Sitting of 9 May 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Wakefield, by Mr. WILLIAM EVANS, from Leicestershire, by Sir H. VIVIAN, from Cornwall, by Mr. RICE, from Dover, by Mr. WHITE, from Sunderland, by Mr. ROCHE, from the city of Limerick, by Mr. HUME, from Cupar (Fifeshire), by Mr. BAINES, from the Town-council of Leeds, from Sudbury, and from a place in the county of Hants, by Mr. BROTHERTON, from various Congregations in Salford, and by Mr. PEASE, from places in Somersetshire, Norfolk, and Fifeshire, for the Immediate Abolition of Negro Slavery.—By Mr. MARSLAND, from Stockport, for the Government to use their influence to put down the Foreign Slave Trade.—By Lord C. MANNERS, from Ashby de la Zoueh, by the Marquess of CHANDOS, from Buckinghamshire and from Aylesbury, by Mr. D. BROWNE, from Ballinagh, by Mr. HEATHCOTE, from the county of Lincoln, and by Sir C. B. VERE, several from Suffolk, against the Bonded Corn Bill.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from millers of the city of London, in favour of the Bonded Corn Bill; and from Halifax, for alteration in the Factories Act.—By Mr. BAINES, from Dissenters in Leeds, and from a place in the county of York, against the endowment of the Scotch Church; and from the pawnbrokers of Leeds, against the British Pledge Society.—By Mr. ROUND, from a place in the county of Essex, and by Lord ROBERT MANNERS, from seven parishes in Leicestershire and two in Derbyshire, that any surplus revenues of the Church should be applied to religious education.—By Lord DALMENY, from Edinburgh, against, and from Glasgow, in favour of, endowment of the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. HUME, from the Messrs, Childs, printers, and from authors and others, and by Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN, from the letter-press printers of Dublin, against the Copyright Bill.—By Sir ROBERT BATESON, from the clergy and diocese of Derry, against the system of national education; and from the mayor and corporation of Londonderry, against the Poor-law Bill.—By Captain JONES, from the Archbishop and clergy of Armagh, against the Irish Tithe Bill; also, a Petition

1029
against the present system of National Education, and against the Irish Tithe Bill.—By Mr. GOULBURN, from parties interested, against the Ecclesiastical Courts (Ireland) Bill.—And by Mr. GILLION, from Leith, in favour of the Spirit Licences (Scotland) Bill.

BONDED CORN.
Colonel Sealemoved the second reading of the Bonded Corn Bill. He had already stated the object of the bill, and the benefits which it would confer on the commercial and mercantile world, and in the absence of any reasonable objection to the measure, he should not have thought it necessary to make any observations on this occasion, but for the fact, that he had seen in the public prints the report of certain proceedings which had taken place at a public meeting, which had been called for the purpose of taking this bill into consideration. At that meeting statements were read, and resolutions were drawn up, which could only tend to misrepresent the measure; and it was upon the spirit of those erroneous resolutions that the petitions which had been presented against the bill were founded. At the same time he begged it to be understood that no man was more ready to attach every weight to petitions than he was. He held in his hand a report which had appeared in the Morning Herald, containing an account of a meeting held at Aylesbury, at which the noble Lord, the Member for Bucks (the Marquess of Chandos), presided. The hon. and gallant Officer here read the report and the resolutions which had been agreed to, which latter, he contended, did not apply to the case in question. The objection taken to the measure was, that it would lead to the introduction of foreign corn into the home-market surreptitiously. The bill, on the contrary, proceeded on the principle, that the corn admitted under bond to be ground, should be absolutely exported within two months after its being ground. Having adverted to these resolution, he would leave the matter in the hands of the House. Considering that the bill would give to the landowners the opportunity of granting a boon to the mercantile interests, he hoped that those hon. Gentlemen would not stop this bill, but would allow it, at least, to go into Committee. He moved, that the bill be read a second time.
The Marquess of Chandossaid, he objected to this bill on very different grounds from those which the hon. Gentleman
1030
seemed to imagine were entertained. He thought it would be highly injurious to the agricultural interest. He had no doubt it would afford a great advantage to the commercial, at the expense of the agricultural interest. He, therefore, could not allow the hon. Gentleman to carry a measure which would be extremely detrimental to the best interests of the country. At the present moment the agriculturists were enjoying a little relief from the long period of distress under which they had suffered; and their only wish was, that that House would not interfere with them. He had opposed this bill before, because he thought it would be extremely injurious to the farmers. He had no hesitation in saying, that its effects would be, to hold out a bonus to the foreign farmers, at the expense of the farmers at home, and he certainly should oppose the motion which had been made, by moving, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to a meeting where he had presided, and to certain resolutions which had been agreed to by the Cambridge farmers. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the petitions which had been presented from the county of Bucks against this bill were founded on the opinions of the farmers of that county, unconnected with any other parties. But he called the attention of the country to the bill, because it was injurious to the interests of the farmer, and he could not believe that the agricultural interest, which was so strong in that House, would permit a measure to pass which would be so highly injurious to those who had the power to reject it. Jeers might be thrown out when he alluded to the strength of that party in that House. He would say again, they had strength with them, and when strength was properly exercised, no one had a right to complain. He was most happy, as the organ of the farmers, to oppose this bill; and having expressed his opinion on several previous occasions, he would move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Warburtonthought that the House had a right, at least, to expect from the noble Lord that he should point out how this measure would act detrimentally to the agricultural interest; but he had not attempted to do anything of the kind. The object of this bill, as he had told the noble

1031
Lord before, was, not to allow foreign corn to be imported and used for home consumption, but to be imported for the purpose of being ground, and then exported. By allowing the corn thus bonded to be ground into flour and exported, a large amount of capital would be employed, and a large number of labourers would be employed and fed, not on foreign corn, but home-grown corn. All this was matter worthy of the attention of the noble Lord; but he came before the House with the naked assertion that the bill would be detrimental to the agricultural interest. The noble Lord said, he came there to support the agriculturists; he said, that they were strong in that House—too strong they certainly were, unfortunately, he would say, whenever they came to decisions on questions of this kind. But, let him add, the agricultural interest could not maintain that pre-eminence of which the noble Lord seemed so proud, unless they were supported by sufficiently sound reason.
Mr. Heathcotesaid, that there was a very strong feeling in the great agricultural county with which he was connected in respect to this measure, and surely the farmers were as good judges of their own interest as hon. Gentlemen opposite could be. He must confesss, he had been somewhat surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for Bridport. He recollected that when he was on the same Committee with the hon. Member to inquire into the growing of tobacco in Ireland, that hon. Gentleman contended, that they had a perfect right to prevent persons growing what they liked within their own land, because it was impossible to devise a system like that of the tobacco regulations, without the liability to frauds. Now he thought the hon. Gentleman forgot on this occasion the principle which he had then laid down. He believed the object of those who were parties to this bill was, to repeal the corn laws. He would ask what right had the shipping interest to call upon them to repeal the existing Corn Laws? There was no interest in this country which was so much protected as that of the shipping. The shipping interests had the whole monopoly of the coasting trade. As he had the honour to represent a very large agricultural constituency he was happy to confirm all that had fallen from the noble Lord. He was well acquainted with the feelings of one of the largest
1032
agricultural constituencies in the empire, and he was sure that there was but one feeling amongst them, and that was, the wish to be left alone. This was the feeling from one end of the country to the other. How could they have steadiness in prices, if there were no steadiness in the law? He hoped the bill would be thrown out. The subject of the repeal of the Corn Laws was one which was brought forward in every fresh Parliament; but the last dying speech of the free traders in corn was made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, some time since, who declared that, in reference to this point, the question at issue was put an end to. But he hoped the House would not allow the great question of the Corn Laws to be attacked, not in front, but in flank, as it was by this motion. He believed this bill would not pass into a law, and therefore the sooner they got rid of it the better.
Lord Worsleysaid, that his hon. Friend, the Member for South Lincolnshire, had said, and said truly, that there was a strong and general feeling against the Bill throughout Lincolnshire. He had been requested by his constituents to oppose the bill; all the agricultural associations of the northern division which he had the honour to represent were against it. It was with pain, that he felt obliged to refuse complying with their request; but as he was sent to that house unfettered and unpledged, he must use his own judgment, and as he firmly believed, that the bill was not calculated to injure the interest of the farmer, he felt called upon to refuse to oppose the bill, and, even at the risk of incurring the displeasure of the majority of his constituents, to support the second reading. He frankly avowed he considered the opposition which the agricultural interest had thought proper to give the measure was more likely to injure them than was the bill. If the people of England found that interest opposing every measure of this kind, and, not content with the existing protection it enjoyed, which he believed the farmers were satisfied with, obstinately resisting measures of justice towards other interests, they would at length call out for a repeal of the Corn-laws. He might have absented himself on the present occasion, but he considered it a duty he owed to his country to attend and vote, though, he repeated, by doing so he was likely to

1033
offend a great body of his constituents. He could not help thinking that much of the opposition to the measure might be termed factious, which was all of it attributable to the farmers being misinformed and ignorant of the real nature of the measure. His gallant Friend, in moving that the bill be read a second time, made some observations on the circular sent out by the Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely farmers' Association. They had done him (Lord Worsley) the honour of sending him a copy, when to his surprise, on reading the resolutions, he found they were dated April 2, before the bill now under discussion was printed. Was it surprising, then, that the advocates of this measure should complain of such an opposition. The bill declared that the whole of the produce of the corn when ground shall be exported. If the bill had not particularly guarded against any of the corn which was imported for grinding or the offal being introduced into the home-market, he should have ranked amongst its most determined opponents. He believed the farmers were misled, and did not understand the question. For instance, he knew a very general opinion prevailed amongst his constituents that foreign bran paid no duty; whereas, it paid at all times twenty per cent. For these reasons, he would vote for the second reading of the bill.
Sir John Tyrrellsaid, that when he took into consideration the fact, that the parties from whom this measure emanated were the constant advocates of free trade in corn, they could not be surprised that the agricultural interest should be most sensitive on this point. The measure seemed to him to be one which might be fairly considered as proceeding upon the principle of an instalment, to which principle the hon. Gentlemen opposite appeared to be so much attached. When he considered the quarter from whence the measure had emanated, he confessed he could not help regarding it with suspicion. Its chief and prominent object was, to promote the interest of the great millers in the neighbourhood of London, Liverpool, Bristol, and other maritime places; and this boon, he was persuaded, must be granted to commence at the expense of the agricultural interest. He was inclined to hope and believe, that considering the state of prices of agricultural produce at present, the agricultural interest might and would be suffered to rest in quiet. And
1034
he reformed Parliament would, on this occasion, certainly not be induced to alter the existing laws framed for the protection of the agricultural interest.
Mr. Brothertonbelieved, that the proposed measure would, in some degree, benefit the commercial interest, and perhaps the agricultural interest also. Operated upon by these motives, he was induced to give the motion his support. He would, however, confess for his part that, if they were to-night to reject the bill, he should be rejoiced, as he was firmly persuaded the oftener the Legislature turned a deaf ear to projects of improvement, and rejected measures such as the present, the greater must be the results which would grow out of the vain appeals of the public to the Legislature. In a word, more sweeping improvements might fairly be anticipated, in consequence of Parliament rejecting less extensive remedial measures. He wished they might throw out the bill for another reason—namely, that by so doing they would hasten the downfall of the wicked Cornlaws, which were so abominable, so impolitic in this commercial and manufacturing country, and withal so shamefully unjust, that it was altogether impossible but they must shortly be abolished. 'The bulk of the landowners and agriculturists, it was natural to suppose, were hostile to this measure, as persons, of course, must be who are deeply interested in maintaining a monopoly for their own advantage. All the anxiety of that class of persons was concentrated in keeping up the monopoly, and thereby sustaining excessively high rents and high prices of necessaries, though the effect of the latter was to reduce to a state of starvation thousands of hand-loom weavers and artisans.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought, the amendment moved by the noble Marquess, the Member for Buckinghamshire, was not justified by the nature of the question. The noble Marquess, both on the present and on former occasions of a similar kind, had represented himself to be the organ of the agricultural interest in that House. Now, looking at the nature and circumstances of former debates, and on what had subsequently occurred, he could not help feeling inclined to dispute the claim which the noble Marquess endeavoured to establish; and to believe, that there were many other hon. Gentlemen in that House to whose opinions, and to whose guidance

