interest of money was then only two per cent, while taxes press ed so heavily, that every species of productive labour was banished from the re public. Those taxes in this kingdom must be reduced in the first instance, or all other exertions would be fruitless. That was the end at which ministers must begin. When bread was as cheap, and taxes as low as they were on the continent, then, and then only, would Great Britain be able to compete with her neighbours. It was necessary for ministers speedily to decide, whether they would persevere in the course they had commenced, or abandon it at once. It was unfair to expect the chancellor of the Exchequer to give an answer that night; but, if it were possible to afford the loss to the revenue, it was still a question, whether most important interests were not endangered by re moving on a sudden these restrictive prohibitions. It seemed useless to talk of imposing a duty of 30 per cent, when every body knew that silks could be imported by smugglers at 10 or 15 per cent. The mere labour formed five-sixths of the

739
Value of the article in this country, while abroad, it was comparatively trifling. The best mode of beginning the repeal of this objectionable system was by re-considering the corn laws; and, erelong, ministers would be driven to that, however they might now endeavour to avoid it. He would only further state, that at the present moment, whilst the masters complained, that from the price of labour they were unable to compete with foreigners, the labourers themselves complained, that their wages would scarcely furnish them with the means of subsistence—six shillings a week being the sum now paid.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last had used two arguments, both of which he should like to submit to him calmly, and not in his capacity of member for Coventry. The first was this—"I admit the force of your reasoning in favour of a liberal system of commercial policy. But I ask you to look for some other prohibition that may safely be removed." Let the hon. gentleman point out any other branch of manufacture in which any such prohibition existed. In fact, there was none; and the hon. gentleman assumed the general policy to be prohibition, whereas, silk alone was the exception. Did not this afford one strong reason for repealing it? On steel, cotton, wool, and all the other great articles of manufacture, there was no prohibition, and yet in these it had been found that we were able to defy all competition. The second argument of the hon. gentleman was even more extraordinary, and led to a directly opposite inference to that which he had drawn from it. He had said that, in the silk manufacture, Great Britain was inferior to France, in point of taste and machinery. Now, did not this fact lead to the suspicion, that, on account of these prohibitions, the same improvements had not been made in this manufacture that had been made in all others? Let those prohibitions be removed, and our taste and our machinery would speedily improve. As to silk not being a native manufacture in this country, the hon. gentleman must indeed have been driven to an extremity for an argument, or he would not have resorted to that. It was quite as much a native manufacture of this country as cotton or linen, and had flourished in this soil for forty" or fifty years. If, indeed, the
740
hon. gentleman meant to distinguish it from the woollen trade, perhaps the distinction might in some points be fair. The hon. member for Taunton had asked, who was to be considered the sponsor of this plan? No individual, certainly, but those general principles which the hon. gentleman had himself invariably advocated. They were the sponsors, and were a higher authority than any advice from parties interested in the silk manufacture. After declaiming so often and so long in favour of the principles of free trade, let the House consider in what a light it would stand before Europe, if it did not attempt, instead of aiming at temporary popularity, to establish sound principles of commercial policy? How would those principles be prejudiced if, knowing them to be irrefragable, parliament, not having the courage to encounter difficulties, were to yield to the fears of the timid, or the representations of the interested?
Mr. Ellicedenied, that he had said any thing about the superior taste, and machinery of France.
Mr. Peelregretted that he had misunderstood the hon. gentleman, but he had certainly supposed him to have urged that point.
Mr. Philipswas of opinion, that the protecting duty of 30 per cent would be amply sufficient. Great changes must produce temporary inconveniences, and on this account the progress should be rendered as gradual as possible. He felt satisfied that the measures recently adopted by government would effect a great improvement in the commerce and manufactures of this country. It was evident that popularity was not their object; for the measures which they had selected were not popular. They were entitled to the thanks of the House and of the people: for they had evidently been influenced by a sincere desire to promote the prosperity of the country.
Sir J. Newportagreed with the hon. member, that ministers were entitled to the approbation of the House and the country for the measures which they had recently adopted. He believed they could not confer a greater benefit on the country, than by steadily persevering in that course. When an erroneous system had continued for a number of years, and formed a part of the general policy of the country, the difficulties of legislating with a view to the removal of the evils pro-

741
duced by such a system were greatly enhanced. It would therefore be the duty of the House to assist ministers in the great work of improvement, by giving them their cordial support.
Captain Maberlydeprecated the clamour which had been raised against the endeavours of his majesty's government to introduce a sounder system of commercial policy, by the very parties whose interests those measures were essentially calculated to promote. It had been contended, that these measures ought not to be attempted, unless such an alteration was made in the corn laws as would lower the price of bread in the same proportion with other commodities. Now, there was no one principle in political economy which had been more frequently and ably inculcated by the late Mr. Ricardo, than that the high price of corn had no effect whatever on the price of other commodities.
Mr. T. Wilsonfelt himself called upon, as one of the representatives of the city of London, while he was ready to give his tribute of praise to the king's ministers, for the manly and candid manner in which they had brought forward their measures, to express his doubts as to their propriety or expediency, under the existing circumstances of the country. The Opinion he had formerly expressed respecting the wool duties remained unchanged, and applied with equal force to those on silk. Until, by an alteration in the corn laws, the people of this country should be enabled to eat their bread as cheap as the people of foreign countries, the repeal of the duties on silk would fail of the end it was intended to accomplish. He was convinced of the inexpediency of the measure at the present moment; but he had one consolation, namely, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his readiness to enter into a full discussion of the subject.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that his constituents were unanimously opposed to the measure contemplated by his majesty's ministers, and if they persisted in pressing it, he should certainly feel it his duty to vote against it.
Mr. Humesaid, there was one point of view in which this question had not been considered by any member who had yet addressed the House. He should be glad to know, who were the parties aggrieved by this measure? Who were the petitioners? The working men, or their masters, or both? Let the House con-
742
sider what was the measure about to be adopted by his majesty's ministers. The evidence before the committee of the House of Lords had distinctly proved the fact, that if we could get the raw material of silk as cheap as we obtained it of cotton, there was no reason why our silk trade should not be as flourishing as our cotton trade. The immediate effect of the measure proposed by his majesty's ministers, of taking off the duty of 25 per cent on the raw material, would be to produce a great increase of the raw material into this country, and to give a great additional stimulus to the silk manufacture in England. The petitioners laboured under the most mistaken views of their real interests. The reduction of 25 per cent on the raw material would greatly increase the consumption of the manufacture; and he was persuaded, that, in six months from the passing of this measure, the value of the labour of every silk weaver in the kingdom would be increased 25 per cent. What were the petitioners afraid of? Did they fear being shut out from the home market? Why, the silk manufacture of this country was almost able to compete with the foreigner even at present. He himself knew that many articles manufactured in this country were carried down to the coast, and sold to those who were supposed to be the best judges of the commodity as French manufacture. If this were the case, the silk manufacturer would surely be able to compete with the foreigner, when he could afford to sell the article cheaper than at present by 25 per cent. He was satisfied that the opposition of the petitioners arose entirely from ignorance, and he trusted his majesty's ministers would persevere in a measure, which the very individuals who now opposed it would in a short time thank the government for having introduced, even against their present wishes.
Sir J. Wrottesleythought that theorists were apt to maintain too dogmatically the infallibility of their particular opinions. It was but fair, in his opinion, to give the petitioners credit for a little common sense, and for the capacity of understanding their own interests better than other people. What was the particular case of the silk manufacturers? A fortnight ago they stated that they were in a most flourishing condition; that their trade was never better; and that their workmen were all employed* contented and happy. What did they tell the House

