Sitting of 7 August 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, Accounts of the School of Naval Architecture at Portsmouth; an Account of all the Sums paid to Greece, or for the Service of Greece; Copies of the Reports of two Select Committees of the General Assembly of Upper Canada in 1828, relative to the Conduct of Captain Philpotts.
Bills. Read a first time:—Chancery Sinecures Abolition; Greek Convention.—Read a second time:—Land Revenues (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Public Accounts; Glass Duties; Aberdeen College.
Petitions presented. By Mr. MORE O'FERRALL, from Naas and Lea (Queen's County),—against the Tithes Composition Bill (Ireland).—By Colonel EVANS, from Salisbury and Ryde (Isle of Wight); and by Mr. HUME, from Bridgewater, for Maintaining the National Independence of Poland.—By Lord DUDLEY STUART, from the Silk Manufacturers at Macclesfield, and other Places, Complaining of the Conduct of the Committee appointed to Inquire into the Silk Trade.

SILK TRADE PETITIONS.
Mr. Alderman Venablesrose to present a Petition on a subject of considerable importance, from a number of persons being silk manufacturers of the city of London and its vicinity. The petitioners expressed the opinion and sentiments of a large proportion of the trade in the metropolis, and in the country, stating their grief and disappointment that the Select Committee, appointed so far back as the 1st of March last, should have presented to the House the evidence heard before them, unaccompanied by any opinion as to the causes of the present distressed condition of the silk trade. On one point there would be but one opinion—namely, that the course which had been pursued by the Committee would have a most injurious effect on all

1181
the parties interested in the preservation of the silk trade. It must be clear to those persons who had attended to the evidence brought before the House, that matters could not rest here, but that some decisive measure must be resorted to. This petition made certain statements upon which he would say a few words, stating, at the same time, his conviction that these petitioners had proved the truth of all the allegations advanced by them in a former petition. They had made out a much stronger case than ever was expected. The Committee appointed by the House, and which was named in consequence of the former petition, were instructed to inquire, first, as to what effect had been produced by the changes made in the law since the year 1825, in the silk trade; and, secondly, whether any, and what legislative enactments, compatible with the interests of the country, might be suggested in order to promote the success of the manufacture. In his opinion they had proved, that distress, to a greater extent, more universal, and prominent than ever was known before, prevailed in this very important branch of our manufactures. Wages had fallen fifty per cent, and whilst the consumption had increased, the trade had lost. The parties had proved to the Committee that smuggling had greatly increased since the alteration was made in the law. Another point which had been established was, that the fancy branches of the trade which formerly employed a large number of hands, were almost lost. Again, the country was supplied from France and Germany with the coarser kinds of goods. To one circumstance connected with the prevailing distress, he would call the serious attention of the House;—it was this, that the practice which commenced in the agricultural counties of paying agricultural labourers out of the poor rates, had extended itself to this trade, so that the wages were regularly made up to the operatives out of the poor rates. If this practice were allowed to continue, it would extend itself to other trades. The petitioners, therefore, were most anxious that the matter should not end here. It had been further proved that smuggling, which was formerly carried on by a few persons of desperate character, was now practised by men of large capital, holding respectable stations in the country, who were induced to run the risk because they made sure of realizing a great profit
1182
by the extent of their transactions. These men could afford to pay a heavy sum to the Crown when detected. He was not desirous to interfere with free trade as an abstract question, yet it might be carried to excess at its first application; and such had been the case with reference to the silk trade. As to what means the House or the Government could adopt, with the view of remedying or removing the pressure under which the trade then suffered, he should forbear to offer any opinion; but some measure, having for its object the improvement of the silk trade must be adopted in the early part of the Session. He should wish to see the trade of this country made as free as possible; but it was the duty of the Legislature to see that abstract principles were not carried too far. He begged to move that this Petition be brought up.
Lord Dudley Stuartconcurred with his hon. friend, in the regret he had expressed, that the Committee had not agreed to any Report, but had contented itself with merely publishing the evidence. It would be his duty to present a similar petition from persons connected with the trade at Macclesfield. He could not, therefore, omit this opportunity of saying that if the Committee had been more regularly attended, the result would have been more satisfactory. He was bound to say, that some blame attached to those persons who had the formation of this Committee. Many of the members were also members of other Committees. However assiduous they might have been, it was to be regretted that they were appointed members of a Committee at which they could not attend. It was not surprising that the attention of the Legislature should be called to such petitions as that which his hon. friend had laid upon the Table, and that he was about to present, because persons were naturally anxious to have some specific information on this important question, and to see some measure adopted which should tend to diminish their intense anxiety. As to the existence of great distress, the evidence before the Committee fully confirmed the fact. It not only existed in one branch, but pervaded the whole manufacture. The manufacturers, indeed, had unhappily, for a long period, carried on their trade at a loss of property; and, looking to the state of the manufactures of the metropolis at that moment, and comparing their present con-

1183
dition with the state in which they were before the alteration of the law, the result was truly lamentable. Formerly there were, in Spitalfields, 169 manufacturers, which number was now reduced to only eighty-seven, of which sixty-seven had failed. In the rate of wages, there was likewise a frightful reduction since the year 1814, while, even at these reduced wages, but few labourers could obtain employment. The necessary consequence of this was, that the poor-rates in all places where the silk trade was carried on were increased to a most enormous extent, and in Spitalfields, more so than in any other place. In the year 1826, 914 persons received parochial relief in that place, while now that number was increased to the frightful one of 7,300. Several such circumstances might be adduced, and similar statements had, indeed, been made before the Committee. Facts like these were surely calculated to startle theorists, and to show the necessity of a speedy change in the measures which had caused so lamentable a state of things. He himself considered the case of the petitioners as one which imperatively called for the most serious and earnest consideration of the Legislature. Great blame attached to the Government, because it did not insist, when it permitted unrestricted admission of French goods, upon something like reciprocity; so that the benefits of the alteration should not have been given to France alone. When the Government thought fit to alter the existing law, the plan was met by repeated remonstrances from the trade, but in vain. The Government persisted, and the country now suffered. The trade was composed of various and dependent branches, and, by destroying one, the destruction of the whole must follow. The French and Italians had great advantages over us. The Italians had copious waterfalls; their mills were placed in situations superior to any which our trade could boast of—upon those streams which water the beautiful vallies of the country, and which, indeed, might well be called streams flowing with gold. Indeed this particular trade would be lost to the country, unless his Majesty's Government resorted to some measure of prohibition. He agreed with the worthy Alderman who had preceded him, in tracing one great source of evil to the practice of smuggling, which had increased to an immense extent. Like him he would suggest that severer laws against
1184
smuggling should be enacted; not merely to apply to the lower classes, who incurred great risks, and were amenable to severe punishment; but to affect the practice of smuggling among rich men—enjoying all the luxuries of life—possessors of large capital, who encouraged poor men to hazard their liberty, and perhaps even their lives, with a view to their own pecuniary advantage. The punishment in the case of a rich man should be much heavier than in the case of a poor man, who might be considered as a rich man's servant. The prevention of smuggling was a matter of such vast importance, that he trusted it would immediately receive due consideration. He wished to impress upon the House, that this was a question which must be regarded as affecting the silk trade as a whole, and could not be considered in parts. If, indeed, it were thought better that the silk trade of this country should be abandoned, it would be only fair for his Majesty's Government to come forward and say so boldly; but such a resolution would operate greatly to the prejudice of the country. On the whole, he assured the Ministers that the silk trade was in the deepest distress, and urgently required some measure of immediate relief.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulweragreed with the noble Lord that the state of distress to which this numerous class of operatives had been reduced, was such as to excite general sympathy. The health and strength of these persons was affected by the state of distress they were now reduced to. As member for Coventry, where the distress was most apalling, he trusted that he might be allowed to call the attention of the House to a few facts that had come out in the course of the inquiry before the Committee on the silk trade. When the subject was formerly under discussion, he said that the quantity of raw silk manufactured was no proof of the great labour it employed, or of the amount of wages; his opinion had been fully supported by everything that had come out in the course of the inquiry. In the evidence, p. 1953, Mr. Charles Rat-cliff said, that there were fewer looms, and less work, although there was more silk consumed than there was in the five years before 1826. Again, in page 1944, he said—"There has been less amount of wages paid, there is more silk consumed, but there has been less amount of work

1185
done." Mr. Cox said, in page 2105—"The distress has been greater since the larger quantity of silk has been consumed." In page 2107, he said—"In 1826, the cost of labour in 1 lb. of silk was 1l. 18 s. and, in 1832, only 15 s.; it would now take upwards of 2½ lbs. of silk to have the same cost of labour that it would have taken for 1 lb. in 1824." He would not go into further statements on this point, as he considered the facts which he had just stated sufficient. With regard to wages, Mr. Hume said—"That where the weavers used to earn from 30 s. to 40 s. they can now only earn from 10 s. to 11 s." Mr. Poole, a weaver of Coventry, at page 971, said—"Distress prevails in the greatest degree." Mr. Smith, also a Coventry weaver, in page 1306, confirmed this observation. Mr. Goode, page 1206, stated the same, and that, "according to the last census, there were unemployed 1,800 weavers, 450 fillers, 450 winders, and about 160 warpers, making, in all, 2,860." Again, in page 1206, he said—"Wages have been reduced, during the last three years, upwards of thirty per cent." Mr. Marston, of Foleshill, in page 1361, said—"That in December, 1829, there were 1,629 persons destitute of employment." Nor was this confined to Coventry, for Mr. Wadden, Spitalfields, page 9971, said—"That wages have been continually drooping from 1829 to the present time." In page 10285, Mr. Joseph Grant, who was proprietor of several silk factories, stated the following returns of wages:—"In 1822, 2,747 persons were employed at the average rate of 7s. 6d.; in 1824, 3,594, at the rate of 8s. 1½d.; in 1826, 3,516, at the rate of 6s.; in 1828, 2,818, at the rate of 4s; in 1831, 1,871, at the rate of 3s. 8½d." It, therefore, appeared at present, that only half the number of persons were employed, and at half the average wages. From these circumstances, the case of distress was clearly made out. The question, then, was whether this distress had not rather been occasioned by home than by foreign competition. With respect to Coventry, there was no home competition, for there was no other place in England where ribbons were manufactured. The truth was, that the preference was so much given to French fashions that it was impossible for the English manufacturer to compete with the French manufacturer in the finer goods. Mr. Merry, page 2546, stated—"that the
1186
prejudice is so much in favour of French goods, that the fashionable houses in London will not buy Coventry goods." In page 2162, Mr. Howell, of the firm of Howell and James, in conversation with Mr. Cox, said—"It is impossible that I could order English goods, because the fashion is not under my control. You know that any milliner, as well as ladies of rank, can import the fashions, and I could not sell any goods but what were in strict accordance with the French taste; and if I ordered goods of you, I might order things directly opposite to what the French introduce, and thereby, of course, not meet a sale for them." Mr. Ratcliff said -"that with prohibition, we remit orders as the French do now, but now the large dealers in ribbons here go over regularly to St. Etienne and Lyons, to order their goods for the Spring." Mr. Merry said, page 2204—"there have been recently imported from France 176,000 pieces of ribbon, which would have employed 4,230 hands if manufactured in England." Again, page 2543, he said—"In the years 1823, 1824, and 1825, we paid for labour 40,714 l., or, on the average, for the three years, 13,571 l. 6s. 8d. In 1829, 1830, and 1831, we paid only 20,411 l. 6s. 2d., or on the average yearly, 6,803 l. 15 s., being a decrease, from 1825 to 1831, of 20,302 l. 13 s. 10 d., and on the average, a decrease of 6,767 l. 11 s. 8d." Now when to this was added the statement which Dr. Bowring had made relative to the increase of looms at Lyons, it appeared that the French manufacture had increased as ours had decreased. Dr. Bowring said, page 8796—"At Lyons, in 1825, there were 20,101 looms; in 1830, 30,000, being an increase of 9,899; and at St. Etienne, there are now 20,000." Mr. Wadden said, 10,134 "that in 1825, there were 12,000 looms at St. Etienne, showing from 1825 to 1831, an increase of 8,000." Comparing this statement of Dr. Bowring with the statements of Mr. Goode and Mr. Cox, the former of whom said, that looms which formerly cost 12 l. or 15 l. now sold for 3l. or 4l,; and the latter, that, of 300 gauze looms in 1826, there were only 19 in 1831, it would be obvious that the decline of the English manufacture had been produced by the competition with the foreign manufacture. He would make no comments on the evidence he had just read, as the facts stated were sufficient in themselves. It was impossible

1187
to adopt this system of free trade as long as the monopoly on the chief article of consumption was preserved. It was cruel to adopt measures to make labour cheap, while the price of provisions was kept up. He trusted that, during the vacation, his Majesty's Government would look over the evidence, and that, in the course of the next Session, some relief would be afforded to the silk manufacturer, who had been most cruelly treated.
Mr. Wynn Elliscould not tell what the Parliament would do; but he knew what ought to have been done ere it repealed the duties which protected so important a branch of manufacture: it ought to have reduced taxation, and repealed the corn laws. A justification for every species of protection and monopoly was to be found, while one which affected the necessaries of life was allowed to continue. In addition to the great disadvantage, against which our manufactures had to contend, in the existence of a monopoly of corn, the silk trade had claims to protection against that most unfair monopoly of the raw material, maintained by France in favour of her home manufacture, equal at one period to at least 20 per cent.; and still giving a most decided advantage to the French manufacturer. The unrestricted export of the raw silk of France ought to have been conceded before French manufactured silks were admitted into this country. Having constantly attended the sittings of the Committee, and believing that he had a tolerably correct acquaintance with the principal facts taken in evidence, he was induced to claim, for a few minutes, the attention of the House. In common with the petitioners, he deeply regretted that the Committee did not make a Report, because he was of opinion, that no person but those who listened to the evidence could possibly arrive at any correct estimate of the various bearings of that evidence. An hon. member of the Committee stated that the opinion given that Spitalfields employed once 3,000 or 4,000 looms in the figured branch alone, had reference only to a very short period of time; but he was reminded by another Member, that the witness spoke of an average of ten years previously to the opening of the ports to foreign manufactured silks. Now, when it was remembered that the great grievance and complaint was, that the fancy branch was lost to this country, that, which at first sight might appear unimportant,
1188
was really one of the most material considerations: for the same witness stated that, at this time, the number employed did not exceed 300. In any arrangements also to be entered into with the French government, the Report of the Committee would have been a valuable document, showing that, unless they granted the unrestricted export of the raw and thrown silk of France, they could not be suffered to enter the English market with their manufactured silks; that the grower in France was desirous of exporting, and that the objection really lay with the French manufacturer. It was to be regretted that a report, which would have strengthened the hands of both Governments, was not presented. He would call the attention of the House to the first question proposed, and answered by Dr. Bowring, as tending to show how carefully his evidence ought to be read and considered. In page 8723, he said, in answer to the question—"You have been for some time past in France, have you not?"—'Yes, I have been engaged for the last four or five months as a commercial commissioner at Paris, and it has been my business to examine, in all their bearings, the manufacturing and commercial relations of France, and I wish, with reference to this object, to make one preliminary observation to the Committee, which appears to me of great gravity and importance: it is this—that in investigating the state of exportations into France from England, and importations into England from France, we have discovered that the amount of manufaotured goods imported into England (upon the system which exists here) from France, and imported into France (under the system which exists there) from England, is about equal; but we have been very much struck by one remarkable fact, which is this—that in the goods imported into France from England labour forms a great proportion of the cost of production, and in the goods introduced into England from France labour forms a small proportion of the cost of production; and hence one very obvious consequence will occur to the Committee, that in as far as any measure should prohibit the introduction of French goods into England, a much greater quantity of labour must inevitably be displaced than the labour which is protected.' Now Dr. Bowring might have stated the whole fact, which was, that, of

