Sitting of 5 April 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Dublin Wide Streets; Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Inland Warehousing—Read a second time:—Excise Collection and Management; Royal Burghs (Scotland); Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland); Arrestment of Wages (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Sir J. Buller, Sir R. Inglis, and General Lygon, from Devonshire, Salop, Somerset, Worcestershire, and other places, for Church Extension.—By Sir G. Crew, Mr. Chute, Lord Elliot, and Lord Hotham, from Derbyshire, Norfolk, Towey, Leominster, and other places, against the New Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Warburton, from Westover, for the Abolition of the Corn-laws; from Medical Practitioners at Bandon, for Medical Reform; and from a number of Socialists, for the Release of Mr. Hetherington.

PARISH OF MARYLEBONE.
Lord Teignmouthsaid, pursuant to notice, he wished to put a few questions to the noble Lord with reference to the parish of Marylebone. It was well known that the affairs of that parish were in a very confused condition; that a rate had been levied, and as that was found insufficient to liquidate the parochial expenses, Lord Kenyon (who was a churchwarden of the parish) had had his House and furniture seized by those having claims upon the parish. Under these circumstances, Lord Kenyon was compelled to find security. A demand had also been made on his Lordship for the sum of 39 l., incurred in erecting the hustings at the last election. The parish authorities refused to advance more than 4l. towards the payment of that debt; the remainder his Lordship was compelled to pay. Under the present circumstances it was found impossible to get any gentleman to fill the office of churchwarden. He wished to know what course the noble Lord (Lord Russell) intended to pursue. The second question which he wished to ask the noble Lord referred to an ecclesiastical bill, which was introduced to regulate the affairs of the parish, and which had received the sanction of the Bishop of London and Lord Duncannon. The progress

877
of that bill being a private one, had been retarded, in consequence of its not having been introduced at the proper period. He wished to know the noble Lord's intention with reference to that bill. There was another bill, the object of which was to regulate the civil affairs of the parish of Marylebone, but that bill was unsuccessful.
Lord J. Russellhad only to state, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had made a representation to the Treasury recommending, that measures should be taken to indemnify the churchwarden for any expenses to which he might be put, by such means as had been provided under the 58th of George 3rd, c. 57, or in such other manner as the law officers of the Crown might advise. It certainly was the intention of Government to bring in a bill upon the subject in the present Session of Parliament, but Lord Duncannon wished there might be time enough allowed previous to the introduction of the bill to obtain the consent of the vestry. It would now, he apprehended, be too late to introduce the measure as u private bill, but it was the intention of the Government that it should be introduced us soon as possible.
Sir B. Hallsaid, that not only the goods of Lord Kenyon, but those of the other churchwarden, had been distrained.
In reply to a question from Colonel T. Wood,
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the recommendation of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests applied to the case of the churchwarden recommended by the Crown.
Subject at an end.

FACTORY CHILDREN.
Mr. Humesaid, that the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the children employed in factories had not yet made their report, and he wished to know if they were soon likely to do so.
Mr. F. Maulereplied, that the commissioners were assiduously engaged in the duty which they had undertaken to perform, and he hoped that the several reports of the sub-commissioners would speedily be given in, and would as speedily be followed by the general report.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
On the order of the day for the further consideration of
878
the report on the Poor-law Amendment Bill.
Lord Eliotsaid, that the clauses he had suggested having been assented to by the noble Lord opposite, he wished to ask whether the noble Lord himself would embody them in the bill.
Lord John Rusellsaid, he thought they would more appropriately form the subject of a separate bill, and in that form he should have no objection to propose them.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he desired to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the dietary tables for the poor in the city of London. If he neglected to avail himself of that opportunity, one so convenient might not again present itself. They all knew that the object of the Poor-law Amendment Act was to make provision for the destitute, and to take proper care of the funds of those who contributed to the payment of the rates. These objects, it was quite clear, could not be effected without some test of destitution. The bill also professed to introduce a system of uniformity throughout the whole of England and Wales. It was well known to hon. Members that considerable inequality prevailed as to the mode of administering relief, and that the regulations of the commissioners had in some unions been considerably relaxed. Amongst the advocates of the measure it was rumoured that the bill had ceased to be unpopular; they alleged that its unpopularity was rapidly declining. In that House on Friday they had heard unqualified statements, to the effect that its unpopularity had ceased altogether. When inquiry was made as to whether or not relief had been withheld from able bodied poor, the reply was, that no such order had been issued by the commissioners. From that and other causes it did happen that the bill was not so unpopular in the city as it was in most parts of the country, and it was therefore that they had not heard so much lately of the nature of the diet supplied to the poor. In most parts of the country it was well known that water gruel formed the chief article of diet. Now, he wished to know whether the country gentlemen would sanction one system of diet for their own unions, and quite another for the parishes in the metropolis. One thing was quite clear, that the allowances to the poor in the city of London were quite different from those which they received in other parts of England and Wales; and he should not for a moment hesitate to say, that if the House

879
did their duty, they would have the Poor-law Commissioners at their bar to render an account of their conduct in this respect. He hoped that the hon. Member for Lambeth would turn his attention to the subject of diet. He was a warm advocate of the measure, though he hoped that Lambeth would not be affected by it. Neither that hon. Member nor any other Member of that House could shut his eyes to the fact that in many places water-gruel formed the chief article of diet. At Kensington the auditor refused the extra allowances granted by the guardians, and they were under the necessity of defraying the charge out of their own pockets. On the various grounds which, upon that and upon other occasions, he had stated, he did hope that the attention of hon. Members would be directed to this subject. It was disgraceful and disgusting that the poor agricultural labourer, after a long life of toil, should be cast into a dungeon, and placed upon worse than a gaol allowance, although his previous circumstances never had been such as to enable him to make any savings; and that the London mechanic, who frequently earned from 30 s. to 40 s. a-week, out of which he might have laid aside some surplus, should in his period of destitution be supplied with a diet comparatively good. In London the men received on Sundays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, seven ounces of bread, one pint of milk porridge for breakfast, seven ounces of cooked meat, three-quarters of a pound of vegetables, and one pint of beer for dinner. Beer, as they well knew, was altogether withheld in country parishes. For supper, in London, they were allowed seven ounces of bread, one ounce and a half of cheese, and a second pint of beer. The women received five ounces of bread and a pint of tea. Such was the diet supplied in a place where there existed no order for withholding out-of-door relief. Now, in the country, the poor were all but starved. In London the women received six ounces of cooked meat, three-quarters of a pound of vegetables, one pint of beer; and for supper, five ounces of bread, one ounce and a half of cheese, and a second pint of beer. On Saturday the London paupers received fourteen ounces of suet pudding, and, as he had already stated, the adult males and females all received a pint of beer at dinner, and the same at supper. Did he state this for the purpose of making any complaint that the diet in London was too good? Quite the contrary. He thought it only
880
just and equitable that the poor should be fed in this manner; but how was it that the poor in the country were not equally well treated? The noble Lord perhaps could not explain the matter, but the Poor-law commissioners might, and he held that they ought to be called to the bar of the House for that purpose. Then, as to cases of sickness, the practice in London was, that the patient should be allowed wine or whatever other necessaries the medical attendant might direct. How different from that was the state of things at Uxbridge, as appeared from the statement of Mr. Rayner. If the practice of the London unions were just and proper, how could the practice of the country unions be defended? Roast beef and plum pudding were given at Christmas, roast veal or roast pork at Easter and Whitsuntide, and on ordinary occasions the diet which he had already detailed. With justice done in London, would the people of the country submit to injustice out of London? The two systems could not both be right. The poor agricultural labourer had no chance in the country. While the London mechanic possessed all the advantages of superior intelligence, of trade unions and combinations, they could protect themselves, and were not exposed to the same vicissitudes as the agricultural labourer. This was a serious question, and ought not to be shirked by the House, and if by the House, it ought not to be neglected by the country. He did not charge the commissioners with dishonesty—he did not say that they were afraid to ill-treat the larger and more influential population of London, but one thing was evident that a wide difference prevailed between the dietary of London and the dietaries of the country, and he held that the causes of the difference ought to be explained. It had been stated invariably, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had urged it continually, that the object of the law was to make labourers independent. That certainly was an excellent object; but how did the commissioners propose to carry it out in country places? They found the labourers there working at wages that barely kept them from starvation; and they said to themselves, "We must take care, in framing our regulations, that we don't incite the labourers to enter the workhouses, and they must, therefore, be made one degree, and no more, above starvation point." But how, he should like to know, would wages ever be raised if such a system as

881
that were pursued? Suppose, for example, a working man in the country were offered 6s. a week wages, and were told, "If you don't take that, you must go into the workhouse, and then you will have food worth only 2s. 6d. or 3s. per week." Of course he would prefer taking the wages of 6s. per week. But offer that dietary to the poor in the workhouse, and then he would admit, with the noble Lord, that the Poor-law would raise wages, because the poor man would in such case prefer going into the workhouse to accepting low wages out of it. He trusted the noble Lord would see the utility of causing the dietary tables to which he had referred to be more generally used, and that his having read extracts from them in that House would have the effect of their being compared with the dietary taken throughout the country, and, if the discrepancies that existed between them could not be reconciled, that the Poor-law commissioners would be ordered to attend at the bar of that House to state why it was, that such dietary tables had been framed for the city of London, and totally different ones for the poor in the country. He had another dietary table in his pocket in reference to the children who were farmed at Norwood, which was equally as good as the one he had before referred to but he would not detain the House by making any further observations respecting it.
Lord J. Russellwould have had no objection to enter into the discussion of this subject on an occasion more fitting than the present, but he certainly did object to enter into the discussion with the hon. Member when it was his intention to postpone the bill until after Easter. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, had suggested, that he should put the bill in the form in which he should wish to propose it to the consideration of the House, but, on reflecting on that course, and after consulting with the Speaker, it appeared, to him that after the House had gone through certain clauses and adopted certain amendments in them, he could not now well place those clauses in any other form than that which the committee had already adopted. At the expense, therefore, of the appearance of the bill, he must leave it as it was at present gone through in the committee, with regard both to the clauses up to that point which the committee had reached, as well as the amendments in the latter
882
part of the bill which he had considered it advisable to introduce, and of which he had given notice. The House would then go on at that part at which they had left off, and they might afterwards consider those points in which he proposed to amend the former clauses of the bill. He should, therefore, propose to adjourn the committal of the bill until the 3rd of May.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, if the course he had suggested were contrary to the forms of the House, he did not wish to urge it, but if it had been conformable to them, it might have proved of great convenience to hon. Members.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to know whether there was any objection to lay before the House, after the recess, the return for which he had moved so far back as the 26th of February, 1841, relative to the number of inquests of paupers for seven years preceding the passing of the New Poor-law Act, and also for the seven years during which the act had been in operation.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that as far as he was concerned in getting that return, he had done all that lay in his power, and had informed the coroners throughout the country, that the House had addressed her Majesty requesting such information. But it was not in his power to compel such returns, and from very few of the coroners had he received any direct return at all, whilst from many others he had understood it was almost impossible to make it out. In one instance, the coroner said, that in order to make out the return, he must go through between 4,000 and 5,000 depositions. With respect to the metropolis, it would be almost impossible to furnish it, and as far as the hon. Member for Finsbury was concerned, he had received no answer at all, but the hon. Member would be able to state the reason of that for himself. As the coroners furnished the returns, they should be laid before the House, but if they could not be made out, the hon. and gallant Member might, perhaps, frame his motion in a more practicable form.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he had received a number of communications from coroners in different parts of England, in reference to this return, and they informed him that they found it next to impossible to make it out. If the hon. and gallant Member had any specific or direct object in view, probably he would prepare his motion in

883
a different form so as to meet that object, and then probably he would ask for a return of special cases. In many offices, there were no records left from which it could be made out; so that when a coroner had lately come into office he had no means of furnishing a return of the cases taken before his predecessor.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, under these circumstances, he would at some future day propose a motion to meet the object he had in view in a more practicable form.
House went into Committee pro formâ.
The amendments proposed by Lord J. Russell were agreed to.
The House resumed.—The report to be further considered on Monday, May 3.

COLONIAL DUTIES.
The House in Committee on the Act 3rd and 4th Will. 4th, cap. 59, regulating the Trade of British possessions abroad.
Act read.
Mr. Labouchererose to move the following resolutions.
"1. That in lieu of the respective duties of 7l. 10 s., of 15 l., of 20 l., and of 30 l., on every 100 l. of the value of certain of the articles specified in the schedule contained in an Act of the 3rd and 4th year of William 4th, to regulate the trade of the British possessions abroad, there shall be paid on goods, wares, and merchandize, not being the growth, production, or manufacture of the United Kingdom, or of any of the British possessions in America, and imported by sea or by inland carriage or navigation, a duty of 7l. for every 100 l. of the value thereof, together with the amount of any duty levied at the same time upon goods, wares, and merchandize, the growth or production of the United Kingdom, or of the British possessions.
"2. That in lieu of the several duties payable under the said act, upon the following articles, not being the growth, production, or manufacture, of the United Kingdom, or of any of the British possessions in America, imported or brought into any British possession by sea, there shall be paid the following duties, viz.:—

£

s.

d.

Wheat flour (except into Canada) the barrel

0

2

0

Beef and pork salted (except in Canada), the cwt.

0

4

0

Wine of all sorts, whether in bottle or not, for every 100 l. of the value in lieu of all duties now payable thereon, under the Acts 4 Geo. 3rd, c. 15, and 3 and 4 Will. 4th, c.59

7

10

0

The bottles

Free

884

Shingles (except into Canada), the 1,000 No.

0

2

0

Oak staves and headings (except into Canada), the 1,000 No.

0

7

0

Wood hoops (except into Canada) the 1,000 No.

0

2

6

Pitch pine, and other lumber, one inch thick (except into Canada), the 1,000 feet

0

7

0

Now prohibited, but the prohibition whereon is to cease:—

Fish, dried or salted, the cwt.

0

2

6

——pickled, the barrel

0

5

0

Together with the amount of any duty levied at the same time upon similar articles, the produce of, or imported from, the United Kingdom or the British possessions.
"3. That tea be permitted to be imported into British North America by inland carriage or navigation, on payment of the duty which may at that time be chargeable upon tea imported from the United Kingdom, together with 10 l. per centum on the amount of such duty.
"4. That rum, the produce of places within the limits of the East-India Company's charter, and imported into British North America, shall pay the same duty as rum the produce of places in the British West Indies.
"5. That so much of the said Act as permits any sort of craft, food, and victuals, except spirits and any sort of clothing and implements and materials fit and necessary for the British Fisheries in America, to be imported into the place at or from whence such fishery is carried on, duty free, shall be repealed, except so far as regards the following articles (that is to say), bread, flour, pork, beef, bacon, butter, lard, cheese, molasses, (the produce of the British possessions), potatoes, oatmeal, pot barley, Indian meal, peas, rice, salt, oak-staves, shingles, wood hoops, leather and leatherware, and all sorts of fishing craft and bait, fishermen's clothing and hosiery, which shall be delivered duty free, for the use of the fisheries.
"6. That goods, the produce or manufacture of the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, or Sark, imported from such islands, be admitted into the British possessions in America upon the payment of the same duty as the like goods the produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom, or any of the said possessions."
The right hon. Gentleman said, that when he first proposed to the House the resolutions of which he had given notice, he entered so fully into the principles on which they were founded, and the manner in which it was proposed to carry them into effect, that he did not feel it necessary in the first instance, until he heard any objections stated against them, to make many observations respecting them. With regard to the first resolution which

885
he was about to lay before them, he would only make a few observations on the reasons which had induced him to make some alteration in it, since he first proposed it to the House. At that time, he proposed, that the ad valorem duty in the West Indies and the British North American colonies, which now varied from 7½ per cent, to 15 and 20 per cent., should be reduced to two duties, namely 7½ per cent, ad valorem, and ten per cent, ad valorem, which should comprise all articles on which the former duties were now levied. But he was induced to think, in consequence of representations that had been made to him by persons connected with those colonies, that there would be a material advantage in pushing somewhat further the reduction he had originally proposed. He had, indeed, been induced to suppose, that if all those duties were repealed, and instead of them one uniform duty of 7 per cent. ad valorem were imposed on all foreign commodities introduced into the British North American colonies, and the West Indies, over and above the amount paid on British commodities, it would be highly advantageous to those possessions. To that alteration he had had no difficulty in acceding, so that he might place the West Indies and the British North American colonies on the same footing as that on which our East India possessions were placed. Thus at the Cape of Good Hope at that moment there was a duty of 10 per cent, oil foreign commodities, and 3 per cent. on British commodities. According, also, to the scale which he now proposed, if there were a duty of 3 per cent, on British commodities, the duty on foreign commodities would immediately rise to 10 per cent; so that in the British North American colonies and the West Indies there would be the same system which was at present established at the Cape of Good Hope, which had been found to work well, and which the merchants of this country had never complained of—namely, a differential and protective duty of 7 per cent, ad valorem, over and above that which was paid for foreign goods. If they turned to the duties in India, Ceylon, and Australia, and our other possessions in the East, they would find there was a differential duty with regard to British and foreign commodities lighter than that which he had already mentioned, and yet those connected with commercial interests were satisfied with that scale of
886
duty, and never apprehended that they would be excluded from those markets under that system. But the reason that more particularly induced him to male this alteration was, that it had been strongly urged on him by persons connected with the West Indian islands, that by a reduction of these duties, great advantage would result to the transit trade of those colonies. Thus, in Trinidad, which was only a day's sail from the Spanish main, it was thought that under a duty of seven per cent, on foreign commodities there would be facilities afforded to the trade between that island and the continent of South America; and also to the trade of our British manufactures, by their being mixed up there with those of' foreign production, as assorted cargoes. It was true, that in St. Thomas's the duty was much lower; but the vicinity of Trinidad to the coast of South America would in a great degree compensate for the differential duty, and it might reasonably be hoped, that much of that large trade which was now enjoyed by St. Thomas's, would be transferred to some of our own islands. On that representation being made to him, and being unable to see the slightest injury, that would be produced by it to any British interests, he had had no difficulty at all in acceding to the demand that was made on him to reduce the 10 per cent. duty to 7 per cent. He believed, that to the consumer, this alteration would make no great difference, but that to the transit trade, it would be of great advantage. As he stated before, until he heard whether any objections were made to this resolution, he did not think it necessary to trouble the House with any further observations upon it. He would, therefore, place in the hands of the Committee the following resolution. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first resolution.
Mr. Goulburnwished the right hon. Gentleman had reserved the present resolution for an occasion when there should be a fuller attendance of Members to discuss a subject of so much importance, and especially those Members who were most conversant with the matter to which the resolution referred. He thought it would have been better to have waited for a full discussion, than that the House should be led blindly into the adoption of so serious a change in our colonial duties. The right hon. Gentleman had stated this to be a mere isolated case, quite distinct

