Sitting of 6 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Parliamentary Boroughs; New South Wales; Friendly Societies; Newgate Gaol; Dublin; West India Relief.—Read a second time:—Caledonian Canal.—Read a third time:—Vaccination; Grammar Schools.

WEAVER CHURCHES.
Sir P. Egerton Sir P. Egerton moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Weaver Churches Bill.
Mr. J. Jervisproposed a clause, the object of which was the introduction into the number of trustees of ten practical men of those who paid 19–20ths of the funds raised by the tolls.
Clause read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time.
Sir P. Egertonopposed the clause. It would be unprecedented to introduce into
452
a bill for building new churches, a clause re-modelling the constitution of the trust.
Mr. E. J. Stanleycontended that the amendment was just and reasonable, and one which the House might grant, as it in no way affected the general principle of the bill. Surely, nothing could be more reasonable than that those whose interests were greatly affected by the tolls should be represented in the trustees.
The House divided on the clause: Ayes 72; Noes 140: Majority 68,
On the question that the bill do pass,
Lord R. Grosvenoropposed it, on the ground that it was wholly unprecedented to take funds for the erection of churches of the Protestant worship from tolls collected from persons of all religious denominations. If this principle were adopted, the trustees of other rivers, canals, or docks, might claim a right to apply the funds of the trusts for the purpose of building churches. He also objected to the bill as sanctioning a complete misapplication of the property of the trust from its original intended objects.
Sir C. Lemondid not think that the relief of the religious destitution of the district would be a departure from the original intentions of the trust, but he would vote against the bill in the hope of having a better bill on the subject next year.
The House divided: Ayes 181; Noes 93: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bramston, T. W.

A'Court, Captain

Broadley, H.

Ainsworth, P.

Broadwood, H.

Alford, Viscount

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Alsager, Captain

Brownrigg, S.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Ashley, Lord

Bruges, W. H. L.

Attwood, W.

Buller, Sir J.Y.

Attwood, M.

Burroughes, H. N.

Bagge, W.

Calcraft, J. H.

Bagot, hon. W,

Campbell, Sir H.

Bailey, J. jun.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Baker, E.

Cantilupe, Viscount

Baldwin, C. B.

Cartwright, W. R.

Baring, hon. F.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Baring, H. B.

Chapman, A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Barneby, J.

Christopher, R. A.

Barrington, Viscount

Chute, W. L. W.

Bethell, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Blackburne, I.

Codrington, C. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Blair, J.

Corry, hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Courtenay, P.

Botfield, B.

Cresswell, C.

Bradshaw, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

453

Damer, hon. D.

Lowther, Viscount

Darby, G.

Lowther, J. H.

Darlington, Earl of

Lygon, hon. General

De Horsey, S. H.

Mackenzie, T.

D'Israeli, B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dottin, A. R.

Manners, Lord C, S.

Dowdeswell, W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Drummond, H. H.

Miller, W. H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Milnes, R. M.

Du Pre, G.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

East, J. B.

Neeld, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Nicholl, J.

Eliot, Lord

Noel, hon. C. G.

Estcourt, T.

Norreys, Lord

Farnham, E. B.

Northland, Lord

Feilden, W.

Packe, C. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Forester, hon. G.

Palmer, R.

Fox, S. L.

Parker, M.

Freshfield, J. W.

Parker, R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Fallen, J. W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Perceval, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Pigot, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Gore, O. J. R.

Polhill, F.

Gore, O. W

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Goring, H. D.

Praed, W. T.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Granby, Marquess of

Pusey, P.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Richards, R.

Greene, T.

Rickford, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Rolleslon, L.

Grimston, Viscount

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Rushout, G.

Hale, R. B.

Sanderson, R.

Halford, H.

Sandon, Viscount

Hawkes, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Heathcoat, G. J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Sheppard, T.

Herries, rt hon. J. C.

Shirley, E. J.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hodgson, F.

Smith, A.

Hodgson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Holmes, W.

Stanley, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Stanley, Lord G.

Hope, H. T.

Stuart, W. V.

Hope, G. W.

Sturt, H. C.

Hotham, Lord

Teignmouth, Lord

Houldsworth, T.

Thesiger, F.

Houstoun, G.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Hughes, W. B.

Thornhill, C.

Hurt, F.

Tollemache, F. J.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Irton, S.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Jones, Captain

Verner, Colonel

Kemble, H.

Villiers, Viscount

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Vivian, J. E.

Williams, R.

Knight, H. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Knightley, Sir C.

Wood, Colonel

Lennox, Lord A.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Litton, E.

Lockhart, A.

TELLERS.

Long, W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Egerton, Mr. T.

454

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Alston, R.

Lynch, A. H.

Archbold, R.

Muntz, G. F.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, D.

Barry, G. S.

Ord, W.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Oswald, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Parker, J.

Bewes, T.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Blackelt, C.

Pattison, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Philips, M.

Brodie, W. B.

Ramsbottom, J.

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Busfeild, W.

Rice, E. R.

Clive, E. B.

Rippon, C.

Collins, W.

Rundle, J.

Denison, W. J.

Salwey, Colonel

Divelt, E.

Sandford, E. A.

Duff, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Duncombe, T.

Smith, B.

Easthope,

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Ellice, E.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Ellis, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Evans, G.

Steuart, R.

Evans, W.

Stock, Dr.

Ewart, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fielden, J.

Strutt, E.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Stuart, Lord J.

Guest, Sir J.

Style, Sir C.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, T.

Handley, H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hastie, A.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hill, Lord A. M.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Walker, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Wallace, R.

Hollond, R.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

White, A.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Hutt, W.

Wilshere, W.

Hutton, R.

Wood, Sir M.

James, W.

Wood, B.

Jervis, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Jervis, S.

Yates, J. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Lang ton, W. G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wilbraham, Mr. G.

Bill passed.

THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.
The Speaker informed the House that he had received, from Lord Auckland, the following letter, in return to the thanks of this House, communicated to his Lordship by Mr. Speaker, in obedience to their order of the 6th day of February 1840:
"Calcutta, May 4, 1840.
"Sir,—I received your letter of the 6th of February last, transmitting to me the resolutions of the House of Commons upon the late military operations to the westward of the Indus. Your letter, and the resolutions of the

455
House of Commons, have been published in general orders, and the separate resolutions have been communicated to the several officers who have been particularly named for this high honour. I am confident that this unanimous approbation of the House of Commons will be received with a sense of grateful exultation by all to whom it has been directed; and I request that you will submit to the House the warmth of feeling with which I would acknowledge my share of this distinction. In conclusion, I have particularly to thank you, Sir, for the honourable and obliging terms with which you have communicated to me the resolutions of the House. I am your faithful and obedient servant,
"AUCKLAND."
The right hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons.

CHINA.
Sir R. Peelsaid, since he had last put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject of China, the order in council of the 3rd of April last had appeared in the Gazette. He understood from the noble Lord, that it was through a mere inadvertence that it had not been published before. In looking at every instance in which an order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of ships and cargoes had been issued since the year 1792, as far as he had been able to examine them, such orders had been uniformly published in the Gazette. He only referred to this, that it might not hereafter be transformed into a precedent. The general rule appeared to be, that when an order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of ships was issued, it was officially announced in the Gazette; and the departure, in this instance, was not a departure for any reason, but a mere inadvertence. He wished to ask the noble Lord, what were our present relations with the government of China, and he put that question on account of the nature of the order in council which had been issued, that order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of vessels, ships, and cargoes belonging to the Emperor of China or to his subjects, or to other parties resident in China. If there had been only a simple order in council to that effect, he apprehended that no question could have arisen. In that case, the order in council would not be tantamount to a declaration of hostilities; it would merely be an equivocal state, the character of which would afterwards be impressed by some subse-
456
quent event. For instance, if peace ensued, that equivocal state would be a condition of peace; if it should be followed by a declaration of hostilities, that declaration would have rather a retro-active operation, and that equivocal state would be converted into a state of warfare. But that order was not a simple order authorising detention. The order appeared to him to be a departure from the practice ordinarily pursued in such cases. In the first place, it authorised detention in custody; but, in the second place, the same order departed from its simple character, and became a conditional order, directing forcible seizure, and authorizing: a forfeiture of ship and cargo. But this order again received a character of contingency, for it made its execution to depend upon due reparation and satisfaction being made to her Majesty. The order was unconditional in so far as it was addressed to Courts of Admiralty in all parts of the world, directing them to proceed, and deal conditionally with all seizures which might be brought before them. Now, the question which he wished to put to the noble Lord was this—whether the nature of the present order, being also a conditional order, made any difference in our relations with China? He wished to know, did this country remain in the same equivocal state with reference to China, or whether the effect of the order was to place us in a state of peace or war.
Viscount Palmerstonconceived the nature of the order determined the nature of our relations with China. As far as his opinion respecting the effect of the expedition recently sent out went, he could only say that it would be impossible, on account of the distance, and on account of delays attendant upon communications with that part of the world, for any one to form an opinion as to the effect which that expedition was likely to produce upon our relations with China. What our relations with China actually were at the present moment was known to all the world. With respect to the order in council, to which the right hon. Baronet had just adverted, it was perfectly true, that the order in council went much further as to provisions than was usual in such cases, but it was occasioned by a necessity which arose out of the peculiarity of the case. If the proceedings in question related to a country within a short distance of Great Britain, so that our communications could reach

457
the government of that country within a reasonable time, we might have contented ourselves with making simple reprisals and keeping in safe custody the vessels or cargoes captured, in order to allow time for the moral effect of such a proceeding, postponing any ulterior steps until the effect of such preliminary measures became obvious. Under such circumstances, and by adopting such precautions, a final rupture might be eventually avoided. To take such a course in our intercourse with China would clearly be now impossible. Suppose a certain number of vessels were to be now detained by our officers on the coast of China, if the Chinese government gave us satisfaction for the injuries we had sustained, there need be no departure from the simplicity of the first order; but let the House suppose a different result to ensue, it was obvious that the ships so detained must be made prizes of war. If, then her Majesty's Government had neglected beforehand to empower the Courts of Admiralty to deal with such cases, those courts must wait first until there was a total failure of all attempts at amicable arrangement; and, secondly, until, in consequence of that failure, powers sufficient for the emergency were forwarded from this country to the east. Such a delay, he need hardly observe, would amount to no less than eight or ten months, during which time it was clear there would be great difficulty of taking care of ships. Therefore, it was, that in this case they gave a contingent power to the Courts of Vice-Admiralty to adjudicate upon such ships as were sent before them by the detaining officer.
Sir R. Peel—I am not entitled to enter into any argument upon the question, but the relations of this country with foreign nations is a most important one to our merchants, and it is necessary that they should have every possible information upon such a subject. I understand the purport of the answer of the noble Lord to be, that, although the Orders in Council were different from former orders, still they in no respect altered the position of our relations with China any more than had they been simple orders in council. The next question I have to ask is, when a vessel is seised and sent to a court, will it depend upon whether or no the Emperor of China gives satisfactory explanations that it is to be adjudicated upon; and if so, what is the authority that is to
458
decide on the sufficiency of the satisfaction? Is there to be any legal authority —any power given to any one on the spot to determine whether the reparation offered is sufficient or not?
Viscount Palmerston—For the same reason before stated, viz. distance, full powers had been given to an authority to determine on the behalf of the Government, whether the reparation offered was sufficient or not.
Sir R. Peel—In what position will the foreign merchant resident in China be placed? Is the noble Lord aware that there is an important variance between the recital of the orders in council, and the directory part of them? The directory had ordered all our vessels to detain and hold in custody all vessels belonging to the Emperor of China, and all persons inhabiting that country. Under this direction, our vessels must detain the vessels of all persons residing in China, whose case is not mentioned in the recital. I wish to know, if the noble Lord has no objection to make the statement, what he considers would be the situation of foreign merchants, Americans for instance, who belonged to the factories, because, in the East, a merchant is considered to belong to the country to which the factory belonged; but, in this country, a Dutchman carrying on business in an American factory, would be considered a Dutchman.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that in that respect the order in council had been copied from the previous orders in council. The course usually pursued under such orders in council, he believed, was to detain the vessels of those that were neutral, and also those with whom the country was at war; and then, if the matter in dispute was brought to an amicable conclusion, both the ships and the cargoes were released; but if war ensued, then the ships of the enemy were condemned, and the neutral cargo was restored by the sentence of a court of Admiralty, duly commissioned for the purpose; and if, after hostilities had commenced, any neutral who chose to fix his residence in the State which was at war, assumed the character of a common enemy, he would be treated as such.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
Lord Stanleyrose and said, that

