Sitting of 11 July 1831

MINUTES.
Hills brought in. To Discontinue and Alter the Duties on Coals, Slates, Cotton, Wool, Barilla, and Wax; to extend Public Works in Ireland.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. GOULBURN, Copies of all Papers relating to the Appropriation of the Crown Revenues, Canada:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, Regulations made by the Lords of the Treasury, relative to Commissioners, Letters Patents, re-appointments to Office, on the Demise of the Late King, agreeable to 1 Will. IV, Cap. 43, with an Account of all Fees paid, and the Salaries of those who paid them:—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, a Copy of the Third Report made by the Common Law Court Commissioners, and for the First Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Inquiry, (Ireland):—On the Motion of Mr. LAMBERT, Copies of Informations, in the Irish Exchequer Courts, for Breaches of the Excise Laws for the last three years.
New Writs issued. For Bletchingley, in the room of Mr. TENNYSON, he having made his Election for Stamford; for Banden, in the room of Lord BERNARD, who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of CHANDOS, from the West-India Colonies, for Compensation, before any Infringement of Properly may be sanctioned By Lord MORPRTH, from Inhabitants of Burton, Agnes, Kilham, Langtoft, North Burton, and ten other places in Yorkshire, for the Abolition of Slavery; from Inhabitants of Bradford, for the regulation of Children employed in Cotton Factories; from the Operatives of the same place, for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot from J. HAMILTON, Esq.; for the Repeal of the Game Laws; and from the Owners and Occupiers of Mills at Halifax, against the Importation of Flour. By Mr. C PELRAM, from the Trustees of the Knaresborough Savings' Bank, for an alteration of the Act 9 Geo. IV. Cap. 92, respecting the amount of Deposits; and from Freeholders and Inhabitants of Welland, Lincolnshire, against the Registry of Deeds Bill; and from Inhabitants of Gainsborough and its vicinity, praying for Representation. By Sir R. INGLIS, from Inhabitants of Great Bedwin; and by Mr. HERRIES, from Harwich against the Reform Bill from Inhabitants of adjacent Parishes, playing to return Members with Petersfield; from the Corporation of Guildford, to continue to return two Members from New Ross, Wexford, for an alteration in the Criminal Laws.

ELECTION PROCEEDINGS.
The Marquis of Chandospresented a Petition from certain Electors of the borough of Northampton, complaining of the Barrack-master of that place, for allowing the barracks to be occupied by the voters of one party during the late election. The petition was respectably signed, and he could declare, that the allegations contained in it were correct; that the voters and their families were treated in the barracks, that the gates were locked, and no persons admitted but by tickets. If any disturbances had happened, and troops were required, they would have found their barracks occupied by electors in the interest of the Government candidates. He wished to know from Government, what proceedings had taken place in consequence of such illegal conduct.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he was not aware of the circumstance, and consequently was unable to give any answer to the question of the noble Lord. He wished, however, to call the attention of the House to the position in which it would be placed by offering any opinion on this petition, as there was another petition against the return, and as that had been referred to an Election Committee, he thought it was unfair to prejudge the case by receiving the present petition. In his opinion, it should be referred to the Committee, for if there had been any improper or undue influence exercised, that was the proper tribunal to investigate the case. He did not think the course pursued by the noble Marquis was a proper one; he ought to have withdrawn the statement he had made until it had been properly inquired into.
Sir Thomas Fremantlesaid, the election petition related to the return of the Member, but the petition to be presented by the noble Lord was against one of his Majesty's officers. He was accused of having exercised undue influence in favour of particular parties at Northampton, during the late election, by giving up the barracks, which were situated some distance from the town, for the accommodation of one party, who were liberally supplied with refreshments. It might, perhaps, be asserted, that the Barrack-master was directed by Government to have the barracks immediately evacuated, but that had not been carried into effect until the election was nearly at an end. A laughable scene of confusion took place on the order being received. Pots and pans and uncooked provisions were hastily carried off and deposited in the road. He had no doubt, if the House was to inquire, a strong case could be made out against the Barrack-master, and it might be deemed expedient to have him reprimanded at the bar. He was sorry to say, that the practice adopted at Northampton had been but too general during the election, and influence of the most extraordinary kind had been practised wherever the Reform candidates had been opposed, but particularly at this place, where the voters were locked up, and not suffered to come out unless they promised to vote for the Government candidates. He thought the charge contained in the petition of a serious nature, and it ought to be strictly investigated.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, notice of the peti-
1010
tion ought to have been given. He would not deny, in answer to the charge made by the noble Marquis, that some voters had been admitted into the barracks; but it ought also to be known, that a complaint had been preferred against the Barrack-master to the Board of Ordnance, that the friends of a particular party had been suffered to make use of the barracks at the late election; a person had accordingly been sent to inquire into the real facts of the case, and from the report made, that voters had been admitted, they had severely censured and reprimanded the officer, and cautioned him against such a proceeding for the future. Having done this, they did not know what more the noble Marquis required, for it was repugnant to the feelings of Government that any improper influence should be exercised by their own officers. He trusted he had given a sufficient answer to the charge contained in the petition.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the conduct of the military Officers was very different from anything that had occurred under former Governments. The House had hitherto been extremely jealous of the interference of the military at elections, and the conduct of preceding Governments was very different from that adopted by the present Government at the late election. Instead of favouring any party, the Secretary at War had regularly given notice to clear the neighbourhood of troops, and allow, in no respect, preference to either party. Now here was an instance of a Barrack-master who received and lodged the friends of a particular party for several nights; but he should not be the only person liable to blame, for he must have had some other reasons than his own good wishes to interfere in this manner in favour of one party. At all events he thought that the noble Marquis had made out a case for inquiry at the bar of that House. He had never known a case of grosser interference.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, as one more or less interested in the truth of the statement of the petitioners, whose object was to taint his return, the noble Marquis had given him notice of his intention to present this petition; he was, therefore, prepared to meet it; and he took upon himself to say, that so far as he was individually concerned, their statement was. wholly unfounded. It was true the voters in his and Sir. G. Robinson's interests were

1011
accommodated in the barracks, but no undue influence was therefore attempted to be exercised, for the barracks had always been so occupied before by the candidates in the interest of Government, when voters were placed there to preserve tranquillity in the town. He had not, perhaps, sufficiently anticipated the consequence of this when the Reform question had carried the influence of party spirit so high. Indeed, it was not until the second day of the election, that the Barrack-master told him, that he had been censured by the Ordnance Board, in consequence of the opposite party having made representations to them that the barracks were in danger from the occupation of his voters. He had immediately desired them to remove, and they were all out before the same evening. In 1818 and 1826, precisely the same accommodation was afforded to the voters of Captain Winter and Sir R. Gunning, and no complaint was made of the accommodation's being-equivalent to an "unconstitutional influence," on the part of the then Government, "in the freedom of election;" nor, indeed, would have been made in the present instance, but to suit the purposes of party. It was not true, that the barracks were used in the manner, nor for the time, stated in the petition. He could take it upon himself to state, that the barracks were not closed for five days. Confident that on no occasion was there less undue influence, on the part of the Government or individuals, used than at the last election for Northampton, he shrunk not from inquiry by a Committee into all the circumstances attending it.
Mr. Charles Ross, as one well acquainted with Northampton, Could take it upon him to say, that the hon. Gentleman was in error. The facts of the case had been so fairly met by the hon. member for Stamford, that it required no argument to show the barracks had been appropriated for the accommodation of a particular party. To his own knowledge they were for four days occupied by the voters in the hon. Gentleman's interest. He had asserted that the practice was not unusual, for that in 1826 they had been occupied by voters in Sir R. Gunning's interest. This information, from whoever he received it, was absolutely and totally false; they were never so occupied at that time. The electors then were not in the barracks, but in the barrack canteen, which, it was true,
1012
was within the barrack-walls. As in other houses of the same description, persons of all kinds might have assembled there, but the electors were not kept there at the expense of the candidate, nor lodged there with his sanction. If, as the hon. Gentleman asserted, it was the habit and practice of Barrack-masters to admit the friends of Government within their barracks, an inquiry should be immediately instituted to correct so great an abuse. The hon. Gentleman had also said, there was no undue influence used, and it was not probable that the hon. Member himself had used any, but his agents, for whose acts he was responsible, had. Every pensioner was told, if he voted against the popular candidate he would lose his pension. He stated this from his own personal knowledge; but none of these charges would affect the seat of the hon. Gentleman. In reply to the hon. member for Stamford, who said, he was taken by surprise, he could inform that hon. Member, that one of the members of the Board of Ordnance had received a proper notice of the intention of his noble friend, and if the members of that Board did not communicate with each other, the fault was their own.
Colonel Evansdeprecated the present discussion, as a prejudging, on ex-parte evidence, the merits of the very important constitutional question involved in the statement of the petition, and he thought it ought to be discontinued.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to call the attention of the House to the terms of the election petition which had been presented against the return of the member for Northampton. One of the allegations was, for furnishing provisions, and the expression that followed "other illegal and improper means," was of so general a nature as might well, if occasion required, take in the interference of the Barrack-master. In fact, they were then discussing an election petition.
The petition brought up.
The Marquis of Chandosbegged leave to say, it had not been his intention, when he stated the prayer of the petition, to prejudice the House against the hon. Member, whose return was about to be considered by a Committee. He must, however, be allowed to state, there was an evident inclination in Government to interfere in the late Northampton election, and for this reason, as he was not satisfied with

1013
the answer of the hon. Gentleman opposite, he should move that the petition do lie on the Table, when it would remain with him to decide what course to adopt to follow up the prayer of the petitioners.
Mr. Vernon Smithassured the noble Lord, he had not attributed to him any desire to prejudice the House; at the same time he thought any discussion on such a petition as he had presented was improper. As to what an hon. Gentleman opposite had said, he had taken especial care to prevent any misconception in the minds of the pensioners at Northampton, as to the consequences of their voting against him and his colleague. He had been asked by a pensioner, whether a report was true, that all pensioners would lose their pensions if they voted against him and his colleague? And his answer was, that so far from that being the case, as he supposed, the Government could not, if they would, deprive him of his pension for voting as he pleased, and would not, if they could, countenance such unconstitutional practices, and so far as he (Mr. Smith) was concerned, his pension was perfectly safe, for with his consent, as a Member of Parliament, it should never be taken from him. He repeated this answer at length to the electors at large on the close of the day's proceedings, so that the assertion of the hon. Gentleman plainly fell to the ground.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the barracks at Northampton had been used for election purposes could not be doubted, and as the noble Marquis had made such heavy complaints against the Barrack-master, he would put his sincerity to the test, by moving, if the noble Marquis would second him, that the Barrack-master be called to the bar, and examined upon the subject. If the barracks had been so used, as described, for several elections, it was time so bad a practice was put an end to. With respect to what had been asserted, as to Government exercising its influence over pensioners, he could readily give credence to it, for he never knew an election where such a practice did not prevail. Men had been turned out and ruined because they would not allow themselves to be influenced by a particular party. He would move that the Barrack-master be called to the Bar.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that his noble friend might take time to consider what course he should pursue. He was not bound at once to take the course now suggested.
The Marquis of Chandosobserved, that the hon. member for Preston might take what steps he chose in the matter, but he did not think right to second the proposition submitted by that hon. Member. He should use his own judgment in any steps he might think proper to take.
The petition to be printed.

COURT OF CHANCERY.
Sir E. Sugdenwished to call the attention of his hon. and learned friend opposite, (the Solicitor General) to a matter which was of considerable importance. It would be recollected, that in the last Parliament, he had called the attention of the House to the existing state of the practice of the Court of Chancery, and had explained the views of the late Administration in reference to their amendment. It was soon afterwards understood, that the noble and learned Lord, now at the head of that Court, would bring the subject under the consideration of the other House of Parliament. Since then he had heard nothing more on the subject, and he now wished to hear from the other side of the House, whether there was any probability that any proposition would speedily be laid before Parliament on the subject?
The Solicitor Generalin reply, to his hon. and learned friend, begged to inform him, that the noble and learned Lord referred to, did very speedily intend to propose to the other House two measures for the purpose of effecting very important emendations in the practice of the Court of Chancery.
Sir E. Sugdenwished to inquire, if those Masters in Chancery who had recently retired, were to have full pensions, and whether their successors had accepted office with the understanding that their salaries, and ultimately their pensions, were to be reduced.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, of course the retiring Masters had received their allowance under the old regulations, but he had the satisfaction to state, that the Masters who succeeded them had been informed, that there would be an alteration in their retiring allowance, and that their appointments created no vested rights, but would be regulated by Parliament as might be expedient.

ELECTION BY BALLOT.
Lord Morpethpresented a Petition from Bradford, in favour of Annual Parliaments, Vote by

1015
Ballot, and Universal Suffrage. He wished to take that opportunity to state in reply to some accusations thrown out by Members opposite, that, he had never tampered with the people by making them undue promises, and had always, when he thought it right, opposed, as frankly as he should do on this occasion, the prayers of their petition. He could not coincide with the petitioners.
Mr. Hunt, in supporting the petition, said, it had been agreed to at a very large meeting, and the petitioners had clone him the honour to give him a vote of thanks. He had always entertained opinions similar to what the petitioners had expressed. Those opinions were becoming more general than his Majesty's Ministers were aware of. He recollected a boy at Preston—he would not detain the House a infinite—he recollected meeting with a lad at. Preston, who said to him, "Mr. Hunt, if we are too poor to vote for Members of Parliament, I think we are too poor to pay taxes."
Petition laid on the Table.

