Sitting of 1 May 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Exchequer Bills; Soap Duties; Chimney Sweepers.—Read a third time:—Insolvent Debtors (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. Wilshere, from Hitchen, against Climbing Boys.—By Captain Wemyss, from one place, for an Extension of the Franchise.—By Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. Scholefield, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dennistoun, Mr. Thorneley, Mr. Grote, Mr. Ewart, Mr. J. Martin, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. P. Scrope, Mr. Lushington, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Ward, and Mr. B. Wood, from a very great number of places, against, and by Lord Eastnor, Messrs. Kemble, Freshfield, W. Duncombe, Milne, Boiling, Darby, Bramston, Sir J. Y. Buller, Sir R. H. Inglis, Lord Sandon, and Colonel J. Wood, from a great number of places, for, Church Extension.—By Messrs. Scholefield, Kemble, Shepherd, Strutt, Milne, Pryme, A. White, Mackinnon, J. Parker, Mildmay, P. Scrope, Hutt, Alston, Grote, Hope, Lord Mahon, Alderman Humphery, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Lord R. Grosvenor, Sir G. Grey, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Sir E. Wilmot, from a great many places, against the employment of Climbing Boys,—By Mr.
1150
Strutt, from Derby, Mr. Ward, from Sheffield, and Mr. Thorneley, from Wolverhampton, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and of the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts; also for the Release of John Thorogood—By Viscount Sandon, from Lancaster, for Settling the Scotch Church Question.—By Colonel J. Wood, from several Parishes, against the Rating of Workhouses, or of Stock in Trade.—By Mr. Pattison, from several places, Mr. Hume, from Clerkenwell, and Mr. Grote, from Bermondsey, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws; and by Mr. W. Duncombe, from York, against the same.—By Viscount Sandon, from Liverpool, for Regulating the Manufacture of Tobacco.—By Mr. S. O'Brien, from Limerick, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland.—By Mr. Sheppard, from Frome, against the Opium Trade.—By Mr. W. Duncombe, from two places, against applying the Canada Clergy Reserves to any but Church of England purposes.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Torquay, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Messrs. Thorneley, and Clay, and Colonel J. Wood, from several places, against Rating Stock in Trade.—By Mr. T. Parker, from Preston, and Viscount Mahon, from one place, against the County Constabulary Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Kilkenny, against the Irish Registration Bill; from several places, for Universal Suffrage; and from Medical Men of Kilkenny, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. Bramston, from one place, for Expelling the Catholics from Parliament.

PORT FOR MAIL PACKETS.
Mr. Freshfieldwished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the proposed alteration in the port or ports from which the West India mails were hereafter to take their departure. He had heard, upon the authority of a Hampshire paper, that the Government had officially selected Southampton as the future point of departure. His first question, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman would be whether that announcement was correct. But as a mere negation to that question would not satisfy his constituents, he begged further to ask whether the deputation of Cornish Members who had waited upon the right hon. Gentleman had correctly understood him to state that the Government would not decide on the question until they had taken the opinion of some gentlemen not interested in the question, and who were well qualified to judge of the comparative merits of the five ports which had been mentioned, namely, Falmouth, Devonport, Plymouth, Southampton, and Portsmouth. He wished also to know whether the deputation of Cornish gentlemen correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman to state that when this information had been received, he would draw it up in the form of a Treasury minute, and place it upon the table of that House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the statement in the newspaper, to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, was not correct. The fact was not so.

1151
With respect to the hon. Gentleman's second question, the communication that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made to the deputation of Cornish gentlemen was this: that it was the intention of the Government to appoint certain gentlemen connected with the navy and the post-office, and utterly uninfluenced by the interests of the different ports, to inquire into the matter and to report to the Government, and as soon as instructions had been issued to these gentlemen, they would be laid on the table. One of the commissioners appointed was Sir James Gordon; another was the assistant-secretary to the post-office; and the third was a gentleman connected with the mercantile marine; their instructions would be framed by the Admiralty, and referred to the Treasury. Every port would have full opportunity of representing its own case, but the instructions were not framed; when they were, he would have no objection to lay them before the House. The ports to which the inquiry would apply were Falmouth, Devonport, Plymouth, Southampton, and Portsmouth.