1189
the amount of manufactured silks, the whole value was the labour of France, which produced the raw material, in which it must be allowed labour was as essentially value as in the mere operation of weaving; and therefore the evidence of this Gentleman ought to be received with much caution, who, in pursuit of an object, could overlook so material a consideration. Dr. Bowring gave the opinion and words of M. Dugas, to shew that, "under a system of monopoly, France languishes, and commerce declines." This did not come with a very good grace from one who demanded a monopoly of the raw material, and whose opulence and prosperity was founded on that very system he pretended to deprecate. As to the value of manufactured silks, which Dr. Bowring stated at 800,000 l., he must remark, that the French Custom-house valuation was per killogram, and that the scale of value was only ten francs higher for figured silks and ribbons than for plain silks. The real value was, however, for figured silks, 125 s., for ribbons, 135 s., or an average of 130 s., while the French government gave, as the value, only 100 s. It would appear, therefore, that, instead of 800,000 l., the real value, without duty, amounted to 1,100,000 l.; and as this was in commodities of which the value of the labour formed in France an average of 100 per cent, and in England a higher average, it would give a total to be expended in this country, in the purchase of labour, of from 600,000 l. to 700,000 l. How serious, then, must be a loss to the English operative in the silk trade. The value of Marabout silk was stated to be 27 s. per lb. English, by Dr. Bowring; but the evidence and information of Mr. Dillon and his correspondent, stated it to be 23 s. 6d. He certainly had no particular prejudice in favour of the throwing interest; but, in the course of the inquiry, he had been struck with the fact of large capitals having been invested in the erection of mills, and which, for many years, was uniformly encouraged by the Government; and although greatly reduced in value, this capital yet amounted from 2,000,000 l. to 3,000,000 l. sterling, which he feared would be sacrificed, if the duty on foreign thrown silk were repealed. Although the importation of raw silk from Italy had increased up to 1826, from 300,000 lbs. 1,500,000 lbs., yet the thrown never was
1190
less than 200,000 lbs., and never exceeded 400,000 lbs., so long as the duty remained at not less than 5s., but, immediately the duty was reduced to 3s. 6d., the quantity increased to 500,000 lbs., and upwards, per annum. It appeared, likewise, that the throwing-mills in Italy were capable (being at present employed only eight months in the year) of throwing the whole of the silk there grown; and he did not believe a single pound would be sent to this country in the raw state, if the present duty of 3s. 6d. were reduced or repealed. He would, in conclusion, say, that great distress existed in the throwing districts. Bad, however, as was their present state, it was yet much better than it would be, if these duties on foreign thrown silk were repealed—an event which he could only look upon as likely to en tail wretchedness on the whole population of women and children employed in the throwing mills, and which would be destructive of the property of the mill-owners.
Mr. Humesaid, that having been one of those who supported the appointment of the Committee, after the observations of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he felt called upon to make a few remarks upon the present question. It was not altogether fair in the hon. member for Coventry to read extracts from the evidence which had not been printed. Out of 12,000 questions which were put, there would be no difficulty in selecting answers which would support any view of the subject, as, of course, there was a great variety of views among the witnesses. He had no doubt that he might have selected numerous answers that would have suited his view of the case, as well as those referred to by the hon. Member suited the view which he took of the subject. These petitioners took a most erroneous view of the trade, and imputed the distress which they experienced to wrong causes. He would beg the House to consider what was the nature of this petition. It purported to be the petition of the silk manufacturers. Now, there were distinct bodies with separate interests—the throwsters and the weavers. The former body had a monopoly, and the latter had not. He believed that the manufacturers who made a large portion of the silk, were burthened with a duty of eight percent., which was given to the throwsters. The latter body chiefly had signed the petition;

1191
there might be some weavers who had signed it, but it was inconsistent to suppose that the weavers, who used the silk, should ask the House to raise the price of the raw material, and thus enable them to compete with the French manufacturer. The evil which they now experienced arose from the monopoly given to the throwster, and the only effect of increasing the duty would be to raise the price of silk articles, which would certainly not increase the prosperity of the manufacturer or the wages of the mechanic. The Italian silk was used in the manufactures of both countries, and our object ought to be to have thrown silk as cheap in one country as in the other. If this were done, it would enable our manufacturer to compete with the foreign manufacturers in all except a few finer articles. It was true there were some articles in which they greatly surpassed us, even to the extent of from 25 to 30 per cent.; for instance, fine gauze. But in many articles we might compete with them, and he had no doubt carry our manufactures into all the markets of the world. The hon. member for Leicester had said that France had an advantage over us in the quality of the raw silk. This certainly was the case; but the quantity of silk he alluded to was not very great; and until we could procure that commodity we should not be on a footing of equality. If by protection was meant an additional duty upon thrown silk, the effect would only be to increase the tax on all articles of silk manufacture. He could not conceal from himself the fact that the number of throwsters in this country had greatly increased, and they were much more injured by the home competition than by any from the foreign market. Any attempts, however, to bolster up the present system would only tend to increase the ruin of those engaged in this trade. The reduction of wages in Coventry and Spitalfields could not be denied; but the reduction of wages was not confined to this trade; for, in the iron and other manufactures, the same complaints were made. The removal of the manufacture to Manchester and Stockport had reduced the number of looms at work in Spitalfields and Coventry; but this had entirely arisen from the injudicious regulations with respect to wages in the latter places. The table of the rates of wages at Coventry, and the regulation of wages by the Magistrates
1192
in Spitalfields, had done incalculable injury to the workmen in those places. Rules of this sort were very troublesome to the manufacturer, and always induced him to employ his capital in those places where such rules did not exist. In all cases the best course was to leave the manufacturer to himself. It was a most erroneous opinion entertained by the workmen, that by combinations they could make the rate of wages higher in one part of the country than in another. It was impossible to dispute that a great deal of distress had been occasioned by the substitution of the use of machinery for the hand-looms. This, no doubt, had led to a reduction of wages, and to great distress. But it was impossible to obviate this. If we intended to compete with other nations, we were bound to introduce all sorts of improvements in our machinery. If we endeavoured to prevent anything of the sort, we should soon ruin our manufacture. He saw no remedy for this evil. If we were to adopt a system of prohibition, and to raise the duty on foreign silk, the result would inevitably be injurious, and the general interests of the country would suffer. Even if it would benefit the one class, which however, he denied, it was too much that the country at large should suffer. He did not doubt, merely, whether increase of duty on thrown silk would benefit the weaver, he was convinced that it would be most injurious to him. With regard to agreeing to a Report, he should have been happy if the Committee had had time to have done so; and certainly much of the benefit of the inquiry would be lost in consequence of not making a Report; but they had not time to enable them to do so in a satisfactory manner. There was almost a direct opposition of views in the Committee. Witnesses, who took a completely different view of the subject, were examined, and it would have taken a great deal of time and discussion before the Committee could have agreed in a Report. He had supported inquiry, because he had been in hopes that all parties would have been satisfied; and he was only sorry that the result had not fulfilled his expectation.
Mr. Alderman Venablessaid, this petition was not from the silk-throwsters, but from the weavers. They did not pray for prohibition, but they merely prayed for such a protecting duty as would enable them to carry on their manufacture. He

1193
would only add, that organzine did not form one-tenth part of the silk used.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanheld in his hand a petition from the silk-weavers, complaining that the Committee did not report, and expressing their regret at the manner in which the investigation was carried on. This was a very favourable opportunity for him to express his opinion upon the subject; and he would, therefore, avail himself of it. The hon. Member who just addressed the House, stated that he was greatly surprised that so much dissatisfaction prevailed in this trade at the proceedings of the Committee; but a very satisfactory reason could be assigned for this dissatisfaction. He held in his hand two declarations protesting against the manner in which the Committee was appointed—the one from the Committee of weavers, and the other from the Committee of silk-throwsters, in which they declared that they knew from the manner in which the Committee was appointed, what would be the result of its labours. The Committee of silk-manufacturers never acted as a Committee in this investigation; they considered, from the names of the majority of the Committee, that there was a determination, on the part of the Government, not to relieve them, but to use every exertion to support the present system, erroneously called a free-trade. But even in this investigation it had been proved, beyond doubt, that the assertion of the right hon. Member for the Board of Trade, that there was less distress at present, in this trade, than at former periods, was entirely unfounded. It had been demonstrated that there never was so much distress as at the present time. The Committee was constituted in the most improper manner. Thirteen of the Members of it were decided advocates of free-trade, and, among the other seven, not more than one or two entertained opinions of an opposite nature. The Committee would have remained in this state had not an hon. Baronet requested that his (Mr. Alderman Waithman's) name, instead of his own, might be substituted, as he could not attend. There was another alteration of a similar kind, but this was not done with the consent of the right hon. Gentleman, but by the distinct vote of the House. The silk manufacturers at once saw, from the constitution of the Committee, that there was a determination not to give them relief. The object of the
1194
right hon. Gentleman had been all along to get the duty taken off thrown silk. When a proposition of this sort was before the House in 1829, he said that it would not give relief to reduce the price from 5s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. The manufacturers then said, that they did not want a relief of that sort, as allowing this drawback would not benefit them. The fact had turned out that this had done no good; a tax had been laid upon the public, and 83,000 l. had been expended in this way, every shilling of which had got into the pockets of two or three persons at Manchester. This had been confirmed by Mr. Hume of the Custom-house, and indeed by persons from Manchester, for the latter admitted that if the 83,000 l. had not got into their pockets, they would not have been able to have exported any silk. A few individuals might have benefited by it, but the great body of the manufacturers had suffered. The greatest distress prevailed in this branch of the trade a Manchester, Stockport, Coventry, Spital fields, Foleshill, and all other places where the manufacture was carried on: there had been the greatest depression of profits, and wages had been reduced so low that the workmen were hardly able to procure the most common necessaries of life, or food enough to sustain existence. From a decent and respectable body of workmen they had become a squalid and miserable race. It was proper that the people of England should know how this Committee was established. Many of the Members paid little attention to the subject, but had made up their minds before they entered into the investigation, and were prepared to vote on all occasions with the right hon. Gentleman. There was a majority of nine to six whenever he divided. After having sat for four months, they had got an immense quantity of documentary evidence; examined witness after witness till they had got upwards of 800 pages of evidence, all the main facts contained in which were known long before. The granting this Committee was a very convenient way of getting rid of the business, at least for this Session of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman knew full well that the decision of the Committee would on all occasions be with him. If the Committee had been fairly appointed, no man would have believed it possible that he could have carried such propositions as he did. The chief examiner

1195
was, on most occasions, the hon. member for Middlesex, who did not endeavour to elicit great and important facts, but went into the most trifling details, in no way connected with the subject. The hon. Gentleman exercised his ingenuity in putting a variety of the most foolish questions, merely, perhaps, with a view to exhibit his talents at cross-examination. Of 164 questions put to Mr. John Poole, 104 were put by the hon. member for Middlesex, the greater portion of which had nothing to do with the silk-trade, but related to the rates of wages, to persons going to bar-rooms and public-houses, and to all other things. Indeed, the greater portion of the time of the Committee was occupied in putting unnecessary questions. They had had petitions from every place where the silk manufacture was carried on, complaining of distress. What chance had England to compete with France in the production of articles of this nature—labour there was cheaper, and the raw material could be procured at a lower rate, and with greater facility. It was stated, indeed, by Dr. Bowring, that the French manufacture could not compete with the English manufacture, not only in the foreign market, but in France, in most articles. This great doctor was under examination for several days, and he admitted that he knew nothing of the silk-trade here. The learned doctor gave the most positive and direct evidence on those points with which it was obvious he could not be acquainted, and of those matters with which he ought to have been familiar, to fit him for the office he was appointed to, he was utterly ignorant. He stated that France took from us an equal quantity of goods for those which we sent there. Now, this was directly contrary to the fact, for it was well known that the greater part of what we purchased from them was paid for in bullion. He made this assertion, but every return, both English and French, showed otherwise. Indeed, he made many assertions, and some of them of such a nature that he (Mr. Alderman Waithman) held up his hands with astonishment, and at last, he could listen no longer, for he found that he could not place any confidence in the assertions of this great and learned doctor. He said that large quantities of our manufactured goods were imported into France; but when he was asked to specify, he mentioned the article of cotton-twist, which, indeed, could hardly be
1196
called a manufactured article, and certainly the export of it could be attended with little advantage to this country. The French evidently laughed in their sleeve at the learned doctor, when he was collecting his information. He stated that the capitalists engaged in the silk manufacture in France altogether got twenty-five per cent profit. But not only the manufacturer, but the dye-merchant, and the loom-maker and repairer, must have a profit; and how could he tell the precise profit gained by each of them? He told the Committee, that all the suffering now experienced by the manufacturer was for the general good, and that trade instanced no loss: how he endeavoured to prove this, he (Mr. Alderman Waithman) would not attempt to describe. The learned doctor thought that the French nation were a most glorious people, and he said all manner of good of them, but they had evidently imposed upon him in the information they communicated. The opinions of Dr. Bowring and the hon. member for Middlesex were to be taken in spite of all the authority of the persons engaged in the trade, who, it might be presumed, were best able to form a correct opinion on the subject. The learned doctor got all the information which he communicated from the French people, whom he believed to be the most candid people on earth, but they had, nevertheless, succeeded in imposing on his credulity. Without being aware of it, he all along proved facts which told against him. He said you can buy silk goods in London at fifteen per cent cheaper than you can at Paris, but then he made no allusion to the fact, that the English people would not have the produce of their own country, when they could get French goods even at this additional price. Dr. Bowring also said, that there had been a greater improvement in the English silks since 1826 than there was in the previous fifty years, and that the French silk-manufacturers were completely frightened at the advance we had made, and that they were most anxious that we should adopt a system of prohibition. The noble Lord opposite asked Dr. Bowring whether the fact, that formerly 4,000 looms were at work in Spitalfields, and that now only 300 were employed there, was a proof of improvement. This case the learned doctor could not admit. No doubt the Government paid him well for travelling in France for

