Sitting of 3 May 1824

STANDING ORDERS—TEES AND WEAR-DALE RAILWAY BILL.
Sir H. Hardingerose for the purpose of moving, "That the committee on the above bill be discharged from proceeding thereon." This he did, because the standing orders which applied to private bills had not been complied with, in reference to certain individuals whose estates would be injured if the measure were carried. It was proposed that the railway should cross a road belonging to a noble friend of his (the marquis of Londonderry), and that it should be carried on for a considerable distance near his park. This would be a very great nuisance, and was the less justifiable, because any benefit which the railway was calculated to produce would be reaped by others whose estates would not be affected by the intended work. The standing orders relative to private bills ought to be strictly supported; and as the present measure had been clandestinely brought into the House, he would give it every opposition in his power.
Lord Lowtherdefended the measure, as one which would be extremely advantageous to the country. He therefore wished the bill to be re-committed. It was said, that the landed proprietors were adverse to the railway; but the fact was, that the real ground of opposition sprang from the noble marquis to whom allusion had been made, although he was prepared to contend, that the proposed work would not touch an inch of that noble person's estate. The true reason of the opposition manifested against the measure was, a spirit of jealousy which existed in the north of the county of Durham, as to affording this additional facility for the conveyance of that valuable commodity, coals, to the metropolis and elsewhere. Being perfectly convinced of the utility of the railway, he should move, as an amendment, "that the report from the committee on the petition complaining that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, be re-committed."
Sir J. Yorkerose to second the amendment. He did not wish to make use of hard words, but the opposition to the measure appeared to him to be so extreme a job, that he had quitted the committee altogether. The evidence of Mr. Wright, whose estate, it was said, would be affected by the work, seemed to be so wrong, so coquettish—now assenting to, and then dissenting from the measure that he could make nothing of it. His gallant friend had said a great deal about the hardship of carrying this road through a noble lord's estate; but, on other occasions, they heard nothing of the impropriety of making encroachments on private property, where a great public work required it. When it was proposed to erect a bridge at Hammersmith, the question of private property was not allowed to interfere with the measure. Here it was proposed to form a vast public work, by means of which a larger supply of coals would be furnished to the metropolis, and the existing monoply would be weakened. A great field was opened for the employment of capital for a useful purpose; and therefore he for one could not consent to the abandonment of the measure, on the plea that the road would pass near a nobleman's estate.
Lord Miltonsaid, the real question in this case was, whether the rivers Tyne and Wear should be the only outlets for the carriage of coals, or whether the Tees should not also be included? The

421
West Riding of Yorkshire was supplied with coals by means of land-carriage, and the object or this measure was, to transport that article by a railway which should come down to the mouth of the Tees, instead of employing the ordinary mode of carrying it. This would be cheaper and more expeditious. In his opinion, gentlemen who wished to have this measure fairly considered, would not vote for a motion which would put a stop to it without due inquiry before a committee. He believed there was not a landed proprietor against the measure, except a Mr. Wright, who had assented and dissented, by alternations, so often, that it was difficult to understand whether he was hostile or friendly to the projected work.
Colonel Woodsaid, that none of the local proprietors were in favour of the measure. It was complained, that Mr. Wright had altered his opinion. The reason was, because the line of road which was at first communicated to him had been subsequently changed. With respect to him, it was quite clear that the standing orders had not been complied with, and therefore they ought not to proceed with the bill.
Mr. H. Sumnercould not consent to this summary mode of oversetting a bill which would unquestionably promote the public interest. If the proposed railway were formed, there would be a greater and a more rapid supply of coals in the London market.
Mr. Curwenwould vote for the re-committal of the report, under the assurance of the noble lord that the rail-road would not pass over Mr. Wright's estate.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, if the gentlemen who supported the bill would assure him that the railway would not go near the estate of the marquis of Londonderry, he should withdraw all opposition. He had no wish whatever to crush any rivalry or competition in the coal trade.