DISPUTE WITH NAPLES.
Viscount Mahon, seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his place, wished to ask him whether any official intelligence had been received of those measures of reprisal which, as the House was informed on a previous occasion, had been directed to be taken against the government of Naples?
Viscount Palmerstonhad received yesterday a despatch, dated the 17th of April, stating that reprisals had commenced, and that the Hydra was then in the Bay of Naples.

MAINE BOUNDARY.
Mr. Humebegged to ask whether her Majesty's Government were now able to state in what condition the negociations respecting the Maine Boundary were?
Lord J. Russellsaid, I have some doubt how far it is consistent with my duty to answer the question which the hon. Gentleman has just put to me, but as there is considerable anxiety, and as papers upon the subject have been published in the United States, I think it would be desirable to give a general outline of the case as it at present stands between the United States and this country relative to the Maine boundary. The House will recol-
1152
lect that I stated on a former occasion that there were two very distinct questions to be determined, the one the general question of the boundary, arising out of the treaty of 1783 and the treaty of Ghent, and the other the interpretation of the agreement for the sake of preserving jurisdiction and possession undisturbed by the two parties, made in the course of the spring of 1839. With respect to the former part of the subject, a proposition was made by my noble Friend, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the name of the Government, last year, and the reply to that was a counter proposition of a totally different nature made by the Government of the United States. At the same time commissioners were appointed by the Government of Great Britain, who surveyed a part of the disputed territory, and arrived in this country in January last. Their report was received only a few days ago; it contains matter of very considerable importance, and is now under the consideration of the Government, and an answer will be immediately returned to the last proposition made by the Government of the United States, informing it how far we can fall in with the proposition it has made with the view of bringing this, which is the great question at issue, to an amicable and conclusive termination. That is the only answer I can give at present upon that branch of the subject. With respect to the question relating to the provisional agreement of last year, it is unfortunate that it is upon that question, and almost entirely upon that question, that the recent difficulties have arisen. It is certainly most unfortunate that there should have been this disagreement, not only upon the general question, but also upon the agreements entered into between Sir J. Harvey and General Scott. I think it necessary to inform the House of one or two points upon which both the governor of New Brunswick and the Governor-general of North America, as also the Commander of the Forces, thought the spirit of that agreement was not fulfilled on the part of the American Government. The agreement proposed by General Scott, and agreed to by the governor of Maine, was, that Great Britain should continue for the present to hold the valley of Upper St. John, and Maine that of the Aroostook, without it being conceded that the right was in either. The agreement was in these words:—