459
although he might not be strictly in order, he was anxious to take an opportunity of stating to the House the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Irish Registration Bill, which was fixed for Thursday next. He had introduced that bill at an early period of the Session, but not so early as perhaps he ought, seeing the opposition, and the nature of that opposition that had been opposed to its progress. The bill was read a second time on the 25th of March, and from circumstances over which he had no control, the Committee stood over until after the Easter recess. On the 18th of April the discussion on going into Committee commenced, and lasted three days. He was then obliged to postpone the further proceedings with the measure until after the Whitsuntide holidays, when the Bill underwent three days more discussion, from the 11th of June to the 14th. Ten divisions had taken place upon the bill, and on five of those divisions the whole power of the Government was directed to throw it out. Of those ten divisions the Government only succeeded in one, nine being in favour of the bill, which to the present moment remained untouched. In the remaining nine divisions the bill stood the test, and remained untouched. If the bill encountered an opposition rather unusual, he must say, and he said it with feelings of gratitude, that it had been supported with a degree of cordiality and enthusiasm unprecedented in the history of any country. He repeated it—it was supported by a degree of enthusiasm hardly precedented in the annals of Parliament. He knew of no instance in which, week after week, Gentlemen would be found coming down to their places in that House, as had been the case on the present occasion, at the sacrifice of great personal convenience, which he was most unwilling to put them to. He knew no occasion on which, for three successive weeks, 300 Gentlemen, without a single defaulter, recorded their support of a measure brought forward by an individual against the declared determination of opposition by any Government whatsoever. So long as he felt a chance of carrying the bill this Session, he did not scruple to tax the kindness of hon. Friends; but, looking to what had occurred, he felt himself obliged to say, that he would abstain from calling for their further exertions in favour of his bill. The more cordial
460
their support, the more unwilling was he to tax that support, as it was impossible that it could be ultimately successful. What was the position of the bill? They had now occupied nine days in discussing this measure; five or six of those days they had been in Committee; in five days they had passed five clauses out of a bill which contained forty-six; and if the remaining clauses—one of which was a money clause, and required their peculiar consideration—took a like time, it was absolutely impossible that the bill could pass in the present Session. He could not anticipate, either, that the opposition to the bill would be relaxed, or the enmity to it diminished. The last day they went into Committee, after they had given five days to its discussion, instead of making any progress, the whole evening was occupied in the discussion of an instruction which had been previously negatived by the House. He had every reason to believe, that the same degree of opposition would be persisted in during the Session, and that it would be ultitimately successful. He feared, then, even had the opposition been fair and candid, that it would occupy too much time to allow of the bill passing this Session. But he wished to notify to the House that the exertions he and his Friends had made this Session were not altogether fruitless. They had established by majorities—certainly not by large majorities, but sufficiently so to command the respect of Government—the fact that evils existed in the system of voting in Ireland so glaring as to require an effectual remedy. The House had decided in favour of his bill against that of her Majesty's Government. They had four times affirmed the principle of his bill. They had approved of annual registration in opposition to the quarterly registrations supported by Government. He might go on carrying the other clauses, and achieving barren triumphs; but as he would, by doing this, stand in the way of much public business, and not having the least hope of being able to carry the bill in the present Session, he did not, for the mere sake of harassing Government or defeating their measures, think it proper to take this course. They had other very important measures before them, which it would not be expedient to postpone, and he should feel exceedingly sorry if any act of his should be productive of incon-

461
venience to the public business. Upon that principle he was prepared to rest, and if he abstained from pressing this bill in the present Session, he would distinctly state, that profiting by the experience of this Session, and knowing the opposition he was likely to encounter, he should take the earliest opportunity in the next Session of again inviting the consideration of the House to this measure, and should bring it forward at so early a period of that Session, that he trusted the act would be brought into operation at no later a period than that which he had proposed for the measure in this Session. He should, therefore, move the Order of the Day for going into Committee on this bill for the purpose of its being discharged.
Lord John Russellsaid, there was one part of the noble Lord's statement, and one part only, to which he thought himself bound to advert. Upon the reasons which the noble Lord had given for not pressing this bill in the present Session, on the grounds of public convenience, he had nothing to say; but with regard to what seemed to be imputed with respect to the opposition to this bill, he thought it his duty, after what the noble Lord had stated, to say, that fair, candid, and open had been the character of that opposition. There might be a question certainly whether, after the House had agreed to go into Committee on the bill, any motion should be made to prefer any other bill to the bill of the noble Lord. He felt he was fully entitled to have made such a motion; but, in order that there might be no excuse for alleging that he endeavoured to prevent the progress of this bill, it had not been his intention to do so. The hon. Member for Halifax had however, proposed such a motion to the House. That hon. Member had voted for going into Committee, at the same time giving reasons, which, as he thought, should have induced him to vote against it. But he did not think the noble Lord could say, that his hon. Friend had been actuated by motives of unfair and un-candid opposition. There had been another occasion to which the noble Lord adverted when they were about to go into Committee, when the hon. and learned Member for Dublin moved an instruction; but under what circumstances did he move it, and what was the debate that then took place? It was under these circum-
462
stances:—The hon. Member for Bridport had wished to move it on a previous occasion, but was prevented from doing so by some technical form of the House, and it was a form upon which at that time, seeing the excitement of the House upon this subject, he did not like to express any opinion contrary to that which had been given by the Chair. But if the question should occur again, he should with great deference, state his own opinion to be at variance with that of the Chair. Being prevented, then, from moving the clauses at that time, the House went into Committee. There was a desultory discussion, but the motion was never made until it was made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But what was the debate that then took place? He was blamed in the course of that debate for not stopping it; but the fact was, that four hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side carried on that debate, arguing the whole subject with great diffuseness. Every argument that could possibly be urged was urged against that motion. Was he to prevent that? He should certainly have thought that the noble Lord opposite ought to have prevented that discussion, and while they were going into arguments which appeared so prolix, he could not help observing to his noble Friend beside him (Lord Morpeth), that by their carrying on their arguments at such great length, it could not be the intention of the other side to proceed with this measure in the present Session. With regard to the measure itself, as the noble Lord declared his intention of abandoning it, it was not his intention to say anything. But in the next Session, if any measure were brought forward with regard to registration in Ireland, whether on the Government side of the House or the Opposition, he should certainly be ready to discuss it; but always with this view, that if it was intended fairly to allow persons who by law were entitled to vote easily to register themselves, and without exorbitant expense or needless delay, to place their votes on the list, by which they might be enabled to go to the poll at the time of an election, everything that could forward that object should have his earnest support. But whatever proposition was introduced under the name of registration to obstruct and destroy the franchise

463
which was given by the Reform Act, he having been concerned in the passing of that Act, should feel it his duty to give the strongest opposition to that measure. He was looking the other day at what had been the course of the discussion in the progress of the Reform Act, and he found that for forty days his noble Friend (Lord Spencer,) and himself had argued in the Committee in favour of that measure, and that bill being thrown out of the House of Lords in the next Session, they argued for twenty-two days more in favour of it in Committee. That was besides all the discussion upon going into the Committee, and on the third reading of that bill; but long as that time was, sixty-two days altogether in Committee, besides various other days of discussion, he was ready to encounter, either for that or a longer period of time, a discussion in this House rather than submit to an effectual and virtual repeal of an important part of that Act.
Order for the Committee on Thursday read and discharged, sine die.
Sir C. Douglaswished to know whether it was the intention of the noble Lord to proceed with the Rights of Voting Bill this Session?
Lord J. Russellwas understood to answer in the negative.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as this was about the time for clearing off bills, he wished to know whether the Government intended to go on now with the Treating and Bribery Bill?
Lord J. Russellsaid, there were some points connected with that measure which required consideration before it could be further proceeded with. He had, however, been anxious to introduce it to the House, but he did not intend to go on with it this Session.
Sir R. Peel: I presume, then, that the English Registration Bill will also be postponed?
Lord J. Russell: Yes.
Sir R. Peel: And the same, I suppose, with regard to the Ireland Registration Bill (No. 2), so that we shall have got rid of these five bills at once.

CANADA CLERGY RESERVES.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that before the House proceeded to the business of the day, he wished to explain what course he meant to pursue with regard to the Clergy Reserves Bill. He felt the course was such
464
as required not only that he should state it to the House at once, but that, if possible, he should have means on some future day of inserting provisions in this bill, in order to enable the House to discuss the proposition he was about to state. He had stated the other evening, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Newark, that a proposition had been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury on this subject, but it was one to which he felt himself unable to accede. He had now to state to the House, that another proposition had been made to him, the full particulars of which he had not yet seen, but which he was told was likely to obtain the assent of those who had the most right to represent the Church of England in Parliament, and who had communicated with some members of the Colonial Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and he understood that they considered it perfectly fair and just towards the Church of Scotland. The proposition was to this effect:—It was founded on the opinion of the judges, which had been given in the other House of Parliament with respect to the clergy reserves. That opinion recognised the right on the part of the Church of England, and also recognised the right on the part of the Church of Scotland, to share in those reserves; and, by words which he need not quote, virtually admitted the term of Christians of other denominations, as entitling them likewise to share according to the Act of Parliament of 1791, in the proceeds of such reserves. The opinion went on to state that the Legislature of Upper Canada was incompetent to deal with the clergy reserves in the manner in which they had done, and the judges also stated their opinion with regard to the lands already appropriated. Now, this proposition proposed to deal differently with those lands that were sold under the Act of 1827, the 7th and 8th Geo. 4th, from the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the other parts of the clergy reserves. It was proposed that one-fourth, or rather the proceeds of that one-fourth which was already sold, should be given absolutely to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, in the proportion of two to one; that is, being divided into three equal parts, two of those parts should be given to the Church of England, and one to the Church of Scotland. It was proposed