WATERLOO BRIDGE NEW STREET BILL.
Lord Duncannonmoved the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. D. W. Harveybegged leave, agreeably to his previous notice, to call the attention of the House to the principle involved in the present Bill. In doing so, he counted on the support of those on the Ministerial side of the House who professed to consider Reform and Economy as perfectly synonymous terms; and of hon. Members on the opposite side, who, though opponents to Reform, were loud in their vaunts as practical economists. The subject to which he was anxious to invite their attention was one relating to the expenditure, without the scrutiny of Parliament, of a considerable amount of the public money. They had in that House two Chancellors of the Exchequer, presiding over two great branches of the public resources; one the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on the Treasury bench, who, as Finance Minister, was bound to lay, every Session, before the House a full statement of the affairs of his office, the income and expenditure of the country, &c.; the other, the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, who had under his control 20,000,000 l. of the national property, but
1016
who, like his predecessor, seemed to think it beneath the dignity of his office to furnish the House with any explanation of the expenditure of the large funds intrusted to his management. His abstinence on this score was indeed so countenanced by the large majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, that it seemed to be supposed, that nobody could demand any account of him, and he had only to countenance a bill for any scheme or project of any speculator or jobber, and to bring it pro forma into that House, to obtain for it. the immediate sanction of Parliament. By such a course of proceeding the down property had become the prey of scheming speculators and merciless jobbers. And yet that noble Lord had the control of property worth 20,000,000 l. sterling, producing an annual revenue available for the public service of upwards of 700,000 l., and which, if judiciously managed, would, in the course of a few years, double that sum. So little, however, had it been the wont of Parliament to attend to the expenditure of this important item of the public revenue, owing in a degree to an illusion, carefully cherished by preceding Administrations, that it constituted part and parcel of the hereditary property of the Crown, that since 1815, not a farthing of it had been applied bonâ fide to. the public service—it had been squandered in erecting palaces and other buildings which was a disgrace to the country. Now, however, that the present King had, in the most open manner, surrendered all claims on the part of the Crown to the property of the Woods and Forests, he expected that the expenditure of that would be brought forward and examined like every other branch of the public revenue. Such was the main object of the motion with which he should conclude. And now with respect to the Bill. The noble Lord had not condescended to make any statement to the House, to show either the necessity or advantage of expending so large a sum as would be required, to make a new street from Waterloo-bridge to Bow-street. He considered it a needless expenditure of the public money—at least one, in defence of which they had not heard a syllable. If the noble Lord had a surplus revenue, why not apply it to the improvement of Westminster-hall, or to providing a place of security for the National Records, at present exposed to the danger of fire? or to improving the Chambers of the Judges? or

1017
providing the suitors in the several Courts a place not exposed to cold and damp, like Westminster-hall? or even to providing themselves and the public more appropriate accommodation in that House? Among other inquiries he had made, he had asked, what was the amount required by this Bill, and he understood it was to layout 60,000 l., or it might be twice as much, of the public money, to run a street from the Strand to Bow-street. The estimate was 55,800 l.; contingencies, ten per cent, 5,580 l. more. As a set-off, they were told that the Duke of Bedford, whose adjoining property would be much benefitted by the proposed street, would subscribe 4,500 l., and the Marquis of Exeter—mark the clumsy delusion—12,000 l. "value of property to be exchanged." Did not this attempt to delude the public into a belief that the Marquis of Exeter had subscribed 12,000 l. in aid of the plan, while, in fact, he was not subscribing one farthing, excite suspicion? The Marquis was only giving up property to a certain amount in one place, to receive it in another. They had also had sufficient experience of the fallacy of estimates, not to suspect that this might be got up for the purpose of inducing the House to sanction the commencement of the work, not doubting that it would concur afterwards in a larger one, to complete what it had sanctioned the beginning of. This had been the case with other public works; Buckingham House, for example. The first estimate for making the proposed alterations in which, was about 100,000 l.; for which sum it was said the Palace could be put in a condition fitting for Royal occupation. What had, however, been the result? Had the expenditure not already exceeded 1,000,000 l., and it was not yet complete? Again, the estimate for widening the Strand on the northern side was 500,000 l.; the expenditure already exceeded thrice that sum—and it was not yet half finished. He was therefore justified in believing that this 60,000 l. would exceed 100,000 l. But then the measure was recommended, it was said, by its forming a grand opening into London, and that the line was to extend gradually from Bow-street to Long-acre, and ultimately to Tottenham-court-road. That was pleasing enough in idea, as would be the pulling down of Parliament-street to obtain a splendid view of Westminster Abbey; but that was the real question, was the utility equal to the expense? and if the outlay
1018
now proposed was only the beginning, the House ought to know the whole amount of what was likely to be the expense before the Bill was sanctioned. The late Sir Joseph Yorke had stated, in the last Session, that the Waterloo-bridge Committee, over which he presided, aware of the benefit that would most likely accrue to them from the formation of the proposed new street would contribute l0,000 l. towards it. That Company afterwards altered its opinion, and refused to contribute anything towards its completion. The Theatres, also, whose property would be much benefitted, had not offered to subscribe one shilling. Had the Crown, or the country, which was the real contributor, any property in the vicinity which would be improved by the new street? Certainly not. The noble Lord was not justified, then, in the present condition of the finances of the country, in making a proposition for the expenditure of so considerable a sum on a project of doubtful utility, and of no financial benefit. He would suggest, that any sums of money to be hereafter proposed for the erection or completion of public works, should not be taken from the revenues of the Woods and Forests, but brought forward under the sanction and responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would conclude by moving, that this Bill be recommitted to a Committee up-stairs, in order that they might inquire into its expediency, and report their opinion thereon to the House.
Mr. Humeseconded the motion, because the statement laid before the House did not warrant them to expend so large a part of the public money in the formation of a new street of doubtful benefit. At all events it was manifestly necessary that some further inquiry should take place before the measure was agreed to. He was therefore happy that the hon. Member had proposed the amendment, and he also concurred with him in the observations he had made with regard to the revenue derived from the Woods and Forests. He had frequently, in former years, brought this subject under the consideration of the House, and he was glad the hon. Gentleman had relieved him, as he was satisfied the revenue derived from the Crown Lands was as much public money as that which was obtained by the duty on cotton.
Lord Duncannonassured the hon. Gentleman who had moved the amendment, that the Woods and Forests were now

1019
differently managed to what they were formerly, and not a shilling could now be expended without the sanction of Parliament. In justice, however, to his predecessor, Lord Lowther—whose loss from the House every Member must deplore—he was bound to state, that no public man could have paid more attention to the duties of his office than he had done. He must, therefore, repel the insinuations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made against his official conduct. The noble Lord, had very unintentionally, misled the House as to the amount of the money to be contributed by individuals. The Marquis of Exeter would certainly not be among them, for he found the proposed now street would rather injure than benefit his property. He believed the expense in this case would be about 40,000 l. but it was expected that the sale of a portion of the Crown-property would produce the sum necessary to be advanced. The parties to this Bill bad been told by Lord Lowther, and also by him, that Government would give no assistance in carrying this street further than Long Acre, but it was then expected that the Mercers' Company would take it up, and carry the street further north. He had no wish to press this Dill faster than the House wished. If the House thought that it ought to go again before a Committee, he would not object, as he considered it as something of the nature of a private bill.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he had supported this measure when it was first proposed, and was still favourable to its being carried into execution, but its merits could be best discussed in a Committee up-stairs, where the plan, with all the details, could be fully investigated. The grounds on which he had recommended the Bill to be brought forward were, that if they suffered a theatre to be rebuilt which had been burnt, this opening could not afterwards be made without a much greater expense; and it might be well for the House to consider whether, if they agreed to making this new street to Bow-street, public Companies might not continue it to Tottenham-court-road. If they did, he would undertake to say, that the duty received for bricks and timber would be equal to the whole sum which Government would have to advance. It might be said, that he had some property in the proposed line of the new street, and he begged in reply to say,
1020
wished the House to detract from the weight of his opinion, in proportion to his interest; and he would further declare, that if a competent surveyor would make an estimate of the gains likely to accrue to him, he would be ready to subscribe to the undertaking to that amount.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when the measure was proposed, he had stated, in accordance with what had fallen from the hon. member for Bridport, that unless it was then undertaken, we should lose the chance of making the street, and that if hon. Gentlemen would not allow the Government to continue this street to Bow-street, they would never have an opportunity of seeing the anticipations of that fulfilled. He had no objection to let the Bill be recommitted.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, the practice of widening streets had been much admired, but he did not think the public obtained much advantage, for stands of carriages were allowed to fill up all these new places, until Regent-street became reduced to the width of Swallow-street. Charing-cross, for the widening and opening which so much had been expended, was now full of coach-stands, and at times so much crowded, there was no passing. He hoped the police had power and inclination to prevent this, now that attention was called to it.
Mr. Crokersaid, the whole argument against the proposed new street, and wide streets in general, was, that there was no adequate pecuniary advantage; but it was not now necessary to shew, that the recent alteration tended both to the beauty and advantage of the metropolis. He thought the congregation of carriages was beneficial to every class of the community. The Strand had frequently been so shut up, that commerce was entirely suspended for hours together, and its being widened, would facilitate all the purposes of trade. He had not the most remote interest in these improvements. The back streets and close courts must have been unhealthy, and on that account ought to have been removed. The proposed line of street was at first given up after the idea had been started, on account of the expense, but an accidental fire had created an opportunity which ought to be taken advantage of.
Mr. John Woodhad advocated several times the opening proposed by the present Bill, and although he wished the subject

1021
to be referred to a Committee, yet he should feel much regret if the Committee did not recommend the House to pass the Bill. He believed it would tend to the beauty of the town, and the convenience of the public. One material point seemed to be omitted by the opponents to the measure; that was, the easy mode of transit for men and horses this opening would allow. Who, that recollected the slate of the Strand at the narrow pass at Exeter Change, but would admit that the public had gained very considerably by the widening that had there taken place. In this country, time was as valuable as money, and a saving of the former, actually was a gain of the latter. He could not make any offer similar to his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, for he had no property, or the most remote interest, in the proposed opening, but he should not do his ditty did he not recommend this improvement to the encouragement and attention of the House.
Mr. Huntdid not think the proposed new street would be of any benefit to the public, but it had come out there were three or four holders of property who had an interest in the measure, the Duke of Bedford, the Marquis of Exeter, the Theatres, the Waterloo Bridge Company, and others. When the subject was referred to a Committee, he hoped they would let those who were interested in the job take it up. Now that the Strand and Southampton Street had been widened, the public taxation for the convenience of men and horses was quite large enough. If the opening was advantageous to the proprietors he had mentioned, let them go on with it, and then, if the House voted as much as the public were interested, something might be gained, but after what the hon. member for Colchester had said about jobs, it was necessary there should be a strict inquiry.
Mr. Alderman Woodhad made some suggestions to the late Government, on the propriety of opening free access to all the Bridges of the Metropolis, from the conviction he entertained of the benefit that would thereby result to trade. He was still inclined to press these suggestions, although he had been charged with being connected with every job, whenever improvement was contemplated about the town. He had suggested to Lord Goderich, and the right hon. member for Harwich, when they were in office together, a
1022
method by which a sum of money might be raised for making the proposed new street, on the Government giving a sum of 50,000 l. to carry it to a certain point, where it would have been taken up by the Mercers' Company, and so carried on to Gower-street. Now, it appeared, the intended line would stop short at Long-acre, and not touch the property of the Mercers' Company. He would still undertake to shew how the Government, by advancing 50,000 l., could secure the continuance of the new street to the North-road, by the London University.
Mr. Hudson Gurneyhad not intended to take any part in this discussion, but as the worthy Alderman had mentioned the possibility of carrying the new street to the North-road, he begged to take the present opportunity of inquiring from the noble Lord, whether it would not be highly advantageous, to render the North-road itself passable? The noble Lord had nothing to do with this as Commissioner of Woods and Forests; but in another character, as Trustee of the Metropolitan Roads, he had a control over the road in question. He was present when it was deemed expedient to take this road out of the hands of the trust, and put the expense of its repair on the parishes; the consequence had been, that the road itself, on the pretence of relieving the public from the expense of turnpikes, had been reduced to a most disgraceful state.
Lord Duncannonwas also present when it was determined to take the turnpikes oil' the New Road, and throw the expense on the parishes. It was then thought this would be a great relief and advantage to the public, and he believed this was the only complaint that could be urged as to the road. He must remark, in reply to what had been said by the hon. member for Preston, that the two noble persons whose names had been mentioned, were not in any way interested in the new street. The agents of the Duke of Bedford stated to the Committee, that his Grace was recommended not to advance one shilling towards its being carried into execution; the Duke, however, considering it would be a public benefit, notwithstanding this advice, still offered to give up that part of his property which was required, which amounted to about one-tenth of the expense of the whole street. The agent of the Marquis of Exeter had also said, that if his Lordship consulted him, he would

1023
recommend him not to do so, as he conceived the proposed street would do material injury to his property. Those whose property was situated in that neighbour-hood had been very badly treated. The measure had been put off since the last Parliament, and they were anxious to know whether the street was or was not to be made. If this motion was agreed to, he should move that the Bill be printed.
An Hon. Member should say nothing about the advantage or utility of the proposed new street, but he must remark, upon what had fallen from the hon. member for Preston, who had said the word "job," attached to the property of the Marquis of Exeter; now, he could declare, that that noble Lord had not received, and would not receive, one shilling from the plan. The whole had been carried on in the way of exchange, and in consequence of the delay in settling the business, the Marquis of Exeter would be a considerable loser in point of rent.
The question was then put, and the Bill ordered to be re-committed to a Select Committee, and a Committee appointed.
Mr. D. W. Harvey, took occasion to observe, that he had neither cast, nor intended to cast, any imputation upon the official services of Lord Lowther.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS.
On the motion of Lord Althorp, that the House should go into Committee on the Customs' Act,
Mr. Kennedysaid, that though they must all desire that the English Reform Bill should take precedence, he wished to ask whether it was the intention of Government that the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills should or should not pass through the House without the interruption or cessation of the sitting of Parliament?
Lord. Althorphad taken an opportunity of stating the other night, that the English Reform Bill was to be carried without either the Irish or Scotch Reform Bills, in order to prevent the confusion which would be likely to ensue from the three Bills proceeding pari passu, which could not do otherwise than produce much confusion. But that it was the intention of the Government to persevere, and carry all three Bills through during the present Session, was most certain; and nothing would prevent it but the being beaten by a majority, either in that or the other House of Parliament.

DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to ask the noble Lord (Althorp), why delays were continually impeding the distribution of the Deccan Prize Money. Great alarm existed with respect to this among a class of highly respectable people, and it was necessary to have a speedy termination, particularly to those who had only a life interest, and who, consequently, were much afraid whether they should succeed in getting any part of it.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the money was nearly ready for distribution, when certain parties in India claimed part of the property, as having been improperly seized, and which ought not to have been treated as prize-money. This claim was decided in India in favour of the claimants. This claim ought, therefore, to be subtracted from the prize-money. An appeal was made from this decision to the Privy Council, who decided it, not on its merits, but on the competency of the tribunal—and affirmed, that it being one of a military nature, it could not be decided on by a Court in the East Indies. The case was then referred to the late Attorney and Solicitor Generals, who decided, that the claim made was not valid. The parties objected to this, as the Attorney and Solicitor General were not impartial judges, they having been professionally employed on the other side. They had then referred it to the present Solicitor-. General, who wished the case to be heard over again. It would be speedily brought on and decided, and payment made.

CASTLE POLLARD AFFRAY.
Mr. O'Connellwished to ask the right hon. Gent, the Secretary for Ireland, whether it was intended to allow the friends of the parties who suffered in the late affray at Castle-Pollard, to prosecute at their own expense? He understood they had made application for leave to do so, and by permitting this, there would be a saving of public money, and no fear of failure of justice by any attempt at compromise.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that in a case of this kind it was impossible for the Government to pursue any course which would not expose them to censure. The hon. and learned member for Dublin called upon him on the subject, and he referred him to the Attorney General for Ireland, and to the Chancellor for Ireland. Their opinion was, that the Government ought

1025
not to abandon its position as public prosecutor. The relatives, however, and friends of those who suffered, would be at liberty to employ counsel, and bring forward witnesses. Every facility would be given for the examination of any evidence they might think proper to bring forward.
Mr. Lefroythought the determination of the Crown Counsel to act as public prosecutors quite right, and the admission of other prosecutors would be a disparagement to the Crown and to the Irish Government. He saw no reason why the Government alone should not carry on the prosecution. The line proposed was inconvenient and unbecoming. It would go far to excite suspicion and distrust. In the Borris-o'-kane prosecution this course had been proposed, but it was resisted by the Solicitor-general, who, in the exercise of his discretion, brought forward witnesses, although they were favourable to the defendants, and he was right. The Crown, in its own behalf, brought forward all the witnesses that were necessary for the proper elucidation of the case. He considered, that the line now recommended was both inconvenient and unnecessary.
Mr. Sheilsaid, the hon. member for the University of Dublin was mistaken in saying that the practice had been uniformly to exclude auxiliary Counsel, where the Crown prosecutes. Lord Plunkett, when Attorney-General, always allowed the relatives to employ Counsel, to co-operate, and to take a direct and active part in (he trials. The present Chief Baton (Mr. Joy) made a different rule. In consequence of that rule, the Counsel employed by the relatives were only allowed to suggest at the trials respecting the Borriso'-kane transactions, to which the hon. Gentleman had referred—but there the Attorney-general had given the people the right to elect whether they would conduct the case or not. The Attorney-General was for restoring Lord Plunkett's rule. The best course was, he thought, to allow the relatives of the deceased to manage the case, when they thought proper to defray the expenses. A police-officer was tried for homicide at Carrick-on-Suir. The trial was conducted by the relatives. There was an acquittal, and there were no murmurs amongst the people. This showed the expediency of permitting the relatives of parties who had fallen in an affray, to
1026
take such course as they might deem most advisable. Justice might not be better administered, but unpleasant suspicions would be avoided.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee.

