Sitting of 7 September 1831

MINUTES.
New Member. Mr. JONES took his seat for Carmarthen Borough.
Bills. Read a third time and passed; Clare County Presentments; Commissioners of Accounts (Ireland); Turnpike Tolls Regulation.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, all Moneys paid to Sir George Fitzgerald Hill during the last six years of his holding the office of Vice-Treasurer of Ireland; Copies of the Accounts furnished by him of the Moneys received during the same period; Copies of the Expenses disbursed by him during that time, together with all the Vouchers for the same, and also a Copy of the Warrant granting a Pension to the Wife of the said Sir George Fitzgerald Hill, now the Governor of St. Vincent's, together with the proceedings had upon such Warrant.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SHAW, from the Protestant Freemen of Galway, for equalizing Civil Rights in that place. By Lord KILLEEN, from Journeymen Bakers of Kavan for an Act to prohibit their Employment in the Night. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Inhabitants of Killarney, for the abolition of Slavery; from the Catholics of Rolls-town, and Oldtown, Tubid, Tullihurton, and Whitchurch, against any further Grant to the Kildare Street Society; from the Inhabitant Householders of Southwark, against any alteration in the Beer Act; from the Inhabitants of Raheen, for the Repeal of the Union. By Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, from the Inhabitant Householders of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, against the Select Vestries Act. By Mr. HUNT, from 300 Inhabitants of the Metropolis, for Relief to the Rev. Robert Taylor. By Lord MORPETH, from the Parishes of Burnsall, and Kerby Malhamdale, for the Commutation of Death for Offences against property. By Mr. LABOUCHERE, from the Owners of Omnibusses, against the Mileage duty.

WAR IN POLAND.
Colonel Evanspresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Westminster, complaining of the injury the trade of this country had sustained in its commerce with Germany, in consequence of the war carried on by Russia against the Poles. The petitioners also complained, that there was no accredited person from the British Government, resident at Warsaw, to protect the interests of British subjects; they also complained of the dreadful effects of the war which was going on, in consequence of the alarming disease which was communicated by the invading army. He was fully aware of the difficulty of the subject to which

1217
the petition referred; but, notwithstanding, he thought that something might be done to rescue those brave people from the evils which pressed upon them in consequence of the destructive war in which they were engaged. Negotiations had been now carried on for six or seven months, and it was not unreasonable to expect, that the Government of this country could make some disclosures relative to the future prospects of Poland, and the effect of the negotiations to which he had alluded. If there ever was a time when the interference of this country was called for to stop the progress of this calamitous war, it was the present. As the subject, however, would come before the House in a more formal manner, he should not at present enter into any further observations, fearing that it might be inconvenient to press the subject on the attention of the House. He would therefore merely move, that the petition be brought up.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, he had great pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. and gallant Member: he entirely coincided in the feelings of sympathy expressed by the hon. Member in favour of the gallant Poles. He entertained a firm belief and conviction, that the Government of this country felt deeply interested in the affairs of Poland. And he had no hesitation in expressing his opinion, that this country, in concert with the military power of France, should interfere to preserve the integrity of that unfortunate country. He thought it was high time that something should be done, by remonstrance, and for that purpose the present moment was peculiarly favourable. A reciprocity of feeling had sprung up between this country and France, which had never before existed; they were no longer jealous of each other's power, and could now enter upon a more generous rivalship, in remonstrating against the unjust aggressions of a powerful nation, which sought to oppress Poland, in violation of the treaty of 1815, which guaranteed the constitutional rights of the Poles. He knew it might be incompatible with the interests of this country to take an active part to reinstate the Poles in their rights, and re-establish the independence of Poland; but this he would say, that no cause more just ever called forth the sympathy of nations. All liberal people entertained but one opinion on the merits
1218
of this cause; and he thought it was the bounden duty of our Government to secure the execution of those treaties by which the several Governments of Europe were pledged to guarantee a constitution to Poland. Such a course was perfectly consistent with the law of nations. This was a case which excited the sympathy of generous minds; but politicians were said to have no bowels, and politicians were not prone to be sentimental. It could not be expected, that such persons should act from such motives. But there was in this instance a motive which in general had some weight with such men. It was the interest of every country to put an end to this war, and he sincerely hoped, that the subject would excite, as it deserved, the sympathy of Parliament. Of this he was quite certain, that any steps which his Majesty's Ministers might take to afford relief to the suffering Poles, would receive the unanimous approval and support of the country. He felt the warmest sympathy for that people, and hoped they would be rescued from the fangs of Russia.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it was from no feeling of apathy that silence had so long prevailed in that House upon the cause of the Poles. The despots of Europe found advocates in other cases—in this they had none. There was no voice raised in their favour. All nations were unanimous in reprobating the conduct of Russia. The Press was unanimous on this subject, however it might act on other occasions. In other cases he could only account for the manner in which it had been conducted, by believing that it was bribed. All concurred in one sentiment of sympathy for the sufferings of the Poles, and an anxious wish for the success of their cause. The situation of Ministers was an excuse for their not interfering. The time had, however, now arrived when all Europe should stand forth to secure the constitution to Poland which had been given to it by treaty, if it were only to protect the rest of Europe from the barbarism of her invader.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE WINES.
Mr. Mackinnonpresented a Petition from certain Merchants trading to the Cape of Good Hope, against any alteration in the Duty on Cape Wines. The Petitioners represented, that they viewed with deep alarm the measure before the House for