887
from our general commercial legislation—a matter of mere local interest—but he (Mr. Goulburn) did not by any means agree in this view of the question. He did not deny, that as regarded the West-India colonies themselves, the change would confer on them substantial advantages, but this was not the whole view that ought to be taken of the case. If this change is made as a compensation to the West Indies for the equalisation that is made in respect of duties between them and the East Indies, he thought it an advantage which the West Indies would cheerfully accept. He thought, however, that it was very desirable, that the right hon. Gentleman should give the House some explanation of the extent to which he meant to carry out his principle. It was impossible, that they could have a satisfactory idea of this question until they knew distinctly what measures, if any, the Government intended to produce with other produce, which would be placed in competition with East and West-India produce. The question was not confined to the interests of the colonies alone, but was calculated to inflict material injury upon the interests of the mother country. He thought, that the resolution now before them was not framed in a manner calculated to give them that full information which, upon a matter of this kind, it was desirable to have placed before the House. The resolution was so general in its form, that it would leave a great portion of the community ignorant of the extent to which that resolution proposed to go. It was true, the resolution stated, that all duties were to be reduced to the proportion of 7 per cent., but it would be much better that the committee should be aware what was the variety of commodities to which this resolution was to apply, and it was in order to supply this deficiency, that he had moved, that details of this nature should be laid upon the Table of the House. They ought to look back to the articles that would be affected by this resolution, and when they saw what these articles were, they would then see whether or not the mother country would not be materially involved in the present question. It appeared, that under a duty of thirty per cent, the following articles were admitted into our colonies, namely, the leather manufactures, the linen manufactures, and the silk manufactures of foreign countries, He only stated, a few
888
of the more considerable articles, in order that the public might have some idea of the extent to which this measure would affect the commercial interests of this country. Besides those articles admitted under a duty of thirty per cent., there were other articles admitted under a duty of twenty per cent. Amongst those latter were cotton, glass, soap, refined sugar, and various other articles. There were various other articles admitted under a duty of fifteen per cent., such as hardware. Let it not be supposed that these duties were introduced at any very remote period. On the contrary, they were continued after full consideration in the bill of 1833, when Mr. Poulett Thomson was at the Board of Trade, and when it must be supposed, that they must have well considered the extent of the duties necessary to maintain and keep up the colonial principles upon which this country had heretofore acted. He thought with respect to those duties, that having received the sanction of Parliament, they required something more than the mere general statement of a principle to convince them that those alterations ought now to be made. They should recollect that they were now dealing with those principles on which this country and her colonies had always reciprocally acted. The rule hitherto had been, that in return for the protection which Great Britain afforded, she was secured the colonial market for the disposal of her home produce and the encouragement of her shipping interest. But they might be told that a duty of seven per cent, would be sufficient for that object, but if so, they had a right to be shown how, by such resolutions, that object could be accomplished. He called on the right hon. Gentleman to show him how a duty of seven per cent, would be sufficient to protect British manufactures before the right hon. Gentleman asked him, or asked the House to consent to his proposition. He thought on a question of this kind they ought to act with the utmost deliberation, and to consider well before they took a step or committed an error which they might afterwards find irretrievable. The right hon. Gentleman said, that this resolution would have the effect of introducing into the colonies a large proportion of foreign manufactures, and he thought they had a right to see whether other advantages were likely to arise to compensate for the loss that

889
would be sustained by the manufacturing interests of this country. The amount of manufactures which went from this country to the West Indies under the present prohibitory system was very large. It appeared that in the West Indies alone the amount of our manufactures annually consumed was two millions and a half, whilst the North American colonies consumed three millions and a half. Now the greater portion of these consisted of articles which required a great amount of labour in the production of them. The estimated value of this colonial trade exceeded five millions annually, and the greater portion consisted of articles requiring a great amount of labour in their production, employing a great number of hands in this country, and giving a spur to the national industry. The colonies are under great obligations to the mother country, for we exposed ourselves to hostilities in protecting their interests as well as our own. If, therefore, the colonies were under great obligations to us, it appeared to him (Mr. Goulburn) to require great consideration before they abandoned what had heretofore been considered the counter advantages which we had derived from them in securing more extensive markets for the produce of the mother country. The object of this measure must very materially affect the interest of our home manufactures. Let the House consider what will be the effect of this measure upon our domestic industry; and with respect to our manufactures, let the House consider what must be its effect upon the shipping in which those manufactures were at present transported to the colonies. If upon this change of duties, Belgium and France were able to supply our colonies with their manufactures, and take back the colonial produce in payment, they would of course prefer to carry on this trade with their own shipping, unless it could be shown that navigation in the ships of this country was cheaper than in their own. Therefore, besides the injury that would be inflicted on our domestic industry, there would be the additional injury inflicted on the commercial marine of this country. He had hitherto addressed his observations to what was proposed by the first resolution; but as that was the only resolution before them at present, he thought that it would be more convenient to deal with all the resolutions together.
Mr. Labouchere: I think it would be better to discuss the resolutions separately.
Mr. Goulburn: They are so connected, that in any argument respecting them, it would be difficult to separate one from another.
Mr. Laboucherethought that there was a considerable difference between them, and that it would be better to deal with them separately.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, if he was going to oppose the adoption of the resolutions on the present occasion, he would be willing to take the view of the right hon. Gentleman, but he merely wished to discuss the principle in which they all generally agreed. The first resolution appeared to him to be one which would have a most material effect upon the industry and the shipping of the country, and it was a resolution which, if not explained, would make a very serious alteration materially affecting the interests of this country. The second resolution was an important one, considering its effects upon the trade between our North American possessions and the West Indies; and the right hon. Gentleman carried into that trade the same principles which he applied to the trade of foreign countries. It was proposed materially to reduce the duties at present payable upon articles that would be brought into competition with North American produce in the markets of the West Indies. It was well known how very likely people were to imagine that even the best considered measures of commercial change were calculated to affect their interests, and considering the present state of our North American colonies, be thought that this was not the time to alarm their fears, or give them any cause to apprehend that their interests were likely to be endangered by any act of the Imperial Parliament. He thought that they ought to take care not to alarm the apprehensions of the inhabitants of these colonies, who, seeing a change of this kind, might apprehend that a similar change would be carried into effect with respect to the timber imported from those colonies to Great Britain. He thought that they ought to avoid anything which was calculated to excite the fears of those colonists. They ought to recollect, that they had taken a moment to legislate for the commercial interests of Canada when that province had no representatives, and at a

891
time when the representatives of that province had not been as yet called together and when that House had no information as to what was the feeling of the people of Canada on this subject. He feared that the effect of this measure would be to injure our North American colonies, and to injure the trade at present carried on between those colonies and the West Indies. Those colonies at present divided the lumber trade, and it was obvious that this trade was so nicely balanced that the alteration which it was proposed to introduce might have the worst results—might excite alarm amongst those engaged in the lumber trade, and might for a time create substantial injury and difficulty. The third resolution was one, the policy of which he (Mr. Goulburn) did not in reality understand. So far as he could comprehend it, its object seemed to be to remove the prohibitory duty at present existing with respect to the introduction of tea into Canada by land. This was done on the ground that the present system gave great encouragement and facilities to smuggling. In the wisdom of that principle, he (Mr. Goulburn) fully agreed. He thought that where there was a large frontier easily accessible at all points, that it was the best way to put down the demoralising practice of smuggling by taking away the inducements that led to it. But the right hon. Gentleman's resolution did not mend the matter in the least, for how was smuggling to be discouraged by keeping up a large duty on the importations of tea. If a certain kind of lea was prohibited, they might detect the prohibited article after it found its way into the province, and punish the person who brought it; but if they allowed the article to be imported upon the payment of a certain duty, how were they to be able to tell whether the duty on the article was paid or not. The duty proposed to be maintained was 25 per cent, for tea imported by sea, 27½ per cent. for tea introduced by the frontier. With such a duty as this, it was quite idle to expect to prohibit the importation of the article. If this change were to be made, it ought to be effected by some measure of the Canadian Parliament, and, as was done by Mr. Pitt in 1785, when he lowered the duty on tea in England, he took care that the change of duty should not be a means of gain to the smuggler. He must beg to hesitate before he agreed to apply the
892
same principle to the produce of China, when brought in English ships, as when imported in American ships. He could not consent to place them on the same footing. Then with respect to that part of the resolution which concerned the importation of fish, he had some fears whether it would not be injurious to our fisheries. With respect to the trade with Canada, he was willing to give the Canadas every advantage possessed by other colonies. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to satisfy them that the reduction of those large duties would be attended by some compensating circumstances that would prevent the injury it was calculated to inflict. He was strengthened in the opinions that he entertained respecting those resolutions, by seeing that the right hon. Gentleman himself did not entertain very decided or definite opinions on the subject. The first time he introduced this subject, he proposed that the duties should be reduced to 10 per cent. He afterwards came down to the House and proposed to reduce them to 7 per cent. This uncertainty showed that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject were not very decided; and when he (Mr. Goulburn) and others who had considered the subject objected to these reductions, he was sure the House would treat their objections with the more indulgence when they found that the Government themselves, with ample time and opportunity to give the subject consideration, were uncertain in their opinions, at one time proposing a duty of 10 per cent., and then coming forward to propose a reduction of 7 per cent. There was another point to be considered. What was the moral effect that these measures were likely to have on our North American colonies at the present moment? When they should have heard the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, and when those returns which he had taken the liberty of moving for should be before the House, they would then be in a better situation to come to a deliberate conclusion on this important subject.
Mr. Laboucherehad listened to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman with very great satisfaction; because it showed that the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience and all his knowledge, could not make a valid or good objection to the resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman was evidently not favourably inclined

893
to a liberal commercial system, and he there -fore was quite satisfied that if the right hon. Gentleman had any definite objections to the resolutions they would have been stated by him. And yet what had they heard from the right hon. Gentleman excepting those vague apprehensions which they always had to encounter whenever they attempted to carry into effect a more liberal commercial system. If the right hon. Gentleman could have stated any definite objection to the resolutions, he was perfectly able, as it was plain he was abundantly willing, to have stated it on this occasion. The right hon. Gentleman had not done so; and he must now say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, that in proposing these measures he had endeavoured to acquire the fullest information, and he was prepared now to say, that let any Gentleman show how the interests of this country or the colonies would suffer by the resolutions proposed, and he would do his best either to remove his apprehensions or to refute his objections. But then, when there was an absence of any allegation of any specific danger which could be defined, he asked how was he to meet allegations of such a vague nature as those stated by the right hon. Gentleman? It must strike the House that the right hon. Gentleman had altogether evaded the argument which rested upon the system which we had pursued in the eastern portion of our colonial empire. He had not even attempted to explain to the House why moderate protective duties were safe and beneficial there, but would be dangerous and inexpedient in the West Indies and British North America. The onus probandi, he conceived, lay upon those who insisted on retaining one system in the east and another in the west. Whatever excuse there was for preserving such a system, it could only have been acted upon as long as they were resolved upon placing the East and the West Indian colonies upon a different footing—it might have been preserved while they carefully excluded the produce of the East and admitted that of the West; but now they were acting on a more wise and just policy—now, that they were admitting the rum and the produce of the East Indies, there was no excuse for their maintaining prohibitory duties on the West Indies. He would be ashamed, if, when he had brought forward a measure favourable to the East Indian produce, he did not seek to
894
reduce the duties which had an unfavourable effect, on the agriculture of the West Indies. When he had been arguing the question with regard to the East Indian rum—the only argument that was put by the opponents to the measure, that he felt it difficult to answer, was that of the hon. Member for Essex (Mr. G. Palmer), who said, that it was most unjust to put East Indian produce on the same footing with that of the West Indies, when the latter was subject to duties from which the former was exempt. He admitted the force of the argument. He could not answer it then; but he answered it now. The argument was a good one, and he felt that he only did an act of justice when he removed these prohibitions. But then the right hon. Gentleman said, he admitted the measure was an important one, and that it was likely to be of benefit to the West Indian interests? He had no doubt but that would be the effect; for he had had the gratification only a few days before of receiving a memorial signed by all the agents of the West India colonies having local legislatures, excepting one—the agent of Tobago, who happened to be out of town; and the language held to him, with regard to this measure, was this:—
"The undersigned agents for the West India colonies possessing legislatures consider that they would not be justified in withholding the expression of their entire concurrence in the measure embraced in the proposed resolutions of the President of the Board of Trade, 'on the trade of the British possessions abroad,' because they consider it will be highly beneficial to the colonial interests entrusted to them. Such a measure has for many years been urgently solicited, and had it been granted would have afforded very great relief. In the former state and relations of colonial society, it would have been a boon from which the planters would have derived the principal advantage. But now, when the whole population will participate in that advantage, there are considerations of sound policy, no less than of moral right, which induce the undersigned on behalf of their constituencies, to regard this measure of relief as losing none of its importance. They beg, therefore, to express their acknowledgments to her Majesty's Government for having brought it forward."
Was it, he asked, doing nothing to conciliate these important interests. He believed that as a commercial measure it would be found beneficial and advantageous; but he also believed that the House would take a very narrow view of this matter if they merely looked upon it as a

895
commercial measure. He was satisfied it was a great colonial measure. He was glad to believe that the British colonies would be contented with it, and, as far as the British manufacturers were concerned, he believed that they would be satisfied with a moderate protection. These resolutions had now been published for a long time, and he said it with pleasure, that he had not heard from any one of the British manufacturers any representation by which there was demanded a protection beyond that proposed to them. It was a pleasure to him to state this; for it inclined him to believe that the manufacturers were beginning to see that their real interests did not depend upon an enormous protecting duty. They only required fair play, and they were sure that by their innate energy they might defy rivalry, and gain a fair share in the markets of the world. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of the cotton manufacture. Was it possible that the right hon. Gentleman meant to state that their cotton manufacturers had any fear as to their forcing their goods, wherever they could meet their rivals upon fair and equal terms, or that they could have any fears when they had a protecting duty of seven per cent. How was it that the right hon. Gentleman came to elude the question as to the manufacturers being satisfied with that duty which opened to them the markets in the colonies composing their eastern empire, and yet have apprehensions for the west? That which was good for the east must be good for the west. He could not see how that which was advantageous in one place must be ruinous in another. But then the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that this was not merely a question as of manufactures, but it was also very important as regarded shipping and navigation. He admitted that it was so—that these resolutions must have much to do both as regarded shipping and navigation; and these were points which he trusted the House would look to very carefully. He had considered the question with respect to the navigation of the country; and if any Gentleman could state that these resolutions would be injurious to navigation, he trusted that he should be able to adduce reasons to show they could not have that effect. He had looked carefully to the effect they would produce upon navigation, and he was prepared to state that he was perfectly convinced that their only effect upon our navigation must be
896
beneficial, and could not by any possibility be injurious. He had looked long and sedulously to all the considerations that were bound up with this part of the subject. He should mention only one point to show that their ships could not lose the colonial trade. Their trade with the West Indies was almost a coasting trade. Now, he need not remind the House that foreign ships going to one of their free ports must discharge their cargo at that port—not a part of the cargo, but the whole of the cargo. That was a circumstance which threw such an impediment in the way of ships carrying manufactured goods, that it was sufficient in itself to retain the advantage now possessed by British ships. British ships would go to, one island, there discharge part of their cargo, then to another, discharge another portion of the cargo there also, and then to a third; so that it was impossible that any other nation could deprive them of the coasting trade with their colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had, in a manner that was rather inconvenient mixed up at the same time the discussion upon all the resolutions but as the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to do so, he would now make a few observations upon the points to which he had adverted. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he apprehended very injurious consequences to British North America, from the alteration in the duties proposed in the second resolution. He was one of those who must regret, if at any time they were to make alterations in their commercial system which would have an injurious effect upon colonies, that had the best right to a favourable consideration from that House; but then he was satisfied that the alteration that he proposed would have no such effect. There were some of the articles in the lumber trade which were best produced in the United States, and others in which British America had such an advantage, that she now sent them in large quantities to the States. It was true that the circuitous trade by which some kinds of wood goods were now obliged to round by New Brunswick or Nova Scotia, before they were brought to the West Indies might be checked; but he could not look upon this as a species of commerce which it was fair upon the West Indians to encourage by excessive duties. With respect to the tea duties in Canada, it was very difficult without a great deal of local knowledge, to ascertain exactly the amount of duty which would be most proper, and be

897
most likely to promote the public revenue. Upon this point he (Mr. Labouchere), however, had referred to Lord Sydenham, who said, that he thought that the amount he now proposed would be in every respect a most satisfactory duty, would entirely do away with the smuggling which went on at present, and would probably lead to a receipt treble in amount to that received at present. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's observations on the fourth resolution, that relating to the duty on rum, he (Mr. Labouchere) must say, that he thought these observations came rather ungraciously from the right hon. Gentleman, inasmuch as it was really at his suggestion that he had given his attention to the matter. As soon as the right hon. Gentleman drew his attention to the fact, he felt the injustice of the existence of an unequal duty on rums coming to Upper Canada, and he resolved to take the earliest opportunity of doing away with such a ground of complaint. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken also with regard to the fisheries. The evil now complained of in this quarter arose out of the exemptions which the British fisheries enjoyed from all duties upon articles required for their own use. This principle, which in itself he thought a very proper one, led to so extensive a system of smuggling, that he was told that in Nova Scotia the whole of the provincial customs had been absorbed by it. It became, therefore, absolutely necessary that some remedy should be applied to so crying an abuse. But the right hon. Gentleman said, that the measure now proposed would open the door so wide, that all the evils would exist to the same extent as before. He did not think it would be found so. The article upon which the greatest smuggling took place was sugar, and sugar was not to be included. True, molasses was included, but he believed, that it was possible, by providing sufficient restrictions, to prevent any fraud on that article. The whole of the object which he (Mr. Labouchere) had in view in framing this measure was, to allow the fisheries to have all the articles required for their own use free from duty, and, at the same time, to take care that through that indulgence frauds were not committed upon the colonial revenue. He did not know whether he need trouble the committee with any further observations at present. The right hon. Gentleman had twitted him for having made certain alterations in his project since he first brought
898
it forward. When he (Mr. Labouchere) took up subjects of this kind, he endeavoured to frame the duties he should propose in the best manner he could, and upon the best information he could obtain. The House was aware, however, that he could not consult the trade, and that he was prevented by the line of his duty from allowing to be made public the duties he projected until he had laid them before the House; and when this circumstance was considered, it would be acknowledged that it was almost impossible he should altogether avoid error in some point or other of his calculations. No false shame, however, and no ambition to keep up a show of consistency, should ever prevent him from remedying any such errors whenever he found them out. His object in altering these duties was to make their application as favourable to the interests of the colonies themselves as to the mother country, and he believed that this object he should go far to attain in the present instance. Of course, it could not be expected that any measure on such a subject could be framed so as to give satisfaction to all parties; but he believed, that this measure had received a larger and more general share of approbation from the various commercial interests of the country than any measure of the kind within his recollection. Nothing could be more gratifying than the liberal and temperate tone in which the various manufacturing interests had expressed themselves on this subject. He was glad to find, that the parties engaged in these great interests now began to perceive that enormous prohibitory duties were not advantageous even to them; and that their interests must be promoted by all that promoted the general welfare of the community at large. The gentlemen connected with the fisheries had also expressed their approbation of this measure in the most gratifying manner. It was true, on the other hand, that it had met with some opposition from a few quarters for instance, from parties engaged in the provision trade in the south of Ireland. But after considering to the best of his ability all the objections which had been made to him on the subject, he was bound to say that he did not think that any sufficient ground had been made out for a higher system of duties on provisions than those which he now proposed. With regard to the sugar duties, to which the right hon. Gentleman had also referred, that was certainly a most important subject but it was