CUSTOMS' ACTS—WINE DUTIES.
Lord Althorpproceeded to submit his propositions to the Committee, relative to the duties on Wine. He said, that the first point to which he had to call the attention of the Committee was, whether or not this country had the right to make that alteration in the wine duties which he was about to propose? The treaties by which we were bound, and from which he inferred the right, were, first, the Treaty of Methuen; and, second, the Treaty of 1810. By the Treaty of 1810, and in the 26th Article, it was agreed and declared, that all the stipulations entered into between the two countries, concerning the wines of Portugal, on the one hand, and the woollens of Great Britain on the other, should remain as they were. This clause referred to the stipulations concerning wines and woollens contained in the Methuen Treaty; for by no other treaty were these subjects regulated. The 26th Article, therefore, of the Treaty of 1810, referred to the Methuen Treaty; and the question was, what were we bound to perform by the Treaty of Methuen? In the 23rd Article of the Treaty of 1810, he should remark, that a power was reserved to the two contracting parties, at the end of fifteen years, to put an end to that Treaty on giving due notice. The Treaty of 1810, only confirmed the Methuen Treaty; it did not contain, as to the trade of the two countries, any additional stipulations, and therefore, if notice was not required by the Methuen Treaty before we altered the duties, none could be required by the Treaty of 1810. In fact, there was no notice required by the Methuen Treaty. He did not deny, that by the Treaty of 1810, a notice was required to alter that Treaty, but not to alter the regulations of the Methuen Treaty. The second Article of that Treaty was this, "That is to say, that her sacred and Royal Majesty of Great Britain should, in her own name, and that of her successors, be obliged for ever hereafter to admit the wines of the growth of Portugal into Britain, so that at no time, whether there shall be peace or war between the kingdoms of Britain and

1027
France, any tiling more shall be demanded for these wines, by the name of custom or duty, or by whatsoever other title, directly or indirectly, whether they shall be imported in pipes or hogsheads, or other casks, than what shall be demanded for the like quantity or measure of French wine, deducting or abating; a third part of the custom or duty. But if at any time this deduction or abatement of customs, which is to be made as aforesaid, shall, in any manner, be prejudiced, it shall be just and lawful for her sacred and Royal Majesty of Portugal again to prohibit the woollen cloths, and the rest of the British woollen manufactures." By that Treaty, therefore, the wines of Portugal were to be admitted into this country on the payment of one-third less duty than the wines of France, subject to the penalty, if we did not admit the Portuguese wines at that rate, of Portugal prohibiting the woollen cloths of England. If we were prepared to abide by the penalty of allowing our cloths to be prohibited in Portugal, we might deal as we liked with the Portuguese wines. It was not necessary to go any further into this subject. We had a right to make the alteration by the Methuen Treaty, and if we had that right, it was not done away by the Treaty of 1810; it only confirmed the Methuen Treaty. This was not a new view of this subject, for it had frequently been made a matter of complaint that the Mothuen Treaty had been broken. In 1777 an inquiry had been instituted, and a Report made by the Privy Council to the King, and that Report took the same view, asserting that the conditions of the Methuen Treaty were only binding on us, subject to the penalty it imposed. The same view was taken by the late Mr. Pitt, in 1786, in the discussions on the Treaty of Commerce with France. Even Mr. Fox, although he opposed that Treaty, and argued in favour of Portugal, did not desire the continuation of the Treaty, or deny our power to alter the wine duties. He was convinced, therefore, that we were justified in adopting the alteration he proposed. Having thus showed the jus-lice of the measure, he would come next to the policy of the question. He was not disposed to deny, that Portugal, after the alteration, might exclude the woollens of England; but though Portugal might exclude our woollens, it did not follow, that she would. At present the cloths of
1028
other nations were admitted into the markets of Portugal, as well as those of this country, giving the latter a trifling advantage, but not equivalent to our reduction of duty on Portuguese wines. Another part of the Treaty of 1810 was to be considered. By that Treaty it was provided, that all the produce of England should be admitted into Portugal on paying an ad valorem duty of fifteen per cent less than was paid on the produce of other countries. It was deserving consideration, therefore, that Portugal, by our abandoning the Treaty of 1810, might deprive us of the advantage of the ad valorem duty of fifteen per cent. There was one article which was of great importance under this consideration; an article in which the hon. member for Worcester took a great interest—he meant the fish of Newfoundland, which were imported into Portugal at this great advantage. The fish being imported into Portugal at this advantageous rate of duty, and the fish of other countries paying a higher rate of duty, there was a great consumption of Newfoundland fish in Portugal. But it was not probable that an alteration of the duties would have a tendency to interfere with this trade. At present the Newfoundland fish sustained successfully a competition with the fish of other countries, in other foreign markets. It would be able, therefore, to compete with fish of other countries in the markets of Portugal, although it were not protected by the present tax. He was satisfied, then, that the objections which might be made to his proposition ought to have no weight with the Committee. He had referred to the objections to his proposition; he would then apply himself to state its advantages. The first advantage, then, which he expected—and he begged that it might be remembered, that he introduced the measure as one of finance—the first advantage he expected was a considerable increase of revenue. He did not think, that the measure he proposed would decrease the consumption of wine; on the contrary, he thought that the alteration would not diminish the consumption of Portuguese wines, and it would increase the consumption of French wines. He might, therefore, be authorized in taking the consumption of wine at a higher rate than the average consumption; but he would confine himself to the average consumption of the last few years.

1029
At present the duty on French wines was 7s. 3d. per gallon, the duty on Portuguese wines was 4s. 10 d. and the duty on Cape wine 2s. 9d. per gallon. He intended to propose, that the duty on all wines should be 5s. 6d. per gallon, which would increase the duty on other wines, and lower the duty on French wines. He had intended that the alteration in the duty on Cape wines should be made on January 1, 1833; but on looking to the Act of Parliament by which that trade was regulated, and looking at the time which had elapsed since he had first brought forward his propositions, he meant to extend that time to January 1st, 1834. To show the Committee what was likely to be the result of the alteration, he would state, that the average number of gallons of foreign wines imported in to this country for the last five years was 5,959,587 gallons. Under the new duties this would yield a revenue of 1,638,885 l. The average quantity of Cape wine imported during the last five years was 619,622 gallons, which, at 2s. 9d. a gallon, would give a revenue of 82,616 l., making a total of 1,721,501 l. The average produce of the present duties was 1,534,000 l., and the new duties would therefore give an increase of 187,501 l., but, speaking in round numbers, say 180,000 l. The first advantage, then, he expected from the alteration was an increase of revenue to the amount of 180,000 l. He supposed that the whole consumption of wine would continue to be only as great as at present. He did not. suppose that the addition of 8d. per gallon to the duty on Portuguese wines would be likely to decrease the consumption of those wines, while he did suppose that the large reduction of 1s. 9d. on French wines would cause an increase of the consumption of the best French wines, the price of which would be reduced. It was said, he knew, that nearly the whole, or at least four-fifths of the best French wines already came to this country. That was easily said, and he had no doubt that the same thing was said in 1824, when we then reduced the duty on them; but the consequence of that reduction was greatly to increase the consumption. The first advantage, then, on which he calculated, without taking into his account any probable increase of consumption, but only assuming that the consumption would remain the same, and taking, therefore, as the basis of his calcu-
1030
lation, the average quantity of wine lately imported, was, that his proposition would increase the revenue 180,000 l. There was another financial advantage which would result from the plan—it was indeed a very slight one—but it was not to be despised—it would introduce a great simplification into the mode of collecting the revenue. He admitted, that it was a trifling advantage, still it ought not to be overlooked. The other advantage of the measure, not connected with the revenue, was, that it would open and extend the intercourse between this country and France. This, he considered to be the great advantage of the measure. He was happy to say, that at the present moment there was little or no probability of any war between the two countries; but if there were one thing more than another calculated to make a war unpopular, and make its evils apparent to the people, it was an extensive commercial connection. Considering, therefore, the circumstances of the two countries—that France was blessed with a fertile soil, and that we abounded in manufactures, and that there were no two countries on the globe better calculated to play into each other's hands—considering all the circumstances of the two countries, it was a matter of astonishment and regret, that the commercial intercourse between them was so small. On this account he thought, whenever circumstances would admit of it, the Legislature ought to facilitate this intercourse. It was a great advantage, then, in a commercial point of view, that it would extend our intercourse with France; and, considering the extensive civilization of that country, there could not be, perhaps, a more advantageous traffic for this country. That was its commercial advantage; its political advantage would be still greater. He was not prepared to do anything inconsistent with the situation of this country, or in violation of the public faith; but he should be happy so to extend our relations with France as to prevent the danger of war. War was certainly one of the greatest of evils. From whatever cause it might be undertaken, there was no country which did not suffer greatly from war. It might be necessary to vindicate the national honour—it might be undertaken to secure commercial advantages; but from whatever cause undertaken, nobody could deny, that the advantages of war were far more than

1031
counterbalanced by its miseries and its misfortunes. By introducing and extending a greater commercial intercourse between the two nations, it would be more for the interest of both not to go to war; commercial intercourse would make their mutual interest evident to the people of both countries, and would tend to divert from both the evils of war. He brought, forward his proposition only as a financial measure, to obtain an increase of revenue to the amount of 180,000 l.; but it was attended with these additional advantages, that the price of wine would not be increased, that the commercial intercourse between two great and neighbouring countries would be increased, that their peaceable and friendly dispositions would be strengthened, and the probabilities of war much lessened. The noble Lord concluded, by placing in the hands of the chairman of the Committee a Resolution to the effect, that all the Customs' Duties now payable on wine should cease, and the Act imposing them be repealed; and that in lieu thereof there should be paid on all wines imported, except the wines of the Cape of Good Hope, a duty of 5s. 6d. per gallon, and that the duty on wines imported from the Cape of Good Hope should be 2s. 9d. till the 1st of January, 1834, and after that day the duty on that should be 5s. 6d. per gallon.
Mr. George Robinsonrequested the attention of the House to a few remarks which he had to offer on the subject now before them, the importance of which no one who had not paid the same attention to it which he had done, could be aware of. The noble Lord might, perhaps, be justified in asserting that the proposition which he had made was not an infraction of the Methuen Treaty, or of any existing treaty with Portugal; he should not, however, though he did not agree in that opinion, stay to discuss it; not because his own opinions were not decided, but because he would leave that point to persons who were better qualified to do justice to it than he was. He meant to confine his remarks to the commercial policy; and if ever a proposition had been made at variance with sound policy, it was that of the noble Lord. He begged Gentlemen would not be led away by the statements of the noble Lord, for he was sure he should satisfy the Committee that the proposition would be injurious. He would say, for one, that if ever there was a financial or ministerial proposition, which was incon-
1032
sistent with the principles of true policy, it was that of the noble Lord. He entreated those hon. Members who had been led away by commercial theories to go with him in the arguments which he was about to adduce, and afterwards to act upon their own judgment. The noble Lord would probably not acquiesce in the view which he was disposed to take of what would be the probable conduct of Portugal in case this equalization of the duty were to take place, but yet he would endeavour to show what that country would do. In the first place he must remark, that he was aware of what had been stated to be the disadvantages which would result from an infraction of the Methuen Treaty; but even if that treaty did not exist, he would show, that the policy adopted by the noble Lord would lead to consequences, worse than those which would have resulted from the financial measures which were brought forward last Session, and which the noble Lord was induced afterwards to abandon and withdraw; and he could not but hope a similar effect would be produced on the noble Lord with respect to the present measure, after he had heard the objections which existed. The noble Lord had urged, in favour of his proposed reduction of the duty on French wines, that such a reduction would be very much to the advantage of this country; but the noble Lord might have referred the House, had he been so disposed, to some facts, which would have rather abated his expectations as to the probability of such a result being produced in France. In the year 1825, the Government reduced the duty on French wines by 7s., or nearly one-half: and the argument urged in favour of that reduction was, that it would produce an extended importation of the manufactures of this country into France. Would the House believe that the noble Lord had overlooked the fact, that although, the imports from France, since the last reduction of the duty on the wine of that country, had increased from 1,500,000 l. to 3,159,000 l., the exports had diminished during the same period from 1,124,000 l. to 643,000 l.; and let the noble Lord, before he effected any further reduction in the duty, bear the fact which he now stated in mind. He must tell the noble Lord, and those who advocated with him the doctrine that the exports from one country depended upon the imports into it, that they advo-

1033
cated a fallacious doctrine, for the imports had no other effect than that of facilitating the conveyance of the productions of the country. What was the state of Portugal, not to speak of her political condition? and what was the fact with respect to her trade with this country? Why he would contend, and he could prove it, that the trade of Portugal with England had been for the last two or three centuries the most profitable trade which we had carried on with any part of the world, in proportion to its extent. To come to facts, he would state what was the relative amount of the exports and imports between that country and this, and then leave the House to form its own judgment. The present amount of the exports from this country to Portugal was 2,500,000 l. in round numbers, and the amount of imports was 500,000 l. In point of fact, this country possessed almost the exclusive supply of Portugal and she took those manufactures which France shut her ports against. He did not know whether, if the proposed alteration in the duty were made, the present Government of Portugal would make commercial reprisals. He should rather suppose, that under the rule of Don Miguel none would be attempted; but, if ever a Constitutional party gained the ascendancy in that country, the House might depend upon it that they would be the first to recommend a system of such commercial restrictions as would hazard the present advantages derived from the trade, and probably cause it to be altogether lost to the country. The import of wine was altogether a subordinate branch of trade, and, when the noble Lord talked of raising a revenue of 180,000 l. by this measure, he must be allowed to observe, that he had not the smallest objection to allow the noble Lord to raise the revenue as high as he could, but why could he not do it by imposing a proportionate additional duty on the wines of both countries? Why, after he had shown that the policy of France was, to exclude British manufactures, and that Portugal was an ancient and firm Ally—why should the noble Lord make such a sacrifice to France at the expense of Portugal? Nor could he imagine what the noble Lord saw in the moral or political circumstances of the country which could induce him to tax the drinkers of Port, Sherry, and Madeira, to the amount of 8d. or 10 d. a gallon additional, while he took off the duty at the
1034
same rate from Burgundy, Claret, and Champagne. Besides, the interest of Ireland was materially connected with the question now at issue, inasmuch as it exported a large quantity of butter, and other articles, to Portugal, which must, probably, henceforward, find a market elsewhere. No person, he believed, would be prepared to contend, that it was not highly desirable that such a country should not be deprived of so opportune a vent for its surplus produce. No Government, indeed, could employ itself in a manner more beneficial to its people than by finding a vent in foreign markets for the surplus manufactures of the country; and if, hitherto, the Government of this country had neglected to provide by reciprocity treaties with France such a market, he should be too happy to see that neglect repaired, and an endeavour made to get access to the immense markets which were to be obtained in that country for British manufactures. All the countries for whom we had made concessions had met those concessions with restrictions, and therefore he recommended making none unless by treaties of reciprocity. The trade to Portugal, which was now to be sacrificed, was more than equal in value to the whole trade to France, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Prussia. All these countries prohibited our commodities. Portugal received them, and the consequence was, that our trade with Portugal exceeded the trade to all these countries united. Considering the great importance of this subject, he begged the noble Lord not to press the question. The noble Lord had, therefore, better stick to the present rate of duty on French wines until he could make terms with France to concede the same commercial intercourse to us which was enjoyed by America, and by other countries. With respect to the other topic of the noble Lord's speech; namely, the fish trade with Portugal—he must say, that he spoke feelingly, for he represented a large commercial town, and was himself, being a mercantile man, greatly interested in the maintenance of the trade with Portugal; he therefore could not but deprecate any attempt to hazard that trade. Indeed, he could not imagine how the noble Lord could suppose that Portugal would continue to import the fish of one of the Colonies of this country, at a rate of duty which gives those who carried on that trade a monopoly of the market,