1219
withdrawing, in 1834, the protection hitherto afforded to Cape Wines. They represented, that by a Proclamation of the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, dated December 19, 1811, the merchants and cultivators of the colony were directed to the subject of the Wine-trade, as "A consideration above all others of the highest importance to its opulence and character," and were promised "The most constant support and patronage on the part of the Government, and that no means of assistance should be left unattempted, and every encouragement be given, to establish the success of the Cape commerce in this her great and native superiority." That, in dependence on the promises thus officially and solemnly given, the merchants and colonists embarked property, exceeding in amount 1,500,000 l. sterling, in the wine trade of the colony; not conceiving it possible, after they had been stimulated to this outlay in every possible way by the colonial government, and whose promises had been ratified by the solemn legislative enactments of the Parliament House, that this pledged protection of their interests could have been withdrawn, their property thereby irretrievably ruined, and the colony plunged into deep misery by the destruction of their staple article of production. That, by the introduction of 8,000 to 10,000 pipes of Cape wine into the markets of Great Britain, the prices of foreign wines were kept down, to the manifest advantage of the consumer, and the evident increase of the revenue from foreign wines. The Cape wines, also, from their cheapness, were now consumed by a class of the community who were unable to purchase expensive wines; and it would by them be justly considered a serious grievance were they to be deprived of a cheap and wholesome beverage, to which they had now become accustomed, to the almost total disuse of ardent spirits. That the deleterious qualities ascribed to Cape wines were totally unfounded in fact, as might be proved to that honourable House, if opportunity were afforded; and they begged to represent, in confirmation of this statement, that Cape wines were drunk with much satisfaction by many Members of both Houses of Parliament, who were ready to express their approbation of their excellent qualities and cheapness. That the frequent agitation of this subject, during the last seven years, had caused a
1220
state of insecurity and alarm in the minds of all persons concerned, and which had been followed by the embarrassment and ruin of many of those who were previously opulent merchants. They represented to the House the impossibility of withdrawing the capital now embarked in the Cape wine trade, and that the inevitable effect of the contemplated measure would be, to hurl ruin on a large number of his Majesty's subjects, who had embarked in the trade upwards of one million and a half of capital, to which they were solely induced by the pledged faith of his Majesty's Representative, and solemn Acts of Parliament; and they were prepared to prove, if afforded an opportunity, that the ruinous consequences herein predicted would be followed even by a considerable injury to the revenue of this kingdom. They, therefore, prayed the House to give them an opportunity to prove the statements contained in this petition, and that the House would pause before passing a measure which would hurl destruction on thousands of his Majesty's loyal subjects, and prove the grossest breach of good faith ever inflicted on a colony.
Mr. George Robinsonexpressed his entire concurrence in the prayer of the petition.
To be printed.

REFORM (IRELAND).
Mr. Shawpresented a Petition from the Roman Catholic Freemen of Galway, against a Clause in the Irish Reform Bill. He must consider the whole measure to be a reckless violation of vested rights, but he was greatly at a loss to know why any distinction should be made between English and Irish freemen; the former were to preserve their rights, the latter to be deprived of their's.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. Member did not appear to know, that the Irish Bill was all enfranchisement; it did not disfranchise a single borough. It was a little curious to see persons who had hitherto been the advocates of exclusive measures, now suddenly turn round and admit the existence of rights which they had formerly contested.
Petition to be printed.

YEOMANRY (IRELAND).
Lord Killeenpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of the Parish of Navan, in the county of Meath, praying that the Yeomanry might

1221
be disarmed. He agreed with the prayer of the petition, which stated, that the Yeomanry instead of protecting the people, committed all sorts of outrages. He hoped all the corps would be gradually abolished, although he was free to admit that some of them were well disciplined, and did not deserve the censure which had been heaped indiscriminately upon them.
Mr. Henry Grattansupported the prayer of the petition. He was convinced that tranquillity could never be thoroughly established in Ireland, until the Yeomanry were wholly disarmed, and the whole body abolished. They were exclusively party corps, in the strongest sense of these words.
Mr. Blackneysaid, the Yeomanry were the great cause of dissatisfaction in the county of Carlow.
Colonel Percevalsaid, the Yeomanry were never called out but in cases of necessity, it was a passive force.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, it was ridiculous to attempt to keep the peace of a country by the aid of a force which was in itself obnoxious. If a force was necessary, let it be a regular body, under proper discipline, and not a local body imbued with party feeling. He regretted that Irish Members should provoke incidental discussions of this character, which could lead to no practical result, and protested against the practice, particularly when, from the nature of other business it was obvious they could not give that full and undivided attention to Irish affairs which their importance well deserved.
Mr. Shawsaid, the Government would be deceived and overthrown if it depended on the assistance of those persons who desired to abolish the Yeomanry corps.
Colonel Percevalbegged to take that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland. He wished to ask, whether Government intended to adhere to that clause in the bill for establishing Lord-lieutenants of counties in Ireland, which made it imperative on the persons so appointed to reside within the respective counties?
Mr. Stanleyin reply to the question of the hon. Member answered that it was understood that either a resident nobleman or the son of a nobleman who was resident, should be appointed Lord-lieutenant of each county. At the same time, it was not considered necessary that he must actually be resident in the county: he might reside in the adjacent one, provided he
1222
had property within the one to which he was appointed.
Petition to be printed.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from Raheen, in the Queen's county, against compelling Catholics to support the Protestant Church, and praying for the abolition of Tithes.
Mr. James E. Gordonwould avail himself of that opportunity to call the attention of the House to a challenge given him by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, to produce the original of a document which, on a former occasion, he had described as a command from a Parish Priest to a pound-keeper, to release two cows which he had impounded, and which were the property of a Roman Catholic of Clare. He did not wish to retain the character of an honest man, nor to receive credit for his assertions one moment longer than he was able to verify all the statements he made in that House. He had written to Ireland for the original document, and he now produced it. It was an exact counterpart of the paper he had read on the former occasion, and he would, to convince the House read the document, it was as follows.
"Patrick Donelly, give the bearer, John O'Loughlin, his two cows, impounded by the notorious bible-ranting Synge of Carhue, on account of the rent due to his landlord. But I believe the poor fellows stock was seized because he would not permit the infernal fiend, the devil, to seize the little ones with which. God blessed him. I promise you that O'Loughlin will deliver up to you the cows on the day of auction. "JOHN MURPHY."
Mr. O'Connellsaid, there was a great difference between the document, as read by the hon. member for Dundalk on the former occasion, and that which was now produced. When the document was read on the former occasion, it appeared to be a mere command from the Priest to the pound-keeper to release the two cows, but the hon. Member now read additional words, which made the document a good legal promise. These words were, "I promise that O'Loughlin will deliver up the cows on the day of the sale." He admitted the letter was not in good taste but the addition of these words made all the difference in the world in the nature of the document, and he congratulated the hon. Member on this confirmation of his original statement.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that on the former occasion he had read the whole of