465
further, with regard to the remaining three-fourths of the clergy reserves, that they should be divided into equal parts, of which one should be given to the Church of England and Church of Scotland, and the other part should be left to the Governor and Executive Council of Canada generally for the purpose of religious worship and instruction. With respect to that part which was to be left to the Churches of England and Scotland it was proposed that a similar division, should take place as was proposed with regard to the one-fourth that was already sold—namely, two-thirds to the Church of England, and one-third to the Church of Scotland. That division did not rest on any ground of superiority of the Church of England over that of Scotland, but if they took the number of Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland alone, and the number of members of the Church of England in Canada, they would find, that the latter amounted in round numbers to about 80,000, and the former only to about 40,000. There was this further proposition, that such being the general division of the proceeds of the clergy reserves, with respect to the one-fourth which was already sold, and the proceeds of which were already partly invested in the funds of this country, and standing in the names of trustees, it was proposed, reverting to the principle which used to be adopted, and was agreed to by Parliament, but which was changed in 1833, when some modification was made by the noble Lord opposite, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the whole of the proceeds now payable to the Church of England and Church of Scotland out of the revenue of Upper Canada should be guaranteed permanently to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. The amount now paid to the Church of England was 7,700 l., and to the Church of Scotland 1,580 l. It was now proposed to guarantee the payment permanently, It seemed to him, that if that payment were to be guaranteed at all, it ought to be done out of the funds of this country; because the funds of Canada, being already, by the Union Bill, burdened to a considerable extent for the civil list, he thought it would be unfair to burden them still further for this purpose. Now, such being the proposition that had been made to him, as one likely to secure the assent of those to whom he had before alluded,
466
it was for the Government to consider whether it were such a proposition as they could adopt. He would not argue at present the general reasons that might be urged against it or in its favour, either as to its claim being founded on the opinion of the judges, or as to its general expediency as regarded Canada: but there was another view in which it appeared to him that however deeply responsible he should become in proposing to Parliament the adoption of a proposition different from that which had been made by the Assembly and Legislative Council of Canada, yet, upon the whole, it was advisable to adopt this proposition, with reference not merely to this question of the clergy reserves, but with reference to the whole question of Canadian Government. He could not but remember the manner in which the measure which had been proposed to the Government respecting Canada— he meant the great measure of the union—had been treated both in Canada and in this House. The present Governor-general was sent out to Canada with instructions to propose a measure for the union of the provinces, but, at the same time, with full power, if he should find that the measure of the union was either impracticable or wholly inexpedient, to propose some other measure in its place, giving, at the same time, such reasons as he should think proper for such proposal. Far, however, from making any such proposition, he found the measure of the union, both in Lower and Upper Canada, met with the assent of all the authorities of either province. When this measure was introduced to this House, it was introduced without the likelihood of any other measure being more acceptable, and it was the question with the House, whether or not it was incumbent upon it to accept the measure of the Government. Such had been the alternative—and it was generally accepted by both sides of the House. Upon this ground, the union of the Canadas has had the concurrence, first, of all her Majesty's confidential servants; secondly, of the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, who took a profound interest in the question; it has had the concurrence of the hon. Member for Coventry, than whom there is no one better qualified to form an opinion, from his personal experience as to the practical working of the measure in Canada; it has had the active and able.

467
support of the hon. Member for Newark; it has had the support of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, it has had, lastly, the able support, founded upon reasons, which, in my opinion, could not be answered, and which certainly were not answered in the debate, of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who, in addition to his own individual merits, had filled the highest station in the councils of his Sovereign. In this House, it has been carried by almost unanimous consent, there being one hundred and fifty-six in its favour, and but six opposed to it. He could not but refer to these circumstances, and he would be most unwilling, when another question was introduced relative to Canada, not to endeavour to obtain for it something of the same general assent. He should be anxious to send to the Canadas the measures of the union and of the clergy reserves, not only by the authority of the Government, but with the general consent of the whole House. He could not persuade himself that any person deeply and extensively considering the whole interests of Canada would disappoint the hopes which were entertained, that in the present Session we shall be able to settle the affairs of Canada. Though one measure may be preferred to another — though he was not prepared to say, that another measure might not be better than the union of the Canadas—yet it would be most dangerous to induce in Canada a belief, that the Legislature were not acting upon any settled plan with respect to that province, but with capricious and party views. Believing this to be the case, and feeling that he should be responsible if in Canada parties should make it an excuse, that one Church had been treated with undue favour rather than another, yet, feeling the greater responsibility if he opposed any obstacle, on his part, to the settlement of a question on which the welfare of Canada depended, he should move, on Thursday next, in the form of an amendment, the propositions which he had detailed. Though they were not the propositions which he might think the best, yet, considering that those who had made them had conceded much of their own opinions as to what they think due to the Church of England in making these propositions, he should willingly accept them in the way he proposed, and offer them to the consider-
468
ation of the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving the postponement of the question of the clergy reserves to Thursday next.
Sir R. Peel: I think it necessary to state, that the opinions which I have on different occasions delivered upon the subject of Canada, remain entirely unchanged. With respect to the clergy reserves, I hope this measure will be discussed in the same spirit as the union of the Canadas—and I would appeal to the House if it could be asserted, of the propositions made to the noble Lord, and by him to the House, that the Church of England had been governed by a rigid adherence to his own interests. I think that the proposition made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, distinguished as well for his high station as for his moderation, comes recommended by justice as well as forbearance. On the part of the Church of England, all obstacles are removed from the disposal of the whole of the reserve lands. The Church seeks not to reserve to herself any of these lands. After the decision of the judges, the Church of Scotland is admitted to the same right as the Church of England; and the only difference which exists is, the difference arising from the number of adherents which belong to each. With this proposition, acquiesced in by the two churches, permitting the sale of the whole of the reserve lands, with the guarantee in perpetuity of the present amount with one-third of the proceeds of the future sale, that is a proposal recommended by its intrinsic importance, as well as by its justice and moderation. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if this question should remain unsettled. It is to me a source of the greatest satisfaction, that the noble Lord acquiesces in the proposal made by the Church of England. In acceding to that proposal, I think the noble Lord has acted wisely; and I sincerely hope that this measure will be discussed in the same spirit as the question of the union, and I trust that the two measures will pass into a law with the general concurrence of the House, and by doing so, be the foundation of a happy relation between this country and Canada.
In answer to Mr. C. Buller,
Lord J. Russellreplied, it is proposed to leave one-half of the three-fourths to the disposal of the Governor-general and the executive council, for the purposes

469
of religious worship, and for education. This was done to promote unanimity in the House, because there were Opposition hon. Members who would object to any portion being grauted to the Roman Catholics.

AUSTRIAN TREATY OF COMMERCE.
Mr. Laboucherebrought up the report of the committee on commerce and navigation, as follows—
"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a bill, to enable her Majesty to carry into effect certain stipulations contained in a treaty of commerce and navigation between her Majesty and the Emperor of Austria, and to empower her Majesty to declare, by Order in Council, that ports which are the most natural and convenient shipping ports of States, within whose dominions they are not situated, may in certain cases be considered, for all purposes of trade with her Majesty's dominions, as the national ports of such States."
The right hon. Gentleman moved, that the resolution be agreed to.
Mr. Herriesthought that some explanation would have been given by the right hon. Gentleman for such an extraordinary motion, especially as he had given notice of motion of certain resolutions, the effect of which would be some such measure as that which the right hon. Gentleman now professed his desire to bring forward. The immediate effect of the present motion would be, to interpose between his motion, which was for an address to her Majesty, praying her to take some steps to put an end to the state of things now existing. He had thought, that the right hon. Gentleman would have explained under what circumstances and for what purposes he came forward in the year 1840, and asked for a power to be placed in the hands of Government, enabling them at their discretion to set aside the Navigation Act, for the purpose of carrying into effect a treaty with Austria made two years ago. He would venture to say, that it was an unexampled circumstance for a member of the Government to come down and propose a measure of such an extraordinary character, without saying a word in its support. Was it for hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to explain why this extraordinary power was requisite? Yet it was necessary that he should state to the House that which the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to stale. Two years
470
ago a treaty was concluded between this country and the government of Austria, having for its object that which all persons who took a just view of the interests of the two countries must concur in facilitating to the utmost of their power. No individual felt more than he did the importance of drawing closer the ties of friendship, and of intercourse between this country and Austria. There was no state with which at all times and under all circumstances it was more important or more desirable that this country should be united; but in the present state of the continent, and in relation to passing and future events, the importance of this connexion was still further increased. In 1838, her Majesty's Government took great praise to themselves for having surpassed all their predecessors, and for having, by their superior skill, effected a commercial treaty with Austria, and thereby opened a new way for the extension of our trade. He concurred in the object, but with others he lamented that they had taken unskilful means to carry their intentions into effect. Instead of the treaty being an improvement on the treaty negociated by the Earl of Aberdeen, it had been the subject of continued difficulty; and, instead of producing a better understanding between the two countries, it had led to long protracted and hitherto unfinished negotiations. There were two articles in the new treaty which differed from the previous treaty, and embodied, or were intended to embody, one of the great principles of the commercial treaties with other countries, and which was called "reciprocity." This principle was embodied in Articles 4 and 5, and to them he would call the particular attention of the House. Each of these articles was in contravention of the laws of this land. The first was a direct violation and contravention of the navigation laws; the second was also at variance and deviation from that same law. He mentioned both together, because it was necessary that the House should bear in mind that with respect to the 5th Article the difficulties which the navigation laws threw in the way of the execution of that article had' been removed by a special application to Parliament. At the end of the Customs Bill of last year, and on the third reading, a clause was introduced enabling the Government, notwithstanding the Naviga-

471
tion Act, to give effect to the 5th Article of the Austrian treaty, which provided,
"In consideration of British vessels arriving from other countries than those belonging to the high contracting parties being admitted with their cargoes into Austrian ports, without paying any other duties whatever than those paid by Austrian vessels, so also the productions of the soil and industry of the parts of Asia or Africa situated within the Straits of Gibraltar, which shall have been brought into the ports of Austria, may be re-exported from thence in Austrian vessels directly into British ports, in the same manner and with the same privileges as to all manner of duties and immunities, as if these productions were imported from Austrian ports in British vessels,"
The clause enabling the treaty to be carried into effect was smuggled through Parliament; if he had been present, and the purport of the clause had been mentioned, he would have made no objection. The 5th Article being thus disposed of, they came now to the 4th Article, and if it had not before that time been made the subject of particular observation in that House by any independent Member, the neglect might well be excused, because if any one read the article alone, it was impossible to be understood to construe at first into a contravention of the Navigation Act. It had not, however, escaped the notice of the Earl of Aberdeen, who called the attention of the public to the latter part of the clause which required much explanation. It was so ambiguous that it could not be understood by any person not aware of the spirit with which it was framed. But an instance had occurred since, which gave a practical illustration of what was intended, and showed that it was a direct violation of the navigation laws. An Austrian ship had arrived, and attempted to do that which this article professed to give it the right to do. In consequence of this, the parties making the attempt were guilty of a violation of our navigation law, the ship and cargo were seized, and after much negotiation with the public departments they were released, on the payment of a small fine, such small fine being expressly imposed to prevent the assumption that the importation was authorized by the existing law. Now, though the Austrian ship had acted against the navigation law, it had acted according to the treaty of commerce. By the 4th Article of that treaty it was declared, that
472
"All Austrian vessels arriving from the ports of the Danube, as far as Galacz inclusively, shall, together with their cargoes, be admitted into the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of all the possessions of her Britannic Majesty, exactly in the same manner as if Such vessels came direct from Austrian ports, with all the privileges and immunities stipulated by the present treaty of navigation and commerce."
It then went on to say,
"In like manner, all British vessels, with their cargoes, shall continue to be placed upon the same footing as Austrian vessels, whenever such British vessels shall enter into or depart from the same ports."
Here was an authority given to the English to go with equal advantages to the Austrians, and enter ports in which Austria had not one foot of land. The reciprocity which Austria gave was the right of English vessels to go into Turkish ports in the same manner as Austrian ships. This most extraordinary provision did not fail to attract attention. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, had endeavoured to obtain an explanation, and that explanation he certainly did not obtain. The same question being asked in two different places, it was said in one place "it is true, there certainly does appear to be a difficulty on this account, but a treaty will very soon be made with Turkey, by which effect will be given to this article, and undoubtedly something must be done before the Austrian treaty that has been ratified can be executed. But in that House, when the same question was asked, the reply was, that no such treaty with Turkey was necessary. The noble Lord, at the head of the Government, had said in another place, that a treaty would be formed, and in that House, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department said, that a treaty was not necessary. No doubt it was not necessary, unless some effect were intended to be given to the stipulations of the treaty. The fifth article of the treaty contravened the Navigation Act, and needed a legislative measure to give it effect; and it now appeared by events which had since disclosed the fact, that the fourth article was even more at variance with the Navigation Act. Why had not the Government, in fairness and justice, asked the House at the same time that the fifth article was remedied, for an authority by which the fourth could be carried into effect? That was what he expected the right hon.

