Sitting of 21 May 1824

KENSINGTON TURNPIKE TRUST—PETITION OF MR. COBBETT.
Mr. Humepresented the following Petition:
The Petition of William Cobbett, of Kensington, in the County of Middlesex,
"Most humbly sheweth—That your honourable House have, since the first day of the present month, passed an Act for the more effectually repairing, widening, and improving the road from Hyde Park Corner to Counter's Bridge, and certain other roads in the County of Middlesex, and for lighting, watching, and watering the said roads.
"That this act contained in its preamble, the following words, to wit:— 'And whereas the Trustees, appointed by or in pursuance of the said two first recited acts, have repaired and improved the said roads, and have made great progress in carrying into execution the powers and authorities thereby vested in them, and although they have paid off and discharged part of the said monies borrowed on the credit of the Tolls authorized to be taken upon the said roads, a considerable sum still remains undischarged, and cannot be paid off, and the said annual sum of one thousand pounds be paid to the said Committee of Paving for St. George, Hanover-square; nor can the said roads be effectually amended, widened, improved, and maintained in repair, unless the term and powers granted by the said two first recited acts be continued, and further provisions be made for that purpose:'
"That the said act was sent by your hon. House to the right hon. the House of Lords; that it was read a first and second time in that right honourable House, and was then referred to a Committee; that the said Committee, after having examined witnesses for the Act, and after having also examined the accounts of the said roads, decided, that the preamble of the said act had not been proved; that, thus, the House of Lords declared hot to have been proved that
794
which your honourable House had actually enacted as having been proved; and that their lordships did accordingly vote, on the 12th instant, that the said act or bill should be re-committed on that day six months. That the above quoted part of the preamble of the said act contained an unqualified falsehood; seeing that the Treasurer of the said road had a balance of upwards of four thousand five hundred pounds in his hands at the moment when he and the other petitioners of the bill (all of them Trustees of the road) were declaring to your honourable House that they could not, without a new act, pay off a debt of one thousand five hundred pounds; that your honourable House were, therefore, grossly imposed upon by the persons who petitioned for the bill, and by the persons who came before your Committee to prove the preamble thereof:
"That the Petitioners for the bill were—Samuel Everingham Sketchley, Chairman, George Vardy, Henry Rowed, William Forstein, Henry Wilmot, William Thornton, Richard Chase, Frederick Platt Barlow, John Groome, and George Barke; that these petitioners state in their petition, that they are Trustees of the said road; that the petitioner, S. E. Sketchley, states that he is the Chairman of the Trustees; that it was proved before the said Committee of the Lords, that he is also Treasurer of the said road:
"That all these petitioners ought to have known, and that the said S. E. Sketchley must of necessity have known, the true state of the pecuniary affairs of the said road; and that, nevertheless, they in their said petition make to your honourable House the following false statement, to wit, That although the Trustees have proceeded in the execution of the said trust reposed in them with the utmost care and frugality, yet they find, from the great increase of expense for labour and materials for repairing the said roads, the produce of the Tolls at present authorized to be collected is not more than sufficient to enable them to pay the said annual sum of one thousand pounds, and the remaining debt due as aforesaid, and effectually to amend, pave, and drain the said roads and foot-paths, and keep the same in good repair, and to light, watch, and water the same, as required by the said acts, and to effect certain improvements on the said roads and foot-paths which are necessary, by widening the same, and otherwise for the convenience and safety of the public,

795
and to defray the several other expenses attending the execution of the said Act, and that, unless the present tolls are continued, and further powers given to the said trustees, the several purposes aforesaid cannot be effected:'
"Your humble petitioner prays your honourable House to observe the following facts:—
"1. That these petitioners here assert, that the produce of the present tolls is not more than sufficient for the purposes of the road; and that those purposes cannot be fulfilled unless the present Tolls be continued by a new act:
"2. That their own surveyor, Mr. Francis, declared upon oath, before the said Committee of the Lords, that the road might not only be kept in proper repair, but that many houses might be pulled down, and several streets widened, and yet, that the present tolls might be considerably diminished; an oath in direct contradiction to the allegation of the trustees in their petition to your honourable House:
"3. That the bill, as finally passed by your honourable House, does, in one of its enactments, make a considerable reduction in the present tolls; an enactment in flat contradiction to the preamble of the bill itself:
"Your petitioner presumes not to express an opinion with regard to the punishment due to persons who have thus knowingly and premeditatedly employed statements for the manifest purpose of imposing upon your honourable House, and of inducing you to pass an act, the principal enactments of which are at irreconcileable variance with the preamble, while the preamble is at open war with the truth; but, as the means of protection, for himself and others, against dangers such as that which they have now narrowly escaped, he prays that your honourable House will be pleased to adopt such measures as you, in your wisdom, shall deem most meet for effectually preventing similar impositions in future. And your petitioner will ever pray.
"WM. COBBETT."
Mr. Byngdefended the conduct of the trustees, and contended, that there was no foundation for the charge against them; their only object being the improvement of the line of road under their superin-tendance.
Mr. Humereplied, that his hon. friend must be wholly ignorant of the matter;
796
since it appeared, that the trustees had practised the grossest falsehood. They had stated, that they were unable to pay their debt, at the very moment at which it was proved, that they had 4,500 l. in their possession. No ingenuity could excuse such conduct.
Ordered to be printed.