1197
them, and for collecting information just of a nature to suit their views; but the truth was, this witness knew nothing whatever of what he was talking. When he was shown two pieces of silk, and was asked to point out which was French, and which was English manufacture, he said, "Oh, I know nothing about that;" and yet he was sent to France by the Government to collect information. This reminded him of the lines in the old song—
"Johnny Bull he went to France,—
There he learnt to caper and prance, And a finish'd goose came over."
The learned doctor knew nothing of the manufactures of his own country, and yet he made the most positive assertions. Of course, they were bound to believe all that the learned doctor asserted from his own knowledge, but he admitted that he knew nothing of the manufactures at home, and that he would not pledge himself to the documents. If any hon. Member wished to get at the real facts of the case, he must refer to the evidence of those men who had had practical experience on the subject, and who were acquainted with the trade in all its branches. The hon. member for Middlesex and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, that the case was not proved that the distress experienced in the silk trade was occasioned by the competition of the French manufacturer. But to him it appeared most cruel to sacrifice the interests of such an important branch of our manufacturers, for the sake of supporting a speculative opinion. There were no less than four millions of capital embarked in that trade—hundreds of thousands of persons had to depend on it as the means of subsistence—thousands were now thrown out of employ, and became chargeable to the parish, or the men were driven to commit acts of depredation, and the women to become prostitutes. If the competition in the home market was palpably ruinous, what could be expected to be the case in Germany or America, or any other foreign market? It was nonsense to suppose that we could compete with the French manufacturer in these countries, unless we were prepared to give our goods away, and to meet with ruin. There was another witness who supported the views of the right hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member for Middlesex, and he admitted that wages were reduced twenty per cent, and that thousands of persons were out of
1198
employ, and that the women and children were almost in a state of starvation, and that the manufacturer got little or no profit, and yet he contended that the present system was most excellent. They were told by one of the witnesses—a partner in the house of the hon. member for Ipswich, that their trade had increased by some hundreds of thousands, since the importation of French silks; but the same witness, also stated, that whereas formerly they used to deal with a hundred houses in Spitalfields, they now did business with only sixty; from which it appeared, that out of this hundred, forty had been destroyed; and they too were the smaller houses of business; in fact there was no witness before the Committee who made out a stronger case for the weavers than this gentleman did. A buyer from Coventry also told them, that all the smaller houses had been swept away; and Mr. Heath, one of the first manufacturers in London, gave evidence to the same effect. He himself had known the trade since he was seventeen years old; and he could not now walk along the streets without observing the fearful distress to which that trade was reduced. To be sure, some few in it succeeded; one hon. Gentleman he knew of, who had amassed half a million. He did not blame him for that, but he blamed him because he would not see the distress of those poor creatures, from whose blood and bones, as it were, he had amassed his treasure. He could scarcely help despairing, knowing as he did, that the House would not be at the pains of reading the mass of evidence that was laid before the Committee; and therefore, if the Government would not attend to the subject, he feared that nothing whatever would be done. He should be a free trader, if we could have free trade; but we had it not; and therefore we were only giving an advantage to other countries at the expense of our own labourers. When he had last addressed the House on this subject, he had read to it an extract from Dr. Brewster. He was extremely sorry that that extract was not published in the newspapers, because the name of Dr. Brewster stood deservedly high, and the article in question clearly exposed the false doctrine of these theoretical "free traders;" and even now he could not abstain from expressing a wish, that hon. Gentlemen would turn to this essay, and give it their perusal. He felt

1199
indignant at the conduct of the Committee: it really seemed as if an attempt was making to defeat the House by delay; but his indignation was nothing compared to the indignation which that portion of the community which was suffering through the behaviour of the Committee, must feel.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the House might be assured that he did not rise for the purpose of going into the question. It was most inconvenient to discuss a subject of this kind on the presenting of a petition. He should not trouble the House with the refutation of the general common-places which the worthy Alderman had so frequently advanced before, but he would leave the House to judge of the good taste of the attack made by the worthy Alderman, not upon himself, for he did not complain of it, but upon a member of the Committee who was not present to defend himself, and upon one of the witnesses. It was a most unusual proceeding, and an injustice to the subject to comment upon evidence with which it was impossible that Members could be yet acquainted: he, therefore, would have contented himself with entering his protest against this important question being brought under discussion in this inconvenient manner, but for the accusations which had been thrown out against the Committee, for not having conducted itself in a manner becoming the important subject which it had met to consider. The hon. Alderman had made insinuations against the Committee, though he had not made any positive charge. Should, however, the worthy Alderman think proper to bring forward such a charge at any future period, he would find that there were members of that Committee prepared to defend the line of conduct that had been pursued. At the present moment, however, he was alluding more particularly to a statement, not made in that House, but which had appeared in a public print, and which was announced as emanating from one connected with the silk trade. He treated the charge there made, as far as regarded himself personally, with the most perfect contempt: and, indeed, he would not have condescended to have noticed it, had not an attempt at the same time been made to implicate the Committee in the same charge. To say that the Report of the Committee was got rid of by a maœeuvre of any sort or kind, was not only false, but at the same time absolutely absurd and ridiculous.
1200
Indeed, on this point, he might appeal to every Member of the Committee, except, perhaps, the worthy Alderman, and he would take on himself to say, that that appeal would end in his statement being entirely corroborated. The fact was, that he, and those members of the Committee, who were of the same way of thinking as himself, had advised that there should be a Report; but when they found that Members could not be brought to remain to consider the Report, then they certainly did object to lay more Resolutions, which did not enter into details, before the House; and he himself had stated that, in his opinion, there were but two courses for the Committee to follow—the one, to report the evidence alone to the House; and the other, to make a full and ample report on the whole of the subject. The worthy Alderman had also thought fit to apply terms not very measured in their language to one of the witnesses personally, and to the evidence likewise which that witness gave before the Committee. With respect to the evidence, he (Mr. Thomson) would allow that to speak for itself; and he should be very much astonished if every gentleman who read it was not struck with the clearness of the views and the soundness of the knowledge which it contained. He would appeal to the members of the Committee, whether the whole of the evidence of Dr. Bowring did not appear to have been drawn with the greatest pains from official sources, so as, if not to carry conviction home to the minds of all, at least to leave a most favourable impression of that gentleman's industry and talents. The worthy Alderman had thought proper to say, that Dr. Bowring had given evidence on subjects about which he knew nothing, while he gave no testimony on those subjects with which he was really acquainted. But the fact was, that that gentleman had only been examined on such information as he had been able to collect; he had taken care to state whence that information had been collected, and had then told the Committee, as in duty bound: "I will not be answerable for this information; all that I can do is to give you my authorities;" besides which, it was right to mention, that when Dr. Bowring had been asked his own opinion of the silk trade in this country, his answer specifically was, that he had not been directed to turn his attention to that part of the subject.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that when he observed the mass of evidence that had been laid on the Table, and considered that no Report had been made upon the subject, he could not help thinking that that omission was occasioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite not being able to procure a Report conformable to his own opinion.
Mr. Poulett Thomson: I was most anxious that there should be a Report, and as a proof of it, I have only to state, that when the hon. Member for Ross-shire wished to adjourn the Committee, fearing that we could not get through the evidence, I opposed the Motion, in the hope that when the evidence was gone through, a Report would be founded on it.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, it was unfortunate that the Report had not been made. Gentlemen generally looked at the Report, and not at the evidence; and he feared that the great mass of useful evidence taken on this occasion would be lost. His impression of that Committee certainly was, that it had not been granted on the part of the Government for the purpose of enabling the House, by means of the evidence, to legislate for the advantage of the manufacturers and of the public at large; but that it had been granted in the hopes of the testimony being such as to bear out the well-known theoretical views of the Ministry on the subject of free trade. This being the case, he really thought that it was useless to discuss the matter further. No converts had been made—no converts would be made—the Government had always contended that they were right, and they still contended the same thing. They had, however, shifted their ground materially; for formerly their arguments had been, that they were right in theory, but now, after ten years' experience had shown them that the trade and commerce of the country had got worse than ever, the effect of the observations of the hon. member for Middlesex, the great upholder of the visionary free trade system, was "You may go into the workhouse, if you can't find employment; but I see nothing in your misery to induce me to give up my fancy." He did not mean by this to say that the hon. member for Middlesex bad less sympathy or commiseration for the sufferings of the manufacturers than he himself had; but he only made use of the illustration for the purpose of pointing out how obstinately these theorists were wedded to their hobby in spite of all practical experience
1202
and actual inquiry into the facts of the case. But the misery which the hon. Member could not deny, certainly was not creditable to any country or government. It was the first care of all other countries to provide adequate employment for its native labouring population. This country alone seemed to disregard that principle of self-preservation. France was reputed a liberal nation; in politics it was well known it was so. But, speaking in a commercial sense, never was a disposition less disposed to liberality or reciprocity evinced by any people. It was the same with America; both those countries looked to themselves. However superior we might be to the Americans in literary qualifications and in the fine arts, in commercial legislation, they far exceeded us. He was sorry to detain the House upon this subject, but he felt strongly upon it, as one in which were involved the comfort, the prosperity, and even the existence of the manufacturing classes. Compared with the interests of those classes, what were all the improvements of Regent-street and the Strand, which were pointed to as indications of national prosperity? While such indications were daily forcing themselves upon the observation, the prisons and penitentiaries of the country were silently increasing in number; paupers and poor-rates were outgrowing the accumulated wealth of the country; crime and poverty were augmenting in a fearful ratio. He would not distress the House by marking all the features of this picture, which could only have the effect of harrowing the feelings of those who looked upon it. The Government, he was afraid, did not see all these signs of the times. Their information was drawn from such sources as the Report of Dr. Bowring, who, prejudiced in favour of a certain class of opinions, was sent to France to gather evidence of the correctness of those opinions. He did not doubt the talents of that gentleman, but his experience and efficiency for that particular office he did doubt. Any person going-upon such an excursion would, no doubt, be delighted with all he met. He would meet with persons who would agree to all his abstract propositions. But it should be borne in mind, that the mass of persons engaged in the occupations to which his propositions referred, were governed more by their own opinions than by the authority of their superiors. They were stupid, ignorant, and perfectly unacquainted with their

1203
own interests, according to those who wished to inspire them with different sentiments. At all events they could not be induced to alter their course. And what had the government of France done in the way of concession to these new principles? A noble Lord opposite seemed to intimate that the conduct of France had nothing to do with this question. He begged leave to come to issue with him. It had much to do with it; for that greatest of all men upon this subject, Mr. Huskisson, had distinctly declared in that House, that one great inducement to make the alterations which he proposed and vindicated was the hope of getting France to make corresponding concessions. The conduct of France, therefore, had a great deal to do with the question. Matters of this description were to be decided by the sober-minded and deliberate opinions of the community at large, not by the doctrines of a few; and, readily as the talents of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) were ackowledged by the country, he could tell him, that a want of deliberation and practical experience was his reputed deficiency amongst the commercial portion of the community. With respect to France and her liberal conduct towards this country, he understood that nests of smugglers were harboured and encouraged in certain ports on the opposite side of the Channel, having exclusive privileges there, and being recognized as smugglers by occupation. He had good information as to the fact, and had no doubt it was as he had stated. The object of France, he was persuaded, was to shut out the manufactures of this country altogether. In his opinion the interests of the manufacturers, as a class in whom resided the strength and power of the country, ought to be better attended to than they were. If the labouring classes were starving, what signified how cheap the manufactured article could be bought? This great question had not as yet been fully, or fairly, or impartially discussed in that House. It would be the duty of the Government, into whatever hands it should fall next year, to look carefully through the evidence themselves, and to come down to Parliament with some proposal for the relief of this branch of industry, and a laborious, long suffering, and patient people; and, if not able to propose some plan of relief for the trade itself, to give some relief to the sufferers.
Viscount Palmerstonsuggested, as the evidence was not yet printed, that it would be better to abstain from all discussion till the subject was brought properly under the notice of the House. He could not believe that any government, with which we were on such good terms as we were with the French government, would countenance any particular body of men in carrying on a contraband trade with, and violating the laws of this country. He must say, that the governments of France and of America, as well as of other countries, were animated by the same liberal spirit as our Government; but they were prevented, as the Government of this country had been sometimes prevented, from acting oil those liberal views, by the prejudices of their subjects. But if those governments could not act on the true principles of trade, that was no reason why we should not, when it was proved that they were advantageous to us. What were called protecting duties were, in fact, disturbing duties. They impeded the employment of capital, they checked industry, and stopped the progress of wealth. It was for the interest of the country to cast off the fetters with which ignorance had bound it. It was monstrous to suppose that commerce could be all on one side, or that nations could sell without buying. By repealing what were called protecting duties, and acting on liberal principles, we should compel other nations to follow our example. The true encouragers, both of smuggling and prohibition in other countries, were the friends of protecting duties at home. He thought the discussion premature; but he felt himself obliged to say these few words, in opposition to some of the remarks of the hon. member for Worcester.
Mr. Sadlersaid, he would follow the invitation rather than the example of the noble Lord, although he felt deeply upon this subject; and had there been a better opportunity than that which the presentation of a petition fairly afforded him, he would certainly have delivered his sentiments fully. He had been nominated for the Committee to which allusion had been made; but his name was struck out, probably because it was supposed that he had an undue bias towards the encouragement of native industry, and was one who thought that trade ought to have protection. They had been told, that when the protection was done away with, trade flourished. From that assertion he appealed to the

1205
living contradiction of hundreds and thousands of depressed artisans and labourers, reduced to a state of pauperism and starvation. He might be told that these suffering individuals were prejudiced. It was the grasp of poverty that taught them, in language much more convincing than that of false theorists, to condemn principles which had such disastrous results. If it were true that those nations did the best in commerce, which were subjected to the least regulation, what occasion could there be for Boards of Trade with Presidents to them in this country? By their own reasoning, they were useless. If the Government wanted our people to enter into competition with foreigners, it ought to reduce the burthens of our people to a level with those the foreigners had to bear. As a part of that reduction, he would say, at once get rid of the Board of Trade. It was with great difficulty he could restrain himself from entering more at length upon this important and interesting topic. What little he did say he meant to be more in the nature of an apology for touching so lightly upon it than any thing else. He supported the petition as one, the prayer of which ought to open the ears of those in power to the sufferings of a large and deserving portion of the population, in a state of the deepest distress.
Mr. Stewart Mackenziewould confine the few observations he intended to make, to removing the imputation, that the Committee had been guilty of an intentional deceit or fraud upon the silk-trade of this country, by not presenting a Report. He sat for nearly four months, patiently and assiduously, as a member of that Committee, and to such a charge as that of the worthy Alderman he must give a flat and distinct denial. Every one of those hon. Gentlemen who composed that Committee, would bear him out in the assertion—that nothing but the late period of the Session, and the great length of the evidence, prevented a full Report from being made. Within three days of the Committee closing its labours, he moved to report the evidence to the House, feeling that a full and circumstantial Report, such as the extensive and complicated interests involved in that evidence demanded, could not, at this late period of the Session, be satisfactorily made in the absence of the noble Chairman and several other members of the Committee. This motion was then negatived, with the intention of framing Resolutions
1206
on which to found a Report; and though his motion had, on reflection, been subsequently adopted, he could not allow the worthy Alderman to send forth to the public so unfounded an imputation as that the Committee were acting with a view to delude those interested in the silk-trade, by not undertaking to draw up a Report upon the evidence. His right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, had sufficiently refuted the very unfounded attack of the same worthy Alderman on the character of the evidence of one very important witness, and his testimony should not be wanting to confirm all that right hon. Gentleman had so truly said of the value and distinctness, of the extent of research and patient inquiry into the French silk manufacture, from the growth and produce of the raw material to their richest fabrics, which Dr. Bowring's evidence had laid before the Committee; nor was it befitting in him, after his promise at rising, to enter into any part of that mass of evidence that would so soon be in the hands of hon. Members. Thus much he would only add, in justice to the petitions now presented from the manufacturers and operatives, so respectably and so numerously signed as they were, that the Committee had been most anxious to receive all evidence and information upon this very important branch of our domestic manufacture, that they had received a great mass of very valuable materials—that they were desirous to have reported their opinions to that House—and that, from the circumstances alone to which he had already alluded, and which were known to every member of the Committee, they relinquished their intention with reluctance and regret. He had become a member of the Committee unconnected altogether with any place or person interested in this trade. He had been most willing to have lent his best assistance to draw up a full Report, which would have shown that the distress, though severe, was perhaps only temporary, and would pass away; but, that the interests of this manufacture, in all its complicated bearings, would require very mature consideration, if it were contemplated to introduce important and extensive alterations of the present laws, which regulated its operations, he was not disposed to deny. It might be equally true, that these laws required early revision from a new Parliament; and should the