1223
the document, but it was open to any one to see the document which he then produced, and which, he repeated, exactly corresponded with that now produced.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—FORTIETH DAY.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Speaker having left the Chair,
Lord Althorpmoved a clause to the effect that the Barristers employed in deciding on the claims of voters be paid at the rate of 5l. per day, over and above their travelling expenses, for every day during which they should be so employed, and that before the last day of their sitting, they should make out an account of the time they had been employed and the expenses incurred.
Mr. John Campbellsaid, that pounds were wholly unknown in Westminster Hall. He thought the alteration from guineas to pounds would excite an insurrection amongst all the members of the Bar; he therefore begged to substitute the word "guineas."
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had proposed pounds because the present gold coin was a sovereign, but, as the prejudice was so very strong in favour of guineas, he had no objection to the alteration.
An Hon. Membersaid, that if guineas, had not been already abolished in Westminster Hall, it was high time that they now were, he knew no more appropriate time at which to commence that alteration than with the Reform Bill.
Clause agreed to, "five guineas" having been inserted instead of "pounds."
Lord Granville Somersetthen rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, that a new district of boroughs be formed in the county of Monmouth, for the purpose of sending one Representative to Parliament. He considered that the county of Monmouth had a fair claim to an addition to the number of Members representing it, on various grounds. The district of towns, of which Monmouth was the centre, contained a large population, and was extensively engaged in the coal and iron trade. New port, except Sunderland and Newcastle exported more coal than any port of the Empire. The county of Monmouth was not sufficiently represented by this Bill.
1224
Taking the population of three northern counties, with which Members of the Cabinet were connected—the counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, and Durham—he found that there was one Member to every 19,400 persons; but taking the population of the three counties of Monmouth, Glamorganshire, and Brecknockshire, the proportion was only one Member to every 24,000 inhabitants. He found, too, that in Durham there was one Member, for every 3,074 l. paid of assessed taxes, whereas in Monmouth there was only one for every 4,971 l.; similar proportions held good as to the other counties he had contrasted. The three counties, the cause of which he advocated therefore, were under-represented. Taking the whole number of Members, both for the boroughs and the counties, he found that Durham would have one Member for every 12,000 persons; Northumberland one for every 10,430; and Cumberland one for every 10,134; while in Monmouth the proportion was nothing like so favourable. He proposed, to remedy this glaring partiality, that two new districts of boroughs should be created in Monmouthshire, one to consist of Newport, Abergavenny, and Pontypool, and the other of the towns of Monmouth, Chepstow, and Usk. The latter would have a constituency of 600 10 l. householders, which was considerably more than some of the new boroughs which were to send one Member. Taking into consideration the other principle referred to in the course of the discussions on the Bill—namely, the amount of contribution to the assessed taxes, he found that the district of boroughs which he proposed should send one Member contributed 3,303 l. per annum to the assessed taxes, whilst many of the new boroughs which were to send one Member, contributed under 2,000 l. per annum. With regard to population, to constituency, and to the amount of contribution to assessed taxes, Monmouthshire was under represented. He thought it is duty to bring this case under the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers; and as it was the last application of this kind that would probably be brought forward, he hoped his Majesty's Ministers would not feel it necessary to give it that stern opposition which they had given to similar propositions in the earlier stages of the Reform Bill. He would on that occasion propose to form one district, and if he succeeded he would