899
not one which he felt himself called upon to enter upon on the present occasion. He was not, however, fond of making matters of this kind a subject for barter between one party and another. In considering colonial questions, such as those which were now before the House, he was desirous of doing so in a large and liberal spirit; and when the House came to legislate upon the various other matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he was satisfied that they would consider them with a due regard to the many important considerations which they involved.
Mr. Colquhounquite concurred in most of the principles stated by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. His objection, however, to the right hon. Gentleman's measure was this, that he thought his performance did not equal his promises. When the right hon. Gentleman said, that this measure would place the East and the West Indies upon the same footing, the right hon. Gentleman stated that which he thought was not the fact. He would beg to direct the attention of the committee to a few of the leading articles in the right hon. Gentleman's resolution which affected the West-India colonies. The right hon. Gentleman had said on a former night, that one of the most important articles of consumption in the colonies, particularly for the negro population, was fish, and yet upon this article he found a duty proposed of 25 per cent. Then upon beef and pork there was to be a duty of 15 per cent., and upon flour of 10 per cent. Now he could not imagine what local advantage any one of the colonies could derive from any one of these duties. The Canadas would certainly not be benefitted by the duty of 10 per cent, on flour, whilst the West Indies would be severely prejudiced by it. Then there were the articles of white and yellow pine and of shingles, most extensively used in building in the West-India islands, which were to be charged with a duty of 15 per cent. These articles came from America; and, he would ask, what part of Great Britain, or what interest in it, could be in the least benefitted by such a duty? Soap and candles, also, were to be charged with a duty of 7 per cent. Now, to show the disparity between the 'duties proposed to be levied upon the same articles in the East and West Indies respectively, woollen manufactures were to be charged with a duty of 2 per cent. in the East Indies, and
900
of 7 per cent in the West Indies. Cotton manufactures 3½ per cent in the East Indies, and 7 per cent in the West Indies. Articles in linen, silk, glass, and leather, were to be admitted in the East Indies without any discriminating duty whatever, whilst in the West Indies they were to be charged with a duty of 7 per cent. And yet they were told that this measure would place the East and West Indies on an equal footing—would open for the first time the pure principles of free trade, as the hon. Member for Wigan had said the other night, an assertion which he maintained to be utterly inapplicable and incorrect. He admitted that some advantages would be conferred upon the West Indies by this measure, but they would still be burdened most severely by the duties which were left. These duties might be necessary for the protection of the various shipping and commercial interests of the country, but whilst they existed it could not be said with correctness that an equalization had been effected between the customs of the East and West Indies. He fully admitted, that this measure was a very useful one as far as it went, but it only diminished burdens which, as long as they existed, would give the West Indies a good right to call the attention of the House to their interests and claims.
Mr. Humesubscribed to almost every sentiment which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and was particularly pleased with his speech, coming as it did so soon after one of a very different character, from a right hon. Gentleman who had recently spoken from the opposition benches. At a time when the commercial energies of the country required more perhaps than in any previous period to be encouraged and called forth, he thought that the whole community of the kingdom had cause to be greatly obliged to the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade for the measure which he now proposed. He must say, also, that he was surprised at the doubts and objections which had been made by the right hon. Member opposite, to this proposal, recollecting, as he did, that that right hon. Gentleman had been a colleague in office with that great statesman, Mr. Huskisson, whose views this measure did but go to carry out. The right hon. Gentleman having been a colleague with Mr. Huskisson when, at different times, he

901
propounded his views on subjects of tin's kind, could not oppose those various measures as they were brought forward, but he (Mr. Hume) must say, that to him, it was surprising to hear the right hon. Gentleman uttering fears and alarms and calling upon the President of the Board of Trade to give instances and proofs that the alterations he proposed would not be attended with evil results, when he recollected that all these projects, all these views, had been fully laid down and explained by Mr. Huskisson at various times, between the years 1815 and 1825. At that time Mr. Huskisson was met in all his financial projects with objections and opposition from various manufacturing and commercial bodies, who represented that they should be ruined if his proposed alterations were carried into effect. Mr. Huskisson did himself great credit by the firm manner in which he resisted the futile objections which were then made to him; and in treating the subject now, the House had this great advantage over Mr. Huskisson, that the latter could only speak of what he expected would be the case, whilst they had now the results of experience to go by, and confirm them in their views. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had spoken about the colonial principle, but he would ask, what was that principle but the keeping up of a monopoly in favour of the colonies, which, in operation, were equally disadvantageous to the mother country, and to themselves. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, that these resolutions did not go far enough in abolishing that pernicious system, but he hailed them as a step towards this great and desirable object, fie would ask, for instance, of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, was it right to maintain the duly upon linen or upon calicoes r If they meant to deal with the West Indies upon equal terms with the East, let them abolish the customs department in the West Indies altogether, and leave the colonies to look to their own revenues. The time was coming when all prohibitive and protective duties should be done away with, and the customs looked to only as a means of revenue. It happened, however, that as a matter of revenue, our colonial customs were not only wholly unproductive, but, to a certain extent, a charge to the mother country. The total amount of customs levied in the colonies was 555,000 l., and not only did no part of this sum find its
902
way into the treasury of this country, but about 14,000 l. further was obliged to be contributed towards maintaining the necessary establishments. The abolition of those establishments would interfere certainly with the patronage of the Government; but, he believed, with nothing else, and he thought that the day was gone by when the government of this country required to stand by means of patronage, or ought to be allowed so to stand. He hoped, therefore, that they would no longer keep up any system of imposts for such a purpose. Let the President of the Board of Trade and the committee, look to the results even of the partial commercial relaxations which had been made during the last fifteen years; in no quarter of the world were these results more striking and gratifying than in the East-Indies. In many instances of fiscal relaxation, an increase had taken place in the total value of the exports of the country. In 1814, the exports amounted to 1,874,000 l.; in tin; twelve years which followed the partial relaxation which took place at that period, they amounted to 3,495,000 l.; and in the litter period, ending with the year 1839, the average amount had been 5,600,000 l.; being an increase of four to one, and clearly showing that as commercial restrictions were taken off, the commercial resources of the country were promoted in an equal proportion. He recollected very well, that upon each change being proposed during the period to which he referred, the cry had always been, take care that our shipping trade be not ruined; and in 1815 it was confidently predicted, that if these views were persevered in, America would swallow up all our shipping, and wrest from us our naval supremacy. Now what had been the, fact? Whereas our shipping trade inwards was 1,379,000 tons at that period, last year it was 3,101,000 tons. He must also beg to state the results of the relaxation in the silk duties, to which he had been happy to say, he was partly instrumental. In 1824, the duty on raw silk had been reduced from 5s. 6d. to 1d. a pound, and on thrown and fine silk from 14 s. to 1s. 6d. and 3s. 6d. And what had been the consequence of these alterations? The average consumption of raw silk during the ten years ending 1824 had been l,940,000lbs.; whilst under the partial free system established in the latter year, though the trade was still greatly fettered, the average consumption of raw silk in the twelve years

903
ending 1836 had been 4,169,0001bs.; in the year 1839 it had been upwards of 5,000,000lbs. It would be curious to read the petitions which were presented between the year 1814 and 1824 against these relaxations, and to compare their predictions of ruin with the happy results which had actually taken place, and the perusal of these petitions, coupled with their reflections, would form the best reply to the warnings which were now held out against the still further relaxations now proposed by her Majesty's Government. He should mention also, that the export of manufactured silk during the last year had amounted in value to 868,000 l., of which 66,000 l. had been sent to France, a country which it was supposed would never have had occasion to import that article from us. No article exhibited a better proof of the benefit of a relaxation of duty than linen. Mr. Huskisson reduced the duty on that article to a low amount, and the consequence was, that the trade had greatly increased. In his opinion all duties ought to be removed, except the duties necessary for revenue; there should be no protecting duties at all. He thanked the Government for what they had already done, but he trusted they would not stop there. He counselled the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, who he must say had taken a most enlightened view of this question, to allow the colonies to regulate their own affairs, and to free themselves from those shackles that checked industry and impeded prosperity. He would not trouble the House upon the general question, and he would only again express his hope that this would not be the last step which the Government should feel bound to take to free the commerce and industry of the country. He trusted the House would allow him to make a few observations on a subject, which, although personal to himself, were still connected with the question before the House. He, as Chairman of the committee of last Session, had been assailed in the other House by a noble Lord (Lord Ashburton) formerly a Member of that House, and then Mr. Alexander Baring. That noble Lord had thought proper to challenge the proceedings of a committee of this House. For many years he had had the satisfaction of acting with that noble Lord, who was one of the most able and ardent of the advocates of free trade in that House. He recollected when that noble Lord presented the celebrated petition from the city of
904
London. That petition asked neither more nor less than was now asked, or than was the tendency of the evidence taken before the committee of last Session. That committee recommended no more than Lord Ashburton himself moved for. He was sorry the noble Lord had altered his opinions; but his own, he could say, were unchanged. With the noble Lord's change of opinion, however, he did not find fault with that noble Lord for bringing forward serious charges against a committee of that House which had no foundation. He was sorry that noble Lord had been induced, without due information, to have brought charges against a committee of that House. The noble Lord had stated, that that committee had been unfairly chosen. Now, so far from that being the case, seven Gentlemen were taken from the opposition side of the House, who were known to be opposed to the free trade principle, and seven from the other side of the House; and he having been Chairman, and having a strong bias on the question, of course there was a a majority of one. He had consulted with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Stamford (Sir G. Clerk), as to the selection of the committee, and he thought, under these circumstances, to charge the committee with having been unfairly constituted was most improper. It was also stated, that evidence against the free trade principle had been tendered and refused. He had been absent from the Chair but one day, and he must say, that, to his knowledge, no evidence had ever been tendered and refused. He should like to know the name of any individual that had tendered evidence that was refused. It was very unfair to say, that the committee had refused evidence. The committee was also charged with abstaining from asking questions, the answers to which might have proved unfavourable to the principle of free trade. Why, they had the attendance of Gentlemen from the opposite Benches, who might have asked any questions they pleased. The noble Lord had been very much misinformed and misled; but, as the noble Lord had allowed himself to be so misled, he felt it necessary to give his charges a contradiction—a contradiction which he had requested another noble Lord to repeat elsewhere. He would only add, that the noble Lord who brought the charges was mistaken, and that his statement was not in any way borne out by the facts.
Mr. Herrieswas not aware of what had been uttered by the noble Lord to whom

905
the hon. Member for Kilkenny had referred, but he begged to take that opportunity to address a few observations to the committee upon the subject of the committee of last Session. That committee had to report upon a subject of vast importance, embracing questions of the deepest interest to the commercial welfare of the country, and it was of the utmost importance that that report should not be brought to a conclusion in a very imperfect and unsatisfactory manner. He did not mean to throw any blame upon the committee, and he only made this observation as a matter of regret. He felt and admitted the actual necessity of carrying much farther the inquiry whether there should or should not be a continuance of the system of protecting duties. He begged to remind the House that Mr. Huskisson endeavoured, by the effect of his legislation, to adjust, not to abrogate protecting duties. Mr. Huskisson endeavoured to find the point at which protecting duties were indespensably necessary, and he proposed to dispense with every shackle upon commerce that was not necessary. That, he apprehended, was the real principle on which Mr. Huskisson acted. He begged to remind the House of the object for which the inquiry into the import duties was undertaken. When the motion was made for a committee, a noble Friend of his suggested the necessity of some explanation as to the nature of the proposed inquiry, and the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) was, that he was not responsible for the committee, as it had been appointed upon the motion of an individual Member of the House, but that he believed the object of the inquiry would be to ascertain the character of existing duties. At the same time the hon. Member who moved for the committee, (Mr. Hume), in explanation, stated that the object of the committee was to classify existing duties, and to exhibit to the House and the country the state of duties chiefly as compared with other countries. His noble Friend considered the explanation perfectly satisfactory, and it was under this impression that the committee was formed. The committee, however, had gone into a different course of inquiry; and here he must say, that as far as the labours of the committee had gone, he did not throw out any objection. On the contrary, he thought all the information collected was exceedingly
906
good. Some of the evidence was exceedingly valuable. To some of it, which he had read attentively, he gave his entire assent; from some other portions of it he strongly dissented; and with respect to some of it he entertained doubts; but as far as the labours of the committee went, he was satisfied that they had been productive of a great deal of service to the public. There was one point to which he wished to address a few remarks. It should be recollected that this subject was of immense importance, and involved a complete revolution in the commercial business of the country. Looking at the character of the question, to the circumstances connected with it, and to the short time given for its consideration; looking also to the fact, that the evidence, at present given, was, what might be considered ex parte, he asked, would any Gentleman on either side of she House, let him even subscribe to all the opinions expressed by the committee, think it a matter to be endured, that any step should be taken upon a subject of such immense importance, without hearing all parties? Any person who read the evidence would see that it was of the greatest importance that all who might be injured in any interest connected with any change should have ample opportunity of being heard before any practical measures were adopted. He entertained a strong expectation that before this the right hon. President of the Board of Trade would have proposed the appointment of a committee to continue the labours of the committee of last Session, especially as it was alleged by the committee, and, indeed, was manifest, that they had not had sufficient time to explore the whole subject. The committee having gone so far, and having awakened the public attention, and looking to the very great activity with which those who took a part upon this question, and whose opinions were supported by the evidence taken before the committee, had circulated the report of the committee in order to produce an impression on the public mind, he was in hopes, and he thought it but right, that before this time, the right hon. Gentleman would have appointed another committee; whether composed of the same Members as the committee of last year, or whether composed differently, and of a more enlarged character, so as to consist of Gentlemen of opposite opin-

907
ions, and of greater experience in that branch of public affairs to which the inquiry related, he was, at all events, in hopes that there would have been further inquiry, and he still hoped that her Majesty's Ministers would not propose to institute any measures upon a report of this description without further inquiry. Such inquiry was just, in every point of view, before they adopted any step founded on the report of the committee. For his own part he felt bound to express the great satisfaction he felt upon every occasion when any measure proposed and carried into effect upon the legislation promoted by Mr. Huskisson produced the benefits which had been anticipated. He himself, as far as his humble endeavours went, had always acted with Mr. Huskisson in the promotion of the principles which that statesman entertained on this subject. He had never, on the subject of the principles of free trade, had any difference of opinion from that right hon. Gentleman, and he could say, as all those who had acted with him could say, those who had beer spoken of as illiberal, while Mr. Huskisson had been praised as liberal—he could say for his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, as well as for every other colleague of Mr. Huskisson, that they had given a most cordial concurrence in all those measures which Mr. Huskisson, in concurrence with them, had proposed. It was not fair, therefore, to draw the distinctions that were so often heard. Mr. Huskisson never was an indiscriminate promoter of free trade, and it was equally unjust to suppose that those who acted with him were not as liberal as he was in the view which he took in adapting our commercial system at the close of the war, and in a new state of things, to that of other countries, and in relieving our commerce from all those shackles that could possibly be dispensed with. He was glad to hear his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Goulburn) support the same principles as Mr. Huskisson—namely, the principle of preserving those duties which were requisite for protection, and he was also glad to hear the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, in the whole of his discourse, propound the principle of protection. If that then, were the case, the only object on both sides of the House must be to discover the point at which protection ought to be
908
maintained. There was no individual on cither side desirous to keep a rate of duty in any case, for the sake of protection, beyond what was indispensably necessary; and the object of all parties was to reduce protection to the lowest point. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeded upon that principle, and he trusted he would, he might be assured of receiving as hearty support from that (the Opposition) side of the House, as from the other; as nothing could be more in conformity with those who trod in the steps of Mr. Huskisson. With respect to the duties which were the subject of the resolutions, as there would be a further opportunity for discussion, he would not waste the time of the House by entering into details. He was not prepared to offer any objection, but he reserved to himself the power of dealing with the subject when the bill was before the House. There was one point, however, to which he wished to advert, for it concerned a large body of persons who would be aggrieved by the resolutions as they at present stood. The resolution he. alluded to was that which referred to the duty on tea conveyed by land between the United States and Canada. It was true, that as long as a duty of 25 per cent. was imposed by the Colonial Legislature, and there was no duty in the United States, it was obvious that smuggling would be carried on; but he thought this smuggling would increase if they put on a duty of 27½ per cent. instead of the prohibition that now existed. It was difficult with such an extent of frontier to guard against the introduction of smuggled tea, and it was certain that nobody would pay 27½ per cent. if it could be avoided, so that the one duty would be as much a prohibition as the other. He thought, moreover, that there would be greater temptation and facility for smuggling against a duty than against a positive prohibition. The only remedy was a reduction of the duty, and he therefore believed the contrivance of the right hon. Gentleman, however laudable, would be found ineffective. He would recommend him to re-consider this part of the subject.
Lord John Russellwished to address a few observations to the House after the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down; because, interesting as this conversation, rather than a debate, had been, there was no speech from which he had

909
derived greater satisfaction than that of the right hon. Gentleman. He agreed with him in his description of the general policy of Mr. Huskisson, although, perhaps, there was something to be added to that description. He was pleased, however, to hear, that in that policy, which had been so justly praised, the colleagues of Mr. Huskisson had cordially concurred; that Lord Liverpool, who was at the head of the Government, had fully approved of it; and that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, not then in his place, had warmly participated in it, and in all those plans and measures which had been brought forward by Mr. Huskisson. It was well known, too, that Mr. Canning, the friend and associate of Mr. Huskisson, eagerly supported the principles involved in those measures. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had himself declared his adherence to them; and he rejoiced to hear from testimony so valuable and undeniable that such principles were likewise to be found amongst the most enlightened of the party to which the right hon. Gentleman belonged; because the last thing he should think of would be that of arrogating to any party, on either side of the House, the merit of the principle they were prepared to adopt upon the present occasion—principles which he should be glad to see concurred in by the House generally, and being both sound and useful, carried into effect by the largest possible majority. And if the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in showing that the whole merit of those principles belonged to former Ministers, that Mr. Huskisson and his colleagues were the authors of them, and that her Majesty's present Ministers were but the humble imitators of those men, and the humble followers of their schemes—so that those schemes were successful—so that the trade of the country was improved—so that the industry and consumption of the country were promoted—so that her revenues were increased—and so that her prosperity and general standing in the world were heightened—so that these consequences followed, he would willingly allow all the merit and all the credit to be given to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, provided they would but let him and his colleagues have the satisfaction of thinking that they had in some degree aided in carrying those schemes and principles into effect.
910
The right hon. Gentleman who began this debate (Mr. Goulburn) had, he thought, spoken in rather a different tone, and not intending as he certainly did not, to follow that right hon. Gentleman through those details which had been answered by his right hon. Friend near him he thought that the real sum and substance of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was this, that the resolutions would confer considerable advantage on the colonies, that it was quite true, that if they were adopted the people in the colonies would be able to consume articles which they now bought dear at a cheap rate; that instead of getting bad articles, they would get good; that where they now got good articles, they would get better; and that although undeniable advantage would be gained from these resolutions, yet, said the right hon. Gentleman, if you give such an exemption to the colonies, who can say what will follow?. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be afraid that the people of this country might like to have articles cheap and good—that they were setting an example that was catching, not that it was injurious or ruinous, but, on the contrary, that other benefits, other advantages, other obligations of industry might follow from this example. He really could conclude no otherwise from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But, supposing he had misinterpreted that speech, then the right hon. Gentleman must intend to say, that the resolutions proposed would confer advantages on the colonies; that they proposed to do what he did not deny would be a benefit; but that if something else was proposed which might be disadvantageous, and against which there were sound objections, the present resolutions would be making a precedent for it. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, that the present resolutions would be injurious, on the contrary, he said they would be useful: and, surely, if they were to propose what would be not only useless, but might be perilous and ruinous, they would have no ground on which they could succeed, and the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in defeating any such proposition. The principle on which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to proceed was this, that you must give advantages to the British manufactures against the colonies. The colonies must take their silk and leather, &c.; then the people of the colonies say we feel ourselves aggrieved by this re-