1035
the agricultural interest looked up with at least as much respect as they did to the opinions and guidance of the noble Marquess. When he heard a right hon. Baronet on the other side of the House (Sir E. Knatchbull) say, that he should have no objection to a measure like that under consideration, provided means could be adopted for so framing the clauses as to preclude the practicability of fraud, when he heard the hon. Member for Breconshire say the same thing, when he heard his noble Friend opposite (Lord Darlington) say the same thing, he could not believe that the noble Marquess justly represented the opinions of the agricultural interest; nor, until a division convinced him that he was in error, could he believe, that it was possible to induce the landed gentlemen of this country at once to reject a measure which could do no harm whatever, either to themselves or to those for whom they were peculiarly interested; a measure which would have no more influence on the land of this country, than it would have on the land of New Zealand; when, by adopting it, they might confer a valuable benefit on another, and a large class of the community. The whole question which came under discussion, when this measure was last brought under the consideration of the House, was whether or not it would be practicable to make such provisions in the bill as might prevent fraud, and thereby prevent the British grower of corn from suffering the injury to which he must otherwise be exposed. On that occasion, he pledged himself, that he would give the subject his best attention, for the purpose of carrying into effect, wishes so generally expressed on all sides of the House; and he now confidently asserted, that the bill comprehended all the provisions requisite for that object. But even if that were not the case; even if some hon. Gentlemen conceived, that the provisions of the bill were not sufficiently stringent to prevent the possibility of fraud, the present was not the stage of the bill in which that question could be properly considered. Whenever the bill went into Committee, would be the fit time for taking the details and the provisions of the bill into consideration, and for determining whether or not any changes in those details and provisions were necessary. At present, the question related merely to the principle of the measure, and, for the reasons which he
1036
had already explained, he thought that the bill ought to receive the support of a number of those hon. Gentlemen who were especially described by the term "the agricultural interest." He also hoped, that the principle of the bill would receive the support of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, both because of its intrinsic merit, and because the right hon. Baronet had formerly supported a measure of a similar character, which had been introduced by one of that right hon. Baronet's colleagues at the time, the late Mr. Huskisson. He repeated, that he was most anxious to prevent the commission of fraud; and that if it could be proved in the Committee, that it was impracticable to frame such provisions as would obviate fraud, no hon. Member in that House would be more ready to reject the bill. At any rate, however, it was but common justice to let that question be fairly tried; to ascertain how far the present details of the bill were sufficient for the purpose; and if they appeared insufficient, to see if details could be introduced of a more satisfactory character. The principle was the point now to be determined; and unequivocally approving of the principle of the measure, he should vote in favour of the original motion, and against the amendment proposed by the noble Marquess.
Sir E. Knatchbullbelieved, that the object of security against fraud, could not be attained by the bill under discussion, and he should therefore oppose the second reading. He was persuaded, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridport, that the measure, as it had been argued by his noble Friend near him (Lord Chandos) would give a bonus to the Foreign growers, and consequently prove injurious to the English agriculturists. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade said, that full security was given to the farmers by the bill, or that, at all events, it could be altered in committee, so as to insure full security; but he believed, that no such security could be attained by the measure before the House, or by any alterations which it might undergo in Committee, and the House would recollect, that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other hon. Member had advanced any proof that the English farmer would be protected from fraud by the bill under consideration. It was said, that the corn was to remain in bonded

1037
warehouses; and that consequently no fraud could arise; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was to be manufactured in those warehouses? He supposed the right hon. Gentleman would answer in the negative; and there was, therefore, too much reason to apprehend that a door would be opened for extensive fraud by the grain being removed from the warehouses to the mills, where it was to be manufactured. He would also ask the House to take into consideration the time which had been selected for bringing forward the present measure. It was not the wish of the agriculturists of this country to maintain the price of corn at a high rate; but the price of corn was at present rising, and when it came to a certain price, the ports would be opened for foreign grain, and when the price was again reduced, there was but too much reason to fear, that a serious injury would, under such circumstances, be inflicted on the English growers, should the present bill become law.
Sir R. Peelwas unwilling to detain the House from the division which was so loudly called for; but having been so pointedly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he was desirous shortly to state the grounds on which he should feel it his duty to support the amendment which had been moved by his noble Friend. He confessed that in the first instance he had not entertained any very strong or decided opinion on the subject, one way or the other; and in consequence he had abstained from voting on the motion for the introduction of the bill. The right hon. Gentleman now, however, claimed his support of the measure, on the ground that many years ago his right hon. and lamented colleague Mr. Huskisson had brought in a bill for permitting the grinding of foreign bonded corn under similar circumstances. Now that measure had proved a failure; and it appeared to him, therefore, that it was rather an odd reason for the right hon. Gentleman to assign as a motive for him to become a party to a new proceeding upon the subject, that a former proceeding upon it had been unsuccessful. It had been alleged that the passing of this measure would prove a great benefit to commerce. Now, it was well known that he was not disposed to grudge any benefit to commerce, provided that benefit to commerce was free from
1038
injury to any other interest, and provided that it did not give general dissatisfaction. But from the communications which had reached him from all quarters, he believed that if Parliament were to pass this bill, it would occasion an amount of dissatisfaction, of suspicion, of discontent, the positive evils of which would much more than counterbalance any good that it was supposed some particular interest might derive from it. For these reasons, weighing the contingent good to a portion of the community with the certain injury that it would inflict on the community at large; and seeing no reason whatever for the agitation of the question at the present moment, he should certainly vote for his noble Friend's amendment.
The Earl of Darlingtonsaid, that as the gallant Member who had brought forward the measure under the consideration of the House had postponed the second reading of his bill from time to time without assinging any reason for the delay which had taken place, he had expected that it would have been withdrawn altogether. As, however, the hon. and gallant Member had not adopted that course, he felt himself obliged to vote against the further progress of the bill. He was sorry to do so, because he was anxious to afford every possible relief to the commercial and manufacturing interests, and because he did not, on the subject under consideration entertain those strong opinions which were entertained by some of those with whom he generally acted. He did believe it possible to introduce a measure permitting the grinding of foreign corn in this country, and which, at the same time, would afford security against fraud, but he did not believe it possible to attain those two objects in a short bill like the present. The bill under consideration ought to have contained some more stringent clauses for the prevention of fraud, and without those it was impossible that the measure could give satisfaction to the agriculturists of this country, or remove the fears which were entertained as to the injurious effects of its operation. There was one objection which he entertained to this bill, and which operated more strongly on his mind than any which had been advanced, and he was astonished that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had brought forward the measure should not have foreseen that objection, and been on his guard to obviate it. The bill was brought

1039
in by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Bridport, and although he had not the least intention of questioning the honesty of the intentions of the hon. Member for Bridport, and although he allowed that that hon. Member had a perfect right to entertain any opinions he might deem proper on the subject under consideration, yet the hon. Member was too honest a man not to allow that he had always advocated the interests of the commercial classes in opposition to those of the agricultural classes. He would ask, then, whether it was wise or politic for the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to have placed the name of the hon. Member for Bridport on the back of his bill, and whether, under such circumstances, the agriculturists were not justified in viewing the measure with suspicion.
The Lord Advocatehad heard no argument against the bill under the consideration of the House beyond suspicion; and he would ask whether that was sufficient to justify its rejection? It certainly was not; and was it fair that the commercial classes should be deprived of a certain benefit simply on the ground that fears were entertained of some injury being inflicted on the agriculturists? The noble Lord opposite (Darlington) had said, that sufficient security was not given by the present bill; but he had stated no objection to its principle and its details could be altered in committee. No argument had yet been advanced against the second reading of the bill. The noble Lord considered the name of the hon. Member for Bridport, which was on the back of the bill, a strong objection to the measure; but the bill was brought forward by an hon. Member whose interests were entirely agricultural; and was no measure to be introduced relating to agriculture but by the representative of an agricultural constituency, and by him alone? He was every way disposed to protect the interests of the farmers, but he felt it to be his duty to stand up for the interests of the community which he had the honour to represent, and who were anxious to obtain the benefit which the operation of the bill was calculated to produce. He should therefore support the second reading.
Sir James Grahamon a former occasion, had abstained from voting on a measure similar to the present, because he had entertained great doubts as to the
1040
benefit which it was calculated to produce. No man was more favourable than he was to the agriculturists of this country, yet on the other hand, he was willing to do all in his power for the commercial classes, even at the expense of some sacrifice on the part of the agricultural classes. He could not, however, support the second reading of the bill before the House, because he conceived that while it was not calculated to yield much advantage to the commercial and manufacturing interests, its tendency was to produce dissatisfaction and seriously to injure the English growers of corn. He allowed that his objections to the measure were founded on suspicion, but were the grounds for that suspicion slight? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, had stated, that a similar measure had been tried at a former period, and that the acute mind of Mr. Huskisson had been directed to the subject, with the view to obtain proper securities against fraud. But the right hon. Gentleman had allowed that Mr. Huskisson had failed in his object, and that the measure was consequently abandoned. Was, there, then, not good reason for suspicion in regard to the present measure, when no proof had been brought forward that the bill contained sufficient or any protection against fraud? The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bridport had taunted the opponents of the measure with not advancing any reasons for their hostility to the bill; but he should not be led into a discussion on the Corn-laws at that time. It was said that this was a question of trifling importance; but if it were so, why was so much stress laid upon it by hon. Members opposite? Was the protection at present afforded to agriculture to be broken through? If such was the object of the hon. Members opposite, he could understand why they pressed forward this measure; but if they had no such object in view, and if they thought the question one of trifling importance, how could they explain their anxiety for the bill being read a second time? No proof had been advanced that sufficient protection was given by the measure to the agriculturists, and he had heard nothing but assertions that fraud was not intended or possible by the provisions of the Bill. In conclusion he would say, that as the advantage was doubtful, and as the risk of injury was great, he thought the House would do