1225
then move to constitute a second district of boroughs. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the towns of Monmouth, Chepstow, and Usk, should be considered as one borough, and return one Member, and that the Mayor of Monmouth should be the returning officer.
Lord John Russellrose to oppose the Motion. In arranging this system of Representation, his Majesty's Ministers did not affect to have settled the just proportion between the population and the number of Members in every case, though the population altogether was more fairly and equally represented than before. If an addition was made to the Representation, he could assure the noble Lord that greater irregularities might be pointed out than that of Monmouth. Monmouth had a proportion of one Member to 23,000 or 24,000 persons, whilst Derbyshire had only one Member to 35,000 souls, and Lancashire only one Member to every 47,000 or 48,000 persons. Again, Carnarvon and Denbigh had only two Members, whilst Monmouth had three. If his Majesty's Government were inclined to increase the total number of Members, therefore, he could not admit that Monmouth would be entitled to an addition. Under all the circumstances, he felt himself bound to vote against the Motion.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, when he looked into the Bill, and at the proportion he had already established, as to the relative Members and population of the different counties, he thought it was impossible to deny that an advantage was given to those counties in which the Cabinet Ministers had influence.
Lord John Russellsaid, that charge certainly could not be made out, Lancashire and Yorkshire were very ill treated and yet members of the Cabinet were connected with these counties. Bedford had the largest population of any English county left with only two Members, which he thought a fortunate circumstance, but it was said, why leave Aberdeen and Perth with one Member while Bedford had two? so that Ministers were taunted with the ancient anomalies of the system of Representation, which their measure went partly to correct. Their opponents condemned them both for going too far, and for not going far enough.
Motion negatived without a division.
Lord Granville Somersetin order to put his opinions upon record would also pro-
1226
pose that Abergavenny, Newport and, Pontypool should be formed into a borough and return one Member.
Motion negatived without a division.
Lord Granville Somersetthen moved that the two districts, included in the preceding motions, comprehending the towns of Abergavenny, Monmouth, Chepstow, Newport, Usk, and Pontypool, should be formed into one borough, and return two Members.
Motion negatived without observation.
Mr. Huntmoved, that "The Sessional Order relating to the interference of Peers in elections" should be read. The hon. Member then said, there could be no hon. Member ignorant that the Order was constantly violated, and that it was a mere nullity; Peers constantly interfered in elections of all sorts throughout the country. There was the recent case of the Marquis of Salisbury turning his tenants out because they had not voted to please him. The Duke of Newcastle and Marquis of Exeter had done the same; indeed, the Resolution appeared to be thought so little of in practice, that in the late case of the Marquis of Anglesey it was carried by a large majority of the House, that it was in effect justifiable. He desired to confine the Crown within its prerogatives, and the peerage within their privileges, which were quite large enough, and if they knew their own interest they would be content without interfering with the privileges of the Commons. He therefore begged leave to move, "that from and after the 31st day of December, 1831, if any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate, shall be guilty of the crime of interfering, either directly or indirectly, in the election of any Member to sit and serve in the Commons' House of Parliament, such Peer shall, for such unlawful interference, be adjudged, upon conviction, to pay a fine to the State of 10,000 l., and be imprisoned in the Tower for the space of one year; and if any Peer be convicted a second time of a similar crime, he shall be adjudged to pay a fine to the State of 20,000 l., and be imprisoned in his Majesty's gaol of Newgate for the space of two years; and if any Peer shall be convicted a third time of a similar crime, such Peer shall be degraded from the peerage, his title shall become extinct, and the culprit shall be transported beyond the seas for his natural life." Hon. Members might think that the word "culprit,"

1227
which he had employed, was too harsh, but he considered that he was justified in fastening it upon the man who had been convicted of an offence three times. He recommended hon. Gentlemen to look at the penalties attached to poaching, and he thought there was no comparison in the nature of the offence.
On the question that the clause be brought up,
Lord John Russellsaid, there was no law or resolution of the House which could prevent the indirect interference of Peers at contested elections—that the clause proposed was more monstrous and unjust than any resolution that had ever before been submitted to the consideration of the House; and was, besides, totally different from the resolution which had been read by Mr. Speaker at the beginning of the Session. He should, therefore, have no hesitation in negativing the hon. Member's Motion that it be brought up.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he should take the present opportunity to complain of a contemptuous report of a speech of his in the Committee yesterday, which had appeared in one of the morning newspapers of that day. The report to which he alluded was interspersed with laughter, and other expressions of derision, which he flatly denied had been used. He considered he had the more reason to complain, as this report had been inserted in a journal of the highest respectability—he meant The Times—and it was, therefore, only an act of duty to the House and to himself to contradict so gross and unwarrantable a statement.
Mr. Hudson Gurneymust say, that the dignity of the House would necessarily be lowered by the truckling spirit which they had latterly exhibited towards the daily press, which for some time past had habitually been publishing lists of the Members who were absent, as well as of those who were present, specifying who voted one way, and who voted another; and, in short, now exercised a degree of despotism incompatible with the independence of Members and the privileges of Parliament.
Mr. Cresset Pelham,in reference to the question immediately before the House, thought, that if a case of interference should be clearly proved, the resolution already on the Journals would be quite sufficient to meet it. The hon. member for Preston had made statements with
1228
regard to the interference of Peers which, if proved at the bar of the House, would vitiate the return. He had been a member of a Committee, of which the late Mr. Fox had been Chairman, before which it was admitted, that Lord Mulgrave had written a letter in favour of one of the candidates, and he was held justified in doing so, because that gentleman was his relative.
Sir Edward Sugdencomplained of the jealous and hostile disposition which had been latterly manifested towards the peerage, and of the desire to subvert the just privileges to which they were entitled by the letter and spirit of the Constitution. This feeling assumed different forms, sometimes appearing in the shape of threats, and sometimes under the guise of "friendly advice," but exhibited the self-same enmity take what colour it might.
Lord John Russelldisclaimed having perceived any such symptoms as the hon. and learned Gentleman professed to have discovered.
Mr. Humeinsisted, that bad as the proceedings of that House had unquestionably been for a long series of years, they would have proved much worse but for the salutary control and unwearied vigilance of the public press, to which, in his opinion, they could never be sufficiently thankful. It was most desirable that the mode in which Members voted should be accurately made known to their constituents, and the system by which that was so well accomplished he trusted would never be departed from.
Mr. Huntbriefly replied. He had always considered the influence of Peers at elections one of the greatest evils in the system of Representation, and it would not be effectually eradicated by the Reform Bill. He had not brought on his Motion with any intention to give offence, but to support a just and recognized principle.
Motion negatived without a division.
The preamble read by the Chairman.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamsaid, the preamble ought to have alluded to the overthrow of vested rights which had hitherto been held sacred.
Preamble agreed to.
Lord John Russellmoved, that the Chairman do report the Bill, with its Amendments, to the House.—Motion carried with loud cheers. The House resumed.
Mr. Bernalbrought up the report, which was received, ordered to be printed, and