SEIZURE AND IMPRISONMENT IN JAMAICA— PETITION OF L. C. LECESNE AND J. ESCOFFERY.
Dr. Lushingtonrose to present a petition to which he requested the attention of the House, and particularly of ministers of his majesty's government. If the facts alleged were true, there never was a case which called more loudly for their interference; not only with a view to do justice to the oppressed, but also to punish the oppressors. The petition stated, that the petitioners are freemen of colour, natives of Kingston, in the island of Jamaica, where they had constantly resided; that they were married to women, also natives of that island, and had each four children—that they were engaged in business as liquor-merchants—that they held the rank of serjeants in the militia, in which they have served since the year 1813; and that they possessed property in the island, consisting of houses, land, and slaves: that about the latter end of September last, the petitioners underwent an examination before certain magistrates of Kingston as to the proofs they possessed of being British-born subjects, when they produced, in support of that fact, the certificates of their baptism, and other necessary documents— that on the 7th of October following, petitioners were apprehended, and carried to prison, for the purpose, as they were informed, of being summarily removed from the island of Jamaica, as aliens, and dangerous persons; but a writ of habeas corpus having been issued, on their application to the grand court of the island, their case underwent a full and minute investigation before Mr. Chief-justice Scarlett, and the two assistant judges, Mills and West, on the 25th of the same month; and the sentence pronounced by the court was, that the petitioners were both British-born subjects, and as such entitled to their discharge, and to the enjoyment of all their privileges as British citizens. He felt it incumbent on him to state to the House, that these petitioners were not persons of no estimation, in a low line of life, or un-

797
known to the other inhabitants of the island; for their petition went on to state, that upon their subsequently appearing before the said chief-justice, they were attended by six freeholders for the purpose of giving bail. Upon that occasion, the chief-justice declined to receive the offered bail, on the ground, that he knew of no charges against them. That the petitioners were thus discharged, after a detention of 18 days, without any distinct communication having been made to them of the grounds of their imprisonment—that during their imprisonment, a memorial, bearing testimony to the general good conduct of the petitioners, was addressed to his excellency the governor, by thirty of the most respectable merchants and magistrates, of whom one was a member of the council, six were magistrates, and one was the provost-marshal general. Up to the time of their arrest, therefore, the House must be satisfied, that the petitioners were men of irreproachable character. After their discharge, the petitioners returned to their usual occupations with increased confidence of security, having thus received from the first judicial authority in the island, a full acknowledgment of their claim to the title of British subjects, and as they fully believed, to all the legal protection which belongs to that character. After what had passed, the House would experience as much surprise as the petitioners felt, when, whilst they were peaceably engaged in their private business, on the evening of the 29th of last November, their store or shop was surrounded by marshalmen and constable, the petitioners were suddenly seized under an alleged order of his excellency the governor, on the same charge as that on which they had formerly been arrested, viz. that of being Aliens and dangerous persons—forcibly dragged from their families and homes, without being allowed time even to see their children, and hurried on board his majesty's guardship the Serapis. Nobody, he presumed, would say that this was such conduct as ought to have been adopted by a government founded on free and liberal principles. If the governor of Jamaica had felt it to be his duty to arrest the petitioners a second time, it would have been no less his duty to have the question of their guilt or innocence fairly investigated, and to examine the evidence which might be brought against them, before he ventured to decide that they were guilty, and sen-
798
tence them to so heavy a punishment. With what indignation, then, as well as astonishment, would the House hear, that without any such investigation, without, affording the petitioners any opportunity, of providing for their defence, or of communicating with their friends or relatives, they were, on the day succeeding that on which they had been seized, transported to St. Domingo, where they were landed. The petitioners stated this in the following terms:—"That the petitioners were assured at the time, by the alien officer who arrested them, that they would be allowed to remain ten days on board that ship, in order that they might communicate with the governor on the subject of their apprehension, and make the necessary arrangements respecting their property and mercantile concerns. That this promise, however, was not fulfilled; for on their being taken on board the Serapis, so severe was the restraint imposed upon them, that they were not permitted to hold the slightest communication with their families (although they came alongside in a boat for the purpose), nor even to send on shore a letter of directions for the management of their affairs; but that on the following morning about four o'clock, they were removed from the Serapis to his majesty's ship Helicon, and immediately conveyed to Jacmel, in the island of St. Domingo. That on the arrival of the Helicon at Jacmel, they were, by the captain of that ship, turned ashore to shift for themselves, in a foreign country, in which, but for the kind assistance afforded them by certain British merchants resident there, they must have suffered the greatest distress." He (Dr. L.) was at a loss to conceive what excuse could be offered for so gross a violation of the rights of British subjects. It would not, he was sure, be said, in an English House of Commons, that because men were a shade darker than those who were born in our own climate, they were therefore to be deprived of the privileges which the constitution of Great Britain extended equally to her most exalted and her meanest subjects. After they were landed at St. Domingo, the fate which awaited them seemed to be at least as unhappy as that which had befallen them in Jamaica. They became immediately objects of suspicion to the government of Hayti, and were taken up again as aliens and dangerous persons. He held in his hand a Haytian Gazette, in which this