1041
well to pause before consenting to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. M. Philipsdid not advocate the second reading of this bill on the principle that it would lead to some alteration or to the entire abolition of the Corn-laws. He believed that great advantages would result from the measure to the commercial and shipping interest of the country and entertaining that opinion and believing that it might be so framed as not to inflict any injury on the agricultural interests he should vote for the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Villiersobserved upon the state of thraldom in which country gentlemen appeared to be placed by their constituents, not one of whom dared to support the measure, and yet not one could assign an argument against it. Such an instance of restraint upon the independence of Members of that House he had never seen amongst those who represented the large towns. The noble Lord the Member for Shropshire admitted, that the purpose of the Bill might be effected, and that the principle was unobjectionable; yet when called upon to sanction the principle by his vote, he said that from the suspicion which attached to one of its authors, he would not suffer it to go into Committee. Then, the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth said, that he feared the dissatisfaction it would occasion, and he should vote against it; but he said not a word of there being any grounds for that dissatisfaction. He feared the displeasure of those who placed their trust in him. But the hon. Baronet the Member for Kent was the strongest case of all, for he had already stated in this House what he conceived to be the object of this bill, and as distinctly stated, that it was wholly without objection, but after making that statement upon the last occasion he now voted against it, and said he would do so again. He (Mr. Villiers) was glad to think, however, that whatever were the result of the vote to-night it would be beneficial. If the measure was carried it would open to our trade a new channel for employment and profit, and benefit the commerce of the country in a slight degree; but if it was rejected it would perhaps be still more useful; it was just what was now required. What was most wanted was some practical illustration of the working of the Corn-laws, and the spirit of those who maintained them;
1042
something to strike the imagination; something to arouse those who had too long kissed the rod that had scourged them. He looked upon it as a good sign. All great changes were preceded by some wanton act of the power which was complained of and attacked. He regarded it as the East Retford of the Corn-laws. To reject this measure would be like that preliminary folly which characterised those whom Heaven had marked as its victims. He thought the rejection of the measure would really arouse that feeling which had lain dormant too long on the subject of the Corn-laws; and he, therefore, should go to the division perfectly at ease, satisfied that nothing but good could follow from it.
Sir John Rae Reidwished, in one word, to explain the ground of his vote. He had already voted in favour of the proposition for grinding corn in bond, and he intended to do so again. He had listened with the greatest care and attention to every word that had been advanced in the course of the debate that evening, and he confessed he had heard no reason to induce him to deviate from the course upon which he had originally started. His firm impression was, that a measure like the present would confer as many benefits upon the agricultural interest as upon the commercial. If he thought it would in any way militate against the interests of the agriculturists, he should be one of the last to support it.
Mr. Barronwas understood to say, that he had yesterday received a petition from his constituents in relation to the measure before the House, which he had been unable to present before the commencement of the discussion. The petitioners were highly favourable to the measure, and he did not think, that there was any person in his part of the country hostile to the bill. He had always voted in support of the Corn-laws, and he believed that the measure under consideration, so far from weakening the protection which those laws afforded to the agriculturists, would go a great way to conciliate the opposition of the commercial and shipping interests towards the continuance of the Corn-laws.
The House divided on the second reading of the Bill:—Ayes 150; Noes 220; Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Hope, G. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Horsman, E.

Ainsworth, P.

Howard, P. H.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Hume, J.

Archbold, Robert

Hutt, W.

Baines, Edward

Hutton, R.

Bannerman, Alex.

James, Sir W. C.

Baring, hon. F.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Barnard, Edward G.

Johnson, General

Barron, H. W.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Beamish, F. B.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Bellew, Rich. M.

Lambton, H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Bernal, R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Bewes, T.

Liddell, H. T.

Blackett, C.

Loch, J.

Blake, W. J.

Lushington, C.

Blakemore, R.

Macleod, R.

Bolling, W.

Marshall, W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Marsland, H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Brotherton, J.

Melgund, Viscount

Bulwer, E. L.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Busfield, W.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Butler, hon. Col.

Muskett, G. A.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Chalmers, P.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Clay, W.

O'Connell, D.

Clive, Edward Bolton

O'Connell, M. J.

Codrington, Admiral

Ord, W.

Collier, John

Palmer, C. F.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Parker, J.

Currie, R.

Pattison, J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Pechell, Captain

Dashwood, G. H.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Davies, Colonel

Philips, M.

Dennistoun, J.

Philips, G. R.

Divett, E.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Duff, James

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Duncan, Viscount

Reid, Sir J. R.

Duncombe, T.

Rice, E. R.

Dundas, Capt. D.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Easthope, John

Roche, E. B.

Eliot, Lord

Roche, W.

Elliot, hon. John E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Rundle, J.

Erle, William

Salwey, Colonel

Evans, Sir D. L.

Sandon, Viscount

Evans, G.

Scrope, G. P.

Evans, W.

Sharpe, General

Fazakerley, J. N.

Smith, J. A.

Feilden, J.

Smith, R. V.

Ferguson, Robert

Steuart, R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stuart, Lord J.

Fort, John

Stuart, V.

Gillon, W. Downe

Strickland, Sir G.

Hall, B.

Strutt, E.

Harvey, D. W.

Style, Sir C.

Hastie, A.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Hawes, B.

Tennent, J. E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hector, C. J.

Thomson, Ald.

Heron, Sir R.

Thorneley, Thomas

Hinde, J. H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Turner, E.

1044

Vigors, N. A.

Williams, W. A.

Vivian, J. H.

Winnington, T. E.

Wakley, T.

Wood, Colonel T.

Walker, Richard

Wood, T.

Wallace, R.

Worsley, Lord

Warburton, H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Ward, H. G.

Wyse, Thomas

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Yates, J. A.

White, A.

White, Luke

TELLERS.

White, S.

Seale, Colonel

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Villiers, Charles P.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Crewe, Sir G.

Acland, T. D.

Cripps, J.

Alford, Viscount

Dalrymble, Sir A.

Alsager, Capt.

Darby, G.

Alston, R.

Darlington, Earl of

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

De Horsey, S. H.

Archdall, M.

D'Israeli, B.

Ashley, Lord

Dottin, A. R.

Attwood, W.

Douro, Marquess of

Attwood, M.

Dowdeswell, W.

Bagge, W.

Duffield, T.

Bagot, hon. W.

Dunbar, G.

Bailey, J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Bailey, J., jun.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Ballie, Colonel

East, J. B.

Baker, E.

Eastnor, Viscount

Barneby, J.

Easton, R. J.

Barrington, Viscount

Egerton, W. T.

Barry, G. S.

Ellis, J.

Bell, M.

Estcourt, T.

Benett, J.

Etwall, R.

Blackburne, I.

Farnham, E. B.

Blackstone, W. S.

Fector, J. M.

Blair, J.

Fellowes, E.

Blake, M. J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Blennerhassett, A.

Fitzalan, Lord

Bowes, John

Fleming, J.

Bradshaw, J.

Foley, E. T.

Bramston, T. W.

Forester, hon. G.

Broadley, H.

French, F.

Broadwood, H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Brownrigg, S.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Bruce, Lord E.

Gibson, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Gladstone, W. E.

Burr, H.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Burrell, Sir C.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Burroughes, H. N.

Gore, O. J. R.

Campbell, W. F.

Gore, O. W.

Cantalupe, Viscount

Goring, H. D.

Cartwright, W. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Cayley, E. S.

Granby, Marquess of

Chetwynd, Major

Grant, hon. Colonel

Christopher, R. A.

Greenaway, C.

Chute, W. L. W.

Grimston, Viscount

Clerk, Sir G.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hale, R. B.

Codrington, C. W.

Halford, H.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Handley, H.

Cole, Viscount

Harcourt, G. S.

Compton, H. C.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Conolly, E.

Hawkes, T.

Corry, hon. H.

Heathcote, Sir W.

1045

Heathcote, J. G.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Hepburn, Sir T, B.

Pemberton, T.

Herbert, hon. S.

Perceval, Colonel

Hill, Sir R.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Hodgson, R.

Polhill, Frederick

Hogg, J. W.

Powell, Colonel

Holmes, hon. W. A. C.

Powerscourt, Viscount

Holmes, W.

Praed, W. M.

Hope, H. T.

Price, Richard

Hotham, Lord

Pringle, A.

Houldsworth, T.

Pusey, P.

Houstoun, G.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Howard, hon. W.

Richards, Richard

Hughes, W. B.

Rickford, W.

Hurt, F.

Rolleston, L.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Irving, John

Round, C. G.

Jones, John

Round, J.

Kelly, F.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Kemble, H.

Rushout, George

Kerrison, Sir E.

Russell, Lord C.

Knatchbull, hn. Sir E.

Sanderson, R.

Knight, H. G.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Knightley, Sir C.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Lefroy, rt. hon. T.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Sheppard, T.

Lockhart, A. M.

Shirley, E. J.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Lowther, J. H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Lygon, hon. General

Smith, Abel

Mackenzie, T.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Somerset, Lord G.

Macnamara, Major

Stanley, Lord

Mahon, Viscount

Stewart, John

Maidstone, Viscount

Sturt, Henry Charles

Manners, Lord C. S.

Surrey, Earl of

Marsland, T.

Townley, R. G.

Marton, George

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Master, T. W. C.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Maunsell, T. P.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Meynell, Capt.

Verner, Colonel

Miles, W.

Villiers, Viscount

Miles, P. W. S.

Vivian, J. E.

Milnes, R. M.

Waddington, H. S.

Monypenny, T. G.

Wall, C. B.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Walsh, Sir John

Neeld, J.

Welby, G. E.

Neeld, J.

Williams, R.

Nichol], John

Wilmot, Sir E.

Noel, W. M.

Winnington, H. J.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Wodehouse, E.

Packe, C. W.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Paget, F.

Young, J.

Palmer, R.

Young, Sir W.

Palmer, G,

Parker, M.

TELLERS.

Parker, T. A. W.