The House divided: For the amendment 114. For the original motion 69. A committee, consisting of members not connected in any way with the bill, was appointed, to examine whether any and what inconvenience had arisen from the non-compliance with the standing orders.

IRISH TITHE COMPOSITION AMENDMENT BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Grattansaid, that he felt himself
422
called upon to resist the further progress of the measure. It was not to be looked upon as an amendment of the law of last year, but as quite a new measure, regarding which the landed proprietors could not have been consulted. It bore most severely upon them, while it was completely in favour of the ecclesiastical party. It would be most fatal to the landed and Protestant interests in Ireland. He objected more especially to the clause respecting the appointment of commissioners, and to the power given to the lord lieutenant. In short the measure was altogether so objectionable, that he would move, "That it be read a second time upon this day six months."
Mr. Dennis Brownejustified the application of the powers given by the constabulary act, and assured the House, that in his own county the constables were impartially chosen, and that their conduct had given permanent peace to the district.
Sir J. Newportwished the further consideration of the bill to be postponed until it could be entered upon more maturely. He had been disposed, in the first instance, to look at the measure in a favourable light, but was compelled upon consideration to arrive at the conclusion, that the present bill would augment all the evils of the act of the last session.
Lord Oxmantowncontended, that the agreement proposed in the bill was not fair towards both parties. The provisions of it were too much in favour of the clergy. Some more effectual measure of relief was necessary, and particularly with regard to the levying of tithes in kind. The bill was not only unequal towards the landed but towards the ecclesiastical interest; since it gave the extortionate clergyman a decided advantage, in any final arrangement by commissioners, over the liberal and considerate pastor. He was by no means in favour of the compulsory clause of last year, but he wished a fair option to be allowed.
Mr. Goulbournsaid, he was not desirous to shun any comments that might be made upon this measure by gentlemen on either side of the House; and was prepared, either now or in a later stage, to defend its principle, and to explain its details. The necessity of some amendment to the bill of last year was admitted on all hands, and those who wished to accomplish this object, as well as those who were desirous of correcting the errors and of supplying the deficiencies of the

423
bill upon the table, must be equally anxious to resist the amendment of the hon. gentleman, in order that such changes as were required might be made in the committee. He was ready to allow that certain changes in the present form of the measure would be expedient. He had felt it incumbent on him to withdraw the clause requiring the oath, in consequence of the representations of several individuals, who had declared that they could not conscientiously take it. The objection taken to the penalty of 10 l., on the score of its inadequacy, could furnish no ground for the rejection of the bill, though it might properly form the subject of consideration in the committee. The hon. gentleman had objected to the clause empowering the lord lieutenant to appoint a commissioner, in cases where two commissioners had been appointed by the parties, and one of them had declined to act. He thought this clause necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the bill; but, whether the same objects might be effected more advantageously by any other mode would be a question for the consideration of the committee. The presence of the rector in the vestry for the purpose of discussing the terms of the agreement, though he had no vote at the vestry, appeared an indispensable provision. With regard to the clause respecting the averages, the remedy might be insufficient; but this would be more properly the subject of consideration in the committee. The bill of last session had operated most beneficially in those parts of Ireland in which the greatest inconvenience had been felt from the claim of potatoe-tithe. He was satisfied, indeed, that, generally speaking, the bill had been acceptable throughout the country; and that the middling and lower classes were sensible of the advantages which they had derived from it. In those parts of Ireland in which the greatest distress had been felt, the measure was regarded as a source from which the greatest relief might be expected. The hon. member had made some allusions to one particular clause of the bill, which was generally designated "the trap clause." If the hon. member meant to say that the clause was calculated to ensnare individuals, by inducing them to enter into a composition for, a specific sum, and afterwards subjecting them to pay a larger, he called on him to point out a single instance in which it had had such an operation. The clause in
424
question had been introduced with a view of protecting incumbents against any fraud which might have been committed by their predecessors. He agreed that many clauses of the bill were susceptible of considerable improvement; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if the House came to the discussion with a sincere desire of rendering operative the act of last session, that measure would be generally popular throughout Ireland.