1153
"And that he is willing in the mean time, to leave the questions of possession and jurisdiction as they at present stand; that is, Great Britain holding, in fact, possession of a part of the said territory, and the government of Maine denying her right to such possession; and the state of Maine holding, in fact, possession of another portion of the same territory, to which her right is denied by Great Britain."
This agreement was proposed by General Scott on the 21st of March; it was agreed to by Sir J. Harvey on the 23rd of March, and by Governor Fairfield on the 25th. Sir J. Harvey, in his despatch to Lord Glenelg, stated these facts to the Government of Great Britain, and his statement was borne out by the following words of General Scott, in a letter addressed to Sir John Harvey on the 21st of March:—
"Although under circumstances he cannot stipulate upon the subject, I am certain that he does not intend to send any part of such posse beyond the waters of the Aroostook River; and that it is his intention so to employ his people in guarding the timber as to be but little observed, and to give the least possible irritation to the people of New Brunswick."
Sir John Harvey, in a subsequent instruction to the warden of the disputed territory, said,
"My understanding of this agreement—that of the people of this province, and I will venture unhesitatingly to say, that of General Scott—was, that there should be a complete pause in the movements on either side, and that things should remain as they then stood, by the armed civil posse of Maine retaining possession of the valley of the Aroostook, we denying their right to that portion of the country, and we retaining possession of the valley of the Upper St. John, Maine denying our right to hold it. That such was the true spirit of the agreement, there would be no difficulty on my part in establishing to the entire satisfaction and conviction of every impartial person."
Such having been the understanding of Sir John Harvey, and such being the representations he made to Lord Glenelg, the Government of this country expressed its approbation of the agreement he had made. It afterwards appeared, late in the autumn, that the persons belonging to this civil posse of Maine had advanced into the valley of Upper St. John, and had established themselves in a position where the Fish River falls into the St. John, called the mouth or confluence of the St. John
1154
and the Fish River. But with regard to what was done by the people of Maine, there was no better authority than the message of the Governor of the State of Maine, in which he said—
"In addition to the labour expended in furnishing tolerably substantial fortifications erected upon the Aroostook, with two large block-houses, and similar buildings at the mouth of Fish River, they have made over one hundred miles of road through the heart of the wilderness."
Now, it appears that one of these blockhouses in the valley of Upper St. John, was occupied by between twenty and thirty men, armed with guns and a field-piece, which they fired off in token of taking possession. In consequence of these proceedings there were remonstrances made by Mr. Fox to the government of the United States, and it not appearing that there was likely to be any effectual check put to those proceedings, the governor of the British North American provinces, in connexion with the commander of the forces, has advanced two companies of infantry to a place certainly within the disputed boundary. In the representations made on the part of the United States, there certainly must have been some oversight on the part of the governor of Maine, in his communications to the secretary of state for the United States, in not adverting to that part of the agreement which I have read, but merely referring to another part of the agreement, in which it was stated that they had done nothing to disturb the Madawaska settlement. They confined the limits of the Madawaska settlement within a very restricted boundary, while we contend that it extends to the Fish river. This is another part of the agreement. The ambiguity of the term "Madawaska settlement" had occasioned a disagreement as to the construction of the original words, made use of in the agreement between the governor of New Brunswick and the governor of the State of Maine. However, according to the last accounts received from that country, it does not appear that Maine entertains any intention of going beyond what she has hitherto done. I have been given to understand that such is the opinion entertained on this subject by those on the spot, and I believe that it is also the opinion of the governor of New Brunswick, that the two parties will remain in their present position, and that

1155
there is, I will not say no possibility, but certainly no probability, of any collision taking place between the adverse parties. Such being the state of affairs, it appeared to me to be my duty to write to the governor of British America, and to the commander of the forces in that country, to state my opinion that it would be exceedingly desirable, if any ambiguity existed in the instrument agreed upon between the governor of New Brunswick and the governor of Maine, in order to avoid any chance of collision between the adverse parties, that the exact geographical position at present occupied by each party should be distinctly ascertained, and made the foundation of a fresh agreement. Governor Thomson coincided with me in opinion on this point, and in obedience to my wishes he sent to the American government to make such a proposal, adding, which is a matter of great importance, and of which I entirely approve, a proposition that commissioners should be appointed on each side, to see that such agreement should be fairly carried into effect. Such is an outline of the state of affairs at present between the two countries. No doubt it implies, that differences of an unpleasant nature have occurred between the two countries on this question of the boundary, hut when I consider how much both countries are interested in the preservation of peace, the great responsibility that will be incurred by whichever country shall have unnecessarily recourse to hostilities, I trust and believe that peace will not be interrupted, but that the whole will end in a formal and amicable settlement of all existing differences.
Subject at an end.