799
fact was stated; and if it had not happened, by good fortune, that there was on board the ship which had brought them a Jamaica newspaper, containing an account of their being first arrested in the latter island, and the proceedings on the habeas corpus, they would again have been doomed to the pain of imprisonment. Upon the evidence of this newspaper, however, the Haytian government released them, and they were allowed to remain under the protection, and indebted for the means of subsistence, to the kindness of some British merchants resident there. The petitioners went on to state, "that for treatment so severe, and so arbitrary, and so contrary not only to British law, and to the spirit of the British constitution, but even to the laws of Jamaica itself, no cause whatever has yet been assigned to them; and to the present day they have been wholly unable, although they have used many entreaties and much exertion for that purpose, to learn on what grounds or for what supposed offence on their part they have been subjected to such harsh and illegal punishment. That the circumstances attending their first apprehension in the month of October last, and the subsequent appointment of a secret committee of the House of Assembly of Jamaica to inquire into certain treasonable practices which were suspected to have had their rise in Kingston, and the parties immediately concerned in which were supposed to be foreigners, agents of Boyer, the President of Hayti, have led the petitioners, in the absence of all direct and authentic information on the subject, to conjecture that their deportation must have been occasioned by the renewed efforts of secret enemies to fix on them the character of aliens and dangerous persons. That, however, of their being British subjects by birth, the petitioners had before furnished the most satisfactory proofs; while the entire consciousness they possessed of having on all occasions conducted themselves as peaceable and loyal subjects, rendered them perfectly ready to meet any legal trial to which they might be brought, and perfectly confident of being able to rebut any charge which might be preferred against them; but that this justice was denied to the petitioners. That on their arrival at St. Domingo, the petitioners lost no time in addressing a memorial to his excellency the governor of Jamaica, praying to be made acquainted with the accusations against
800
them, and confronted with their accusers; and to be allowed the opportunity of legally vindicating themselves; but that to this application no answer has been returned. That having waited in St. Domingo, in the expectation of such answer, until the month of March last, the petitioners determined, as their only remaining resource, to proceed to this country, and to solicit the protection of his majesty's paternal government, and of the British Parliament. That to this honourable House the petitioners do most humbly, but confidently, appeal, declaring most explicitly and solemnly, that they are wholly unconscious of having committed any offence whatever against his majesty's government, or of being chargeable with any conduct calculated to endanger the safety, or disturb the peace, of the island of Jamaica—that they have never held any correspondence with St. Domingo, or any other country than Great Britain, and that they have on all occasions discharged their duties as loyal citizens and subjects of his majesty. That the petitioners, besides being subjected to a great variety of heavy expenses, have to lament their ruined fortunes, their blasted prospects in life, and their distressed and impoverished families, in consequence of the unjust and illegal proceedings of which they have been the victims. That the petitioners, therefore, as men, as freemen, and above all, as British subjects, who have been deprived of that privilege which is never denied to the greatest criminals—that of not being condemned unheard—implore this honourable House to institute an inquiry into the premises which they are ready to establish by proof at the bar of this honourable House, and to grant them such redress, particularly in enabling them to return to their home, their families, and friends, as to the wisdom of your honourable House shall seem meet." He had stated the facts without exaggerating a single circumstance; and he did not at that moment intend to detain the House with many observations on the case. If these facts were true, the outrage which had been committed was so flagrant a one, that he was sure his hon. friend could not be prepared to justify it. If, on the contrary, the facts were untrue, he called upon the government to furnish the House with satisfactory proofs of their-falsehood. He had himself seen, and examined, end cross-examined, the pet-

801
sons by whom the petition was signed: he had sought information from others, as to the character of the petitioners, and in no respect had he discovered any thing which could induce him to doubt their credibility. He called, therefore, upon the government to explain to the House the reasons upon which this violent deportation of the petitioners had been resolved upon; and to state why they had been torn away from their homes, without notice of any accusation, and without time to provide for their defence. He called upon them to state, if they could, any circumstances which could justify the condemning a man without a trial, upon the same charge of which he had once been acquitted, and that totally unheard. Unless the most satisfactory explanation should be given, he should feel it his duty to call the serious attention of the House to the subject: and would not rest until he had rescued the character of the British nation from the foul disgrace of having participated in an act of such odious oppression as that which the petition detailed.?
Mr. Wilmot Hortonsaid, he was not able to meet the statement of his learned friend, for want of particular information, as to the several matters contained in the petition. All that his majesty's ministers knew was, that the petitioners had been complained of to the magistrates of Kingston as being aliens, dangerous persons to the government, and engaged in a treasonable conspiracy against it. It was true that the duke of Manchester had put the alien act in force against them. It seemed to be equally true, that they had applied for writs of habeas corpus, which had been granted. But, his learned friend had admitted, that if these men were aliens, the magistracy of Jamaica were empowered by law to remove them from the island. The question, then, first seemed to be, whether the petitioners were or were not aliens. As to what had been stated of the proceedings in the court of King's-bench, that was merely an exparte proceeding, and the affidavits upon which the decision of the court of King's-bench had been formed could not be received as conclusive evidence of the fact of the petitioners being British-born subjects. He was ready to allow, that if it should appear they were not aliens, the government of Jamaica had incurred a most serious responsibility, and one in which it could neither be countenanced
802
nor excused. But, it was evident, from the proceedings which had been adopted, that the duke of Manchester thought they were aliens. A committee had been appointed to inquire into the causes of the disturbances, and had reported the petitioners, not only to be engaged in a treasonable conspiracy, but also that they were intimately connected with the slaves who had been tried for rebellion, and to whom one of the petitioners had sold arms. These were points which required explanation. His learned friend had roused the feelings of the House by appeals to the British constitution; but the situation of the duke of Manchester ought to be recollected. There could be no doubt that a rebellion had existed against the government; and his grace was called upon to exercise every legal power that he possessed, which might tend to the security of the colony. He assured the House that every possible step should be taken to procure that information, without which it was obvious the House could not safely proceed.
Mr. Broughamwas truly sorry that the hon. gentleman was not prepared with a fuller explanation, if not a contradiction, of the statements contained in the petition. From the information of which he was in possession, it appeared, however, that the governor of Jamaica had arrested two persons, whose alienship had come in question before the supreme court of judicature in that island. And here he begged to set the hon. gentleman right in one of the facts he had stated. The inquiry before the court was not an exparte proceeding. The duke of Manchester was there present, represented by his attorney-general, to examine the proof which was offered. It was in the discretion of the court to pronounce upon the arguments against, as well as for the parties accused. Upon that inquiry, however, the certificates of the baptism of these supposed aliens were produced, and proved that they were born at Kingston. The attorney-general's objections were heard; and the court resolved, that the petitioners were not aliens, but British-born subjects. After the lapse of a few weeks, during which the duke of Manchester had acquiesced in the decision of the court: he, having heard some other matters alleged against the petitioners, as he (Mr. B.) was bound in charity to suppose he had, ordered them again to be arrested, and sent away from the island without permitting them to receive the ad-