743
now? In the course of a few days, a number of manufacturers had given notice to their workmen; and it was expected that, in a short time, the whole population engaged in the silk trade, would be out of employment. No answer had been given to this statement on the other side of the House. Now, he wished distinctly to ask his majesty's ministers, how long this state of confusion was to last? Vast numbers of workmen depended for their bread entirely on the employment they obtained in this manufacture, and it was absolutely necessary that some distinct answer should be given, whether his majesty's government intended to persevere in this measure? In his opinion, it would be much for the benefit of the country, if his majesty's ministers were to give up this measure; and if they gave up that, he hoped they would also abandon all the others. He was aware it was a great deal to ask; but it was not too much, when it was considered that all the parties interested in these new commercial regulations Were dissatisfied with them. He strongly recommended the right hon. gentleman, instead of persisting in these measures, to gratify the country, by the repeal of the window tax, which he might effect by retaining the duties on coals, and by abandoning that part of his plan which appropriated 800,000 l. to the decoration of Windsor Castle, and the building of new churches.
Mr. J. Smithcould not conceive how the silk manufacturer could possibly be injured by a measure which would enable him to procure the raw material a great deal cheaper. An additional tax on the raw material had often been the subject of complaint, but it was quite novel to find the manufacturer coming forward to say to the legislature, you will ruin us by remitting the tax on the raw material. The effect of the measure would undoubtedly be to increase consumption, and give additional employment to the artizans engaged in this manufacture. He thanked his majesty's ministers for the liberality with which they had brought forward these measures, and for the spirit and energy they had displayed in supporting them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid:—The proposition which I had the honour to submit to the House, has been so ably supported by my right hon. friends, and has also received such powerful and disinterested support from so many hon.
744
gentlemen opposite, that it would be a waste of time, if I were to attempt to weaken their arguments by any observations of my own, even if my strength would allow me at the present moment to go through any protracted discussion. My only reason for rising is, that I may answer the questions which have been put by the hon. member for Coventry, and by the hon. baronet opposite, as to the course which it is my intention to pursue. I am as sensible as the hon. baronet can be of the extreme inconvenience which would necessarily arise in matters of this kind, from protracted delay, or from any uncertainty as to the views upon which the government intends to act. Undoubtedly, if I had acted solely on my own impressions, and on my own conviction of the expediency of this measure, I should have been ready to proceed to a distinct statement of its details at an earlier period, but I have deferred that statement, because I had reason to believe that the parties interested in this measure wished to have some previous conversation with me on the subject. I have been engaged during the greater part of this day in receiving such communications, and I understand that there are still some persons who wish to communicate with me before any definitive steps are taken. It is my intention, on Monday next, in the committee on the Customs acts, distinctly to explain to the House the full extent of the measure which I shall propose, in conformity with the principles which I have already stated to the House.
Mr. Alderman Bridgesexpressed his conviction, that 50 per cent on many articles would not sufficiently protect the English against the French manufacturer. No less than 600,000 persons were engaged in the silk trade, and he was quite sure that his majesty's ministers would not adopt a measure which was calculated to involve so large a body in misery and distress.
Mr. Curteisspoke against the repeal of the duties on silk, and said he could tell the right hon. gentleman of away by which he could set himself right with the country. If he would only say a word to them about the repeal of the tax on leather, malt, and hops, he would receive a much more gratifying approval from the people at large, than all the plaudits of his own bench or of that side of the House could afford him.
Mr. Mundysaid, that the proposal of

745
the right hon. gentleman had created alarm in the counties of Chester and Stafford, as well as in that of Derby.
Mr. Haldimandtrusted that his majesty's ministers would persevere in a measure, of the beneficial effects of which there could not be the slightest doubt. Nothing could be more certain than that every protection and bounty was detrimental to trade. If a trade could not support itself without that artificial support which was erroneously called protection, it was not, in point of fact, worth carrying on at all. His chief object in rising was to observe, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would not fully discharge the duty which he owed to the silk manufacture of the country, if he did not also consent to the repeal of the measures commonly called the Spitalfields acts. It was quite impossible that the benefits of free trade could be produced, unless the principle of free labour were also established. The effect of these acts was, to make some articles 100 per cent, dearer in London than in other parts of the country. It often happened, upon the spur of the moment, that it was better worth while even to pay that additional charge than to send to Coventry; but he asked whether, as applied to foreign trade, it was possible under such restrictions, that the manufacturer could compete with other markets? There was another topic which he would take that opportunity of mentioning. We Were told we had a free silk trade with India. This he denied. It could not be called a free trade, so long as the East India Company could limit the number of individuals who were permitted to go out to India. [hear, hear] An instance of the injustice of this practice had lately fallen within his own knowledge. A person was educated in a silk warehouse in this country, for the purpose of going afterwards to India to engage in that trade. It was well known that the number of persons acquainted with the value and nature of silk in India was extremely limited, and that coarse and fine descriptions of that article were sold at the same price. An application was made to the East India Company to allow the person he had alluded to, to be sent out to a private house in India, carrying on trade there, and the application had been refused. He did not complain of this, because their act justified the Company in their refusal; but it proved that they did
746
exercise such a control. An application, might indeed have been made to the Board of Control, but he was told that if he presented a petition to that board, there was not the least chance of its being listened to. This limitation of the number of persons who were permitted to go out to India, was utterly inconsistent with the principles of free trade. Before he sat down, he would take the liberty of asking the right hon. gentleman opposite, why he proposed to raise a duty of 3d. on Bengal raw silk, and 6d. on Italian raw silk? He did not see why Italian silk should not be placed on the same footing as that of our own colonies or dependencies. This part of the proposed measure was inconsistent with the principle of the bill, and he trusted the right hon. gentleman would not suffer it to remain in the first act of parliament founded on the principles of free trade.
Mr. Portmanobserved, that no county in the kingdom was more disappointed, and dissatisfied with the financial statement of the right hon. gentleman opposite, than the county which he had the honour to represent. He should feel it his duty to oppose the measure proposed by the right hon. gentleman, not because he objected to the liberal policy on which it was founded, which every man must applaud, but because he did not conceive this to be the proper time for carrying that policy into effect. If he thought that his present opposition would throw-any serious obstacle in the way of the ultimate success of the commercial policy, adopted by the government, he should be inclined to vote for the measure; but feeling, as he did, that it might be carried, with greater benefit to the country, at a more convenient season, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had given an attentive examination to every case in which an appeal had been made to the Board of Control from the refusal of the Court of Directors to allow an individual to proceed to India, and he had not the least recollection of any such case as that mentioned by the hon. member There had been many cases in which the Board of Control had given permission after the Court of Directors had refused it. He thought it very unlikely, from what he had seen of the conduct of the Court of Directors, that if any person shewed a probability of his having full employment in India in trade or commerce, that the directors would

747
refuse him permission to go out, and he was quite sure that in no such case had any refusal been confirmed by the Board of Control.
Mr. Haldimand,in explanation, said, that the application was made to the directors for leave to the gentleman in question to go out as a clerk to the house of Palmer and Sons, one of the first houses in Calcutta, and he might say in the world. The application was made generally for permission to go out as a clerk to Palmer and Sons, and leave was refused, on the ground that there were a sufficient number of young men unemployed in Calcutta. He did not apply indeed to the Board of Control, as he was advised that such an application would not to be attended to, as many applications of exactly the same kind had been refused.
Mr. Wynnsaid, it appeared that the individual had applied to go out simply as a clerk, and in refusing him permission the Court of Directors had acted with perfect propriety, and the Board of Control would have confirmed their refusal. It was certainly unjust, while the natives and half castes were excluded by law from all offices under the Company, that an influx of Europeans should also exclude (hem from the clerkships which they might fill. He spoke of the system as it stood; and during the term of the Company's charter it could not be altered: person who went out a clerk, might, the day after his arrival, be thrown out of employment and become a mere adventurer.
Sir T. Lethbridgehoped, that after what had passed that night, the chancellor of the Exchequer, when the question concerning the change in the silk and woollen trade was again brought forward, would come to the House with an altered tone, it had been said that night, that no trade was worth supporting that would not support itself. He should wish to know what our great staple manufactures would have done, if they had been left to support themselves? The woollen, the cotton, and the other great staple the silk, which was now doing very well, and which would continue to do well, so long as it was protected from that free trade on which the ministers and the House were running wild. He said "running wild" because he was convinced that its principles never could be carried into operation. Neither corn, nor wool, nor cotton, nor
748
silk, would bear a free trade. The activity of the country had grown up under a different system. He would ask the hon. member for Taunton whether he could carry on his great financial operations under a system of free trade; or whether, when he went to his counting-house, or his banks, or when he reflected in his own library, he found a free trade attended with any thing other than great inconvenience? Though the memory of the late member for Portarlington would be long cherished, and most sincerely by those who knew him best, he was convinced, that the doctrines which Mr. Ricardo had advocated with so insinuating an eloquence, were doing much mischief, by leading the House from the practical views of commercial questions. In the writings of that gentleman, there were to be found contradictions on contradictions; and, however charming his theories were to political economists, they were diametrically opposed to practical results. An attempt was now made to put in practice those principles, and what did they hear from the hon. member who represented the silk interest—"I have no objection to your taking off the tax on the raw material, but if you meddle with the prohibition we are ruined." He had had occasion to speak in nearly the same manner on the corn trade. The advocates of free trade never adverted to the enormous debt and the great burthen of taxation in this country. There was the whole of the expense of the poor, of the roads, of the administration of justice and the church, which fell on the growers of corn. The late Mr. Ricardo had said, that he would allow them a protecting duty for this; but the difference was, what the duty should be. Mr. Ricardo had talked of 12 s. per quarter; he (sir T. L.) had wished for 33 s. per quarter. The chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed to give the silk trade a protection to the amount of 30 per cent, but the hon. members connected with the trade said that 40 or 50 per cent was not enough. His opinion was decidedly against the alteration of the laws respecting silk, and against the repeal of the duty on wool imported at any rate, unless the exportation of wool were allowed. He should be very willing to see the corn laws revised; for he thought the prices now likely to rise too high. It would be bad for all parties that they should rise higher

