Sitting of 12 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Ordnance Survey; Bankruptcy; Insolvency; and Lunacy.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Smith O'Brien, from Crone, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration of Voters Bill.—By Mr. Hutt, from Hull, in favour of the Jews Declaration Bill; and from the Chamber of Commerce of Aberdeen, against the Stade Duties.—By Mr. Hawes, from the Central Committee of the Religious Freedom Society, against the appointment of paid Chaplains to Union Workhouses.—By Mr. Bruges, from the Mayor and Town Council of Bath, in favour of the Jews Declaration Bill.—By Mr. H. Berkeley, from the city of Bristol, for the Establishment of Local Courts.—By Mr. Kemble, from some place in Surrey, complaining of the inefficiency of Medical Relief afforded to the Poor, and suggesting a remedy.—By Mr. Dugdale, from the Rate-payers of the Hundred of Hemlingford, Warwick, against paying the Expenses on account of the Birmingham Riots in 1839.—By Mr. Easthope, and Mr. Baines, from Baptist Dissenters, and Independants of Olney, Salah, Lincolnshire, and a great many other places, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and the Release of Mr. Baines.—By Mr. Wakley, Mr. T. Duncombe, Lords Duncan, and Mahon, form St. Columb, Cornwall, Southampton, Merthyr Tydvil, Suffolk, and other places, against the New Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Mr. Hawes, from Landowners and others engaged in the Sugar Trade in the East Indies, against the East-India Rum Bill as amended.

CHRISTIANS IN SYRIA.
Sir R. H. Inglis, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, would take that opportunity of presenting a petition to which he would beg to call the noble Lord's attention, as he wished to put a question to him respecting its prayer. The petition was from the vicar and clergy of the parish of Sheffield. The petition related to the condition of Christians in the Levant. The House was aware that for a long period the Emperor of Russia was regarded as, and in fact was, the protector of the Christians of the Greek church residing in the Levant. In the same way, as was also well known, France had claimed the right of protecting the Christians of the church of Rome resident in Syria. Under those circumstances he would urge that the Sovereign of England should be regarded as the protector of Protestantism in that country. Considering, as he should always consider, that Protestantism was the brightest jewel in the British Crown, he felt that as Russia protected the Greek Christians, and France those of the church of Rome, Protestants in Syria should be considered under the special care and protection of the Sovereign of England. The petitioners, indeed, did not pray for this; but he did urge that such steps should be taken by our Government as would place the Christians in Syria—he alluded more particularly to Protestants—in at least no Worse condition than they were before the late events in that quarter. He was aware, and he spoke in the hearing of some noble and hon. Friends who had still more recently visited those regions, that before those events the Christians did enjoy protection in the exercise of

143
their religious rites, as well as a more general security under the Turks, and certainly an unrestricted access to the holy places. What he was anxious about was, lest by any results of the late events they might be placed in a worse condition than before. The petitioners felt grateful to Almighty God for the successful termination of our late efforts in Syria, and they hoped for full protection to Christian worship. They were aware that matters of this kind were in general better left to the executive Government; but they hoped that the expression of opinion in that House might influence the executive in favour of the Christians resident, in Syria and the Holy Land. They also prayed that protection might be extended to the Jews in the exercise of their worship. On this he would not say any thing, but one circumstance he would mention as he had heard it—that the first use which the Jews of Damascus and other places made of their liberty was to persecute the Christians. He said he would not trespass longer on the House, but, thanking it for the kind indulgence extended to him, he would beg to ask the noble Lord whether her Majesty's Government had done every thing in their power to make the condition of the Christians in Syria better, or at least to prevent its being worse, than it had been before the late events in that quarter?
Viscount Palmerstoncould assure the House and the hon. Baronet that the matters to which the petitioners referred had not escaped the attention of her Majesty's Government; they were too interesting on every account to have been neglected. Without stating the particular steps that had been taken, he was happy to be able to inform the House that a course had been adopted in order to urge the Porte to do what the petitioners so earnestly recommended, namely, that the Christians in Syria should not only not be in a worse position than before the late changes, but, if possible, that their condition should be improved as regarded the exercise of their religion. As to what was called the right of protection, he might observe that the protection of the Greek religion by the Emperor of Russia arose out of distinct treaties with the Porte: every body was probably aware of the circumstances under which these treaties had been signed, and they stood on peculiar grounds. The sort of acknowledged right of the French Government to intercede for Roman Catholics was of very ancient date, and arose out
144
of circumstances, as well as out of times, very different from the present. It was not, therefore, easy for the British Government to obtain an analogous privilege as regarded the Protestants; but care would be taken to employ all the influence which the British Government might have acquired at Constantinople to effect such an object. With regard to the Jewish population also, her Majesty's Government had taken steps to obtain from the Porte full security for that portion of the subjects of the Sultan; indeed, if the hatti scheriff were fully enforced it would secure, both to Christians and Jews, the objects which the hon. Baronet had in view.

TURKER AND EGYPT.
Lord Francis Egerton: I wish to put a question to the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It has reference to a document received subsequently to the last advices from Egypt, which has appeared in the ordinary channels of information. It is an extract from a hatti scheriff issued by the Sultan, conveying to Mehemet Ali and his descendants the pachalic of Egypt. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to inform the House whether the version of the document which has been published be correct; and if so, whether it have received the sanction of her Majesty's Government, and of the three other Powers, and whether it is proposed to adhere to the provisions of it.
Viscount Palmerston: I have received an official copy from the Turkish ambassador of the firman sent to Mehemet Ali, conferring upon him the government of Egypt in hereditary succession, that is to say, upon him and his descendants, on certain conditions. I have not compared it with the document which has appeared in the public journals, and I am therefore not able to say whether the latter is a correct version, but I dare say it is—indeed I have no doubt of it. This instrument has been issued by the Sultan on his own authority, and it was only yesterday communicated to her Majesty's Government. Until some question shall arise thereupon on which the four Powers may be consulted, I apprehend it is a matter between the Sultan and his subject Mehemet Ali.
Sir Robert Peel: This is certainly a subject of great importance, and out of which serious questions may arise. It was understood that an engagement was entered into with Mehemet Ali, that the hereditary pachalic of Egypt should be