Sir J. Newportsaid, the question was not whether the act of last session required amendment, but whether the bill which the right hon. gentleman had introduced, really went to amend that act. He thought that the present bill, so far from amending the act of last session, was a deterioration of it. What was already bad was made worse by the proposed bill; and, on that ground, he thought it ought to be rejected. In his opinion, the only mode in which the bill of last session could be amended, would be to strike out every part of it, except the preamble, and substitute a new bill. It was idle to waste the time of the House in discussing a bill which was so essentially bad, that it did not admit of amendment. The object of the bill was, to shut out landed proprietors from the Vestries and to exclude them from all interference with concerns in which they were mainly interested.
Mr. Spring Riceregretted that the discussion of this question should have taken place in the absence of many gentlemen who had taken a part in it, and who felt a peculiar interest in the topics connected with it. The right hon. gentleman opposite surely could not be serious in supposing, that because a particular act of parliament required amendment the House was bound to receive any amendment which he might propose. He objected to the principle of the bill, because it took away from landed proprietors the protection which was left to them under the bill of last session. The bill strengthened the hands and augmented the property of the Clergy, without giving any corresponding advantage to the landed proprietor. The act of last session gave to the inheritor of the land, if he were the occupant of the soil, an increased number of votes, in proportion to the amount of his property, but the present bill took away this privilege, and deprived him of that fair preponderance to which property was entitled. He would appeal to any landed proprietor in that House; whether

425
he would permit any parish commissioner to send for his title deeds, and inspect them at his pleasure? And yet this was one of the clauses in this measure which was called an improvement. Even if his right hon. friend should consent to abandon that most obnoxious part of the bill, could he suppose that he would ever be freed from the responsibility of having even allowed it to be introduced? He hoped that the operation of the bill of last year would continue, and that opportunities would be afforded of remedying the inconveniences which had arisen. Many of the agreements which had been effected had been entered into in a state of total ignorance of their tendency. Upon the whole, he should give this bill his decided opposition.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought that the speeches of the right hon. baronet, and of the hon. gentleman opposite, would have been much more appropriate if addressed to the committee. Almost all the arguments advanced applied to the bill of last session, and were therefore in favour of the present bill, which proposed an amendment. But, let the House examine a little in detail the speech of his hon. friend, who spoke last. His hon. friend had said, with respect to the composition, that many of the parties had been entrapped into their agreements: but his hon. friend must admit, that the number of appeals to the lord lieutenant and council was the most conclusive evidence as to the truth of the fact. Now, there had been ninety instances of composition, and out of these there had been but five appeals. Was it not clear, then, that five per cent was the extent of dissatisfaction. If the House were to examine the bill now before them, they would find that a very small part of it indeed was open to objections. By voting for the second reading of the bill, no member would be pledged to support all the enactments it contained, nor would he be precluded from adopting any amendments that might be proposed. The arguments which had been advanced, clearly proved the great importance of the subject; but he differed altogether from his hon. friend, as to the extent of the responsibility attaching to an individual who introduced a proposition. Every one was at liberty to propose a measure; but, if sound and serious objections were made against it, and he still persevered, then began the responsibility. By the forms of the House, seve-
426
ral opportunities were afforded of proposing amendments. Then why should there be a responsibility, if a man yield to a more matured conviction? His hon. friend had said, that his right hon. friend could never escape from the responsibility of having introduced the clause relative to the inspection of papers and documents: but, he could assure the House that when his right hon. friend had come down to the House it had been his intention to propose the repeal of it upon examining the objections to which it was exposed. He therefore, hoped the House would pursue the ordinary course, and not resort to the extraordinary proceeding of rejecting a bill, which had for its object the improvement of a former measure before they had had an opportunity of understanding the amendments that were to be proposed.