473
Gentleman to explain, and not merely to put a paper into the hands of the Speaker in the careless way in which he had just done. The right hon. Gentleman had not only to explain why he did now ask for this power, but also why he had not asked for it long ago? Lord Melbourne had said, that he might be asked why this had not been done before, and that his reply was that the right hon. Gentleman formerly at the head of the Board of Trade, knowing that a treaty with Turkey was on foot, had thought it better not to come twice to Parliament. But the Government had already come once, and by the course they were now taking they had come twice. He had a right to ask those who applied to the House for powers to enable the Government at their own will and pleasure to set aside the navigation laws to state the grounds for the application. He had himself given his notice of motion because it was a matter of notoriety in the commercial world; and if this motion had not intervened, he had intended to move resolutions declaring that what had been done had been in contravention of the law, that the Government officers had interfered to mitigate the effect of the law, that such a state of things in respect to a treaty with a foreign power was unbecoming us as a nation, and that, therefore, the House would address the Crown, praying it to take such steps as were necessary to put an end to a state of things which was alike unsuited to the regular administration of the law, and to the punctual fulfilment of her Majesty's engagements with foreign powers. He was not prepared to say, that lie would oppose the bill; but he doubted whether this was the best course for applying a remedy to the evil to which the want of flue caution on the part of those who had had the care of our foreign and commercial affairs had exposed this country. The reason why the attention of this country had not been so much directed to these articles was, that it was possible to conceive that the vessels might arrive with an Austrian cargo, and if so, it would be consistent with the Navigation Act, because Austrian ships might bring an Austrian cargo from any port; it was not necessary that it should come from an Austrian port. It might have been thought that the Government never would have given a power to any state to bring into our ports the produce of any
474
other state, The navigation laws were passed for the very purpose of preventing such a power, and it would have been deemed almost incredible that without submitting any measure to Parliament, and without any apology or explanation, the Government should have entered into and allowed a treaty to remain on the Table of the House without any notice, which was impracticable to give the concession which was intended to be made, except by a repetition of those favours, which the court of Vienna seemed to think would be granted to each succeeding vessel. The Government, however, incredible as it appeared, took no pains to reconcile the two things, either by altering the treaty so as to fit the law of the land, or by altering the law of the land to fit the treaty. How long the present state of things might have continued, if no notice had been taken of it on that side of the House, he could not say. It was clear, from the correspondence which had been laid on the Table of the House, that up to September, 1839, there was no intention to take any steps. That was ten months after the treaty was framed, and up to the first intimation of its violation. Here was a vessel, alleging that she came on the principle of the treaty, seized by us. The Treasury had referred the matter to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade gave this reply: —
"Board of Trade, Whitehall, 12th Sept., 1839.
Sir—The Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade have considered the application of Mr. John Routh, of the 2nd instant, transmitted by you, on the subject of a cargo of Turkish corn, imported from a Turkish port in the Danube in an Austrian ship; and their Lordships having adverted to the language of the 4th article of the Austrian treaty, referred to in your letter, have directed me to state their opinion, that although there may be no concurrent law for carrying that article into effect, according to the construction put upon it by the shippers at Galacz, it would be pro-per to give some relief in this and in similar cases. I am, therefore, to request that you will inform the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, of the opinion of the Lords of this Committee, that such cargoes should, for the present, be admitted to entry for home consumption, upon the payment of a moderate fine, which they think should be demanded, in order to prevent the assumption that the importation is authorised by the existing law."
There was no recommendation for altering the law to make it fit this state

475
of things. There was no "concurrent" law, said the Board of Trade. It was rather an ingenious way of putting it. There was no "concurrent" law. No; there was a distinct law against it. That was what ought to have been stated. Yet this did not cause the Government to alter the treaty that had been negociated, or to come down to the House for means to carry it out. They did neither one nor the other. He asked, then, who was responsible for this act? Was it the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had framed this treaty in direct violation of the law of the land? Was it the Board of Trade? Because there were many particulars in relation to these treaties on which the Board of Trade used to be consulted, and he presumed still was. Did the Board of Trade advise the passing of the 4th article, and its being ratified without any means existing for carrying it into effect? Suppose the Foreign-office had forgotten, as commercial matters sometimes escaped diplomatic characters of the highest character, could not the Board of Trade recollect the state of the laws? The year 1838 passed. The year 1839 passed over without any step being taken by the Board of Trade. Then, again, were the law officers forgotten? The custom used to be, and he presumed it was the same now, to submit all treaties before they were ratified, to the law officers of the Crown; these legal functionaries were conversant with the law of the land. Did they not know the extent to which the treaty went in consequence of its ambiguous wording? Did they think it was no concession? Did they think, that there was no harm in a treaty, by which we gave Austria what we could not do by laws, and Austria conceded to us what she had no power to concede? Perhaps, under these circumstances, the law-officers considered the article of little or no value, and so gave no opinion upon it. Still, all those three departments were responsible for an article, which was a direct violation of the law, and which could only be acted on by an alteration of the law, or, as was now proposed, by giving the Government the power to dispense with the law. He objected to the latter mode, and he thought that the objection was good, unless the treaty was admitted by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to be of no avail. The
476
measure which was proposed was, to give a power to the Government to deal with ports which were not within the power of other countries, with which the treaties were negociated, but which might be convenient, and to declare them to be deemed material ports. It was giving to the Government the power to become the judge of any alteration in the navigation law. He thought, that their object might be answered without giving any such power. It might be right to stretch the Navigation Act in favour of Austria, in consideration of something being conceded. But what he feared was, that if we gave Austria this exemption, other nations which by treaty were entitled to be put on the same footing as the most favoured, might claim similar exemption. The noble Lord should have been anxious to show that if Austria, by the concluding part of the 4th article, did give something substantial in return, then there was an end to that objection. If it was a concession on the part of Austria to enable English vessels to enter Turkish ports on the same terms as Austrian vessels, then it might be right to give Austria this exemption from our navigation laws. But supposing that this offer was something that Austria had not the power to fulfil, then the right hon. Gentleman felt the difficulty, and made this application to Parliament to give to the Government a general authority to fortify them against the claims that might be made upon them by other countries. He trusted that he had said enough to show that the course which he had taken was not altogether unnecessary. In all respects this treaty was inferior in its framework to that which preceded it. He admitted that it contained much which was new, and much which was good; but unfortunately, the new was not good, and the good was not new.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he had made no exposition of the grounds upon which he had made this motion, because he had thought that it would be better to wait until he saw the nature of the accusations brought against the Government before he attempted to make any explanation of his conduct, or of the conduct of those with whom he had had the honour to act. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he must say, that he had never heard more fallacious observations addressed to the House, or observations founded on more unstable grounds, and

477
he could well conceive that the right hon. Gentleman was averse to have those fallacies exposed. The right hon. Gentleman began by making an assertion similar to one which had been made in another place by a very high authority, that there was no difference between this treaty and that of the Earl of Aberdeen, except in the single article which was now under the consideration of the House; and that there were no advantages gained by this treaty to the commerce of the country beyond those which had been obtained by the treaty of the noble Earl. It became his duty, in answer to that observation, to show the advantages which in reality, were derived from the treaty, together with the particulars in which it differed from that formerly made, and to lay before the House those proofs which he possessed of the recent increase of trade and commerce, and he was soothed, under the sufferings produced by the hard words which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to him, by the certain prospect that a very great and almost indefinite extension of the trade of this country would take place in consequence of the provisions which had been made. He had been astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman declare, that there was no important distinction between this treaty and that of the Earl of Aberdeen. With regard to the important points of this treaty, and in respect to this subject, he rejoiced to say, that we had gained no additional advantages but upon terms of mutual reciprocity, which were best calculated to maintain the friendly relation of nations, he could himself claim no share of the merit due to those by whom it had been framed. The advantages derived under its provisions were obtained through the exertions and the zeal of his noble Friend who sat near him, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and of his right hon. Friend Mr. Poulett Thomson, whose situation he now so unworthily occupied, and he must say, also, that they were considerably owing to the zeal and ability of Mr. M'Gregor, by whom it had been negociated. To proceed, however, to the provisions of the treaty. The first important advantage which it obtained for this country had been granted by no other European state. It was that of a free admission for all British ships with cargoes carried direct from all parts of the world into the Austrian ports. This was a
478
most important stipulation, and one which had been most anxiously looked for by our trade and commerce. It was true, that it was practically enjoyed before, but those who were acquainted with the subject well knew, that unless this security were afforded, that direct trade, which was so important, could not be secured, and those who were engaged in this species of trade would have no hesitation in assuring the House, that the advantage which was obtained was one of no ordinary importance. In this provision, alone, therefore, there was a wide distinction between the treaty signed by Mr. M'Gregor and that of the Earl of Aberdeen, and although he did not mean to deny, that the treaty of the noble Earl was one of undoubted merit, he thought that it was exceedingly improper to assert that the other was identical with it, except with respect to a few breaches of the navigation laws. But there was another point of still greater importance to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred at all. Was there nothing obtained at the same time with the treaty? There was. For there had been a most important alteration in the tariff of Austria, which operated most advantageously to the trade of this country, and which had produced a vast augmentation of our exports to Austria. This did not apply to the treaty it was true, but it was effected at the same time. The late tariff of Austria was one of the most prohibitory in the world, but he was happy that that enlightened statesman, Prince Metternich, had seen the importance—the necessity of some alteration and revision being made. The principle of prohibition had now been entirely removed, and that of duty had been substituted for it. Those duties still remained very high, but in many instances changes had been made of a most liberal description, materially affecting the commerce of the country. The following, among other articles of British growth and manufacture, which are now exported by the Adriatic, Genoa, and the Rhine, and Elbe, into the Austrian dominions were, until those changes, prohibited, viz. woven and printed cottons, linens and woollens, hats of all kinds, manufactures of brass, copper, iron, steel, pewter, and tin, painters' colours, Cape wines, ale and porter, &c. &c. The duties at which these were now admitted varied from 5 to 10, 15, 20, and in some instances, as on cotton woven goods, to 50 per cent., ad valorem.