749
than they were at that moment. "Live and let live" was the principle he wished to see carried into effect. He thought the chancellor of the Exchequer would have acted more wisely, if he had gone on this year, to repeal some of the assessed taxes. Indeed, the whole might have been got rid of. He would then have avoided these petitions from the manufacturers.
Mr. Evanssaid, that large bodies of men might misunderstand their own interests. Of which they had had a striking example, in the representations against the repeal of the Union duties on goods carried from England to Ireland, or vice versè. As to the repeal of the taxes which impeded commerce, he thought the result would be more beneficial to the country than the remission of an equal quantity of direct taxes; for if it gave a new activity to manufactures and commerce, a corresponding demand would be created for agricultural productions, and the whole community would be benefitted.
Mr. Baringbegged to say a few words in reply to some of the observations that had been made on the subject in debate. There was a great difference, he observed, between the abolition of restrictions on the intercourse between the islands of Great Britain and Ireland, and a change of the relations in which these islands stood with regard to foreign countries. There could be no doubt that restrictions on the intercourse between different parts of the same empire, must be injurious to the mass of the people, and particularly in the case of Ireland. The low rate of wages there, and its great population might, now the restrictions were removed, lead to the introduction of manufactures to the great benefit of that island. It had been said that it was an abandonment of principle on his part, after having so long advocated free trade, to come forward now with this petition for an exception. In advocating free trade, however, he had never gone further than a free trade in the raw material, and a free transit of all goods, so that England might have facilities for enjoying the carrying trade of the world; but he had never gone so far as to hold out that, without any reciprocity of concession, we should open our ports to the introduction of continental manufactures. The argument of the abstract political economists was, that we should get every commodity wherever we
750
could get it cheapest, and that if we could bring silk cheaper from Lyons than from Spitalfields, we ought to bring it thence. He never had been convinced by this argument, and never should be, and he was persuaded that if our ports were open, though in those articles in which we had an advantage we might retain that advantage, our rising manufactures would be crushed. The political economist turned his eye only to the facility of production; he allowed nothing for the habits of trade; for the established custom which had so much influence in these matters. There seemed no reason in the nature of things, why Manchester should be the great seat of the cotton trade, Sheffield of cutlery and hard-ware, Lyons of silks, Geneva of watches and trinkets, Nuremberg of toys. How it happened that they had become so, arose, perhaps, from the superior activity of individuals at critical times; but now they had attained their superiority, they were likely to preserve it. The political economist might imagine, that if the trade were free, Dover might become as great a manufactory for watches as Geneva, and Calais as famous for pottery as Staffordshire: but, for himself he anticipated no such results. He knew not why it was that English gentlemen got their watches of M. Breguet at Paris, when they might get them as good at home; but the force of imitation would prevail. After looking carefully into the subject, with every disposition to come to a different result, he was persuaded that if the trade were thrown open, Manchester might supply cottons, Staffordshire pottery, but Lyons would send silks. He had always been of opinion, that if France remained at peace, and continued to enjoy what she never before had, the benefit of free institutions (and to all practical purposes, as to the application of capital, France was now as free as this country), the cheapness of provisions, and consequently of labour, must give her an advantage over this country. An hon. member had that night attributed to his late friend, Mr. Ricardo, an opinion which he had never heard that lamented individual maintain; namely, that the price of provisions had nothing to do with the price of labour; but, if his hon. friend had maintained such an opinion, he could only say that it was a proof how far into absurdity the acutest minds may be carried by abstract speculations. It bad been asked, why the price of labour should not

751
have the same effect upon the cotton as on the silk manufactures? One reason was, that cotton, from the first operation in its manufacture, went through machinery, while silk was thrown off by hand, and from the nature of it could not, throughout, be so much worked by machinery as cotton. It was said, by the chancellor of the Exchequer, that we already sold a great deal of silk goods in Germany, in competition with the foreign silk manufacturer. He should be willing to rest the question upon the correctness of that fact. He believed the truth would be found to be, that there was no export of any sort, except that silk in which we had an advantage, India silk stockings, and mixtures of silk and cotton, and silk and worsted, but that, in no instance, had any pure manufacture, either of French or Italian silks, come into competition with those of Lyons. He had been as anxious to do justice to the disinterestedness of the chancellor of the Exchequer's financial plans as any one, and, above all, to their being devoid of any trick to catch at popularity. There could be no measures less popular, or more likely to be opposed; and in this case, in his conscience he believed the opposition to be just. It had been hinted, that he only spoke on this subject as the member for Taunton. He should certainly deem it his duty to afford every fair protection to the interests of his constituents; but, if they wished to dictate to his conscience, he should beg them to choose another representative.
Mr. Davenportcontended against the alteration of the laws affecting the silk trade. The House was called on by the chancellor of the Exchequer, to give up 6, or 700,000 l. a year of revenue derived from silk, and yet the silk trade did not want this remission. He was very well content to let the law and the duties remain as they stood. He feared much, that by grasping at the shadow, we might lose the substance—that we might lose the trade itself, as well as the revenue we now derived from it.
Ordered to lie on the table.

EXPORTATION OF WOOL—PETITION FROM NORWICH AGAINST.
Mr. W. Smithsaid, that the petition which he held in his hand was so nearly similar in its statement of facts, and in the manner in which its prayer was supported, to that which the hon. member for Taunton had
752
just introduced to the House, that he might, in presenting it, repeat the summary which the hon. member had given of that petition. But, after the large discussion which had taken place on the subject, he should only deem it necessary to state very briefly the prayer of it, in those points in which it differed from that which had been last presented. The petition, in point of form, was that of one highly respectable individual in the city which he represented, but, in point of fact it was the petition of all the manufacturers of the silk, woollen, and mixed trade in the city of Norwich. They first say that they hear with great concern, that it is proposed to permit the exportation of the 15ritish long wool—an article not now to be obtained by foreign manufacturers, and which gives a superiority to many British goods. They pray that the House will not allow it to be exported, the rather because the agricultural interest have not prayed for it, and because it bears a fair remunerating price at home; so that the exportation cannot be required to relieve any glut or depression. The last part of their prayer stated, that while they expressed their gratification at the approach to those enlightened commercial principles which had led to so great a reduction of the duties on silk, they apprehended in the immediate application of those principles serious damage to their interests; but if the legislature gave adequate time for the consumption of the stock on hand, and for the improvement of the means of manufacturing which ingenuity might suggest, they hoped to be enabled successfully to meet foreign competition. This prayer appeared to him perfectly reasonable; they only wanted time and notice;—whereas by the suddenness of the change, great inconvenience would he experienced, and was indeed already felt; as no manufacturer would now set his men to work up silk which had paid the high duty, while he expected the silk at a low duty would soon come in.
Ordered to lie on the table.