Chandos, Marquess of

Pease, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAND).
Mr. Barronmoved the second reading of a Bill "to Consolidate the Jurisdiction of the several Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland into one Court, and to enlarge the powers and authorities of
1046
such courts, and to alter and amend the law in certain matters ecclesiastical." We understood him to say, that this Bill was worthy of the support of every hon. Member of that House, to whatever party he might happen to belong, because it was a measure, having for its object the establishment of a legal machinery, which would enable persons who were compelled to enter into litigation with respect to legacies, and matrimonial and other weighty causes, to obtain speedy and cheap justice. At present it was impossible for the poor man to get that justice in Ireland, and it was perfectly ridiculous to say, that he could, when the decision in cases arising out of disputed wills, which was anxiously looked for by the litigating parties, was procrastinated, year after year, until the property was wasted away, and passed into the hands of other persons, who, whatever doubts might have been started as to the intention of the testators, were never intended to have enjoyed it. Besides this, it was frequently the case that the expenses were far beyond the amount sought to be recovered, and parties were ruined in addition to losing their rights. He proposed to establish a new court of probate and divorce in Ireland, having the whole of the jurisdiction in granting probate of wills and administration, and of the contentious ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The bill being consistent with that which was the germ and essence of the British constitution—namely, trial by jury—it was proposed that the court should have power to direct in any suit depending of probate and divorces, trial by jury of any issue on any question of fact. It was well known that monstrous abuses had prevailed in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Ireland, because the judge had not had the power to send cases to a jury. It was also intended to give power to the court in suits concerning granting of probates of wills or letters of administration, to appoint a time for the summary hearing and determination of such suits, and to depart from the old practice of taking written depositions, and to take evidence vivâ voce, with liberty to cross-examine the witnesses. He proposed, that the appointment of ecclesiastical judges in Ireland in future should be vested in the Crown. As to the objection, that this would take away the patronage from the primate of Ireland, he would answer it by stating, that the Archbishop of Canter-

1047
bury had refused to exercise the power in England, feeling that he was not in a situation to enable him to judge of the fitness of a person to fill such an office. The opponents of the bill had not dared to say, that there were not monstrous abuses existing in the Ecclesiastical Courts of Ireland, and they only objected to it on the ground that the appointment of the judge would be taken away from the primate, Let hon. Members divide the House on the principle of the bill, and he should be ready to meet them on it, but let them not fight a little, paltry, by-battle on a question of patronage. He, moved, therefore, that the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Goulburnfelt, in common with many hon. Members, a great objection to this bill, and it was not necessary to follow the hon. Member through his excursive speech, as the objection which he entertained was directed against the manner in which this bill had been brought forward. This bill proposed to abolish the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, and to appoint other courts to discharge the duties now performed by them. He confessed, that he was not very fond of encouraging individual Members of Parliament to deal with questions involving a great alteration in the judicial establishments of the country without the sanction of the Government. He had not heard any Member of the Government express his approbation of this bill, and, therefore, on that ground alone, he could not give it his support. But here was another reason why he could not assent to the second reading of the bill. The Government had announced an intention of bringing forward a measure for the purpose of improving the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, and had sent out a Commission to inquire into the working of those courts in Ireland. Now, was it advisable, under these circumstances, that they should be playing at cross purposes, and that an individual Member of the House should, on his own responsibility, bring forward a measure on a subject with which the Government had announced their intentions to deal, acting as they must upon the best legal advice, and possessing all the advantages of official information? He might further observe, that the objects of the Hon. Member's bill were not carried out by the bill itself. The bill professed to consolidate the jurisdiction of the
1048
several Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland into one court, and by way of doing this, it constituted an Ecclesiastical Court in Wexford, Kilkenny, Westmeath, and Longford, and in every county and riding of a county in Munster, Connaught, and Ulster. [Mr. Barron: No.] Such provision was contained in the bill, and if the hon. Member had not read his own bill, that was an additional reason why the House should not proceed with it. Clause 66 gave the Assistant-barrister's Courtin those counties power to grant probate of wills, and do every thing that the Ecclesiastical Courts did. Thus the hon. Member would multiply the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts throughout the whole country in a bill which bore upon the face of it an intention to consolidate those courts. But the hon. Member had gone further—he had given the same power to the clerk of the peace and the deputy clerk of the peace; for it often happened, that the assistant-barrister did not reside within the county, and it was sometimes important that probate should be granted immediately. Was that an improvement of the existing law, or would it not be more advisable to leave the conduct of a measure of this kind to the Government? Another objection to the bill was, that the assistant-barristers were mostly common lawyers, but they were to decide, in granting probate, according to the Ecclesiastical law. He did not think, that such an arrangement as this would be likely to produce much satisfaction. He would not detain the House by going into a detailed examination of the other objections to the measure, but he should oppose it on the ground that the Government had already announced a determination to introduce a bill for the improvement of the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, and that they were the proper parties to carry out such a measure. He moved, therefore, as an Amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Humeagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the Administration of the day ought to take charge of a question of such importance as the one now under discussion; but if they neglected to do so, that was no reason why others should not bring forward the subject. As to the objection that the Government having undertaken to introduce a measure respecting the Ecclesiastical Courts in England, the

1049
hon. Gentleman ought not, therefore, to have brought forward a similar measure for Ireland, he confessed he could not perceive the force of it at all. The reform of the Church Establishment was first begun in Ireland, and that by the Government to which the right hon. Gentleman gave his support. Why, then, should not the reform of the Ecclesiastical Courts begin in Ireland also? The objection as to the multiplicity of the courts created by this bill was equally unfounded. The local courts which the bill was intended to establish were for the purpose of saving the parties, in cases in which small amounts of property only were concerned, the trouble and expense of coming up to Dublin. Surely that, instead of being objectionable, would confer a great advantage on the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had not, in his opinion, stated any thing which at all militated against the principle of the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconceived, that it was quite natural that his hon. Friend (Mr. Barron), having been connected with the Committee that sat on this subject last Session, should introduce a bill embodying the result of the evidence taken before them. At the same time, he was aware, that that Committee had not made any report upon the subject. This increased the difficulty of the position in which he found himself placed, for he confessed, that he had not even read the bill; and, if he had, he did not possess the necessary technical knowledge to form a judgment, unaided by others, upon it. Feeling himself in this difficulty, the course he would venture to suggest to his hon. Friend, while admitting the undoubted right of any individual Member to bring forward this question, was not to withdraw but to postpone the second reading of his bill until the Attorney-General for Ireland, who was now absent from indisposition, was in his place, who, he was sure, would, no less from inclination than a sense of public duty, give every consideration to it. The House was entitled to have the opinion of that right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was thoroughly conversant with the Ecclesiastical Courts of Justice in Ireland.
Mr. Barronbegged to state, in reply, to the right hon. Member for Cambridge, that he had not been anxious to introduce this bill; but he certainly thought it was the duty of the House to legislate upon
1050
the subject. He had called the attention of the Attorney-General for Ireland to the subject previous to last Christmas, and that right hon. and learned Gentleman then told him that he was so completely overwhelmed with public and private business, that he found it would be impossible for him to introduce a bill of this description during this Session; but he would gladly assist him in bringing forward the present measure. He wished to add, that this bill was drawn up by one of the most distinguished practitioners in Ireland —one who was now a judge, and who was second to none in professional skill, particularly in this very matter. The bill, so far from creating legal difficulties, would take the power out of the hands of the small attorneys and would give it to those learned in the law. He was not anxious to press the bill at that moment.
Second reading postponed.

CUSTODY OF INFANTS.
The Report on the Custody of Infants Bill was brought up, on the question that it be engrossed,
Sir Edward Sugdenrose to oppose it. He had thought, that the bill would not have gone beyond a Committee, and as he was much opposed to the bill, he would take the sense of the House upon every stage. The true question to be decided was, whether it were for the benefit of society at large, that a woman should have the absolute right to the custody of her children whatever her conduct might be. Now, he admitted, that his learned Friend (Sergeant Talfourd) had adduced many cases of hardship, but the House ought not to legislate for particular cases, but ought to look to the general benefit of the public, to which end he thought that the proposed bill would not tend. For he thought that it would lead to many separations between women and their husbands, if the woman had this absolute right. It was true, that the bill did not at once give that absolute right, but it gave a power which was even more objectionable; it gave a right to the judge before whom the question was mooted to investigate the whole domestic life of the parties from the time of the marriage to the very day of the application, by enabling the applicant to put affidavits on the file, the charges contained in which would necessarily lead to recriminations. Affidavits would be filed on the other side, and Ultimately the case would become so oppressive that it

1051
would be impossible for the judge to decide; and these statements having been made, some public prints would gladly avail themselves of them, and would parade the whole before the world. The object of the bill was, to give the wife access to her children in all cases of separation; but how could they enforce any such enactment? In the first place, the husband would take the children out of the jurisdiction of the court, so that the wife would not have access under its order; and to prevent this, was the court to settle the place where the children were to be kept? He believed, that when a separation had taken place, it would be extremely difficult to enforce any rule of this kind. Even as the law now stood, women were constantly taking their children out of the way of the husband when differences arose, and if this bill passed, the husband would be found to do the same; and, he was sure, that there was nothing so likely to continue separation, when it had once taken place, as the measure proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, than which nothing, in his opinion, could be more mischievous, though he was satisfied his hon. and learned Friend had brought it forward from the purest and best motives. His hon. and learned Friend had felt the hardships of individual cases, and intended to provide for the difficulty by proposing a general remedy, but he believed that this general remedy would not tend to the public good.
Mr. Praedcould cordially support the bill, not seeing in it the mischief which the right hon. Gentleman feared. The question was so far removed from party feelings that he might do so, and he believed that this proposal was calculated to do more moral good than any measure which had for a long time been before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that this question was, whether a woman should have the absolute right to the custody of her children, whatever her conduct might be; but this was nothing like the question before the House, and such a project had never been dreamed of by the learned Sergeant. The only question raised was, whether, when the husband and wife were living asunder, and when one parent had the custody of the children, an impartial person should have power to take the circumstances into consideration, and to give the mother limited access to her children. Was that giving to the
1052
mother the custody of her children? Above all, was it giving to her this custody whatever her conduct might have been? Nothing was so likely to keep her conduct correct as to give her licensed interviews with her children. The right hon. Gentleman also asked, what means could be taken to enforce obedience to the court's decrees? and if in no similar instance a like power had been given, the argument might have had some weight; but what objection could there be in giving the same power for higher considerations which was now possessed for lower considerations of a merely pecuniary nature? But then, it was said, the husband might rebel against the law; but did not the wife, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, rebel now? and would it not be an advantage to substitute the rebellion of the husband for the rebellion of the wife? No one would say, whatever the law might be upon the case, that Mrs. Greenhill had not been grossly ill-used; and was she to have no remedy? Still, it was feared, that this remedy would sever the bond of nuptial union. This, however, was far more effectively done by the present state of society, which, whatever might have been the conduct of the husband, received him; but, though it acquitted the wife of all blame, rejected her. If, however, there were any truth in the argument, that the occasional access to the children under the order of a judge would lead the wife to separate from her husband, how much more must the daily access of the husband lead him away? The right hon. Gentleman said, however, that this bill applied only to individual cases; this was true, for happily it was only for individual cases that they must legislate, and long might it be that individual cases alone should require it; but, for those cases, was not this amendment necessary, instead of leaving the law as it now stood? So far from the question being as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, the true subject for their consideration was, whether the wife should be debarred from access to her children, however amiable, virtuous, and praiseworthy, her own conduct might be. In the case of illegitimate children, the law dealt more fairly with the mother, for to her was given their custody; but though it was otherwise with legitimate children, yet in nine cases out of ten, especially when the children were of tender years, the mother was the better