MASTERS OF THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Mr. Blakewished to put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, relative to the appointment of masters in the Court of Exchequer. It was understood to be the intention of Government to abolish the equity side of the Court of Exchequer, and to give compensation to those who held employment there. He had been informed, however, that a vacancy had lately occurred in the court in question, and that it had since been filled up by the appointment of the hon. R. C. Scarlett. He wished to know whether that appointment had been made with the sanction of Government, and whether it was intended that Mr. Scarlett
1156
should also receive a compensation should his office be abolished?
Lord John Russellsaid, that with regard to the first question of the hon. Member, the Chief Baron of the Court of Exchequer had the right, when a vacancy occurred, to fill it up without consulting her Majesty's Government. With regard to the bill now before Parliament, it was intended to transfer one of the masters of the Court of Exchequer, viz.; Mr. Richards, to the Court of Chancery, and to provide compensation for the others. It would be for the House, however, to determine when the bill came before it what course should be taken with respect to providing any compensation for the recently appointed master of the Exchequer.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Lord Seaton's Annuity; Law of Evidence (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Lothian, Earl Beauchamp, and the Earl of Mountcashel, from a very great number of places, against, and by Earl Fitzwilliam, from Liverpool, for, the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Bishop of Durham, from Durham, for Church Extension.—By the Duke of Buccleugh, and the Earl of Aberdeen, from places in Scotland, against the General Assembly, and in favour of Non-Intrusion.

DISPUTE WITH NAPLES.
Lord Lyndhurstwould take that opportunity of asking the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), whether he would object to lay on the table the treaty signed by Mr. M'Gregor and the Neapolitan minister at the close of last year, and which was to have come into operation on the first of January this year? The provisions of that treaty were well known to all parties connected with the commerce of Sicily and Naples, and they were most desirous that it should be ratified, as they were fully contented with its provisions. As connected with this subject, he wished to correct a misunderstanding as to what had taken place, and what fell from him in March last upon this subject. The facts which he then stated were admitted by the noble Viscount to be correctly staled. The noble Viscount agreed with him that there had been an infraction of the commercial treaty that existed between the Government of this country and that of Naples. The noble Viscount had stated that complaints had been made to the Neapolitan government. An attempt had been made to obtain redress, but nothing had been done in the way of concession. The noble Viscount also threw out that the Neapolitan government was desirous only that the monopoly should last for six months. He at that time complained of the delay that had taken place, and he stated, that if ships of war were sent out, the matter would soon be brought to a successful issue. In stating this, however, he never intended to sanction such proceedings as had since taken place on the part of her Majesty's Government, and upon which proceedings he would now give no opinion.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it was the intention of the Government to lay on the table of both Houses of Parliament all the documents with respect to the subject.
1144
The noble Lord had certainly stated with great correctness what had fallen from him on a former occasion, but whether the inference he had drawn from it was quite so correct, he would not say.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Lansdownehad several petitions to present with regard to the Irish Municipal Bill, and as these petitions were of an extremely important nature, it would be necessary for him shortly to explain them, which he thought he could better do that evening than if he delayed it till Monday. The petitions were from proprietors in Ireland, residing in liberties and counties of cities. He believed the opinion entertained by all those proprietors in common was, that it was desirable to join those liberties with the cities. Provisions to that effect had been introduced into the bill of last year, and had met with the concurrence of both Houses of Parliament; but that bill having been thrown out, the measure, of course, fell to the ground. The bill introduced into the other House would have the effect of removing the objections to the present measure. In the discussions which took place on the bill, it was admitted to be a great hardship that the proprietors of land in agricultural districts should be subject to the imposition of rates about to be established by the bill; and it was thought fit last year to connect with the Municipal Bill a provision for separating these districts, and annexing them to the municipal towns, which met with the approbation of the House. Although these petitioners had naturally taken some alarm at the omission of these clauses, they would see that they were subsequently introduced into a bill then before the other House. But these considerations arose out of the details of the measure, though he had felt it his duty to the petitioners to state to the House their views on the subject.
The Earl of Clarethought the safest course would be to restore to the present bill the clauses of the omission of which the petitioners complained.
Lord Redesdalesupported the prayer of the petitions, and concurred in the opinion of the noble Earl. It was somewhat singular that the bill now before the House of Commons had not been introduced until the matter had been stirred up by these petitioners, and that that bill should con-