SOUTH AMERICA.
Sir James Mackintoshsaid, that having carefully perused the papers which were last night laid upon the table of the House, he rose to put to the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs one or two questions upon subjects connected with them. The first of these questions would be,

753
whether any answer had yet been received from the court of Madrid to the despatch from this government, dated the 30th of January? If such an answer had been received by his majesty's government, he presumed there could be no objection on their part to lay it before the House. His second question was, whether his majesty's government possessed the decree, or, if not the original, an authentic or accurate copy of the decree, said to have been made by Ferdinand 7th, professing to regulate the commerce of vast countries in South America which had long ceased to acknowledge his authority? If such a document was in the possession of ministers, he supposed there could be no objection to its production. He should also be desirous, that there should be laid before the House a copy of the treaty entered into between Great Britain and Spain in the year 1810; which treaty was referred to in the despatch of the 30th of January, as granting to British subjects a right of free trade with the subjects of Spain in the two hemispheres. Now, it was possible that that treaty might have been printed, or have been, in some shape or other, already laid before parliament. If so, he was not aware of the fact; but he presumed that the treaty alluded to could not be that which was made with admiral Apodaca; for that was made in 1809. If it had not been printed, he should either move that it be printed, or give notice of a motion for its production, according to the answer which he might receive to his questions.
Mr. Secretary Canningobserved, that to the questions of his hon. and learned friend he would answer separately; but he would invert the order in which those questions had been put. And first, as to the supposed treaty between Spain and Great Britain. No such treaty was in existence to the best of his knowledge. In the year 1810, when this country proposed to interpose her mediation between Spain and her colonies in America, it was merely upon an understanding between the two governments, that the coast law of Spain should be suspended, as between the subjects of the two nations. No instrument, as far as he had ascertained, was in existence, in which this agreement was recorded. Any motion, therefore, by his hon. and learned friend, upon the subject of this supposed treaty would
754
be unnecessary, for there would be nothing to produce. As to the second question propounded about the decree, he knew of that only as a matter of public notoriety; but he really could not say whether it had yet been communicated to his majesty's government in that authentic shape that would entitle it to be considered as a document in their possession. He rather thought it had not been so communicated, but that any knowledge of it which might be possessed by his majesty's government was derived from its having appeared in the ordinary way in public journals. If, however, such a decree had been communicated to them, they would undoubtedly not object to lay it before parliament. As to the third question, whether any answer had been received from Spain in reply to the despatch of the 30th of January, he had no objection to state all that it was in his power to state about the matter. He believed that an answer simply acknowledging the receipt of the despatch had been received by this government. In reply to the remaining part of what had been addressed to him that evening by his hon. and learned friend, he would merely say, that there were circumstances which would prevent his stating to the House at present any thing further as to the precise state in which this country now stood with respect to America. The despatch in question was not laid before parliament, while it was yet upon its way to Madrid, because, had it been laid on the table at an earlier period, it was obviously possible, that the court of Madrid might have read the important despatch in question in the public papers of this country before it reached them in its more authentic shape. It was upon this account he begged his hon. and learned friend to postpone his motion. The moment that an official answer should be received to that despatch, it should be laid before parliament. The scope of his hon. and learned friend's motion (for though it was not shaped in this manner, it clearly went to this extent) was, to induce his majesty's government to lay before parliament such documents and papers as might show to the House the principles upon which government had hitherto acted, and intended in future to act, in regard to South America. But he freely told his hon. and learned friend, that if the communications which ministers had already made on this sub-

755
ject had been such as to entitle them to the confidence of parliament, he should resist every attempt to extort further information, or to compel the production of further papers relative to these matters, under the present circumstances. If, on the contrary, the communications which government had made, had not entitled them to the confidence of parliament, his hon. and learned friend would be at liberty to take hid own course upon this important affair.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he had listened to every word that had fallen from the right hon. secretary; but, as at present advised, he saw nothing to induce him to alter his original intention of bringing the subject before the House.

GAOL ACT AMENDMENT BILL—TREAD-MILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Bennetsaid, he would avail himself of that opportunity to make some observations on the conduct pursued, in many of the prisons, with respect to the punishment of hard labour, especially as connected with the Tread-mill. He began by alluding to the conduct of the magistrates of Northallerton, who had persevered in inflicting the punishment of hard labour previous to conviction. Finding that such a proceeding was contrary to law, they said that they would not compel prisoners to work in the mill, but they took care to exercise severities towards them, in the event of their refusing to work; and it was of little consequence to the individual, whether he was directly ordered to work, or on being half-starved for his refusal, was compelled to prefer labour to famine. The magistrates of Northallerton could compel persons to hard labour; for there were other modes besides that of the tread-mill. He should therefore feel it his duty to propose a clause, providing that no person before trial should be allowed to work at hard labour, even with his own consent, otherwise these amateur magistrates would be enabled to persist in their favourite speculation. He was a great friend to the principle of the tread-mill properly applied; but it was only as a punishment after conviction that he could feel himself justified in approving of it. Transportation, generally speaking, was rather a favour than a punishment to convicted offenders, and hard labour at the treadmill might Often be substituted with ad-
756
vantage. But, in order to make it a punishment of disgrace, it was necessary that they should prevent any one from volunteering to undertake it, as in that case the association would be interfered with, upon which its efficacy should mainly depend. There was another question connected with tread-mill discipline, to which he was anxious to call the attention of the right hon. secretary. He had himself Seen many of the mills at work, and was surprised at the unequal distribution of the labour. It was not upon the magistrate, nor even upon the gaoler, but upon the miller, that the quantity of work required from each person depended; and, so imperfect was the arrangement in many instances, that the proportion of Work done in summer, under all the inconveniences of heat, was often considerably greater than in winter. The House was, he thought, bound to do one of two things—either to take the subject into their own hands, by appointing a committee of inquiry, or to settle at once a maximum of labour beyond which magistrates should not be allowed to go. As this punishment was administered at present, persons found guilty of felony were sentenced to lighter labour in some places, than those who were found guilty of misdemeanors were in others. According to a calculation life had made, the labour of one person at the tread-mill in a summer's day, was equal to ninety-six ascents up the monument, and the labour of the same person on a winter's day was 38 times less. He had received a letter from Mr. Higgins, the gaoler of Lancaster, who had the reputation of being one of the most humane, and whom he knew to be one of the most intelligent persons in such a situation. The letter stated, that the maximum of labour ought not to exceed 12,000 feet, and it was known that at Brixton, the women sometimes did 13,000. According to a calculation which he had made, the work done at Lancaster was equal to 37 miles in a day. The calculation must be still greater where 17,000 feet were done; which was the case in one county. Whether the House would choose to appoint a committee, or to discuss his proposition at once, he would submit, that the maximum for men ought not to exceed 10,000 feet, and that for women ought not to exceed 8,000. He did not think it fit to leave the execution of the law to magistrates, or rather to millers, to