1053
guardian, and this no one would deny. Such was the present state of legislation; and could it be worse? The true test, however was—suppose the present state of the law to be as it was proposed in the bill of the hon. and learned Sergeant, and then suppose an hon. Member were to come down and say, that it had induced wives to quit their homes, that it had led to separation, and should call upon the House to alter it—to enact the present law, and to declare, even if the husband should have been guilty of the grossest debauchery, and had by his brutality driven his wife from his roof, yet that the husband should have the custody of the children, and that his virtuous and injured wife should not have even a limited access to them, he was sure that no individual in that House would be found to second such a proposition.
Mr. Shawagreed in the opinions of his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir E. Sugden). He admitted, that there were many cases of hardship which the law did not meet, yet they ought not to legislate on individual cases; and whatever power they gave to the judge, he would have no means of enforcing it upon the husband. He thought, also, that no woman of a delicate mind would submit to call upon a court to interfere and to exercise these powers; and if they gave a legal right to a mother to see her children, the children would be induced to side with one parent or the other, and this would rather widen than heal the breach.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, in reply, said, that the case had been already so fully argued that he need only say a few words upon that occasion. Upon the first introduction of the bill, he had not selected individual cases of great hardship, but he had referred to all the cases which had come before the courts. He knew that women had a strong disinclination to bring their wrongs before a public court, and to claim the last comfort which they could enjoy in this life; it was only, therefore, in cases where the natural feelings of the mother were exceedingly strong, that the courts of law were at present called upon to interfere; but all these cases, without exception, he had brought under the notice of the House in the first instance. His right hon. Friend objected to the granting of this small quantum of justice, because it would tend to promote separation; but the right hon. Gentleman's
1054
argument was a strong one in favour of the bill, for what was more deplorable than that this depth of feeling should be the last link to prevent a virtuous woman from separating from her husband who ill uses her, and that only by this iron bond should they have the power of inducing the wife to remain under her husband's roof, and that the husband should be allowed thus to torture and to play upon the feelings of his wife, whatever cruelty he might have used towards her. But then it was alleged, that applications to the judges would tend to disclose private scandal: it would have a directly opposite effect—it would prevent the disclosure. As the law now stood, husbands must apply by attachment against their wives, and the wives outraged the laws of their country by removing the children, rather than outrage the dearer ties of nature. Now, these applications were made in public courts, where all proceedings were legally reported; but his object was, to have the cases heard before a private tribunal, which would be above suspicion, where the cases would be shielded from the public eye. It would be no defence to an action for libel, for disclosing to the public the facts detailed in the affidavits read before a judge at chambers, that the facts had appeared in such affidavits, because they would only be read at chambers, and the right to publish the reports extended only to the courts. The facts, therefore, could appear only at the instance of one or other of the parties; and even then, the publication would be equally indefensible. He placed his case on this simple point. He sought not to disturb the common-law right of the father to the custody of his children; he sought merely to allow a remedy in certain cases of grievous wrong, by giving to judges a discretionary power, which they had themselves asked for, to permit a wife to see her children. He prayed the House in some degree to assimilate the law of the land to the law of nature, and give in part that justice which had been so often prayed for, and too long delayed.
Mr. Goulburnwas of opinion, that this bill would only apply to a few unimportant cases. The bill would give power to divorced women to see their children, and have control over them. He could not conceive a more impolitic provision. If the father wished to preserve his children from contamination, he should keep them se-

1055
parated from such a woman. He agreed with his right hon. and learned Friend (Sr E. Sugden) that every difficulty should be thrown in the way of separation, as there were many disputes which now ended happily, but which, under increased facilities, would terminate in separation. But he laboured under this difficulty in answering the learned Sergeant, that the cases alluded to, having never met the public eye, were not reported. They, however, were sufficiently numerous to confirm him in his opposition to this bill.
Mr. Freshfieldwas of opinion, that the judges should be given a discretionary power to allow mothers access to their children. It was said, that the bill would facilitate separation, but the present state of the law facilitated oppression, as he believed that the fault was as often on one side as on the other. He believed, that bad wives were not more plentiful than bad husbands. On these grounds, he would not have the slightest hesitation in voting for this bill.
Lord Mahonthought, that when criminal conduct was proved against the mother, she ought not to be permitted to see her children. If some provision of this sort was introduced into the bill, it would tend greatly to obviate the objections against it. Unless that were done, he should be under the painful necessity of voting against the bill.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, if he found the feeling of the House in favour of such a clause, and that its insertion would have the effect of removing the scruples which were at present entertained against the measure, would have no objection to introduce such a clause on the third reading, and leave the House to deal with it.
The House divided on the motion, that the Bill be engrossed;—Ayes 91, Noes 18:—Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Bryan, G.

Aglionby, W. A.

Burrell, Sir C.

Attwood, W.

Busfield, W.

Attwood, M.

Campbell, W. F.

Bannerman, A.

Chalmers, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Chapman, Sir M. L. C.

Barrington, Viscount

Chester, H.

Barry, G. S.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Bewes, T.

Courtenay, P.

Bolling, W.

Craig, W. G.

Brahazon, Sir W.

Davies, Colonel

Brocklehurst, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Brotherton, J.

D'Israeli, B.

1056

Dundas, F.

Muskett, G. A.

Ellis, J.

G'Brien, W. S.

Evans, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Fort, J.

Parker, J.

Freshficld, J. W.

Pease, J.

Gibson, Tr.

Protheroe, E.

Greenaway, C.

Pryme, G.

Grimsditch, T.

Rice, E. R.

Hall, B.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Handley, H.

Rickford, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Roche, W.

Hector, C. J.

Rolleston, L.

Hindley, C.

Round, J.

Hope, G. W.

Salwey, Colonel

Horsman, E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Howard, P. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hughes, W. B.

Strutt, E.

Hume, J.

Surrey, Earl of

Mutton, R.

Talbot, J. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Thornley, T.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Turner, E.

Jervis, S.

Vigors, N. A.

Kirk, P.

Villiers, C. P.

Lister, E. C.

Wakley, T.

Lockhart, A. M.

Wallace, R.

Lynch, A. H.

White, A.

Mackenzie, T.

Wilkins, W.

Macleod, R.

Williams, W.

Mahon, Viscount

Williams, W. A.

Marshall, W.

Wood, G. W.

Marsland, H.

Young, J.

Maule, W. H.

TELLERS.

Milnes, R. M.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Praed, W. M.

List of the NOES.

Bateson, Sir R.

Pringle, A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Round, C. G.

Conolly, E.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Gillon, W. D.

Turner, W.

Grote, C.

Warburton, H.

Halford, H.

Wood, Colone T.

Hawkes, T.

Wood, Thomas

Heathcote, Sir W.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Jervis, J.

Goulburn, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Shaw, F.

COPYRIGHT.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdmoved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Copyright Bill.
Mr. Wakleyrose to move as an amendment, that the House go into Committee on the bill that day six months. When this bill was formerly discussed, there were but seventy-five Members in the House, and the second reading was carried only by a majority of five. It could not, therefore, be said, that the sense of the House had been expressed upon the subject, and he should now endeavour to ascertain that sense by pressing his amendment to a division. Indeed, when the question had been previously discussed, not one argu-

1057
ment was urged, nor one fact adduced, calculated to support the measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman by whom it had been introduced, admitted, that he was not about to legislate for the community, but for one in five hundred. Now the House should not look to the interests of individuals, but to that of society at large. It was not right to tamper with the vast interests which were likely to be affected by such a measure. Before the Act of Anne, as had been admitted on high legal authority, the copyright was in perpetuity; and what was the effect upon the interests of authors. Allusion had been made to the descendants of Milton; but hon. Gentlemen seemed to have forgotten, that Milton wrote at a period when the copyright was perpetual, yet, with all this protection, he was only able to procure 8l. or 10 l. for his "Paradise Lost." The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the bill was necessary to secure literature from the freezing effects which science was likely to produce upon the spirit of the age. The "freezing effects of science," indeed! Because of the freezing effects of science, they were to legislate in favour of literature alone, and disregard all the valuable discoveries of science. It should be remembered, that science, notwithstanding its "freezing influence," had done much for authors. The efforts of capital, of industry, and of skill, had produced a reading public and created an almost undue appetite for certain classes of literature. Those who wrote for reward were at no time better paid than at the present, and as to those who wrote for posterity, why, let posterity reward them. With respect to this bill, he feared that there were some authors at the bottom of it, who imagined that, at present, they did not receive the fame and profit to which their great labours entitled them in their own opinions. The hon. Member for Maidstone had said, that Mr. Southey intended, at one period, to write a history of the monastic orders, which would procure a fame equal to that of Gibbon. With respect to the fame, he must be permitted to express his doubts. Mr. Southey, it appeared, had been deterred from undertaking the work, because he could only enjoy the copyright during his life. It was much to be doubted whether Mr. Southey would have ever carried his intention into effect, if copyright had been as he wished. If the authority of the right hon. Baronet,
1058
the Member for Pembroke were to be relied upon, with respect to Mr. Southey, it was very improbable that he would have prosecuted the work. The right hon. Baronet, on one occasion, gave it as his opinion of Mr. Southey, that that Gentleman had so often changed sides, it would be impossible to say what his opinion would be upon any subject at any given time. The right hon. Baronet's opinion upon such a subject was entitled to some weight, as he had himself changed sides. Indeed, literary men were peculiarly fickle, as much so as young girls. The real question for the House to consider was, whether authors were, at present, sufficiently remunerated—whether sufficient inducements were held out to make them exert themselves—and whether the public at large were benefitted by the present law. Now, with respect to science, he would ask, where would authors have been, but for the discovery of printing? In 1,000 years previous to the 16th century, there were but 300 books brought out in this country. What was the produce since? Six hundred had been published in one year. He denied, that there was any real distinction between the production of a book and any other invention. They were all the production of mind, whether impressed upon paper, upon metal, or upon glass. The proper question was, which production would be likely to prove most useful to the public. In the medical profession, the man would be despised. and set down as a quack, who attempted to keep secret any valuable discovery which he might happen to make. The hon. and learned Sergeant appeared to have particularly in view an author who was of opinion, that he was not sufficiently appreciated by the public. That author had written certain works, which the public would not read, and in his opinion, the public were in the right. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, that authors were entitled to a perpetuity in their copyright, but as he could not procure that for them he was satisfied to take it for their lives, with an addition of sixty years. The hon. and learned Member for Ripon, who was a good authority in such cases, had informed them that such a right was a right in perpetuity, and that no person would give a farthing for its reversion. The hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward this measure, wanted no Committee. He did not seek for any inquiry, because he was afraid of