479
Cotton twist paid formerly 60 to 80 per cent.; it was now admitted at 15 florins the centner of 123lbs., or from 5 to 8 per cent. On linen yarns the duty was reduced to 10d. per centner—from 5 to 8 per cent. On leather manufactures, the duties were reduced to 20 per cent. Fish, such as cod-fish and herrings, to 2 florins the centner. Fish oils and train oils to about 7d. the centner. Muscovado and refined sugars had both been reduced, the former from 21 florins to 15 florins, and for the use of refineries to 7½ florins. Numerous other reductions had also been made. He contended that the House must look at this treaty, together with the reduction which had been obtained in the tariff at the same period, and he believed that it would be found that no proceeding had ever been presented to the House of the same character, which produced more practical benefit, or which better deserved its support and assent. A great increase of British trade to Austria had been the effect of this stipulation. A great portion of the exports of this country to Austria found its way through the Elbe and other northern rivers, and he was not at present possessed of the means of showing what the increase had been in that respect; but with regard to the commerce of this country and its dependencies, carried on through the medium of British ships entering Austrian ports, he could make a statement to the House of the most gratifying description. The year before this treaty was made, (1837) the number of British ships which arrived with British cargoes in Austrian ports was 97, measuring 17,338 tons; in 1838, the number of ships was 164, measuring 28,669 tons. In the year 1839, the number of vessels was 147, measuring 27,066 tons. A great increase of trade, therefore, had taken place since the signing of the treaty, and he thought that commerce mutually advantageous would spring up; and he believed that there could be no interest more binding or more likely to encourage a friendly feeling than that produced by a system of mutual trade, carried on upon terms of reciprocal advantage. He would now come to the subject more immediately under the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that there was nothing new in the treaty which was good, and nothing good which was new. He thought that he should be able to shew, that there were
480
things both good and new, as well in principle as in effect, in the treaty. He should now proceed to show what concessions had been made by this country to Austria in return for these advantages, and he was prepared to maintain, that they were either beneficial to England, or, at all events, that they did not produce any injury to this country. These concessions amounted to two, contained in two articles numbered 4 and 5; and these were undoubtedly in contravention of the strict letter of the navigation law. The fifth article went to allow Austrian vessels to import into this country cargoes of the produce of Asia and Africa within the Straits of Gibraltar, provided those cargoes had been previously landed in Austria. He should have been prepared to show how reasonable it was, that such a concession should be made; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted its propriety, he thought it would be wasting the time of the House to detain them with its consideration. He should, therefore, go at once to the fourth article, which was more properly before the House. He would frankly admit, that there had been some difference with regard to this part of the subject. Discussions had taken place between the Austrian and the English Government; but they had been carried on with feelings of the most amicable and conciliatory description. He was not able to speak with confidence upon this subject, as the arrangement had been made by Mr. Poulett Thomson before he (Mr. Labouchere) had the honour of holding the station which he now filled, and he believed that it was in consequence of the discussions which were then pending, and of the difficulty of forming an opinion upon the subject, that that right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to bring the subject before the House at that time. On the 12th of September, just one week after he had had the honour of receiving his appointment, it so happened that an Austrian vessel containing Turkish corn arrived in this country. That, having come from Galacz, he thought that we were not bound to admit that cargo; but it having been made clear to him that they were bound under treaty to admit it, without a moment's hesitation, he recommended to the Treasury that the Government ought to interfere, and to direct the cargo to be received. The right hon. Gentleman said, what a state of things was this, where an

481
act being done in contravention of the navigation laws, the authority of Parliament was not sought upon the general subject ! The House must suppose, upon this observation, that this was not an isolated case, but that there was a constant stream of commerce between the ports of the Danube and this country. This, however, was the only cargo which had arrived under these circumstances, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman need not have been in such a violent hurry to make a complaint to the House. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that he had intended to allow this Session to pass over, without obtaining from it its opinion as to the construction of this treaty. The subject had been discussed by him with his noble Friend, and it was agreed that this question should be brought before the House before the conclusion of the Session. He apprehended that the meaning of the treaty was, that ships coming from all ports of the Danube, down to Galacz, should be admitted, just as if they came from Austria, and that British vessels should, upon terms of reciprocity, be admitted to all ports on the Danube, within the same district. It might be said, however, that these were Turkish ports: but he apprehended that the first and second parts of the article were dependent on each other, and if Turkey prohibited the admission of English vessels into her ports, it would be a question whether England would not, in return, prohibit the entry of Turkish vessels into her ports. But the House would observe the principle which had been acted upon. He held, that this country had the deepest interest in extending its commercial relations, and in giving every facility to a continual intercourse between the merchants of this empire and those of the vast continental powers, which, from their situation, could never be considered maritime powers, which occupied the centre of Europe, but which, from the introduction of steam navigation, had, by means of large rivers, obtained all the advantages of sea-ports; and he held, that, if the expediency of relaxing our navigation laws were shown, it became our duty to adopt that course. Austria had no ports within its own dominions into which sea-going ships could procure admission, and it was necessary to favour all those ports to which access could be obtained, in order, as far as possible, to extend our commercial relations with that country;
482
and he had heard, with much satisfaction, that although the right hon. Gentleman, had objected to the precise words of the treaty, he had been unable to point out any practical evil as resulting from it. He believed that nothing but practical good could be produced by the treaty, and he believed, that in adopting the course which had been taken, we were producing material advantages to Europe. Then the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that under the fourth article of the treaty, this country must be placed in a position of great difficulty with other great powers, with which we had reciprocal treaties. He was satisfied, however, that no such result could be produced, for no other country but Austria had a river placed in a position so peculiar as that of the Danube. He hoped he had said enough to show, in the first place, that this treaty, taken as a whole, was highly advantageous to this country; that it was founded upon just principles; that, although in the two instances pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, it departed from the strict letter of the navigation laws, yet that it adhered to the spirit of those laws, and that while we had sacrificed what was no loss to us, we had obtained, in return, most valuable privileges to our own merchants.
Mr. Herries,in explanation, said, that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken him. What he objected to was, that the right hon. Gentleman, having made his motion, had not thought right to support it with any statement. He would thus have been afforded an opportunity to reply. But, instead of doing that, the right hon. Gentleman had put him in the condition of making a statement, whilst he had himself the opportunity of reply. With respect to making general provisions to enable the Government to grant similar advantages to other states, he thought that no more powers ought to be given than were shown to be necessary. If it was shown that those powers were more than were necessary, they ought not to be asked for by the Crown, nor conceded by the House of Commons.
Mr. Colquhounsaid, that he felt ready to offer the meed of his congratulation to her Majesty's Government for the general scope of this treaty, which he thought calculated to increase the trade of this country. When so much had been said of reciprocal advantages, be was anxious to

483
call the attention of the House to a point which had not been adverted to with sufficient clearness by the right hon. Gentleman. When this country had to contend with a country which possessed cheap timber and low wages, it was impossible that this country could succeed in the competition. In stating this fact, which was of great importance, he would be able to prove it by returns which he held in his hand. Mr. Huskisson considered, that the increase of shipping between this and other countries with which we had reciprocal treaties would be in our favour, but the contrary was proved to be the fact. With respect to the eight countries of Europe, with which we have treaties of reciprocity, taking the three years from 1821 to 1824, before the passing of these treaties, and the three years from 1836 to 1839, since the signing of these treaties, it appeared that in the three former years there were 910,000 tons of British shipping employed in her trade with those countries, and 771,000 tons of foreign shipping. In the three latter years, ending 1839, the amount of British tonnage had increased to 1,588,000 tons, whilst the foreign shipping had increased to 1,168,000 tons. There were, on the other hand, six countries with which we had no reciprocity treaties, in contrast with which our tonnage was rapidly increasing. He thought that these facts demonstrated most clearly, that this country, when competing with countries which possessed cheap timber and low-priced labour, could not possibly succeed. That was, however, no reason why reciprocity treaties should not be adopted. If they did not exist, what Mr. Huskisson had called conflicting duties would be the consequence; and their fruit would cause incalculable injury to trade. He contended that no reciprocity treaty was useful in which care was not taken to obtain advantages for our manufacturers; and, certainly, that point had been attended to in the Austrian treaty, for in that manufacturers were included. With respect to the 4th article in the treaty, which was the principal subject in discussion, he thought that Government had left it very imperfect, they not having secured the trade of the Danube by a treaty with Turkey. While we were without a treaty with Turkey, the fourth article of the Austrian treaty was of little or no use. The objection urged by his right hon. Friend (Mr.
484
Herries) had been two, and he did not think the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade at all satisfactory. The first was, that Government, having by the treaty violated the Navigation Act, had afterwards taken no steps towards getting the consent of Parliament to that measure. There was no personal blame to be attached to the present President of the Board of Trade for the omission, but certainly Government, as a body, were responsible. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that no great inconvenience had arisen from the conflict between the treaty and the law. He could tell him that he knew a gentleman who, on the promulgation of the treaty, was most anxious to open a trade with Austria, but who, on the seizure of the vessel at Gloucester, immediately abandoned the idea. The fact was, that the imperfect state of the treaty precluded all attempts at increasing the trade. The other objection of his right hon. Friend was, that in consequence of neglecting to include Turkey in the arrangement, our trade would be left at the mercy of any foreign power who could successfully intrigue at the Turkish court for the closing of the ports of the Danube. He trusted, that the right hon. Gentleman would use his best endeavours to remove those imperfections from a treaty which, generally speaking, was likely to prove beneficial to the trade of this country.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the object of the framers of the fourth article in this treaty had been to interest Great Britain in maintaining the free navigation of the mouth of the Danube and the Black Sea, and the ports there. It was observable, that since this treaty had been concluded there had been an increased activity in the trade between this country and Austria. It was highly desirable, therefore, that the Government should be empowered to enter into similar treaties with other powers, and so far to relax the strictness of the navigation laws. He rejoiced to find that this bill had received such a degree of attention, and that there was a prospect of some relaxation of those laws.
Mr. A. Chapmanobjected to the principle of the treaty. He was old enough to remember when reciprocity treaties first came before the House, and, at that time, had stated that their effect would

485
be to increase the tonnage of other countries, and to diminish our own. The returns produced by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilmarnock, proved that his (Mr. Chapman's) prophecy had been correct, because now if it were not for our colonial trade our tonnage would be small indeed. Now, we carried no coffee from Batavia to Holland, nor was there any trade from the Baltic to this country, except in foreign ships. The hon. Member for Lambeth had made a comparison between our trade at the present time, and that of 1814, alleging, that in 1814 this country was carrier to all the world. The hon. Member had forgotten, that in 1814, the Berlin and Milan decrees were promulgated, and consequently that then we had no trade in Europe from the North Cape to Gibraltar. The most flourishing period of our trade was from 1816 to 1822, the last being the year in which the unfortunate reciprocal treaties were introduced. He trusted, that the noble Lord would not proceed with any more of those treaties, but would preserve those laws which had created nurseries for our seamen, and had led to the victories of a Howe and a Nelson.
Mr. Sheil: There was this advantage gained from the treaty, which distinguished it from that of Lord Aberdeen—that at present British ships could go from any part of the world to Austria. Formerly they were confined to Great Britain. This was a change essentially distinct, which the hon. Member for Harwich must admit, on consideration, to be a change for the better. What was the result? In 1837, the number of British ships which went into Austria were 95; in 1838, the year of the treaty, they increased to 164; and in 1839, there were 144. It was a curious circumstance, that of the latter there were 59 which came not direct from Britain, but from various foreign ports, and this in virtue of the present treaty. Another advantage from the present change was the alteration of the tariff and the shortening of the period of quarantine.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the 5lh Clause, which gave to Austria great advantages. The complaint of his hon. Friend was, that the Government had not come earlier to the House for the power to carry the treaty into execution, inasmuch as the treaty was in violation of the Navigation Laws. As to the allegation that fifty-nine
486
of our ships had taken advantage of the clause and only one Austrian vessel, that was an additional reason why the Government should have come down to the House earlier, as it looked like a breach of faith with the Powers with whom we had entered into a treaty. The construction of the treaty according to its terms was very doubtful. Under all the circumstances, what the House was bound to do was to ascertain that Austria had the power to give that entry to the Turkish ports which she professed, and that the Queen's Government should not be authorised to infringe the Navigation Laws until it was satisfactorily ascertained that Austria had the power to give that which they professed to give.
Mr. A. Whitetrusted Government would not relax the Navigation Laws.
Mr. Hindleyobserved, that the advocates of free trade in that House did not at all relish the principles of the bill when they affected their own constituents. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws, but was strenuously opposed to any change in the Navigation Laws. He was favourable to the principles of free trade, and should, therefore, support the motion.
Sir S. Canning: The framers of this treaty were certainly, in his opinion, entitled to credit for the spirit which prevailed in it. At the same time he must say, that in the encomiums bestowed on it sufficient attention had not been paid to that which preceded it. He certainly could not bestow unequivocal praise on the distinctions of a treaty which resting on the ground of mutual advantages refused to allow the entrance of the ships of the foreign power. The discussion, however, would be advantageous.
Viscount Palmerstonfelt great gratification at perceiving that the opinions of almost everybody who had taken part in this subject were in accordance with the principles upon which this treaty was framed. He thought that it would prove exceedingly useful to the commercial interests and relations of this country for it to go forth that all parties were agreed in favour of the liberal principles on which this treaty was framed. It had been objected that some of the articles of the treaty were not so clearly drawn as they might have been. He did not admit this objection to the extent it had been made,