Mr. Grattansaid, that, with all his opposition to the bill before the House, and deprecating, as he did, the principle on which it was founded, because he thought it inimical to the landed proprietors of Ireland, he thought it might be better not to divide the House upon it in its present stage.
The bill was then read a second time.

CUSTOMS (COALS AND LINENS) BILL.
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a committee, on the Customs (Coals and Linens) till. The right hon. gentleman said, his object was, to correct am error in the bill, and this had made it necessary that it should be recommitted. At present it was proposed in the bill, that the reduction of the bounty on linens should commence on the 5th of July, 1824. The date should be the 5th of January, 1825; and he now submitted a resolution to that effect,
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he hoped that, in endeavouring to prevail upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to alter his opinion, he should not be accused of inconsistency; for he had seen, on various occasions, gentlemen who were more pledged than he could be supposed to be by character or experience to the principles of free trade, to make exceptions in particular instances. He was persuaded, that if individuals interested in the linen trade had as frequent access to government, as those in the silk and other great manufactures, although he did not expect they could prevail on the chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon those principles

427
which he thought right, they would induce him to consent to such modifications as would produce the least possible evil. He had no wish to see bounties permanently continued, nor if they were not in existence, would he now come forward to demand them. The chancellor of the Exchequer had made one concession in making the bounties remissible at different periods in the course of ten years, instead of taking them off all at once; but, in a country where there was little encouragement and where the people were looking for the lowest possible profits, care should be taken not to destroy, by legislative enactments, the individual exertions of persons, both in that country and in this, to procure employment for the people. He would suggest, that the date should be more remote. If they were allowed two or three years to prepare for the measure, they might be able to meet the consequences; but to commence the reduction at once would, in his judgment, be impolitic, and could not fail to produce the most injurious consequences.
Mr. Dennis Browneexpressed his astonishment at the ignorance which prevailed in this country with respect to the real condition of Ireland. Gentlemen seemed no more to be aware of the consequence of taking off these bounties, than they were of the interests of the remotest part of America, although Ireland was, in fact, within a stone's throw of them. At one time he heard there were no exports of coarse linens, and that they drew no bounties. Both assertions were equally fallacious, and he was astonished that any minister could make so great a mistake. It had been said, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great concession; but he maintained that he had no right whatever to interfere with these bounties. The people of Ireland had a chartered right to every possible advantage, until that branch of national industry had arrived to a state of perfection. This was a language which had been held by the British parliament, and echoed by the British king. No country had ever stood higher than England for a proud sense of honour and good faith, amongst foreign nations; but it was a monstrous violation of national faith with respect to Ireland, to interfere with her, or to meddle with her in any way: and it was quite absurd for the chancellor of the Exchequer to apply any of his rules of policy to her in her pre-
428
sent situation. He had been for many years a member of that House, and there was not a single year in which some attack or other had not been made upon the unfortunate linen trade. He had never seen a more unanimous feeling of detestation, than at the expression of an intention to repeal these bounties. If gentlemen could only foresee the ruin which it would produce in Ireland, they would be convinced of the impolicy of the proposed measure.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, he would, in the first instance, examine the question with reference to facts only, and endeavour to show that the opinions of the member for Kilkenny were erroneous. The hon. member, and all those who, with him, advocated these bounties, conceived the system which governed the linen manufacture of Ireland, to be perfection itself: and whenever a part of it was touched, without taking much trouble to think about the matter, at once proclaimed the manufacture would be destroyed, and the country ruined. He had taken pains to find out how these bounties could secure the object of those who supported them. It was said, they were necessary to maintain and extend the manufacture of coarse linens in Ireland. But this manufacture had more to fear from other causes than the loss of the bounty. It had to contend against the English and Scotch