757
enforce hard labour, or to require none at all, as he might choose to work the mills.—He next alluded to the state of the small prisons, which were generally in the most miserable state; there being in many of them no provision for religious instruction, little or no cloathing, and no beds but dirty straw for the prisoners to sleep on. In his opinion, the corporations of the towns in which these prisons were situated, if not able to keep their prisoners as they ought to be kept, should be compelled to send them to the county gaol, where they would be better taken care of. The first that he should mention was the borough gaol of Reading, to show what the condition of these prisons was. "The gaol," as the report states, "is situate in the middle of the market-place adjoining the Guildhall; it is composed of the first-floor of a public-house, of which it is an integral part, having no connexion by passages or stairs, however, with the rest of the house. It consists of three rooms; the largest is 17 feet by 13, with afire-place, and two windows communicating with the street. The second room is 13 feet by 9, separated from the one just described by inch and half slabs, which are so warped and rent, and cut by the prisoners, that conversation is readily carried on from one room to the other. The third room is within the larger, 6 feet by 6 feet 4 inches, and lighted only by a borrowed light. All the rooms are eight feet four inches in height. There is no airing yard, nor separate day apartments. No labour is supplied—no rules affixed—no religious instruction appointed, nor any gaoler resident. When the sessions are held in the town, more than thirty persons have been confined in the space above described, when the gaoler is obliged to rely more upon his irons than upon his walls." According to a narrative, of the accuracy of which he had not the smallest doubt, 222 persons had passed through that prison in the course of the last year; there being within its walls no bedding but straw, no infirmary or sick room, no chapel, nor any provision for divine service. He would ask the House whether they would wish the gaol to continue in that state, or whether they would not compel the magistrates to send their prisoners to the gaol of the county? The next he should notice was that of Rochester, which had almost every fault that a prison could have. There was great want of room, no place for the sick; tried
758
and untried criminals and debtors, all lived together as far as regarded the men, and these had the opportunity of constant communication, through an iron railing, with the women. No employment, no instruction, no religious service. The next he should allude to was that of Yarmouth. At the time that it was visited by the committee for the improvement of prison discipline, two poor boys were confined in the fourth cell, taken up as vagrants, and committed for one month for being found on the river at an unseasonable hour of the night. They were confined not only in a state of idleness but in darkness: their cell having no window. In another cell was a strong healthy man accustomed to husbandry work, who was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. In consequence of the closeness of his confinement and entire want of exercise, he became so ill that for several weeks he was confined to his bed. About fifty prisoners passed through it in a year. No one could give more credit than he did to the secretary of state for his exertions; but he hoped the suggestions he had thrown out would cause some alterations to be made in the bill.—The hon. member then adverted to the number of maniacs who were confined in different prisons among the felons, one of whom, he said, had been shut up for 16 years. He thought it would be proper to make it compulsory on the government to find proper places for such maniacs as had been condemned to be shut up on account of having committed some crimes, separate from other prisoners. There ought to be an asylum apart for them. He was the zealous advocate for the infliction of some well graduated punishment, which would supply the place of capital punishment, and therefore when such a punishment had been found as promised to answer this purpose, he thought it was of some importance to endeavour to relieve it from the anomalies he had pointed out. He wished to pass no censure on individuals, whose zeal might have led them into errors; but he had shown, that in consequence of the zeal of some, and the want of attention in others, great anomalies did exist in the application of the labour of the tread-mill as a punishment; and it was necessary that these anomalies should be removed, or they could not expect to carry the public opinion with them in inflicting it; and without this, all punish-

759
ments became nugatory, and were so much gratuitous pain.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that as to the employment of prisoners, before trial, on the tread-mill, the objections of the hon. gentleman applied to employment of every description, as well as that of the tread-mill. In fact, this was the declared opinion of the legislature. In a bill passed last session there was a clause, which he thought was so clear that it could not be mistaken, by which it was expressly forbidden to put any prisoner to hard labour before he was sentenced to it. Contrary to his expectations, however, it had been misunderstood. One instance had occurred in which a prisoner, before trial, was put to hard labour; and it was thought no infringement of the act, because he had made his choice of going to hard labour in preference to being kept on bread and water, which was the alternative offered him. This was, no doubt, a breach of the act. He had thought it almost impossible to make a law more precise than the act of the 4th of Geo. 4th. cap. 64. The right hon. gentleman here read the clause which, in substance, stated, that no magistrates should be authorised to make prisoners go to hard work before trial, unless by their voluntary consent, when they were to receive a proper proportion of the money they earned by their labour. And, even with their own consent, this act did not authorise the magistrates to class such prisoners with convicted persons. He was surprised that the intention of this clause should have been doubted; but as it had been, there was now a necessity to provide some remedy. He felt, however, a great difficulty in doing this. Pie was as ready to admit, as the hon. gentleman, that the employment of the tread-mill before trial was a great grievance, and under the present act it was not lawful so to employ it. By the laws of this country, every man was presumed innocent until he had been tried; when accused of any offence he was not deprived of his liberty as a punishment, but to insure his presence on the day of trial. It was, in the first place, therefore, extremely unjust to send unconvicted prisoners to work at the tread-mill. But he objected to it also on the ground of its weakening the effect of that punishment. It took away the stigma that should belong to the punishment appropriated exclusively to guilt, by making it also the lot of the
760
innocent. He saw nothing more that the House could do in this point, than to strengthen their former enactment if possible and make a law that under no circumstances should a prisoner be sent to hard labour before he was sentenced to it as a part of his punishment for the crime of which he was convicted. He came now to the second topic of the hon. gentleman's speech—the different degrees of labour, and consequently the inequality of the punishment inflicted by the tread-mill. The hon. member's remedy for this was, to pass a law, providing a maximum of labour which should not be exceeded. It was impossible to carry this suggestion of the hon. gentleman into effect. It might be true, as stated by the hon. gentleman, that the miller had the power to relax or augment the labour of the prisoners, that the mechanist had the power to regulate the labour; and, if it were true, it was then evident, that it would be very difficult to provide a remedy for the inequality of which the hon. member complained. In one mill he had stated that the prisoners took 16,000 steps, in another 10,000, and in another only 8,000 a day. But, did he therefore infer, that the labour was great in proportion to the number of steps? The degree of labour depended on the manner in which the miller fed the mill. It might therefore happen, that he who took only 8,000 steps, if working in a mill which was kept well supplied, performed more work than he who took 12,000, or 16,000 steps. There was one part of the hon. gentleman's calculations so extraordinary, and so obviously fallacious, that it was sufficient to shake the confidence which the House might be disposed to place in his other calculations. He had stated, that some of the prisoners, performed a task equal to that of walking 37 miles a-day. But he had at the same time stated, that the prisoners took about 12,000 steps a-day or about two miles and a quarter. The hon. member made it out, that these two miles and a quarter of perpendicular ascent were equal to thirty seven miles of walking on a plane; but, though he did not know on what data the hon. member had founded his calculations he differed entirely as to the result. In the first place, the motion in the treadmill was not perpendicular ascent; for the wheel revolved under the feet of the prisoners, and met their steps. He denied that this labour was at all equal

761
to dragging the weight of the body up a perpendicular ascent. If, indeed, the hon. gentleman had shewn that the labour of the tread-mill was injurious to health, it would have been a more convincing argument of its ill effects than all the statements of Dr. Good or any other writers. He was happy to hear from the hon. member that there were prison-fanciers; as he was sure that those magistrates who took a pride and pleasure in visiting prisons, conferred a benefit both on the country and on the prisoners. But, if there were prison-fanciers, there were also gentlemen who were very astute at finding out objections to the tread-mill. Amongst them was a friend of his own, a baronet, who had formerly a seat in that House, sir J. Coxe Hippisley, and who had devoted much time and attention in detecting the bad properties of the treadmill. But it so happened that sir John was the inventor of the crank-wheel, which he wished to introduce into prisons. It was incumbent on those who were so ready to point out the disadvantage of the treadmill to find some better mode of punishment. When he saw that eight or ten hours labour a-day at it produced ill health; he should implore the hon. gentlemen to diminish its effects by introducing a law affixing a maximum of punishment. Suppose this maximum was fixed at 10,000 steps; did he not think that this would not lead to monstrous abuses? To take the case of two persons, one weak, the other strong—was there to be no discretion here? Were they both to perform their 10,000 steps? Was it not better that the law should remain as it now stood; which left it to the discretion of the magistrates? If the maximum were in force, would not magistrates say to the gaoler, "You have the act of parliament to guide you, we will not interfere;" and would not the whole duty thus devolve on the gaoler? With respect to the smaller jurisdictions, he would admit that the bill of last year was incomplete, if by it he had intended to regulate them. But the bill applied exclusively to prisons which permitted the classification of prisoners. There was a clause which enabled magistrates having local jurisdiction to contract with the magistrates to send their prisoners to the county gaol; but the hon. gentleman would go further, and make it imperative on the magistrates to send all prisoners to the county gaol. Let him only look at some of the conse-
762
quences. While there were small and local jurisdictions it was necessary that the gaol should be near the spots where those jurisdictions existed. The class of offences of which they took cognizance was not very heinous, but still they coupled imprisonment. If the hon. gentleman could persuade magistrates who possessed local jurisdiction to give it up, he (Mr. Peel) should be very glad to receive it; but while it remained, great inconvenience would be occasioned by separating the gaol from the seat of the magistracy. Suppose a man went to gaol for a month or a week, was he to be sent 20, 30, 40, or even 50 miles to the county gaol? Such a measure would be a gross aggravation of the punishment. Conceive a prisoner apprehended at one place where he was to be tried, and sent to another at a considerable distance to be kept till the day of trial, and then brought back. Here were two journeys; and journeys performed under the painful circumstances of being ironed and guarded. The situation of the prisoners was bad enough in these small prisons, and was deserving of consideration; but the remedy proposed was not what he would adopt. The evil might be remedied by improving the gaols, not by sending the prisoners to the county gaols. With respect to maniacs he wished the hon. gentleman could find out some other means of securing them. At present those lunatics who had been condemned on account of having committed some crime were necessarily kept confined. He could not appoint them separate attendants, and he had no other power, as the law stood, but to send them to prison.
Sir T. Baringsaid, he was not a very cordial friend to the tread-mill, since its effects were differerent on different persons. Suppose two men, one brought up to hard labour, and another to idleness, to have committed the same crime, and both to have been sentenced to the tread-mill, it was plain that the degree of punishment would be very different for each. The tread-mill at Winchester was one of the first established in the kingdom, and was, he believed, one of the best. He could say, that since it had been in use, the prisoners were more afflicted with colds and rheumatisms than before. He was of opinion, that the application of this punishment should be laid under restraints and restrictions. As a proof of this, the