1207
revival of the Committee be hereafter resolved upon, the patient suffering of the operatives and weavers would command the early and serious attention of the Legislature. But none of these considerations, surely, could justify the worthy Alderman's uncalled-for attack upon the fairness and good faith of either the Committee or of the witnesses; and, to say the least of such imputations, they were unjustifiable on the hon. Member's part, more especially as he knew that those who were suffering from distress and privation, could, if affected at all, be only roused to additional dissatisfaction with the present condition of a trade with which it was most difficult and dangerous rashly to interfere—and which distress no Report could immediately alleviate—none altogether remove. It was but justice to the House, to the Petitioners, and to the Committee, to state this opinion thus fairly and distinctly.
Mr. Alderman Venables, in moving that this Petition be printed, could not help regretting that the right hon. Gentleman occupied so much of his speech in correcting the observations of others, instead of turning his attention to the Petition of those who were entitled to the greatest commiseration; for he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the distress in the country was so extensive as to require the greatest tenderness on the part of the Government; and, indeed, it was an extraordinary fact, that, even in point of quantity, the consumption of silk was not so large, from 1826 to 1831 inclusive, as in the years 1824 and 1825. He was willing to go as far as he safely could in the principles of free trade; but he could not forget that the state of society in the country was so complicated as to require the greatest care in the application of the principle, however just it might be in theory.
Lord Dudley Stuartbegged leave to trespass for a few minutes on the time of the House, in consequence of some observations that had been made in the course of the debate. It would be well if the hon. member for Middlesex, who was the great upholder of the free-trade system in that House, would condescend to gain a little practical knowledge before he insisted on their adopting his speculative theories. He had spoken, for instance, of thrown silk being the raw material, when the fact was, it was no more the raw material
1208
than cotton twist. Whilst he was upon the subject of thrown silk, he begged to say that he entirely differed from the opinion of the hon. member for Middlesex—that taking off the duty on thrown silk would be of advantage to the weaver. What was for the disadvantage of the one could not be for the advantage of the other. Besides, they ought to consider that the throwster had considerable claims upon the country. Where a manufacturer had 1,000 l. or 2,000 l. embarked in his business, the throwster had 15,000 l. to 20,000 l. embarked in his. This circumstance must give the throwster a considerable claim upon the Legislature, even if he had a different interest from that of the weaver, which he had not. Then, with respect to the question of smuggling, it was clear, from Dr. Bowring's own statement, as well as from all the other evidence, that, so far from diminishing, it had' of late considerably increased; and, in point of fact, the smuggler now made as large, if not larger importations from France, than the regular trader. The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, not then in his place, had talked of protecting duties being disturbing duties; but he should like to know who it was that disturbed trade in 1826? The prayer of all the Petitions then presented was, to let well alone; but they would not do so, and persevered in pursuing these disturbing measures. Even now, after the experience Government had had of the system—after the falsification of all the prophecies about our being convinced by the practice, that the theory was good—after the proof that had been given that Parliament did not know better than the silk-trade itself what was good for it—the system was still persevered in! The hon. member for Middlesex talked of the bonds which shackled trade being loosened, and of trade, in consequence, taking such a spring as in six months to double the value of labour. The hon. Member prophesied that the interests of trade would be greatly advanced and the value of labour wonderfully increased; instead of which, trade had never been so bad as it now was, and so much distress never prevailed amongst the labouring classes. He trusted that, after all the experiments that had been made—after the full trial that had been given to the system, they should no longer persevere in it.
Petition to be printed.

POLAND—RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.
Colonel Evansrose, for the purpose of bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of the infraction, by Russia, of the Treaty of Vienna, with respect to Poland. The condition of that country, and the atrocities which had been committed towards that unhappy nation, had been so ably discussed, and so amply set forth, on the occasion when a formal motion was brought forward by the hon. member for Kircudbright, that he should have contented himself with merely moving, on the present occasion, the Resolution which be had prepared, had he not become possessed of information of some importance, which, at the period to which he referred, had not transpired. He should, therefore, trouble the House with a few observations relative to the necessity which existed for the House to assert the rights of the country to call upon Russia to abide by the articles of the Treaty of Vienna, and also endeavour to show, by means of the additional knowledge of the conduct of Russia, with respect to the conquered Poles, which he had become possessed of, that she had broken every stipulation which had been made on behalf of that nation. The House would hold it in recollection, that, at the recent period when the Russian-Dutch Loan was discussed, his Motion, couched in still stronger language than the present one, was the next in succession, and at the request of a noble Lord opposite, he had refrained from bringing it forward then, consenting to postpone it to some subsequent night. Since that time his attention had been directed to the circumstances connected with the ukase which had been issued by Russia relative to the Poles. A right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), whom he did not see in his place, had taken certain exceptions to the accusations which were brought against the emperor of Russia, charging him with cruelty and perfidy to those Poles who had submitted to him, and with having broken all the conditions of their capitulation. The right hon. Baronet stated, on the occasion to which he referred, that it was unjust and unbecoming conduct in Members of that House to use such language as had been uttered respecting the acts of the emperor of Russia, whilst there was yet no proof of his having acted in such a manner as even to justify the slightest of the charges against him. Those
1210
charges, however, were now confirmed by information and documents which had since arrived from that portion of Poland which was under the subjugation of the emperor of Austria; and whereby it was proved that the conquered Poles had been forced to enter the Russian army, in direct breach of the articles of capitulation. It appeared that Galicia (Austrian Poland) had conceived, from the first moment of the struggle, an ardent wish for the success of their countrymen, and this desire was encouraged by the Governor of that province, who was himself a Pole. So strongly was this feeling manifested by the Galicians, that Austria, rather than hazard a revolt of the whole province, consented that those Poles who were under her dominion, who chose to take part in the struggle with Russia should do so, without incurring the displeasure of the Austrian Government. This liberty was embraced by many; and when their efforts had proved unsuccessful, they returned to Galicia; when, so strong was the sympathy which they excited amongst their countrymen in favour of the unhappy and conquered Poles, that the Diet of Galicia was induced to exert its right of petitioning the emperor of Austria to prevent further cruelties being inflicted by the emperor of Russia on their conquered fellow-countrymen. This right which the Diet possessed of addressing the emperor was modified by the circumstance that the Governor of that province possessed the discretionary power of presenting the petition, or of suppressing it, in case he saw fit; but the facts of this particular petition simply were, that no less than 300 Members of the Diet had assented to this petition, and had presented it to their Governor, for it to be submitted to the emperor. He did not know whether that address had been transmitted to the emperor or not, but this he did know, that it was an authentic document—that it was signed by the principal persons in Galicia, resident on the frontiers of Poland, and who must be considered good authorities as to what had recently taken place in Poland, and it was a remarkable fact, that it corroborated all the satements which had been made in a former debate in that House, with regard to the atrocious conduct of Russia towards Poland. The document itself was so important, that he would beg leave to read such extracts as seemed to support the statement made by

1211
the hon. and learned member for Kircudbright, with respect to the tyrannical and cruel treatment experienced by the conquered Poles. The state of Galicia, after thanking the emperor of Austria for his conduct, proceeded thus:—'Let it now bring us. Sire, to the foot of your throne, that we may convey to the bosom of the august father of his people the profound grief we feel on witnessing the misfortunes and unheard-of persecutions of our brethren. You have deigned, Sire, to afford an asylum to those of our countrymen who sought refuge in this province; you have felt pity for their sufferings; your intercession with the emperor of Russia in their behalf obtained for them a full amnesty. Promises of peace and forgiveness were sent to them. Proclaimed by your Commissioners, these promises were believed by the unfortunate refugees. But they had scarcely begun to regain their devastated homes, and collect their dispersed families; a special deputation had scarcely carried to St. Petersburgh thanks extorted by terror; when a ukase, dated the 1st May, was suddenly issued, compelling all those who were pardoned to enter the Russian military service—if the name of service can be given to an exile worse than death. Led during fifteen years in the Steppes of Asia—confounded in Siberia, in the ranks of a barbarous soldiery—separated from all that can attach them to life—exposed to the most humiliating punishments—these unhappy men will never again see their country, nor even Europe! The groans of our expiring brethren will be lost among the rocks of the Caucasus and in the deserts of Tartary—groans of despair, at witnessing your Majesty's humane intentions and generous wishes so cruelly disappointed. But it is not enough that, under pretext of crime, there has been torn from some, more than death itself could rob them of; that they are deprived of their names, and numbered as cattle, that their heads are shaved, and that they are chained to long iron bars, in order to be conducted to the pestiferous mines of Siberia, or to people the icy regions of Kamschatka; it is not enough that, in contempt of the amnesty granted—in contempt of the solemn promises formerly given to the Poles, that they should never be removed beyond the frontiers of Europe—they were shamefully
1212
transported in whole masses into Asia, under the pretext of Russian military service—it is not enough, that a complete annihilation awaits the whole of the present race;—an implacable spirit of vengeance, exercised even against the youngest of the rising generation, aims at the total extermination of the future race! Infants, requiring all the tender care of their mothers, are, under a pretended solicitude, torn from their arms; and children are removed from the different benevolent institutions, and carried away far towards the north, there to be brought up in a new language, and under a foreign religion and foreign customs! Human nature recoils at these details, which have been proved by incontestible evidence. Mothers, too, driven to desperation by the atrocities they have witnessed, have been seen to plunge poniards into the bosoms of their own children! In short, in the old Polish provinces of Russia, when families attainted, in some instances for three successive generations, have wished, raising their eyes half-closed by grief, to seek for religious consolation at the foot of the altar, the approach to the sacred temple was forbidden; the churches were closed, and the pastors loaded with outrage, or condemned to enter the army as common soldiers! The union of the two churches—that fruit of several centuries of Christian concord—was violently broken; a great number of the churches of the united Greek ritual were appropriated to the Catholic worship—the schools were suppressed—the national language and customs overturned and the most violent measures employed in order to transplant one half of the nation to another part of the world; whilst, on the other half, a foreign language, customs, and religion were imposed, in the hope of thus forming, by violence and oppression, a population homogeneous with that of Russia! Such atrocities have not only deterred those who had not yet quitted our country from the idea of ever returning to their homes, but we daily witness the return of numbers of those who, misled by a fallacious amnesty, have avoided its terrible effects by escaping in a state of complete destitution.' That went far to prove the truth of what had been asserted with reference to the monstrous conduct of Russia. He then proceeded to say,

1213
that it was quite true, as had been eloquently said by an hon. and learned friend of his, the member for Louth (Mr. Sheil) in a former debate on the Russo-Dutch Loan, that "there was a time when we might have interfered—when an Admiral in the Baltic might have interceded with more eloquence than a Minister at St. Petersburgh," and that, now that Poland had perished, we could not avail ourselves of her misery, "to make an entry of her wrongs in our fiscal ledger, to convert them into items of sordid calculation, and to balance the account with Poland's best and noblest blood." All that was quite true, but it was equally true, that if the strong language employed in the course of that debate by several hon. Members had been employed only one year ago, the effect might have been to have saved Poland, at least, from the depths of misery and desolation to which the tyranny of her barbarous oppressor had now reduced her. He wished to remind the House, that the Convention of 1815, on the faith of which the payment of the Russian Dutch Loan was continued to Russia, was inseparably connected with the whole of the general treaties between the Allied Powers in 1814 and 1815; and that one of the stipulations of those treaties was the preservation of the national independence of Poland. He begged to ask what had been the conduct of Russia ever since 1815? Had it been that of a civil and faithful ally towards this country, or had it not been directly the reverse? Immediately after Napoleon had been put down, Russia at once declared that her armies should retain possession of Poland, and should not give it up until she had reestablished her power there, and her doing so at the moment that the general treaty was under consideration was, as the noble Lord opposite knew, almost the cause of the breaking out of a new war on that occasion. The subsequent conduct of Russia had been one series of unjustifiable aggressions on other nations—of territorial aggrandizement, and of violations of national law and national faith. The first case was that of the war with Persia, where, after having threatened the capital of that empire, the Shah was glad to purchase peace at the cost of some of the provinces on the borders of the Caspian Sea. The next war was with the same Power, and terminated in a similar way. Turkey was the next Power who was
1214
destined to suffer from her rapacious and quarrelsome neighbour; and the unprovoked war which ensued ended, as had all the preceding, in fresh territorial acquisitions on the part of Russia. Not contented, however, with interfering in the northern and eastern kingdoms of Europe and Asia, Russia must come into the Mediterranean, and, by means of her counsels and influence, prevent the formation of constitutional Governments in Italy. Russia, it was well known, was the principal moving Power in preventing the establishment of constitutional Governments in Naples, Piedmont, and the other States of Italy in 1823; and it was equally well known, that it was principally owing to the influence of Russia that France sent that unjustifiable expedition which she despatched into Spain. Next came the case of Poland, and it was not necessary for him to dwell upon the atrocious conduct of Russia in that instance. The truth was, that the conduct of Russia ever since the peace of 1815 had been one series of aggressions on Powers with whom we were united by treaties and the bonds of amity and good faith. The object of his Motion was to give support and strength to those negotiations which he knew were at present being carried on by one of our Cabinet Ministers with Russia, and, after those few observations, he should conclude by moving the Resolution of which he had given notice. The hon. Member then moved the following Resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this House, that, in conformity to the spirit, though contrary to the letter of a treaty, dated 19th May, 1815, his Majesty has agreed to renew certain obligations to the Emperor of Russia; that the said treaty and obligations were connected with, or arose out of, the general treaties between the Allied Powers of 1814 and 1815; that, therefore, in the opinion of this House, the Convention to the above effect affords his Majesty a special claim on the Power profiting by it, for a faithful interpretation of other engagements to which both Powers may have been contracting parties, and especially with regard to that concerning Poland."
Viscount Palmerstonwas not prepared to acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. Member, and he should therefore ask the House to agree to the previous question. Me adopted that course, because, although there were many sentiments advanced by