manufacturer of coarse linens, who imported foreign yarn at 1s. a cwt., which was cheaper by 25 per cent than the Irish could make it. Although foreign yarn might be imported into Ireland on the same terms the Irish were prevented taking advantage of it, by an Irish law for regulating the sale of yarn. This required that all yarn sold in Ireland should be wound in a particular manner; but the foreign reel did not admit of its being so wound. Some attempts had been made to introduce the use of foreign yarn, but the Linen Board had enforced the regulating law, and levied the penalties; and the consequence was, that the manufacture of coarse linen was leaving Ireland. The Scotch and English manufacturer had also the advantage of mill-spun yarn, which the Irish manufacturer was deprived of by the regulating law. The way, therefore, to assist and extend the manufacture of coarse linen in Ireland was, not by bounties, but by repealing the law that prevented the use of foreign yarn. Ireland would then be on a footing of

429
equality with England and Scotland, and could successfully come into competition with Germany. If, in place of importing foreign yarn free of duty, a high duty was imposed upon it, as some advised, then Germany would have the whole foreign trade in coarse linens wholly to itself. But if the bounties could extend the linen manufacture, it was by no means clear that it was desirable to give to this manufacture a preference over all others. He believed that no greater error was committed than to suppose that the linen manufacture was very beneficial to the peasantry of Ireland. Those consequences which usually flowed from an extensive manufacture in other countries, had not occurred in Ireland. The operative spinners, flax-dressers, and weavers, still lived in a state of great poverty. They were able merely to obtain the bare necessaries of life, without any small comforts and conveniences. This was owing to their being all cultivators of land, and paying away the wages they earned, as manufacturers, in rent to their landlords. The rate of rent they were willing to give to obtain land was, all their earnings as manufacturers would enable them to give, with a prospect of providing themselves with the plainest food. In this way the linen manufacture did not produce that rise of wages which was necessary, to place the operative workman in a situation superior to that of the agricultural labourer; and therefore, it was to take a very superficial view of the effects of this manufacture to say that it had been of any general advantage to the lower orders. If it was right, under any circumstances, to give encouragement to the extension of manufactures, the cotton manufacture would be in every respect preferable to the linen. It was the successful rival of the linen already, and the universal use of it made it likely to continue to prosper. As it was usually carried on by workmen living in villages and giving up their whole time to it, they would earn better wages, and by going to market for their food would form a new demand for the productions of the regular farmers. The hon. baronet now said he would examine the question on more general principles. He denied that the bounty could give any advantage to the Irish manufacturer. The hon. member for Kilkenny had spoken of the bounty, as if it was on the production of linen and paid for linens sold in the Irish
430
market; but the bounty was on the exportation of linens, and it had no operation till it was sold to the consumer abroad; and then its whole effect was to enable the consumer to buy the linen at a price just so much lower than the natural price, as the amount of the bounty. As the coarse Irish linens were chiefly sent to our colonies, the bounty was, to all intents and purposes, a nullity, except for the advantage of the West-India planter; for as no foreign linen could be imported into the West Indies, this bounty had not even the effect of giving to Ireland any superiority over foreign linens. As to the bounty being necessary to give employment to the people, no doctrine could be more at variance with the actual operation of the bounty. The quantity of employment depended upon the means of paying for it, that was, upon the quantity of capital in the country; but the bounty was to maintain a trade that, without it, would not pay the ordinary rate of profit, and thus it was a waste of capital to prevent loss, so that it contributed directly to diminish the funds for giving employment to the people. But, let its effect be as great as the advocates of it say it will be, in affording employment, after all, as it cannot create new capital it can only transfer employment from one occupation to another; and just in proportion as it may extend the linen manufacture in Ireland it will diminish employment in some other business. Under all these circumstances, as no case had been made out to justify the continuance of the bounty, he should vote against postponing the repeal till a later period than that proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Hutchinsonregretted that he had to rise after the observations of the hon. baronet, but, in opposing his views, he spoke the sentiments of others better acquainted with the subject than himself. His hon. friend asserted, that the condition of the people engaged in Ireland, in this particular branch of manufacture was not improved by the continuance of the bounties; but those engaged in the trade entertained an opinion exactly the reverse, and the manufacturers in the south and west of Ireland strongly opposed the repeal of such bounties. There was ready for presentation a petition from the county of Cork, signed by 60,000 persons, which asserted the advantages to be derived from the operation of the bounties now