145
conferred upon him and his family. By the document lately received, the Porto has reserved to itself the power of determining which of the sons of the Pacha shall succeed him. I beg to ask, whether this new engagement is conformable with that formerly entered into, and whether it is a measure to which the four Powers are parties?
Viscount Palmerston: As the questions are put to me I answer them, and the right hon. Baronet must not complain if I do not reply to questions not distinctly propounded. I now understand him to ask whether the four Powers do or do not approve of that particular condition of the firman which reserves to the Sultan the right of selecting one or other of the descendants of Mehemet Ali, who is to succeed him in the pachalic? I am sure the right hon. Baronet will see that it is impossible for me to say what the four Powers may or may not do on that point. We understand by a private, and not an official, account from Alexandria, that the Turkish commissioner who carried the firman to Egypt, did, on the 23d or 24th of February, transmit a representation on the point to Constantinople. What the Sultan may determine—whether on his own authority he will modify the provisions of the firman, or whether before he modifies them he will ask advice of the allies it is impossible for me to say beforehand. The intention of the four Powers in advising the Sultan undoubtedly was, that he should grant the bonâ fide hereditary succession to the descendants of Mehemet Ali, in as nearly a direct line as the nature of things and the interests of both parties would admit. It was never intended, however, to derogate so far from the rights of the Sultan as to create in Egypt a separate and independent sovereignty; but that the pachalic should be guaranteed bonâ fide to Mehemet Ali and his descendants.
An Hon. Memberon the opposition benches was understood to ask whether the firman alluded to, had received the sanction of the British Government?
Viscount Palmerston: The Porte, as I observed, has issued this firman on its own authority; what the precise communications were between the Porte and the representatives of the four Powers at Constantinople, I really cannot with accuracy State.
Lord Sandon: Am I to understand the noble Viscount to say, that he has no knowledge whether the hatti scheriff was
146
communicated to the British ambassador before it was sent to Alexandria?
Viscount Palmerston: I mean to say, that the representatives of the four Powers at Constantinople, have been constantly in communication with the Porte regarding every step in these negotiations. If I am asked whether the hatti scheriff in the shape in which it was issued, was communicated to the British ambassador before it was so issued, my answer is, that I cannot tell.
An Hon. Memberon the opposition benches: Am I to understand that the noble Viscount has received no despatches from the British ambassador on the subject?
Viscount Palmerston: No despatches containing a copy of the hatti scheriff.
Mr. Ewart: The firman does not, if I am correctly informed, adhere to lineal descent. May I ask the noble Lord if he knows what is the intention of the Porte on the question?
Viscount Palmerstonhad not distinctly heard the question of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Ewart: It was understood formally that the pachalic of Egypt was to descend by hereditary succession, according to usage, and without being subject to the arbitrary nomination of the Sultan. Is the noble Lord aware what advice was given by the four Powers upon that point?
Viscount Palmerston: The advice given by the four Powers did not go into any minute details, but it was, that the Sultan should grant the hereditary succession to the pachalic in a direct line; each succeeding Pacha was to receive his investiture from the Sultan, and the pachalic was not therefore to descend as an independent sovereignty.
Lord Sandon: Do I understand that the discretion the Sultan now appears to reserve to himself, was made known to the British ambassador before the hatti scheriff was issued? If it were made known, then, I ask if it is remarked upon in the despatches or other communications to the noble Lord. In short, was it made the subject of remonstrance by the ambassador of Great Britain?
Viscount Palmerston: I am not aware that there was any remonstrance on the subject. But I really must put it to the House whether this is a fit course of proceeding. I am called upon to give explanations before any official communications have been made, and while discussions are still pending. It is calling Upon a British

147
Minister to speak to much more than he is able to answer for. If I am to give my opinion, it can only be an opinion upon circumstances, not yet communicated by any of the representatives of the four Powers. I should certainly say, that my understanding of the hatti scheriff is, that it was intended to reserve to the Sultan the sovereign right which must belong to him—to confer the government of Egypt, but not to evade the bonâ fide execution of the previous arrangement, or to set aside those successors who would be naturally looked upon as the descendants of Mehemet Ali.
Subject dropped.

POOR LAW (IRELAND).
Colonel Dawson Damerbegged to be informed, what had been the result of the inquiries of the noble Secretary for Ireland respecting the building of a workhouse in a Poor-law Union in Queen's County? He observed in the newspapers a letter from Mr. M'Donald to Dr. Jacob, chief medical attendant of the County Hospital and Lunatic Asylum, who for his activity and intelligence had been chosen one of the Poor-law guardians at Maryborough. That letter threatened, that if Dr. Jacob continued to act as Poor-law guardian, the Lord-lieutenant would deem it proper to appoint another gentleman to the situation of medical attendant at the Lunatic Asylum. This seemed a very arbitrary measure, and he (Colonel Dawson Damer) wished to be informed if the letter were authentic?
Viscount Morpethhad received a statement from the Poor-law commissioners, explanatory of their conduct on the question of the site of the workhouse referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, which he should be happy either to show to the hon. and gallant Member, or to lay upon the Table of the House. As to the question whether the letter addressed to Dr. Jacob by Mr. M'Donald, and published in the newspapers, were or were not a correct copy, he could only say that he believed that it was a correct copy.
Colonel Dawson Damerexpressed a wish, that the explanation of the commissioners should be laid upon the Table.
Lord Morpethintimated that he would present it.

CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord John Russellasked the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich, whether he intended to proceed
148
with his Criminal-law Bill on Wednesday next? He did not wish to supersede that bill by any Government measure, but it would be more convenient if the hon. and learned Member would lake another day.
Mr. Kellywas glad to take this opportunity of stating, that it was not his intention to go into committee on his bill until after Easter. He had been induced to come to this decision principally by the introduction of several bills on the same subject by the noble Lord. He took it for granted, that all those bills would be printed, and probably read a second time, but that they would not be committed until his bill had advanced to that stage. He hoped that these questions would ere long be finally settled by the House. He apprehended that he must take some Wednesday after Easter, unless the noble Lord were disposed to grant him an evening when Government business was usually transacted. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for certain unopposed returns of persons indicted, convicted, and punished in 1837, 1838, 1839, and 1840. They were ordered to be laid before the House.

COLONIAL DUTIES.
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of the whole House, to consider the Customs duties in the West Indian and North American Colonies.
House in Committee.
Mr. Labouchere, pursuant to notice, rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to that system of duties, which had been established under the authority of the imperial Parliament, in the western portion of the dominions of her Majesty. He should likewise have some observations to make on the manner in which the trade of those colonies had been conducted. Although the subject was not of a nature to excite party feeling, and although it would necessarily oblige him to enter into many dry details, yet he was satisfied that he need not solicit the attention of the House to a subject of such vast importance, involving the interests, not only of the colonies, but of the whole empire. He also relied upon that indulgence which the House was generally pleased to extend to one who, in the discharge of an official duty, was compelled to address them at some length on a question of this nature. He would not detain the committee by entering at