1215
the hon. Member, the propriety of which, as abstract questions, it was impossible to deny, such perhaps as that the due performance of treaties on the part of England gave her an additional claim for the strict fulfilment of treaties on the part of other Powers; still there were reasons, in the particular case before the House, which did not, in his opinion, call for an affirmation of that principle, because the country had fulfilled its engagements with respect to the Russian-Dutch Loan. For this reason he should abstain from following the hon. Member through his reasoning on that subject, or from adverting to what had taken place in the former debates on the question of the loan. He could not, however, sit down without making one or two observations on the conduct which the hon. Member attributed to Russia in her negotiations, and in her contests with her neighbours or with the other powers of Europe. The hon. Member had particularly charged Russia with pursuing a continued system of aggression throughout the whole of her transactions with Persia and Turkey. Now, he happened to know that Russia had in neither of the cases mentioned by the hon. Member been in the slightest degree the aggressor. Persia had provoked a contest by a long series of aggressions, and Turkey had, in spite of all remonstrances, seized Russian subjects and Russian property, and evaded all demands for redress. If it had not been so, the Government of the Duke of Wellington would not have permitted either Persia or Turkey to fall unaided before the power of Russia; and although Turkey persisted, there was an understanding between Russia and her allies that she was not to take any accessions of territory in Europe in the event of a successful issue of the contest. He would not go into the questions raised by the hon. Member with respect to the supposed interference of Russia with Austria on the subject of Naples, nor with France in connection with Spain. The hon. Member could have nothing but surmise on which to found his opinions on these points, and he meant to confine himself purely to the facts. With respect to Poland, he could also say, without at all touching on the question of Russia having broken her faith to the Poles on the subject of a Constitution, that, in the late war, the Poles, not the Russians, were the aggressors, for they commenced the contest. Having
1216
said thus much, in justice to what he knew, with respect to the conduct of Russia on the points mentioned by the hon. Member, it did not appear to him necessary to add anything more. The noble Lord concluded by moving the previous question.
Sir Charles Wetherellagreed with the noble Lord on the propriety of meeting the Motion with the previous question. He deprecated the language so frequently used in that House when the conduct of the emperor of Russia was the subject of debate; whatever might be said of that conduct, it did not appear to him that Russia had been guilty of any breach of treaty,
Mr. Humesupported the Motion, and must say, notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, that the whole conduct of Russia since 1816 had been marked by an unvarying spirit of aggression and duplicity. The noble Lord had given no answer to that part of the speech of the hon. member for Rye which touched on the non-fulfilment of the Treaty of Vienna on the subject of Poland. He hoped the noble Lord would give some reply to that. As to Persia, it was well known that it had been abandoned by Mr. Canning to its fate. The fact was, that Mr. Canning did not find it convenient for England to oppose Russia at that time: and it was well known to the Court of Directors, and to every one connected with India, that this was the case. He agreed most fully with what had been stated by the hon. member for Rye on the propriety of demanding a reciprocal fulfilment of treaties; and if the hon. member for Rye divided the House on the question, he would divide with him.
Lord Robert Grosvenorconceived that, though Russia had a right to put down, as a sovereign state, the insurrection that broke out in Poland, as part of her territories, she had no right to inflict severe and cruel punishment upon the Poles, after having induced them to submit by promises of forgiveness and mild treatment on returning to a sense of duty; or to make her success in quelling the insurrection a means of destroying the liberties and the name of the Polish nation. It was now, perhaps, late to advert to a subject which had occasioned so general an interest at the time; but he would, before he sat down, acquaint the House with the pleasing and gratifying fact that he had,

1217
within the last three days, received intelligence, by letter, from Poland, that, owing, as it was believed, to the notice which had been taken of the sad condition and unmerited misfortunes of that brave people, the sentence of banishment to Siberia pronounced. on some Polish noblemen, and others of note, who had distinguished themselves in the late insurrection, had not been carried into execution, but their sentences had been mitigated by command of the Russian government. He doubted whether the Treaty of Vienna gave this country a right to interfere, particularly as he did not see what treaty had been broken, and he therefore should support the previous question.
Sir Charles Forbessupported the Motion, and said that he concurred with the hon. member for Middlesex in his opinion as to the Persian war. The true policy of this country was abandoned when Persia, in its conflict with the overgrown power of Russia, was left by this country to her fate. The tranquillity and safety of India required that Russia should have been prevented from making territorial acquisitions there, though she could not be prevented from avenging her wrongs—if wrong she had really sustained.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, he should not, on this occasion, touch upon the questions of the right of Russia to attack Persia or subjugate afresh Poland. He should only say it was singular to hear from the noble Lord (Lord Robert Grosvenor), who held an office in the Household, language which went to reprobate the conduct of the emperor of Russia, whilst he had exonerated him in his conduct to the Poles from the charge of having broken any existing treaty with Great Britain. He felt it his duty to vote for the previous question.
Lord Sandonremarked, that the very act of the Congress of Vienna which had united the Grand Duchy of Warsaw to Russia, contained this article, that that Duchy should be re-united by the constitution it had to Russia. It must follow, of course, that when this constitution was gone and put an end to, the bond of union which united the Duchy to the empire of Russia was virtually dissolved. It would be recollected that when, at the Congress of Vienna, the Russian diplomatist laid claim to incorporate the whole of Poland with Russia, the minister of this country. Lord Castlereagh, with those of other
1218
states remonstrated, and, had that course been persisted in, war would have been the result, in order to prevent that annexation of the whole territory and power of Poland to Russia, which was tamely acquiesced in by this country and France, contrary to their former declared policy and their obvious interests. Such an annexation must add great strength to the already overwhelming force of that gigantic Power which this moment seemed ready to pour into the plains of Germany. How subtlely her intrigues and her policy had insinuated themselves into the lesser states of Germany, might be collected from the alarming fact, that a Polish gentleman of distinction had been, under the pretext of his being a Russian, surrendered up as a criminal, with his papers, by one of those lesser powers, from which it might have been hoped there was less reason to expect any mean truckling to any foreign dictation—he meant Hanover. It was, then, no idle terror which seemed to pervade the Congress of 1815, on the subject of the too gigantic power of Russia, and the dangers to be apprehended from the annexation of all Poland to the Russian empire. To prevent that was, then, an object of the just policy and true interests of England—but more especially was it our policy in the present case, of a despotic empire interfering with the small, independent, and free states of Germany. The almost avowed policy of Russia, speaking through its instrument, the Diet, was, that no amelioration-should take place in the governments of Europe. It became, therefore, the business of this country to express its feelings of dissatisfaction with the dark and mysterious policy of the new alliance formed against liberty in Germany, and on the Continent of Europe, by three of the greater European Powers. He did hope that, when the case of Poland had been mentioned, not a syllable would have been uttered, nor the slightest mention made, in that House of the good faith of Russia. Was there no infraction of the treaty alluded to alleged by the Poles ere they rose in revolt? Did the House really forget the pretended amnesty that was offered subsequent to the struggle, or the treacherous and hypocritical invitations which were held out to induce them, first to submit, and, lastly, to return from safety under the power of the cruel Russians? Would men of honour and proper feeling talk, after these things, of good faith on

1219
the part of Russia? God forbid! This he said in sincerity, because he was sorry to contemplate the possible effect which the assertions of two Members connected with his Majesty's Government might have if they went abroad without note or comment—one (the noble Lord) descanting on the good faith of that aggressive government, and the other expressing himself satisfied that, in these outrages against humanity by Russia, no positive treaty had been broken. Could it for a moment be questioned whether good faith had been kept in this instance by Russia with a Government that had gone so far to keep its engagements with Russia, as to the payment of the Russian-Dutch loan, and which kept all its engagements with the Russian and all other governments. He thought his Majesty's Government had given way to considerations which might not be in accordance with the general sentiment out of doors, and which might hereafter display itself, and burst forth very inconveniently to the interests of the present Ministry out of doors, when a fit opportunity for taking the sense of the public might arise. For the emperor of Russia he entertained respect enough to believe that, if truth reached him, something beneficial to the cause of humanity might arise, when he heard of that which possibly had not reached his ears, though inflicted by those sanguinary persons who were acting under his authority. If it could reach him, it was most likely to reach him through the debates of that House, and glad he was, to hear from the noble Lord that the Poles did attribute some of the mitigation of the sufferings and punishment to the debates that had already taken place within those walls. He could not go all the length of the hon. and gallant mover of the present Motion, nor did he wish to give it a decided negative. He should, however, put it to the discretion of that gallant Officer, whether it would not be better that the Motion should be withdrawn, after the debate that had taken place upon the subject.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that, anxious as he was to support the Motion of his gallant friend, and difficult as he found it to discover expressions which would convey, with adequate strength, the feelings with which he regarded the recent treatment of Poland; he perfectly agreed with the noble Lord, that it was expedient to avoid the use of strong and harsh epithets
1220
towards the emperor of Russia. At the same time, it was necessary to use such words as might, in some degree, evince the indignation which the treatment of Poland by Russia must excite in every generous and honourable mind. He was convinced that there was not an honest man in the House—that there was not an honest man in the country—that there was not an honest man in the civilized world—who did not feel the deepest indignation at the conduct which Russia had pursued towards Poland. As, on the one hand, the conduct of Poland had created general admiration and sympathy, so, on the other hand, the conduct of her opponents had been so treacherous, so odious, so detestable, that, as he had already observed, he could not find words sufficiently powerful to express his abhorrence of it. How far one individual might be the author of these atrocities, and deserving of execration, it was impossible to say, nor would he stop to inquire; but from the commencement of the crime—for the crime was only now committing—the career was not yet completed, but from the first, when false hopes of terms were held out to the unfortunate Poles before Warsaw, and when they were induced to believe that something like justice would be dealt out to them, down to the present moment, the conduct of Russia had been one series of acts of the most barbarous and uncontrolled tyranny that had ever been exercised, and of which history could afford any example. It was true that in ancient history might be found one or two instances in which tyrants had engaged in the desperate attempt of extirpating a nation, but that, in the present times, any country could be found capable of endeavouring to commit such an atrocity with respect to another could not be believed, if proof of it were not too evident in the conduct which had been pursued by Russia towards the brave but unhappy Poles. And yet the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had had the—what should he call it?—the hardihood to assert, that in the contest which had taken place between Poland and Russia, the Poles were the aggressors: that Poland, by its conduct, drew upon it the vengeance of Russia. This was the first time, that he (Sir Francis Burdett) had heard such an assertion; and he most sincerely believed that the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge stood single and alone in that House, and in the world,

1221
in declaring that Russia had not been the aggressor.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, across the Table, that he had not said what the hon. Baronet imputed to him. What he had said was, that Russia had not been guilty of the breach of any treaty.
Sir Francis Burdettwas glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman's disclaimer; he was glad to be now enabled to declare his conviction, that there was not a single man in the country who would assert that Russia had not been the aggressor.
Sir Charles Wetherellobserved, that he had not expressed any opinion on the subject.
Sir Francis Burdettcould not help admiring the self-control which the hon. and learned Gentleman had manifested in abstaining from the expression of an opinion which it was impossible but that, in common with every humane and honourable man, he must entertain on the subject, although he did not think it prudent to state it. He (Sir Francis Burdett) felt deeply ashamed of the conduct which had been pursued by England, and by Europe, throughout the transaction to which he had been alluding. The time had now, perhaps, gone by, when any beneficial results of importance could be effected by their interference; but it was impossible for any one to say what might have been the happy consequences, had the Powers of Europe, which had guaranteed to Poland the possession of a constitution, such as it was (and which was far short of what it ought to have been), had determined, not for the benefit of Poland alone, but for objects which the common sense and the sound policy of all Europe manifestly pointed out, to press Russia to adhere to those arrangements towards Poland to which she was bound by the Treaty of Vienna. Instead of doing so, however, abandoning all honourable feeling towards Poland, abandoning all sense of what was due to their own interests, they humbled Europe to the insolent pretensions of Russia. Had a different course been pursued, had the faith of treaties been observed, had Prussia been considered as neutral ground for one party as for the other, the Poles would have succeeded, and the peace of Europe, instead of being threatened as it now was with momentary disturbance, would have been secured. The Poles would have been triumphant, and
1222
would have achieved their independence, instead of having lost everything but their character and their national glory, which former achievements had rendered imperishable.
—"sunt hic etiam sua præmia laudi, Sunt lachrymæ rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt."
The fate of Poland had roused the sympathies of all Europe, and the government of France had found it difficult to repress the generous sympathies of its subjects in favour of the Poles. Supported, then, by the whole of Europe, if, at the crisis of the fate of Poland, England had declared herself, and a French army had moved, Russia would not have ventured to continue the contest; and he was convinced, that, if she had ventured to continue it, she would have been defeated. But it might be said, that England was not in a state to go to war. If, indeed, we were so lowered and enfeebled, why did we retain our Ambassadors at the various Courts of Europe? Was it in order that we might have our influence disregarded—that England, once so respected, should be with impunity insulted? If such were, indeed, our sad condition, it would be much better to revert to the policy which had been pursued by the wise Elizabeth—to withdraw our Ambassadors, and not to pretend to interfere when we had no means of rendering such interference effectual. If so, how different was our present character from that described by the poet in the last century:—
"'Tis Britain's care to watch o'er Europe's fate,
And hold in balance each contending state;
To threaten bold presumptuous kings with war,
And answer her afflicted neighbour's pray'r.
The Dane and Swede, rous'd up by fierce alarms,
Bless the wise conduct of her pious arms;
Soon as her fleets appear their terrors cease,
And all the northern world lies hush'd in peace."
He sincerely believed, however, that what he had supposed, would have been actually the case; he sincerely believed that we should not have been compelled to go to war; but, if we had been so compelled, of this he was convinced, that in a more glorious, and, in all human probability, a more triumphant contest, this country had never been, and could never be, engaged. He was persuaded, that the false colossal power of Russia was, in a great measure, owing to the intrigues, the treachery, the pusillanimity, the trickery, the cowardice, which had been manifested by the other nations of Europe, who quietly looked on while that power was accumulating. This