1229
to be taken into further consideration on the ensuing Tuesday.

WINE DUTIES.
Lord Althorpmoved, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the Wine Duties Bill.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, he should defer to another opportunity his intended refutation of certain charges which had been made against him personally, with reference to his conduct in opposing this Bill. He had conscientiously opposed it all along, on the ground that it was a direct departure from the principles which had hitherto regulated the export trade of this country. The hon. Member added, that there had been no opportunity of fully discussing the subject, and he was determined to oppose the future progress of the Bill unless that opportunity should be given.
Mr. Humeregretted, that an opportunity had not been afforded to discuss so important a measure as this. He thought that, as respected the arrangement of duties on French and Portuguese wines, his Majesty's Ministers ought to be supported; and so far he differed from the hon. member for Worcester. It was the policy of this country to form commercial relations with France. Indeed, such a course of proceeding would prove advantageous to both countries. He doubted, however, by raising the duty on Port wines, whether the revenue would be increased in proportion; and he should have preferred seeing the duty on French wines lowered, in order to get rid of the difference between the duties imposed on them and Portuguese wines, which was the object of increasing the duties on the latter. In whatever arrangement was made, he hoped and trusted that the compact between the merchants of the Cape of Good Hope and Government would not be departed from.
Mr. Keith Douglasbegged the noble Lord, to state what advantages Cape wines would have, by his proposed plan, over what they had at present. The existing duty was 2s. 5d. per gallon, and the prospective duty would gradually raise it to 3s.
Lord Althorpsaid, that according to the present arrangement, the advantages given to the manufacturers of Cape wine were similar to those which had been granted them by the agreement which Government had come to with the merchants engaged in commercial transactions
1230
with the colony. He had never stated that Cape wine was to have any advantage beyond what had already been given it in the Bill. It now paid 2s. 5d., and in 1833 the duty would be increased to 3s. giving it an advantage over the present duty on Portuguese wines of 1s. 10 d. per gallon. As he proposed to raise the duties on Portuguese wines to 5s. 6d., the difference would be 2s. 6d. which was rather more than the existing difference.
Mr. Courtenaywould enter into the subject at a future stage.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee. The blanks of the Bill were filled up, and some verbal Amendments were made.
Lord Althorpexplained, in answer to a question from Mr. Hume, that he meant to raise the duty on Cape wine 4d., because the duty on Portuguese wines had been raised 8d.
Mr. Humecomplained, that the understanding between the merchants trading to that colony, and Government, made in 1824, had been departed from. It was then understood that the duty on Cape wine should be fixed at 2s. 5d. per gallon; capital was embarked in the transactions on that faith; but now the duty was to be 2s. 9d., and increased two years hence. He must condemn such a species of taxation as impolitic, and he could not help declaring, that it was a complete departure from that solemn compact, entered into by a preceding Government and the merchants whose capital was employed in this trade. This departure from that engagement would, he was fully persuaded, have the effect of ruining thousands of individuals. It would shake the confidence of persons engaged in commercial transactions. He called upon the noble Lord, before he signed the death-warrant of public confidence, as respected colonial affairs, to pause and reconsider the plan. He had understood that the noble Lord had abandoned all intention of altering the duties on Cape wines, but it appeared that he was mistaken. He, however, hoped, before so dangerous an enterprise as this was undertaken, the measure would be maturely considered. Acts of Parliament and proclamations were not to be trifled with; and if the noble Lord would only postpone this measure, he would prove, that millions of dollars had been advanced by merchants, on the faith that the arrangement would not be departed