149
any length into the former proceedings of Parliament in regard to colonial duties. The old system confined the trade of the colonies to the mother country. Even Ireland was then considered a dependency of Great Britain, and was prohibited to have any direct trade of her own with the British colonies. This system was maintained in all its rigour until the year 1780. The first inroad upon it was then made. That was after the close of the American war, when it became necessary to look to the rising spirit of discontent in Ireland, much fomented by the illiberal and unjust policy of this country in respect to commerce. By the first relaxation Ireland was put, not on the same footing as England and Scotland, but she was able to export her own produce to the colonies and to receive colonial produce direct in return. The next great change did not occur until the year 1822, when the present Lord Ripon, then Mr. Robinson, was President of the Board of Trade; he introduced some important measures on the subject of colonial trade, by which he greatly relaxed the rigour of the navigation laws. In lien of prohibitory duties he established a system of regulating or protecting duties. As many of the duties then imposed by Mr. Robinson still subsist, he Was anxious to read the views that gentleman entertained; in imposing a new scale of duties, such as he had described, Mr. Robinson thus spoke:—
"That protection can, in this instance, be afforded to them in no other way than by imposing a moderate duty upon the importation into the West Indies of those foreign articles, such as grain, flour, and lumber, which are equally the production of our own dominions. I shall not now trouble the committee by going into details further than to state that the duties should be so moderately calculated and so justly apportioned, as not to deprive the people of the United States of their fair proportion of this necessary supply, or seriously to enhance the price to the consumer."
Such were the principles on which Mr. Robinson declared his measure to be founded in 1822. He now came to the year 1825, when another still more important step was taken in the same direction, under the auspices of Mr. Huskisson. That right hon. Gentleman had brought forward large measures of colonial reform, and procured the passing of an act which, with a few immaterial exceptions, is still the law regulating colonial trade. Mr. Huskisson therefore still further relaxed
150
the navigation laws, and in the next place he established bonding warehouses in the colonies—a measure productive of the greatest advantages, both to the mother-country and to her foreign possessions. In the third place, Mr. Huskisson removed those prohibitory duties which Mr. Robinson had permitted to remain. In his speech upon that occasion, Mr. Huskisson stated so clearly his views and principles, that he (Mr. Labouchere) could not do better than read a short extract from his speech to the House; he should do so partly for the intrinsic value of the opinions and principles he stated, and partly because he was glad to shelter himself under the authority of a man whose measures had entitled him to the gratitude and admiration of his country. The following was the mode in which Mr. Huskisson described his measure:—
"I am prepared to open the commerce of our colonies to all friendly states, upon the same principle (though of course with some difference in the detail of its modifications) upon which they are at liberty to trade with Jersey or with Ireland. With the exception of some articles, which it will be necessary to prohibit, such as fire-arms and munitions of war generally, and sugar, rum, &c., in the sugar colonies, I propose to admit a free intercourse between all our colonies and other countries, either in British ships or in ships of those countries, allowing the latter to import all articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of the country to which the ship belongs, and to export from such colonies all articles whatever of their growth, produce, or manufacture, either to the country from which such ship came, or to any other part of the world, the United Kingdom and all its dependencies excepted. All intercourse between the mother-country and the colonies, whether direct or circuitous, and all intercourse of the colonies with each other, will be considered as a coasting trade, to be reserved entirely and absolutely to ourselves. By this arrangement the foundation of our navigation laws will be preserved, whilst the colonies will enjoy a free trade with foreign countries, without breaking in upon the great principle of those laws in respect to foreign trade—that the cargo must be the produce of the country to which the ship belongs, leaving the national character of the ship to be determined by the rules which apply in like cases in this country. The importation of foreign goods into the colonies I propose should be made subject to moderate duties, but such as may be found sufficient for the fair protection of our own productions of a like nature."
These were the simple principles or which the bill of Mr. Huskisson was

151
founded. Before, however, he proceeded to state the principles of the measure which he was about to introduce to the House, he could not help reminding hon. Members that every one of the measures for the relaxation of the restrictions on our colonial trade, every one of the steps taken to substitute fixed duties for prohibition, or for the lowering of duties, and every attempt to indulge in a liberal course had been encountered by the violent opposition of many important interests in this country, who fancied that they would receive some injury. The very first measure, allowing a trade between the colonies and Ireland, was strongly opposed by these interests, and those persons who recollected the speech of Mr. Huskisson, would remember that he stated that there were petitions against the change from Manchester and from Bristol; nay, that the merchants of Liverpool declared that if Ireland were placed on the same footing as England, the port and town of Liverpool would speedily fall back to its former state. The next measure of Mr. Robinson encountered a storm of opposition not less severe. And with respect to the bill of Mr. Huskisson. hon. Gentlemen who were in the House at that time, would perfectly recollect that the shipowners, a most important interest, and Other interests, declared that his were speculative free-trade principles, and perfectly impracticable. In short, all the opposition to those changes was based on the avowal that the plan of a perfect free trade was quite fallacious, and yet the effect of those very measures had been not only to ward off those imminent dangers which a perseverance in the old course was calculated to produce, but to confer great benefits on this country. When, therefore, every step which had been taken had been attended with the most perfect success, it ought to be an encouragement to the House to persevere in the same course. No doubt, in dealing with great and complicated interests, it was necessary to proceed with great circumspection and great caution, and that they ought not to take any means of progress till the course had been clearly marked out; but though care and circumspection were necessary, yet it was the duty of the Legislature and of the Government, when they were satisfied that the danger was vastly exaggerated, to go on with firmness and decision in the course
152
they had adopted. This, as he conceived, was at all times the duty of the Government and of the country, but it was now more than ever necessary that this duty should not be disregarded by the Legislature. When he stated the regulations affecting the trade of our West-Indian colonies and our North-American possessions had undergone no material alterations since 1825, that circumstance would alone suggest to the House, that it was not surprising that a person placed in the situation which he filled, and having necessarily brought under his consideration, questions of this kind, should find it necessary to come forward and propose such a modification in the system as should appear to him to be desirable. When he considered that there had since been the most important revolutions in the trade of the West-Indian and North-American colonies, when he considered the most important change which had been since made in the social, political, and financial condition of these colonies, he said it was the duty of the House and of the Government to take these matters into their serious attention; to weigh well the complaints that had come from the West Indies and from Canada, and to apply a proper remedy to whatever might be the real grievances of those colonies. Mr. Huskisson proposed that there should be an open trade directly between the colonies and foreign countries; but he did not so enact by his bill, but he gave power to the Crown to adopt the open trade whenever foreign countries were willing to meet us on equitable terms, giving in exchange corresponding advantages. Acting upon this power, the Crown had entered into treaties with several foreign powers who had availed themselves of the act; but there were many other foreign countries; as Spain, Portugal, and Naples, who had never been enabled to offer to us any commercial concessions, and with which, therefore, the Crown had never been enabled to have an open trade. With respect to France, although the system of trade was in some respects open, yet that country, acting upon what he must consider mistaken views of policy, had prevented the trade with our colonies from being extended, except under great limitations and restrictions. He said, then, that it was the duty of the House and the Government to carry the propositions of Mr. Huskisson into effect whenever fo-