1223
country had lately unnecessarily—certainly generously, perhaps chivalrously—performed our part of the contract entered into in the year 1815. Was it too much to insist that Russia should perform her part of that contract, the most important portion of which related to the arrangements respecting Poland? How disgraceful was it to England, after having been, for a century and a half, considered as the great arbitrator of Europe, after having enjoyed the high character of being the protector of weak States against the oppression of the strong, to abstain from enforcing engagements towards a weak state to which engagement she was a party. How disgraceful, after having been thus principal, to become thus subordinate! We had been busy enough in other matters. But the independence of Poland was infinitely more essential to the welfare of Europe than the state of Belgium, about which we had been so long and deeply engaged. He by no means felt sure that Russia had not been playing us off on the subject of Belgium, in a manner that ought to and would render us the laughing-stock of Europe. Nothing was more probable than that she had engaged us in the pursuit of a minor object, that she might with the less interruption obtain solid advantages elsewhere. In his opinion, it was absolutely necessary that Russia should be called upon to fulfil her part of the agreement concluded in 1815. Poland had an undoubted right to call on the other Powers of Europe to maintain her in that state of independence, such as it was, although not such as it ought to have been, which was assured to her by the Treaty of 1815. Let it be recollected, that the noble Lord who was the English Minister on that occasion (Lord Castlereagh) was not likely to be influenced by motives of excessive generosity or any great attachment to freedom; but, that, looking at the subject with the cold eye of an English statesman, he insisted on Poland's being-made an independent state. In such a condition she had been placed by the Treaty of 1815; and from that condition she could not be displaced without the deepest shame to the rest of Europe. When we saw what was passing in Europe—when we saw the liberties of Germany annihilated—when we saw the (independence of Poland destroyed—when we saw Italy in the possession of a conqueror, when we saw the whole European Continent exposed
1224
to the risk of being subjugated by a new Holy Alliance of two or three great despotic powers, it was high time (unless indeed it was now too late), if we had not entirely abandoned our ancient character—if we still pretended to any influence in foreign policy—if we had not sunk from one of the greatest powers of Europe to one of the least—if we had not ceased to inspire the awe and respect with which the other nations used formerly to ask, "What will England do; what will England say?" If we had not forfeited all the attention which in no very remote days our power commanded—if we had not become mean, impotent, and pusillanimous, it was high time to show ourselves, and to assert our character. Unless we did so, the divine command would soon be reversed in Europe. Instead of "Let there be light," the general declaration would be "Let there be no light; let there be universal darkness; let everything be subjected to military power." It was not for England that he entertained any apprehension; even were all the nations of the world combined against her. But he could not avoid entertaining some feelings for humanity generally—some sympathy for the condition of other countries. He knew that sentimentality and politics had little connexion; nor, indeed, did he wish to be considered sentimental. But looking at the subject on other grounds, he contended, that we had a great interest in maintaining the independence of the smaller States of Europe. Could any one who duly considered the subject deny, that it was a most mistaken policy which had allowed Austria to ravage Italy that delightful country, the seat of so many classical recollections, the cradle of the arts—that country so full of genius, so abounding with all that tended to the refinement and civilization of society? Would any one deny that it was a most mistaken policy to allow Italy to be plundered and pillaged by the Austrian military—by men who had not the sense to see the irreparable evils which they were inflicting, and who, thinking of nothing but squeezing out of the unhappy Italians everything they could at the moment obtain, were utterly unconscious of the destructive results that must be the consequence of their cupidity? These were outrages which England ought never to have permitted. She ought never to have permitted Italy to be chained, like Prometheus, to a barren

1225
rock, while the Austrian vulture was preying on its vitals. Just and extensive views of our own interest would have prevented us allowing a nation to be enslaved, from the freedom of which the whole world, and no Power more assuredly than ourselves, would have derived the greatest benefits. Vain was the hope to keep up a good understanding with Governments capable of acting as Russia and Austria had acted, and prone to constant aggression, and which would parcel out the world between them if England permitted the continuance of such unwise, such impolitic, such atrocious proceedings. Hitherto, however, Russia had been most fortunate. She had been permitted to take what she pleased from every neighbour whom she chose to invade. Look at her conduct towards Persia. But, with our possessions in India, had we not a good right to say to Russia, "we know nothing of the merits of your quarrel with Persia, but you shall not take possession of provinces in Persia, the possession of which by you will endanger the security of the British provinces in India? In the present altered state of the civilized world, all the former notions respecting the balance of power had become obsolete; the only balance of power worth our thinking about was a strict alliance between France and England. That effected, England and France, independent of all treaties, had a right to say to the other Powers of Europe, "you may go to war if you please, but you shall not endanger the general peace and happiness of the world by any encroachments on territory. We do not pretend to be any judges of the merits of your quarrels, but we are very good judges of what is necessary for our own safety; and encroachments on territory you shall not make." In the next place, he begged to ask why it was, that England should pay for the establishment of Prince Otho on the throne of Greece? Was it not for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power in Europe, and the independence of nations throughout the world? Now, then, suppose that, after we had gone to all the expense of settling the affairs and government of Greece, the emperor of Russia should think proper to seize upon it, would they not be liable to have the same arguments urged against them, and the principle propounded that it was not worth while to go to war for Greece? For himself, he thought that this country would
1226
have been perfectly justified, even upon conservative principles, in going to war at the time the Poles were struggling, and struggling successfully against the tyranny of Russia. It would have been, in his opinion, at once a glorious, a politic, and a safe war. The mere appearance of a British fleet in the Baltic would, he was well convinced, have decided the question of Poland's independence. He concurred entirely with the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Evans), and would support his Motion, even at this late period—
"There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune."
The favourable moment for action was gone by, and they had, perhaps, fallen among the shoals and quicksands; but let them at least come to an understanding, and determine either to save our honour or our money. He repeated that he was ready to support the gallant Member's Motion, and he hoped his Majesty's Government would insist upon the performance, upon their part, of the stipulations made at the Treaty of Vienna, in behalf of Poland. If that country were suffered to remain in its present state, it would be a disgrace to Europe.
Sir Charles Wetherellexplained, that he was not a Baronet, and that the hon. Baronet—whose compeer he could not claim the honour of being—had attributed sentiments to him which he had never uttered.
Lord John Russellsaid, that his hon. friend had just favoured them with an unexpected oration upon all the foreign relations, and the whole foreign policy of this country. He made this observation, not for the purpose of remonstrating with his hon. friend—he rather envied him. He envied him for the easiness with which, after praising the moderation of the noble Lord (Lord Sandon) he passed to the most violent invectives against all the Governments of Europe with which we were in alliance. He envied him, too, the bellicose tone which he felt himself at liberty to assume. The hon. Baronet he believed, had laid down no less than eight questions, on which he would go to war. Persia, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, and Poland. His hon. friend would throw overboard all treaties, because, in fact, those arrangements, with respect to Italy, for instance, were made binding by the very treaties to which he appealed. He envied the hon. Baronet his enthusiasm:

1227
but for himself he certainly did not feel justified either as a Member of the Government or of the House of Commons, in giving utterance to such sentiments. On the contrary, he felt bound to shrink from sentiments, the tendency of which would lead us direct to war. However highly the liberties of Europe were to be prized, the blood of Englishmen was to be prized also, and it was not, above all, to be lavished in a cause in which the liberties of Europe might not prosper, but the interests of England were sure to suffer. The noble Lord then went over the history of the Treaty of Vienna, and proceeded to say, that he acknowledged there had been a breach of the Constitution granted to Poland on the part of Russia—that then a conspiracy was formed, and an insurrection took place in Warsaw rather than in Poland, and the Russian garrison was expelled. In the course of the struggle, the insurgent Poles afterwards proclaimed, that the throne of Poland had for ever passed from the house of the emperor of Russia; and from thenceforward it was evident, that the struggle was one of life and death. The emperor of Russia was pledged to use his whole military power to crush Poland, and the Poles to contend to the uttermost against the domination of Russia. The appeal, too, made by the Poles to their countrymen in Austria and Prussia naturally alarmed those governments; and he really was surprised when he heard his hon. friend talking of the mere appearance of a fleet in the Baltic putting an end to the struggle. On the contrary, there would inevitably have been a most desperate contest throughout Europe, in which Russia, Austria, and Prussia would be on one side, and England and France, with the States who were struggling for liberty, on the other. Therefore, although he grieved for Poland, he did not think that any British statesman could be found to undertake the responsibility of coming down to that House to ask the country to enter upon such a war. If the principles of the hon. Baronet were acted upon, the result would be that we should be bound to go to war to support any insurrection in favour of liberty whenever it might take place, without considering its prudence or its probability of success. Against such a proposition as that, he felt it his duty to enter his protest. He would not attempt to follow his hon. friend through the great diversity of topics
1228
introduced in his speech, but must observe, that it seemed rather inconsistent in his hon. friend, who censured the Government for not interfering even to the extent of a war, on behalf of Poland, it was rather inconsistent in him to blame the Government for having interfered in the case of Greece. Was the Greek loan, which held out a prospect of immense advantage to Greece, at little or no risk to this country, offensive to his hon. friend, on account of the economy of the measure, by which we put an end to Greek anarchy and disturbance? Would his hon. friend risk a war for Poland, and yet blame the Ministry for guaranteeing the interest of a loan of 800,000 l to Greece? Did his hon. friend at one and the same time censure the Government for interfering, and for non-intervention? Ministers had pursued a wise and temperate course. They abstained from interference, where the risk was great, and the chance of successful intervention doubtful; they interposed their good offices, when they found that the result would be highly advantageous, and the cost insignificant. His hon. friend had described England as being the laughing-stock of the world, on account of her pacific policy; this was a charge so generally made against all moderate Governments, and made upon such insufficient grounds, as not to demand more than a simple denial. There were also a few persons to be found in every country, who exclaimed, if the Government refused to go to war on trifling occasions, that the foreign policy was weak and ridiculous. Such statements were seldom entitled to much attention; least of all in the present case, wherein the Government had pursued a wise and temperate line of policy. Far better was it to adopt such a course of moderation, than, for the sake of a feather or a trophy, to take steps that might have endangered the peace of Europe. With respect to the Motion of the hon. member for Rye, whatever propriety there might be in the British Government appealing to Russia for a liberal interpretation, and large performance of her treaties, on the ground of the good faith of England, with respect to her own engagements to Russia, it would be exceedingly wrong, and might be raised into an improper precedent, were the House of Commons to interfere in relation to such a subject. In conclusion, the noble Lord expressed his intention of vot-

1229
ing for the previous question, if the hon. and gallant Member refused to withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Ewartsaid, he was always most anxious to preserve peace, because he thought the prosperity of the country depended upon it; but still he must call upon the gallant Member to press his Motion, because such discussions as these in the British House of Commons would tend to serve the cause of freedom all over Europe.
Sir Robert Inglisdid not believe, that the people of England, or the constituents of the hon. Baronet opposite, were willing to risk a general war for the sake of any abstract principle. This country had other duties to perform, besides aiding insurrections, however justifiable they might be in the eyes of those who originated them. He understood, that the present Ministry had come into office upon the principles of Reform, retrenchment, and non-interference, and it would be most inconsistent with that policy to embroil this country in the quarrels of others. If any thing could justify the insurrection of Poland, it was the atrocities committed by the Russians at Warsaw. At the same time, he could not allow that this country ought to be hurried into a war. He should therefore concur in the Motion for the previous question.
Mr. Ewartwished to be understood, as deprecating war as much as any man, and he believed, that supporting the Motion was more likely to discourage than encourage war.
Sir John M. Doylesaid, that he should support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, with whose sentiments on this question he fully concurred.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamcould not bring himself to agree to the Motion, which he thought was in substance a declaration of war against Russia. As far as he could trust the judgment of any of his Majesty's Ministers, he felt disposed to trust that of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon the present occasion. Some hon. Members appeared to think, that a simple expression of sentiment on the part of England would have been sufficient to prevent Russia from pursuing the line of conduct which she had adopted with respect to Poland; but that was merely matter of conjecture, and he did not wish to witness any such expression of sentiment, unless we were fully prepared
1230
to act upon it in case of necessity. On the whole, he thought it would be better for us to endeavour to settle our own differences at home, than to adopt the dangerous course of entering into hostile resolutions against a power, which a few days ago we had attempted to conciliate, as a joint pacificator in the affairs of Holland and Belgium.
Sir Francis Vincentsaid, that he did not wish the vote he should give to-night to be interpreted into a vote in favour of a war. He did not think, that the Resolutions now proposed at all bore the character just assigned to them. He believed, that its only effect would be to make the emperor of Russia more carefully consider the course he was about to pursue. That was an object which he thought all must be desirous to attain, and that object he was sure could not be attained by mean truckling to any power, because it was thought greater than some others. He should support the Resolutions as an expression of opinion that must have a beneficial effect.
Colonel Evans, in reply, said, that he did not believe his Resolutions would have the effect of producing a war; if he did, he should not have proposed them, for he thought, that the object he had in view could be obtained in a more certain and better way by other means. He had the greatest respect for the general good judgment of the noble Lord, and he did not wish to embarrass the Government by any proceeding he now proposed; but he felt it his duty to take the sense of the House on this question.
No division, however, took place; the Motion having been withdrawn.

QUALIFICATIONS UNDER THE REFORM ACT.
Colonel Evansrose to call the attention of the House to the Motion of which he had given notice, respecting the great numbers of the town and borough constituency, who would be found disfranchised at the next general election. He observed, that there ought not to be a single place in the condition in which he feared the far greater part of the metropolitan boroughs would be found. In the parish of St. James, for instance, there were 3,000 inhabitants who would be qualified to vote in respect of the houses they occupied, but owing to the greater part of them not having paid their poor-rates, he believed there would be but

1231
891 voters in that parish. It was true there were 1,600 who had paid their assessed taxes, but only 891 who had paid poor-rates, and it was reasonable, therefore, to suppose that the lesser number alone was entitled to the elective franchise. He might, however, add, that the oldest collector in the parish had informed him, that there were not more than 200 voters. In Lambeth, again, the numbers of those who were entitled to votes was very inconsiderable. In the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn, there were 2,600 persons who occupied houses that would give the elective franchise; but, out of these, there were only 1,200 who had paid their assessed taxes, and, consequently that must be the highest number of persons in that parish entitled to a vote. In St. Margaret's, Westminster, there were not more than 1,200 who would be entitled to a vote; and in the populous parish of Marylebone, where there were 10,000 rated houses of sufficient value to confer the franchise, there were but 2,900 persons who had paid their rates and taxes. If the rest of the boroughs throughout the kingdom were, as he had no doubt they were, in the same situation, there would be at least two-thirds of those entitled to their franchise, deprived of it by the present conditions stated in the Reform Bill; so that, if the borough voters of the kingdom amounted to 300,000, there would be, out of that number, 200,000 deprived of their elective franchise. The noble Lord opposite had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill to remedy this evil, by changing the day, now fixed at the 20th of July, to the 20th of August. That change would not be sufficient. The present was the worst time of the year for making payments. It was not the time when the retail dealer, or the merchant, or manufacturer, received their money, and the agricultural part of the population had that produce, from which they expected to get their money, yet ungathered in their fields. As a proof that these circumstances affected all classes, he might mention, that there was not one qualified voter in the whole of Russell-square; and as a contrast to that, at least with respect to the condition of the inhabitants, there were, in Windmill-street, only two voters. Under these circumstances, he thought something ought to be done, that so large a body of people might not be disfranchised, and be should
1232
therefore move the following Resolutions:—
"Resolved, That, in regard to the numbers of the Elective Constituency, whether of the metropolitan cities and districts, or in the towns generally throughout the kingdom, the expectations contemplated by the Legislature, held out by the Government, and entertained by the country, are now found to be entirely erroneous, in so far as relates to the next general election, under the Act for the Reform of Parliament lately passed.
"That, in some places there is even a doubt whether there will be any constituency at all to vote at the next election, excepting old corporate freemen; while, in many others, instead of the franchise being enlarged, as was generally stated, and believed would be the case, it will actually be diminished and cut down to one-fourth, one-sixth, or to even a still less fractional part of the extent of elective right previously enjoyed by those towns respectively; and that a similar disfranchisement, miscalculation, or delusion, must be admitted as to the newly-created boroughs.
"That this most unlooked-for and dangerous result, as affecting the composition of the next Parliament, is partly attributable to the severe and restrictive operation of certain clauses of the said Act, especially the 27th, 23rd, 44th, and 80th, requiring, as a qualification, payment of rates and taxes before specified days, and previous to the periods on which these dues are more usually levied; partly to the distress occasioned to the industrious classes, by the long-protracted resistance to the measure of Reform, and the consequent stagnation of trade; also to omissions or inattention, designedly or otherwise, of the rate and tax collectors; and to misunderstandings respecting dates and other matters of a supposed confused, contradictory, or complicated tenor, which there was not time enough between the promulgation of the Act and the periods mentioned to clear up sufficiently for general guidance.
"That the same might be obviated in respect to the next election, by substituting in regard to poor-rates, the '25th day of December last;' and with regard to assessed taxes, the '10th day of October last,' in lieu of the words, 'sixth day of April last,' wherever the latter date occurs in said Act, in reference to boroughs—thus rendering all voters eligible,