487
and be thought that the right hon. Member who urged it showed that he fully understood the article to which he referred. He would admit, that the 4th Article was not quite so clearly worded as it might have been. The fact was, that during the negotiations at Vienna on this subject this article was frequently altered and copied, and it was in the course of these proceedings that this slight obscurity crept in. When the treaty came to this country to be ratified the question was, whether it should be sent back again for verbal amendment, or signed at once; and the latter course was adopted, as it was not considered that a trifling obscurity in one or two expressions would be a sufficient ground to postpone the adoption of so important a principle as the treaty involved. With respect to the objection that the advantages conferred upon Austria by this treaty were clear and evident, but that those intended for England were absolutely nugatory, he did not think that it was borne out by the fact. The right hon. Member would bear in mind that by the terms of this treaty, Austria was precluded, not only from asking, but also from accepting if offered, any greater advantages in the ports of Turkey than were enjoyed by England. With respect to the objection, that fully to realize the advantages contemplated by this connexion, a subsequent treaty with Turkey would be necessary in order to prevent that power from excluding us altogether from the Danube, he would only remark, that by virtue of existing treaties, English ships had a right of trading in any Turkish ports, and therefore to all parts of the Danube comprehended within the Turkish territory, whilst the freedom of the remainder was guaranteed by the treaty with Austria. He agreed that it was of vast importance to give every possible development to the commercial energies of Turkey and Austria, and the opening of the navigation of the Danube, by affording a water communication with those great and productive countries, could not but afford very great facilities for that mercantile intercourse with Great Britain, which on every account was so desirable.
Mr. Herrieshad not intended to say anything against the general scope and principle of this treaty.
Report agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
House in Committee on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
On Clause 35,
Colonel Rolleston Colonel Rolleston moved to omit the proviso "that the benefices in the patronage of the prebendaries of the collegiate church of South well, shall be vested partly in the Bishop of Ripon, and partly in the Bishop of Manchester."
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand:—Ayes 77; Noes 17; Majority 60

List of the Ayes.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Morris, D.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Muntz, G. F.

Adam, Admiral

Muskett, G. A.

Ainsworth, P.

Nicholl, J.

Baines, E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Parker, J.

Barry, G. S.

Pemberton, T.

Basset, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Blackett, C.

Power, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Rawdon, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Bruges, W.H.L.

Rice, E. R.

Busfeild, W.

Rundle, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Chalmers, P.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Clay, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Sanford, E. A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Scholefield, J.

Dundas, D.

Smith, J. A.

Elliot, hon. J. K.

Smith, R. V.

Erie, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Euston, Earl of

Stuart, W. V.

Evans, W.

Stock, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Style, Sir C.

Greene, T.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hector, C. J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Verney, Sir H.

Hodges, T. L.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodgson, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Horsman, E.

White, A.

Hoskins, K.

Williams, W.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Williams, W. A.

Hutt, W.

Wood, G. W.

James, W.

Wood, B.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Wyse, T.

Loch, J.

TELLERS.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Gordon, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Ackland.T. D.

Holmes, W.

Bowes, J.

Hope, G. W.

Broadley, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Knight, H. G.

Darby, G.

Lambton, H.

Eliott, Lord

Manners, Lord C. S.

Estcourt, T.

Pakingtop, J. S,

489

Parker, R. T.

TELLERS.

Pryme, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Pusey, P.

Rolleston, R.

Clause agreed to.
Other clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:— Weaver Churches. —Read a third time:—Admiralty Courts (Judges' Salary) Bill.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Haddington, from the United Parishes of a District in Haddingtonshire, in favour of the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.

DAMAGE OF SETTLED ESTATES.
On the motion of the Duke of Richmond, the House went into Committee on the Settled Estates Drainage Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburysuggested that it would be advisable to refer it to a Select Committee.
The Earl of Wicklowexpressed a hope that the machinery of the bill would be simplified. That machinery was at present extremely complicated; and the expense that must be incurred under its provisions, was so great, that he feared the measure would not be attended with any beneficial effect.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, the measure was calculated to bring into cultivation large tracts of land, which, while undrained, were useless. Still, he should have no objection to refer it to a Select Committee.
Bill referred to a Select Committee.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS—CLIMBING BOYS.
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to move the second reading of the Chimney Sweepers Bill, which came before their Lordships very powerfully supported. It was not a favourite measure merely with some one particular class, but the general feeling of the mass of the people was in favour of the measure. So strong was the feeling, that he was convinced, if their Lordships passed this bill, they would give more public satisfaction than by almost any other measure. The last bill that passed on this subject was nearly inoperative, in consequence of the ease with which it was evaded. In favour of this bill all parties were united; and its provisions were calculated to meet the objections urged against former propositions. Every one of the insurance companies was in favour
434
of this bill; and amongst them, the Hand-in-Hand office subscribed 100 l. towards carrying the object of the bill into effect. From all parts of the country petitions were poured in in favour of the measure; and, certainly, it was no small recommendation that it had passed the other House of Parliament without a dissentient voice. To prove the sufferings that climbing boys were compelled to endure, the noble Marquess read extracts from evidence given before a committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into this subject; and called their Lordships particular attention to the sentiments delivered by Lord Meadowbank, on a trial which recently took place in Edinburgh, when that learned personage denounced the practice of' employing climbing boys as disgraceful to the country, and revolting to humanity, and emphatically called upon all who heard him to join in their efforts to put down such an atrocious system. He sincerely hoped, that their Lordships would not refuse their sanction to a measure in favour of which so general, he might say, so universal a feeling, prevailed. One of the chief provisions of the bill prohibited the employment of any person under the age of twenty-one years in the climbing of chimneys. To this it was observed, that persons of such an age could not enter chimneys unless they were peculiarly constructed. The answer, however, to that, was, and it was the answer of experienced persons, that there were very few chimneys into which it would not be possible for individuals of small dimensions, though of mature age, to enter; and when the chimney did not admit of that, recourse must be had to the machine. His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Haddington) had, on a former evening, presented a petition from certain master chimneysweepers, praying to be heard by counsel against the bill. Now, if the prayer were acceded to, they would be required to hear counsel on the other side, and there would be no chance of carrying the bill. He, therefore, must object to such a course.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas not an advocate for the employment of boys in this species of vocation. He admitted all the evils that grew out of, and were connected with it; and he wished as sincerely and as warmly as his noble Friend opposite to put an end to the system, if, at the same time, he were well assured that security would accompany the abolition of the practice. In his opinion, their

435
Lordships should inquire, before they proceeded further with this bill, whether they might depend under the new system upon the same degree of security which they enjoyed under the old. The petition he had presented from the master chimneysweepers of London and Westminster against this bill, affirmed that there were very many chimnies that could not possibly be swept by machinery, and they prayed that this matter might be inquired into. He believed the master chimneysweepers were mistaken; but still it behoved their Lordships to inquire before they proceeded further. His noble Friend opposite said, that, if inquiry were allowed, the measure would probably be lost for this session. That would lead to great inconvenience, but the inconvenience would be still greater if they were to endanger the security of property, merely in order to pass the bill during the present session. Although, he apprehended that the bill must now be read a second time, he should propose that after the second reading it should be referred to a select committee.
The Bishop of Exetermust tender to the noble Marquess his most humble and hearty thanks for having stated, so ably the evils which attended the present system, and the necessity of putting an end to it. It seemed that there was not much difference of opinion, if any, on the subject of this bill, and he thought, therefore, that if a committee were agreed to, it need not take up much time in inquiry. He presumed that their Lordships would go into committee with their minds made up upon the misery engendered by the present system and the wickedness which it occasioned, which was greater than the amount of the misery. If these two points were taken to be admitted, the questions into which a committee of their Lordships would inquire would resolve themselves into this—whether the system of sweeping by machinery might be adopted with safety to life and property? He wished, however, that the committee would direct its attention to one point, which was of importance. In those flues which could not be swept by machinery, he apprehended it would be found that there was the greatest difficulty and danger when boys were employed. Now, he trusted that their Lordships would think that children should not be permitted to sweep those flues, unless it could be
436
plainly shown that they might be easily and safely swept by boys.
Earl De Greywished to state in a few words to their Lordships the reasons which induced him to oppose any inquiry. All the insurance-offices in London but one would not have adopted machinery, unless it had been satisfactorily proved that machinery could safely be applied? He had had a good deal of experience in the alteration of old, and the erection of new chimnies, and he was sure that there were not any chimnies which might not be so altered as to admit of being swept by machinery. He thought there was no necessity for further inquiry, and he gave his cordial and hearty support to the bill before the House.
Lord Segraveobserved, that in many old houses it would be almost impossible to alter chimnies in such a manner as to render it practicable to dispense with the assistance of boys, and if this bill passed into a law, property in the country would be placed in a state of great danger.
The Bishop of Londonconfessed that he would rather place old houses in jeopardy than the life of a fellow-creature. His reason for opposing a select committee was, that the misery and wickedness occasioned by the present system having been admitted, unless it could be proved that it would be impossible to make such alteration in chimnies that they could be swept by machinery, their Lordships would not be justified in prolonging a system which had already destroyed much human life, and so long as it continued would probably be the means of destroying much more.
The Earl of Wicklowbelieved that if this bill passed it would endanger a vast number of edifices in this country. He knew very well that those who lived in cities and towns where chimnies were built in the modern style Would be secure under the operation of this bill, but the feeling in the country among the possessors of old habitations was decidedly against it. He was quite at a loss to know on what grounds an inquiry could be resisted. Not only had their Lordships no information at present, but when a similar bill came up from the other House six years ago a committee of inquiry was appointed, and the result of the inquiry was the conviction of the committee that the bill could not then pass. With regard to the severity and