763
hon. baronet read an extract from the case of a woman of the name of Loder, and was requested by Mr. Sumner to read the whole, with which request the hon. baronet did not comply, but concluded with saying, that he thought there were sufficient reasons for making some law, preventing the unlimited application of the punishment of the tread-mill.
Mr. H. Sumnersaid, he was much surprised at the course pursued by the hon. baronet, who had taken a part of the report of the committee, and had founded his argument upon the particular case of Mrs. Loder. Now, he would read that case from beginning to end. It was thus set forth in the report;—"The woman Loder was committed by the petty sessions at Guildford (the rev. G. Walter Onslow, chairman), on the 11th October last, on a charge by the parish officers of Godalming, of having been delivered of a bastard child, and being then chargeable to the parish. It appeared that the said bastard was her third child, by three several fathers; and she was sentenced to the mitigated term of three months' confinement to work at the house of correction. She was put upon the wheel on the 13th of October, but on account of the feeble and emaciated state in which she appeared at that period, she was not upon the wheel again for the next fourteen or fifteen days of her imprisonment, nor till extra allowance of food for her, and 12 ounces of bread and an ounce of sugar per diem for the child, had insured the life of the child, and so far recruited the mother's strength, that, as being a preferable state to remaining all day alone in her ward, she desired to go to work with the other women on the wheel. Her hours of actual work upon the wheel were from half-past eight or nine to twelve in the morning, and from half-past one to four in the afternoon. Her periods of work never exceeded fifteen minutes, nor the remission ever less than ten. She was weighed on the 31st of October, after four or five days work, and then weighed eight stone two pounds, and again on the 13th December, and having worked through the whole of the interval was found to have gained nine pounds weight. On the 15th December she took cold, and was, by the surgeon's order, confined to her ward, and between that day and the day of her liberation, the 2nd of January, she lost two pounds and a half weight. She has declared she was better fed, and had more care taken of
764
her, and was altogether more comfortable during her imprisonment, than she had ever been before; that she had gained health and strength during the time she was subject to work on the wheel; and on her leaving the prison, expressed much apprehension that she should not fare as well on her return home" [hear!]. Now that statement would clearly show the effects of the exercise. With respect to the other parts of the bill, his right hon. friend had anticipated all he had to say. His hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) was a member of a society for the improvement of prison discipline. One of its members, whom he had now in his eye (Mr.Buxton), had published a work upon the subject, and he confessed, that, up to the appearance of that work, he had given very little attention to this subject; but he thought he might now say, that no man had been more zealous than himself latterly to obtain liberal grants to ameliorate the condition of the prison which came within his inspection. But before they proceeded to legislate, perhaps it would be as well to wait, until they had a little more experience of the new light which, it seemed, had lately broken in on them. No man had had more experience on this subject than he had.
Mr. Westernsaid, that with respect to the proposition of asking no prisoner to work, his opinion was, that as employment was better than perfect indolence, it would be ruinous to deprive the prisoners of the option of employment. An objection had been taken to the punishment of the tread-mill, because it was said to be degrading. Now he thought that all punishment should be accompanied with a feeling of degradation; because it was desirable to make delinquents feel the debasement to which their offences had reduced them.
Mr. W. Courtenaysaid, it was manifest that the regulations of this bill could not be applied to all gaols, and could only produce practical good in those gaols which were adapted for its application. He agreed with his hon. friend who spoke first, that the state of the inferior gaols imperiously pressed itself upon the attention of the House; and he looked at the clause now proposed to be introduced in. the bill, as only one step towards the amelioration of our prisons. He thought the more prudent course would be, to adopt this measure in the first instance, and then look out for further information, with

765
a view to an ulterior measure. There was this difficulty in making compulsory regulations, that all the inferior jurisdictions could send their prisoners to the county gaol; which would be attended with great expense. It was true, that if the legislature compelled the county gaol to receive prisoners from the small jurisdictions, it could also compel those small jurisdictions to contribute their share of the expense. If it could be arranged, that the trial of prisoners, as well as their commitment, should fall upon the general jurisdiction of the county, it would, in his mind, be a most happy regulation. With regard to the employment of prisoners before trial, it appeared to him, that the case stood thus: the bill of last session enacted, as clearly as possible, what the magistrates had to do; namely, to work convicted prisoners, but not to oblige prisoners committed for trial to labour without their own consent. These enabling enactments had not been found judicious, and now it was deemed necessary to introduce a disabling clause into the former act. The mode in which this was meant to be accomplished was, by drawing a clear distinction between those cases in which hard labour should be resorted to, and mere employment. The difficulty might be met by introducing words to this effect—"Provided always, that it shall not be lawful to employ prisoners before trial at any labour in which persons sentenced to hard labour had been engaged.
Mr. Alderman Woodexpressed his surprise at the cheers which followed the statement of the hon. member for Surry, respecting the case of Mrs. Loder. This poor woman had been worked constantly on the tread-mill for hours together; and, what was her crime? Why, simply, that she had three children by three fresh men. Now he found that in the country the gaols were filled in consequence of offences against the game laws, or cases of bastardy. But in London they had little experience of either class. He could not agree, that a distinction was to be drawn between the hard labourer and a clerk, who perhaps might be committed to prison. He thought that the treadmill and all other punishments should be distributed alike, without reference to persons. He would put a case, which many members must have heard of, he meant that of a man, who holding a situation of 3,000 l. a year, had forged bills to
766
an enormous amount and was now actually walking the streets of London. Why, if that man had been consigned to the tread-mill for life, it would scarcely be more than he deserved; and yet he himself had seen that man in Paris, and he was now to be met with in the streets of London. With respect to women he thought they should not be subjected to the tread-milk Flogging had been done away with in their case, and the wheel should also. He hoped no magistrate would hereafter sentence women to the tread-mill.
The bill was read a second time.

MUTINY BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Humesaid, he wished to take that opportunity of stating some of the objections which he felt to the present military system, as it was upheld in this country. The instance of his hon. and gallant friend (sir R. Wilson) was sufficient to point the attention of the House to the impolicy and injustice of the system. His hon. and gallant friend had given an explanation of his conduct, which was quite unanswerable, upon which the noble lord (Palmerston) had exercised more wit than judgment. But he mentioned that case at present, to show with what jealousy the House should view the subject. He was willing to concede, that there was a time in the history of this country—he meant in the reign of Charles the 2nd—when the king, possessed of absolute power, could do with the army as he pleased. With the Revolution however, a new æra arrived. In the preamble of a bill passed at that period, it was stated, that, as it was necessary to maintain a standing army, it was of importance that the regulations of that army should be considered. But, the question to which he was principally anxious to direct the attention of the House was, the system of flogging in the army; and he was sorry he did not now see in the House many of those who had formerly distinguished themselves in their opposition to this practice. He never could consent to grant the power of inflicting corporal punishment on 73,000 of our fellow-subjects. Now that we were at peace, this would be the time to remove it. If in other countries they found, that a discipline just as strict as that which was maintained in England, was observed, without the infliction of a single stroke,