911
striction, and to satisfy them you say they shall have advantages against "the farmer and labourer of the United Kingdom;" then they complain, and you, to satisfy them, give them advantages against the manufacturer, and so you go on in this vicious circle of constantly endeavouring to do something for the advantage of a particular class instead of looking to the benefit of the whole community. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last in the definition he gave of the policy of Mr. Huskisson, that it was not a policy of complete and free trade, but a policy of protection. He proposed certainly a certain protection to the manufacturing and other interests of the country, but not such as was immoderate and set all competition at defiance. He did not propose a protection amounting to a prohibition, and say that however had an article might be, no other should be consumed, on the contrary, he said, Do away with prohibition, give that protection by which you will make your own manufactures compete with foreign manufactures; and endeavour to make as good an article, if not a better." The right hon. Gentleman said, he conceived the general principle of the policy of Mr. Huskisson to nave been protection. He thought it sound at the time, and certainly it had been corroborated by experience; for he found, with regard to Mr. Huskisson's policy, that it had been acted upon by another great authority, a Tory authority; he found that in 1786, Mr. Pitt tried an experiment with regard to cloth and crockery, similar to that tried by Mr. Huskisson with regard to silk and gloves, and it was admitted that with a moderate, instead of a prohibitory duty, they not only obliged the manufacturers to produce a far better article than before, but that it had promoted the increase of that very manufacture the ruin of which was confidently anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of introducing foreign articles, giving protection to the home manufacturer, at the lowest rate required. If the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to this principle so stated—namely, to the principle of the lowest rate of protection really required, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find much difference of opinion between himself and the Members of the Government. He thought the principle a sound one. He considered it needless to enter, even if there was a larger house
912
and a more formal debate, into the genera principles upon which the question of duties in a country entirely free, or at least not in the situation of this country, ought to be regulated. It was enough to say, that in the present state of this country it was necessary that protection should be granted, but that that protection should be very carefully considered. It should be moderate where they had one class with superior advantages as against other classes. They could not say to one class of manufacturers "you have less ingenuity, you require greater protection, and the article you produce shall therefore be very dear," and to another great interest such as the cotton manufacturers, "you produce an excellent article, you require very little protection, and therefore we will frame a system which shall give you no advantage whatever." The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had spoken of the incomplete evidence which had been taken before the committee which sat last year, and proposed that another committee should be appointed for the investigation of this subject. It was not his province, but that of the proposer of that committee, to vindicate its proceedings; but when the right hon. Gentleman said it ought to have examined witnesses of more experience, he ought not to forget that there had been a gentleman before that committee—Mr. J. D. Hume—who was long engaged in that department of public affairs, and very much in the confidence of Mr. Huskisson in many of the changes he made. That Gentleman's opinion might be sound or unsound; but with regard to experience in that department of the public service, he thought they might go further without faring much better in that respect. It might be, that the opinions of that committee did not coincide with those of many Gentlemen in that House; but it could not be denied, that the evidence given before the Import Committee afforded very valuable information, which had been in part forgotten, and part of which consisted of new facts; and very great credit was, in his opinion, due to those who had taken the pains to bring that evidence before the country. When any measures, however, were brought forward by the Government on this subject, they must be based, not only on such evidence, but they must be based according to the views of Mr. Huskisson, and of every minister who had presided over that department—

913
first, on a sound consideration of the general principles affecting this country; next, on the position of the country as regarded all its colonies and foreign relations; and, lastly, from u knowledge of the various interests in the country which might be affected by any measures which might be brought forward. These were the topics with which a minister was bound to deal; these were the topics which a minister was bound to consider. He should think any ministers were acting a very unsatisfactory—he had almost said, a mean part, if they brought forward a measure, and declared they had nothing else to say for it, but that it proceeded from the evidence of the Import Committee. He thought if the evidence before that committee were unfounded; if the witnesses came to false conclusions, they were not bound to pay attention to them; but with regard to the facts testified before that committee, they were bound to sift them, and not only to give them that consideration which was their due, but to weigh them in relation to the general opinion of enlightened men throughout the country, who are particularly conversant with this important subject. They did endeavour to take into consideration all those important topics; they did endeavour to form the conclusion which struck them as best, on each particular subject which had been brought before them, either by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) or by any other Member of the Government, or by any body which thought fit to lay its views before them; and they did endeavour to consider them, with a view of proposing such measures as seemed to be most useful for the country. On all those subjects, continued the noble Lord, be our opinions right or wrong, there, is a general agreement in the Cabinet: on all these subjects the Cabinet is prepared to act unanimously, whenever they think right to do so, with a view to the advantage of all the interests to which they refer. It will not shrink from any responsibility that may belong to it. Whether the measures we bring forward are useful measures for the country, it will be for this House, the other House of Parliament, and the country in general to consider; but this, at least, I may say, that we are not insensible to the immense importance of this subject, and that in bringing forward this question now, we are bringing forward that which is ex concessu,
914
an undeniable good: that we will endeavour, in every measure we submit, to take that which is supported by the greatest weight of argument, and confirmed by the longest experience; and if we are not mistaken in our views, we think that, by carrying on a policy of this kind, with due deliberation and at proper times, we shall render this country very great benefit, and that, if we fail, we shall have the consolation, at least, of thinking that our plans were taken with an honest intention of promoting the commerce, the industry, and the fortunes of this mighty empire.
Mr. Herrieswas anxious to correct a misapprehension into which the noble Lord had fallen, in conceiving that he had complained of the witnesses before the committee, having only an imperfect knowledge of the subjects to which their evidence related. Nothing of that sort fell from him. As to the individual to whom the noble Lord alluded, no one more highly appreciated his merits than himself. While in office, he had the good fortune to have a long and constant acquaintance with that Gentleman, and he would be the last to speak disparagingly either of his opinions or general intelligence. What he had said was, that he hoped before any measure was taken the subject would be more fully investigated before a committee, comprising amongst its members a large proportion of persons who had been connected with the administration of the affairs of trade. He thought the noble Lord was not likely to dispute that proposition. He also much regretted that the inquiries of the committee had been of so partial and limited a nature; for, although he might concur with all the witnesses examined, fairness required that those on the other side of the question should have had an equal opportunity of placing their opinions upon record. This was the more necessary, because however accidentally it might have happened, the fact was, an opinion very generally prevailed, and the examination of the late Secretary to the Board of Trade, to a great extent, countenanced the supposition, that the inquiry was promoted and superintended by Ministers, and that the opinions recorded on the evidence, un-contradicted by any antagonist statements, were those of the present Government. He would give a single instance of the mischievous effects of this mode

915
of procedure. Mr. M'Gregor produced a paper before the committee, in which he stated what the existing duties were, and how he could procure by a great reduction, an additional annual revenue of 6,000,000 l.—a mine of wealth which no doubt Ministers, in the present exigencies of the Treasury, would be roost happy to explore. In that paper, which appeared in the appendix, the existing duties were set forth in a very partial and apparently most invidious manner. Opposite to "wheat," for instance, he found this entry:—"Prohibited, except at a nearly famine rate." Such was not Mr. Huskisson's system of corn duties; such was not the law; such was not the fact. This might appear to be a trifling circumstance, but it had its effect, and it gave an impression which certainly was by no means favourable to the general character of the report.
Mr. Labouchere: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) had asked why he had not re-appointed the committee on exports this Session. He had, since he filled his present office, never moved for a committee to investigate a subject of this nature, and never opposed such a motion when made by any hon. Gentleman. He thought that committee had adduced extremely valuable information, but that a Minister ought not to shelter himself behind any committee, but to act as he thought best. If the hon. Member for Kilkenny should think proper to continue this committee this year, he should not resist the motion; but he should altogether oppose its re-appointment being made the pretext for interminable delay in legislation. He would never allow, that there was not ample information before the House and the country on all the great interests of our commercial policy, and if the right hon. Gentleman threw out the suggestion of the appointment of a committee, with the view of showing the impropriety of legislating on this subject, or forbidding it from availing itself of the opportunities which might offer for its adjustment, he thought such an argument ought not to be listened to for a moment. And when he said this, he confessed his principles so far coincided with those of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was in favour, not of absolute free trade, but of a moderate protection. But the whole question was—what was that moderate protection? The moment our duties
916
reached that point which compelled our colonies to take bad English articles when they could get better and cheaper elsewhere, they became factitious and burdensome in their nature. He held, then, that our North American and West-India duties were immoderate and excessive. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the evidence of a gentleman, who had for many years been Secretary to the Board of Trade. He meant Mr. Hume, who had given his evidence before the Import Duty Committee, and of whom he had spoken in high terms, but not higher than his character, talents, and services deserved. This was not the first time that gentleman had been examined before a Committee of the House of Commons. He had given his evidence before the Select Duties Committee of Mr. Huskisson, the Timber Duties Committee of Lord Sydenham, and he could only say, that as long as he presided over the Board of Trade, he should not only permit, but encourage the officers of that Department, to give every information in their power, when called upon by such bodies. He did not deny, that the suggestions of some of the witnesses appeared to him to be somewhat chimerical, or that he should not recommend his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to frame his budget on the plan which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) alluded to, without considerable modifications, but this he would say, that the labours of the committee had, on the whole, produced the most important benefits: it called the public attention to the present state of the duties, and it was only necessary to direct that attention to them, to show that important changes might be effected with the greatest advantage. They should act with circumspection, and on information due to the importance of the subject: but he heartily rejoiced, that every day furnished evidence of an improved feeling and increased information in the country, which, if properly reflected by the Legislature, must lead to important and useful results.
Mr. Villierssaid, that after the important and satisfactory speeches of the President of the Board of Trade, and the noble Secretary for the Colonies, he felt some scruple in troubling the House with any remarks, as they certainly had, in the opinions they had professed, said what was quite sufficient to recommend the measure to him. They had avowed themselves, with

917
great distinctness, advocates of the policy which was avowed by Mr. Huskisson, and had expressed that confidence in the justice of his and their own opinions, that made them independent of further inquiry. They seemed from their speeches to be aware of the wants of the country and of the colonies, and only to desire the power to give effect to their liberal views. After the speeches indeed he had heard from them that night, he should watch their course with interest and with hope. He wished now to say one word as to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harwich, with reference to the committee on import duties, of which he (Mr. Villiers) had been an active member. In one respect, what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman in his allusions to that committee had not surprised him, for he had spoken of it, and of the witnesses that gave testimony before it, with that caution and respect that became a man of sense and honour, feeling as he did that against their object or their motives he had nothing to allege—and thus at once distinguished himself from speakers in another place, who had thought it right to impugn the conduct and motives of members of that committee. The right hon. Gentleman had honestly said, that he had nothing to say against the fairness of that committee, he believed, that they had conducted their proceedings justly; that he knew that Members on his own side had been consulted as to its composition, and that the character of the witnesses, more especially the one that had been referred to, was deserving of all respect and credit, from his integrity, intelligence, and experience. And, indeed, no person whose opinion was worthy of respect would venture to utter one word against the gentlemen who had given the principal evidence before that committee. What the right hon. Gentleman complained of, if he understood it, was the result to which the evidence had led the committee. The right hon. Member seemed to think that if there had been more time, that evidence might have been adduced to shake the evidence which was taken, Now he would take leave to set the hon. Gentleman and others who had commented on this matter, right in one respect, namely, that the evidence did not derive its importance from the particular witnesses or the opinions they expressed, but from the facts taken from official documents, and explanations given to them by persons, whose attention,
918
from the nature of their office, had been particularly directed to them. The object of the inquiry was to ascertain with what view and purpose the duties on imports had been imposed; there had been some confusion on this subject in discussions in this House, and his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, proposed to move for this inquiry—the question being whether they were for revenue, or what is called protection? The real importance, then, which attached to the report of this committee was, from the startling facts which it elicited in the exposition of this subject, and there is no delay, no fresh committee composed of members possessing what is called enlarged experience or high commercial character, that could vary in the least (if they were indefinitely to postpone their inquiry) the facts which result from comparing the taxes which are imposed for revenue and the taxes which are imposed for protection, or in other words, imposed to swell the incomes or secure the profits of particular classes at the expense of the community. It is the enormous burden imposed by this means upon the people by enhancing the price of the necessaries of life, that startles and surprises the community, that has angered those that are interested in maintaining the corn-laws, and induced them now to cal the committee partial and one-sided. He remembered when he requested the President of the Board of Trade to allow the hon. Member for Kilkenny to have this committee: he said, why he can only elicit facts that are already known, or at most give them the authority of an official document; and that is really what has been done. They had examined the persons who were, or who had long been, in the public service, and who explained the purpose and operation of the import duties, and they showed how various had been their objects and effects, and how time and circumstances had contributed to alter their intended operations. But he contended that the facts that were really damning to the existing tariff were those which could not be controverted, and which had been established by respectable and competent witnesses. But it was perhaps a diversion to refer to this committee upon this occasion. The resolutions before that House were not immediately founded upon it; and though resting on principles which the report of that committee went to uphold, were in fact independent of it, and indeed there was nothing which had fallen

919
from the President of the Board of Trade that had not been distinctly stated by Mr. Huskisson in 1825. He (Mr. Vivian) supported these resolutions which were now submitted to the House, because they seemed to assert one principle of policy, and abandon another. They assumed, that colonies, like independent countries, required liberty of trade to prosper; and on the other hand, that it was unwise, as it was unjust, to sacrifice the interests of colonial communities to the interests of the parent country, or to particular classes connected with them. And the real question which was raised by these resolutions was the one of monopoly or freedom—and he, for one, did not complain of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge's speech, who advocated the cause of monopoly. He consistently urged every argument in favour of protecting particular interests, and opposed himself to the system of promoting the common interest before the interest of the class or the individual. The hon. Member threw out a variety of suggestions and objections to the measure, but they all turned upon the evil to the interest, and did not refer to the good of the country or the community. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, did not object to the measure as regarded the colony, or to its immediate effects elsewhere; but his real alarm was for the precedent it might afford at some distant day in dealing with interests nearer home. Here, then, he and the right hon. Gentleman met on distinct grounds, for it was precisely in the precedent that it offered for future legislation that he saw its chief merits; and this was doubtless also the only ground on which it could be opposed, for he did not suppose that any person questioned the evil that was produced by the present system of duties, which really was one system of reciprocal mischief between the mother country and the colony, and between one colony and the other for, at present, the mother country was at great disadvantage, obliged to take exclusively the dear sugar of the colonies, and in return the colonies were obliged to take the dear provisions of the mother country. Nobody would deny, he supposed, that that was a great disadvantage to both Again, Jamaica was obliged to take fish from Nova Scotia, and our provinces in America were obliged to take sugar from Jamaica—thus, in each case, getting what they wanted at the dearest market. It was altogether an
920
unsound system. It was an attempt to benefit the colonists and the mother country, by inflicting injury on each in turn; it was a system, in short, which was only aptly illustrated by the ludicrous image of the late Member for Hull (Colonel Thompson), who compared the protective system to so many monkeys in different cages each stealing from his neighbour's pan, and each losing as much as he had stolen. The present measure acknowledged the sounder principle of freedom of trade. It was for that reason that he should not now complain of its imperfect character, or remark upon its little interest or importance to the people of this country, for he approved of a measure that recognized the policy and interests of the community in procuring the necessaries of life, and what else they might require at the market where they could be procured the best and the cheapest. That was a principle, and one that he should always uphold, and he did not well see how that should be applicable to a population of negroes, and not be on some day applied to the fairer portions of her Majesty's subjects. He trusted that the day was now at hand when all would be alive to the advantages of allowing men to exchange the fruits of their industry at the best market. He thought great progress had been lately made on this subject, and if a bill founded on these resolutions was carried, and the injustice and folly of imposing protective duties on human food acknowledged, it would not be long before this country would be allowed to benefit by a similar policy. It had been said in jest that some of the persons that had laboured so zealously to procure negro emancipation had at last persuaded themselves that a black man was a better man than a white one. It almost seemed by this case as if the Legislature was tainted with a philanthropy, somewhat similar for, while the white men of this country were suffering the greatest depression from laws that raised the cost of food, consideration could only be procured for the wants of the blacks. However, he looked forward to some good being ultimately got for this country by this measure, and he supported what the right hon. Gentleman proposed with pleasure and satisfaction.
Mr. G. Palmerobserved, that he had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the peculiar views entertained by Mr. Huskisson with regard to protective duties, and that those views were modified