803
vice or assistance of friends, counsel, or agent; and consequently without affording them the possibility of again appealing to that court, before which, upon full discussion and after hearing evidence, their birth-rights had been established. This was his charge against the duke of Manchester—that he had done this after the decision of the court of King's-bench, and in the teeth of that decision. The duke of Manchester might be able to explain this. As he was in some measure now on his trial, he would not prejudge him; but he could not help feeling surprise, that his communications with his majesty's government had not furnished them with the means of contradicting (if they could be contradicted) the statement of the petitioners.
Mr. Grossettsaid, he had been informed by letters from Jamaica, that one of the petitioners (Lecesne) was supposed to be the person who had supplied the rebellious negroes with arms. It seemed that the negroes of the northern parts of the island had contributed money, as was supposed, for a missionary; but which was afterwards devoted to the purchase of about 20 stands of arms, conveyed across the island to the parishes of St. Mary and St. George; and there was at least a strong imputation against the petitioner that it was by him those arms hail been furnished.
Mr. W. Hortonexplained, that between the first arrest and subsequent deportation of the petitioners, two facts had been established against them; first, that they were in truth aliens, notwithstanding what had appeared before the court of King's-bench; and, secondly, that they had been engaged in a treasonable conspiracy. The affidavits made in the first instance in favour of the petitioners might turn out to be false; and hence the court might have decided in error.
Mr. Broughamasked, if the duke of Manchester had obtained subsequent information, why the question had not been brought again before the court of King's-bench? Suppose the subsequent information were true, why had not the parties been tried? Why send them off without a moment's warning? If the accused had confessed all that was laid to their charge, did it authorise the governor to send them away without trial?
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, it was true that, on a subsequent trial in January, 1824, there was found a negro who stated that arms had been purchased of Lescesne.
804
The men were convicted, but he held in his hand a letter from the rector of the parish, in which he said, that he believed in his conscience that the slaves were innocent; further, that there had been a conspiracy of the grossest kind against them, and that Baptiste, the witness, was an emissary from St. Domingo, and one of the most murderous, diabolical, and insidious fiends that had ever been let loose on society. Lecesne was ready to take his trial before any judge or jury; he sought investigation and justice: and would not cover any offence imputed to him by evasion or falsehood. His hon. friend had mentioned circumstances that came out before a secret committee. Whatever those circumstances might be, it was impossible that they could justify seizing the petitioners and sending them to St. Domingo, not only without trial, but in absolute defiance of the decision of the court of King's-bench. If it should turn out that they were aliens, at least they had spent their lives in Jamaica, from their earliest infancy. How did it happen that ministers had no information? Did the duke of Manchester think he was justified in keeping the government at home in ignorance? Nothing even like an excuse had been attempted, and he called upon ministers to lay upon the table all the information they possessed relative to these individuals. If it were refused, he would submit a distinct motion for it on the earliest possible opportunity, and he pledged himself to prosecute the matter in every way, until the House arrived at some becoming determination.
Ordered to lie on the table.

WOOL IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Curteisinsisted that the bill aimed a severe blow at the agricultural interest. The measure was the first-fruits of the new school of philosophy which had lately sprung up respecting free trade. All that he desired on the part of the agricultural interest was, that they might be protected against an inundation of foreign wool. He would therefore move, "that the bill be committed on that day six months."
Mr. S. Wortleyconsidered the principle of the hill to be ruinous to the agricultural interest. He was sorry to see that great interest neglected by gentlemen who were led away by their love of spinning-jennies. It was equally the interest of the manu-