153
reign countries were disposed to give an assurance that we should have an open colonial trade with them. He would now proceed to consider what was the system which was established by the bill of Mr. Huskisson. And, upon examining that bill, the first thing that must strike them was the very high rate of duties imposed upon foreign goods imported into our own colonies. No doubt Mr. Huskisson had made a very important advance, and so had Mr. Robinson, by substituting duties, however high, for a system of prohibition; but he was sure that the House would see that if the duties were so high as to be, in fact, prohibitory, there was little difference whether they retained prohibition in name, or whether they imposed these high duties that were in reality prohibitory. He could not but think, after he had read the speech of Mr. Huskisson, and had Compared it with the very inadequate manner in which the principle was carried out in the tariff Mr. Huskisson had proposed, he could not but think that in the measure that Gentleman was actuated rather by a consideration of the difficulties he had to encounter in carrying that principle into effect, than from any doubt as to the merits of the principle itself: and he thought that if they could at that moment have the inestimable advantage of the presence in the House of that great man, there would be no more efficient supporter of every measure for carrying that principle into effect. What were the duties imposed by the bill of Mr. Huskisson on all foreign goods imported into our West-Indian or into our North-American colonies? The first article was fish; that was one of the most important articles of sustenance of the West Indies; yet fish was absolutely prohibited, if it were not the produce of one of our fisheries. He found next, with regard to lumber, staves, and other articles absolutely necessary for the manufactures of the colonies, and with regard to flour and provisions which formed the food of the people of those colonies, that they were subject to a duty which he could not help thinking very immoderate, for it was a duty varying from thirty to forty per cent, upon the ad valorem value; and he could not bat believe that an ad valorem duty of from thirty to forty per cent. put upon the food of the people, and in a country where the people were obliged to depend for their food upon a supply from foreign coun-
154
tries, because they could not grow it for themselves, could not but be very objectionable and injurious. When he came to the duties which were nominally ad valorem duties on foreign manufactures, what scale did he find? He found a duty of thirty per cent. He found that British silks were protected in the West Indies and in Canada by an ad valorem duty of thirty per cent. imposed upon silks manufactured in foreign countries. There was another class of goods on which there was a protection of twenty per cent.; among these were glass and cotton goods. English cotton manufactures were protected by a duty of twenty per cent. The idea that it could be necessary to protect British cotton manufactures by an ad valorem duty of this amount! There was also a third class of goods, wares, and merchandizes, not otherwise charged, but from which all important articles were excluded, which was admitted at a duty of fifteen per cent, ad valorem. He had already stated, that he thought there were various circumstances in the political, social, and financial condition of these colonies which peculiarly required that the attention of the House should be directed to this subject at the present moment. Hitherto it had been the policy of that House to prevent as far at possible the colonies from imposing any duties on the importation of our own manufactures. The fact now was, that many old taxes in the colonies, which I had been formerly very productive, could not be any longer endured. For instance, the poll-tax, which in a state of slavery was a sort of a tax upon property, was not at all applicable to the altered position of the West-Indian colonies; and many other sources of income to the colonies were now dried up. The House could not forget that whilst this alteration bad been going on, the colonies had been called upon to provide for the improvement in the judicial system, in the police force, in the Houses of Correction, and far increased Church Establishments, calculated to raise the character of the negro population, and to provide institutions fitted for a free people. He might quote, as an instance, the expense which subjects of this kind had cast upon the colony of Jamaica alone during the past year. He found that the expenses created by the new laws in Jamaica for those provisions in the year 1839–40 was, for—

155

ADDITIONAL EXPENSES UNDER NEW LAWS.

Immigration

£84,000

Judicial system

50,000

Clergy, extra

8,000

Curates, extra

6,000

For the erection of a penitentiary

30,000

For the erection of houses of correction

10,000

Making a total expense of

£188,000

But when the colonies were called upon to contribute towards these expenses, they hid a right to say, "You prevent us from raising any income, you oblige us to pay all these heavy expenses, and whilst you tax foreign goods so high that they produce very little revenue, you prevent us from taxing your goods." The alteration in the condition of the West-Indian colonies, therefore, rendered it imperatively necessary that the home Legislature should revise the system on which they were at present placed with regard to the Customs duties. On the other hand, with respect to Canada, he was sure that there was no one who did not feel that it was at the present moment peculiarly necessary to apply themselves without delay to the consideration of what there was of justice in their complaints of the onerous burdens and restrictions, placed upon their trade. An address bad teen lately submitted to his noble Friend, Lord sydenham, by the last Assembly that had sat in Upper Canada, asking that they might be left almost to themselves to deal with these questions, liable to have their laws disallowed by either House of Parliament, but not to be subject to laws passed in that House. Although he did not think it advisable to comply with this request of the Assembly, yet they ought to consider what changes the colony required, and to comply with them so far as was consistent with the general interest of other parts of the empire. The true principle was, that they should place the colonial legislatures under as little restriction as possible. The home Government and the House should tell them what they absolutely required by way of general regulations, rendering them as little onerous as possible, and then permitting the colonial legislatures to make such other regulations consistently with these as they might thick best for themselves, and which they were sure to do infinitely better for themselves than others could do for them. Another point, which struck
156
every one who considered these subjects, was the vast difference in the principle that was acted upon in the western colonies and our eastern possessions. Nothing could present a greater contrast. He had already stated what were the high and onerous duties imposed upon foreign manufactures in the West Indies and in Canada; he would now state what were the duties imposed on the same manufactures in India, in Ceylon, in Australia, and in other portions of our eastern possessions. They were of the most liberal description. In the Cape of Good Hope the duty on foreign goods was ten per cent., ad valorem and the duty on British goods was three per cent., ad valorem, so that the differential duty between foreign and British goods was only seven per cent., ad valorem. Yet did any one ever hear British manufacturers or British merchants complain of our trade at the Cape suffering? Was there any check upon the importation of British goods? And if he showed that this liberal policy adopted in our eastern possessions had been quite successful, what British object could be gained by imposing enormous duties on the same manufactures when imported into the West-Indian and North-American colonies? What good was conferred on British manufactures by fixing these high duties, which were so extremely onerous to the West Indies and to Canada? In Ceylon the duty imposed on foreign manufactures was ten per cent., and the duty upon British manufactures was four per cent., making a differential duty of six per cent, ad valorem in favour of the British goods. In New South Wales and in Van Diemen's Land foreign manufactures and goods were admitted at a duty of five per cent., and there was no duty upon British manufactures or productions. In India there was a very light differential duty; silks and cottons manufactured in Great Britain were admitted at a duty of three and a half per cent. ad valorem, and foreign manufactures were admitted at an ad valorem duty of seven and a half per cent. These statements showed how much more liberal the Crown had dealt with the colonies than Parliament. The restrictions imposed by the Crown had been of the lightest description, whilst, when the House had dealt with the colonies, it had imposed the highest differential duties, with the fancied object of protecting our own manufactures and the interests of