1059
the facts which would come out. There were Committees on this subject in 1814 and 1818, and the result of their inquiry was, that the protection should not extend beyond twenty-eight years. [An hon. Member: Fourteen years.] One Committee was for fourteen, the other for twenty-eight years, but he would take the longer period. In 1814, a bill was brought in by a Mr. Giddy, and a very giddy person he appeared to be. So dissatisfied was that hon. Gentleman with his own bill that he moved the report should be taken into consideration in the following session, but the authors then in the House thought it best to accept it even as it was. Was there really any ground of complaint on the part of authors? Look at Sir Walter Scott, who had realised 260,000 l. by his works. He did not envy him. He thought him well entitled to it. He would call upon the House to observe how strenuously the proposition was supported by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. [Sergeant Talfourd: And on this.] The hon. and learned Gentleman appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He admitted, that he was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he was not that side of the House. He was glad, that the works of Scott had been appreciated, but if it were said that Sir Walter Scott's family were not in affluence, he would ask, whose was the fault? Was it the fault of the public? Was it the fault of the publisher? No such thing. The fault lay with Sir Walter Scott himself. If that gentleman had been content with his legitimate profit, as an author, he would not have fallen into the difficulties by which he had suffered. He wished to join the profits of trade to the profits of literature, and thence came the crash. He found, that the difficulties under which Sir Walter Scott laboured, were the consequences of—he did not wish to use the harsh term of avarice, but his too great love of gain. He would refer them to scenes which now were passing before them; he would ask them how the present system of copyright worked with regard to authors and the public, and he would show, that it was quite sufficient for all legitimate purposes of writers, and of the public. The publishers were the best judges of the real value which should be attached to the works of authors; and, notwithstanding literary gentlemen might imagine publishers destitute of taste, the profit books
1060
would produce, was decidedly the best test of their value. This was a bill which was not a question of party. All classes, and all parties were equally concerned; the rights of the public were deeply interested, and he trusted they would not be neglected to grant an undue privilege to authors, however deserving those gentlemen inside and outside the House, might feel themselves of an especial protection for their works. Let the House investigate all the circumstances connected with this bill—let them not be led away to a decision by an eloquent speech—let them appoint a special Committee to inquire into the circumstances; and before that Committee, he pledged himself some facts would be elicited, calculated completely to defeat the bill. Upon such a subject, it would be far better to have some positive and undeniable evidence, than the speeches or opinions of authors, who might entertain a very different opinion of their own works from that entertained by publishers or the public. He would quote a few instances for them which, in all probability, would create sufficient astonishment amongst some of the warmest supporters of the bill. There was one gentleman, well known to hon. Members, who was editor of the Quarterly Review, and had published some admirable works. He alluded to Mr. Lockhart, who was, he believed, a friend to the bill. He had some time since published a work at 10 s. 6d. which had afterwards been bought in cart loads by Mr.Tegg, the bookseller, in Cheapside, for 9d. a volume. Would the Copyright bill enable him to get 9½d? At the end of twenty-eight years, would those books be more valuable than they were when the bookseller purchased them? Would any author come forward after the expiration of that period to claim his share in the superabundant profit arising from the 9d. a volume? He would bring forward another instance, nawely,Mr. Lytton Bulwer, who had been very successful as an author, and whose works he had always read with that delight which they could not fail to produce. That gentleman had not long ago published a work "England and the English;" at 1l. 11s. 6d, in three volumes. [Mr. Balwer: No, two volumes, at 1l.] He was obliged for the correction, but it did not materially affect his argument. What had that work been purchased for by Mr. Tegg, who was a most respectable Conservative

1061
gentleman, and had lately been a candidate for the office of alderman of the city of London? There was no Gentleman a better judge of the proper value which attached to a publication, and he had purchased Mr. Bulwer's "England and the English" for ls. a volume—the work for which Mr. Bulwer had so high a respect as to publish at 1l. Those were facts that were calculated to throw light upon the merits of authors in their own estimation, as compared with that esteem in which they were held by the publishers. He did not mean to say, that those authors were not deserving of high remuneration. He trusted they had received it, and he would venture to say, that so far from the prices of Mr. Tegg discouraging Mr. Bulwer, that hon. Gentleman would yet bring forth numerous works as clever, and deserving of support as those which had gone before. There was another hon. Gentleman, who sat at the opposite side of the House, and who had also gone under the hands of Mr. Tegg. The talented author of "Vivian Grey" and several other works, had suffered from the depreciation of price. He trusted that no word he uttered with reference to those talented Gentlemen would be taken as conveying any disrespect or any feeling other than that of admiration for their abilities; but he instanced those cases because, from the high character of those Gentlemen as authors their names would convey greater weight. "Vivian Grey" had originally been published at 1l. 11 s. 6d., and it had been afterwards bought by Mr. Tegg for 8d. per volume. Was it for the purpose of selling them at a high price in sixty or even in thirty years, when perhaps he might be in his grave, that Mr. Tegg bought them? No; that Gentleman was sufficiently wary in his money calculations, and it was with a hope of a speedy sale he purchased them, for he knew well, as a mercantile man, that money should have a quick return in order to insure profit. He knew that so far from having a view to selling them at a remote period they would go on the butterman's counter if they were not sold quickly. He would now call their attention to another gentleman, who, although not in that House, was sufficiently well known to them all by his literary character, Hook, editor of the New Monthly Magazine, and he believed also of the John Bull—at least so
1062
his memorandum stated. One of that gentleman's last works had gone to Tegg too. It had been published by him at 1l. 11 s. 6d, and Mr. Tegg had purchased it for 8d, a volume. He (Mr. Wakley) did not know why the publisher had given Mr. Hook but 8d. while he gave others more—but such was the fact. The next on his list was Captain Marryat. He had also gone to Mr. Tegg and one of his works which he had published at 1l. 11 s. 6d. was purchased by Mr. Tegg for 9d. per volume. These were facts which Mr. Tegg would have no objection to communicate to the House or any hon. Member who wished to interest himself upon the subject so far as personally to inquire. He had a large stake in such proceedings, and was, of course, actuated by the honest principle of giving for them what they were worth to him. The stock in books of that gentleman was valued at 170,000 l. There was another instance which should be the last; it was the case of a political writer. Every one knew the newspaper called The Examiner, the editor of which was a man of wit and talent, indeed of very distinguished abilities, and who had never debased himself, notwithstanding the severity of some of his political writings, with attacks on private character. He (Mr. Wakley) had occasionally been attacked by this man, and he felt bound to make this admission. The gentleman to whom he alluded, Mr. Fonblanque, had published a work with a very captivating title, called England under Seven Administrations. The two volumes of this work had not been published twelve months, and the price was 1l. 4s., and Mr. Tegg had bought a large quantity of them at 1s. a volume. There was no special protection for this work of Mr. Fonblanque in the present bill, but its depreciation in the market did not deter that gentleman from continuing to write. The truth was, that the bill was a mere mockery, and was no protection whatever to an author. There were several other names on Mr. Tegg's list, but he would not detain the House by going through them, but he trusted that hon. Gentlemen would pay this bookseller a visit, when, no doubt, they would obtain much information on the subject. Would those Gentlemen cease to favour the world with their works? Not so, they would publish on as before, depending upon the popularity of their writings to

1063
procure a sale. Seeing on the whole that the bill rather appealed to their sympathy than to their reason, and bearing in mind that many of the authors who most adorned our language lived at a period when there was no copyright, and also that the statute of Anne had been found amply sufficient for the protection of the interests of authors and literature, he felt bound to oppose this bill, and, above all, because, without protecting the interests of authors, it would materially injure the interests of printers and publishers, as well as of other classes and of the community at large. He would ask, then, whether they would enact such a law, inflicting so much injury, and without deliberation, merely because it had been supported by an eloquent speech? No reasonable grounds had been stated in its favour, no facts had been produced which would justify its enactment, and, therefore, before they adopted it, they should take care that it was the result of inquiry, and seeing also what princely fortunes had been made by literature, he would not injure literary men so much as to support this bill. He should, therefore, propose that it be committed that day six months.
Mr. Milnessaid, that when the hon. Member for Finsbury stated his wish for a renewed consideration of that bill, he must have considered that there was a great dearth of business before the House. In his recollection he did not remember any subject which had been more fully and completely discussed than this had been on the last evening during which it was discussed. He never took part in a debate during which every bearing of a question was more fully gone into or completely entertained than that which he had the honour to join in the other evening. In his opinion the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, though sufficiently amusing, was certainly not remarkable for anything like a sound argument against the bill. He had adduced some very spiteful and ingenious quotations, but he had also accompanied them with very false analogies. He was not displeased at the speech of the hon. Gentleman. There was a good deal of drastic humour, which was a great treat to the House, and as such he had no objection to hear it; further, his speech had no merit—it had an appearance of being the speech more of a delegate from Mr. Tegg than of a legislator
1064
engaged in an important discussion of the merits of the very valuable and important bill before them. He had instanced the case of his own profession,when any new or important discovery was made. Was ever anything less in point than such a case. Why, there did not exist the slightest—the most remote—analogy between the two cases. If a gentleman belonging to the medical profession made any important discovery in it, the very fact of his having done so was the herald to his fortune; his fame was immediately spread abroad—his eminence was established—and the consequent tangible benefits followed. Daily advantage arose to him. But, he would ask, had this any analogy to the case of a man who sacrificed his life, and his talents, and all his exertions frequently to the advantage of other generations? In every other point the speech of the hon. Gentleman was totally incoherent, and he had cited that as an instance; indeed perhaps, he should have said more correctly, that if that speech had any weight at all it was at his (Mr. Milnes's) side. If it proved anything, it proved that works were to be had as cheaply now as they could be had at any future period, even allowing that the bill had been passed; and as cheaply as the greatest lover of literature could wish. Did the hon. Member blame the booksellers for giving so low a price to the authors whose names he had instanced? Did he object to the 8d. or 10 d. a volume which had been given for those works? Was that the meaning of his having brought them before the House? And if such had not been his motive for having introduced those cases, where was his motive? Surely if literary works of established merit, and by the best authors—men whose fame was generally recognised —if those works could be purchased by the booksellers for so small a sum it did not argue that the public were not now as generally supplied with literature as they could be under any new arrangement. A good system of copyright would, he had no hesitation in saying, so far from raising unduly the price of literature, have rather a contrary effect. Look to Germany, a country which had benefitted more by literature than any other nation in Europe, and she had achieved all those incalculable advantages under the operation of a national copyright bill. Here was an instance which at once answered all the objections of those opposed to the measure