805
facturing and the agricultural class not to allow the exportation of wool.
Alderman Thompsonprotested against the exportation of wool.
Mr. Benettwished the duties on the importation and exportation of wool to be equalized.
Mr. T. Wilsonthought it unwise to allow the exportation of long wool to countries which showed no disposition to make concessions on matters of trade to us. Every pound of wool exported would be mixed with three or four pounds of other wool, not the produce of this country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the principle of the bill was; first, whether the duty on the importation of wool should be reduced at all; and secondly, whether the exportation of wool should be allowed at all. He had fully explained the principle of the measure in February last, and his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had afterwards gone over the same ground. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be most advisable to go into a committee, where the details of the measure might be discussed.
Lord Milton, from all that he had been able to collect on the subject, considered it one of the wisest measures that could be adopted. Those who represented the agricultural interest in that House took an erroneous view of the question. He believed that the free importation of wool into this country would be attended with the most beneficial results.
Sir G. Shiffnersupported the measure, and wished the landed and manufacturing interests to go hand in hand.
Mr. Hart Daviscontended, that the measure was both partial and unjust. If the exportation of long wool were permitted, the manufacturers of Germany would soon rival us in the manufacture of it. Indeed, several large orders for it had been already transmitted to this country from Germany, under the idea, that the laws prohibiting the exportation of this kind of wool would be immediately repealed.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should confine himself to making such observations upon each of the clauses of the bill as appeared necessary to him. His proposition was, to repeal the import duty of 6d. per lb. on wool, after the 10th of
806
September; then to re-enact a duty of 3d. per lb. from that time to the 10th of December, when he would again reduce it, and leave it at the rate where he intended that it should remain. That part of the subject he should, however, discuss in another clause. He would now merely propose to fill up the first blank in the bill, with the words, "10th day of September, 1824." The hon. member for Sussex had given as a reason for his hostility to the measure, that he was not inclined to tamper with the long-established practice of our ancestors in imposing these duties. The hon. member was, however, mistaken in his facts. These duties were not the established practice, but an innovation on the established practice of our ancestors. The duty of 6d. per lb. on imported wool never existed until 1819; for, up to that time, it had only been 1d. per lb. Under that small quantum of duty the wool trade had greatly flourished; and, indeed, within the last quarter of a century, the growth of wool itself had much increased. He therefore trusted, that the committee would concur in the propriety of the reduction—a reduction which was equally conducive to the interest of the grower and the manufacturer. With regard to the time at which this reduction of duty was to take place, there was nothing either partial or unjust in that which he had selected. The two dates with which he intended to fill up the blanks of this bill, were the very dates which had been recommended to him by the committee of wool-manufacturers.
Mr. Brightcomplained, that the port of Bristol did not contain sufficient room for the warehousing of bonded wool, and called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to frame a clause, which would make a distinction between wools in bonded warehouses, which had not paid the duty, and which would therefore come out duty free, and wools, which, being in merchants warehouses, must have paid the duty, and must consequently subject the owners of them to loss, if their case was not specially considered. He contended, that the chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pay back the duty upon such wool as was unsold in merchants' warehouses, on the days mentioned.
Mr. Hart Daviscontended, that gross partiality had been shown to the silk-trade, and gross neglect to the wool-trade, though it was the great staple of the country. 500,000 l. had been conceded to the

807
silk-trade; but the only concession made to the wool-trade was, to have all the burthens under which it laboured continued for five months longer. He hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would shorten the time, and give a drawback to the manufacturer, upon all the wool he should then have in hand.
Mr. Benettcontended, that if the chancellor of the Exchequer consented to give the manufacturer a drawback upon the wool which he had on hand, he ought also to give the farmer a drawback upon the wool which he had on his sheep's back, and the linen-draper a drawback upon all the manufactured wool he had in his shop.
Mr. Curteishoped that the chancellor of the Exchequer, if he determined to repeal these duties, would not allow a drawback. He considered the manufacturers not to be at all entitled to it.
The clause was agreed to. On the clause for repealing the prohibition of the export of wool.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he considered this clause to be consistent with sound policy, and to be absolutely necessary to placing the trade of the country upon a sound principle. The 10th of December was the clay which he had fixed for the cessation of these laws, being the same day on which he intended that the minimum of import duty should commence.
Mr. W. Whitmorefelt persuaded, that if the principle of the proposed clause was carried into effect, it would give origin and support to a most beneficial trade, the advantages of which no man could anticipate. He meant the export of woollen yarn. The superiority of this country in machinery would give a strength and extension to that branch of manufacture which would be felt throughout the great interests of our agricultural and commercial system. The government of this country were proceeding on such sound and enlightened views, that he sincerely hoped the House of Commons would afford its concurrence, in order to enable them to carry into effect these propositions. There was, however, one mistake rather general through the House and the country, on which it was necessary that the fullest inquiry should be made, in order to correct it. It was assumed, that the prosperity of the woollen manufacture was owing to the prohibitory system; particularly of the exportation of the long wool. What did the history of
808
that manufacture disclose? The woollen manufacture, considering all the circumstances of the period, was in a state of great prosperity in the reign of Elizabeth; and yet, at that period, there was no prohibition of the export of wool of any kind in that reign. It was depressed in the following reigns, from a variety of circumstances; but the greatest depression was in the reign of Charles 2nd. The manufacturers of that period, like the manufacturers of all periods, feeling the depression, were disposed to find a cause for it in the permission to export the home growth. The 12th of Charles 2nd was passed, and the prohibitory system commenced. Did that measure relieve the manufacturer? No such thing. The trade suffered a great depression notwithstanding the prohibition. That depression continued to the Revolution. What was then the deduction from the actual events? It was, that during the reign of Elizabeth, when there was no prohibition of export, the trade was prosperous, and that when the prohibitory system was acted upon, the depression was increased. The flourishing state of the manufacture did not, therefore, depend upon a prohibitory system. But, independent of the particular advantage that he was persuaded would flow from that measure, he rejoiced in the progress of the principle. He sincerely hoped, that the success that would arise in this instance would encourage his majesty's ministers to extend the principle to its fullest extent; and he could assure them, that by so acting, they would confer the most lasting benefit on their country, and not alone on their country, but on the world; and prove themselves the most wise and useful men, that in the whole of our history ever held the reins of government [hear, hear]!
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, he had listened with some impatience to hear a single argument infavour of the export of long wool. Indeed, it would be somewhat difficult to prove to the conviction of any man, that an article of home growth, essential to our own manufactures, and the whole of which was thus employed, could beneficially be sent to foreigners.
Mr. S. Wortleyasked, whether any gentleman in that House, having the feelings of an Englishman, would stand up and say, that this country, having a raw material by which she was enabled to supply the world with a particular fabric, should give that article up without re-