921
very far below what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The hon. Members for Kilkenny and Wolverhampton had shown plainly enough by their speeches, what would follow if these resolutions were carried, and their intention was not even disguised, to found upon them a sweeping attack on the landed interests of the country. The principle which was now applied to rum, would be speedily caught up and applied in a variety of other directions; and the Irish provision and Canada timber trade would be deprived of the protection which they at present enjoyed. The ultimate result would be, that not one article of protection would be given to British interests in any quarter of the globe, more than to those of any foreign power whatsoever. The effect would be most disastrous on their shipping interest; and he need scarcely say, that if they checked in any way their mercantile marine, they necessarily went to impair their naval power. He begged to call the attention of the Government to the following statement, which he had derived from the most authentic sources. During the twelve years of war, from 1803 to 1815, the average loss was 7l. 13 s. 5d. per cent.; from 1815 to 1823, when the system of reciprocity took place, the average loss was 6l. 17 s. 8d., and this in time of peace, making a difference of 16 s. per cent. But the average loss since that period had not been less than 11 l. per cent. How was this accounted for? The ships were of an inferior description, of an inferior make, and inferiorly provisioned, because they could not compete with the commerce of foreign countries on any other terms. If, then, the protective duties were removed, must not the effect upon their colonial shipping be altogether ruinous? He had watched with much interest the progress of mercantile affairs for many years, and it was his decided opinion, that it was necessary to protect trade; it could not go on without protection.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, his principal object in addressing the House was, to state that the language used by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was as inconsiderate and rash as were the propositions which emanated from the committee of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member, and wholly unworthy of notice. He thought that some of the resolutions before the House would do a serious in-
922
jury to the British colonies. He would not enter into details, as he should have other opportunities of doing so. He complained of the manner in which the examination had been conducted before the committee.
Mr. Villierswas not aware to what observations of his the hon. Member who spoke last referred, but if they were meant to apply to what had been said in another place, respecting the conduct of the import duties committee, he wished it to be understood that he repeated all that he had stated.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, that he certainly had referred lo those observations upon what had passed in another place, and which were expressed with the flippancy which generally characterised the hon. Member's remarks.
Mr. Villierssaid, that what he felt, with respect to the observations made by a noble Lord in another place was, that they were "personal, offensive, and unfounded;" and he was justified in this. The noble Lord to whom he alluded, had said that the conduct of the committee savoured more of design, trick, and contrivance, than any thing he had ever known. It was for the House to determine whether those were terms which ought to be applied to a committee appointed by itself. When the hon. Member said, that his (Mr. Villiers's) remarks savoured of the flippancy which characterised everything which fell from him, he could not, of course, reply to such observations without disturbing the order of the House. He treated it with the most perfect contempt, and would not waste the time of the House by alluding to it further.
Mr. Humedefended the conduct of the committee, and was about to read an extract from the speech of the noble Lord in another place, when
Mr. Goulburnrose to order. It was a rule of the House, that no reference should be made to what occurred in debate in the other House of Parliament. That rule had already been violated in the course of the present discussion, and the consequence had been the occurrence of an unpleasant misunderstanding.
Mr. Humedid not wish to excite angry feelings; he only wished to put the House in possession of the explanation he had received from the noble Lord alluded to, of what he had stated in the House of Peers.
Mr. Bernal(the Chairman of the Committee) said, that a great portion of the discussion which had taken place that evening had been altogether irregular. Many points had been debated which had no reference to the subject before the committee. He was sorry to say, that since he entered the House the rule which prohibited reference to what occurred in the other House of Parliament had been much disregarded. The consequence was, that he, when sitting in that chair, did not like to interfere to prevent such references, because at other times he heard they were made without being checked. He was, however, quite sensible of the irregularity of the practice, and of the evils which resulted from it. Now, that notice had been taken of the breach of order, he trusted that the good sense of the hon. Member for Kilkenny would dictate to him the propriety of desisting froth the course upon which he was about to enter.
Mr. B. Baringsuggested that the reports of what had passed in another place might not be strictly accurate.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had guarded against that objection, by sending the passage upon which he was about to comment, and which appeared in the report of the Morning Chronicle, to the noble Lord who had been alluded to, and the noble Lord admitted that it was correct. However, he would not read the passage, since it was supposed that it might excite Unpleasant feelings. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should, however, recollect that when persons were attacked they were naturally anxious to defend themselves. He might be allowed to state, in justice to the noble Lord who had been referred to, that his Lordship said he never blamed the witnesses who had given evidence before the committee; he merely considered the proceedings of the committee irregular.
Mr. A. Whitethought the resolutions proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, conducive to the interests of our colonial empire; and he should not have troubled the House but for an observation of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, who seemed to labour under the impression that the reciprocity treaties were not injurious to the shipping interest of this Country. Unquestionably there had been a considerable increase in our coasting trade, parti-
924
cularly in our foreign trade with countries with which we had no reciprocity treaties: but evidence of the injurious effect of the reciprocity treaties upon the shipping of this country was to be derived from the fact that from 1820 to 1839 there had been an increase in the foreign tonnage of 157 per cent., but in the tonnage of British shipping trading with Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Prussia, and the United States only 40 per cent.
Mr. Bernalsaid, that before he put the question, he felt it necessary to take notice of some unpleasant words which had been used in the course of the discussion. He was sure that they were the result of misconception, and had been used, on each side, in a moment of irritation. He hoped the committee would confirm the impression which the matter had made on his mind, and second his efforts in calling upon the two hon. Members to whom he referred, to consider the language which had fallen from them, and, so much as they possibly could to explain and retract.
Mr. Villiers, who had been speaking to a Member behind the Chair, during Mr. Bernal's address, now resumed his seat.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that his hon. Friend had been absent from his place when the Chairman addressed the Committee; perhaps he would be kind enough to repeat what he had said.
Mr. Bernalrepeated his observations.
Viscount Morpethexpressed a hope that the hon. Members would be willing to run a race with each other in retracting expressions which they had used under the influence of excitement. Under the circumstances it was not unnatural that the hon. Members should have expressed themselves warmly—one being the relative of a noble Lord, and the other a prominent Member of a Committee, upon whom and which severe strictures had respectively been made.
Mr. B. Baring: he was, of course, in the hands of the House, and was ready to apologise if he had transgressed its rules. If he had offended, it was unintentional; but he had certainly felt hurt at the expressions used by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. He was ready to retract what he had said, if the hon. Member would retract what had fallen from him.
Mr. Villierssaid, he was ready to retract the expressions used by him, that the hon. Member considered personally

925
offensive to himself, understanding that the hon. Member had done the same by him. What he had said had been drawn from him by the remarks of the hon. Member's relative, in another place, and which the hon. Member seemed to have thought could not have been used, but which, however, it now appeared, had been acknowledged by that noble Lord himself. The House would feel, that he had been justified in expressing himself warmly towards the hon. Member, when it recollected the observations that the hon. Member had used towards him.
Mr. B. Baringsaid, he still thought that there must be some mistake as to the offensive expressions attributed to his noble relative, for such language was abhorrent from his nature. He need add no more to what he had already said, which he believed, was considered satisfactory.
Mr. Bernalthen put the question, that the resolution be agreed to.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the whole of his argument had been directed to the purpose of eliciting an explanation. Why the duties of 40 per cent., introduced by Mr. Huskisson, and confirmed by Mr. Poulett Thomson, as proper protection duties, had so entirely changed their character as to require the present alteration, as yet no satisfactory reason had been given. With respect to the committee on import duties he would not say a word; but he was anxious to know whether this was only one of a series of measures, and he thought that upon that he had been a little enlightened, not by the Government, but by other hon. Members on the other side of the House. He had been a little surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, taking the field against committees as guides for the opinion of the Government, for if there ever was a Government which had placed itself in the hands of committees, it was that Government which he now had the honour to address.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that what he meant with regard to committees was, that with regard to customs duties he had always thought, that it was not his business to move for a committee of the House of Commons, because that would amount to an intimation to the public of the opinion of the Government, that those duties ought to be altered; and any such opinion ought to be reserved until the Government
926
came down to move such an alteration. But it was a different thing when other hon. Members moved for committees, to which he often cheerfully consented, because the public and the Government derived a vast deal of important information from the labours of those committees. He adhered strictly to the principles which Mr. Huskisson had laid down on moving his colonial resolutions in 1885; but he did not think, that the measures which that right hon. Gentleman proposed were in accordance with the principles which he had himself laid down, and believing that he saw an opportunity of carrying those principles into full effect, he gladly availed himself of it.
Sir Charles Douglassaid, that having been a Member of the Committee on import duties last year to which allusion had been made, he felt bound to state, that he shared largely in the opinion which had been expressed, that the report of that committee and the evidence taken before it were calculated to give an unfair, because a partial, view of the ease. He begged attention to this fact, for which he would refer to their proceedings, and which was a perfect contradiction of the assertion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that the inquiry had been fair and impartial. The first paragraph of the report stated that—
"The evidence was so valuable, that the committee could hardly do justice to it in detail, unless they proceeded step by step to a complete analysis, which the advanced period of the Session would not allow."
And then, in another paragraph, they stated that they—
"Recommended that, as speedily as possible, the whole system of differential duties should be considered, and that a change should be effected."
And when he (Sir C. Douglas) moved an amendment to that report to the effect that the evidence, though "valuable," was so "partial and limited," that they could only suggest the re-appointment of a committee to continue the investigation," he was in a minority of two to five. So determined were the committee to give the evidence to the House of those only whose opinions were against the Corn-laws; and no wonder, for as to the constitution of the committee it was composed of nine; Government (or anti Corn-law) Members, to six of his side of the House; and the principal object of the majority had been

927
to receive evidence against the Corn-laws, although the Government had given a distinct understanding on the motion for the committee, that it should not touch upon them. Except the hon. Member for Whitby, he (Sir C. Douglas) was the only Member on his side, who had attended the committee regularly. He had done so in the discharge of his duty, and though he had felt that want, which the importance of the subject should have prevented—namely, that Members of greater experience and of official knowledge in such matters should have been placed on the committee, he should at the proper time show, that as far as the Corn-laws were concerned the evidence taken was of little value—and how had the committee proceeded? It was appointed on the 6th of May, and did not meet for business till the 6th of July, after which it sat for fifteen days examining twenty-nine witnesses; every one of whom entertained opinions against the Corn-laws, and then on the 6th of August, the committee insisted on reporting their recommendation without hearing any other evidence whatever. Was it not, then, absurd to say, that both the evidence and the report were fair and impartial? He would never consent to legislate on the recommendation of a committee so constituted and on evidence so adduced. It might have answered the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and the majority of the committee; for, although the country had hitherto been misled, by the report and evidence, by its ex parte nature, it had promoted excitement, and so given satisfaction to the anti Corn-law party. A book called a "Digest of the Evidence" had been circulated, which was, if possible, worse than the original being calculated to convey an unfair and erroneous view of this most one-sided report.
Mr. Humesaid, that there was no inconsistency in the report; for although there was not time for the committee to analyse the evidence, yet they thought that there were facts enough upon the evidence to enable the Government to reconsider the system of differential duties. That was the opinion of the majority; the hon. Gentleman was in the minority, and of course complained of the course which the majority had taken. But as to the charge of unfairness, he appealed to the hon. Member himself to say, whether there was any disposition to prevent any ques-
928
tion being asked, or to exclude any evidence that could be offered. As to the constitution of the committee, he had asked Sir G. Clerk to put on the committee from the other side of the House hon. Gentlemen who would attend, and he had changed two or three for others who promised to attend, but did not. In the committee not a question had been put directly bearing on the Corn-laws. But that was a question so intimately connected with the whole subject of investigation that it was impossible to put a question which did not resolve itself into a question about the Corn-laws. The hon. Gentleman said, the digest of the evidence was unfair, but he challenged him to point out one single error. He maintained that it brought the facts fairly and shortly before the public.
Sir C. Douglassaid, that he was bound to say, that no impediment had been thrown in the way of asking any question of the witnesses examined before that committee; and it was certainly true that the hon. Member had asked him whether he would attend the committee. He had replied that he would, but he felt that on a subject of that description he ought to have been supported in the committee by gentlemen of more experience on his own side of the House.
Mr. Villierssaid, that he thought he could explain why the hon. Gentleman was not better supported by his friends, by the sentiment which the only friend that did support him, namely, the hon. Member for Whitby, expressed to him, before the committee was broken up—which was, that he really believed, that if the committee lasted for another week, that he should be as good a free trader as himself.
Mr. Herriessaid, that the reason why Members who opposed the views of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, did not attend the committee was, that they did not expect the inquiry would take the course it had taken. When the committee was moved for, it was distinctly stated, that the operation of the Corn-laws would form no subject of inquiry before the committee. In answer to his noble Friend (Lord G. Somerset), the hon. Member for Kilkenny had stated, that finding on reference to the British tariff, which was erroneously supposed to be more simple than that of other nations, no fewer than 1,150 articles had duties imposed on them

929
his object in moving the committee was only to show what articles paid taxes which were not productive taxes; on which his noble Friend had stated, that after what had been stated, that the committee would not touch upon the Corn-laws, he should withdraw his opposition.
Mr. Humedenied, that he had given any pledge on the subject. The majority of a committee always determined what course the inquiry should take, within the orders of the House.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that it was quite impossible, that questions of such enormous importance to the commerce and manufactures of the country could be justly investigated without the examination of one witness, except on one side. The consequence of the publication of the evidence of the Under-secretary of the Board of Trade had been, that when it was found, that an official personage had come down to the committee and stated, that he would change this and change that, it was supposed, that he spoke with the authority of Government, and sales in several branches of trade were suspended. He could affirm this to be the case.
Mr. Wardsaid, that the sin of the committee had been, that they had brought out most valuable facts, which had been more quickly and thoroughly appreciated by the mercantile and manufacturing part of the community, and had laid a firmer hold upon the public opinion in general than the facts elicited by any committee he was acquainted with. That was the gravamen of the charge. If it was a report which the House was called upon to adopt immediately, as in the French Chambers, there might be good ground for what had been said. It appeared to him, that no subsequent evidence could shake the firm conviction that was spreading among the great towns of the kingdom, that the resolutions before the House were the proper basis of legislation. The country would receive with the greatest satisfaction the declarations that had been made by many of the Members of her Majesty's Government.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that was his complaint. He complained, that impressions and views, which the President of the Board of Trade had declared to be delusive and visionary in regard to several leading facts, should have been put forward by a committee who had only gone into one side of the question. Both sides
930
ought to have been heard before any publication had taken place. It was most objectionable, that an Under-Secretary of the Board of Trade should have stated before that committee in language which might be translated, and materially influence the conduct of foreign merchants, that the duties on certain articles were prohibitions, except at famine prices, and stated this, too, as if it were the law, and not merely an interpretation of the law.
The resolution was agreed to.
On the question being put, on the next resolution,
Mr. Laboucheresaid, in answer to a question, it was his intention, in the bill to be founded on the resolutions, to enact, that it should not come into force until the 1st of January, 1842, which would enable the various colonies to make the arrangements that would become necessary in consequence of the alterations.
All the resolutions were agreed to.
The House resumed.—The report to be received.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN BOROUGHS.
The Attorney-General The Attorney-General moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Criminal Justice in Boroughs Bill.
Mr. Boiling Mr. Boiling moved, that the House adjourn.
Mr. Fox Maulehoped the House would not agree to the motion of the hon. Gentleman. The great manufacturing towns of the kingdom were greatly interested in the passing of the bill, and he would ask whether the hon. Member was disposed to stand in the way of a measure of such great importance.
Sir Charles Douglassaid, that many Members were not aware, that the bill would come on that evening. The noble Lord opposite had said, that on Friday, or Monday he would inform the House whether the bill was to be proceeded with before Easter. On Friday, the noble Lord gave no such intimation, and he apprehended, that the noble Lord had given no such intimation in the earlier part of that evening.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that if he had reason to believe, that hon. Members were absent on the supposition, that the bill would not be taken up that evening, he would not persevere with it, but declared his conviction, that no hon. Members were absent under that apprehension, (t was certain, that many hon. Members

931
had been waiting impatiently hour by hour the whole evening in expectation of the committee on the bill. He could see no reason for postponement. The bill was of the last importance to the great boroughs, in which the administration of criminal justice was almost paralysed.
The House divided on the question, that the House do now adjourn:—Ayes 10; Noes 44: Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Parker, R. T.

Courtenay, P

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Egerton, W. T.

Sandon, Viscount

Fielden, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

TELLERS.

Gladstone, J. N.

Boiling, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Douglas, Sir C.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Ainsworth, P.

Morris, D.

Bannerman, A.

Muntz, G. F.

Bernal, R.

Muskett, G. A.

Blake, W. J.

Paget, Lord A.

Broadley, H.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Patten, J. W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Philips, M.

Chalmers, P.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Clay, W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Dennistoun, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Gordon, R.

Scholefield, J.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hastie, A.

Style, Sir C.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Hollond, R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Tufnell, H.

Howard, P. H.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Wood, B.

James, W.

Yates, J. A.

Kemble, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

TELLERS.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Maule, hon. F.

Marshall, W.

Campbell, Sir J.

The original question, that the House do now go into Committee was then put.
Mr. Boilingagain stated his objections to proceeding with the bill at that late hour. He did not wish to place himself in opposition to the general feeling of the House, but he was strongly impressed with the conviction that the measure was of far too important a character to be hurried through at that time of night and in so thin a House.
House in Committee.
On the first clause being read, Mr. Ludlow Bruges proposed, in line 23, after the word "aforesaid," to insert the following:—
"And also any sum of money not exceeding
932
the amount of any principal sum which previously to the passing of this act shall have been raised for any of the purposes aforesaid, and which shall be outstanding on security at the time of the passing of this act, and therewith to pay off and discharge the whole, or any part of the money for which such security shall have been given; provided, that every sum of money to be raised for the discharge of such outstanding loans and securities, shall be raised and borrowed on such terms and conditions as shall in no respect prevent or delay the repayment thereof within the time prescribed by this act, such time to be computed from the date of such outstanding securities respectively."
Amendment adopted, and clause, as amended, agreed to.
Upon clause 2 being read,
Mr. Ludlow Brugesproposed, in line 13, after the word "rates," to insert the following:—
"And every such security shall be registered by the clerk of the peace, or some other officer of such borough, appointed for such purpose, in a book to be kept by him for registering such securities; and it shall and may be lawful for every person who shall be entitled to the money so to be secured, and such person, his executors and administrators, is and are hereby empowered (by endorsing his, her, or their name or names on the back of such security) to transfer the same, and his, her, or their right, to the principal money and interest thereby secured, unto any other person; and every such assignee may in like manner transfer the same again, and so from time to time, as circumstances may require, and the person to whom such security or any assignment thereof shall be made, and his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall be creditors upon the said borough fund or rate, or gaol rates, in an equal degree one with another and the said mayor, alderman, and burgesses, by their counsel, shall direct in what order such securities shall be discharged, by drawing lots or otherwise, as they shall see fit, subject nevertheless to the discharge in the first place of all such securities as shall bear the highest rate of interest."
Amendment adopted, and clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Mr. Wilson Pattenproposed to introduce two clauses; one confirming the charter of Manchester, about which great expenses had been incurred in legal proceedings, the other indemnifying officers, and placing them on the same footing as that in which similar officers in corporate towns stood prior to the passing of the 5th and 6th William 4th.
On the first clause being brought up,
Mr. Mark Philipsdeclared himself decidedly opposed to it. He objected to it as being bad in principle. The object of it was to place upon the people of Manchester the whole burden of the expense incurred by the vexatious opposition offered by a small body to the general wish and feeling of the town.
Mr. Courtenayhoped the Mouse would adopt the principle of compensation.
Mr. Munlz Mr. Munlz moved, that the town of Birmingham should be added to the clause.
Mr. Humeobjected to the principle of the clause.
The Attorney-Generalsuggested, that the clauses should be printed and moved on the bringing up of the report.
Mr. W. Pattenhad no objection that Birmingham and Devonport also should be included in the clause. He thought the committee had better report progress and ask leave to sit again: the clauses might be considered in committee, when there would be more opportunity for discussion than on bringing up the report. The hon. Member concluded by moving; that the Chairman do report progress.
House resumed.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act Amendment.—Read a third time:—Population Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented.—By the Earl of Rosebery, and the Earl of Carlisle, from Edinburgh, and other places, for the Jews Declaration Bill.—By the Earl of Rosebery, and Lord Strafford, from Edinburgh, Letterkenny, and Donegal, in favour of Non-Intrusion, and against Church Patronage.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, he had a great many petitions to present to their Lordships, from different parts of Scotland, on the subject of the differences which at present unfortunately agitated the Church in that country. The petitions were 112 in number; many of them from the clergy; ten of them from synods and presbyteries; others from cities and large towns, as Edinburgh. Perth, Dumfermline, &c., and