157
Britain. Wherever the duties were light and the goods of this country met those of foreign manufacture, we always found that we could produce them cheaper and better, and maintain our position in the market. Why had they not applied the same principle to the West Indies and to Canada: We had omitted to do so for no purpose except to excite discontent without producing any advantage to British manufacturers. For it was absurd to suppose that when our manufacturers can compete with foreign manufacturers in their markets, they would in our own colonies suffer from any competition. If our goods were carried to one set of markets they would soon find their way to the others. There was no course that was more calculated to strengthen the ties between the colonies and the mother country, than by placing our colonies in an enviable position with respect to foreign trade and commerce, He would be glad, indeed, if the Canadian, looking across the border, should see that whilst the American was burdened and taxed with heavy duties, the Canadian was himself able to receive his goods from all parts of the world, upon the payment of the lightest duty. By leaving them, therefore, cheaply taxed, with the power of carrying on a free trade to all parts of the world, the House would not only he adopting the best means of advancing the prosperity of the colonies, but would also eminently contribute towards the union between them and this country. Having, then, stated to the House the general principles on which he proposed to alter the tariff, he would read the new tariff which he would himself propose to substitute in lieu of the present in our West-Indian and North-American colonies.

ARTICLES.

Present ad valorem Duties for every £100 of the Value.

Proposed ad valorem Duties for every £100 of the Value.

Clocks, watches, leather, and linen manufactures, musical instruments, wires of all kinds, and books, and payers, silks, &c.

£30

0

0

£10

0

0

Glass and cotton manufactures, soap, refused sugar, sugar candy, and manufactured tobacco, &c.

£20

0

0

Together with any duty levied at the same time upon similar articles, the produce of or imported upon from the United Kingdom or other British possessions.

Goods, wares, and merchandise, not otherwise charged with duty and not declared free of duty by the 3d and 4th Will.

£15

0

0

158
There was also a considerable class which embraced a large number of articles, but from which almost every thing of importance was excluded, which bore a duty of 7½ per cent., and these he proposed to leave untouched. For the old tariff of duties, therefore, which now varied on different articles from 30 to 20and 10 per cent., he would substitute a single duty of 10 per cent., ad valorem, leaving untouched the lower duty of 7½ percent.; but these new duties, like all other duties to be over and above any duties imposed upon similar articles by the colonial legislature themselves. For instance, if the colonial legislature, for the purpose of revenue, should impose a duty of 3 percent. the whole duty levied upon foreign manufactures in that colony would be 13 per cent. What he wanted to do was to untie the hands of the colonists, and to leave them as much as possible to themselves,—to permit them to undertake their own management, making their general duties as light and simple as possible—telling them that these must be preserved as differential duties; but as for all the rest, the colonies must manage for themselves. He now came to by far the most important class of duties, affecting the interests of the West Indies, the special duties laid upon particular articles of general consumption. He found that the duties imposed upon wheat flour, upon salted pork and beef, upon shingles, upon oak slaves, upon lumber, varied from 20 to 40 per cent., ad valorem. Now, when he considered that these were either articles which constituted the food of the people, and necessary for them to procure from foreigners, or of such articles as were absolutely required for the cultivation of the soil, and for the sole manufacture that was carried on in these islands, he thought that such a range of duties was perfectly immoderate and excessive, and especially when he recollected that the House was already taking steps—which he sincerely hoped to see followed—which would place the produce of the West Indies on the same footing as that of the East Indies. And as he had asked the House to do justice to the East Indies by doing away with those higher duties which it was a injustice any longer to continue, so he confidently urged upon the House the present proposition for placing the West Indies in a not less favourable position than the East Indies. He, there-

159
fore, proposed to reduce all these special duties considerably. At the same time he confessed that he was not dealing with these matters precisely in the same way as if they were to be dealt with for the first time. Had he done so, he would undoubtedly have put these differential duties on a different footing; but considering that other interests had become involved in these duties, he was bound to take these into his consideration. He believed that the duties which he proposed to substitute for the old duties would amount to 12 or 15 per cent. ad valorem. The following were the present duties, and those which he proposed to substitute.—

ARTICLES.

Present Specific Duties.

Proposed Specific Duties.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Wheat Flour (except into Canada which is free), the barrel

0

5

0

0

2

0

Beef and Pork, salted, the cwt.

0

12

0

0

4

0

Shingles, the 1,000, of 12 inches

0

7

0

0

3

6

——above 12 ditto

0

14

0

Oak staves and Headings the 1,000

Red

0

15

0

0

7

0

White

0

12

6

Wood Hoops, the 1,000

0

5

3

0

2

6

Pitch Pine and other Lumber (one inch thick) the 1,000 feet

1

1

0

0

10

6

Together with the amount of any duty levied at the same time upon any similar articles the produce of, and imported from, the United Kingdom and other British possessions. He came now to an article which was of the utmost importance to the support of the West Indies, and which was absolutely prohibited; he meant fish, the produce of foreign fisheries. He meant to do away with this prohibition. He was no friend to prohibitions in general. He wished for all commercial purposes that the word were erased from the statute-book, or that it should not be acted upon as a general principle, but very sparingly used under any special circumstances, though he could not see any that would well justify it. Recollecting that fish constituted the principal food of the West Indies, it was most unjust to limit those colonies to a single and often a very narrow supply. But he said that, connected as our own fisheries were with our prosperity, if high protecting duties were justifiable anywhere, they would be justifiable in giving protection to British fisheries, which were of such importance to our maritime power. When, therefore, he proposed to substitute a duty for the present prohibition, he
160
felt bound, on account of the considerations to which he had alluded, to propose a higher duty than had been imposed upon any other article. The duty which he proposed to put upon fish he was satisfied would not be less than an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent. The duty in the tariff would be for fish, dried or salted, not the produce of British fisheries, by the cwt. 2s. 6d., and for pickled fish, by the barrel 5s. This also would be in addition to any duty levied in the colonies upon fish, the produce of British fisheries. He would also add, with regard to wine, that was now subject to a variety of duties, some of which were very capricious, the duty changing according to the place whence it was brought, that he would abolish all the present duties, and substitute a single ad valorem duty. He proposed, that there should be a duty on wine, in lieu of all other duties on wine, whether in bottles or not, the sum of 7l. 10 s. In addition to these alterations, there were certain other particular points on which he meant to take this opportunity of making an amendment. The first was tea. The House would be aware that tea could not be imported into the West Indies, or into our North-American colonies, from any place east of the Cape of Good Hope, or it must come from England itself. The object of this regulation was to give the benefit of the long voyage to British ships. But there were circumstances existing in British North America which completely defeated the object of the Legislature. From information which he had received from his noble Friend Lord Sydenham, it appeared that three-fourths of all the tea consumed in Upper Canada were smuggled from America. A great loss to the revenue of the colony was the consequence; but this was not its worst effect. It raised up a regular smuggling system, established for the sake of the tea, but which extended itself to other articles, demoralising the country, and producing the worst possible results. The subject had for a long time occupied the attention of the Board of Trade, which, he confessed had for a lengthened period lent to the complaints an unwilling ear, because the Board thought that the evil arose rather from the duties imposed upon this article by the Colonial Legislature; they could not conceive why tea could not be obtained as good in London as in New York, and why it could not be