1035
Why, he must repeat, should Portugal be expected to continue to England this monopoly, when she found her wines are placed on a level to compete with those of France and other countries? He felt no hostility towards the Government, but he entreated the Ministers to consider the importance of this subject, particularly with regard to the interest which the Newfoundland fishermen had in preserving the trade. He must beg to inform the noble Lord, that, though he had acknowledged the interest of the question to that Colony, he had not gone far enough, for he might have stated, that the very existence of the Colony, which was the real fact, depended on its continuing to supply Portugal with fish. By the present regulations we were secured the exclusive supply of that market with salt fish. The noble Lord said, that our salt fish might compete in the markets of Portugal with the salt fish of Norway and America, as it competed with that in Italy and Spain; but the fact was, that the rate of duty kept all other fish but that caught at Newfoundland from the Portuguese markets. Even if the duty were equal, the consequence would be—certainly, we should still compete with other foreigners—but it would be by lowering our prices to theirs, which would be the ruin of Newfoundland. If America, Norway, or Denmark, should be able to compete with Newfoundland in supplying Portugal with fish, that Colony would soon be reduced to a state of pauperism. Another consideration was the number of ships employed in the catching and curing the fish; amounting to no less than 150 square-rigged vessels, which would be thrown out of employment by other countries obtaining a c6mmand of the Portuguese market. The next consideration was, how far the reduction in the wine-duty would be beneficial to the consumers here, and he contended that it was of no consequence to the class of persons who usually drank French wines, if they paid 6d. a bottle more or less for their Claret or Burgundy, nor were there any petitions on the Table of the House, complaining of the inordinate price of those wines. The noble Lord would ruin the Newfoundland trade; and the trade which the noble Lord wished to establish with France would be carried on in French ships; and thus our shipping also would be ruined, in order to give French wines cheap to our Clubhouses. For this nobody petitioned, and
1036
nobody would thank the noble Lord for the alteration. The noble Lord might avoid all these evils, and get a revenue of 220,000 l. instead of 180,000 l., by placing an additional duty of 8d. per gallon on all foreign wines. He recommended the noble Lord to do this. The noble Lord was, perhaps, wrong in expecting an increase of trade with France. Certainly, after the reduction of duty in 1824, the importation of wine from that country had increased to 762,000 gallons; but in 1829 it was only 474,000 gallons; in 1830, only 408,000 gallons; and up to January, 1831, it was 337,000 gallons. This shewed, he thought, that there was no disposition on the part of the people to give up the consumption of Port. Nearly all the good wines of France were already brought to the English market, and therefore the trade with that country would not be extended. The hon. Member recapitulated his chief arguments against the alteration in the duty, and concluded by animadverting on the fallacy of relying on this concession to France for any extension of the commercial intercourse between the two countries, or as a mode of averting any probability which might exist of a war breaking out. He recommended the Government to abstain from making any alterations in the existing relations between Portugal and France and this country, and to look forward to a period when those arrangements could be made with them which should have a firmer basis than their present unsettled condition could lead any one to expect that any alterations made at present would possess.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamconsidered the present a very improper period for the alteration of the wine duties, on the ground, that the change would be giving to France an advantage for which she was not likely to give us an equivalent. We had already done too much to encourage the produce of other countries. France had been our enemy, and was still our powerful rival, and we ought not to advance her interest, the more particularly when it could not be done without prejudice to ourselves and our ancient Allies. He objected also to the measure, which would have the effect of raising the duties on wine. Some time ago it was thought expedient to reduce these duties, and the present attempt to again raise them would be to stultify our own proceedings.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonfelt it necessary

1037
to offer a few remarks in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Worcester. The hon. Member objected to the proposed duties, on the ground that they would strike at the root of a trade carried on for many years with great advantage to this country; and that to do so would be a very poor return to Portugal for all the advantages which England had derived from the almost exclusive possession of the trade with that country. On looking at the arguments of the hon. Member on this point, he owned he could attach little importance to his acquaintance either with our political or our commercial relations with that country; for he was prepared to show, that if ever there was any trade boasting of reciprocal advantages to two countries, the trade with Portugal was not that one, and that Portugal had never shown, that she felt the trade with this country to be advantageous to her. That she had derived advantage from it was, indeed, unquestionable, but that this country had ever done so, he most distinctly denied; for whilst, on our part, the compact which was to secure mutual benefit had been religiously adhered to, Portugal on her's, had endeavoured, in a variety of ways, to deprive us of those advantages which we had a right to expect in return, and up to the present time, all remonstrances or negotiations on our part to obtain those advantages to which we were entitled, had failed of producing any change in her conduct. He should follow the hon. Gentleman, in dividing the subject of our commercial relations with Portugal into two parts; for they could only be considered in this with reference to the motion before the Committee. First, the particular relations established for a special purpose by the Methuen Treaty of 1703; and then our general commercial intercourse, as regulated by successive treaties in 1654 and 1810. And, first, with regard to the Methuen Treaty, which was separate and distinct from all our other commercial connexions with Portugal, it was therein simply stipulated, that the wines of Portugal should be admitted into Great Britain at one-third less duty than French wines, on condition that the woollens of Great Britain should be admitted into Portugal; and that if, at any time, this proportion of duty was changed to the disadvantage of Portugal, she might again prohibit our woollen cloths.
1038
Such was that celebrated treaty; but the policy of it, it was not then his business to notice; indeed, the hon. Member did not defend it. All he would say respecting it was, that it had been condemned by every writer of any note on questions of this sort, by Mr. Hume, by Dr. Adam Smith, and that the latter actually inserts it in his work, as a specimen of the worst class of measures of commercial legislation, and holds it up as an example of the folly and absurdity of such conventions. But such as it was, whether advantageous or the reverse, he was prepared to show, that in consequence of the want of faith on the part of Portugal, in the observance of those other stipulations of other Treaties, on which the general commercial intercourse of the two countries rested, England never could have enjoyed the supposed advantages to which she was entitled under it. The hon. Member who was so loud in his praises of the benefits of this treaty, seemed wholly to have forgotten the disadvantages under which our trade with Portugal had so long laboured. He forgot the monopoly allowed to the Oporto Wine Company. He was afraid, indeed, that this subject was not much known by many hon. Members. Were hon. Members aware, that by the treaty of 1654, it was stipulated, that our trade should suffer no impediment, and yet that, in 1749, the Oporto Wine Company was established, with privileges almost equal to those belonging to Royalty itself? Did they know, that this very act was in hostility to our trade? Did they know that parties purchasing wines for any other market might purchase them as they liked, but that the wines purchased for the English market must be with the sanction of that Company, from whose decision there was no appeal—that this Company had the right of saying what wine should be purchased by us, or what should not, and the only option the purchaser had was, to take those wines, or not to purchase at all? And this at a time when it was well known, that Portuguese wines were admitted with us at a duty of one-third less than those of France. As to the privileges of this Company, he would state, as many were not acquainted with them, that it was placed as it were above the law; it was independent of all tribunals, great or small, and in no case, or on any account, was a Judge to take cognizance of what it

1039
did, or was it in any way accountable to any parties but their successsors in office. There had been some modifications of this treaty since then, but the principle of hostility to our trade was still the same. He could cite many authorities to show the disadvantage under which this country laboured in consequence of this conduct of Portugal, but he would content himself with that of Mr. Huskisson, who, in the last Session, stated, that the effect of those regulations of the Oporto Company was, to raise the wines of Portugal 15 l. per tun in this country. Representations had been made from time to time by this Government on the subject to Portugal, but without effect. He would refer to that excellent report made as to the difficulties under which our trade with Portugal labours, which was laid on the Table a short time ago, on the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Wootton Bassett. In that report, hon. Members might see a full and clear statement of the difficulties to which we were subjected in our trade with Portugal. They would there find described, in the strong language of the Lords of the Privy Council for Trade, such a system of oppression, to our commerce, and of breach of faith of the solemn engagements of that Power towards us, as, he believed, was unparalleled in the history of civilized countries. And were these complaints unattended to? No such thing. Representation followed upon representation—negotiations followed negotiations—but in vain. The hon. Gentleman had referred to Mr. Pitt—but how did Mr. Pitt act? In 1787, when he proposed an alteration in the duty on French wines, he referred to the negotiations then pending with Portugal, and expressed his determination, that unless Portugal relaxed in her commercial regulations with respect to this country, unless she admitted British goods upon more favourable terms, and above all, unless the gave up the monopoly of the Oporto Wine Company, he would introduce a measure for the purpose of reducing the duty on all foreign wines. If there were any doubt of Mr. Pitt's intentions in this respect, they would be removed at once, by his statement to Mr. De Pinto, the Portuguese Minister, to whom he expressed his firm determination to take that step, if the Portuguese government persevered. Negotiations were carried on this subject till the. death of the Queen
1040
of Portugal, and they were afterwards interrupted by the breaking out of the French war in that country; but no one who had read Mr. Pitt's speeches, or, above all, the correspondence carried on under his directions with the Court of Portugal could doubt, that it was his intention, if Portugal did not give up her regulations as to our trade, to do away with the duties in her favour, and to equalize them on all wines. This, he thought, was a complete answer to the statement of the hon. Member with respect to Mr. Pitt: but this was not all that was done by this country to induce Portugal to alter her regulations. In 1810, a demand was made of redress of the grievances under which our trade suffered, particularly by the monopoly of the Oporto Company; and in the year 1813 instructions were sent out to our Ambassador, to state that, unless the Portuguese government gave up the objectionable regulations, this country would put her trade with Portugal on a different footing. The communication made on that occasion by the Ambassador of a Government of which more than one Gentleman opposite was a member, was as follows: "His Majesty's Ambassador is authorized to state to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Portugal, that, unless full satisfaction is given to his Majesty's subjects for the impediments they have suffered in their trade, particularly those opposed by the Wine Company of Oporto—unless that Company be abolished or placed on a very different footing—unless his Majesty's subjects be allowed, before the next vintage, to get their wine, brandy, and vinegar, when and where they please, his Majesty is fully determined to do that which he is warranted in doing by the treaty of 1703, and which he threatened to do in 1787—to introduce a measure to Parliament for the purpose of encouraging the importation of the wines of other countries. It is determined to do this in order to bring Portugal to a sense of its duty, and induce it to give the subjects of his Majesty those advantages which they have a right to expect from existing treaties." This proved that, at that period at least, the Government of this country was determined not to allow its treaties with Portugal to be violated with impunity. Had anything been done since on this subject by Portugal? Nothing, he would answer, but some slight modification of the regula-

1041
tions of the Oporto Wine Company, which left the principle complained of still untouched. No wine is, up to this hour, allowed to leave Portugal for this country, unless it is marked with the brand of the Company; and it is, in this way, subjected to every species of imposition. Now, he would ask, what course was left, for his Majesty's Ministers to adopt? Were they, then, to recommence the negotiations of 1756 or 1787, or 1810 or 1813, or rather ought they not to adopt such measures as would effectually remove the ground of complaint? What was the risk the country ran in doing the latter? What was the penalty it would have to pay, for departing from the principle of the Methuen Treaty, as Portugal had already done? The only penalty was, that Portugal might prohibit the importation, not of our woollen goods exclusively, but of all woollen goods, in which ours would, of course, be included. But how would this affect us? The whole amount of the declared value of woollen goods exported from this country to Portugal in 1828 was only 164,000 l., which was rather less than in former years. The declared value, which in this instance was more than the official value of the woollens exported in the last year, was 214,000 l. Compare this with the whole value of our woollens exported, which amounted last year to 5,530,000 l., and then the House would see how small was the portion which we should lose compared with our whole exports of this branch of our manufactures. This would be the whole of our loss under the Methuen Treaty, supposing Portugal was to exclude all woollen imports—a course which, for her own sake, he could not suppose she would adopt. He would now come to other objections of the hon. member for Worcester, as to what Portugal might do by the treaty of 1810. By that treaty, our manufactures were to be received at an ad valorem duty of fifteen per cent. But that treaty was to be taken by itself, and not as a part of the Methuen Treaty; the article of it in which the Methuen Treaty was included, left it open for revision, while the other parts were to remain in force for fifteen years, and these might be abandoned by either party giving the other a year's notice. The Methuen Treaty did not give us an iota more claim to have our goods favourably received in Portugal than did this Treaty of 1810. But the hon. mem-
1042
ber for Worcester had observed, that we were considerable gainers by the trade to Portugal, because that country consumed vast quantities of our manufactures. Of course Portugal must do so, because we take a large proportion of her produce at so much lower a rate of duty than the produce of other countries. But, even this was incorrect, for, after all, to what did our exports to Portugal amount? He held in his hand an account of the official value of exports to that country for some years, and so far from showing that the trade with that country was improving, it showed directly the reverse. Taking Portugal separate from the Brazils, these Returns proved, that our trade was on the decline with that country, at any rate, as far as our exports were concerned. In the year 1815, the total amount exported to Portugal, including Madeira, &c. was 2,933,000 l. This, in 1828, had dwindled down to 1,018,000 l., and in 1829, to not more than 1,200,000 l. To call such a trade, then, as the hon. Gentleman had done, the most valuable and the most important trade we possess, was, he contended, an abuse of terms. Portugal and Brazil might formerly have been of importance to us, but Portugal, as it stands, could never, with reference to our general trade, be otherwise than an unimportant and insignificant customer. He would come, however, to the argument used by the hon. member for Worcester, that Portugal admits our fish at a lower duty than that of any other country. The hon. Member had dwelt at considerable length on the benefits which we derive from this favourable admission of an article of such extensive consumption with the Portuguese merchant. He was far from underrating the advantages of this trade. There could be no doubt that a large quantity of fish is exported from Newfoundland to Portugal. The total amount of fish export-ed from Newfoundland in 1830 was788,000 quintals, of which Portugal took 300,000—a large proportion, it was true; but if Portugal were to do anything so impolitic, and so unpopular as it would be amongst its own subjects, as to increase the duty on our fish, we should only be placed on an equality with other countries in that market, and we should not suffer under any great disadvantage. But the hon. Member who had urged this objection, had passed over without notice the argument of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the