1065
which he had such pleasure in supporting. In France at this moment the printers and publishers were seeking for a national copyright bill, to protect them from the mad competition which the present system produced. In America the case was similar; there also the very men whom the hon. Gentlemen assumed to advocate were calling for a copyright bill as a means of protection for themselves. He believed that a just system would benefit the public generally and the authors in particular, by affording them a protection which at present they did not enjoy. It was said the Legislature were called upon to act for the benefit of a few; perhaps there was a good deal of truth in that, but if one person in 500 should be benefited by it the remaining 499 would not be injured. And if those few persons had sufficient claims to protection, it might be granted rather to the general advantage as every just system would always necessarily be. It was rather singular that this bill received so much opposition from an hon. Gentleman who belonged to a party that were always crying up the great advantages the people were daily receiving from the advancement of intellectual improvement. If this advancement were proved to be so great, was not the natural inference an appetite for good works which would act with sufficient power to the national advantage under a just copyright bill; and would they, the advocates of intellectual advancement and scientific improvement, deny to the rising generation the advantages that would necessarily arise from works published with a higher design than pleasing the passing taste of the day— works written without a regard to servile patronage, or any of those unhealthy means of success which at present had too much weight? Why should not authors have the same advantages that all other men had? Why, he would ask, were the great names which adorn our literature deprived of that encouragement and protection which had been freely afforded to the Arkwrights and the numerous similar names which were an honour to this country? The hon. Member for Finsbury had said that this was not a party question. He was happy to think that all parties felt equally interested. The Whig was as warm an advocate as the Tory. He would not occupy the time of the hon. House longer; it was a measure which had been fully discussed, and would, he trusted, be soon passed into a law.
Mr. Wolverley Attwoodsaid, he would not have obtruded himself upon the House if it did not appear to him that the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury was totally a failure in its objections to the bill, The hon. Gentleman had spoken as if it were required to give authors an exclusive privilege in their relation to the public, or an unfair advantage over other professions; as if it were sought by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introdued that bill to enable authors to avail themselves of profit from the labours of others. That was not the fact. Nothing could be farther from its import. The object of the bill was to place authors, with regard to their mental labour, on an equality with every other class of men. It was only required to give them that protection which was their just right. It was not a perpetual copyright system that was proposed—it was a bill merely to secure to authors a fair interest in their works, which the present system denied to them. He was glad to find the hon. Gentleman opposite was unable to produce a sounder argument against protecting the author than the want of capital risked in their works. Were not their time, their talents, frequently their health, as much their own as any property could be defined to be, and was not this, in the eyes of every sensible man, an investment of capital? These were the author's property, and merited at their hands protection. The author had as strong a claim for the protection of his rights as any man in society, and yet he was the only person left now unprotected. The argument of the hon. Member for Finsbury, with regard to one person in five hundred, had decidedly the effect of supporting the bill, for if it were acknowledged that of literary men so small a portion was successful it was quite clear the present system worked badly for the authors. It was neither supposed, nor even asserted, that there was any inadequacy of talent amongst the catalogue of our literary characters; and yet it was admitted by the hon. Member for Finsbury, that so small a number as one in five hundred were successful in obtaining the advantages to which they were proposed to be entitled by the Bill before the House. Why, then, should those men, the class of the community with, perhaps, the largest claims, be deprived of a right in their own productions? There had not been a solitary well-founded or solid reason brought

1067
forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury in favour of his view of the subject. Nothing could, however, be more injurious in its effects upon literature, and, as a necessary consequence, injurious to the public generally, than a system allowing a twenty-eight years' copyright. The direct tendency of this would be to produce a supply of works calculated solely with a view solely to please the ephemeral taste; thus depriving posterity of all the advantages which would arise from works calculated to last a longer period. If they did not afford protection to durable works, and such as were not written alone with a view to present taste, it was idle to suppose that authors would produce them. The supply would only be produced by the demand, and no work of a lasting nature could be looked for, at least with few exceptions. The hon. Member had said, that an author, if he did not receive promise of sufficient remuneration, might deprive the public of his work, and act the part of the dog in the manger. Nothing could show more clearly the want of sufficient grounds of objection to the bill than such an argument. If an author had acted as had been supposed—if he had refused to publish his work without receiving the remuneration he thought it deserving of, who had a right to deprive him of full control over his own production? Why call on him to publish it against his will? Where did the right of the public commence? Was it when the work was published, or while it was in manuscript? This right of refusal to publish without proper remuneration was clearly an author's privilege, and could not be too well protected. Every case quoted bore in favour of the bill. The case of Dr. Southey was a strong instance where the present law of copyright was insufficient to ensure him a proper remuneration for his works; totally insufficient with regard to the duration of his copyright. It was one of those cases which exactly went to prove what the advocates of the bill contended for—the great inefficiency of the present unjust system. Upon the last evening when this bill was before the House, it had been stated by the hon. Member for Bridport, that authors were stimulated by sentiment, or love of fame, or some such motive, and that such motives were in their idea sufficient reward. It was well known that authors, generally speaking, were actuated by very different feelings. The hon. Mem-
1068
ber for Bridport, when he paid that hollow and empty compliment to authors, must have been aware that as a class they depended for their subsistence upon their works. The greatest authors who ever wrote depended upon their writings for their daily bread. This fact was undoubted—it was not for fame—it was not for plaudits that those works were produced which did honour to this country, and from which the public had derived such inestimable benefits, daily subsistence being the stimulating principle in most eases of that description. The assertion that public competition was the best criterion of merit in an author, and would secure him a price for his works in case they were worthy of purchase, was a most futile one. As he said before, it was true public competition might, to a certain extent, ensure a sale to light or volatile works; but this very fact would have the direct tendency of inflicting a grievous injury upon the literature of the country by producing a supply of such works as would accord with the prevailing taste of the day. Were they then to protect that description of writing, and give no protection to that of a more durable kind, often, let it be remarked, most calculated to confer a lasting benefit upon the nation? Authors did not claim any exclusive privilege over the community: they did not demand a right to tax the public. They demanded the same rights that protected the labours of every other class in the community. It was said, that this bill would injure the rights of publishers, printers, and others. As well might bricklayers object to the rights of property, because such a right had a tendency to prevent building houses. There was no right in any class to object to the measure proposed. It was brought forward for the purpose of protecting the rights of a respectable and deserving class, and the public would be equally benefitted. He, therefore, trusted, for the public good, that the unprecedented opposition which this bill had received would be found totally unsuccessful.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he should endeavour to have every clause in the bill fully and fairly debated in the Committee, in order that the operation of every clause might be fully understood by the public, with a view, if possible, of defeating the measure before it reached a further stage. He was satisfied the bill was founded on

1069
the most fallacious principles. The main defect was, that it consulted the protection of the individual author, and not of the species. But the real question was, whether the present law was expedient or not. The principle of the statute of Anne, as well as that of the statute of George 4th, which altered it, was to give what might be a fair remuneration to authors, and to effect a reasonable compromise between them and the public. Did this bill, he asked, give a sufficient compensation to authors, and hold out adequate inducement to write; and more, did it give the reversion of the copyright to the public at such an early period as to give them the full benefit of the works that might be published? And what had been the effect of the existing laws, for that was the true question to put with a view of ascertaining what were the benefits of the present state of copyright law? Would any one question the prosperity of the existing state of the bookselling trade? In short, he was at a loss to know what the author of the measure proposed as an inducement to authors to write works requiring labour and research. Did any man pretend to say, that, after the passing of this measure, authors were likely to receive a greater sum for the extended copyright than they obtained on their works at present? It had not been even attempted to be shown by the hon. and learned Gentleman that such would be the result. Again, it had been suggested, that they ought to put authors under a kind of entail, in regard to their property in their works, yet neither by the measure of the last, nor by that of the present Session, was it attempted to carry the suggestion into effect, or to establish a perpetual entail, by which an author should be prevented from disposing of his works, away from his own family. There was another view of the subject, which he thought deserving of the attention of the House. With the single exception of works of imagination, the compositions of all authors underwent that progression which works of science might be said to undergo. If, therefore, an extension were given, to the copyright of authors of any denomination whatever, the public would be deprived pro tanto of the advantages, which under the present system they might reasonably expect to enjoy from the progress of improvement, and the advance of knowledge and skill. The effect of the bill, on the fairest calcula-
1070
tion, would be to extend the copyright about 100 years. The works of all authors, dating between 1738 and the present time, would, under the bill, unless the public chose to purchase in a shape different from that in which they were originally published, become closed books to the reading portion of the cotnmunity. But the two principal effects of the bill would be—first, that, upon the average, all works that survived the first short period after their seeing the light, would experience a rise in price; and secondly, and what more seriously and more dangerously affected the public, the bill would prevent the diffusion of useful knowledge. There was, he begged to assure the House, very great danger that valuable works, in consequence of being placed as they would be placed if this bill passed, for so long a period beyond the reach of the public, except at unreasonable prices,would sink into oblivion, and the benefits, the learning, labour, and research of the authors be lost to the public. For these reasons he should cordially support the amendment.
Mr. Praedsaid, in the course of the debate the abstract right of authors to their literary property had been broadly stated; but he begged to remind the House, of an authority of some weight on this subject, and that was the report of a Committee of the French Chamber of Deputies which had been appointed last year by the King of France to investigate the subject of copyright. Their report, which was well worthy of attention, stated that on the question of the abstract right of individual authors they had refrained from entering, as they felt that the difficulties which surrounded the subject were too great to allow of their delivering an opinion upon it. But the reporter went on (and he begged the attention of the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had spoken of men of science, to this part of it) to represent that the opinions of men of science, as envier and others, were unfavourable to it. In reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury's argument as to the cheapness of books, he could not perceive the force of it. What were the facts? A book when it became cheap did not necessarily vanish from the market. Vivian Grey, and the other works alluded to, were still to be purchased, and were purchased every day, so that he could not see how the argument applied.
Mr. Struttwas opposed to the motion of the learned Sergeant. It had been stated, that in a measure of this kind the advantage of the public ought to be held in view, and that in giving this monopoly they ought to be bound by a consideration of the advantages which the public might be likely to obtain. Now, to this he fully agreed. Their sole object ought to be this, and to this the measure ought strictly to be limited. In the course of the debate he had heard the abstract right of an author to his works affirmed; that he was entitled to keep the public from the full benefit of that, which he put forth in the first instance for his private pecuniary advantage. Now, he thought that from the moment an author put his thoughts upon paper, and delivered them to the world, his property therein utterly ceased. An analogy had further been attempted to be established between the property of an author in his works and property in lands; but this appeared to him an analogy of the very vaguest kind, and neither on that or on any other grounds were they justified in extending the term of copyright to such an extent as would be injurious to the public. The case of Germany had been cited as an instance where literature was highly successful, and where there existed a perpetuity in copyright with a view to prove that a perpetuity in copyright was advantageous to literature. He was, however, of opinion that the case of Germany would lead to the opposite conclusion, for throughout most of the states pirating was carried on so extensively, and with such facility, that in point of fact authors possessed no copyright at all,
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that the arguments of the hon. Member were quite inconsistent with his conclusions. The hon. Member for Finsbury had endeavoured to render the question a party question; but a glance at the former division on the bill would put an end to that attempt, and prove that it was altogether the contrary. It seemed to be the opinion of the hon. Member for Derby, that the whole business of the world was to get as much from authors as possible—to treat them as horses—work them to the last, and then cast them off. The great practical evil of the present law was the effectual bar it placed against improvement and emendation by authors in their own works. An author at present
1072
might bestow a number of the most important corrections on a work, and yet if his copyright expired at the same time, he might be debarred of all advantage from them by an unscrupulous publisher giving an early edition, without the corrections, in a cheap form to the public. A bad author could derive no benefit from the bill, though he would derive no injury either; while a good author, whom it was the duty of the country to encourage, would receive by its means the protection he merited. As far as regarded the main question, he felt bound to say for himself that he should in his own person desire nothing more for the literature of England than to see it defended by the hon. and learned Member for Reading and attacked by the hon. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. Sergeant Talfourdsaid, if he had advanced no arguments in favour of the measure on a former occasion, he regretted it so much the less as he found few to answer now. He could find nothing in what had been urged by the hon. Member for Finsbury which did not go to support, rather than impugn the bill before the House; for when he heard from that hon. Member that Milton only got 10 l. for the copyright of his "Paradise Lost," while Mr. Tegg, the leader of the present opposition to the measure, had a stock worth 170,000 l. derived chiefly from the republication of works of merit, the copyright of which had expired, he could not help thinking that the deduction and argument were in his favour. He had heard With surprise a repetition of the arguments of the Solicitor-general that night. If they were correct then there was no longer any such words as gratitude and justice in our vocabulary, and the best feelings of human nature were sacrificed to the heirs and successors of Mr. Tegg, or reduced to the cold, dead level of the utilitarian philosophy. The House was legislating now for the species, and not for the individual, as had been asserted in the course of that debate; for was it not legislating for the species to legislate for those who informed them—their teachers? If they could have selected the "mute inglorious Milton" what honours, what rewards, would they have thought too mighty to be conferred on him in his own era? And now, when the fulness of time had conferred immortality on the son of genius, would they strip him of his just remuneration? The hon. Member for Finsbury had said "Let