161
carried as well from London to Quebec as from New York to Quebec. But from what had been since learnt, it appeared that the tea consumed in Canada consisted of the coarser kind of green tea, such as was hardly ever consumed in this country, and consequently the London market was not a place to obtain a good supply, and of course it was dear; whilst, on the contrary, in America, this tea was very generally drank, and New York was necessarily the place where it could be best procured. It then found its way across the border, and pass whatever navigation laws or revenue laws the House pleased, the smuggler would step in and defeat the intentions of the Legislature and the enactments of the act of Parliament. The course which he proposed to adopt to remedy this, was that recommended by his noble Friend Lord Sydenham. He proposed to allow the importation of tea, as well by land carriage as by water carriage, placing upon that taken overland a slight differential duty. He intended to provide that tea should be legally admitted by land into the provinces in British North America, upon paying an additional duty of one-tenth the amount of duty imposed upon tea by the colonial legislature: it was not an ad valorem duty of the tea, but a slight addition of a per centage to any duty that might be fixed upon tea imported by water carriage. And Lord Sydenham had assured his noble Friend near him (Lord J. Russell) that if this proposal were carried into effect, he was satisfied not only that the present system of smuggling would be putdown, but that the duty derived from tea in Canada would be treble its present amount. The next point to which he would advert was the question of the duty upon rum, which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge. It appeared that, owing to some accidental circumstance, he believed a blunder in an act of Parliament, West India rum introduced into Canada paid 6d. a gallon higher duty than that brought from the East Indies. He was for putting rum, the produce of the West Indies and of the East Indies, upon the same situation in all places, and he would take this opportunity of reducing the duty on West India rum introduced into Canada to the same amount as that brought from the East Indies. There were also some questions of detail,
162
which would be better discussed when the resolutions were upon the Table of the House, when he would explain their object seriatim. There was, however, one additional point to which he mast advert. He would alter an anomaly which existed in the law as to the trade of the Channel Islands. Whilst they were allowed to send their own produce, the growth of the Islands, into this country without payment of duty, they were prohibited from doing the same into the colonies. He could not think that there was any reason for allowing this distinction to continue. If it were right that the produce of the Channel Islands should be admitted into this country, it was equally right that it should be admitted into our colonies; and he thought that that feeling of jealousy which had induced the distinction to be drawn, should long since have been forgotten. The distinction was a matter of complaint in the islands, and it was right that they should be put on the same footing with the mother country. He did not know that it was necessary now for him to detain the House at any greater length. The main principle upon which he would confess he was anxious that the proposals which he had made should meet with favourable consideration and adoption at the hands of the House was, that he believed that they would be advantageous to the colonies themselves. He always considered that the privileges which that House enjoyed, and which it was necessary that they should sustain, of regulating the trade of our colonies, was one which they should exercise with the greatest self-examination and liberality, and with a spirit of the most complete justice and impartiality. They were sent there, no doubt, to represent the interest of their constituents, but they had also still higher and nobler functions to fulfil. They had to legislate for a great empire, whose interests were deeply affected by the trade regulations which they laid down, and it was important that the empire should know that the spirit in which they legislated for it: was not a feeling of narrow jealousy, watching only the peculiar interests of those whom they represented, but a wide and comprehensive desire to confer equal benefit on all parts of the empire and on all the various classes of its multifarious people. He could not forget that it was by a perseverance in a system of monopoly and

163
exclusion that other great colonial empires had fallen to pieces. A great colonial empire was indeed glorious, but it was at least uncertain, and the only way in which colonial possessions were to be kept together was by acting towards them all in a spirit of equal and impartial justice, treating them all with parental kindness, not allowing any favorite in the family, and considering their greatness to be our greatness, and their prosperity and happiness our prosperity and happiness. It was upon these grounds that he wished above all things to secure the adoption of the measure which he had proposed to the House; but he must also say, that he was perfectly satisfied that no British interest of any sort would be injured by the proposals which he had made being carried into effect. He would advert to one or two points in reference to this opinion, in order to show the House the change of circumstances which had taken place of late years. The provision trade was one which had been of very great importance in the south of Ireland. He had had many memorials sent to him under the idea that that trade would be injured, but the House must consider the great alteration which had taken place in the south of Ireland since the existing duties had been established. The south of Ireland, not many years ago, was the cheapest place in the world for meat provisions. The graziers carried on a large trade, and in fact, had no other means of disposing of their stock. The communication with this country was then uncertain; and, unless they could salt the produce of their farms and export it, they did not know what to do with it. But that state of things had now entirely changed. The steam communication with England had produced this effect—that the agriculturist in Ireland was now able to send to the manufacturing districts of South Wales, to the Bristol market, and even to London itself, that produce which before he was compelled to dispose of as he had described. This had been productive of the very highest advantages, both to Ireland and to England, and he rejoiced that it had had that result. But what had been the effect upon the prices of the articles in the South of Ireland? It had raised them considerably, and the particular district to which he had referred had entirely changed its character as a cheap place of purchase for provisions. The price of pork had risen from 20 s. or
164
25 s. per cwt. to 30 s. or 35 s., while that of beef had increased from 10 s. to 15 s.; and instead of provisions being cheap, they were actually dear at the prices demanded. There was also one consideration of so much importance that he could not help saying a few words on it before he sat down. He meant the effect which the alteration might have upon the interests of some of our North American colonies, he meant Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Nothing, he could assure the House, would give him greater pain than to do anything, at this moment especially, which should affect the interests of colonies which deserved so well of this country, and which that House was bound to pay for their loyalty by treating them with the utmost favour and kindness; but he was satisfied that when the question came to be discussed, it would be shown that no such effect would be produced to any extent. There were many classes of woods, timber and staves, in reference to which, so far from the United States having any advantage over New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, he heard that such could not be the case under any circumstances. Therefore, while his propositions would greatly benefit the West Indies and relieve Canada and the North American colonies from many onerous and vexatious burdens, they would not impose any difficulties on the North American colonies, or on the mother country. He had felt it to be his duty to bring the subject before the House, and he was sure that it would receive their dispassionate and calm consideration. He had stated the objects which he had in view, and the principles which he proposed to carry out; and he would take this opportunity of observing that every one in his situation must be subject to this disadvantage, that it was extremely difficult to obtain precise information. He could not go to the trade at large and say, "I mean to do this or that, and I wish to know the effect it will have," and, therefore, he was bound to obtain information in a circuitous manner. He might have fallen into error in some instances, and if it were so he should not have the smallest scruple in correcting his mistake, and in submitting the table of duties as altered to the House, saying this now, he should not hereafter be charged with having listened improperly to any representations which in consequence of his propositions might be made. It was not his