767
he should like to know what there was in Englishmen that called for more severity towards them. It was a national disgrace to have our fellow-citizens subjected to the lash, as they were, from time to time. The circumstance which had principally called his attention to this subject, was a circular issued by lord Bathurst, doing away with flogging in the colonies. Now, he could not suppose that the government, if they were sincere, could feel disposed to deal out less justice to their subjects at home, than to their slaves in the colonies. He understood that, by that circular, it was meant that domestic flogging should be done away with; at least that it should never be exercised, until a day after the offence to be punished had been committed; and he thought it would be a most beneficial regulation, if it were introduced into the navy.—Was it to be borne then in this country? No. He must call it cant, or any thing else more opprobrious, to extend to distant colonies those principles of humanity, which were denied to our fellow subjects at home. The principle of this bill went to subject the British army to corporal punishment, that army upon which our security depended. The effect of this system was, to degrade the army, and destroy that free spirit which it should be our pride and our boast to support. When this bill should be in a committee, he would propose the addition of a clause, that no private or corporal should be subjected to corporal punishment. He was ready to allow, that the discipline of the army had been well kept up; but let the noble lord inquire, and he would find that on the continent, where there was no flogging, the discipline was not inferior.—He was sorry his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, was not present, as he was now going to allude to a subject to which his hon. friend had recently adverted; namely, the impropriety of maintaining barracks in the centre of the metropolis. In consequence of the statement of his hon. friend with respect to the barracks, he bad gone to the neighbourhood to make some inquiries, and one individual had informed him, that frequently, at day-light in the morning, the neighbourhood was awakened by the beating of the drum; and that whenever in the morning he heard the sound, such was the dreadful association of ideas, that he always felt as if some unfortunate wretch was just at that moment led forth to the ignominious
768
punishment of flogging. Surely, one operation of this detestable nature was sufficient to prove that there was not a due compassion for the feelings of those who were obliged to remain on the spot, and could not remove from scenes which thus harrowed up their feelings. He was most happy to find, that an endeavour was made to render slavery in our colonies as little oppressive as slavery under any circumstances could be; but, if we extended our humanity to those whose duty was involuntary, surely we should not in prudence, withhold it from those whose services were under their own control; and the more so when there were other adequate means of enforcing good discipline. He might be told, that there were circumstances where flogging was necessary; as, for instance, in the face of an enemy. He had been for five years connected with an army, not always certainly in the face of an enemy; but, out of 10,000 men, he did not recollect that one had ever been flogged. But amongst the native Indian regiments, it was carried to a most disgusting extent. Before they passed this bill, the House ought to have an account of the number of sufferers, and the aggregate quantity of lashes annually inflicted. But, independently of corporal punishments, there were regulations connected with our military system, which made it surprising that the bill before the House should so long have passed without objection. One which he would instance—was the arrangement as to the sale and purchase of commissions. Surely if there was one being more than another whose word ought to be undoubted, an officer of the army ought to stand in that situation; and yet there was a regulation existing at the present moment, which enforced the necessity of telling a falsehood upon almost every officer who came into the service. Every officer who purchased a commission, and every officer who parted with one, was compelled to declare, on his honour, that he neither took nor gave more than the regulation price; while it was notorious to the whole army, and must be notorious to the duke of York himself, that, in nine cases out of ten, more was paid than the parties declared to. Suppose an officer to be challenged in a jury-box with this declaration—what would become of his evidence—would credit be attached to it? He did hope that, for the future, no officer would be called on to give any such assurance. If

769
any man in that House was friendly to flogging, let him speak out. If, on the other hand, they objected to have the backs of Englishmen lacerated with stripes, and could not bear that English men should be made involuntary spectators of such disgusting scenes, they would vote with him. They should not bestow all their humanity on the slaves in the colonies: they should at least try what could be done in the British army, without inflicting corporal punishment. If the discipline of one regiment in our service could be carried on without the degradation of corporal punishment, why might it not be maintained throughout the whole army? Such a desirable alteration would, independent of its humanity, raise the national character in the estimation of foreigners; for nothing struck the inhabitants of other nations with so much surprise as the practice of flogging in the British army. He had had frequent conversations with officers of foreign armies on the subject, and their astonishment and horror at the prevalence of such a de basing practice was universal. One of these officers, who had commanded a regiment in the French service, had assured him, that if he had been obliged to have recourse to such a punishment, and had permitted its infliction, he would have lost all moral influence over the men.— There existed another practice, which ought also to be regulated: he meant, the condemning soldiers to solitary imprisonment, by the sentence of regimental courts martial, and depriving them, during such time, of their pay. In one regiment, he understood there were fifty-three soldiers so confined. The House would hear with surprise (the noble secretary at war, would correct him if he had been misinformed), that the pay of the men thus forfeited by the decision of a regimental court martial, went into the pockets of the officers who passed the sentence upon them [a general cry of no, no!"]. Well! he might have been misinformed; but such he under stood was the practice in the Guards [cries of no, no!]. Such, at least, was the information he had received, and he felt gratified that the imputation was unfounded. He felt so strongly the necessity of abolishing corporal punishment, that he should object to the Speaker leaving the chair, unless an instruction to that effect was directed by the House to be given to the committee.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, he rose as a
770
British officer, to give the most unqualified contradiction to the statement of the hon. member, that the soldiers of the regiments of Guards, were flogged so frequently, that the drums were beaten, during the time of the infliction to drown their cries, and prevent their being heard in the neighbourhood. What were the real facts? He had the honour to command the third battalion of the grenadier guards, and he could assure the House that during the first six months of the year, while that regiment were in the King's Mews, not a single soldier had been flogged, and, in the latter portion of the year only one man had been flogged, who never uttered a cry [hear, hear!]. He would not go into the general question; but, as an officer, he would state, that he considered the power of inflicting corporal punishment, under a judicious system, requisite to the maintenance of discipline in the British Army.
Mr. Hume,in explanation, observed, that the gallant officer had attributed to him language which he had not used. He had merely repeated what had been stated on a former night, that when the drums were beaten in the morning, the association of ideas in the minds of the people residing in the neighbourhood, led to the painful reflection that the soldiers might be summoned to witness the punishment of the lash.
Sir Robert Wilsonobserved, that whenever the subject of corporal punishment was brought before the House, he had always in the most unqualified manner, declared the practice to be degrading to the character of our soldiery, and unnecessary to the maintenance of its discipline. After the various discussions that had taken place on the subject, it was with surprise, he found, that the noble lord had done nothing to abolish such a practice, or at least to allow the law to become a dead letter. He knew well that he should be met with the old argument, that our army had displayed the highest character, and that its prowess was the admiration of the world. Why then continue so debasing a punishment? Was the constitution of the British army so base—was it formed of such worthless materials—that its courage could only be excited, and its conduct regulated, by the cat-o'nine-tails? In Germany flogging had been abolished. In Prussia—even in Prussia—the animal designated a soldier, for he could not call him a man, was no