437
hardship with which these poor children were treated, that surely might be made the subject of regulation.
The Duke of Beaufortfelt the difficulty of taking a course which was apparently opposed to the dictates of humanity, but at the same time he could not but think that if this bill were now to pass into a law, it would be very injurious to property in the country. He held in his hand a petition signed by 3,000 inhabitants of Bristol, against the bill, and under these circumstances he should support the proposition of the noble Earl for a reference to a select committee.
The Duke of Sutherlandsaid, that having several petitions to present on the subject, and as it was one on which he entertained a strong feeling, he would take the liberty of stating in a very few words the reasons why he thought this bill ought to pass, and why there was no necessity for a reference to a committee. He had the honour of being chairman of the select committee to which was referred the bill to which the noble Earl had adverted, and having heard all the evidence and the strongest arguments which the master chimney-sweepers could employ, they were so satisfied on the subject, that the only reason why the committee wished some delay should take place before legislation was, that public attention might be called to the subject. Having heard that many houses, of which he was the owner, could not be swept by machinery, he had had them all altered, and without much difficulty, so as to admit the machinery. The present was a horrible practice, and ought not to be tolerated in a Christian community.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas of opinion, that if their Lordships altered this bill so as to exempt these climbing boys from work, they must bring in another bill to arrest the employment of children in all the other public works of the country. The measure was of great importance, and ought not to be adopted without inquiry.
The Duke of Richmondrose for the purpose of making a suggestion that, instead of reading this bill a second time, it should be sent back to the committee appointed under the standing orders, and that that committee report on it.
Bill read a second time.
The Earl of Haddington The Earl of Haddington moved that it be referred to a select committee.
The Marquess of Normanbywas unwilling to oppose this motion, but the inquiry which their Lordships had formerly instituted into this subject had been so searching and so general, that he thought further inquiry unnecessary.
Their Lordships divided: Contents 91; Not-contents 77; Majority 14.
Select committee nominated.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
The Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill was recommitted.
On the proposition that schedule A be agreed to,
Lord Wynfordrose to move as an amendment that Dublin be struck out of schedule A, with the view of excepting that city altogether from the operation of the bill. If this schedule passed in its present state, that for which certain persons were so clamorous, viz., equal justice to Ireland, would not be done. Their Lordships, in passing the English Corporation Bill, had thought fit to exclude the city of London; and, upon the same principle, he would now call upon them to exclude Dublin from the operation of this bill. It was the opinion of many persons of authority that the corporation of Dublin ought to be left as it was; and the present hon. and learned Member for Dublin, when some years ago he was examined before a Committee of the other House, gave it as his opinion that no change was required. The corporation of Dublin was essentially different from other corporations with which this bill proposed to deal. Funds to a very large amount had passed from one generation of freemen to another for specific persons; that property was the private property of the corporation, and had been handed down to the present freemen by their predecessors for Protestant purposes, and for Protestant purposes only, and the parties by whom this property was left would rather have allowed it to go into the hands of any party than of that into whose hands it would probably fall by this bill. If the corporation of Dublin were not excluded, the bill would tend to shake the foundation of all property. He had presented to their Lordships a petition signed by no less than 7,000 persons, strongly protesting against the principle of this bill, as it affected Dublin. No charge of mismanagement could be brought against the corporation of Dublin. In one case, in which a large defalcation

439
of the funds was charged against the corporation, the House of Lords, in opposition to the highest legal authority in Ireland, had, upon appeal, decided against them, and had pronounced that the funds in question were trust, and not private funds; and what was the consequence? The money, to the last farthing, was paid back. No charge had been made out against the corporation of improper conduct. Then, on what ground did the bill propose to deprive the freemen of Dublin of the rights they now enjoy? It was objected against this corporation that it was exclusive in its character. His answer was, that those corporations had been originally established for the purpose of giving support to the Protestant minority, who were in favour of the English connection, as against the Catholic majority, who were opposed to that connection, and who were anxious to do all they could to destroy it. It was known to their Lordships, that that majority was still anxious for Catholic ascendancy in Ireland; and their Lordships were aware also that the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland had been charged with the most scandalous conduct in their endeavours to influence elections in that country. There was now nothing like a fair and free election in Ireland; he alluded more especially to the elections for guardians under the Poor-law Act. It had been shown that in several instances the Roman Catholic priests had denounced from the altar those persons who wished to vote in favour of Protestant Gentlemen as Poor-law guardians—an office in no way connected with politics or religion, but altogether one of charity. The corporation of Dublin must be exclusively Protestant or exclusively Roman Catholic, and he was persuaded that it would become the latter in a very few years if this bill passed. The connection between the two countries could only be preserved by maintaining these corporations exclusively Protestant. Deprive those institutions, by this bill, of the advantages of Protestant ascendancy, and in a few years, the connection between Ireland and England would cease. They had tried the experiment in one town in Ireland (Tuam), and the effect had been that the corporation had become Roman Catholic. It showed them how a Catholic corporation would deal with the property that came into their hands. The present corporation of Tuam had diverted the funds of that corporation from Protestant
440
to Roman Catholic purposes. It had let property of the value of 400 l. a year to the Catholic archbishop, for an object exclusively Catholic, for 250 l. a year. If the bill were suffered to pass without thus amending the clause, the effect, he was convinced, would be, that the corporation of Dublin, becoming, as it necessarily must become, a political body, with a strong desire to acquire power for that class of religious professors of which it would principally consist, would be enabled, by calling together delegates, to discuss and decide upon questions of great pith and moment of a legislative character, and assume the character of a separate legislature and a political convention. He would implore their Lordships to pay that attention to the subject which it demanded. It was a question whether they would establish and organize a powerful corporation, which must be principally composed of Catholics, in the capital of Ireland, which, by being so constituted, would be enabled, not only to call meetings on every public occasion, but also to carry whatever resolutions it pleased, whether in opposition to the Government, or in its support. Finally, they ought to reflect that by establishing a body so powerful in that country as that of the corporation of Dublin must be, there could be but little doubt that the designs of those disaffected to British connection would be promoted, and the political union of the two countries endangered. He should, therefore, move that the words "the corporation of Dublin be omitted from the schedule."
The Marquess of Normanby: This was the first time it had been proposed to omit Dublin from the operation of Corporation Reform. The noble and learned Lord had made a novel proposition, but had brought forward no new matter in support of it; for his speech was only a repetition of what they had so lately heard stated with so much ability at the bar of the House. One novelty, however, the noble and learned Lord had introduced. He had found out that this introduction of Dublin into the bill must be displeasing to Mr. O'Connell: and he (Lord Normanby) had never heard that Mr. O'Connell had moved the omission of Dublin from the schedule of this bill. The opinion of Mr. O'Connell, to which the noble and learned Lord alluded, had been delivered six years ago, and it was not unlikely that he had then anticipated that a reform of the corporation of

441
Dublin would have preceded that of the other corporations of Ireland. The noble and learned Lord said, that justice would not be done to Ireland unless Dublin, like London, had a separate bill for itself; but London had already had a reform more like what this corporation reform would make Dublin, than Dublin was at present. In the speech which had recently been delivered at the bar of the House, it was said that all the witnesses examined before the corporation commissioners were notorious partisans, and that many of them were without character. But the majority of these witnesses were actually the officers of the corporations. Such a charge of falsification of evidence was therefore perfectly groundless. If they looked at the evidence of Alderman Montgomery, they would find that there was no foundation for the statements which the learned counsel had made at the bar. The noble and learned Lord had said that on a former occasion he (Lord Normanby) had pledged himself to prove the misconduct of the corporation of Dublin; but what he had said was, that he would endeavour to give the best reasons in his power against the motion which the noble and learned Lord had now submitted to their consideration. That, however, was a very narrow ground on which to defend this bill, and it was not on that account alone that this bill was brought forward. He thought the conduct of the corporation of Dublin in Tegard to the pipe water-rate was fraudulent, that was, malversation of public funds. But the noble and learned Lord, it would appear, had been instructed that this was not an agreeable part of the case of the corporation. The learned counsel at the bar had also said, that there had been no misconduct, but he had not said a word about the pipe water-rate. In regard to that rate the facts were these: in the reign of George 3d. an act was passed to enable the corporation to levy a rate for laying down pipes for supplying Dublin with water. Now, what had the corporation done? They had voted themselves 1,500 l. a year under this act, because, as they said, they had advanced money at separate times to procure a supply of water for the town. Under the Metal Main Act the corporation was required to keep separate accounts, and to submit them at stated periods to the Lord-lieutenant, but no accounts had for eight years been rendered. They had, however, voted them-
442
selves another 1,000 l. a year, and, moreover, the Lord-mayor and treasurer had, allowed themselves a per centage. They had then, in place of that per centage, voted 1,000 l. a year to the Lord Mayor, and 1,000 l. a year to the treasurer. The fact of the corporation of Dublin being in debt to the amount, at the lowest calculation, of 200,000 l. and, according to other calculations 300,000 l., was pretty good proof that they had not managed their funds in the most judicious manner. But the point of the greatest importance was, that the corporation was exclusive. The sheriffs who were appointed by the corporation, were actually obliged, in order to show that they had not in the slightest degree abandoned those extreme principles, and those strong prejudices, upon the faith of which they were elected, to propose and drink a specific toast which was notoriously offensive to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. Those prejudices, he regretted to say, operated throughout the whole system of the administration of justice, and even affected the appointment of grand juries when they happened to be connected with the corporation. The noble and learned Lord had alluded to the corporation of Tuam as an exclusive corporation, because the great majority of its members were Roman Catholics. Now, although it would be fair to apply such a test to the corporation of Dublin, in order to prove it was exclusive, it was not applicable to the case of Tuam, because there the population was entirely Roman Catholic. If their Lordships really wished to show favour to a body which was the most exclusive of all the corporations of Ireland, and which was also the most delinquent,—he did not mean as to personal dishonour, but as regarded the mismanagement of the corporate funds—if they wished to show favour to such a body as that, then would they agree to the motion of the noble and learned Lord. But if their Lordships did agree to that motion, they must not expect that the country for which they were legislating and the other House of Parliament with which they were legislating could consider their Lordships sincere in their endeavours to settle this question. He hoped, however, that their Lordships would show by a large majority, that they were sincerely desirous of settling a question of so much importance to the prosperity of the sister country.
The Earl of Carberysaid, that the valuation which had taken place in Dublin under the Poor-law Act had been set aside in the case of upwards of 300 houses, for the purpose of raising their valuation, and thereby conferring on the occupiers of those houses the Parliamentary franchise. And who was to be found at the head of those upon whose supervision and recommendation that change had been made? No less a person than Mr. Seaton, an electioneering agent of Mr. O'Connell's. With that simple fact before his eyes, he could arrive at no other conclusion respecting this bill than that it would have the effect of transferring the power at present possessed by the Protestants into the hands of the Roman Catholics, and of establishing Popish domination in Ireland.
The Earl of Wicklowhad listened with attention to the speeches of counsel at the bar, and to those which had been made that evening by noble Lords near him, and he confessed he could see in them no arguments in favour of the present motion, however there might have been in favour of the bill. If any motion of the kind ought to be made, it should in his mind be for the exclusion of all the other corporations excepting Dublin, which seemed all along to have been the principal corporation in view with the projectors of the bill. The bill was framed particularly for Dublin to which he thought it applicable, while he did not see any inapplicability in it to the other towns. He could not therefore support the proposition of his noble and learned Friend. It was said, that this bill transferred power from the hands of one sect to another, but in his opinion it transferred power from a section to the great body of the people. He did not consider that the power would be transferred so much to the Roman Catholic as to the Radical party, which greatly preponderated in Ireland. Protestants would be found in the corporation of Dublin and those of other great towns, though perhaps not in Tuam, which had for the most part a Roman Catholic population. He considered that any change which might take place would be less of a sectarian than of a political character. He admitted that the altered circumstances of the present time rendered corporations almost unnecessary; but at the same time, if they were retained in this country he was of opinion that a similar principle of legislation should be extended to Ireland. That
444
country was now too strong to be governed in any other manner than by applying to it the principles of the British constitution, and he, for one, would never give his consent to any other course. The effect of the proposition made by his noble and learned Friend would be to throw out the bill altogether, for it would be a mere mockery to pass the bill with the exclusion of Dublin. He had been opposed to the exclusion of Galway; but if a motion were made to exclude from the operation of the bill any town in which the majority of the inhabitants were opposed to becoming burthened with the expense of municipal institutions, it should have his support.
The Marquess of Westmeathsupported the amendment. He considered that it was an act of great injustice to include Dublin in this bill, for there was nothing in the evidence collected by the corporation commissioners to bear out the charges which had been made against the corporation of that city. He had no objection to the introduction of a bill for the purpose of amending any defects which might be shown to exist in the corporation of Dublin, but, as he said before, none of the allegations of that sort had been made out in the reports, though the commissioners had not been most properly selected, as the names of Mr. Purin and Mr. Hudson, and the nature and bearing of the questions proposed to the witnesses would show. The charges against the corporation, he would again repeat, had not been made out, and there was not a single fact in either report which should induce their Lordships to hang a dog upon. With respect to the case of the sheriff, the noble Marquess (Normanby) had stated, that the conduct of the sheriff in the election of juries proved the exclusiveness of the corporation. He denied that the sheriff could misconduct himself with respect to the election of juries. The noble Earl (Wicklow) had stated, that the corporation would consist of the Radical party. Was it not fair for him to state that that party would be the poorest? He could prove that the houses inhabited by the Radical party were of the poorest description. He thought he had answered pretty nearly the noble Marquess's speech. He begged their Lordships to hear his warning voice—by passing this bill they would be jumping into an abyss which they were not prepared to sound. The