1043
Exchequer, that although the Newfoundland fish is not on an equal footing with the fish of other countries in the Portuguese market, yet it enters into successful competition with the fish of Norway and the United States, in the ports of Italy, and other places. If, therefore, the duty on English fish is increased in Portugal—and supposing that even now that country takes no fish but ours, we should only have to enter into the same competition in that market with the foreigner, which we are now obliged to do in others. The price was now regulated by the competition, and it would be so then; and he was sure, that we should be as successful in the contest with other nations in the Lisbon market, as we now were in the markets of other countries. We certainly might lose something in the event alluded to; but it was probable, that we should not lose much. There was nothing to prevent the English merchant, who now takes the fish to the Italian market, from carrying it to Lisbon; and he certainly would do so if the rate of profit were much larger in the latter market than in the former. He thought, therefore, that it was perfectly clear, that we had little or nothing to fear from the effect of competition on this point. We should not be placed on a more unfavourable footing than other countries; for it was not in the power, even if it were in the desire, of Portugal to do so. All she could do, without violating the Treaty of 1810, would be, to lower the duty on foreign fish to the rate levied on our fish; and even if she had the power of raising it, he did not think that Portugal would be induced to increase the duty on fish to a higher rate than was now charged on that imported from Newfoundland; because, an impost of this nature would be most unpopular with the people who were the great consumers. The tax would not fall upon the seller, but, as a matter of course, upon the buyer. The hon. Gentleman said, that, from the influence of our Government, Don Miguel might be prevented from increasing the duty on fish; but, he added, if a Constitutional Government were established, that a larger tax would instantly be imposed. Now, when an attempt of this kind was made in the Cortes, such a clamour was raised against it, that the Government was compelled to abandon it. A contrary course had been one of the means by which the Sovereigns of the
1044
Braganza family had maintained their popularity with the great body of the people. He remembered reading an account of the triumphant entrance of the Queen of Portugal into the capital of her dominions, in 1788, and, on that occasion, she was hailed with the greatest enthusiasm and joy by the populace. He would ask, what was the occasion of this? Why, she had some time before made a reduction in the charges on the fisheries and their produce. He was satisfied, that no government in that country, which at all regarded public opinion, would increase the duty on the introduction of an article of such high importance to the great body of the people. The next objection of the hon. Gentleman was, that, by this measure, we were sacrificing a profitable trade with Portugal, in order to reduce the duty on French wines, from which we could get no corresponding advantage. The hon. Gentleman dwelt on the large import of our woollens into Portugal, but he (Mr. P. Thomson) was convinced that, as far as the Treaty of 1703 was concerned, we derived no benefit, and that the demand for that article would not diminish there. He doubted whether we should make even the least sacrifice by this measure, for if it were the interest of the government of Portugal to impose a duty on our woollens, he doubted whether they would not do so now. He now came, therefore, to the hon. Member's argument about France; he asked, why did we propose to make an unproductive sacrifice? He. thought he had already shewn, that an equalization of the duties would not be attended with a sacrifice; but the hon. Member contended, that, before we made these reductions on French wines, we ought to enter into a treaty, with a view to induce France to make a corresponding reduction of the duty on English goods. What, said he, has been the effect upon that country of your previous reductions? Have you found that your goods have met with greater favour, or that your exports to her have increased? And he had stated, that since the former reduction of duties upon French commodities, though our imports from that country might have increased, while our exports thither had diminished to a great extent. Now, if our imports had increased, how did the hon. Gentleman suppose, that the French manufacturers or merchants were paid? He could not agree in the conclusions at

1045
which the hon. Gentleman seemed to have arrived, but he should be most happy if he should find it to be the case, that the French had given us 1,500,000 l. of imports for our 600,000 l. of exports. He certainly thought, that the old doctrine of the mercantile system had been abandoned by all commercial men; and he was surprised that the hon. Member should at this time of day, have set to work to study the celebrated work published in the early part of the last century, called "The British Merchant." He had thought that no one now entertained the idea, that the gain or loss of a country in trade must be calculated by the excess or diminution of the exports over the imports. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that it would be better for France if she would take our manufactures directly from ourselves, instead of forcing us to send them, in the first instance, to America, to purchase gold. We are the buyers, and we purchase the produce of France with the articles which we obtain in exchange for our cottons or woollens. If France does not take the value of our exports directly from us, she takes it from countries to which we export. But, he would ask, who were the losers by this system? Did not France thus compel herself to pay all the expense of a double freight? He perfectly agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that nothing could be so absurd on the part of France, as the commercial policy that she had adopted, in going to a great distance for that which she could obtain near at hand, and consequently at a lower rate, or making; at home what she could purchase at a cheaper rate of her neighbours. The conduct of France, however, in not consulting her own interest in taking goods where she could get them cheapest, was no fault of ours, nor should it operate as an argument against our taking her exports, or in favour of our following an unwise course. This was no consideration for us; for it was our interest to take her commodities, if we could get them cheaper from her than elsewhere, and to let her merchants take the payment as they please, and in the way they think most advantageous to them. The hon. Member had contended, that it would have been infinitely better to have entered into some negotiation with France, on a principle of reciprocity, than to legislate at once on the subject. But to negociate, or to make any attempt to negociate on
1046
this subject, in the situation in which this country now stands, would be he was convinced perfectly vain, and would be attended with numberless inconveniencies. Thanks to the policy introduced with so much success by his late ever-to-be-lamented friend, Mr. Huskisson, England was far beyond other countries as regarded her commercial policy, and had removed many of those fetters that restrained her trade to foreign nations. He perfectly agreed with his late right hon. friend, that, in offering to enter into negotiation on the subject of commerce, other nations would suspect that we were actuated by sinister motives; whilst, by adopting a liberal commercial policy, we should remove many of the prejudices that unhappily prevailed on the subject, and induce other countries to follow the example that we had set them. It was only by adopting a liberal system of commercial policy ourselves, without making it a matter of bargain with them, that we could convince other nations that we really were in earnest in our opinions, and that our recommendations were founded on a feeling of mutual sincerity. He had no doubt, that, in a very short time, other nations would see the advantage of following our example. It was on these grounds that the Ministers had taken the course which it had adopted. If they were again to attempt to negociate on the subject of our commerce, what would be the probable result? Why, after long and repeated attempts to overreach one another, some understanding might be come to—some bargain might be made—some Methuen Treaty might be concluded, of which, at some future period, this country would have to repent. He had no doubt that if we made such a treaty even on apparently the most advantageous terms, in the course of a few years circumstances would arise, that would render the treaty a clog to our commercial prosperity. By adopting the other course, we left ourselves free and unfettered, and obliged other countries, whatever might be their opinions, if they wished to profit by our relaxations in their favour, whether they would or not, to depart from their restrictive system. Sell they could not, unless they would buy, and the more we took from them, the more they must receive from us. It was true, that the policy which France had pursued on subjects of this nature for the last five years had not been attended

1047
with any advantage to her. There were some hon. Gentlemen who, no doubt, conscientiously, although, in his opinion, unwisely, approved of restrictions on trade, thinking that attempts should be made to grow every article at home that is consumed in a country—persons who think it better that 100 l. should be given for an article produced at home, than 50 l. for the same article of foreign produce. He would beg earnestly to intreat those gentlemen to look at the effects of that system in France. Let them there read the results of the prohibitive system. A commission was appointed in 1826 to inquire into the condition of the manufacturers of iron, cotton, and sugar, in that country; and the report which it made was drawn up by parties favourable to the restrictive system. The evidence was taken from the manufacturers themselves, in whose favour it was introduced; and yet, what was the result—that commerce flourishes, that profits are high, that manufactures prosper? No such thing; on the contrary universal complaints of ruined industry, of lost capital, of high prices without high profits. One of the iron-masters stated, that his profits were greater before the system than since; another explained, that every article of his machinery cost three times as much as in England. By the absurd attempt to raise iron, one of the first necessaries of life, wood, for fuel, advanced from three francs to seven, and eight in some departments. "It is in vain,'' said the cotton manufacturer, "that you attempt to protect me, whilst I am obliged to pay to the ironmasters for my works treble what the cotton manufacturers pay in England." "It is useless," said the iron-master, "to protect me, whilst I must pay for my wood three times as much as the English manufacturer has to pay for his coals;" and the proprietor of wood rejoined, "your protection is to me worthless, since, though I sell dearer, I must buy dearer too, and I am no ways the gainer." Nor was this all. There was not only no greater profit, but there was a positive loss to all. In many manufactories in France, large capitals had been employed, and ultimately lost, from speculators having imagined that high prices necessarily implied great profits. A considerable capital had been thrown away under the mistaken notion—that most grievous of errors—that profits must be in proportion to price, instead of being, as they are in reality, in pro-
1048
portion to cheapness; but whilst this system had proved so fatal to the very parties for whose peculiar advantage it was introduced, what had been its effect upon other branches of industry in that great country? Let the House observe its consequences in the agricultural part of France, and more especially the wine districts of that country. A report was sometime ago drawn up by a commission appointed by winegrowers of the department of the Gironde, in which it was stated, that the greatest distress was occasioned by these restrictions. He would refer to it as a proof of the disastrous consequences of the restrictive policy; and yet more, as a proof of the right feeling which prevailed upon this subject amongst a large portion of the inhabitants of France. The wine interest was by far the most important in that country; it employed more than 3,000,000 of people, more than one-tenth of the whole population; and occupied nearly 5,000,000 of cultivated acres. He should not trouble the Committee with the extract which he meant to read, if he did not think that it would be satisfactory for them to hear the course pursued by the Government justified in more eloquent language than he could use, and if it were not, in his opinion, the most perfect argument in favour of the policy proposed by his Majesty's Ministers; the report said, "What, then, is the most immediate consequence of the prohibitive system, or, in other words, of monopoly? The country which is governed by it cannot sell its productions to the foreigner. Thus, then, it falls back upon itself; and to the impossibility of selling its surplus, is united the necessity of paying dearer for what it wants. Our industry, in order to become fruitful, demanded neither the favour of a monopoly, nor that multitude of artifices and props with which other legislators have burthened their countries. A prudent freedom of commerce, a political economy founded in nature, in agreement with civilization, in harmony with all true interests; such alone did it require. Permitted to follow its natural course, it would have extended itself over the France of 1814, as it did over that of 1789; it would have formed the richest branch of its agriculture; it would have caused a stream of life and wealth to circulate, both in its natal soil, and in that of the whole kingdom; it would have drawn to our shores the commerce of the world; and

1049
France, instead of forcing itself with difficulty into a manufacturing country, would have naturally and necessarily regained an incontestable superiority as an agricultural kingdom. The contrary system has prevailed. The ruin of one of the most important departments of France; the distress of the surrounding departments; the general decay of the South; an immense population attacked in its means of existence; an enormous capital rendered useless; the prospect of being unable to levy any taxes upon our impoverished and reduced soil; an immense prejudice in favour of those departments to whom we are tributary; a rapid decrease, in the consumption of those articles which are still profitable, in the North; the general stagnation of commerce, with all the disasters which follow it; all the losses which it causes, and all the injuries, material, political, and moral, which inevitably accompany it; lastly, the destruction of all our ancient commercial relations, which become daily more irreparable—other nations enriching themselves by our losses, and developing their system of commerce on the wreck of ours. Such are the bitter fruits of the system of which we have been the principal victims." Such was the language of those millions of people on this system. Was it not clear, then, that whatever attempts might be made by the interested or the ignorant to keep up the restrictive system in France, sentiments such as these must, in the end, prevail? By what the Government proposed, it removed the ready answer hitherto made to this great interest. He himself had heard it urged; "You complain," say the exclusionists, "that you find no vent for your produce, because our laws do not allow you to take British produce in return; but will the English receive your wines? No; they charge them a heavier duty than those of other countries; that is the real cause of your not finding a market." The Government then has removed this objection. It says to the French, "we will buy of you upon the same terms as of others; if you refuse to allow us to pay you, it is your own fault." By this alteration, then, we should give strength to the opponents of the prohibitive system in France. We should place weapons in their hands with which they may combat their antagonists, and this course, he might safely say, was far preferable to any attempts at
1050
negotiation. He had endeavoured to reply to the arguments and to facts of the hon. Gentleman. He was aware that much more might be said on the subject; but he had already too long troubled the Committee; of its decision, however, he entertained no doubt. The measure proposed lay the Government was simply, to resume the privileges conceded to Portugal, paying the penalty which such resumption drew with it. The payment of it could be attended with no injurious consequences to our trade with that country, whilst it could not fail, in his opinion, to be most beneficial to the general commerce of the empire.
Mr. Attwooddisclaimed any intention of entering into all the arguments of this important question, but he must protest against the Government hazarding a certain beneficial trade for a contingent advantage to the revenue. The noble Lord's measure amounted in fact to a proposition to make 180,000 l. by the introduction of a new duty; and while he admitted, that if it were found absolutely necessary for the sake of the revenue to impose this additional tax of 180,000 l., he knew no object on which it could be more properly raised than wine; yet he considered that the course adopted by the noble Lord on the occasion had been extremely tortuous and indirect. In effect it was an attempt to transfer a part of the duties payable now on French wines to those of Portugal, to an extent highly prejudicial to the staple of that country. It was too much to expect that this old ally of England should be content with an arrangement of this kind, which had been entered into on the express condition that she should give a correspondent preference to our woollen goods, then in the infancy of their manufacture. There was another objection he entertained to the Resolution, which was, that the duty on the colonial wine of this country, labouring as it was under the effects of violent competition, was about to be, instead of diminished, increased to the extent of 6d. per gallon, making the whole immediate duty 2s. 9d. per gallon. The sequel was to all concerned in that trade more alarming, as it was intended to entail on our colonial wine grown in the year 1831 exactly the same rate of duty as the foreign wines was to pay. In a financial point of view, the proposition went to add 180,000 l. to the revenue; in

1051
a commercial point of view, it went to transfer to France part of the wine trade of Portugal, and the whole wine trade of the Cape of Good Hope; and, in fact, it carried further the wild theory of free trade than it ever had been carried before. It proceeded too upon the absurd supposition, that all men would, without reference to any other consideration, always buy in the cheapest market. He did not assent to that doctrine and therefore he believed that all measures founded on it, and this among the rest, would tail. He did not anticipate the results expected by the noble Lord. The plan really was a measure for the introduction of anew tax, though it had been set forth by the noble Lord, that in consequence of his judicious shuffling of the duties, there would be no additional burthen imposed upon the people. The effect of the levying 5s. 6d. a gallon on all wines, French and Portuguese, and Spanish, was to fix a duty of 100 per cent upon one wine, and fifty per cent upon another, which accordingly acted in the one case as a bounty, and in the other as a discouragement; the bounty being given to the wines of France, and the discouragement to the wines of our own colonies. He protested against the alteration proposed to be made with respect to Cape Wines. On an engagement of protection, capital had been embarked in this trade at the Cape of Good Hope, and nothing could, in his mind, be more unjust than to confiscate all this capital, as the Ministers had signified their intention of doing, the sentence of confiscation having been pronounced, though it was not to be carried into execution for two years. For his part, he considered, that if Ministers wanted this sum of 180,000 l. they ought to obtain it by an equitable rate of taxation, imposed according to the value of the wine.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had, as usual, made use of harsh terms. The hon. Gentleman had accused his noble friend (Lord Althorp) of following a distorted and tortuous course; but he was convinced that the House would agree with him in thinking that that was a most unjust description of the statement which had been made by the noble Lord, and of the conduct he had pursued. His noble friend had, in fact, at the very outset, stated what his object was:—to raise a certain sum of money, by means of a tax
1052
which would not be severely felt by the people of this country. He (Sir J. Graham) denied, that it was possible for this country to be continually receiving imports, without giving its own produce in exchange. Whether the trade carried on was direct or indirect, made no difference. If the trade was direct, then the exchange was made by simple barter; if indirect, then the people paid for foreign articles in the first instance, with money, but that money must have been obtained by the sale of their own manufactures or produce in some foreign market. He had not heard it stated, that his Majesty's Government were not justified in proposing an alteration in the wine duties, provided the revenue required an increase; and therefore the question was, not whether the proposition was a just one, but whether it was a wise one. The House he believed would agree with him in thinking, that it was very important for this country to extend her trade with France; and he was sure that the proposition of his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would have that effect. It was, however, said, that the most proper method of proceeding would have been, to have formed a commercial treaty of reciprocity with France; but he begged to remind the House, that such experiments had often been tried and failed. Much time had always been lost in attempting to establish treaties of reciprocity; that course of proceeding had always given rise to great jealousy on the part of the nation with which this country treated, and after all, the object aimed at was not effected. He therefore thought it more politic, if it was for the internal interest of this country, to make concessions, to make them without proposing stipulations; and to set the sound example of throwing open trade, without demanding any reciprocal concession. If France were thus dealt with, and the duty on the first produce of her soil, which was now almost prohibitory, reduced, the intercourse between that country and this would be carried on, without jealousy on either side. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Attwood) had stated, that the capital embarked in the Cape Trade would be entirely destroyed by the present proposition. Now he wished the House to notice what the nature of that protection was. The protection on Cape wine, under the existing law, would expire in 1833, when an increase of duty would take place of 7d.