1231
from. Persons acquainted with the subject of raising wines, and the process of wine-making, know well how long a time it was before any beneficial return was made to the capital advanced. In consequence, however, of the encouragement held out by Government, capital to a large extent had been expended in the colony; and now, as these vineyards were about to yield their produce, so as to afford a fair profit for the outlay, in stepped his Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, by this measure, deprived the merchant of his profit. Did the Committee forget how much of the colonial expenditure of the country was borne by the payment of these very duties? How was it possible that these taxes could be paid by the colony, if the trade was, as he contended it would be, thus destroyed? The Governor of the colony had an arbitrary power, the people had no Representation, and now this measure would prove ruinous to their commerce. He would entreat the noble Lord not to violate the contract by pressing forward his Bill. He begged of him to pause, and let it go to a Committee above stairs, when he would prove, to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, the satisfaction of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and to the whole House, that the compact which had been made ought not to be departed from, and that many persons had engaged in the commercial transactions of the colony, on the faith which they entertained that Government would not shrink from fulfilling the obligations entered into. If the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursued his plan, he would ruin many thousands of persons, and, instead of increasing the revenue, he would diminish it, besides fixing the burthens of the colony upon the British public. He had no interest whatever in the proceeding, but he would not allow this act of injustice, this violation of a solemn compact, to pass without expressing his opinions. With respect to the arrangement of the duties on French and Portuguese wines, he entirely concurred in the view taken by the noble Lord; and it was with great sorrow that he perceived the plan laid down as to the alteration of the duties on Cape wines.
Lord Althorphad never listened to a more violent and unnecessary speech than that just addressed to the Committee by his hon. friend, respecting a proposition
1232
now before the Committee. His hon. friend had spoken of the violation of a solemn compact made between Government and the merchants of the colony. What was this compact? That the duties on Cape wine should be 2s. 5d. a gallon, that being an advantage to the manufacturers of that species of wine over the Portuguese merchant; and it was now proposed to raise this duty in the proportion of the increased duty to be laid on port wine. The protection at present afforded to Cape wine was 2s. 5d. a gallon, and that protection would be raised, by the increased duty on Portuguese wines, to 2s. 9d., and this was to ruin the merchants of the colony. This was, according to his hon. friend's view, to destroy the hopes of the grower, to shake public confidence, and involve the whole country in ruin and distress. He really would appeal to the Committee, whether any such injury could possibly arise to the persons engaged in the commercial transactions with that colony; and he felt still stronger assurance that the measure could not have the effect which his hon. friend seemed to think as to the general distress of the colony, or the destruction of all commercial confidence.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that in his opinion the proposed measure would have a most injurious effect, and it would not increase the revenue. There were many persons who were enabled to pay their 1s. 6d. or 2s. a bottle for Cape wine, who could not afford to drink more costly wines; and these individuals would be thus cut off from the indulgence of what to them was, probably, deemed a luxury. There ought not to have been the least deviation from the compact which had been so frequently alluded to in the course of the discussion on this Bill.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that the proposition of the noble Lord was strictly in accordance with the engagement entered into by the Government on the one hand, and the merchants on the other, which was, that the wines of the Cape of Good Hope were only to pay half the duty imposed on those of Portugal. When the duty on the wines of Portugal was 4s. l0 d., Cape wines paid 2s. 5d.; and now that the former was to be raised to 5s. 6d. the latter was to be increased to 2s. 9d. The advantage which the merchants were to have by the compact was continued by this plan, as the duties were proportional.

1233
He did not agree in the proposition for a prospective increase of the duties and if no other Member did, he would, at the proper time, oppose it.
Lord Althorpexpected from the right hon. Gentleman's candour nothing less than what he had just asserted. Although he differed from the right hon. Gentleman on many points, he had always found him extremely candid in the communications which they had necessarily had together.
Mr. Alderman Venableswished to know if the prospective arrangement of 1833 was intended to be permanent.
Lord Althorpsaid, it would be subject to future regulation.
Mr. Humesaid, that notwithstanding what the noble Lord had stated, he considered that the compact had not been kept. He would not detain the Committee by now expatiating upon the subject, but he should certainly, when the report was brought up, take an opportunity of entering at length into his objections, and on that occasion would take the sense of the House. He believed he should be able to show, that increasing the duties on Cape wine was a highly injurious measure.
Mr. Stuart Wortleythought that the mode of laying on the duty would be injurious to commercial credit, for the uncertainty as to what was to be done had created great difficulty and embarrassment since February last in those connected with that trade. He thought the change altogether uncalled for, particularly after the encouragement given to the cultivation of Cape wine in the first instance.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondenied that the proposed regulations had created any uncertainty. It was known, that no increase beyond half the duty of the wines of Portugal could take place for two years.
Mr. Humecontended, that any proposed alteration in the value of the article, even at the end of two years, must occasion an unsettled state of the trade.
Mr. Stuart Wortleybegged the noble Lord's attention to the wording of the clause: if passed as it now stood, no duty could be claimed under it.
Lord Althorpwould have an alteration made, as he saw the force of the hon. Gentleman's remark.
Mr. Humeregretted the hon. Gentleman had noticed it: he had hoped the error would have passed unnoticed, and thus no duty would have been paid under it.
The clause was agreed to.
On the question that the preamble be agreed to,
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, the wording was very indistinct; he feared it would have the effect of raising the duty to 3s. 4d. instead of 2s. 9d.
Lord Althorpsaid, he could not conceive that there could be any such meaning attached to the words as the hon. Gentleman apprehended.
Mr. Humebelieved it was the general understanding, that in making an immediate alteration of 4d. in the duty, the increase to 3s. was to be postponed.
Mr. George Robinsonsaid, he approved of the noble Lord's proposition. He was one of those, and he believed the Government went with him, who wished to discourage the cultivation of wines at the Cape altogether. But the system of Government appeared to be, to induce the people to buy up low-priced French wines, and import them at a high price, instead of the good wholesome Cape wines, which might be had cheap. The operations of Government had destroyed all confidence in commercial transactions with regard to our foreign transactions, but he had full confidence in their integrity. His hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, was most inconsistent, for he now pretended to be a friend to the Colonies, after supporting the questions relative to the Baltic timber, the Silk-trade, and the Canada question.
Mr. Humesaid, his hon. friend had endeavoured to draw a parallel between the present case and that of the timber duties, when the fact was, that when Government wished to reduce the former scale of duties, his hon. friend opposed, and beat them. It was now proposed to increase duties, which wholly destroyed the similarity of the cases. The hon. Member and his friends had joined with those with whom they differed on almost all other questions, in raising the opposition, which could only have the effect of making the people pay dearer for the timber they consumed than they ought to pay.
Sir Richard Vyvyanwas surprised at the error of the hon. member for Middlesex, for originally the questions were the same in both instances. In both it was the intention of Government to raise the duty upon colonial productions. They found it expedient to modify their intention in making Canada timber dearer, but they had not abandoned the intention of