1145
tain clauses similar to those which had been thrown out by the House of Commons, because they had been introduced in the House of Lords. The petitioners had a right to complain of the manner in which the bill was framed in every respect. Every point that had been mutually agreed upon in a measure should be inserted; but in the present bill no one knew what had been assented to, and what had not.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the the noble Baron (Lord Redesdale) was mistaken if he thought that Ministers intended to abandon the principle of the Municipal Reform Bill. If he consulted the ordinary channels of information he would find, that when the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, introduced into the House of Commons this Session the bill now on the table of the House, the bill introduced last year was opened, and his (Lord Lansdowne's) noble Friend stated, that it was his intention that the one should follow the other. The separation of the agricultural districts from the town portions of the boroughs, in respect to taxation, was in accordance with the enactments of the English Municipal Reform Bill.
Lord Redesdalecomplained that the Municipal Bill had been brought up to their Lordships on the 10th of March, and that the other bill had not been introduced in the other House until the 11th of April; whereas the two bills were (he was told) to be treated as a joint measure. Their Lordships might have gone into committee upon the Municipal Bill, and even passed it, before they could have any knowledge of the other.
Petitions laid on the table.

CORN-LAWS.—THE AVERAGES.
Earl Fitzwilliam, in making the motion of which he had given notice, as to fiar prices in Scotland, observed that the present high price on the import of foreign com arose from the comparatively low average price of corn, as compared with the price of that which alone was fit for human sustenance. It was clear that it did not arise from plenty; it arose from another source. He was about to move for papers which would illustrate the singular coincidence which he had stated. The fact was that we had a low average price and a high import duty, not because corn was plentiful, but because it was bad. And now, let their Lordships observe the work-
1146
ing of the Act of Parliament. At the very moment that it was most desirable that an ample supply of the best corn that could be had, whether British or foreign, should be brought into our markets, the average being brought down by the unpropitious circumstances of the last harvest, the import duty was raised, and, when we wanted foreign corn, there was an obstacle to its introduction. He knew not whether a more powerful illustration of the fact he was now stating—namely, that loreign corn was excluded because our own was bad—could be given, than the results which must be elicited from the papers for which he was about to move. In one county in Scotland he understood the fiar price of corn was 56 s. a quarter; but if he was not mistaken there were other counties in which it was much lower. And not only in Scotland, but in the north of England, the price was exceedingly low, as compared with the price of bread corn. In one county where corn was 57 s. a quarter, the quartern loaf was 9½d. These were a few of the circumstances which he ventured to say must—he hoped he need not add unwillingly—force this question on their Lordships' attention. It was impossible but that the Legislature of this country should consider the question of the Corn-laws when bread was sold at a price which far exceeded that which would enable the people, at their present wages, to purchase a sufficient quantity of food. He should conclude by moving for returns showing the fiar prices of wheat in the several counties in Scotland during the years 1838 and 1839.
The Marquess of Salisburywished to know what proof the noble Earl was prepared to give of the assertion that the price of bread corn was dear, while the average price of wheat was low?
Earl Fitzwilliam, in answer to the question of the noble Marquess, said, the last crop, particularly in Scotland, was very bad, and consequently brought a low price in the market. In the county of Stirling the fiar price was 38 s. a quarter. If the noble Marquess knew anything of the trade of a miller, which he hoped he did, because it was the duty of every man who acted as a legislator to be well acquainted with a great number of details which were very unaristocratic, but without being acquainted with which he, nevertheless, could not legislate wisely—he must be aware that the corn which the miller