809
ceiving any reciprocal advantage? He denied that this proposition had any thing to do with the question of free trade. Free trade must rest on reciprocity, and here there was none. It was said, that this measure would be advantageous to the agricultural interest. This, he denied. Every pound of long wool enabled the manufacturer to work up a certain quantity of inferior fine wool; and, if the long wool were exported, the inferior fine wool must necessarily be reduced in price. The foreigner had plenty of inferior fine wool: all he wanted was the English long wool; and the moment he got an opportunity of purchasing that article, he would become the rival of our manufacturers. Who complained of the price and value of this long wool? Surely no hon. member would deny, that of all agricultural productions long wool was the most valuable for its price. Any land on which long-woolled sheep could be reared was valuable, and amply repaid all expenses. The foreigner had endeavoured to cultivate this description of wool, and to drive out that of finer quality. He had failed, however; and, were we to assist him in effecting this object? Some gentlemen were favourable to the exportation of yarn formed from this wool: but, to that he also objected. The manufacturers abroad were not, at present, ready with machinery to work up this wool, but they were perfectly ready to make use of the prepared yarn. Therefore he did not wish to have this article exported. If exportation were at all allowed, it should be at such a rate of duty as would give a decided preference and protection to the English manufacturer; and he looked upon the proposed duty of 1d. per lb. as no protection whatever. He hoped, if this measure were carried, that his constituents, the manufacturers, would find they had not formed a wrong estimate of its effects; but he feared the contrary would turn out to be the case.
Lord Miltonsaid, that in his opinion, all classes would ultimately reap advantage from the measure. His hon. colleague objected to the measure, because he saw no reciprocity in it; since other countries did not show any disposition to extend to us the measure of liberality which we were about to extend to them; but, surely, there was not a merchant who would send any valuable commodity abroad, without bringing home something valuable in return. Thus it was that
810
commerce was best supported. Therefore he would say, that this country was right in not making particular commercial treaties on particular points; because he was convinced that reciprocity of benefit was much better secured without resorting to that obsolete mode. So long as there were capital, industry, skill, and enterprise amongst our manufacturers, they would never allow foreigners to come and buy the wool out of their mouths. If ministers proceeded in the way now proposed, they would get rid of the whole body of absurd laws which, so far from fostering the wool-trade, actually cramped and fettered the growth of wool. He was sure, that, but for those laws, the growth of wool would have been raised to a much higher pitch than it had attained. He had always opposed those laws, because they cramped the growth of this article, upon which the woollen manufacturer must necessarily depend for his prosperity. For that reason, and because he was thoroughly persuaded that the present moment was a proper one for making the alteration, he should support the clause.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, that in adopting this measure, they were not departing from the ancient policy of this country, but were again returning to it. Until the period of the Restoration, it had been the almost in-variable policy of this country to allow wool to be exported, on the payment of a trifling duty. It was true, that at times prohibitions were introduced—sometimes to annoy sovereigns with whom we were at war, and at others, to allow our own sovereign to increase his private resources. But it was asked, why the regulation should be changed? Now, he contended, that the weight of proof rested with the gentleman who opposed this opening of the trade. Could any one reason be adduced for continuing the present system, except that stated by the hon. member for Yorkshire, that there was something so peculiar in the soil and climate of this country, that here only the long-woolled sheep could be reared? But, the was a fallacy. Twenty or thirty years ago, sheep, which it was supposed could only thrive on particular soils, had been reared on soils of a very different description. At one period, it was the general conviction, that the fine wool of the Spanish sheep could not grow in any country but Spain, and it was even asserted, that the long and painful journeys taken by those animals was essential to the excellence of

811
their fleece. But the contrary had since been manifest; and, under every possible variety of climate and circumstance, in every part of Europe, they would now find wool of equal excellence. Nine years ago, an agricultural writer of eminence stated, that he had discovered in France, a flock of sheep of the Lincolnshire breed. If this was the case—if the animals were thus sent abroad and throve there—what was the use of those laws? How came it that they were not effective? This was a question that rested, not on any doctrine of reciprocity, but on its own exclusive merits.
The committee divided; Ayes 180: Noes 20.

COMBINATION LAWS—RESOLUTIONS OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON ARTISANS AND MACHINERY.
Mr. Humebrought up the Report of the Select Committee on Artisans and Machinery. In moving that it be printed, he said, that the committee had directed their attention chiefly to the subject of the combination laws, to the permission to artisans to quit the country, and to the permission to export machinery; upon which they had come to the following resolutions:—

1. "That it appears, by the evidence before the committee, that combinations of workmen have taken place in England, Scotland, and Ireland, often to a great extent, to raise and keep up their wages, to regulate their hours of working, and to impose restrictions on the masters, respecting apprentices or others whom they might think proper to employ; and that, at the time the evidence was taken, combinations were in existence, attended with strikes or suspension of work; and that the laws have not hitherto been effectual to pre-vent such combinations.

2. "That serious breaches of the peace and acts of violence, with strikes of the workmen, often for very long periods, have taken place, in consequence of, and arising out of the combinations of workmen, and been attended with loss to both the masters and the workmen, and with considerable inconvenience and injury to the community.

3. "That the masters have often united and combined to lower the rates of their workmen's wages, as well as to resist a demand for an increase, and to regulate their hours of working; and sometimes to discharge their workmen who would not consent to the conditions offer-
812
ed to them; which have been followed by suspension of work, riotous proceedings, and acts of violence.