1235
laying an indirect burthen upon that country, and the hon. Member was very wrong if he supposed that a reduction in the duties of Baltic timber was not a question affecting our North American Colonies. He was surprised, however, at the hon. Member defending the principle of Colonial preference (the doctrine had hitherto been "purchase in the cheapest markets"); the same principle he had exhibited on this question, might make him an advocate for the Corn-laws in due season. To turn to his hon. friend, the member for Worcester, he was a little at a loss, after he had disapproved of the conduct of the Government on all matters relating to foreign and Colonial policy and finance, to find him stating that he had confidence in the integrity of the Ministers, as far as our domestic affairs were concerned. Perhaps his hon. friend meant to confine his remarks to the Reform Bill. He was of opinion, respecting the question immediately before the Committee, that to increase the duties on Portuguese wines, would be injurious to the best interests of the country, for our exports to Portugal exceeded those to France. The French would not admit our manufactures—we, therefore, sacrificed the certainty of an existing trade to Portugal, under the delusive hope of an increase on the other side. If Government continued to trifle with and disquiet each Colony in its turn, our colonies would cease to regard the Legislature with confidence and kindness, and they had hitherto stood by us through all reports, evil and good.
Mr. Humesaid, the hon. Baronet had accused him of inconsistency—his course had always been, to advocate the removal of all prohibitions and to lower all high duties, and he defied the hon. Baronet to find an example to the contrary.
Mr. Burgesaid, the instant Government induced persons to settle in colonies, those persons had a right to its protection, and more particularly they had a right to this when relying on the faith extended to them by public Acts. They had laid out considerable sums in improvements. But it now appeared that other systems were to be established, and, forgetting all that we had hitherto done, we had suddenly become enamoured of foreign principles of Government and trade, to which our old opinions were to be sacrificed. British interests had became a secondary consideration, and were made to give way to
1236
foreign ideas. We gave up our most ancient allies, and all the principles which should regulate our commercial intercourse, our good faith, with the rest. He regarded the present as a flagrant instance of this new theory, both as regarded the protection due from the parent State to the colony, and the express Acts of the Legislature, which had exempted the wines of the Cape from the duty which it was now proposed to fix upon them. Persons had been encouraged to invest their capital in trade, and now their securities for a return were destroyed. He should on those grounds, oppose the Bill on all occasions, and to the utmost extent of his power.
Mr. Warresaid, the subject had been completely exhausted in the former debate, all the objections that had been urged had been replied to. It was of no use to attempt again to revive them.
Mr. Briscoefirmly believed, that it was illegal to increase the duty on Cape wines. The Act Geo. 4th had declared, that up to January, 1833 the duty should remain at 2s. 2d. per gallon, and if that was now repealed or modified, many persons who had embarked large sums on the faith of it would be utterly ruined. They would be unable to sell one pipe of wine. He had also great doubts whether the proposed alteration would benefit the revenue. He would merely state, that in 1825, when the duties on French wines were 6s. Portuguese and others 4s., and Cape 2s. per gallon, the total quantity imported was seven millions of gallons. In the following year the duties were increased on French wines to 7s. 3d., Portuguese and others 4s. 10 d., and Cape 2s. 5d. and the result was, that the consumption decreased more than a million of gallons, and the duty fell off one-third. The habits of the people must also be considered; French wines were not in general repute.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the hon. Gentleman had unfortunately made a small mistake; the measures had been increased from the common gallon to the imperial in 1826: the duties and quantities remained the same, the difference was in the measure.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, as the hon. member for Surrey had declared there was a provision in the Act of Parliament that the duty on Cape wines should not be increased for two years—he begged to be informed if that was the case.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondid not deny it.
Mr. Robert Gordon: then it seemed they were called on to legislate in opposition to an Act of Parliament. That would be regarded as a proof of what was already more than hinted in the Colonies—namely, that the present Government was hostile to Colonial interests.
Lord Althorp: the duty, as arranged by the Act alluded to, was to be half the sum on Cape wines, that was imposed on Spanish and Portuguese wines. These duties were 2s. 5d. for the first, and 4s. 10 d. for the latter. The duty on other wines it was now proposed to increase, and therefore he could not see that there was any breach of contract or of faith in raising the Cape wines in proportion to the rise in the duties on other wines, namely to 5s. 6d. and 2s. 9d. respectively.
Mr. Briscoehad only committed one error. His argument relating to the revenue decreasing, had not been refuted.
Mr. Fyshe Palmersaid, no injury could be done by the alteration—the comparative difference of duties remained the same. He was quite sure, if the wine growers at the Cape paid attention to the cultivation, a much better article could be produced; but as long as such a difference was made in the duties, they could expect no better wine from that Colony.
Mr. Huntsaid, after the explanation which had been given by the noble Lord, he was satisfied that the Colony at the Cape had no good reason to complain. The stuff generally sold as Cape wine was an abominable compound, which everybody reprobated.
Mr. Humewas surprised at the doctrine laid down, which seemed to imply, that an Act of Parliament that had been passed for the purpose of remaining in operation a certain number of years, specified therein, was not to be regarded as fully in force for that term, and was not to be considered as a contract solemnly entered into by the House. He should wish hon. Gentlemen to consider what they would think, if an Act of Parliament had been passed, by which they were entitled to a certain pension, if some other hon. Gentleman came forward and proposed it should be reduced? As a specific period had been fixed, it most assuredly ought to be abided by, or Parliament would break its faith.
Mr. Maberlydiffered wholly from the hon. member for Middlesex. He saw no breach of contract whatever. The case was this; when the duty on foreign wines
1238
was fixed, it was thought expedient to give the Cape wine-grower an advantage equal to one-half. They now were about to increase the duties on the wines of other countries, and they thought of raising the duty on Cape wines in the same proportion. He would ask hon. Gentlemen, if they did not consider that an equal moiety was a pretty handsome protection in favour of the Colony?
Mr. Courtenaywas an advocate for the duty remaining as it was until the fixed time should expire. The wines had been recommended by physicians as very useful in certain diseases: this was another consideration, in addition to that of what was due to the Colonies, why these duties ought not to be hereafter increased.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, the proposed increase of duty could not be justified on the plea of preserving the relative prices of all sorts of wines, because, by the proposition now before them, it was intended to destroy the proportion in which French and other foreign wines stood with regard to each other. If the whole relative proportions had been adhered to, much complaint on the part of the Cape winegrowers would have been groundless, but as that was not the case, he was opposed to any alteration until the expiration of the Act of Parliament alluded to so frequently in the course of the debate.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he must recommend the hon. member for Abingdon to consult the Act by which the duties on Cape wines were fixed, and he was sure he would then acknowledge, that Parliament had no possible right to increase the duty on or before the year 1834, beyond which period the provisions of the Act did not extend. That Act did not say one word about relative proportions. It fixed certain rates of duty, to be levied for a certain time: until that time had expired the House had no right whatever to interfere.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, the growers of Cape wines never could have had any other impression than that the pledges as to the duty on their productions should have reference to no other wine than the wines of Portugal; and that such was the understanding was apparent when the amount of the duty on Cape wines was considered. It was evident they looked to be charged only half the duty on Portuguese wines. The principal object, however, he had in view was, to remark upon