1233
who had paid by the 20th of July last their poor-rates, due at Christmas, and their assessed taxes, due the 10th of last October.
"And that it is therefore indispensable, in the opinion of this House, that a short remedial bill be introduced during the present Session of Parliament, to the above, or an equal effect, in order to provide some remedy, at least for the present year, against the fatal error and disfranchisement thus discovered to arise in the working of the restrictive clauses referred to in said Act."
The Speaker, after looking at the Resolutions, observed, that the third portion of the Resolutions declared, that it was indispensable, that a short remedial bill should be introduced, in order to provide some remedy for the evils which the previous portion of the Resolutions had exposed. If that Resolution should be carried, it would be declaring the opinion of the House, that a bill of the kind there described should be brought in, and the House would, in fact, be giving leave to bring in a bill without a title, and without a formally declared object.
Sir Francis Burdettthought, that his hon. and gallant friend had better withdraw the Motion, as he was sure it was sufficient to call the attention of the Ministers to it, since they must feel as strong a desire as himself to correct the error. He understood, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given notice of a bill, to remedy the evils of which his hon. and gallant friend had spoken, and truly, if it was intended that the Reform Act should be such as to satisfy the desires of those who had so earnestly called for it at the hands of the Government, some remedy must be afforded. He thought the day should be postponed from the 20th of July to the 20th of September; but he thought further, that the right to exercise the franchise should depend, not on the actual payment of the taxes, but on the liability to pay them, unless it could be shown, that the individual liable would be totally unable, under any circumstances, to make the payment. He recommended his hon. and gallant friend to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, especially as the noble Lord had already taken up the subject.
Lord Althorpthought, that his hon. and gallant friend must have exaggerated
1234
in a very material degree the effect of the clauses to which he had alluded. With respect to scot-and-lot voters, it should be recollected, that none would be disfranchised who had tendered the payment of their rates and taxes, due at Lady-day, by the 20th of July last. The fact of actual payment before that time was not necessary to the qualification. The offer to pay was sufficient. The only case in which a scot-and-lot voter would be disfranchised was, where he was actually unable to pay. With respect to other rights of voting, he must say, that he thought it very extraordinary, that any mistake or any difficulty should have arisen, because long discussions on that particular provision of the Act, which rendered it necessary that those who were desirous of voting should pay up their rates and taxes by a certain specified time, had taken place on many occasions in that House, while the measure was under its consideration. Indeed, since the month of December last, every person must have been acquainted with the existence of such a provision, and consequently must have had ample time to comply with it. A complaint, however, had been made to him, that, in many instances, where persons had tendered their rates to the collectors, the collectors had refused to receive them. Now, according to the view which he took of the subject, it certainly appeared to him to be quite consistent with the principle and spirit of the Reform Act, to introduce an Amendment, to obviate the injustice which would result if those persons who had tendered their rates should be disqualified. His hon. and gallant friend, in the Resolutions which he had submitted, proposed to alter one of the main provisions of the Act, and to substitute an Amendment, which ought to have been made the matter of discussion while the Bill was under the consideration of the House. He (Lord Althorp) should certainly be very sorry now to see such an alteration made in the principle of the Bill. His hon. friend (Sir Francis Burdett) behind him had intimated the propriety of delaying the period for the payment of rates and taxes, to September or October. The result of such a delay would be to procrastinate the time at which the registration could commence, until a most inconvenient period. The object of the proposition, which it was his intention to propose to the House simply

1235
was, that all persons who had tendered the payment of their rates and taxes should, for the purposes of this Act, be considered as having paid them. There was, he admitted, a difficulty in point of form in making any alteration whatever in this Act; because it did not contain the declaratory clause usually placed at the end of bills, to enable the House to make any Amendments in it in the present Session of Parliament. There were, however, several precedents in which Amendments had been made in the same Session in bills which, like the Reform Act, did not contain the usual declaratory clause. One of these occurred in the year 1757, when an Act was passed for enlarging the time at which the first meeting of the Commissioners for putting in force the provisions of an Act, passed in that Session, should take place. An instance very nearly similar occurred in the year 1765; but, in the year 1795, an Amendment was allowed to be made in an Act, which had been passed under circumstances which he considered very analogous to the present. He alluded to the Act which was passed in that year for allowing further time for persons to take out certificates for wearing hair powder. In the present instance he proposed to allow some further time for persons to complete their qualifications as voters under the Reform Act. He certainly did not wish to press that Amendment forward, except with the general concurrence of the House; but, considering that many persons who had all the disposition to pay their rates and taxes, and would have done so but for the conduct of the collectors, would be disappointed unless some alteration were made, he hoped that he should be allowed to introduce an Amendment to the extent to which he had alluded. He should therefore move, as an Amendment to the Resolutions proposed by his hon. and gallant friend, for leave to bring in a Bill to allow further time for persons to pay their poor-rates, pursuant to an Act of Parliament, passed in the present Session, entitled "An Act to Amend the Representation of the People of England and Wales."
Mr. Herriesthought the House would agree with him in saying, that this was one of the most important propositions that could be submitted to the House. He said a most important proposition. The House had, after a most deliberate
1236
and long discussion, passed a measure of immense importance, which was declared solemnly and repeatedly to be received as a final measure. The proposition now made was to alter one of the most important provisions of the Bill. He contended that was the fact; and it should be considered, too, that this alteration was proposed at the shortest notice possible, and at a period of the Session when many Members could not by possibility attend. It was an alteration, too, proposed in defiance of, and in contradiction to, the settled and declared rules of Parliament. He considered the alteration as most important, for it affected the nature of the new franchise; it altered that great principle, and, therefore, he contended it was most important. Besides, if the noble Lord again opened the subject of the Act, who could say where the changes would stop? Let the noble Lord look around him, and he must see that the alteration he intended would not satisfy those who required changes. To the alteration suggested by the noble Lord he did not so much object for its own character, as he did because it was in opposition to the rules of Parliament, and it would open a question which could not be opened without great danger. The alteration was not worth the risk. There was no object to be gained of sufficient importance to justify the proposition. If it were adopted it would go far towards realizing the anticipations of the opponents of the Bill, who had said it would open the door to change, and that change after change would be demanded and conceded. To that assertion the framers of the Bill had said, "No, we will abide by the Bill, and resist all change." Nothing had transpired with which the House was acquainted, whatever information the noble Lord might possess, to justify the proposition. The words of the Act were plain beyond dispute; their propriety had been fully and deliberately discussed, and the Act was passed six weeks before the 20th of July, the date by which the rates were to be paid. If this alteration were made, others must follow. The alteration proposed by the noble Lord would satisfy only a very small number of persons, and would afford a dangerous precedent to others to insist upon further change. He, therefore, entreated the noble Lord to pause before he persevered in his proposition. He was not indisposed to concur in the principle

1237
of the alteration—namely, that a legal tender of payment of rates should be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, an actual payment, but further than that he could not go.
The Solicitor Generalregretted to observe such a spirit of opposition to the Amendment of his noble friend. The question was undoubtedly important, because it was whether the public was to derive from the Reform Act the benefits they had a right to expect. If the great mass of the intended new constituency were thus deprived of their franchise, the people would lose the fair fruits of the measure. If he thought that the new electors held their franchise in such light estimation, that they wilfully neglected to qualify themselves, he should, in that case, oppose any proposition to give them a benefit of which he should consider them unworthy; but he was persuaded that it was solely from misconception that they had omitted to take those steps which alone could give them the right of voting. But it was a narrow view of the question to suppose that the elective franchise had been given to a few individuals for their own private benefit. They held it for the good of the people in general, and if they wilfully refused to exercise it, they were guilty of a species of treason against the public. They evidently did not act from wilfulness, but from ignorance; and the point, therefore, to be considered was, whether Parliament ought not to grant a reasonable time for the payment of rates and taxes? It was, of course, merely accidental that the defect had occurred, and it would be highly unbecoming in Parliament not to remedy it. The object was not to vary the principle of the Reform Act in the slightest degree; and if there were no rule of Parliament to render the course impossible, nothing could be more just and necessary than that the alteration should be made. He recollected that the hon. Gentlemen opposite declared, on the passing of the Reform Bill, that they would do everything in their power to make the Bill as effective as possible. He, therefore, could not but suppose that they would cordially join in giving full practical effect to the measure, by rendering the new constituency qualified to vote. Unless the Reform Act were to be a dead letter—to expire in its birth—the House which had adopted the Act was bound to make it perfect.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, there was no precedent for such a proposition as the present. The cases quoted by the noble Lord did not resemble the present. In those instances the object of the Legislature was to relieve persons from penalties unintentionally imposed. But he would not stickle at forms; he would at once say, that if there was any real cause of grievance he should desire to remedy it. Now, would the noble Lord say that, of his own knowledge, there was, he would not say a large, but a considerable class of voters who had tendered their rates, and the payment had been refused? He had heard of no one case; but if the noble Lord said he himself knew that there was a considerable number of persons who had been disfranchised in that way, he would at once believe it. He was most desirous to carry the Bill into full effect, but he was not prepared to go further. He would say, not only that a legal tender of rates ought to be held as payment, but also, that any overseer who dared to refuse receiving the rates ought to be subject to a heavy penalty. It would be, indeed, monstrous for any person to be allowed, with impunity, by trick, or any other means, to disfranchise another. But then the alteration of the noble Lord went a vast deal further than that. The noble Lord did not say certain persons have been disfranchised contrary to the intention of the Legislature, and, therefore, we will render to them their just rights; but he said, some may have been improperly disfranchised, and, therefore, we will give to all a new opportunity of qualifying to exercise the elective franchise. To such a proceeding he objected, as utterly at variance with the rules of Parliament and the pledges of the Government, The Solicitor General said, the persons disfranchised had not qualified from something accidental. How that could be he did not understand. The wording of the clause was so plain that any one who could read must understand it. That it was generally known, no man could deny, for every newspaper in the metropolis, indeed in the kingdom, had published the exact state of the law, and repeated the circumstances again and again. In fact, so notorious was the wording and intent of the Act, that he did not believe a gentleman would be found who would say he thought any elector could be ignorant of it. Surely the Solicitor General would not say, that

1239
his intended constituents, the enlightened and patriotic electors of Marylebone, were ignorant of the law. Had they not had the benefit of public meetings and the advice of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself? But not only was this proposition contrary to the general rules of Parliament, but it was also contrary to the specific pledges given by the noble Lord. Why was the usual concluding clause of every bill not inserted? Why was that clause struck out which was common to almost all bills, and which permitted the amendment of an Act in the then Session, if necessary? Simply for this reason: the Government were told that the Bill as proposed would not be final. The noble Lord replied, "We mean it to be final. To prove that we do, we will strike out the concluding clause, and that will prevent any change being made by the present Parliament." He should be sorry to see the attempt persevered in, for it would be most unjust to do so in the absence of his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, and many other Members who had always taken a most active part in the discussions upon the subject, and would certainly have been present had an opportunity been afforded them. There were then present, and by pure accident, some fourteen or fifteen of those Members with whom he (Sir Edward Sugden) had acted, and the noble Lord might judge whether that large body of Members was fairly represented upon the present occasion. The noble Lord had a high reputation for candour, and he put it to the noble Lord to say, whether it would be just, proper, or advisable to press his Amendment.
Lord Althorpsaid, that of his own knowledge he could not state any cases of rejection by the overseers; but he had been credibly informed, that a large number of persons would be prevented from having their votes, from not having paid up to the 20th July; and that of these a large portion had tendered their money, and been refused acceptance: the natural result of which was, that this refusal would act on many others, and prevent their making the tender at all. If it was true that this Bill was to be regarded as a breach of faith towards those who were absent, and on that account likely to meet with considerable opposition, he did not think that it was worth his while to press it upon the House, and under these circumstances he would not insist upon his Motion.
Sir Francis Burdettthought that this supplementary Bill was nothing more than carrying into effect the intention of the original Reform Bill, and that without this Bill the public would find that they were not really in possession of that franchise which they had been guaranteed. He did not see how any one could contend that this was any alteration of the Bill; it appeared to him only to be a furtherance of the proposed effect of the Bill.
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord whether he had withdrawn the Bill?
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had;—first, because it would be impossible for him to pass the Bill, if opposed, in the present state of the Session; and secondly, because he did not wish to pass the Bill, if it was held to be a breach of faith that the Reform Bill should not be altered.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the Bill only went to franchise those who had tendered, he did not care much about it, because he believed the numbers of those tenders to be very few; but if it was intended to be a Bill for the general extension of the time to the 20th of August—
Lord Althorp: I intended the Bill to embrace both these objects.
Mr. Hume: Then he did hope that the noble Lord would not withdraw the Bill, because such withdrawal would give very great dissatisfaction in the metropolis.
Mr. Charles Rossdid not object to a Bill to enfranchise those who had tendered payment; but he thought that, with respect to the others, ample notice had been given them, and, therefore, there was no pretence for any extension of time in their favour.
Lord Althorp withdrew his Amendment.
The House divided on Colonel Evans's Motion: Ayes 2; Noes 66; Majority—64.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (IRELAND).
Mr. Stanleysaid, with reference to the notice of his which stood on the Paper, for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Administration of Justice on the trial of offences in certain cases in Ireland, that, at that hour of the night, he could not think of bringing it forward in opposition to the wishes of any hon. Member; and, therefore, if he could not then obtain (as he was much afraid he could not), leave to bring it in without a dissentient voice, he should postpone it to the following day.
Mr. Leaderwould certainly oppose even the introduction of a measure so deeply affecting the rights and liberties of the subject,
Motion postponed.