165
intention to ask the House at this time to express any opinion upon the subject which would require patient consideration, and his only object was to lay his propositions on the Table, and to ask the House hereafter to decide upon them. He would only, in conclusion, thank the House for the attention with which it had received the observations which he had felt it his duty to make.
Mr. George Palmersaid, that no one could doubt that this question was one of the greatest importance. The propositions of tile right hon. Gentleman, if they were were adopted, would, in effect, carry out to its full extent the system of free trade, and would withdraw every possible protection from British interests. Since the year 1825, the House had had plenty of opportunity to prove the effect of the measures of Mr. Huskisson, but he had no hesitation in saying that their results had been most disastrous. He conceived that, before these proposals were acceded to, the whole subject should he submitted to the strictest inquiry before a select committee of the House, or such a committee as might fairly state to the public the result in every case from which this protection was withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that a petition had been presented from British North America in reference to this subject, but he did hot farther describe what it was or from whom it came, and the House knew that ant petition which fostered or supported free trade would have the protection of the noble Lord who was now at the head of the Government in those colonies. He agreed that every interest which was unprotected should be untaxed; but that was the very principle upon which he held that the people of this country, who performed all the services Which the state required, should be deemed entitled to protection. He hoped that a select committee would inquire into this subject, and that they would recommend that the colonies of Great Britain should receive the same protection as a child would receive from its parent.
Mr. Ewartthought that such a committee ought not to be appointed, because its labours would be almost interminable. He believed that every year more and more tended to develops the profoundness of the wisdom of the measures advocated by Mr. Huskisson, add he felt that a system of colonial reform having been
166
commenced, that House could not long resist the necessity for a commercial reform in our tariff. With regard to the measures proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that the deduction which he proposed of ten per cent, on the ad valorem duties would be insufficient, and that the proposed duty which the right hon. Gentleman estimated at twenty-five per cent upon fish, would in effect be a prohibitory duty; but these were matters hereafter to be determined upon by the House, It seemed to him that the only real way of securing the connexion between the mother-country and her colonies, was to emancipate the latter from all the shackles of commercial difficulties by which they were surrounded, and that that was the true method of preserving those amicable relations which a too restrictive system would destroy. He deemed these propositions to be in conformity with that principle, and that they were of the highest importance, both in a commercial and political point of view; and he trusted that they would lead, not only to the future improvement of the system with regard to the colonies of this country, but that it would prove the forerunner to those alterations in our own commercial system, which by reason of expediency, and the necessity of the case could not be long Withheld.
Mr. A. Whitewould not have said a word upon the present occasion, had it not been for the remarks which fell front the right hon. Gentleman respecting the Reciprocity Acts. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the ship-owners were now convinced that those treaties had not been injurious to the shipping interests; but if he had consulted the shipowners, he would have come to a very different conclusion. He (Mr. White), as the representative of the fourth port in the kingdom, could State that the ship-owners of that port were by no means satisfied with those treaties, especially as regarded Sweden, Norway, Russia, and the other Baltic Powers. Our trade had decreased in that part of the world, and if it had not greatly increased elsewhere, it would now have been greatly distressed. The British could not, owing to the timber duties, build their ships so cheaply, nor with our present Corn-laws, could they victual them so cheaply as the foreigners, and therefore they could not compete with foreigners.
The House resumed, the chairman reported progress. Committee to sit again on March 26th.

EAST-INDIA RUM.
House in Committee on the East India Rum Bill. Bill recommitted.
On the third clause,
Mr. Hawesrose to propose an amendment. The former bill did not require the Queen in Council to approve the regulations, and the effect requiring the alteration of those, would be to bring about a delay, of which he complained. That delay was, until the Queen in Council here, could approve of regulations that were made in India. Again, the rum to be imported was the produce of sugar. From whatever the sugar was obtained, where it was in a state of sugar, it would produce rum, and that rum would come into this country at the lower rate of duty. Now, the bill made a distinction between sugar produced from the sugar-cane, and sugar produced from any thing else. In the West Indies it was not produced from anything but the sugar-cane, but in the East Indies it was produced from two things, the sugar-cane and the date, and it would be impossible to decide from which the sugar was made. If no rum, the product of any other sugar than that of the cane, were to be admitted under this bill, it would shut out a great quantity of the rum of the East Indies. It would throw great difficulty in the way of the manufacture of rum, and also of sugar, in the East. In the first bill introduced on this subject by his right hon. Friend, there was no such distinction as in this; and he believed that the distinctive words were introduced at the suggestion of West India merchants, without giving to those who were connected with the East Indies an opportunity of pointing out the unfair effect which would be thereby produced upon their interests. He would move his amendments, and take the sense of the House upon them; and if they were rejected, he would, at another stage, take the sense of the House upon the whole bill. He concluded by moving—That, in the third clause, all the words after the word "operation," in the second line, down to the word "nor," in the seventh line, be omitted:—After the words "sugar-cane," in the eleventh line, to insert these words, "all other substances from which sugar is made, and allowed to
168
be imported, under the Act of 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 26."
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it could not be fairly urged as a reproach upon the West India interests, that they were represented in that House. Had it been shown that they took any unfair advantage, there might have been some grounds for the hon. Gentleman's remark, but there was certainly none such taken. The whole point of the hon. Member's objections as they related to rum distilled from dates was out of the question, for there was no such thing, as appeared from the evidence given before the committee. The whole question before the committee was the propriety of giving to the produce of the sugar-cane in both the Indies the same protection; and upon that principle, and upon that principle alone, the bill was framed.
Mr. Laboucherefelt the House would acquit him of any intention of taking it by surprise, in his introduction of these alterations. The hon. Gentleman was wrong in supposing that the regulations made by the Governor-general in India would necessarily be void until confirmed by the Queen in Council. The regulations having been made by the Governor-general in India, the Custom-house would be bound by them, and it would not be necessary for the Queen in Council to confirm them, nor for any delay to take place. Whatever was objectionable on this principle was in the original bill. With regard to the exclusion of rum made from dates, as the information upon which he had founded the bill was taken from the evidence given before the committee, and as hardly any mention was made of the word "date," he found much excuse for himself in neglecting it in the bill. As to the rum made from dates, no man but believed it was very bad. But the hon. Gentleman said, let it be ever so bad it ought to be brought hither. The bill, however, was brought in as a sugar and rum bill, and not at all as a spirits bill. Sugar might be made of many things; of sweet potatoes, of beet root, of rice, and of many other things; and if he were told that spirits the produce of dates should be admitted, he should not know how to draw the distinction between spirits distilled from dates, and those made from other things. Unless he heard some stronger arguments than those urged by the hon. Gentleman, he did not feel dis-