431
sought to be reduced. Under such circumstances, he put it to the chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he would press his measure, which, however right in the abstract was deprecated, in its practical operation by the great bodies of the people who conceived themselves affected by it. He particularly pointed out to his majesty's government the value attached to the coarse linen trade of Ireland in the report of the parliamentary committee of last year, and how the diffusion of that trade had introduced industry and peace in those districts which were previously a prey to riot and insubordination. He thought the right hon. gentleman should at least pause, and pay some deference to the fears and feelings of the Irish, even though those fears and feelings might be ill-founded or unjust. The woollen trade in Ireland had been ruined by king William, in consequence of an address from that House, and the linen trade established in its place. He would say therefore, that this trade had a right to every protection and encouragement which it could possibly receive from that House.
Colonel Trenchapproved of the general principle; but the linen trade had always been a forced trade. It had been made by the bounties, and those bounties ought not now to be discontinued. He knew that much linen was made for the sake of the bounties; and however just the general principle on which it was proposed to repeal them might be, still something ought to be conceded to the fears of the people.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, he had made many inquiries on the subject, and had been informed by several manufacturers, that the taking off the bounties would have no effect on the trade. These gentlemen were well qualified to judge what would be the effect of the repeal. For his own part, he thought the repeal would be of no disadvantage. The trade was too well established to be hurt thereby. Linen to the amount of 2,500,000 l. was manufactured annually, and the amount of the bounty paid never exceeded 90,000 l. The reduction proposed was only 9,000 l. a year; and it did not seem possible that this small sum could have any effect on this trade. He thought, under all the circumstances, that every encouragement possible should be given to the trade in Ireland, and though he generally voted with ministers, he would most certainly not do so on the present occasion, if he
432
thought the measure would be of any injury to that trade. He was surprised at the opinion of the hon. baronet, that the linen manufacture was of no benefit to Ireland. It was a manufacture not carried on in crowded cities, and gave both health and comfort to the people. It was favourable to morals, it was altogether a home manufacture, and every part of it was productive of wealth.
Mr. Humethought the hon. baronet had been quite misunderstood. It was his opinion, that the bounties were of no good to the peasantry, whatever they might be to the consumers. The reduction proposed was so gradual and trifling, that it was quite absurd to suppose that any evil could result from it.
Sir H. Parnellreplied to the observations of the member for the county of Derry by saying, that it was not a correct way of judging of the effect of the linen manufacture, to look only to the province of Ulster. There might be found other reasons which explained the prosperity of that part of Ireland, independent of the linen manufacture. What he was ready to maintain was, that the linen manufacture had not led to the improved condition of the lower orders; that their earnings were very low; that a great part of those earnings were absorbed in rent; and, on the whole, that there were many extensive tracts of country in Ireland, where the linen manufacture existed, without the operative manufacturers being in a state to command more than the most miserable subsistence, with bad clothing, and bad habitations. This was a proposition he was ready to go into in the detail, whenever a fit opportunity presented itself. As to the opinions contained in petitions, he paid very little attention to sweeping assertions of the improved condition of the people; and as to linens having been made for the sake of the bounties, that he knew had been the case, but greatly to the discredit and injury of the manufacture. On the whole, he begged the House to remember, that the bounties cost the country 300,000 l. a-year, and as the rate at which they were to be reduced was only 10 per cent a-year, they would still cost the country at least one million and a half, without doing any good whatever. Be hoped a more rapid repeal of them would yet be adopted.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.