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the 23rd and 24th Reports of the Commissioners of Charities.
Bills. Read a first time:—Composition of Tithes (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Public Accounts (Ireland); Soldiers Families; Half Pay.—Received the Royal Assent; Reform of Parliament (Ireland); Boundaries Ireland; Ecclesiastical Courts Contempt; Appellate Jurisdiction.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from Henley and Shelton; and by Earl GREY, from several Places in England and Ireland, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education for Ireland.—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from certain Tradesmen of the Metropolis, and by the Earl of CLARENDON, from Watford, &c., for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Earl GREY, from a Dissenting Congregation of Chester, against Slavery, and against Infanticide in India; from three Places in Ireland, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery; and from Galway, for a Clause in the Irish Reform Bill relative to the rights of Freemen.—By the Bishop of HEREFORD, from Hereford, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
The Duke of Richmondwished to call their Lordships' attention to a subject of considerable importance. It was known
1172
to them that the Speaker of that House was paid by fees, and it was desirable that the office should be paid by salary, and not by fees. Following the precedent which had been set in the case of the Clerk of Parliament, he wished to have a Select Committee appointed to examine and report the amount of fees and emoluments of the office preparatory for doing away the fees and substituting a salary. He begged leave, therefore, to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter.
The Committee appointed, and a Bill fixing the Speaker's salary was read a first time.

JURIES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne presented the Report of the Select Committee on this Bill.
The Marquess of Westmeathinquired, if it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to press the Irish Juries Bill through Parliament during the present Session?
Viscount Melbournereplied, that certainly it was their intention to do so.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to know if his Majesty's Government had received any Report upon the subject from the Irish Judges.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that they had not, but the measure was of such a nature that, nevertheless, they thought it their duty to proceed with it.
The Duke of Wellingtonunderstood, at an early period of the Session, that it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to consult the Judges of Ireland upon the subject of this Bill. He could not help saying, that it appeared to him most extraordinary that their Lordships should be called on, in such circumstances, and at the present period of the Session, to pass a Bill of this description, particularly when he coupled it with the circumstance that another Bill relating to the administration of justice in Ireland, and perhaps of still greater importance than this, was about, be believed, that very night, to be introduced into the oher House of Parliament.
Viscount Melbournehad never undertaken to obtain the opinion of the Irish Judges. The Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General of Ireland concurred in the expediency of passing the Bill, and, when it was printed, their Lordships would see that it amounted to little more than a consolidation of the existing laws.
Lord Wynfordcould see no necessity for pressing the Bill at this period of the Session, and in the present state of the two Houses of Parliament. It was impossible that the measure could be wanted immediately in Ireland, as the Circuits were nearly over. He submitted that, as his Majesty's Government had neglected to obtain the opinions of the Irish Judges, it was a little too much for them to press forward the measure in a state of the House in which to talk of legislation was an insulting mockery. [The average attendance of Peers for many nights back had not been above eight or nine.] It would be at least four or five months before the measure could be wanted. He had referred to the state of their Lordships' House, but what was the actual condition of the other House of Parliament? Was not a measure at this moment about to be introduced there in order to amend the all-perfect Bill of Reform? And would not this be quite enough for them to attend to for the remainder of the Session, without the additional burthen of this Bill which his Majesty's Ministers proposed to send them? He believed that not one, but several. Bills would be required to perfect the scheme of Reform; for, if he was rightly informed, there had never at any period been so much bribery going on as at the present moment.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Bill would not come into operation until 1834, and its object was not to alter but to preserve the present practice. Had the object been to alter the present practice, there would have been some weight in the noble and learned Lord's observations.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that if the effect of the Bill would be to make the constitution of Juries more popular, he thought that, after the recent example of Kilkenny, the time was very badly chosen. Delay would not be injurious, as the Bill was not to come immediately into operation.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that, as the Bill did not come into operation until the year 1834, there would be time enough, if necessary, to amend it. But, if it were not passed now, it would not come into operation until 1835.
Report laid on the Table.

CHANCERY SINECURES BILL.
The Lord Chancellormoved, that this Bill be now read a third time.
Earl Greysaid, that he was instructed to signify the consent of the Crown to this Bill.
Lord Wynfordwas not opposed to the abolition of sinecure offices connected with Courts of Justice; on the contrary, he had proposed and carried into effect the abolition of all the sinecure offices appertaining to the Court over which he had once had the honour to preside. But he nevertheless thought it his duty to state to their Lordships the reasons which induced him to think that the Bill now before them, and which his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had had under his consideration for more than a year, was one to which it was impossible for their Lordships to give their assent. The Bill, he was persuaded, could not, by any possibility, have been drawn by his noble and learned friend. If the offices to be abolished by it were sinecures, they of course had no duties connected with them; but if they had duties connected with them, then it was fit, before they abolished the offices, to make provision for the execution of those duties. The Bill, however, said that, on the 15th of April next, the offices should be abolished, without saying one syllable of provision for the duties, although it was admitted that very important duties were connected with the offices. Now, if it should so happen that Parliament did not, between this and the 15th of April, pass a Bill to ensure the performance of these duties, in what situation would the Court of Chancery be placed? His noble and learned friend felt the difficulty of the suspension of some of these offices, even for a few days, and very properly proceeded to fill up the vacancies which had arisen. He felt the difficulties so strongly that he took upon himself to fill up the vacancies, notwithstanding his strong opinion, a thousand times expressed, that the offices ought to be abolished. And he did right in filling them up, for the Court of Chancery could not stand still, and it was only by the exercise of his power under the existing laws that these indispensable offices could be filled up. Some of these offices the noble and learned Lord, by his own conduct, admitted to be most important. Now, suppose any of the holders of these offices to die before the 15th of April. They must be filled up, according to the doctrine of the noble and learned Lord, But, suppose the present Bill to

1175
pass, and no other Bill to have received the assent of the Legislature previously to the 15th of April, the vacancies could not be filled up. Was there, he would ask, any precedent for this sort of legislation? He defied any man to produce one. Was there any instance of the abolition of important offices—and these offices were admitted to be important—without any provision whatever, and leaving it purely to chances for the creation of instruments for the performance of the duties? He appealed to his noble and learned friend, than whom no man was better qualified to pronounce a sound opinion on the subject, whether anything of this kind had ever been done, and whether it ought ever to be done? His noble and learned friend had had the subject under his consideration for fifteen months. He knew all the while that these offices ought to be abolished. But neither he nor any body else introduced any measure upon the subject. His noble and learned friend had been much engaged during this interval. But his noble and learned friend might be much engaged, and Parliament might be much engaged, for the next six months, and then perhaps no Bill would be introduced to secure the performance of duties which were admitted on all hands to be indispensable. He thought the offices ought to be abolished, but, at the same time, effectual care ought to be taken to provide for the performance of the duties of these offices. Was there, he would ask, anything in the present measure which called on their Lordships to bring it to a conclusion? His noble and learned friend said, that perhaps he might not continue to be Lord Chancellor. He hoped that, for many years to come, his noble and learned friend would continue to fill his present situation. But, if not, his noble and learned friend surely did not suppose that he alone, of all the individuals in the three kingdoms, was the person, the single person, who was disposed to do what was fit and right to be done. His noble and learned friend had, he was sure, too much both of modesty and charity to entertain this opinion. His noble and learned friend seemed to imagine that nothing had been done towards abolishing the sinecure offices in the other Courts. In this his noble and learned friend was mistaken. The sinecure offices of the other Courts had been got rid of without noise—preserving only
1176
vested interests, and, what was more important still, the duties had been effectually provided for. By the present Bill they did not get rid of all the sinecure offices of the Court of Chancery. There was the Registrar of the Lord Chancellor, an office always executed by deputy; and there was another large class of officers, the twenty-four Cursitors of the Court of Chancery, a small proportion of whom did the duty for all the others. In the Court of Common Pleas, there was an office analogous to this, that of the Filacers. And with respect to them what was done? It was thought that a saving might be made, and accordingly the duty was thrown upon some of them; and, without any noise or boasting, a provision was made, after the death of the present possessors, for the extinction of the other offices. But, in the Court of Chancery, the Cursitors, who might do their duty by deputy, and many of whom did so, were left untouched. There was another sinecure office also, that of Receiver of Fees, which was not included in this Bill. The Bill he had shown to be imprudent and defective; it left important duties unprovided for, and with respect to the abolition of sinecures it did not act up to the principle it professed. There was another objection to the Bill. The noble and learned Lord intended, no doubt, that it should leave existing interests untouched. He was not sure that this would be the effect of the Bill. The Bill preserved the rights of persons who had held the offices before the 1st of June last. But the abolition of the offices would, as it seemed to him, destroy the rights of those who had a reversionary interest in the offices. This, he was aware, might be altered by the introduction of a few words, and he only adverted to the circumstance in order to show that the measure ought to receive a much greater degree of attention than, in the present circumstances of the House, was possible. Neither could it receive, in another place, the attention to which it was entitled, for there the pressure of business was extreme. There was no necessity for precipitation. This was a measure of destruction; it destroyed, and made no provision for building up. It was indeed much easier to destroy than to build up, and this he supposed was the reason why many persons were so much more ready to destroy than to build up. He objected to the Bill, that it made no

1177
provision for the duties of the offices it abolished, and that it made promises in the preamble which the enacting clauses did not fulfil.
The Lord Chancellor: When his noble and learned friend said, that the enactment in the Bill did not correspond with the promise in the preamble, he could not agree with him. He agreed that the Bill went to the destruction merely of the offices, but he did not agree that it did not come up to the promise in the preamble. The preamble was, that it was expedient to abolish the offices, and the enactments did abolish. But then his noble friend said, that they abolished without qualification, and, no doubt, the thirteen offices mentioned in the Bill were to cease on a day fixed; but the meaning was, that before that period Parliament would have necessarily assembled, and made provision for the performance of the duties in another manner; and if the 15th April should appear too early a day, then they might say any day in May or June, or the last day of the Session. There would, therefore, be ample time for making provision for the performance of the duties, and for the important object of appointing those with whom the responsibility for the performance of the duties should rest. In the mean time, this great advantage would be gained, that, by a certain fixed time, the offices must be abolished. It was a long time since a Committee of Parliament had recommended that the offices should be abolished. His noble and learned friend said, that the subject had been under consideration for little more than a year or fifteen months; but it had been under the consideration of Parliament for more than fifteen years, or for more than thirty years, for the abolition of these offices had been recommended by Lord Colchester's Committee in 1798; the offices had also been condemned by Parliament; yet they had been continued up to this hour, and it was now high time to get rid of them. The true and only principle of effecting that, was to abolish them prospectively, giving time to Parliament to make provision for the proper performance of the duties. His noble and learned friend talked of certain difficulties that might occur, but these supposed certain accidents which were very unlikely to happen; and the difficulties were of no great consequence, for temporary officers might always be appointed till the period came at which all
1178
the offices were to cease. Then his noble and learned friend said, that all the sinecure offices in the Court of Chancery were not included in the Bill, and he instanced that great office, the Registrar of the Court, which was executed by deputy. He should have been very glad, for his own part, to have laid hold of that twig, or rather great branch, also, although he thought it most advisable to proceed, in the mean time, with the offices mentioned in the Bill. He should have been glad to have included the offices of the Cursitors, but they were to be reduced by another Bill. However, if his noble and learned friend thought proper, he had no objection to insert them. As to the objection about the reversion, he was of opinion that the words, "now held," applied to reversions as well as to actual possession for the interest was present, although the office was to be enjoyed in futuro. But, however, in case there should be any doubt, that clause might easily be amended. In the mean time, until these offices were abolished, he was liable to suspicions and attacks; and he thought it the best plan now to abolish them at a day certain.
The Earl of Eldonlamented that such a Bill should have been brought forward at this period of the Session. He could not agree that all these offices were sinecures, and great inconvenience might result from their abolition before a proper provision was made for the performance of the duties. He had filled the office of Lord Chancellor for seven-and-twenty years, with only a very short interval, and he had been practising at the bar of the Court for many years; could, then, it be possible, for that which was called Chancery Reform, to have escaped his attention, and that of his many noble and learned predecessors; and their impression certainly was, that improvement in the Court of Chancery was not to be brought about by the sudden introduction of a ready-formed system; but by the propounding reforms, and making orders, as the necessity for them should, from time to time, arise. With respect to the present measure, it was one of the highest importance, and one which should not be urged forward through that House, without the fullest opportunity being afforded for the most minute and dispassionate attention.
The Lord Chancellorcould assure his noble and learned friend, that nothing could be further from his mind than not

1179
to afford the House the amplest opportunity for considering and examining into all the details of the measure, and making themselves fully acquainted with its probable operation. No change should be proposed by him in the law affecting that highest of all our tribunals, without the most careful and elaborate attention on his own part, and without affording every noble Lord the best opportunities for bestowing upon it similar care. He was quite ready to yield to the objection that had been urged against the 15th April, and, therefore, he thought of filling up the blank in the Bill with the words, "the last day in the next ensuing Session of Parliament;" but as circumstaces might possibly render a short Session before Christmas necessary, he thought that it would be the better course to fix such a day as must include the whole of the next Parliamentary year; say, until the 20th of August, 1833.
Those words being inserted, the Bill was passed.
The Lord Chancellorthen said: As the Bill has now passed, I trust your Lordships will indulge me for a few moments. The short remarks I have to make will be disposed of very speedily; but I purposely postponed them until this Bill should have passed. Some observations have been made in another place upon something that fell from me here. Now, I beg to say, with reference to that, that I never alluded to any individual in an unparliamentary or offensive way, and I regret to learn, that my observations have given pain, for it is, at all times, and under all circumstances, most deeply painful to myself to occasion pain to any other human being. I cannot say, that the observations made by me were uttered under the influence of irritation or of anger: I confess I have not that excuse; but I did feel contempt and scorn for the charge that was made—a charge in which the accuser stooped to insinuate, at the very moment of my life—at the very moment in the life of any public man when such an insinuation could be least merited—stooped to insinuate, at the very moment when I was doing an act of some imprudence, it might be called folly—an act, certainly, which, in the ordinary course of prudential conduct, I had no right to commit—that, at that very moment, I, under the influence of sordid motives, was departing from those principles to which I was then mak-
1180
ing a great and substantial sacrifice. It would be folly and childishness to say that it was not a great and substantial sacrifice; but it was one which I made, so help me God, without the slightest reluctance or discontent. I acknowledge that I did feel great scorn and contempt for such a charge so brought; and, in expressing my feelings with reference to the accusation, I might have gone further, and said that which, apparently, applied to the quarter from whence the charge proceeded; but it is not in my nature; on the contrary, it is most abhorrent to my nature, to utter anything calculated to inflict the pain of which complaint has been made. I repeat, that I should be, at all times, most averse from any such thing; though I did express, because I strongly felt, scorn and contempt at such a charge.