843
a great number of them from parishes. Having been requested to present these petitions, he felt that he should not be performing his duty to the petitioners, nor doing justice to his own feelings as a Presbyterian, if he did not express his opinion as to the serious importance of the subject to which they related, namely, that of Church patronage. These petitions all prayed for the abolition of Church patronage in Scotland. A very strong feeling existed with relation to the question in the year 1833–4, but by the interposition of the General Assembly, who passed the veto law, the feeling was considerably suppressed. It was not for him, at the present moment, to deliver any opinion respecting that law, but he begged leave to remind their Lordships of the opinion of one of the ablest and most impartial judges of the question. He alluded to Lord Brougham, who, in July, 1834, expressed himself thus—
"My Lords, I hold in my hands a great number of petitions from a most respectable portion of her Majesty's subjects in the northern part of this island, all referring to one subject—I mean Church patronage in Scotland, which has greatly and powerfully interested the people of Scotland for many months past—and respecting the expediency of some change in which there is hardly any difference of opinion among them. The late proceedings in the General Assembly (viz. in passing the veto law) have done more to facilitate the adoption of measures which shall set that important question at rest, upon a footing advantageous to the community, and that shall be safe and beneficial to the Establishment, and in every respect desirable, than any other course than could have been taken. I am glad that the wisdom of the General Assembly has been directed to this subject, and that the result of its deliberations has been those important resolutions (viz. the veto law) which were passed at the last meeting."
He could refer also to the opinion of Principal M'Farlan and Dr. Cook, very eminent members of the Moderate party—the former of whom acknowledged, that
"It had been less injurious, and more beneficial, than he and his friends had anticipated;"
while the latter remarked, that,
"Judging from the rapid improvement made, he had sanguine hopes, if the measure got fair play, it would prove a blessing to the people, and might be the means of doing much good to the country."
844
The experience they had had of the operation of the law was decidedly in favour of that measure. Since the time it was carried into effect, there had been 244 settlements of parishes, and in twelve instances only (and most of them when it was first introduced) had the veto been resorted to. That law of the Church was now, however, declared to be opposed to the law of the land, and to be illegal. The judgment given in the Auchterarder case had interfered with the power claimed by the Presbyteries; and the new exposition of the law of the land, delivered, on the the grounds of that judgment (for it had never before been viewed in that light), could not possibly be satisfactory to either party in the Church (if they adhered to their principles), and it had excited great alarm among the people of Scotland. It cannot be satisfactory to the minority, for if Presbyteries are bound to admit presentees, to whom no objection can be offered on the ground of their literature, orthodoxy, or morality, the power of judging of the fitness of particular men for particular parishes is taken away, which Dr. Cook and Dr. Lee, in their evidence before the Patronage Committee, declared to be indispensable, and to belong to the Church according to its fundamental laws. When Dr. Cook was asked—
"Do the committee understand you to say, that certain rights have lately been restored to the people, and which at all times belonged to them, and that at one time their powers had been too limited?"
He answered,—
"Yes; for many years after I was a minister, and long before the power of the people to object was limited in this way, they were considered as entitled to object only to the doctrine and character of the presentee, any objection relating to fitness for ministerial duty was invariably disregarded. In the year 1816, in a speech that I made to the General Assembly, relating to residence of clergy, I had occasion to introduce that topic; and I laid down there as strongly as I could, and I thought established, what is now admitted to be the law of the Church; namely, the right of the people and the Presbytery to judge of the suitableness of the presentee to the particular parish,"
And when Dr. Lee was asked, whether it was not possible that there may be
"Sufficient reasons for not placing a particular presentee in a particular parish, though

845
he may be perfectly qualified in a moral, literary, and theological point of view."
He answered,—
"Certainly, and that every one who knows any thing of the constitution of our Church must perceive at once; but, then, it is in the power of the Presbyteries, and it is the duty of the Presbyteries, to take trial, not only with regard to the general fitness of a candidate for the work of the ministry, but with regard to his peculiar aptitude for discharging the duties of the station to which he is appointed; and, there are acts of assembly, in the time of the Covenanters, about the year 1641 or 1642, as I well as some of an earlier date, which expressly state that ministers may be fit for some charges who are not fit for all alike."
And yet all this is a fallacy, upon the grounds on which judgment was pronounced in the Auchterarder case. And if the law, as thus explained, could not fail to be unsatisfactory to the minority, in the Church, it was still more unsatisfactory to the majority, and to the people at large, who concurred with them in opinion. They bold it to be a fundamental principle of their Church, that no minister shall be settled in a parish without the consent and contrary to the wishes of the people. That principle certainly had not been always acted ou—but even when it was disregarded, it still remained in the standards of the Church, and he need not say it had always been claimed by the people. It was contained in the First Book of Discipline, in which it was enacted, that if the people of a parish, at the time when they were allowed to choose their own ministers, neglected to do so within forty days, and if the superintendent and his Council selected one for them; and if before the latter was inducted, the people brought forward a suitable man, he was to be preferred to the man or the Superintendent and his Council though he might be quite unexceptionable—"for altogether," it is declared,
"This is to be avoided, that any man may be violently intruded or thrust in on any congregation."
And at the same time it is added, that if the people failed to exercise their rights, and the Council gave them a man, it was not to be considered as intrusion; just as when a patron at present allows the jus devolutum to take place, and the Presbytery present, they do not intrude on his rights. And it is laid down no less clearly
846
in the second Book of Polity; and the principle of non-intrusion, he begged to observe, was held by the majority in the same sense in which it was understood by the French Protestant Church, with which the Church of Scotland had the closest intercourse, as well as by other reformed churches, namely, that, whether the people are required to assign reasons for dissenting from a presentee or not, if they continue to object to him after all proper means have been used to lead then to alter their opinion, and if nothing which can subject them to church censure can be proved against them, he must not be forced on them by any court, whether ecclesiastical or civil. Such is the light in which the principle of non-intrusion is exhibited in the sixth canon of the French, Protestant Church; and he would leave it to their Lordships to say, after they heard it, whether as a noble Lord, whom he did not see in his place, had affirmed, last year, the illustrious Beza, who was Moderator of its National Synod in 1571, and approved of its discipline "in all its heads and articles, and promised and protested to keep and observe it"—would have settled a clergymen contrary to the will of the people.
"He whose election," it is said "shall be declared unto the Church, shall preach publicly the Word of God on three several Sabbaths, he the audience of the whole congregation, that so they may know his manner of teaching; and the said audience shall be expressly charged, that, if any one of them do know any impediment, for which his ordination, who shall be then mentioned by name, may not be completed, or why he may not be accepted, that they do then come, and give notice of it unto the Consistory, which shall patiently hear the reasons of both parties, that so they may proceed to judgment. The people's silence shall be taken for a full consent. Bui in case contention would arise, and the above-named elect be pleasing to the Consistory (the Church Court), but not unto the people, or to the major part of them, his reception shall be deferred, and the whole shall be remitted unto the Colloquy, or Provincial Synod, who shall take cognizance both of the justification of the before-named elect minister, and of his reception. And though the said elect should be then and there justified, yet shall he not be given as pastor unto that people against their will, nor to the discontentment of the greatest part of them."
The bill upon this subject which the noble Earl (Aberdeen) had introduced, had only added fresh strength to the de-desire for the abolition of patronage. That

847
bill appeared to give the people every opportunity of preventing a settlement, by laying before the Presbytery even the most ludicrous and absurd objection; but still its real effect would be to place the Church of Scotland under the chariot wheels of the civil power. In matters of a spiritual nature, the Church held that the State had no right to interfere. In spiritual concerns, the Church was all-dominant and all-powerful. On that point he would refer their Lordships to the exposition of its principles in the second Book of Polity.
"The policy of the Kirk," it is said, "flowing from this power (the power of the Lord Jesus Christ), is an order or form of spiritual government, which is exercised by the members appointed thereto by the word of God, end therefore is given immediately to the office-bearers, by whom it is exercised to the weal of the whole body. This power and policy ecclesiastical is different and distinct in its own nature from that power and policy which is called the civil power, and pertains to the civil government of the Commonwealth. The power ecclesiastical flows immediately from God and the Mediator Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only Christ, the only spiritual Governor and Head of his Kirk."
The independence, accordingly, of the Ecclesiastical Courts, in the exercise of their spiritual functions, was acknowledged formerly by the Court of Session, which restricted its own powers as to the settlement of parishes to the civil emoluments connected with the living. Thus, in the case of a parish in 1785, where a Presbytery had disregarded a presentation, and settled a minister on the call of the people, the Court of Session, when applied to determine who had a right to the stipend, found,
"That the right to it is a civil right, and therefore, that they had power to cognosce and determine upon the legality of the admission of ministers, ad hunc effectum (and only to that extent), whether the person admitted shall have right to the stipend or not."
In another case, in 1749, reported by Lord Monboddo, in which the Court was asked to prohibit and interdict a Presbytery from settling a man on the call of the people, while a presentation to another party was still undisposed of, they refused unanimously to comply with the application,
"Because," says his Lordship "that was interfering with the power of ordination, or
848
the internal policy of the Church, with which the Lords thought they had nothing to do."
And, says Lord Kames, one of the most eminent Judges who ever sat on the Bench,
"Ecclesiastical Courts have an important jurisdiction in providing parishes with proper ministers or pastors; and they exercise this jurisdiction by naming for the minister of the vacant church that person duly qualified who is presented by the patron. Their sentence is ultimate even where their proceedings are illegal (i. e. illegal according to civil law). The person authorised by their sentence, even in opposition to the presentee, is, de facto, minister of the parish, and as such is entitled to perform every ministerial function, but he has no claim to the stipend."
And at the same time he adds,
"It would be a great defect in the Constitution of a Government that Ecclesiastical Courts should have an arbitrary power in providing parishes with ministers. To prevent such arbitrary power, the check provided by law is, that a minister settled illegally shall not be entitled to the stipend. This happily reconciles two things commonly opposite. The check is extremely mild, and yet is fully efficient to prevent the abuse."
These important privileges had been conferred upon the Church in various acts of Parliament, and had been guaranteed to her at the Union of the kingdoms, and could not now be interfered with without a violation of the great national compact. A cry had been raised, that a great number of the ministers of the Church had opposed themselves to the civil power, and were concerned in an act of rebellion. Now, he would say that they could not blame these minister of the Church when they adhered to what had heretofore been considered right—when they endeavoured only to do that which they had sworn to perform, and to which, if they did not adhere, they would feel that they were not doing justice to themselves, to their feelings, and their principles. With respect to temporalities they were ready to bow to the civil power; but with reference to the spiritual part of the subject, they wished still to adhere to their own law. He called on their Lordships to consider immediately and most seriously this grave and urgent question. The Legislature had lately given to the people of Scotland additional political privileges, but they little knew the minds and character of Scotsmen if they supposed that these privileges would satisfy them. The existing system they

849
had ever regarded as one of the abuses, by the agency of which 600 Dissenting chapels had sprung up in Scotland; and now, he believed, that they were more inclined to value that great measure of reform which had lately passed, because they looked to it for the attainment of their Christian privileges, and the spiritual independence of their Church, to which they were greatly attached, than on account of its importance in a political point of view. The noble Marquess concluded by presenting the petitions.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, the noble Marquess had, in presenting his view of this subject, been guilty of an omission, which, if the noble Marquess would forgive him, he would take leave to request the noble Marquess to supply. The noble Marquess had not stated whether, on laying those petitions on the Table, he supported their prayer or not. He had made a long speech on non-intrusion; and it would seem as if the petitioners prayed for that which the noble Marquess himself was willing to approve of. But did not the noble Marquess know, that it was not non-intrusion, but the abolition of patronage, that the petitioners called for? Now, he wished to know from the noble Marquess whether his support went so far as the abolition of patronage? The noble Marquess had mentioned with praise, the Veto Act. But, last year, the noble Marquess said, that he did not approve, of it. He had, on that point, quoted the opinion of a noble and learned Lord, given in 1834. But the conduct of that noble and learned Lord in that House with reference to the church question, at a more recent period, was well known to their Lordships, who could not be misled as to what the opinion of the noble and learned Lord really was.
The Marquess of Breadalbanesaid, that with respect to the question of Church patronage, although a very strong feeling prevailed in Scotland, still, he believed that the people of that country would be satisfied with a much less stringent measure than the total abolition of such patronage; they would probably be satisfied with a modified veto, or with such a measure as would sufficiently secure the principle of non-intrusion. With respect to the veto, he would not wish to trouble their Lordships with his own opinion on the subject, and therefore he had stated the opinion of a noble and learned Lord. He was not
850
wholly opposed to the veto law. With some modifications, he believed that the law would work well.
Petitions laid on the Table.

CRIMES (IRELAND).
The Earl of Charlevillein rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, for a copy of the criminal calendar at the Lent assizes, 1841, for the King's County; also, for a copy of the rule of court on the said calendar—said, that he could not call their Lordships' attention to the motion he was about to offer, and the questions involved in it, without expressing extreme regret at being obliged to do so; and it was only after the matter had received his most deep and anxious consideration that he determined to take this course. After communicating with many friends in various parts of Ireland, and with friends whom he had thought proper to consult in this country, he only felt more strongly that it was his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to that part of the administration of criminal justice in Ireland which was affected by the circumstance of the Crown having of late years given up the practice, which had always been observed for many years previously, of setting aside parties who were placed (c)n panels, and whom the Crown might think not to be the proper parties to be placed on a jury when the action was at the suit of the Crown. But however painful to his feelings it might be to have to address their Lordships on such a subject, when he found, that to bring the matter forward was a duty which he owed to the peaceable, the loyal, and the well-disposed in Ireland, and that he must lose no time in advancing to expose the system of which that part of the population so much complained, and, in his opinion, justly complained—he felt that he ought not to shrink from his duty, but forthwith to call the attention of the House and the attention of her Majesty's Ministers, to this momentous subject. The King's County, which for very many years formerly, had enjoyed peace and tranquillity, had of late become the scene of frequent outrage. How was this? He knew of no causes of a local nature to have brought about the change. He could not account, except by reference to the change of system on the part of the Crown of which he had spoken, why a district which had enjoyed nothing but peace and tranquillity should of late

851
have become remarkable for outrage, without any local causes. This, however, was the case of the King's County. Within four years there had occurred there the murder of Mr. Frayer—the attempt to murder Mr. Stone—the attempt to murder Mr. Drought—the attempt to murder the Rev. Mr. Dunn—the attempt to murder Mrs. Smith—the murder of the Earl of Norbury—the attempt to murder Mr. Synge—the attempt to murder Mr. Biddulph—the attempt to murder the Rev. Mr. Gresham, the two last gentlemen being magistrates for the county. With the exception of the case of Mr. Biddulph, no information could be got by the magistrates to enable them to bring any one to trial, or to apprehend any of those who were the guilty perpetrators of these crimes. Documents on their Lordships' Table would sufficiently establish the circumstances of most of these cases, and he should not go into them in detail, but should confine himself to the more recent case of Mr. Biddulph, because in that case certain parties were brought to trial. That this case was of a particular and peculiar kind, even among the outrages committed in that county, their Lordships might see in the answer of the Lords Justices, as stated by the Under-Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a memorial of the magistrates of the county to the Government. It was there said, that there were circumstances about the case of Mr. Biddulph which placed it beyond the ordinary description of crime in that county. At least it was some consolation to think on the present occasion that he (the Earl of Charleville) could not fairly be charged with anything of party or sectarian feeling in bringing before their Lordships this case; because this memorial of the magistrates of the King's County, of the temperate and moderate tone of which the Lords Justices had expressed their approbation, was signed by the magistrates of the county, of whatever politics, with the exception of Mr. Fitzsimon, who differed from the rest only as to one sentence in the memorial, which he thought might be construed to imply some censure on the police. Two persons, one named Colgan, the other Doherty, were apprehended for the attempt to murder, and brought to trial. The Solicitor-General, who was sent down with another learned Queen's counsel by the Government to conduct the case, declared in his able speech on the occasion (for a
852
report of which he, the Earl of Charleville, did not rely on any newspaper, but upon a friend of his, who had taken most ample notes), that it was impossible to contemplate anything of a more frightful and appalling nature than the state of things in the King's County, The Solicitor-General said, he blushed for the peasantry of his country. When this deed was perpetrated there were workmen in the fields about, who remained quite passive, tame, and quiet, while it was being done in open day. Not one of them had taken even the small sympathy in the matter of going for a policeman. Not a hand was raised against the culprit. This was the Solicitor-General's account of the matter. And here he begged to express his gratitude—and he did it willingly and with pleasure—to the Government for the support which they had given to the magistrates on this occasion up to a certain point. He must say that they had given every assistance up to a certain point. But all the assistance that a Government could lend was in vain, unless the jury who were to try the prisoners were above suspicion. He knew this was tender ground on which he was treading; he was aware of the difficulty of touching on this subject, or of questioning the character of a jury. But no one had a deeper veneration than himself for the institution of trial by jury; and it was because he knew the value of the institution, and wished that jurymen should always be superior to all objection, that he called their Lordships' attention to this subject, and especially to a practice which had only been adopted in Ireland since the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Normanby) had acceded to the Vice-royalty. On this occasion the prisoners refused to join in their challenges of the jurymen, and between them peremptorily challenged twenty-seven of the panel. The remaining twelve were sworn of the jury, the crown, in accordance with the practice that had been adopted only since the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) had been in Ireland, not setting aside a single man. There was a difference in the mode of forwarding prosecutions in Ireland and in this country. Here the prosecutions were carried on by the next of kin, though nominally by the Crown; but in Ireland the case was different. Some of their Lordships were Members of the committee of 1839 on the state of crime in Ireland, and as others

853
had, doubtless, read the evidence, he would only refer to one or two extracts from that evidence. The first was the answer of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench (Bushe), who said—
"I do not like to venture an opinion condemnatory of any verdict of a jury. I do not wish to do that; but I can state this, that. I here has been the occurrence of late years of a failure of justice much more frequently than formerly from, I mean, the jury, not agreeing and the judge being, therefore, obliged to discharge them."
The other answers were those of Mr. Harrington, the Crown solicitor for the Munster circuit. He was asked—
"Do the prisoners to be tried generally challenge the most respectable persons on the jury, or are they challenged from some private reason?"
His reply was—
"Indeed, I think the prisoner knows very little about the challenge, it is generally the attorney, and he endeavours to get either timid or weak men on, and any strong-minded man he will put by if he can."
And then when he was asked further,
"Do they generally try to strike off the persons in the better grade of life, and, there fore probably better informed?"
He replied—
"Yes, the object is generally to strike off the respectable men, and to get at the bottom of the panel the publicans, or some of their own rank of life."
In the case of Mr. Biddulph, the twelve persons left after the challenges, the last that remained on the panel, were sworn of the jury. Now, if ever there was a case, which, by the admission of the Lords Justices themselves, was of a serious character, and which, from the nature of the combination, and by the presence and con-assistance of peasantry, called for anxiety as to the appointment of the jury, and required great care to prevent the appearance in the jury box of any persons connected with agrarian outrage, as the noble Marquess would, no doubt call this attack, it was this very case of Mr. Biddulph.. What, then, would their Lordships think, when he mentioned a fact sworn to and produced in evidence before the committee on the state of crime in Ireland, that there were three persons on that jury, one of whom had filled the office of county delegate of the Ribbonmen (a very high office), another had been
854
a committee man of the Ribbon society, and the third had been a parish master. [The Marquess of Normanby—Who were they?] The noble Marquess would find the intelligence which he sought in the evidence of his own officers. The noble Marquess's own stipendiary magistrate would produce for him the sworn informations. He carefully suppressed the names, but he found that these three persons were on the panel when Colgan and Doherty were tried; and he did not think it prudent to go further, as the noble Marquess could easily verify the facts by reference to his own officers. Another person was also sworn to be on the panel who had expressed a strong opinion upon the case. He would not say whether the conclusion to which the jury had come was right or wrong, but nobody could deny that great injury was done to the reliance which should be placed on the trial by jury, if officers of the Ribbon society, known to be connected with that illegal association, were to be found upon the panel. The persons about to take their trial looked not to the justice of their case, but to the composition of the jury, and said, "Oh, now we shall be allowed to escape, for our friends are in the jury-box." This was not a singular case. There was a dreadful murder, for which a man named Hughes was tried in Armagh last winter. There was a person on the jury named Collins, who declared that no evidence, however strong, should induce him to convict the prisoner unless the evidence of an approver were procured, though he well knew at the time no such evidence could be forthcoming. In this case the jury was composed of ten Protestants and two Roman Catholics. The ten Protestants and one of the Roman Catholics were in favour of a conviction, whilst the other Roman Catholic, for no other reason than that which had been assigned, namely, the absence of an approver, said he would stay in the jury-room until he was eaten by the rats, unless the evidence of an approver could be procured. In a case tried last summer a man charge with Ribbonism pleaded guilty on perceiving he had no friends on the jury. There was another case to which he requested the attention of their Lordships, and particularly of the noble Marquess. He alluded to the trial of a Protestant named Gray, charged with having committed a murder in cold blood, in