1053
on the gallon. It was not, however, the intention of Government to increase the duty on Cape wine until the year 1834, thus allowing an additional year to the persons engaged, to withdraw their capital from the trade. But how had the Cape Trade prospered under this boasted protection? He would give the House an opportunity of judging of the ease, by stating the amount of the importation of Cape wine for each year, during the last four years. In 1827, the importation of Cape wine amounted to 698,000 gallons; in 1828, to 652,000 gallons; in 1829, to 579,000 gallons; and, in 1830, to 537,000 gallons. It therefore appeared, that the present protection had not the desired effect of making the trade prosperous. But there was another strong objection to it, with respect to the revenue. It was well known, that Cape wine was used as a great menstruum for adulteration, and therefore affected the produce of the revenue arising from the wine duties. If there were timely notice given to the persons who had embarked their capital in this speculation, he could not conceive that any injury would be inflicted on them. They would then be able to withdraw their capital from a trade which was already declining, without the interference, or rather, under the fostering protection, of the Legislature. It was not intended to do this immediately: and if it were fixed by Parliament, that the plan should be brought into operation in 1834, he could not perceive that any injustice would be done to our own colonists. It had been said, that the increase of duty would create an increase of price on the article, and thus diminish the consumption; but he conceived, that the amount of duty proposed to be added to the present duty on Portuguese wine was so small, that no decrease of consumption need be feared. If the consumption continued the same, an increase of revenue of 180,000 l. would take place, and the tax, at the same time, could not be felt by the consumer. The French trade in wine, it should be recollected, occupied not less than 5,000,000 of acres, and fully one-tenth of the population of France; and he could not help thinking that, as the result would be to bring a considerable share of French capital into activity, there would be corresponding results in favour of the staple trade and manufactures of this country. He conceived it therefore to be a measure of
1054
sound policy to open the trade with France; and whether the proposition was regarded as a fiscal regulation, or as a measure of political expediency, he thought it ought to meet with the sanction of the House.
Mr. Herriessaid, that although the noble Lord was personally incapable of any thing tortuous or indirect in conduct, yet he did think, that the course pursued by Government in this measure, did deserve the epithets applied to it by the hon. member for Aldborough. The proposition was at first brought forward simply as a matter of finance, but afterwards it was advocated as a great question of political and commercial policy. The hon. Member then referred to the Methuen Treaty, and read the clause which permitted England to introduce French wines, without any difference between them and Portuguese, on her paying the penalty of the exclusion of her woollen goods; and contended, that although Portugal, from having originally had conditions too onerous imposed upon her, had been led, on many occasions, into conduct which demanded reprobation, yet that we had, upon the whole, derived great benefit, political and commercial, by our connection with the Peninsula; and that it was, and always had been, conceded by all former Governments, that nothing could be more impolitic than to avail ourselves of the right we possessed to depart from the treaty. Mr. Canning, for instance, he could take upon himself to say, had scouted the idea. And he begged to ask the House, if, under the present circumstances of Europe, the course pursued by Ministers was a politic course to pursue? It had been frequently debated in the late Cabinet, how, in the best, and fairest, and most amicable manner to Portugal, they could get rid of the Methuen Treaty; but never did they dream of cutting the knot after the fashion now recommended. The necessary papers had been submitted to their legal advisers; and they undoubtedly observed that, according to the provisions of the clause in question, we might set ourselves free of the treaty, by paying the penalty in the exclusion of our woollen manufactures;, but that mode, as a thing not to be contemplated between amicable parties, was at once dismissed. It had been said by hon. Members, that the amount of our woollen goods received in Portugal was very trifling—equal only to

1055
200,000 l.; but he begged the House not to view the matter in this light, but to observe the relation which Portugal, or rather, he said, the whole Peninsula, bore to the other European kingdoms, as a receptacle for our manufactures. The fact was, one-sixth of the whole amount of our exported goods were taken into the Peninsula; and would any man venture to say, that the abstraction of one-sixth of our exports would not be attended with great distress to our commercial and manufacturing interests? In the year 1825, the Ministry had discovered, that to maintain the system of high duties was only to incur continual sacrifices, and the duties were therefore reduced: but in 1830, the noble Lord wanted a sum of 180,000 l., and to make it up, he resorted to the expedient of increasing the duties on wine, although they had formerly been diminished with the express view of benefitting the revenue. The consequences of adopting the present proposition of the noble Lord would be, that the consumers would be charged a higher sum than before, but the revenue would not gain in the same proportion; indeed, it was likely to be diminished. He could assure the House, that he would detain them but a short time; but he must express his surprise at the impatience thus manifested upon a most important question. He maintained, that the Ministry had adopted a wrong course with respect to Portugal. The most obvious course for them to have pursued was, to have adopted an amicable course towards that country, to which we had been so long and so closely bound by commercial treaties. He thought that a little mutual concession would have been of advantage; and that, by acting on that principle, we might have obtained all we wanted. On all the reasons connected with this subject, political, commercial, and fiscal, he thought the noble Lord could not have chosen a worse course than that which he had adopted.
Mr. Sadlerrose to address the Committee, but the impatience of hon. Members, expressed in coughing, and loud and almost general cries of "Question," completely drowned his voice whenever he attempted to speak.
Mr. Attwoodrose, and moved, that the Debate be adjourned.
Mr. Humethought no one could wish to have the debate protracted through another night. The hon. Member who
1056
moved the adjournment did so, he presumed, to obtain a further hearing for the cause he advocated. A more disorderly House, certainly, he had never witnessed. He wished the hon. member for Aid-borough to be heard, and if the Committee would not hear him, he would support the motion for adjourning the discussion.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that it was a question of great importance to the commercial interests, and many Members connected with it wished to address the House, and he also would support the proposition for adjournment, if those Members who were opposed to the noble Lord's scheme were not allowed to be heard.
Mr. Attwoodsaid, that if the discussion were allowed to go on, he would not press his Motion.
Mr. Sadlersaid, that he was desirous to address the Committee on this question, because he had pledged himself to do so at a meeting which was held in the City. He meant, however, to be very brief. He perceived that it was the determination of Ministers to persevere in the course of policy which had met with the reprobation of the last Parliament, and would meet, he hoped, with the reprobation of the present—he meant an anti-colonial policy, which, if pursued to any extent, would prove ruinous to the empire. The noble Lord proposed to take twenty-five per cent of duty off the luxurious beverage of the rich, and to place fifteen per cent duty on the wine drunk by the poor. The wine which it was proposed to tax was a cordial at the bed-side of sickness. The anti-colonial policy system was advocated in a book published by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, as he was now in the Ministry, no doubt gave all the effect he could to his own opinions. He feared that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman had been adopted by the Ministry, from the fact, that they were now attempting to cut up the wine-growers of the Cape. They did not act upon any principle of fairness; they put an ad valorem duty of forty per cent on the wines of France; an ad valorem duty of eighty per cent on the wines of Spain and Portugal; and an ad valorem duty of 150 per cent, on the produce of our own colonies. He repeated, that this was utterly unfair.
Mr. Huntsaid, he should not keep the House one minute. He disclaimed, on the part of the poor, the statement made

1057
by the hon. member for Aldborough, that Cape wine was the cordial of the poor; if it was a cordial, he was sure it was a most offensive one. He never knew that they purchased this wine, or that medical men ever recommended it. If this were really a tax on the poor, he would cut off his right hand rather than vote for it; but it was not, and he should, therefore, give his willing support to the measure.
Mr. Sadler, in explanation, said, that with respect to the liquor so much reprobated by the hon. Member, he would take on himself to say, that he had had it analysed by one of the best chemists in London, and that it contained a superior quantity of alcohol to any other wine, and was equal in quality to any wine imported.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, that the ruin of the wine-growers in France, caused by the duty laid on the consumption of wine in that country, which had been adverted to, had, in his opinion, no reference whatever to the question.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the noble Lord who brought forward the measure, did it as one of revenue; but the right hon. Gentlemen who followed him, supported it on the grounds of general commercial policy. He did not approve of the mode of conducting the foreign policy of the country by means of measures of revenue moved in a Committee of the whole House. Our treaties with Portugal ought to be discussed regularly and formally, and should not thus be brought incidentally before the House. The noble Lord said, that he brought forward this measure, in order to conciliate the French, that there might not be war with the French at a future period. He would only observe, that if it answered as a measure of conciliation, it must fail as a measure of revenue; for if the French wine should be so generally consumed in this country as to supersede the wines of Portugal and Spain, the noble Lord would be deceived as to the increase of resources he expected. By giving these privileges to the French, we should lose the advantages we had long enjoyed from our connection with Portugal—advantages which were not conceded to us by any other independent nation. If we acted in that manner towards Portugal, that country would be justified in not giving us the monopoly of her markets for the sale of fish, and might properly claim the benefit of admitting others to compete
1058
with us in that article. She might, for instance, not as the right hon. Gentleman said, increase the duty on fish, but admit the Norwegians into the fish market. These were commercial considerations; but those of policy were not less strong, and were, in his opinion, quite as clear against the course now proposed for adoption by the Ministry. He could not forget the relation which this country had so long had with Portugal, nor our repeated declarations that his most faithful Majesty might always rely on the assistance of England. The greatest men who had ever wielded the destinies of England, were of opinion, that we ought to cherish our alliance with Portugal. They knew the value of having the West of Europe on terms of friendship with England ["Question, question."] He had been suddenly called upon to take part in an important discussion, and he hoped that he might be allowed to express his opinions. He could not consent to cast off, in the manner proposed, one of England's most ancient and most faithful allies, cutting asunder the most ancient ties without notice, or the offer of any improved arrangement. The House had been reminded of the value and importance of the wine trade in France; let him remind the House, that almost the whole of Portugal was a wine country. He should certainly vote against the Motion, on the principle of doing no injustice to an old friend, endeared to this country by a long and close alliance, and of preserving from injury the colonies of this country, and its long-established trade.
Lord Althorpin reply, said, that he did not argue the question merely as one of revenue, while his right hon. friend argued it as one of commercial policy, but both he and his right hon. friend had argued it on both these principles. In principle, he believed that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not differ from his Majesty's Ministers; but they objected to his Majesty's Ministers, that they acted on these principles towards an ancient ally. Much had been said of the friendship subsisting between this country and Portugal, and the obligation which rested upon us to maintain our connection with an ancient and useful'ally. To his mind that argument brought no conviction, more especially when he remembered the recent conduct of that country towards this. Our communications with British residents there had been for some time, on their

1059
part, little more than a series of complaints against the Portuguese government for infractions of that treaty; and even, within a short time, we had been under the necessity of sending a fleet to the Tagus, for the purpose of protecting the rights and properties of those residents. He, therefore, thought that the arguments of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to have that weight with the House which those who delivered them expected. It was objected by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the measure could not succeed both as a measure of revenue and as a measure of commercial policy. He thought it would succeed in both views. The consumption of Portuguese wine would, he believed, not be diminished, while that of France would be increased; and that increase would both benefit the revenue, and extend our commercial and friendly relations with France. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said, that if the alterations now proposed were carried into effect, the Portuguese would reduce the duty on the fish of other countries, to the obvious detriment of our trade; but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman must recollect, that the present Resolution gave them no increased facility for doing that, nor did it afford any reason why they should. They might do so at the present moment if they thought proper, or at any time past.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared:—
For the Resolution 259; Against it 157 Majority 102.
House resumed.
Lord Althorpmoved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

CASTLEPOLLARD AFFRAY.
Mr. O'Connellwished to avail himself of the opportunity which that Motion afforded, of putting a question respecting the late and intended proceedings at Castle pollard. The people would not be satisfied by prosecutions which professed to be carried on by them, but really were carried on by the Attorney General. It became the more necessary that he should now call attention to this subject, as the Assize were approaching. He sincerely hoped that the Irish Government would pause before they resolved upon proceeding contrary to the wishes of the parties most injured. A memorial had been forwarded to the Castle, Dublin, on the part of the
1060
relatives of the deceased, praying for permission to be allowed themselves to prosecute. It was, to be sure, said, that they were to have an additional counsel to aid in the prosecutions, but that made no important difference; for a junior counsel so circumstanced, had nothing to do with the conduct of the cause—no power to call any witness—no right to be present at any consultation, and his connection with it afforded no security against the whole matter being mismanaged. Suppose a witness had been examined on a Coroner's Inquest, and gave direct evidence that murder had been committed, and it was afterwards discovered by the relatives of the party that the witness under some considerable influence, endeavoured to procure an acquittal for the prisoner, what could the Attorney General do in such a case as this? It would not be discovered by the solicitor of the Crown until the time arrived for the trial, that the witness had disqualified himself from giving evidence. In such a case, the witness might give quite contrary evidence before the Inquest and at the Trial: such a case might occur, the Attorney General might be quite innocent and the trial might be mismanaged even without his knowledge. Why should the Crown unnecessarily interfere, when the parties interested were desirous of prosecuting? There was no danger of a compromise; they could take no unfair advantage; the prisoners would have counsel, and the Judge would see every thing was properly conducted. Under such circumstances, he did most earnestly hope, that the relatives of the deceased might be permitted to conduct the prosecution. It was of the highest importance that the people should have confidence in the Government, and in the administration of justice. The Crown possessed formidable advantage. It had six or eight of the most able counsel to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and therefore could only terrify the party to whom it was opposed. It was the general character of the Irish people to be satisfied with the administration of justice, even when opposed to their own interests. This was demonstrated by the fact, that in all the riots and disturbances, the murder of witnesses that had taken place, there had been no instance of any injury to any prosecuting counsel or Crown Solicitor, and there was no individual more popular than he was. The only discontent exhibited