445
noble Marquess might try to turn what he had said into mirth, but he could not answer it.
The Earl of Glengallobjected to the enormous amount of the corporation funds (150,000 l.) being thrown into the hands of the Repealers and enemies of both Ireland and England; for if their Lordships thus transferred these enormous sums he was prepared to say, that the connexion between Ireland and England would very shortly be dissolved. It was the state of things in Ireland at this moment which made him hostile to this clause. The state of society in Ireland now was totally different from what it had been at any other period. They had the Repeal Society organized in full force, and also the Riband Society; and if the funds of these corporations were given to these men, he did not hesitate to say that it would not be long before Ireland ceased to form an integral part of the British empire. What had been the cause of all these societies failing in attaining their objects in former years. It was the want of funds. He contended that this kind of societies when before in existence in Ireland had invariably tended to produce insurrections. All these societies had formerly merged into the Society of United Irishmen—a society which had produced the most disastrous consequences in Ireland. He contended, that the Society of United Irishmen and the Society of Repealers were the same in their objects. There had of late appeared in Ireland a new power in a new class of priests. They were a totally different description of men from the ancient priesthood, who were generally a respectable class of men. The present order of priests were sprung from a lower class of society—from the sons of small farmers; and it was now known, that to become priests there was no surer road than the political violence of their parents. The young priests were the first at the polling booths at elections, they were the first at elections of Poor-law guardians, and they would be the first in the elections of town councillors. They would be the persons who would elect the town councillors and others of the city of Dublin. If these men gave as much time to circulating the truths of their religion, as they did to circulating seditious papers, he should not complain of them; but they ap-
446
peared to have thrown away the Prayer-book for the Dublin Evening Post, and to have taken up the Pilot instead of the Douay Bible. There was not a man in Ireland who did not believe that the Corn Exchange agitators had all the power and the patronage of Ireland in their hands. It was a most unfortunate state of things when persons of indifferent repute were placed in situations of responsibility, and when agitators should have the power of distributing rewards and emoluments. He would wish to ask, was not the Vice President of the Board of Trade a Repealer? [Laughter.] He begged, that noble Lords would not laugh at, but answer him. He had himself heard that right hon. Gentleman declare that he was so in the court-house in Clonmel. Let there be a complete assimilation in the municipal laws of England and Ireland, and he would be perfectly satisfied, or let them give Ireland Lord Stanley's bill, and they might then have as many corporations as they liked, Dublin included.
The Duke of Wellingtonwould confine himself to simply stating the grounds on which he should give his vote on this question, which was merely that the word "Dublin" be omitted in the bill. The speech of his noble Friend, who had last addressed their Lordships was against the entire bill, and against the corporation system in Ireland, and certainly there was no man more firmly of opinion than he was that it would have been better at first that no corporations whatever should be created in Ireland. That was his opinion originally; but, however, in another place, another opinion prevailed so strongly, that he had yielded his own opinion, and it was now the duty of the noble Lords opposite to take care that the bad consequences which his noble Friend apprehended did not follow from this bill. That to which he would now address himself was the amendment which had been moved by his noble and learned Friend on his left. After their Lordships had had this subject before them during five years, the corporation of Dublin had thought proper this year to present a petition against this bill, and to employ counsel to plead their cause in support of that petition. He must say, that their cause was most ably pleaded, and he should certainly have expected that the noble Lord who moved to call counsel to the bar, or his noble and learned Friend, would have thought it

447
proper to examine witnesses in support of what was stated by counsel, if either of them had intended to found on that statement such a motion as had been made by his noble and learned Friend. No such thing, however, was done, and it appeared by what fell from the noble Marquess, whose statement had not been contradicted, that the learned counsel was not supported by the fact in a great part of what he said. He confessed, he should be very desirous, if he could possibly find the means of preventing the great mischiefs which he apprehended might be occasioned by the establishment of a corporation in Dublin. He certainly should be very sorry to see a society such as existed in Dublin at the present day, and which he hoped would continue to exist there, placed under the government of such a corporation as might be elected if great care were not taken to prevent it. He entreated their Lordships to look closely into the powers given by the law, and particularly at the powers of taxation, and to take care that such great powers should not be lodged in hands which might abuse it. They must, however, consider the state in which the question stood, and considering that, they must, he thought, not vote for the amendment of his noble and learned Friend. Let the bill go through the Committee, and let amendments be introduced into such parts of the bill as would remedy and avert the inconveniencies which might result from lodging great power in the hands of those persons who, however they might be called responsible by the noble Lords on the other side of the House, were responsible to nothing but a wild democracy, which tyrannized over every rank in society. He should vote against the amendment proposed by his noble and learned Friend, and he should do so for the reasons which he had stated. He was prepared to go into every other part of the bill, and he should endeavour to send the bill down to the House of Commons as perfect as it could be made.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to do an act of justice, if not to Ireland, at least to an Irishman. It was with very deep regret, that he had heard the noble Duke say, that in consequence of an allegation in a single part of the learned counsel's speech being contradicted by the noble Marquess, the whole of that speech must be laid aside. He must say, that this was not
448
like the usual mode in which that just man, the noble Duke, dealt with questions that came before him. He did not believe, that Alderman Montgomery could have said, that he sat on the grand jury with three Catholics, but the short-hand writers of the corporation told the members of the corporation so, and also the learned counsel. With regard to the toast which the Sheriffs of Dublin gave, there was no greater reason for taking exception to it than to the church service which was performed on the 5th of November. He objected to this bill, because, as the noble Earl opposite had avowed, the power of the corporations would be transferred from Protestants to Roman Catholics. The noble Earl said, that the democratic principle of election was the essence of a reformed corporation. The noble Earl said, that he believed the corporations would not be exclusively Catholic; but exclusively radical. Now, as he believed, that a large portion of the great Conservative body opposite would vote against the amendment, he hoped it would not be upon the principle professed by the noble Earl. He meant cordially to support the motion of his noble and learned Friend.
The Earl of Wicklowmust protest against the misconstruction which had been put upon a passage in his speech by the right rev. Prelate. He had never asserted, that his reason for supporting the bill was that these corporations would be composed of "Radicals." He had admitted, that in all probability they would be found to be Radicals, in the first instance, and that the change to less violent principles would not be so immediate as the change which had taken place in the remodelled corporations of England.
The Marquess of Lansdownecould state, with the most perfect confidence to their Lordships, that the learned counsel who had addressed them from their Bar on behalf of the corporation of Dublin, had been utterly mistaken as to every particle of that evidence upon which he was called on to comment. He made this statement deliberately, after having referred to the evidence in minute detail. The learned counsel had boldly stated, that no instance of malversation, nor the slightest ground of complaint, could be adduced against his clients. Now, to disprove this allegation, it was only necessary to refer to the testimony of Alder-

449
man Beresford, that "the boundaries had been in many instances altered and diminished, that perpetuities had been lost through the negligence of the members of the corporations, that leases in perpetuity had been renewed at nominal rents, that renewals of leases had taken place for two houses where there was a conveyance made of 24 or 25 houses; that their estates, in short, had been mismanaged for a period of 50 years, that a prejudice had been created in the public mind, that leases would be given to none but corporators, and that, in point of fact, leases had very often been made to corporators." Alderman Smith came after this witness, and confirmed his testimony as to all these subjects. This was the virtuous corporation that sent counsel to their bar, to ask on what possible point they could be found fault with? Why, not less than 240 streets and 60,000 poor inhabitants had been robbed of their pipe-water by this immaculate corporation, as was recorded upon their Lordships' journals. They derived large funds from the "shippage and anchorage," and not one shilling of this money had been applied to the improvement of the navigation of the river. He appealed to the right rev. Prelate's sense of justice as to his opinion of the mode in which they had administered the most sacred and solemn of all their functions, that which had relation to the administration of justice. They had farmed out the court of conscience, and their sole solicitude had been for the enlargement of the fees. He had little fear of the working of this measure in Dublin more than in the other towns of Ireland, and he objected strongly to leaving out Dublin, because there was before their Lordships a quantity of evidence, with regard to the corporation of that city, to make out a case for a measure of reform for that body itself, independent of any other corporation. It was not, however, upon that ground he stood, but upon the broad principle of introducing and enforcing a principle of local government, founded not on self-election, but on the free election of persons, to remain responsible to the public for their conduct and for the management of the funds intrusted to their care. He must, therefore, vote against the amendment of the noble and learned Lord.
The Marquess of Londonderrywished
450
merely to defend the learned counsel who had recently been heard at their Lordships' Bar from the attacks which had been made upon him, and to state the reasons for the vote which he was about to give. That learned gentleman, as he had himself stated, was prepared to prove every statement which he had made; and he must say, therefore, that the remarks which had been made by noble Lords opposite were not justified. With regard to the question before the House, he was disposed to vote for the motion of the noble and learned Lord near him, because he had reason to believe that if Dublin were excluded from the operation of this measure, that person who was master of the Government would not allow the bill to pass.
Lord Wynfordsaid, in reply, that he thought the remarks which had been made by noble Lords opposite in regard to the learned gentleman who was heard at their Lordships' Bar were perfectly unjustified. That learned person held the highest character, and was prepared to prove the truth of every statement he had advanced, if their Lordships would afford him an opportunity of doing so. He should leave his motion in the hands of their Lordships.
The House divided:—Contents 35; Not-Contents 82:—Majority 47.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

BARONS.

Buckingham

Bayning

Marlborough

Bexley

Newcastle.

Bolton

MARQUESSES.

Boston

Cholmondeley

Braybrooke

Londonderry

Faversham

Westmeath.

Grantley

EARLS.

Kenyon

Bandon

Rayleigh

Brownlow

Wodehouse

Carbery

Wynford.

Dartmouth

BISHOPS.

Eldon

Cork

Enniskillen

Exeter

Falmouth

Gloucester

Glengall

Llandaff

Warwick.

Lincoln

VISCOUNT.

London

Gort.

Oxford.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

Leinster

Canterbury.

Wellington.

DUKES.

MARQUESSES.

Dorset

Clanricarde

Leeds

Headford

451

Lansdowne

Barham

Normanby

Bateman

Salisbury.

Brougham

EARLS.

Byron

Aberdeen

Clonbrock

Brecknock

Colborne

Camperdown

Cottenham

Charlemont

Dacre

Clanwilliam

De Ros

Clarendon

Denman

Devon

Ellenborough

Gosford

Foley

Haddington

Gardner

Harrington

Hatherton

Howard of Effingham

Holland

Ilchester

Kinnaird

Kingston

Leigh

Leitrim

Lilford

Lonsdale

Lurgan

Minto

Lyttleton

Moray

Methuen

Munster

Mostyn

Powis

Poltimore

Rosebery

Portman

Spencer

Ravensworth

Scarborough

Rolle

Wicklow.

Stafford

VISCOUNTS.

Stanley

Bolingbroke

Studeley

Duncannon

Vaux

Hawarden

Wenlock

Hereford

Wharncliffe.

Hood

Lismore

BISHOPS.

Melbourne

Chichester

Torrington.

Durham

BARONS.

Lichfield

Ashburton

Salisbury

The remaining schedules and preamble agreed to.
House resumed. Bill to be reported.