855
revenge it was said, for evidence given in the trial of a will case. It was not a crime of an agrarian character, or which excited any deep feeling on the part of any large body of the people, yet the Crown lawyers, who had on a former occasion so strictly abstained from the exercise of the prerogative, put it in force to a considerable extent in the case of Gray, who peremptorily challenged seven of the jurors, whilst ten of them were challenged by the Crown lawyers. Some persons were also set aside for cause, as being of the neighbourhood. He was satisfied that the jury in the case of Gray was as honest a one as ever returned a verdict, and he would be happy even now, at the eleventh hour, to hail with delight any departure from the evil practice with respect to challenging; but he must say, that unless some change took place, life and property would continue to be exposed to the greatest danger in Ireland, and it would be the extreme of cruelty and injustice to expect magistrates to do their duty in taking information's, or juries to act without fear or favour in the jury-box. He should now allude to another case—he meant that of Mr. Biddulph. In that case the names of the jurors were posted on the chapel, and the placards professed to point out to the people those of the jurors who would defend them, and those who would not. The jury in the case, not content with disagreeing as to the verdict, put forth a statement signed by eight of them. It would be unnecessary to read their defence of the course which they had adopted: but, not content with defending themselves, they assailed others. They concluded as follows:—
"We should easily forgive the calumnies of the habitual traducers of our creed, and of the Irish people, when we find two professional men of high standing and hitherto fair reputation, the Solicitor-general, at present the first law officer of Lord Ebrington, a Whig Viceroy, and Mr. Berwick, one of her Majesty's counsel, the former daring to insult the memory of the illustrious dead, to whom he owed so much by perverting his adamantine principle, that 'property had its duties as well at its rights,' and fulminating a charge whose atrocity is only to be equalled by its falsehood—'That there existed a wide-spread conspiracy in this country against life and property,' a charge not only unsupported, but directly contradicted by a most respectable Protestant witness; the latter a county judge of Whig creation, stigmatising the witnesses for the un-fortunate prisoner as 'perjurers,' and 'co-con-
856
spirators,' without a shadow of evidence to support his audacious assumption. But from the calumnies of professional traducers we appeal to our countrymen, who know our character and our lives, and pass by with feelings of pity and sorrow the men who still thirst for the blood of the Irish peasantry, either on the scaffold or in the field."
These were the sentiments of eight gentlemen, called upon solemnly to adjudicate on a charge of an attempted murder. Mr. Odlum, a Protestant gentleman, who served on the jury, felt it necessary to call for an explanation of this part of the document, and to know who it was that was said to thirst for the blood of the Irish peasantry. He asked if it alluded to the Protestant gentlemen who served on the jury, for the report went abroad, that these were the persons alluded to, being the four who were for finding the prisoner guilty? The reply given said, that the passage referred to did not apply to them, but declined to say to whom it did apply. Now he would ask, did this charge allude to the magistrates? If so, did the persons making it know, or did they forget, that the magistrates were bound by oath to do their duty faithfully and without fear or favour to the best of their power? that they were most anxious to do so, and that all they sought was the fair, legitimate, and constitutional support of the Government? The magistrates with whom he had the honour of acting would not ask for special commissions, as had been done at Armagh, nor that the next of kin to the injured party should be suffered to fee counsel, for he felt that, if the magistracy were properly support, they would not want the support of any new law to put down crime, but would rely upon the wholesome exercise of the perogative of the Crown to secure on juries a body of men who would not be influenced by fear, prejudice, or bias, either with regard to the prosecutor or the person prosecuted. If this were the case he could hope, that the distracted districts in Ireland would be restored to tranquillity; but if the present state of things were allowed to continue, he was satisfied that danger to life and property would also continue, and that the well-disposed would have much to dread in consequence of the total failure of justice which would ensue. The machinery of the constitution afforded full means for correcting the existing evils,

857
and it was the duty of the Executive to see that those means were efficiently resorted to. Care should be taken to provide against what was now, on the evidence of the Lord Chief Justice, of frequent occurrence—namely, that though the evidence was sufficient, justice was defeated by the disagreement of the juries Mr. Fox, when he was sheriff, exercised his duly carefully, and took care that there should he none but strong men upon the panel, which meant, as he said before, men who would discharge their duty without fear or bias. The result of this course was, that crime met with its due punishment. The friends of the party forwarded a memorial to the Lord Lieutenant, the consequence of which was, that the sheriff was called upon to explain. The sheriff, in reply, said, that in the other course justice had been frequently defeated, and appealed to his general conduct as being above the imputation or the suspicion of partiality. He said that he challenged inquiry into his panel, and defied any man to prove that there had been prejudice or partiality on his part. He likewise said that he had only placed upon the panel strong men, independent in property and in mind, and were not to be intimidated into any verdict which would be contrary to the evidence produced before them. It was because he wished to avoid the necessity of compelling sheriffs to have recourse to this, which, he admitted, was a dangerous precedent, that he had brought the whole subject under the consideration of their Lordships, Thanking them for the attention with which they had listened to his observations, he moved, for "a copy of the criminal calender at lent assizes, 1841, for the King's County, and also for a copy of the rule of court on the said calendar."
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that there were usually two grounds on which the production of papers was resisted: the first, that of public inconvenience, was generally admitted, but it did not apply to this case. The other objection, that the production of papers would tend to prejudge a question yet undecided, did apply to the motion before the House. The noble Earl had stated that, in the exercise of his discretion, though with great regret and pain, he had after much consideration, been induced to bring the question forward; but it was rather to be lamented that the discretion of the noble Earl had not led him to make
858
a few further enquiries before he put himself in a situation which caused him so much regret, and gave him so much pain. Had he better informed himself as to some of the facts, he would have seen, perhaps, that something was due to the course of criminal justice, and that evil consequences to that course might arise from an ex parte statement, and the premature delivery of a decided opinion. It might have been as well if, as part of his much consideration, the noble Earl had reflected that the case was still to be tried at the next summer assizes. The noble Earl had referred to many communications upon the subject, but he had omitted all notice of one which the noble Earl had himself made to the Lord-lieutenant, which if he read to the House, their Lordships would probably think one of the most extraordinary productions ever introduced to its notice. In stating his case, the noble Earl had left entirely out of view the admission of Mr. Biddulph himself, that the jury was fair and impartial. Mr. Biddulph was by when the panel was called over, and of course could have objected to the constitution of the jury. Mr. Biddulph had then expressed his conviction that a fairer or more impartial jury he never had seen. The noble Earl had complained that there were only fifty jurors on the panel. This showed that the noble Earl had derived his information from sources that ought not to be trusted. The Solicitor-general had informed him that no fewer than 123 persons had been called upon the panel, and that Mr. Biddulph had observed that even if fifty or sixty were struck off, there would remain enough to constitute a respectable and impartial tribunal. Mr. Biddulph had been told to look attentively at the panel, and had taken exception to one man, and Mr. Corballis had asked him the nature of his objection? Mr. Biddulph answered merely that he did not like him; but Mr. Corballis informed him that this was not a sufficient reason for rejecting the individual, and he was accordingly sworn. Mr. Biddulph then said—
"That he was perfectly satisfied with the jury, and that it was composed of persons who would do their duty according to the evidence."
It was to be recollected, also, that the Crown had sent their first legal officer to conduct the prosecution; and he was glad to take this opportunity of saying

859
that he was convinced, that there was not a man in the world who would more honestly discharge his duty than the present Solicitor-general, Mr. Moore. One of the pleasantest recollections of his was when Mr. Moore came to him at the Castle, and said that, after calm consideration, he was convinced that nothing but adherence to the system he (the Marquess of Normanby) was pursuing could tend to promote the peace and prosperity of Ireland. He therefore gave the Government of Ireland his confidence and support, in opposition to the opinions of some of his friends and connexions, as well as to his own previous impressions. The motion of the noble Earl, however, contained a direct charge of breach of duty on the part of Mr. Moore. [The Earl of Charleville—Against the Crown-Solicitor.] Very well; against the Crown-Solicitor, Mr. Gale, who had succeeded in obtaining according to the admission of Mr. Biddulph, an honest, impartial, and respectable jury. The noble Earl now asserted that there were three Ribbonmen on the jury; but in his letter to the Lord-lieutenant of the 23rd of March, 1841, he had mentioned only one. Therefore the matter of complaint had grown with the noble Earl, and his more recent information showed that there were three Ribbonmen on the jury. The name of this obnoxious Ribbonman had been stated in one of the Dublin newspapers to be Egan; but there was, in fact, no person of that name on the jury. That was the reason why he had interrupted the noble Earl, in order to ask the names of the supposed Ribbonmen. The Crown Solicitor stated "he never remembered a case in which a jury had been selected in more strict accordance with the directions of the Attorney-General or more with the sanction of the prosecutor himself." After the jury had been sworn, Mr. Biddulph had more than once expressed his approbation, and said that the jury was a very fair one. It might occasionally happen that an improper person would find his way upon a jury, but if he were not known to Mr. Biddulph and to the Crown Solicitor, in what way would the administration of public justice be benefited by such a motion as the present? The noble Earl had also alluded to the case of Hughes, at Armagh, and to that of Gray, at Ballibay. He was furnished with information from the Crown Solicitor on that circuit, that precisely the same
860
course had been pursued there as on the trials at Armagh and Monaghan. The instruction of the Attorney-General, in 1839, had been strictly adhered to, and in both cases the solicitor employed by the next of kin had been consulted. The noble Earl had alluded to one publican; there were in fact five publicans struck off, and four others came from the immediate neighbourhood of Ballibay. These persons were put aside in order to save the time of the court. Mr. Sam. Gray, it was true, was a very notorious character; he had heard of him a few years ago, because he had not thought fit that he should be appointed under sheriff of Monaghan. [The Earl of Charleville—He was acquitted.] There was no doubt of that fact, for although Mr. Sam. Gray was a man of certain political propensities and of eccentric character, he was not likely to be guilty of such a crime as that with which he was charged. At all events, he had not thought that Mr. Sam. Gray was exactly the person to be under sheriff of Monaghan. Mr. Hamilton, the Crown solicitor, had furnished him with the names of the jurors in both cases: he had acted in exact conformity with the instructions given both in the case of Mr. Sam. Gray, and of the other prisoners. On what, therefore, the noble Earl could being a charge against the Government, he could not imagine. The noble Earl had corresponded with the Lord-lieutenant on this subject, and the last letter he had addressed to Dublin Castle was the following:—
"London, March 23,1841.
"MY LORD—Your excellency did me the honour to call on me for an opinion in commendation of the assistance afforded to us by the Government, in bringing to trial the parties charged with the attempt to murder Mr. Biddulph.
"I took the liberty to reply that, in my mind, it was premature to express an opinion until I had an opportunity to judge by the conduct of the trial of the value of any support afforded by your Excellency.
"I approach the subject, if you will pardon the expression, 'more in sorrow than in anger;' but, my Lord, I cannot but deeply lament the solemn mockery of justice exhibited at the criminal Court in Tullamore.
"We asked not for the next of kin to be allowed to join the Crown in prosecuting; all we asked for was a fair exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, to secure an impartial jury.
"Even that has been denied us; and the necessary, the anticipated result is—the jury do not agree.

861
"On that jury is to be found a parish master of the Ribbon society, at least stated to be so in the evidence on the state of crime in Ireland before the Lords' committee.
"Possibly the very person who 'ordered' Mr. Biddulph's murder; for, doubtless, this crime is classed as an 'Agrarian outrage!'
"It is worse than useless to expose the lives of witnesses and magistrates in the attempt to collect evidence and prosecute crime, when the prisoner may choose and pack his jury.
"I make no doubt your Excellency feels the same regret I do at the escape of these evidently guilty men.
"I promised the expression of my gratitude if your Excellency gave us every support in your power; under existing circumstances, I can only deplore the result of this trial, and express a hope that henceforward measures may be adopted to prevent the ends of justice being frustrated.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord,
"Your Excellency's humble Servant,
(Signed) "CHARLEVILLE.
"His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, &c."
He regretted that the noble Earl had forced him to enter so far into the case, but as the noble Earl had found so much fault with the determination of the jury, for not delivering a virdict, it was but justice to the parties concerned to say, that all who were interested in the prosecution were of opinion, that upon the evidence produced at the trial any jury might fairly disagree. The letter of the noble Earl was extraordinary, but he had certainly been outdone by an organ from which it was not usual to expect any great degree of impartiality, when it called the jurymen co-conspirators, though it stated on a subsequent day, in explanation, that it did not pretend to say that the jury were co-conspirators; concerned in the murder, but in defeating the ends of justice. He might conclude here, but for an imputation the noble Earl had thrown upon the Government of Ireland, of which he had formed a part: it was contained in a passage in a letter, in which the noble Earl had said, that Lord Ebrington's conduct stood in bold relief, when compared with that of the Marquess of Normanby. He was surprised, after all that had passed, that the noble Earl should advert again to that subject; for he must recollect the extraordinary pains taken by the Irish Government to give every assistance for the detection of the persons guilty of the murder of Lord Norbury. He had felt it his duty to state, what most sincerely he felt, that part of the conduct of the noble
862
Earl had thrown considerable impediments in the way of justice. The observations of the noble Earl, that he supposed the persons sent down on the occasion came to supersede the local authorities, was decidedly of this objectionable character, and he had remarked, that it showed a great want of judgment in the conduct of the case. Considerable blame was, therefore, attributable to the noble Earl himself; and what had subsequently happened? A committee had been appointed to inquire into the state of crime in Ireland, and, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble Earl, that he meant to bring the conduct of the Irish Government before the House of Lords, the committee sat for three months, and the question of the murder of Lord Norbury was only incidentally referred to. Having neglected that opportunity, it was a little too much for the noble Earl, three years afterwards, in a correspondence with Lord Ebrington, to throw out this undeserved imputation. But more than this, the noble Earl would recollect that he particularly desired to have the attendance of one particular individual belonging to the constabulary force. The noble Earl was aware of the character of that individual constable, having been in constant communication with him, and the noble Earl wished to have him attached to his district. Without communicating with his superior officer, that request was immediately complied with. The noble Earl was also aware, that that constable had since brought charge against his superior officer for neglect of duty on that occasion, and that the result of the evidence taken, had been to convince the three constabulary officers who were appointed to investigate the charges, that that man so making the charges was not to be believed on his oath. They stated in their report, that they must put entirely out of the question that person's evidence; for it was proved, that he had forsworn himself upon former occasions, and to have stated himself not to have been a soldier, whereas it was clearly established that he had been a soldier, and had been flogged as such, and been punished for four desertions from his regiment. Such was the person whom the noble Earl desired to have employed. No doubt the noble Earl was deceived by this man; still it was the fact, that all the accusations that were subsequently made

863
against the Government arose out of that man's statements. The noble Earl had alluded to two cases that had occurred in the county of Longford, and had stated that Mr. Fox had selected a jury under peculiar circumstances; and the noble Earl referred to an expression of their being "strong men." Now, all their Lordships knew what strong men meant in Longford. They were strong party men, both on the one side and on the other. No doubt they were strong party men. But, said the noble Earl, the same jury brought in two different verdicts, in cases that were precisely similar; or, rather, that the jury in the first case disagreed, and in the second case found the prisoner guilty. But was the noble Earl aware that the evidence in the two cases was of a perfectly different character? It might be very possible for a jury to come to one conclusion in the first case, and to an opposite conclusion in the second case, upon additional evidence being adduced. The noble Earl stated, that this system of selecting juries originated at the time he was at the head of the Irish Government. So far from denying the fact, he was most ready to admit it. He believed, that that system, if properly understood, and as it had been ably explained by the hon. and learned Gentleman who was the Attorney-general for Ireland under the then Irish Government, would prove to be this—that there should no longer exist on the part of the Crown-Solicitor an arbitrary right of challenge of jurymen, to be exercised merely on account of any persons religious or political opinions; at the same time it excluded from the jury-box persons who were members of any political society whatever; also persons locally connected, and who might, therefore, be presumed to be liable to peculiar excitement, and be unfitted to try any case arising within their locality; and it likewise excluded publicans. These exclusions the Crown-Solicitor was imperatively directed to make, leaving him also the power of exercising a discretion in excluding other persons upon just and proper grounds; but as a check to the due exercise of this discretion, he was required to make a statement to the law officer of the Crown at the conclusion of the circuit what those grounds of exclusion were. Now he would say, that that was the proper way in which juries ought to be constituted in Ireland; that since
864
the Emancipation Act there ought not to be any remark to the effect that there were eleven Protestants and only one Catholic on the jury. The noble Earl had spoken of the fact of there having been one Roman Catholic on the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case, and the noble Earl spoke of it as if it were a circumstance to be rejoiced at; he said, that he was glad there was one Catholic on the jury. Now he maintained, that between Catholic and Protestant there ought not to be any distinction—that the moment the law made them all equal, above all other cases, that equality ought to be observed on the jury panel. The noble Earl, and a noble Lord with whom he was connected in the Queen's County, the present Lord Rosse, still more, in their communications with Government, had always been accusing the Catholic priests of not having done their duty with respect to the repression of crime in Ireland. He had some experience of Ireland, and his strong and firm opinion was, that nobody of men, in the way of checking crime, did their duty more firmly and honestly than the Catholic priests of Ireland. But it was impossible at the time of the murder of Lord Norbury, in Queen's County, when the Catholic population of Ireland were told, as they were told by the noble Earl, and still more by the Lord-lieutenant of that county, that they were worse than Turks or Hindoos; that Turks and Hindoos had more feeling and humanity than they had; when this intemperate language was used to a whole population, and was more especially addressed to those pastors to whom that population looked up for religious instruction—it was impossible to expect the same degree of quiet to exist in that particular county as existed in other parts of Ireland. It was not to be wondered at, when such irritating language was held forth, that there should be some circumstances connected with the state of that county, where such agitation existed among the higher orders, that made it an unfavourable exception to the general tranquillity of the country. It was once said by Mr. Canning, during the discussion of Catholic emancipation, that when the penal laws were abolished, while they had done away with the chains, they had left one link remaining to remind the people of their slavery. Others said, that not so much as the last link remained, but only

865
the galling of the fetters. This galling of the fetters ought not to continue; but their efforts ought rather to be to salve over and heal, than by irritation to provoke and fester the wound. They must always recollect, whatever might have been their own opinions upon the subject (and he perfectly well knew that the noble Earl was very strongly opposed to Catholic emancipation), that the great question had passed; that the Roman Catholics were emancipated; that emancipation had become the law of the land; that no one could hope or dream of that law being reversed; and that, therefore, it must be by the hand of fellowship that the Catholics of Ireland must be led, for by the rod of servitude they could no longer be coerced. There was but one way of dealing with the people of Ireland—that was by leading them; for they would not be driven. Before he sat down he could not help referring to an official return in confirmation of the statement made by his Excellency the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland in his letter to the noble Earl in respect to the comparative state of crime in Ireland. The noble Marquess read the following document;—

"Return of the Number of Outrages of each of the Classes mentioned below, as reported by the Constabulary during each of the Years 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840.