1061
was on account of their not being allowed to conduct the prosecution themselves. In the present case he knew the relations to be most respectable, and he trusted, for the peace of the country, they would be allowed to prosecute.
Lord Althorpsaid, that Government was placed in circumstances of considerable difficulty in respect to this question. There were three courses open to them—either to prosecute on the part of the Government, without any assistance from the relatives of the deceased, or to leave the matter entirely in their hands, which was the course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or, pursuing the third course, of uniting with the parties in the business of the prosecution; and when the House remembered, that both the hon. and learned Gentlemen (the members for Kerry and for the University of Dublin) joined in censuring the conduct of Government, one for not pursuing the first course, and the other for not pursuing the second, that afforded some ground for assuming that Government had not acted unwisely in avoiding cither extreme, and adopting a moderate proceeding—that of giving assistance to the people. It was a mistake to suppose, that the additional counsel would be inefficient, for it was understood that he should be made acquainted with the whole conduct of the trial, with full power to complain whenever grounds for complaint presented themselves, and with full power to call any witnesses whom he might think proper, He thought, therefore, the opposition of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen was rather carried to an extreme on this occasion.
Mr. Lefroycomplained of the conduct of Government on this matter, which went to interfere with the administration of justice in Ireland, in a manner unknown in this country. He believed, if there was any prospect at all of putting an end to the party feeling that existed, it could only be done by administering justice in Ireland as it was administered in England. He regretted much, that every riot or exhibition of public or party feeling in Ireland should be made a subject of discussion in Parliament. He had hoped that the measure passed two years since, would have put an end to party distinctions and party feelings, and he was therefore sorry to observe, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Kerry should avail himself of opportunities
1062
such as that, to excite political agitation in that House. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out a single instance in which the present Attorney General for Ireland had ever taken a part in politics. He deplored the introduction of such questions in the way in which they had that, night been introduced. The prosecutions might be safely left to the present English and Irish Governments, without calling in the aid the learned Gentleman proposed. And when Gentlemen talked of promoting the administration of justice, how, he wished to ask, could the discussion in Parliament of a question which was to come before a Jury promote the fair administration of justice?
Mr. O'Connellhad not said, that the present Attorney General for Ireland had mixed himself up with party politics since his appointment to his present office, but before that he was a political partisan. It had been said that he was pre-judging the case. He certainly had called it a slaughter; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that too harsh, he should be obliged to him for a gentler phrase in which to express the slaying of thirteen or fourteen Irishmen.
Mr. Humethought it natural that the relations of those persons who had been killed by the police (whether that killing was to be called a slaughter or not) should desire to see justice done: and nothing could be more natural than that inquiries should be made, whether it was the intention of Government to satisfy the feelings of the people, by allowing them to prosecute. Nothing could go further to appease party feeling in Ireland than the fair administration of justice. He thought that it was now a recognized principle, that the laws of Ireland and the administration of justice in Ireland should be assimilated to those of England. If so, why then should not the relations of those who were killed be allowed to carry on prosecutions, as in England, without the interference of the Attorney General.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that when he heard the hon. and learned member for Kerry tax the present Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Blackburn) with being a political partizan, and insinuated that his political bias might induce him to pervert the powers of his office in the administration of justice, he felt himself called upon to bear testimony to the honour and impartiality of that Gentleman, and to bear his

1063
testimony that such imputations were wholly unfounded. He said this from his personal knowledge of the character of the individual, and from the manner in which he had conducted himself in judicial situations of the most delicate character, which had called forth the approbation of all parties.
Mr. Northwas convinced of the integrity and honourable conduct of Mr. Blackburn, and he knew that the course followed by that Gentleman in the present instance was the same as had been followed by former Attorney Generals on similar occasions.
Colonel Rochfortcomplained of the conduct of a Roman Catholic Clergyman (the Rev. Mr. Burke), who, he said, did everything to inflame the passions of the people.
Mr. O'Connellconsidered the charge against Mr. Burke to be an unfounded calumny.
Colonel Rochforthad his information from the best authority.
The Attorney Generalsaid, it seemed to be taken as a matter of course, that the practice about to be adopted was at variance with the practice pursued in similar cases in this country, but he begged to declare, that it was not unusual for Government counsel to be assisted by counsel for the relatives of the deceased. This course was pursued in several instances during the late Special Commissions. All Crown prosecutions were necessarily under the control of the Attorney General, but there was still no reason why he should not avail himself of the assistance of counsel employed by the relations of the persons slain. There was nothing in the course adopted by the Attorney General for Ireland different from that usually pursued in England, and he had taken the best advice, having consulted the highest legal authorities.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, as the Ministers had determined to take what they styled a middle course, by allowing the counsel and agents of the friends of the injured parties to act in conjunction with the counsel for the Crown, and Crown Solicitor, he had one suggestion to make, and that bore reference to the necessity of conducting these "mixed" prosecutions in a manner different from that in which they had as yet been conducted in Ireland. He spoke from his own knowledge. In the course of his limited practice as a bar-
1064
rister, he had been employed on two occasions by the friends of the injured parties, as one of their counsel in cases of these "mixed" prosecutions. The affairs occurred in the county of Clare, in the summer of 1829. In one instance a peasant had been shot; in the other, one had been severely wounded; and the persons charged with the crimes were policemen. On both those occasions the counsel and agents for the friends of the injured parties were not allowed to challenge a single juror—not a solitary suggestion of their's was attended to. The result was, the appointing a jury, to use the mildest term, with a strong leaning to the prisoners—the acquittal of those prisoners—and the consequent discontent and dissatisfaction of the people at large. He had so much confidence in his Majesty's present Ministers as to induce him to hope, that this course would not now be pursued; and to give them the opportunity of declaring their intentions, he threw out these few observations.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he thought it could be hardly necessary for him to state, that the Government had no other object in view than the fair and impartial administration of justice, to protect the innocent, and not to screen the guilty; and he could safely and truly say, that the Government would give every possible facility for the investigation of this business. The Attorney General for Ireland would, he was sure, do all that lay in his power to satisfy the demands of justice. He had, recently had in the county of Clare, a most difficult legal duty to perform; but he had performed that duty with so much fairness, with so much justice, and at the same time with so much liberality of spirit, that he had pleased and satisfied every body.
Mr. Perrincould see no reason why the Attorney General should take a prosecution out of the hands of the relatives, who were willing, and who had the means to prosecute; it would tend to no good purpose for the Government to interfere. He knew that such interference had occasioned great discontent amongst the people. As they had the means of employing gentlemen who would conduct their cases in a satisfactory and impartial manner, they naturally preferred placing their cause in such hands, rather than in the hands of the Crown lawyers.
Mr. Huntrose to say a few words. He could not perceive why the Attorney Ge-

1065
neral interfered in those prosecutions, unless it were for the purpose of protecting certain parties. If it was the wish of the Government to save the Yeomanry, and if they thought that the people prosecuted those corps with too much avidity, why were not counsel sent down to defend them who had need of such protection, instead of forcing assistance upon those who did not wish for it?

SUPPLY—CASE OF SIR A. B. KING.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Spring Ricemoved, that the sum of 15,798 l. 10 s. be granted to defray the charges of Retired Allowances, &c, for the current year.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, he considered this to be a proper opportunity to place before the Committee the claims of a most useful and meritorious public servant; and when he had stated those claims, he flattered himself that the Committee would, with an unanimous feeling, accede to the proposition which he was about to make. He did not doubt, that the Ministers would be able to give a satisfactory reason why a compensatory vote to this individual had not originated with them; yet he hoped, that, if he made out, as he thought he should, a strong case for Sir A. B. King, that gentleman would not be suffered to lose any thing by the advocacy of the claim falling upon him. The facts of the case he had to submit to the Mouse were these:—Sir A. B. King-held the patent office of Stationer to his Majesty in Ireland. This patent had been in his family for a considerable number of years, from 1760 up to the present period. He allowed that tins long possession of the office ought not to weigh much with hon. Members, for if the office had been held for a long time, the profits that had accrued from it must have been great; but then, if the nature of the office, and the course which had always been pursued with regard to other patent offices, were considered, he thought that the length of the possession would by no means be a disadvantage to the claim of Sir A, B. King; especially as the duties of the office had been honestly and well performed. It had, however, been more than once a subject of complaint in that House, that no such monopoly had ever before been given to a subject; and in 1829, when the Irish Estimates were re-
1066
ferred to a Select Committee, the mode of supplying stationery in Ireland was, among other things, considered. The Committee thought, that a more economical mode might be adopted, and they therefore suggested, that it would be advisable to get Sir A. B. King to surrender his patent; and further, that when this should be done, the stationery should be supplied from the Stationery-office here. Sir A. B. King was examined before the Committee, and the whole subject was fully investigated, during which investigation, no doubt was ever raised as to the rights of Sir A. B. King under his patent. He admitted, however, that the patent was a patent revokable at the pleasure of the Crown. During this investigation, too, the Committee, so far from imputing any thing like delinquency to Sir A. B. King, recommended that a negotiation should be entered into with him for the purpose of inducing him to surrender his patent. This was the understanding, and the then Government acting upon it, wrote to Sir A. B. King, and asked him to surrender his patent upon certain terms. His noble friend, the then Secretary for Ireland, had, in a letter to Sir A. B. King, made him an offer of an annual payment during his life, or of a certain fixed sum, in consideration of the surrender of the patent. As this was a point of importance, he would beg leave to read the letter to the House; it was in these words,
Dublin Castle, 6th November, 1829.
SIR,—I am directed by the Lord Lieutenant to acquaint you, that it is proposed, if you arc willing to dispose of the right vested in you by patent, of supplying stationery to his Majesty's offices, to purchase it by an annual payment on the basis of what shall appear to be your average fair and just profits, or by a sum of money equivalent to the value of such annual payment for your life.
F. LEVESON GOWER.
The letter, it would be observed, contained no fact of misconduct, but was an open offer to purchase what were considered Sir A. B. King's rights, either by a large sum of money at once, or by an annual payment. Sir A. B. King, in answer to this letter, expressed his willingness to enter into arrangements for the surrender of his office, and only delayed his final answer upon the subject, in consequence of some difficulty in ascertaining what the profits of the office were. This was the commencement of the ne-

1067
gotiation; but, afterwards, various Treasury Minutes passed upon the subject, in which the surrender of the patent was insisted on. To this demand Sir A. B. King did not demur, but only asked that his claims to compensation might meet with fair consideration. The difficulty was, to settle the amount of the compensation. Sir A. B. King called upon him, as Secretary for the Treasury, to decide upon the amount of compensation, for profits upon paper, pens, sealing-wax, wafers, which he of course was not competent to do. It was then determined, that the Government should select some stationer of high eminence and great character to meet some other stationer appointed by Sir A. B. King. These were to give their opinion as to the amount of compensation, and they were empowered to call in a third person, who was conversant in the business of stationery, as umpire. A third person was called in, and in the end the three decided unanimously that 2,500 l. per annum ought to be given to Sir A. B. King as compensation, and they made an award to that effect. As this was a legal document, he would beg leave to read the award.
College Hill, December 1st, 1830.
Sir,—In conformity to the principles contained in your letter of the 6th of November, we proceeded to arbitrate the question in dispute between the right hon. Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury and Sir Abraham Bradley King; and, as a preliminary step, appointed Mr. Richard Jones, of Aldgate, wholesale stationer, umpire, in the event of our not being able to agree as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to Sir A. B. King, and we were obliged to avail ourselves of the assistance of that gentleman, not being able to agree upon the terms, and feel indebted to him for the benefit of his long experience and advice. We beg now to acquaint you, that we have unanimously agreed that the sum of 2,500 l. per annum would be no more than a fair remuneration to Sir A. B. King, for the surrender of his patent, being about thirteen and a half per cent on the return of the stationery supplied to the public department in Ireland, and which said sum of 2,500 l. per annum we hereby award should be granted to him.
CHARLES MAGNAY.
SAMUEL TIPPER.
RICHARD JONES.
If this award had been made while the late Ministers were in office, he had no hesitation in saying, that they would have felt it their duty to have confirmed it by a Minute of the Treasury, and to have car-
1068
ried it into effect. The present Government, however, had not thought proper to do so, although Sir A. B. King had surrendered his patent voluntarily, on the faith of this award being carried into effect. It seemed to him very strange, not to say very wrong, when parties agreed to refer a dispute, not to abide by the decision. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had already assented to a proposition for giving Sir A. B. King this sum for one year, and he would beg leave to read the letter in which the grant for one year was acceded to:
Treasury Chambers, 20th January, 1831.
Sir,—The Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury having resumed the consideration of the reports on Irish Miscellaneous Estimates for the year 1829, and particularly the question respecting the supply of stationery for the Public Departments in Ireland, I have received their commands to acquaint you, that his Majesty has signified his pleasure that the patent under which you have held the office of his Majesty's stationer in Ireland, should be revoked; I am further to acquaint you, that my Lords will be disposed to sanction the payment to you of a sum calculated at a rate not exceeding 2,500 l. per annum, from the period at which you ceased to supply the departments in Ireland with stationery, and calculated to the day on which your patent shall be actually revoked; I am also to inform you that, as the question of granting to you some amount of compensation has been, to a certain extent, entertained by the late Board of Treasury, my Lords are disposed to afford you every facility which may be required to enable you to bring any claim you consider yourself to have, under the notice of Parliament in the ensuing Session.
T. SPRING RICE.
That was, he thought, admitting that Sir A. B. King had a right to the compensation; | but he understood that it was now meant! to be contended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that as the patent was only held during the pleasure of the Crown, Sir A. B. King had no right to compensation. If this doctrine were sanctioned by the House, it would be the first and only instance in which such a course had been pursued with regard to patent offices. He held in his hand a return of forty offices, all of them conferred by patents revokable at pleasure; but all the holders of which had received compensation on the abolition of their offices. It was not necessary for him to read the whole list, but he might mention the case of the Duke of Manchester, who received a compensation for his patent place of

1069
Collector of the Outports, though after he had surrendered the patent it was not again completed, and he held the office for several years with no patent at all. Notwithstanding that, the Government granted him a compensation when the office was wholly taken away from him. He thought that it was a very hard case that Sir A. B. King was the only person who should have his patent taken from him without any compensation. He thought, that a strong case had been made out for Sir A. B. King, He knew, that there had been a very extravagant issue of paper in this department; but then the issue was one over which Sir A. B. King had no control, for he dared not refuse the supply of paper which, as the King's stationer, was demanded of him. Although, therefore, there had been a saving of 10,000 l. on a sum of 22,000 l. since the new mode of supplying stationery had been adopted, yet it was not owing to any misconduct of Sir A. B. King, that the sum for stationery in Ireland had been 10,000 l. more than it ought to have been. Besides, this saving had arisen from the voluntary surrender of the patent on the part of Sir A. B. King, and therefore he thought he had made out a case for compensation to that gentleman. He begged, therefore, to move as an amendment, that the sum of 2,500 l. a year be granted to Sir A. B. King, as a compensation for the surrender of his patent.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he would in a very few words state to the House the grounds on which he had thought it right that no compensation should be given to Sir A. B. King. The right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated, that this matter arose out of the report of a select Committee upon the Irish Estimates; but then the right hon. Gentleman had not stated—what he was informed was the fact—that that Committee was not aware, that the patent was a patent during pleasure.
Mr. Dawson—The patent was on the Table.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the patent might have been upon the Table, but he was told, that the Committee, so far from being aware of the nature of it, considered it to be a patent for life; and that, in that mistake had originated their recommendation of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman had in other respects correctly stated the facts of the case up to the award having been made; when that
1070
award came before him, and he found that the patent was not a patent for life, but a patent revokable at pleasure, he had at once given it as his opinion that the patent ought to be revoked. To say, that Sir A. B. King had voluntarily resigned the patent was not a correct mode of expression: for, although he dared to say, that Sir A. B. King would have been very ready to resign the patent for 2,500 l. a year, yet he was sure that Sir A. B. King would have done no such thing voluntarily without compensation. When he found, that so extravagant had been the expense under Sir A. B. King's administration of this office, that 10,000 l. could be saved out of a sum of 22,000 l., it did appear to him (though he did not mean to say that Sir A. B. King put that 10,000 l. into his pocket) that the profits of that gentleman in his office, while he held it, must have been so enormous, that his was not a fit case for compensation. It was true that he had given Sir A. B. King this sum of 2,500 l. for one year; and he had clone so because Sir A. B. King was entitled to it until the patent was revoked, and it was not revoked until that period of a year had elapsed. As to the cases which the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, he admitted them to be in point, but he could not consent to take them as his guide. He thought that what had been done in those cases had been improperly done. He had looked at this question on its own merits, and, so looking at it, he had not thought that he should be justified in proposing in that House any compensation to Sir A. B. King. He did not wish to blame or to pass any censure upon Sir A. B. King, but only to state the grounds on which he had acted. He thought, that he had acted quite rightly, but that was a matter upon which it was for the House to decide.
Colonel Sibthorpsupported the motion for compensation. The patent had been surrendered under a promise of a pension, and not to grant it would be a direct robbery of the individual.
Mr. R. Gordon, as a member of the Committee, must state that his impression was, that every member of the Committee considered the patent as a patent for life. He believed, that there was not a single member of the Committee who was aware of the fact, that the patent was revokable at pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman had called Sir A. B. King a useful and