1147
bought at Stirling at the price of 38 s., and in Westmoreland at 57 s., was not fit to enter into the composition of bread for human subsistence. It must be kept a long time, and must (unless the miller meant to make his own bread) be put through extensive processes, and require a large outlay of capital, for which he must be remunerated by the higher price at which he sold. These were the grounds on which he ventured to say the price of bread corn was not fairly stated by the averages as exhibited in the Gazette. He was wrong in saying that the quartern loaf was 9½ d., for the quartern loaf no longer existed; but the 4lb. loaf was selling at Peterborough for 9½ d. He would state another circumstance. Four years ago the Poor-law Amendment Bill came into operation. Four years ago the contract for supplying the poor of the Peterborough Union was 4d. for the 4lb. loaf, and now it was 7d. or 7¾ d., making a difference of 70 or 80 per cent, in that period.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, the reason the corn was carried wet to market by the farmers was, because the noble Earl, and others like him, kept up agitation on the subject. With respect to the contract for the Peterborough Union, the poor of that union, he presumed, were fed upon thirds, and any contractor would furnish bread of that quality at 4d. the 4lb. loaf. He could not see what change the noble Earl wished to have accomplished in this respect, unless he meant to bring the poor to live upon oaten bread, as suggested by the noble Earl (Radnor) near him.
Earl Radnor: I beg leave positively to deny that. I contradicted it at the time, and I beg to contradict it now. I never said any thing of the kind.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that the noble Earl had said so, as far as he understood him. The noble Earl certainly said he did not see why the people should not live on oaten bread. At all events, the noble Earl need not have said that he (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not hear him.
The Earl of Radnor: The noble Marquess could not hear what I never said. I never said anything about wholesomeness of oaten bread, or anything of the sort; what I said was, that it would not be a bad thing for the people of England to fall back upon roast beef and plum-
1148
pudding with barley bread. He had laid the stress on the roast beef.

CORN-LAWS—LIVERPOOL PETITION.
Earl Fitzwilliam, in presenting a petition from Liverpool against the Corn-laws, said, that the mercantile community formed a body not unworthy of their Lordships' attention. Their dealings and opinions entitle them to it. It was to them the country owed its power and pre-eminence in Europe: to them, let him say their Lordships owed their own wealth and station in society. This petition proceeded from a meeting convened by the Mayor of Liverpool, and was signed by him on behalf of the merchants, bankers, and other inhabitants who attended it. It prayed that the hardships which the people so long suffered from a partial and exclusive system might be removed. The second petition proceeded from a meeting similarly convened, and second only in commercial importance to that of Liverpool. It was from the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Kingston-upon-Hull. The next was from the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the borough of Derby; and the next from the mayor, aldermen, and councillors of the borough of Wigan. He had, besides, eighty-one petitions, signed by 36,000 persons, to the same effect, knowing there was one from Boston, than which there was no town more dependent on agriculture for support.
Lord Wynfordwished to know whether these petitioners were willing to forego the advantage they derived from the protection afforded to their manufactures?
Earl Fitzwilliam: Yes. And all the petitions from the great manufacturing towns this year stated the wish of the inhabitants to be, that they should receive no greater protection than other classes. But even if they were not willing to give up the protecting duties, that furnished no argument in support of the Corn-laws; for the protection to agriculture far exceeded thirty per cent., the degree guaranteed to our manufactures when our commercial system underwent a revision some years back. Foreign corn could not be imported until the price reached at least 65 s., and thus the agriculturist enjoyed not merely the benefit of the duty on foreign corn when the price was high, but of a practical prohibition up to that period.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, he saw

1149
by the petition from Liverpool, that it did not proceed from the corporation.
Earl Fitzwilliam: The noble Marquess had taken an exception to this petition which was unworthy of his station or character. He had never said the petition proceeded from the corporation. It was of more value than if it had, for it was not confined to the corporation, but emanated from the whole body of the inhabitants. It could not well be distinguished by a more authoritative character. The noble Marquess would not, surely, say that the wealth and intelligence of the town were confined to the members of the corporation. The noble Marquess was too well acquainted with Liverpool to make such an assertion. [The Marquess of Salisbury: "Hear, hear."] Oh! he saw the noble Marquess chuckled over the inference, that because he stated that there were persons of wealth and intelligence extrinsic to the corporation, men of the same characteristics were not to be found within. His words, however, bore no such construction.
The Marquess of Salisburyexplained, and said, that all he meant to convey was, that it did not appear who were the persons attending this meeting, and he should be now entitled to move its rejection, as it purported to be from the mayor, bankers, &c, of Liverpool, whereas it was signed only by the mayor. He wished to know from the clerk how he had entered it?
The Clerk: In the name of the person signing it.
Petitions laid on the table.