1837

1838

1839

1840

1.

Homicide

230

247

189

125

2.

Firing at the person

91

48

56

43

3.

Assault with intent to murder

5

5

4

7

4.

Aggravated assault

958

687

501

381

5.

Assault endangering life

154

300

196

6.

Cutting or maiming

12

17

27

21

Total

1296

1158

1077

773

7.

Incendiary fires.

453

459

413

420

8.

Demand or robbery of arms

246

179

180

177

9.

Appearing armed

110

46

57

41

10.

Administering unlawful oaths

69

53

65

49

11.

Attacking houses

606

330

280

229

12.

Firing into dwellings

21

23

65

68

Total

1505

1090

1060

984

2801

2248

2137

1757

He would not trouble their Lordships by reading a more detailed statement; but if the noble Earl should require further explanation, he thought he had the means of giving him satisfactory information; in the meantime, he would only say, on the subject of the motion of the noble Earl, that, whether it might or might not be proper for the noble Earl on a future
866
occasion to call the attention of the House to the mode in which juries were formed in Ireland, he thought the noble Earl must feel, that it would be most injudicious for their Lordships to step in at this moment and pronounce an opinion upon a question that was now pending in a court of justice.
The Earl of Glengallwas willing to admit that there certainly appeared to have been a diminution of crime in Ireland. The reduction, though rather immaterial, was still on the right side; and he was extremely happy to find it was so; but in the making up of these returns, he must remark, that it was within a very short period that the return of crimes committed in the city of Dublin had been omitted. On the subject of this very jury business, there was a circumstance connected with it which was of great importance. The question to be considered was, not so much whether crime had increased or decreased, as whether the crime that was actually committed was punished or not in the degree it ought to be. His experience in Ireland told him it was not. This was as serious a point as could possibly be discussed. His experience told him, that while in regard to minor offences, it was possible with a little trouble to get a jury to convict; yet when very heavy crimes were committed, crimes upon a conviction for which capital execution might follow, then very great difficulty indeed was found, not only to procure testimony, but to procure a verdict when that testimony was given. The number of rewards offered for the apprehension of offenders, and the number of rewards paid on their apprehension and conviction, would show the great disparity between the number of offences committed and the number of offenders tried. The number of rewards offered by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, from the 1st of January, 1837, to the 1st of January, 1840, was 814. Of these there had only been twenty-five claimed and paid. During the same period the constabulary had offered 1,446 rewards, of these only forty-seven had been claimed and paid; thus leaving no less than 2,188 offences unaccounted for. He thought this was a subject worthy of the deepest consideration of the Government. He believed that one great reason why these rewards, which had been offered for the apprehension and conviction of murderers and other serious offenders, were not claimed, arose from

867
the habitual escape of such persons when put on their trial. It was suspected very much that the jurors acted upon a settled plan, somewhat after this manner. The practice was not to find a verdict in the first instance, but to disagree. The consequence was, the parties were tried at another assizes. In the meantime successful efforts were made to get rid of the witnesses, or, as it was generally termed, to buy off the testimony. This happened so constantly as to amount to a denial of justice. He was well acquainted with several instances. It was not surprising, however, that improper persons should get on juries without the knowledge of the Crown Solicitor. He thought he could suggest a course to the noble Marquess, by which this evil might be remedied. At present the Crown Solicitor, who attended the judges at the assizes to prepare the cases, seldom had more than three or four days to do it in. This was not sufficient time for him to become acquainted with the characters of persons liable to serve on the jury. If he were to be in the county three weeks or a month previously to the assizes coming on, he would then be able to learn what persons were fit to serve as jurors. According to the present system, the Crown-Solicitor knew nothing of the jurymen (although the country gentlemen did) until they were in the jury box, and then his knowledge was too late.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that the remarks of the noble Earl did not apply to the cases that had been adverted to in the present discussion, because, in all those cases the Crown-officers availed themselves of local information. At the same time he felt the force of the suggestion made by the noble Earl, and he could state to their Lordships that, when he was at the head of the Irish Government, he had several conversations with his lamented friend Mr. Drummond upon the subject, and they both turned it in their minds whether some arrangement might not be made so as to give to the Crown-officers more time for inquiry. When he formerly addressed their Lordships, he omitted to read the answer of the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to the noble Earl opposite; and having stated that portion of the noble Earl's letter to which that answer referred, he felt that he was bound in justice to his noble Friend, Lord Ebrington, to read his letter to their Lordships:—
868
"Dublin Castle, March 24, 1841.
"My Lord—I have had the honour of receiving your Lordship's letter of the 23d inst.
"Your Lordship cannot regret more than I do that the atrocious attack on Mr. Biddulph, by whomsoever perpetrated, should remain up to tin's time unpunished; but when I am told, as I have been, by the Solicitor-general, who conducted the prosecution in that case with an ability well worthy of his high professional character, that the jury, upon the evidence brought before them, might fairly entertain doubts of the guilt of the prisoners, I cannot admit that that jury is liable to the imputation which your Lordship has thought fit to cast upon their conduct; and I must utterly deny, upon the same authority, confirmed as I believe it would be by every counsel employed, as well as by Mr. Biddulph himself, that there was anything in the composition of that jury to bear out in the slightest degree your Lordship's assumption that it was not fairly chosen, or that there was upon it any individual against whose character the slightest allegation was brought, to the knowledge of the Crown counsel, either before or after he was empannelled.
"I beg, in conclusion, to assure your Lordship, that so long as I retain my present situation in this country, no attempt shall ever be made, with my knowledge or consent, to tamper with the course prescribed by the constitution for the selection of juries, either wior the base view of giving impunity to crime, to even with the more just and desirable end of securing merited convictions, feeling as I do that it would be far better to set aside trial by jury altogether, than in continuing its form to deprive it of any of its essential attributes.—I have the honour, &c.
"(Signed) EBRINGTON."
"The Earl of Charleville."
Such was the opinion of his noble Friend now at the head of the Government in Ireland, and he felt that letter was a pledge that his noble Friend would continue to maintain that principle of selection of juries in Ireland to which the noble Earl referred as having been established during his government in that country.
The Earl of Charlevilleentreated the indulgence of their Lordships for a few moments, while he offered some remarks on the observations of the noble Marquess. As to his correspondence with the Lord-lieutenant, so far had he been from not alluding to it, that he had distinctly said in his opening speech that he did not consider himself at liberty to make use of it in this discussion, as it was of a private character. He had also said, that the opinions expressed in the letters of his

869
Excellency would not allow him to hope that any alteration would be made in the existing system of juries by the present Government, and that he had, therefore, felt himself the more strongly called upon to bring this subject under the consideration of their Lordships. That correspondence arose out of an attack which was made on Mr. Gresson, and he had thought it his duly to call the attention of the Lord-lieutenant to the state of the county, and to ask for the aid and assistance of the Government. Lord Ebrington had, in reply, asked him to state the grounds of his dissatisfaction, and he had added that he was willing and anxious to give every assistance to him and the other local magistrates. The first letter from his Excellency, if he recollected rightly, was marked "private," and he had always considered that this correspondence was of a private character. He felt grateful for the way in which his Excellency received the communication he had made to him, and on the present occasion he was anxious to show that he was so, while he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of their Lordships to the subject which he had brought under their consideration. The noble Marquess had said, that he had stated, that one Roman Catholic agreed in the verdict with the Protestants, and on this point, the noble Marquess had made some observations on the composition of juries in Ireland. Now, it was because he was desirous to see all distinctions between Roman Catholics and Protestants abolished, and because he wished to find them united in their exertions to put down crime, that he had made the remarks to which the noble Marquess alluded, and not from any wish to cast anything like reproach upon either party. As to his non-attendance at the investigation of the cases which had been brought before the House, he could assure their Lordships that he was most anxious to have been present, but from a communication which had been made to him of an official nature, he had thought it better not to attend. He had been the more ready to submit to that advice, because he was anxious to have it believed that the Government were determined to bring every criminal to trial, and to leave the prosecution in the hands of Mr. Brown, by the residentiary magistrate, who had been sent down by the Government after the murder of Lord Norbury. Did the noble
870
Marquess remember, that the law prescribed that the panel which the sheriff should hand in should not exceed seventy-five in number, nor less than fifty? In this instance he felt confident, for he spoke on the authority of a most respectable member of the learned profession, that the panel handed in by the sheriff contained only fifty-three names, and these were disposed of in the way he had described. He had never supposed that Mr. Biddulph had been allowed to consult with the law-officers of the Crown; but, if such had been the case, he thought he had a right to consider that the assistance he had given to the stipendiary magistrate entitled him to be informed of that circumstance. But, on the contrary, so great had been his surprise when he saw the names of the persons on the jury, that he addressed a letter to the public officer of the Crown, and asked him with whom the fault lay. Mr. Keen was, as the noble Marquess opposite had stated, a most respectable person, and he had asked him if he had mentioned any reasonable grounds of challenge to persons who were so well known, that his local information enabled him to arrive at the conclusion in his own mind—a conclusion which the facts had verified—as to the manner in which the trial would come off. As the noble Marquess opposite had referred to the murder of Lord Norbury, he must fairly own, that he had felt the conduct pursued by the Government towards him on that occasion to have been most strange and unaccountable, and, carrying in his mind the warning the noble: Marquess opposite had given him at the end of last Session, that he should advise the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to watch his actions and conduct while in that country, he had no wish to expose himself with regard to the attempt on the life of Mr. Biddulph, unless he felt that the Government gave him that fair and legitimate support and assistance which he, holding the Queen's commission as a magistrate, had a right to expect. But though the nearest magistrate, he had not been the first to be informed of the attempt to murder Mr. Biddulph; the stipendiary magistrate, who lived some miles distant was the first to be informed of it. Information of the circumstance, however, reached him through a private friend, and he arrived at Mr. Biddulph's house within an hour after Mr. Brown,

871
the officer of the Government. That gentleman had told him, that he had commenced taking the informations, and offered them to him to read, but he told that gentleman he did not wish to interfere with any magistrate he found engaged in any case which did not strictly come within his district, and, therefore, he was willing to leave the case entirely at his disposal. The next morning Mr. Brown called upon him, and requested him to attend and give his assistance in prosecuting that which eventually turned out to be a very difficult and arduous inquiry. He, on this, had felt it his duty, so long as he held the Queen's commission, notwithstanding the warning the noble Marquess opposite last year had given him, to co-operate anxiously, zealously, and willingly to co-operate with Mr. Brown in his endeavours to detect the criminal, and to smooth the way for him in his communications with other magistrates. Having therefore thus acted with him, he thought Mr. Brown was bound to answer the question he had addressed to him; instead of which, however, Mr. Brown, in certainly a very courteous letter, stated, that as a public officer, he did not feel himself at liberty to give him any information on the subject, though he had been a committing magistrate and had acted with him throughout the whole of the transaction. This circumstance served to strengthen the opinion he had before expressed in that House, of the extreme difficulty which would arise in every case, if a paid magistrate—a public officer—were to consider himself superior to other magistrates, and therefore were not at liberty to communicate with the local magistrates as freely and confidentially as he had for seven months acted with Mr. Brown, This was the cause which, when called upon by the Lord-lieutenant to reply to certain inquiries, had induced him to make the distinction between the assistance he then received, and to contrast it with the conduct of the noble Marquess opposite when he held the office of Viceroy of Ireland at the time of the murder of Lord Norbury. He owned he was surprised to hear the noble Marquess say he (the Earl of Charleville had not answered that portion of the subject to which the noble Marquess had alluded when he stated that he had made observations to the stipendiary magistrate
872
in the presence of the prisoner which were insulting to him and the Government. Now, he had indignantly denied those observations at the time they were first alluded to, some time ago, on the presentation of a petition, and now again totally denied them. He had held no conversation of any kind until he had first insisted on the withdrawal of the prisoner, and then the conduct of which he complained was the unjust, improper, unusual, and unconstitutional interference to which he had been exposed. What were the facts? He had been the committing magistrate of a person charged with the murder of Lord Norbury; the other committing magistrates were Captain Fox and Mr. Bury. On that day he attended at Tullamoore, and met there the officer sent down by the Government, to whom he introduced himself, and offered information as to all that had occurred, and told him his anxiety to co-operate with him in every way. On a future day they agreed as to the line of conduct which ought to be taken in the matter. After this he received a letter written in confidence to him by a respectable individual, stating that by ten o'clock next day the writer hoped to be able to give him conclusive evidence as to the guilt of the prisoner; at all events, the writer promised to meet him not later than ten o'clock. He entered Tullamoore shortly after ten o'clock, and went to the gaol with the desire to see the prisoner, who had only been committed for re-examination, in case the new information reached him. Great, however, was his surprise when he found that, contrary to the usual courtesy and custom among justices, the officers of the Government had taken the prisoner out, and were proceeding with the examination of him without the advantage of the evidence he had taken down, and which had been sworn to at the previous examination, which had lasted upwards of three hours. Finding this state of things, he had desired the prisoner to be withdrawn, and then he had complained of the conduct which had been pursued as dangerous, and likely to lead to the obstruction of justice. He complained further that the Government had not acted with the magistrates with cordiality, and that, therefore, the sources of information would be dried up, because the people would feel that if the magistrates were not supported themselves, they could not give protection to

873
those who were possessed of information on the subject. Of this it was true he had complained, and upon that complaint the Government had published in the Dublin Evening Post the informations they had, with a view to upset the statement made by him at the meeting to which the noble Marquess opposite had alluded. The noble Marquess had said, that his informant in the matter of the murder of Lord Norbury was a man of notoriously bad character. Now that man had been in the police, and bore the testimony in his favour of all his officers; he had received rewards since he left the police, and his superior officers were as ignorant of any thing against his character as the noble Marquess himself was when he brought the charges forward. But, in addition to this man's information, he had about the same lime received a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman, now no more, enclosing some very curious information. The writer stated that he had opposed him in various ways, but still he believed he would do his duty as a magistrate without exposing him. "I will," said the Roman Catholic clergyman, "give you certain information if you will not risk my life by exposing my name, but act upon it." On the receipt of that letter, considering that Mr. Brownrigg, one of the inspectors-general of the constabulary, was then in the district, he did not think he exceeded his authority by making a request of that officer for a policeman to be placed for a short time at his disposal to execute any warrant he might, from the information he was thus promised, think it necessary to put into his hands, and to report to him (the Earl of Charleville) alone; at the same time promising that he would communicate to the inspector-general all the valuable information he received for the information of the Government. It appeared, however, that that officer did not think himself justified in giving him this assistance till he referred to the Government, this he did; but owing to the delay which occurred, his assistance came too late; for the only party he wished to arrest left the country the night before that assistance was allowed him. He had asked for the assistance of Serjeant Goulding, and had stated his reasons for that, selection. Those reasons were, that Goulding was an active, intelligent officer, who had long been quartered in that particular district
874
in which the parties he wished to arrest resided, and was well acquainted with the nick-names or aliases by which they were known and spoken of. These were the grounds upon which he had written the letter which had drawn down upon him so severe an attack from the noble Marquess opposite. But the noble Marquess had said that, with such firebrands as Lord Rosse and him in the country, the state of things which existed was not to be wondered at. Now he thought if the noble Marquess, instead of complimenting him (the Earl of Charleville) upon his powers of endurance, as exhibited by his constant residence in Ireland—a residence which originated in a sincere regard for the people, and a desire to do all in his power to promote their prosperity and happiness, while at the same time he was determined to maintain the laws, and to punish those guilty of the crime of murder, if it were in his power to bring them to justice—if the noble Marquess, instead of this compliment, had remembered some communications he had himself received from Roman Catholic gentlemen, he would not have been induced to hold him (the Earl of Charleville) up as a violent firebrand in his own district, or as one who exhibited sectarian views and feelings. As far as his own tenantry were concerned, he lived in peace and happiness amongst them; he did all he could to improve their condition, and he defied the noble marquess, or any other man acquainted with Ireland, to bring a charge against him that could be supported with truth, that in any one case he had shown an improper bias or unkindly feeling towards any tenant, occupier, or neighbour, because he was a Roman Catholic. But the noble Marquess had included him in the attack he had made on Lord Rosse, and had said, that they both were constantly set up in opposition to the Roman Catholic clergy. For himself, he called upon the noble Marquess to state a single word that ever issued from, his mouth which could justify the assertion. With regard to his noble Friend, Lord Rosse, let the noble Marquess look at the communications addressed by that noble Lord, RS Lord-lieutenant of the King's County, to the Government, on the subject of the attempts made to murder Mr. Synge, a most liberal and philanthropic gentleman. The noble Earl then quoted a letter from the Earl of Rosse, as follows:

875
"It is quite clear that in all these attacks upon Mr. Lynge the motive for assassination was the idea that the formation of such a community was prejudicial to the Catholic church, and that murder was not a crime under such circumstances, but a good work. Surely the facts of this case demonstrate that the Roman Catholic clergy do not sufficiently instruct their flocks as to the enormity of the crime of murder. The question however is, for this great evil can a remedy be found? Baron Richards alluded to it, but very generally; individuals had complained of it, but in vain. I think, however, that a notice of it by Government, grounded upon the well-known facts of the frequency of murder, the small number of convictions, and the efforts of the peasantry to screen the murderer, might stimulate the Roman Catholic clergy to do their duty; and that some means might be devised, without a departure from usage and precedent of conveying to the Roman Catholic clergy some strong expression of opinion on that subject."
He would mention a fact, however, which reflected credit on one of that body. When the late detestable attempt was made on the life of Mr. Biddulph, the Roman Catholic clergyman of the district, on Sunday following, addressed his flock in the strongest and most energetic language, denouncing the crime, and telling his hearers that those who had witnessed the attempt without revealing it, or had aided in the escape of the murderers, were almost as guilty in the eyes of God and man as those who had committed the deed itself. The noble Earl, in conclusion, adverted to the meetings of magistrates which had taken place recently in different parts of Ireland, to show that neither life nor property was secure in that country; and he further observed, that there was additional proof of this fact in the circumstances of the 64tth regiment having been obliged to march from Parsonstown to Limerick on Christmas-day, and no less than twenty-four outrages, according to the evidence of Mr. Blake, having been committed on a single Sunday. He had thought it necessary, injustice to himself, to make this brief explanation, but would not detain ther Lordships further.
The Marquess of Normanby, in explanation, said he thought the statement about the number of crimes alleged to have been committed on one day had been completely disposed of. It had been proved, that it was an extraordinary mistake which Mr. Blake had fallen into, and that it was contrary to the real fact. As to the 64th
876
regiment marching from Parsonstown to Limerick on Christmas-day, that had nothing whatever to do with disturbances, but was rendered necessary to supply the place of a service regiment which had been removed to Cork.
The Earl of Charlevillewould not press his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Adjourned.