4. "That prosecutions have frequently been carried on, under the Statute and the Common Law against the workmen, and many of them have suffered different periods of imprisonment for combining and conspiring to raise their wages, or to resist their reduction, and to regulate their hours of working.

5. "That several instances have been stated to the committee, of prosecutions against masters for combining to lower wages, and to regulate the hours of working; but no instance has been adduced of any master having been punished for that offence.

6. "That the laws have not only not been efficient to prevent combinations, cither of masters or workmen; but, on the contrary, have, in the opinion of many of both parties, had a tendency to produce mutual irritation and distrust, and to give a violent character to the combinations, and to render them highly dangerous to the peace of the community.

7. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that masters and workmen should be freed from such restrictions, as regard the rate of wages and the hours of working, and be left at perfect liberty to make such agreements as they may mutually think proper.

8. "That, therefore, the statute laws that interfere in these particulars between masters and workmen, should be repealed; and also, that the common law, under which a peaceable meeting of masters or workmen may be prosecuted as a conspiracy, should be altered.

9. "That the committee regret to find from the evidence, that societies, legally enrolled as benefit societies, have been frequently made the cloak, under which funds have been raised for the support of combinations and strikes, attended with acts of violence and intimidation; and without recommending any specific course, they wish to call the attention of the House to the frequent perversion of these institutions from their avowed and legitimate objects.

10. "That the practice of settling disputes by arbitration between masters and workmen, has been attended with good effects; and it is desirable that the laws which direct and regulate arbitration, should be consolidated, amended, and made applicable to all trades.

813

11. "That it is absolutely necessary, when repealing the combination laws, to enact such a law as may efficiently, and by summary process, punish either workmen or masters who by threats, intimidation, or acts of violence, should interfere with that perfect freedom which ought to be allowed to each party, of employing his labour or capital in the manner he may deem most advantageous,"

Artisans—."That it appears, by the evidence before this committee, that notwithstanding the laws enacted to prevent the seduction of artisans to go abroad, many able and intelligent artisans have gone abroad to reside, and to exercise their respective arts, in foreign countries; and that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, in this country, by any mode of executing the present laws, or by any new law, to prevent artisans, who may be so determined, from going out of the country.
2. "That although the penalties which the laws inflict on artisans who disobey them, are not distinctly understood by the workmen, yet an unfavourable opinion is generally entertained by them of the partial and oppressive operation of these laws, as preventing them from taking their labour and art to the best market, whilst all other classes of the community are permitted to go abroad, and to take their capital with them, whenever they think proper.
3. "That it appears also by evidence, that many British artisans residing abroad have been prevented from returning home, from an erroneous opinion that they have, by going abroad, violated the laws of their country, and consequently incurred penalties under them.
4. "That, in the opinion of this committee, it is both unjust and impolitic to continue these laws; they therefore recommend their entire repeal, and that artisans may be at liberty to go abroad, and to return home, whenever they may be so disposed, in the same manner as other classes of the community now go and re turn."
Machinery. "That the committee have examined evidence respecting the export, of machinery, which will be found in the appendix; but they are of opinion, that further inquiry, and a more complete investigation, should take place, before this important subject can be satisfactorily decided on; and they therefore recommend, that the consideration of this import-
814
ant question should be resumed in the next session of parliament. That the chairman be instructed to prepare bills, to carry the objects of the above resolutions into effect, and to ask leave of the House to present the same."

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE—PETITION OF MR. SOANE.
Mr. Littletonpresented a petition from Mr. Soane, the architect, complaining, that an undue responsibility had been cast upon him, respecting the for the new buildings in Palace had, and also that the arrangements which he had provided for those engaged in the new courts of law, would be rendered, in a great degree, nugatory, if the recommendation of the late committee were carried into effect. Mr. Soane stated, that by order of the lords of the Treasury, he made a survey for the new buildings in Palace-yard, in 1821, and sent in his plan to the Treasury soon after. That it was then referred to the judges of the respective courts, and, after some alterations, adopted in consequence of that reference, ultimately approved of by the lords of the Treasury, and ordered to be carried into effect. Mr. Soane was therefore anxious, for his own professional reputation, that it should be known that he had gone on, step by step, under the sanction of the lords of the Treasury; and with reference to the recommendation of the late committee, he had to point out, that if that were carried into effect, and particularly in the erection of what was called the Tudor tower at the corner, all the arrangements which he had provided for a law library, for barristers, and attornies, as well as for the judges themselves, would be impeded and rendered useless.
Mr. Scarlettthought the exterior of the new building was a disgrace to the national taste, and ought to be taken down. He suggested, that the old bail court of the duchy of Lancaster might be rendered more commodious and available for some of the accommodations required by Mr. Soane, in the place of other arrangements, which he contemplated.
Mr. Bankeswished to know if the hon. member meant to refer this petition to a select committee.
Mr. Littletonreplied in the negative, and said, that if he had been in the House when the late select committee was appointed, he should have opposed it; for he did not think that the public interests

815
were likely to be promoted by this mode of shifting the responsibility respecting public works, from the executive to private and irresponsible individuals.
Sir J. Yorkesaid, that Mr. Soane's petition clearly showed, that he had acted under the authority of the lords of the Treasury.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he certainly entertained doubts of the propriety of a part of the plan, but still it should be recollected, that the object uppermost with the government was the speedy erection of courts for the due despatch of public business. As to the question of taste, where no two persons could be brought to agree upon one point he would not pretend to give an opinion. It was due to Mr. Soane to state, that the lords of the Treasury had sanctioned his design.
Mr. Denmanadmitted that external propriety was a matter of great consequence as connected with the national taste. It was highly important, however, when they were considering this matter, to reflect upon the vote of 300,000 l. for repairing Windsor Castle. When they were informed, that the present lords of the Treasury, many of them persons of distinguished taste, sanctioned the new buildings in Palace-yard, which the moment they were seen, excited a public call to have them taken down, it was important for them to consider what might be the fate of that most beautiful building in the country, Windsor Castle. He should like to see an estimate; 1st, for the new buildings in Westminster Hall; then for pulling them down; and lastly, for rebuilding them, as an example for those who were to be engaged in the new works at Windsor.
Ordered to lie on the table.