1073
those who write for posterity be rewarded by posterity;" but the hon. Member would not allow posterity to reward them. How much more consistent and equitable it would be, instead of tardily appropriating a public grant of money, simply to allow the fitting reward to find its way in the fair mercantile channels through which authors and their heirs would certainly receive it if the Legislature permitted them. His opponents asserted that they sympathised with what was good, and great, and lasting in the literature of their country. He entreated them to prove it, and thereby establish also their sympathy in the cause of justice and of right.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 116; Noes 64: Majority, 52.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Grimston, Viscount

Alston, R.

Halford, H.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Handley, H.

Attwood, M.

Harland, W. C.

Attwood, W.

Hawkes, T.

Bailey, J., jun.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Baring, H. B.

Heathcote, G. J.

Barrington, Viscount

Hector, C. J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hepburn, Sir T. E.

Berkeley, hon. G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Bewes, T.

Hillsborogh, Earl of

Bramston, T. W.

Holmes, W.

Bulwer, E. L.

Hope, G. W.

Burrell, Sir C.

Horsman, E.

Campbell, W. F.

Howick, Viscount

Cantalupe, Viscount

Hutton, R.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Ingham, R.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Jenkins, R.

Chandos, Marquis of

Kirk, P.

Codrington, C. W.

Lambton, H.

Compton, H. C.

Lascelles, hon, W. S.

Conolly, E.

Lefevre, C. S.

Craig, W. G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Cripps, J.

Makenzie, T.

Curry, W.

Makenzie, W. F.

Darby, G.

Macleod, R.

Darlington, Earl of

Mahon, Viscount

Davies, Colonel

Master, T. W. C.

D'Israeli, B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Milnes, R. M.

Ellis, J.

Monypenny, T. G.

Estcourt, T.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Etwall, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Filmer, Sir E.

Morris, D.

Freshfield, J. W.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Neeld, J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Neeld, J.

Glynn, Sir S. R.

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Gordon, R.

Packe, C. W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Palmer, C. F.

Greene, T.

Palmer, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Parker, T. A. W.

1074

Patten, J. W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Perceval, Colonel

Sinclair, Sir G.

Powerscourt, Visct.

Slaney, R. A.

Praed, W. M.

Talbot, J. H.

Price, Sir R.

Tancred, H. W.

Price, R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pringle, A.

Vigord, N. A.

Protheroe, E.

Vivian, J. E.

Pusey, P.

Waddington, H. S.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Walsh, Sir J.

Rolleston, L.

Wilkins, W.

Round, C. G.

Winnington, T. E.

Rundle, J.

Wyse, T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord

Talfourd, Sergeant

Sandon, Viscount

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Lister, E. C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marshall, W.

Alsager, Captain

Marsland, H.

Bailey, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Bannerman, A.

Nicholl, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brotherton, J.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Pease, J.

Busfield, W.

Pechell, Captain

Chalmers, P.

Philips, M.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Pryme, G.

Dennistoun, J.

Rice, E. R.

Dowdeswell, W.

Richards, R.

Duke, Sir J.

Roche, W.

Duncombe, T.

Roche, D.

East, J. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Easthope, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Eastnor Viscount

Somerset, Lord G.

Evans, W.

Stuart, V.

Fort, J.

Strutt, E.

Gillon, W. D.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Hale, R. B.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Thornley, T.

Hayter, W. G.

Turner, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Villiers, C. P.

Hindley, C.

Wall, C. B.

Hughes, W. B.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

White, A.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Williams, W.

Jervis, J.

Williams, W. A.

Jervis, S.

Jones, J.

TELLERS.

Kelly, F.

Wakley, T.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Warburton, H.

The Bill committed pro forma, and House resumed.

SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND).
Colonel Conollymoved the second reading of Salmon Fisheries (Ireland) Bill, in which it was advisable to adopt some modification, and hoped it would be allowed to go to a Select Committee when this might be effected.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienopposed the measure, which he conceived to be highly restrictive to the liberty of the subject. He

1075
thought the second clause was particularly objectionable, which went to compel magistrates to summarily decide causes and punish parties brought before them or pay a fine of 20 l. He moved as an Amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. W. Rochesupported the Amendment, as he deemed the operation of the bill would be to render the use of salmon still less accessible to the poor and middling classes, and to increase the vexatious restrictions apparent in the old law.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that the bill appeared to him most absurdly constructed. It enacted that no person should catch salmon in the sea or in the rivers of Ireland, or within a mile of their mouths; and then follows an exception in favour of those who have fisheries established within these rivers! Now it was well known that the finest salmon were caught in the sea; so that the effect of the bill would just be to prevent them being caught where they ought to be caught. He thought it, however, quite useless to trouble a Committee with this bill when the mover had abandoned the principal clause.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that if he had any hope of any benefit being effected by bringing the bill into a Select Committee he should not oppose it; but, after the gallant Colonel had consented to give up the principal clause, he did not think there was sufficient substance in the remainder to make it worth their while to appoint a Committee.
Bill withdrawn.

SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. W. F. Campbellmoved the second reading of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, and said, that he had sat on three Committees on this subject, and was convinced of the justice of the Bill. He was open to any suggestions that might be made in Committee.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, as this was an opposed bill, he should move the adjournment of the House, as it was too late to go on with it.
The House divided on the question of adjournment: Ayes 37; Noes 41: Majority 4.

List of the AYES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Conolly, E.

Codrington, C. W.

Curry, W.

1076

Darby, G.

Maule, hon. F.

Dennistoun, J.

Morris, D.

Evans, W.

O'Connell, M.

Fox, G. L.

Powerscourt, Viscount

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Protheroe, E.

Gordon, R.

Richards, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Rundle, J.

Handley, H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hawkes, T.

Thornley, T.

Hayter, W. G.

Vigors, N. A.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Wallace, R.

Jervis, J.

Warburton, H.

Lockhart, A. M.

Williams, W.

Lynch, A. H.

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, T.

Brotherton, J.

Macleod, R.

Chalmers, P.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Aglionby, H. A.

Hinde, J. H.

Alston, R.

Hughes, W. B.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Archbold, R.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Ball, N.

Kinnard, hon. A. F.

Bannerman, A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Barrington, Viscount

Mackenzie, W. F.

Blair, J.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Callaghan, D.

Morpeth, Viscount

Campbell, W. F.

Nicholl, J.

Cantalupe, Viscount

Patten, J. W.

Craig, W. G.

Pechell, Captain

Dunbar, G.

Perceval, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Pringle, A.

Estcourt, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Etwall, R.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Talbot, J. H.

Gibson, T.

Williams, W. A.

Gillon, W. D.

TELLERS.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Holmes, W.

Hale, R. B.

Greene, T.

The House again divided on the question that the bill be read a second time; Ayes 45; Noes 13: Majority for the second reading 32.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Fox, G. L.

Aglionby, H. A.

Caskell, Jas. Milnes

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Gibson, T.

Archbold, R.

Gillon, W.

Ball, N.

Gordon, R.

Bannerman, A.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Barrington, Viscount

Grimsditch, T.

Blair, J.

Hawkes, T.

Brotherton, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hinde, J. H.

Gallaghan, D.

Hughes, W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Codrington, C.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Craig, W. G.

Lockhart, A. M.

Curry, W.

Lynch, A. H.

Darby, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dunbar, G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Etwall, R.

Nichol, J.

1077

O'Connell, M.

Pringle, A.

Patten, J. W.

Protheroe, E.

Pease, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Pechell, Captain

TELLERS.

Perceval, Colonel

Campell, W. F.

Powerscourt, Viscount

Holmes, W.

List of the NOES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Rundle, J.

Cantelupe, Viscount

Sinclair, Sir G.

Dennistoun, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hale, R. B.

Wakley, T.

Macleod, R.

Warburton, H.

Macleod, R.

Maule, hon. F.

TELLERS.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Wallace, R.

Richards, R.

Chalmers, P.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Bills. Received the Royal assent:—Consolidated Fund Bill; Residence of Clergy Bill; Haileybury College Bill; and a great number of Private Bills.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of KINNOUL, from the Presbytery of Perth, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.