771
longer subjected to the lash. In France no such punishment was allowed. And yet we had heard very recently, high panegyrics on the conduct of the French army—panegyrics which he had heard with regret, because he felt that they were applied to an army employed in that most infamous aggression on an unoffending people, the invasion of Spain Without the lash, however, the French officers were able to maintain discipline. Was it not, therefore, a stigma on the character of the English nation to assume, that while the nations that surrounded us abolished a degrading corporal punishment it was still considered essential to the British service [hear!]. He was ready to admit, that regulations to check extreme abuse in the infliction of such punishments had been introduced by his royal highness the Commander-in-chief—that so far the evil had been palliated; but while the law stood as it was at present, it was impossible for the duke of York to effect the good he might intend, as the officers commanding regiments would throw the responsibility on him. He (sir R.) did not thrust himself forward for the purpose of seeking out complaints: he disdained such officiousness; but the House would feel that cases of a flagrant description forced themselves on the public attention. Some years ago it had become his duty to bring before that House an instance of a most flagrant abuse of corporal punishment. The cruelty of the punishment, even those who maintained its necessity must admit. It was true that our civil code permitted whipping in certain cases. But the Old Bailey man was relieved from the infliction the moment blood was drawn; while the British soldier was subjected to the lash, until he had received the full number, even if it were a thousand, unless the surgeon declared that life was risked. The country was now at peace. The character of our army stood high. It was in our power to make it a profession of honour. Give to the British soldier that ennobling impulse, which never could be given while the punishment of the lash was suspended over him, and instead of having our army composed of men wholly reckless of character, we should attract to its ranks a high-spirited and well-conducted description of male population. He should support the proposition of his hon. friend.
Colonel Woodsaid, he would not sur-
772
render his feelings of regard for the British soldier, whether high or low, to any of the hon. gentlemen opposite. And he must say, that the hon. member for Aberdeen was bound, in duty to the army and to the country, to have ascertained the facts before he lightly hazarded such statements as he had made that night. He had talked of the efforts made by government to abolish the arbitrary infliction of the lash on unhappy negroes by slave-drivers, and had expressed his surprise that such a punishment should be permitted in the British army. But, did there exist a single ground for such a comparison? Were our soldiers punished on the spur of the moment, or at the discretion or caprice of any individual? Did not the hon. member know, that no soldier could be punished without a court martial, upon evidence taken upon oath? If the abuses were such as he represented, would not the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster (sir F. Burdett), who first brought the subject of corporal punishment before the House, have been in his place to expose such abuses, and call for their redress? He was ready to admit that the discussions brought forward on this subject by that hon. baronet, followed up, as they had been, by the judicious checks of the Commander-in-chief, had been productive of great good. [Hear, hear!] He had had the honour to command a regiment of militia during the war, and with every desire to repress the practice of corporal punishment, he had found it necessary in order to maintain discipline. If it were abolished, he feared that the more severe punishment of death, must be the consequence. With respect to solitary confinement, he could assure the House, that the practice was under regulation by the Commander-in-chief. No soldier could now be sentenced for a longer period than six weeks. It was with regret that he found, by a clause in the mutiny bill of last year, that soldiers could be sent to the tread-mill. At least he would say, let them not be sent to the common gaols; for no soldier, after such connexion, could be improved in character. If solitary confinement was to be a punishment, let cells be provided in the barracks. He could not understand the motives that induced hon. members on the opposite side to indulge in such statements as had been made that night, unless it was, to enjoy the satisfaction of making a speech.
Mr. John Smithsaid, that, indifferent

773
to the imputation which the gallant officer had made respecting the desire of his hon. friends near him to make speeches, he would confess to the House, that the present was a question on which he was anxious, as a member of parliament, to offer an opinion. Without alluding to the military part of the subject, he should say, that to contend for the necessity of corporal punishment was to degrade the national character. In originating discussion on this important topic, and attracting the feelings and consideration of the country to it, no man had performed a greater service, not alone to the country, but to humanity in general, than his hon. friend now absent, who had so long and so ably represented the city of Westminster (sir F. Burdett), [hear!]. Coinciding in his views, as long as he was a member of parliament, so long would he urge the gross impropriety, the positive inefficacy, of punishing mankind on the body for the commission of offences. The whole history of human conduct teemed with proofs that such punishments were not only cruel, and inefficacious, but that they aggravated the very evils they were intended to remedy. When executed openly, their only effect was to harden the human heart, and to enlist the sympathies of the spectator in favour of the victim. From such exhibitions the sufferer and the witnesses too often went away with feelings of detestation of the laws, and of hatred towards those who executed them. Punish the soldier for the offence of drunkenness, with the lash, and was it possible to expect that the torture and the recollection of it would make a better man of him? Let hon. members consult their own hearts, and they would there find the best answer to the question. He had seen proofs of the effect of a more congenial system. He had witnessed what the mild, the humane conduct of that beneficent lady, Mrs. Fry, had effected, in the prison of Newgate amongst the female criminal?. He had seen two hundred of these unhappy creatures in that prison, subjected to an allowance of one pound of bread per day for their subsistence. He did not know whether any members of the corporation of London were in their places, but he repeated the fact and defied the refutation. Before Mrs. Fry commenced her exertions, these women resembled so many tigers confined in a cage. She, however, by kindness, by admonition, by
774
persuasion, had soon effected a reform. They became contrite, satisfied, and, as compared with their former deportment, happy. It was idle to say that severity would succeed, and kindness fail, in correcting the offences of human nature. All history established the contrary principle, every religious feeling and precept contradicted it; and while he had a seat in that House, he would raise his voice in reprobation of such an assumption.
Mr. Monckobserved, that the very admission of the gallant officer, that the practice of flogging had been checked, and the discipline of the army improved, shewed that it was not necessary to the maintenance of discipline. In the first constituted army of Europe it was not allowed. In one of the first regiments in our service, the Blues, it never took place. Were not these unanswerable proofs, that the sure support of discipline was to possess a moral hold over a soldiery? Dismission from the French army was, a punishment: dismission from the Blues in our service was also dreaded by the men of that regiment, because it blasted their prospects, and deprived them of any participation in the regimental promotion, or superannuated fund, to which they were taught to look forward. Whereas, in all other regiments, dismission from the service was regarded as a gratification. He most cordially joined in. the opinion of the cruelty and the inefficacy of continuing such a degrading system.
The House having resolved itself into a Committee,
Lord Palmerstonsaid, he should shortly reply to certain observations and statements which had fallen from hon. gentlemen opposite. The right of the Crown to dismiss officers without the intervention of a court martial, had been so often argued, that he should only say, that the necessity for continuing that old and salutary prerogative was sanctioned by the avowed decision of parliament. He denied that there existed the remotest similarity between the capricious punishments inflicted by a slave owner, and the regular and judicial infliction of corporal punishment by the sentence of a court martial. Nothing could be more unfounded than the statement, that the pay of confined soldiers went into the pockets of the officers of the regiments [Mr. Hume said, in the Guards}. Not in the Guards either. The forfeited pay went to the stock purse of the regiments. For the hospi-

775
tals, and other contingent expenses. The inference drawn with respect to the military system of other countries, was neither conclusive in argument, nor correct in point of fact. If corporal punishment was not practised in the army of France, they were less tenacious of human life. If the French Government did not flog, they shot; and, would any man recommend a greater frequency of the punishment of death? Besides the constitution of the British army differed from all others. We were essentially a manufacturing country; and it was from that class of persons that our recruits were taken. The Russian army was principally composed of peasants, whose habits of life were, from the nature of their agricultural occupation, simple. In the Prussian army there were two classes, an offender in the first class was not flogged, but degraded to the second class. The offender in that class was, unless some change had recently taken place, subjected to corporal punishment; not a punishment awarded after a solemn trial, and upon evidence on oath, but at the discretion of an officer in any grade. The ensign could inflict 10, the lieutenant 20, the captain 30, the major 40, and the lieutenant-colonel 50 stripes. Was that the model which honourable members would substitute for the regulated system of trial, as existing in our army? What should, we say to their system of secret imprisonment, where men were pent up, as it were, in a cage too low for them to stand upright, and that cage floored with sharp bars of wood having the edges turned upwards? Could imagination devise a more severe system of punishment? The greatest circumspection was employed in our service to guard against abuse, and under the sanction of the commander-in-chief, returns of regimental courts martial were now made to the Horse-guards as well as General Courts. Parliament had declared by statute that the command of the army was in the Crown. Any attempt to weaken the power so entrusted was not to be defended. He allowed that if an abuse were proved to exist, the House of Commons ought to interfere; but otherwise he was persuaded they would not take any step to alter the constitution of the country.
Mr. W. Smithprotested against the principle advanced by the noble lord. A more monstrous proposition had never
776
been made to the House; whose right of interference was so emphatically preserved, by the mode of providing for the maintenance of the navy and army. He was of opinion that military flogging was a blot upon the service, a stain upon the national character. He attributed the preservation of the custom to the love of power, and the reluctance to let it go, so inherent in human nature. The country was under the greatest obligations to the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, by whom that subject had been originally brought under the consideration of parliament. He rejoiced to hear that a practice, which was so great a blot on the national character, had of late years so much decreased.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved a clause, that it should not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment by flogging, on any private soldier or non-commissioned officer.
On that clause the committee divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 50; Majority 26.

List of the Minority.

Allan, J. H.

Powlett, hon. J. F.

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Ramsden, J. C.

Brougham, H.

Ramsbottom, J.

Browne, Dom.

Rice, T. S.

Buxton, T. F.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Evans, W.

Smith, John.

Grattan, J.

Smith, William.

Hutchinson, C. H.

Sykes, D.

Maberly, J.

Wells, J.

Maberly, W. L.

Wilson, sir R.

Martin, J.

Monck, J. B.

TELLER.

Palmer, C.

Hume, Joseph.