1071
meritorious officer; but he (Mr. R. Gordon) was at a loss to discover alike the utility and the merits of this gentleman. He should have said, on the contrary, that the saving which had been effected since Sir A. B. King had been removed, proved that Sir A. B. King was worse than of no use at all; while the demerits rather than the merits of that officer were evident, from the stationery now costing only 12,000 l.; whereas Sir A. B. King used to charge 22,000 l. for it. It was proved on the Committee, that in many cases money had been given in lieu of station-cry; 24 l. was given to the state cook, instead of stationery, and there was not a single officer in the Lord Lieutenant's household, who could pretend to have any use for paper, who had not money given him instead of the stationery which it was supposed he might want. In a word, he thought that those who had put so much of the public money into their pockets for so many years, were the worst possible objects for compensation.
Mr. A. Lefroysupported the motion for compensation, and said, that Sir A. B. King's character could not be impugned. He had the honour of serving the office of mayor, and of experiencing the favour of his sovereign.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the motion for compensation. It appeared that the Committee had thought the patent a patent for life—so had Sir A. B. King—and so had the Government, at whose instance Sir A. B. King had surrendered it on the promise of compensation. This was the case, and the question now was, whether Sir A. B. King was to have that compensation which had been promised him, and upon the faith of which promise he had surrendered the patent. He must say, that he thought Sir A. B. King had a just claim, under the circumstances, to compensation. As to the jobbing at the Castle, was that the fault of Sir A. B. King? If it was, let him be visited with the penalties of it; but if it was not, as he was informed and believed it was not, then do not visit upon Sir A. B. King the faults of others. He understood that Sir A. B. King could not, dared not, refuse these claims of the household servants, which had been granted from time immemorial. Sir A. B. King and his family had always moved in a respectable situation, and he (Mr. O'Connell) appealed to hon. Members if such a man, and those dependent
1072
on him, ought to be consigned to penury, without any delinquency being proved against him. He had felt it his duty to state thus much, because he was impressed with the justice and equity of the claim.
Mr. Humethought the House might find it difficult to resist the appeal of his hon. and learned friend. He must, however, make the House aware, that the fault was the Government's, not that of Sir A. B. King. The patent ought to have been withdrawn in 1822, and that it was only now withdrawn, was a proof of the manner in which the public money was wasted. Sir A. B. King ought to think himself too happy to have enjoyed so much of the public money. The late Government was much to blame. Sir A. B. King, instead of receiving more money, ought to refund part of what he had received. He had not discharged his duty as a faithful public servant; and if his patent had been brought before any tribunal several years ago, it would have been voided. He was not much surprised, that the Gentlemen lately in office advocated this cause; and he was happy to congratulate the country on having, at length, one honest Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would do his duty to his country. The late Government ought to have ascertained whether the patent were for life or not. He should support the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonadmitted the great merit of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but still he thought good feeling, as well as justice, was in favour of the view taken by the hon. and learned member for Kerry. The patent was for life, like all the pensions granted by the Crown. The question had been settled by a reference already made to arbitrators, and the Government was bound to abide by that arbitration. The subject had been investigated, the investigation had been completed, and the present Government could not alter the decision. Sir A. B. King was bound and concluded by the arbitration, and he could not go into a court of law to set it aside. Was he to be bound by it, and not the Government? That was not justice. If they did not give effect to the award of the arbitrators, they would do a gross act of injustice.
Mr. G. Dawsonexplained, that Sir A. B. King had surrendered his patent, and that it was his (Mr. Dawson's) fault that it was

1073
not taken by him. He contended, that the profits said to have been made by Sir A. B. King had been much over-rated. He never had charged 100 per cent profit. The utmost he had made was 16½ per cent.
Mr. Serjeant Wildewas of opinion that this was a question of justice; and if so, was it right, in the present state of the country, and the loud call for economy, to grant, by way of indulgence and liberality, so large a sum of money? It was said, that this was a question between the Government and Sir A. B. King. He did not think so; he thought it was a question between the Public and Sir A. B. King; and if it turned out, that he had no claim in law or justice, he never could agree that it was the duty of the House to squander the money of the public, and grant a compensation to an individual who had no claim to it. It had been said, that there was no proof that the grant had been abused; but there was strong presumption, when the matter had come before the House, that the public had suffered loss, which rendered it expedient, on the supposition that the patent was for life, that it should be put an end to. But the Committee had heard the statements of some hon. Members, which they intended to make the foundation of their votes, that most excessive and enormous charges had been made; that there had been such practices, that if his Majesty's Attorney General had been directed to move for a scire facias to repeal the patent, he was convinced, that no Jury would have hesitated to void the patent for abuse. If any public servant, intrusted with supplying goods, supplied money instead of goods, it would be such an abuse of the patent as would warrant its repeal. It was said, that it was well known, that it was a patent during pleasure; if so, and if it was found to be abused, why was it not put an end to? He could not conceive why a compensation should be asked. But to whom was it well known? If to those whose special duty it was to protect the public, why was a Committee of the House not informed? The Committee was allowed to go on under a delusion. If it was well known, it was the duty of the Government not to give a compensation; and it was also their duty, to have placed before the Committee the real state of the interest of the party. It turned out that there had been a bargain made, to
1074
give up, for a compensation, what the public had a right to resume. But it was said there had been an arbitration; this was founded on a mistake. It supposed, that the right had been referred to arbitration. But it was not so; the right had been assumed; it was only referred to the arbitrators, to award a compensation for an assumed right. Now the House understood that there was no right; and yet it was called upon to vote what was founded on an assumption of right. He (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) protested against this mode of giving away the public money. What was the pretence for it? It was said, that Sir A. B. King had resigned the patent. He would take it for granted that the bargain was complete, and that Sir A. B. King was ready to resign the patent. Still, before the public money went into the pocket of Sir A. B. King, he wished to know wherefore. Sir A. B. King had no right to stand upon; and as to what had been said about the public having become unwittingly a party, and therefore ought to be bound, he would say, if one farthing had been taken from Sir A. B. King, he had a right to call upon the House to make it good; but if he had not lost any thing, and if the bargain had been made through the negligence of those who had not done their utmost to protect the public interests, he could come upon them only in one of two ways: he must either wish to take advantage of the public, or he must say, "I have been tinder a delusion, and I beg you will pay me for the loss, not of a real right, but of a supposititious right." The real question was, whether Sir A. B. King had so conducted himself as to warrant a claim on the liberality of the House; he had no right, and what ground was there for a benevolence? He (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) and the other Members of the House were there to do justice; and would they do justice by making this grant to a man who had done nothing to deserve it?
Mr. Goulburnagreed, that if they acted upon the strict principle of legal justice, Sir A. B. King would have no right; but extreme justice was often the extreme of injury; and it was the practice of Parliament to listen to equitable claims. It had been contended, that the House and the Committee were ignorant of the nature of the patent of the King's stationer in Ireland; but a copy of that patent had been two several times on the Table of the

1075
House, and had been printed. A person who had held the patent for sixty years, on a grant which had been discussed and renewed at the demise of the Crown, which had been treated by a succession of Governments as a valid patent, did not make an unreasonable claim for compensation for its loss; and it was not extraordinary that the Committee should recommend the purchase of the patent, or that Government should comply with the recommendation.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged to state to the House the reasons why he proposed to vote for the amendment. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had objected to the proposed compensation to Sir A. B. King because the patent he had surrendered was held during pleasure: but he wished to inquire, if all the pensions granted during the late reign were not granted during pleasure? They were; and notwithstanding that circumstance, and the fact that most of them were obtained from Royal or Ministerial favour, and not for public services, the noble Lord had himself, at the commencement of the present reign, urged on the House the propriety of continuing the whole of them; contending, although so granted, that they could not be withdrawn. On this account he had listened with astonishment to the noble Lord's speech. He had heard, with equal surprise, the hon. member for Middlesex thank the noble Lord for his opposition to this grant, in the name of the public. He could not pretend to know so much of the opinions of the people in the metropolitan county as his hon. friend; but he believed the public in general, who were most anxious that justice should be done, would not hear with satisfaction the course taken by the Government on this occasion: and if this House wished to afford the most obvious proof of its need of Reform, it had only to sanction the gross act of injustice now attempted. The hon. member for Cricklade had said, that in no Reformed Parliament would the amendment be listened to. If such were his opinion, he would not be a party to the Reform Bill. From the official papers before the House, it appeared Sir A. B. King voluntarily resigned his patent, on the suggestion of receiving an equivalent equal in value to the right vested in him. Now, if such equivalent had been estimated, as though the patent was for life, and not during pleasure, to deny
1076
all compensation, on that account, would be a crying act of injustice.
The Committee divided. For the amendment 45; against it 103—Majority 58.
The original Vote agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills received the Royal Assent. Buckingham House Garden-wall; Patent Grants (Ireland); and Deputy Lieutenants Indemnity (Scotland,).
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from Protestant Inhabitants of Barna, in Galway. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from St. Nicholas, Galway; and by Earl TALBOT, from Bohermon, Galway, for the Extension of the Elective Franchise to Roman Catholics. By Karl TALBOT, from a Society at Birmingham, to extend Poor-laws to Ireland. By the Earl of SHARTESBURY, from the Grand Jury of Chester, against the Beer Bill. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from non-resident Freemen of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against the Reform Bill.

COMPOSITION OF TITHES.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that, in consequence of a request that had been made to him, by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, he begged to postpone the second reading of his Bill, on the subject of the Composition of Tithes, to Thursday next.
Lord Kenyanhoped, as the postponement seemed to be made for the convenience of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and as this Bill, with another for the Commutation of Tithes, had been introduced last Session, that to-morrow would answer for the second reading, as well as Thursday, for the Bill was looked to with great interest by all the friends of the Church, who wished for the settlement of the question, and it was material that it should not receive any further delay.
The Lord Chancellorwas aware of the inconvenience of the postponement of the Bill, and he would gladly prevent it if it were in his power. Indeed, it had been too often adjourned, and as it had been before the House during the last Session, full opportunity for understanding its provisions was given to their Lordships; so that no good reason existed for any further delay, nor was it intended that any should take place. But the noble Lord was aware that a Bill on the same subject, which offered another remedy (the Commutation of Tithes) for the same alleged evil was laid on the Table by a noble Baron, not then in his place; and that noble Baron had consented, both for the general convenience, and for the better understanding of both Bills, that the debate on them should take place at the same time. Now he had not as yet seen the Bill of his noble friend, and he did not think it would be

1005
proper for him, considering his station in the House, and his position with respect to the law of the country, to go into the debate on so important a proposition as the Composition or the Commutation of Tithes, without being master of both the Bills. He would undertake to make himself master of them in the course of the night, and be prepared for the debate to-morrow, if their Lordships wished to fix it for that period. There was, however, another reason why the matter should be reserved for Thursday, and that was, that a noble and learned Lord (Earl Eldon), who had been his predecessor in office, would be unable, in consequence of a severe domestic calamity, to attend before that day. Under all the circumstances he would recommend that Thursday be appointed, and he hoped that the debate would then take place.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, he had seen the noble Earl (Earl Eldon) in the course of the day, who said he would be in his place on Thursday.

AFFRAY AT NEWTOWNBARRY.
Lord Farnhamgave notice, that to-morrow he would move for copies of such information as had been received by his Majesty's Government relative to the late affray of New-townbarry.
Earl Greysaid, he did not understand whether the noble Lord wanted all the information received by Government, or only a part; and if he moved for it with a view of creating a discussion on the subject, be hoped he would name some other day, as it would be personally inconvenient for him to attend to-morrow.
Lord Farnhamsaid, he hoped Wednesday would answer.
Earl Greyreminded the noble Lord that it was not customary to fix a long discussion for Wednesday.
Lord Farnhamsaid, that he would be the last person in the world to create an unnecessary discussion, or to take up their Lordships' time unadvisedly; but the misstatements that had been made on this subject had been so gross, the libels had been so scandalous, and the assertions made in other places were so devoid of truth, that he felt he should not be doing his duty if he did not call for such information as his Majesty's Government had to disclose, in order that the public mind should be disabused of the prejudice created by these misstatements and assertions. That was his object in moving for those Papers;
1006
and, though he was anxious to consult the convenience of the noble Earl, he could not defer his statement, and he hoped that Wednesday would be fixed.
Earl Greysaid, he did not know what the libels and misstatements were to which the noble Lord referred, and therefore he could say nothing about them; but if he were anxious to call the attention of the House to the subject in question, and he was not disposed to accede to any further delay, he believed the better way would be at once to name Wednesday, when he would be in his place to hear the noble Lord.

THE LORD-LIEUTENANTS' (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount Melbournemoved, that the receiving of the report on this Bill be adjourned till Wednesday.
The Marquis of Londonderrygave notice, that he would take the opportunity of bringing up the report to reply to the personal attack which had been made on him at the close of the debate on the second reading of the Bill.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the course pursued by the noble Marquis was most irregular, and quite contrary to all the usage of debate, and he trusted he would not violate the rules of the House.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, if he had not been prevented on the evening he was attacked with so much asperity by three noble Lords from then replying, by the most uncourteous conduct, he should not be compelled to make the declaration that he now did, or to avail himself of the bringing up the report to vindicate his proceedings. He certainly should enter at large into an explanation when the report was brought up.
Earl Greysaid, when the report came up it would be competent for the noble Marquis to say anything consistent with the orders of the House, he pleased; but he (Earl Grey) must confirm his noble friend's opinion that, to take the opportunity of bringing up a report of a Bill to reply to what had passed on a former debate was, of all the irregularities which ever occurred in the House, the most irregular. He only wished to declare for himself that in anything that had fallen from him on the occasion alluded to, it was not his desire to depart from that courtesy which was due from one Peer to another; but he had interfered because a practice, which had lately sprung up, was then indulged in, and

1007
which he thought at that time required especially to be checked. It might be said, that he should have risen earlier, and that he had allowed one or two noble Lords a degree of latitude of which he sought to deprive another. He had been induced to abstain from interfering, by the hope that the evil would correct itself; but when it amounted to such a height as to threaten the customary order and the due course of the proceedings of the House, he found it imperative on him to rise to order. He must again disclaim, in having' done so, any wish or intention to commit a breach of that courtesy and respect which were due to the noble Lord, as well as to their Lordships generally. He hoped what he said would be sufficient to justify himself, and he waited for what the noble Lord might think proper to do, certain that he need not anticipate anything inconsistent with the usual course of their Lordships' proceedings.
The Marquis of Londonderrycomplained that, though three speeches had been made against him on the night referred to, he was not permitted to reply to them, He only desired to rebut those accusations, and he was sure the noble Earl could not disapprove of his so doing, as the noble Karl would be the last man in the House to listen to a personal attack without attempting to disprove it, and he was anxious to shew that the observations of a noble and learned Lord did not apply to him.
Lord Plunkettfeared, in consequence of the noble Marquis having had the conrtesy to make a communication to him in the course of the day, that he was the person to whom the noble Lord especially alluded. He should be the last person in the House to say anything which he did not wish to have replied to, and he saw no reason why the noble Marquis should not now relieve his feelings, and set himself right with the House. He, for one, would be glad to hear any statement the noble Lord had to make, and if any irregularity had been committed by him, he should wish that it might be set right. If he had been wrong, he should be most ready to acknowledge the error. He, therefore, thought the sooner the matter was set at rest the better it would be.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid he believed the error arose altogether from a misconception of the noble and learned Lord's.
The report to be received the next day.