GENERAL GAS COMPANY'S BILL.
The Earl of Lauderdale, on the order of the day for the second reading, being moved, said, that he intended to move that this bill be read that day six months. Throughout the whole country, there was no place which had heard of the bill which had not petitioned against it. He objected to the general principle of giving such powers to any corporate body as this bill purported to convey. The granting of a monopoly of this kind would take away all the check which arose from competition. The most advantageous mode of supplying gas to towns would be, to allow those who had an interest in their being well lighted to become the contractors.
The Earl of Limericksupported the bill. It had, he said, been brought into the House of Commons on February, and no opposition was there made to the measure. The bill was, not to destroy competition, but to enable another company to enter into competition with those already established. Nor was it meant to injure other companies. An objection had been made to the bill, on the ground of its enabling the company, as a corporate body, to escape the bankrupt laws. He was authorised by those who introduced the bill to say, that they were ready to give up this protection; and were also willing that the name of any town where gas companies were established should be exempt from its operation.
The Earl of Rosslynobjected to the principle of the bill, as he must to all bills which went to establish joint-stock companies, without a very strong case being made out. He saw no necessity for the present company, and no prudence in establishing it, contravening, as it did, the principles of the common law, that when

791
any man engaged in trade, he was answerable to his creditors with the whole of his property.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that if their lordships understood the true state of the case with respect to this bill, it would be impossible for them to pass it. He was against the powers given to companies of this description; more especially I when they were not incorporated by charter. There was a practice, with respect to speculations of this kind, which called loudly for some legislative prohibition. Persons formed schemes for the establishment of a company, and while they speculated on obtaining a charter, went into the market with shares which were Sold at a given price, though they might, in the result, prove to be of no value whatever. This was a subject not undeserving of their lordships' attention: it was worthy of their consideration whether it would not he proper to annul, by a legislative act, all such contracts. The present bill was for the purpose of lighting all towns with gas, except London and ten miles round it. This measure, it seemed, had passed the House of Commons without opposition, which was very extraordinary: but that was no argument in its favour; for, the moment the public attention was called to it, numerous petitions were presented against it. The learned lord alluded to the circumstance which he had formerly noticed respecting the capital of the company. It was provided, that it should not exceed one million sterling; but how much it really was to be did not appear. In such cases persons subscribed certain sums; there was a name in one column of half a sheet of paper, and a certain sum in another: but the amount of the subscription did not show the state of the funds of the company, for their lordships were well aware that subscribing and paying were now-a-days two very different things. In going over the clauses of the bill, he saw none which afforded any efficient remedy against the company. There was one by which creditors might proceed to levy by distress; but the proceeding was one which would probably produce most distress to the creditor, for he would find nothing to carry away but a gasometer and inflammable air. It was said that the partners were to be made liable to the full extent of their subscription; but, how was the creditor to get at the parties? In these incorporating bills a clause was introduced,
792
providing that the company might sue and be sued by their treasurer. This was very well for the interest of the company; but of what advantage was it to any body to get a verdict against the treasurer, if he had no funds? He had, on a former occasion, proposed, with respect to these bills, that a clause should be inserted, enabling the person who obtained a verdict against the treasurer to levy the amount by distress on any individual partner, leaving it to that individual to seek his remedy against the company. He repeated his objection to the incorporation of any company, except by a charter from the Crown. In that case, if the company acted improperly, the Crown could at once put them down, by withdrawing the charter; but when they were established by act of parliament, it required the passing of another act to repeal the former, before any remedy could be applied to the evil. He did not mean to say, that there might not be cases in which it would be proper to pass measures similar to the present bill; but their lordships ought to be extremely cautious how they established companies, with powers which might prove seriously injurious to the interests of individuals.
The Earl of Lauderdale's motion was agreed to; and, of course, the bill was thrown out.

SILK-MANUFACTURE BILL.
The Earl of Lauderdale, in moving the third reading of this bill, observed that the noble lord opposite had charged him with bringing in this bill at a time when all was peace and quietness in Spitalfields in consequence of the subsisting regulations. Now, the fact was, that one half of the work in Spitalfields was not regulated.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that some alteration had been made in the regulations respecting the narrow work, but there had been none as to the broad.
The Earl of Darnleycould not object to the principle of the bill. He, however, thought that it was not prudent to press the measure at the present time, and therefore would not vote either way.
The Lord Chancellorwas of opinion, that those who felt themselves most injured by the bill, did not rightly understand it. He was also of opinion, that the measure was premature, and that the arrangement which had been recently entered into ought not to be disturbed. Their lordships then divided; for the

793
third reading—Contents 39; Proxies 22—Not-Contents 36; Proxies 19— Majority for the third reading 6. The bill was accordingly read a third time and passed.