1239
the speech of the hon. member for Preston. That hon. Gentleman professed to be the friend and advocate of the poor, and yet he was ready to agree to a motion that would tend to place the only foreign wines they could obtain out of their reach. Instead of being of that bad quality which the hon. Gentleman had described, they had been declared, by able and professional gentlemen, to be wholesome, and very advantageous in cases of debility. As far as medical qualities went, they were equal to any other wines.
Mr. Huntsaid, if he thought the increase of duty would trench upon the comforts of the poor, he was the last man to support the proposition; but as far as Cape wines went, he was ready again to declare, they were very bad, and if given to sick persons would only make them worse.
Preamble agreed to, and the House resumed.

NEW LONDON BRIDGE.
Lord Althorpmoved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. Alderman Woodrose for the purpose of contradicting a report which had got into circulation, in consequence of a statement made by the hon. member for Preston, and founded on a petition from a Mr. Jeffery, that a settlement had taken place in the New London-bridge, that it was badly constructed, that the bricks were of the very worst quality, and that the day before both Sir John Rennie and Mr. Banks had been to examine the defect in a boat. He had immediately made application to these gentlemen in consequence of these assertions, and he held in his hand letters which he had received from Sir John Rennie, and Messrs. Jolliffe and Banks, in which those gentlemen stated, that they had examined the state of the London-bridge, and had found that no settlement had taken place which might not be expected in a structure of so great magnitude; that it was perfectly safe, and that the old bridge might be removed whenever convenient. Sir John Rennie also stated, that the bricks used in the construction of the bridge were perfectly sound. He also denied having been in any boat on the Thames, until that day, since the 1st of August. The statement made by the hon. Member was entirely without foundation.
Mr. Huntsaid, the worthy Alderman had employed the very persons who had
1240
most interest in concealing the defects. Mr. Jeffery had written to Sir John Rennie stating the defects, but had received no answer. That gentleman had, therefore, no other way to make the affair public, but to bring it before that House. He had examined the bridge himself, and was convinced it was unsoundly built, and that one of the arches had sunk more than eight inches, and all the Aldermen of London might talk as much as they pleased, but they would never get their new bridge on a level again.
The House resolved itself into a

COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS.
Lord Althorpsaid, the object of that Committee was, to meet, by a vote of 8,000,000 l. from the Consolidated Fund, a grant which had been already given to that amount by the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that the state of the Consolidated Fund should be ascertained before that vote should be agreed to. No statement had been made relative to that fund since the 8th of February last.
Lord Althorpadmitted that it was desirable that a statement should be made before the close of the year, as to what the financial prospects of the country were. At present he only required that sum on account.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, he thought a statement should be made relative to the gold and paper currency of the country, and also of the issue of Exchequer Bills, to prevent any panic being excited in the public mind.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the proper time for the consideration of that subject would be on the renewal of the Bank Charter. Nothing which deserved the name of panic had taken place, which he attributed to the judicious conduct which had been observed with regard to the currency.
The vote agreed to.—The House resumed.