169
posed to depart from the principle that the rum distilled from the sugar cane, and not that made from anything else, was to be admitted.
Mr. Hoggsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman argued erroneously, when he said that he would admit sugar made from dates, but not rum made from dates, because it was not made from dates at all, but from the refuse of the sugar. The sugar was the joint produce of the sugar cane and the date, and being a mixture altogether inevitable, it would exclude any conscientious man from making the declaration required by the Excise Laws. What was wanted was, that the refuse should not be thrown away, whether it came from the sugar cane or the date. The principle should be, that the sugar from the East and West Indies should be imported equally. Sugar extracted from dates was a very recent introduction, and that accounted for the little mention made of it before the committee, but it was now very extensively used.
Mr. Gladstonecould not vote for the first amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman referring to the regulations made by the Governor-general. After five years' experience, he could not see that any practical inconvenience had arisen. With respect to the second, he should give a very different vote. The right hon. Gentleman said that, in Custom-house language, rum meant spirits distilled from sugar cane, and from the sugar cane alone; but in that he was mistaken. It was quite erroneous to make a distinction between the sugar made from the date and that made from the sugar cane. He would say that no evidence was more contrary to the facts than that given by Mr. Goucher, and that not only a fine spirit, but a spirit in great quantity, was obtained from the date tree. Nothing could be more slovenly than the manner in which the proceedings before the committee of last year were conducted; and it was quite clear that the witnesses who stood forward to enlighten the committee were inadequately acquainted with the subject to which the inquiry related. He agreed that the right hon. Gentleman was right in the alteration which he proposed to make with respect to the discriminating duties in Canada; and, after the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made, it was difficult to understand how be could hesitate applying to spirits the
170
same principle which had been applied to sugar. It was quite impossible to discriminate between the spirit produced from the date tree and that produced from the sugar cane, for the date tree was as much a sugar tree as the cane plant was a sugar plant. The right course would be to include all strictly saccharine plants, and when the right hon. Gentleman submitted that he had been misled in some particulars by the defective and inaccurate information of the witnesses, surely the House must see, as the matter stood, how impossible it was that anything so unreasonable and inconsistent as the present proposition could ever be allowed to form part of the commercial system of this country.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, what he wished was, that all spirit produced from sugar, in our colonies, should be let in on an equal footing; but what he desired to guard against was the introduction of spirit produced from rice or any other article. On the whole, however, he was anxious to reconsider the matter, and, therefore, he should postpone this subject until the next stage of the bill, when he would state precisely the course he meant to pursue. His object was to promote the cultivation of sugar, but while he allowed spirits distilled from sugar to be admitted on an equal footing, he meant that the admission of spirits generally should not be permitted. If the spirit distilled from the date tree could not be discriminated from that produced from sugar, there could be no reason for excluding the former; but if, on the other hand, it could, then it was his intention to adhere to the original principle of the bill. With respect to the first amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Lambeth, he begged to say, that he must give to it his decided negative.
Mr. Warburtonhoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his amendment, as he could introduce the words he wished inserted in another part of the clause. The hon. Member contended that there was abundance of evidence before them to show that excellent rum was produced from the date-tree, and that it should be admitted on the same terms as the article produced from the sugar-cane.
Sir Alexander Grantsaid, that much exaggeration prevailed as to the insufficiency of the supply of sugar from the West-Indies, and in proof of this he had

171
only to say, that since the 26th of January last the price of sugar had fallen 20 s. in the cwt. in some instances, and nearly 20 s. in all. The reduction was equal to 2d. in the pound, but whether the consumer benefitted to that extent he was unable to say. At all events, he hoped that the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman was about to make on the subject would be conducted in a spirit of fairness towards all parties.
Mr. John O'Connellcomplained that there was no provision in the bill to prevent slave labour being employed in the production of rum in the East-Indies.
Sir J. C Hobhousethought it would be somewhat extraordinary to introduce provisions having refence to slavery in a Rum Duty Bill. As soon as the result of the commission which had sat in India on the subject of slavery was known, and he had reason to expect their report by the next mail, it would be quite time enough to enter upon the discussion of that important topic. At present all he should say was, that if hon. Gentlemen conceived that slavery as it had existed in the West-Indies was now to be found in the East-Indies, they were labouring under a mistake.
Mr. Hawesthen consented to withdraw his first amendment, but said that he was determined to take the sense of the committee on his second by proposing some other words which would accomplish equally the object he had in view. There was now little difference between them, as the East and West India rum produced from sugar was to be admitted on the same terms. With this understanding he should suggest other words than those which he had proposed when they came to the 21st line of the clause.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Goulburnwished to know if the committee were to stop at this stage, of the proceeding, or whether the re-consideration which the right hon. Gentleman proposed, was only to apply to one particular point?
Mr. Laboucherereplied, that he sought delay only as to one point, and said his wish was, that they should go through the clauses of the bill, reserving the discussion to which he referred for the next stage.
Discussion on the subject postponed.
The other clauses having been agreed to with amendments, the House resumed.
The report to be received on the ensuing Monday.

COUNTY COURTS.
Mr. F. Maule Mr. F. Maule moved the second reading of the County Court's Bill.
Sir F. Pollockdid not rise to oppose the bill, and he thought, that after the opinions expressed for so many years in favour of its principle, it was not to be expected that any opposition would be given to the second reading of a measure having such a title and such a preamble. Nevertheless, he thought it due to the Government to explain the views which he entertained of many of the provisions, and some of the most important clauses. He would give a short history of the proceedings taken on this subject, so that the House would see it was only consistent with the honour of Parliament that some such measure as the one under consideration should be passed. In 1823 a report on the subject was laid on the Table of the House, and in the same year, in consequence of a motion of Lord Althorp, a bill was introduced, but only read a first time. In the following year the bill was brought in, read a first and second time, and passed, but was lost in the House of Lords. In the succeeding year the noble Lord brought in a similar bill, giving compensation to those who were supposed to have vested rights or interests in the abuses of the system. A committee was was then appointed to ascertain who were the parties entitled to compensation, and he believed nothing more was done. In 1826, no report being made, no step was taken on the subject: but in 1827, his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), after concluding his labours in consolidating and improving a large portion of the criminal law, brought forward a bill founded on the general principle contained in Lord Althorp's report. The bill was laid on the Table and read a first time, but he believed was not further proceeded with. In the next year the same measure was re-introduced and read a first and second time, but a commission having been appointed to ascertain the practice of the superior courts, his right hon. Friend expected that the labours of that commission would enable compensation to be given, so as to prevent an accumulation of compensation at a future period, and the bill made no further progress. In 1829 the noble Lord, who was afterwards Lord Chancellor under

173
Lord Grey's Government, announced his Local Courts Bill, which was brought in in 1830. In 1831, the House was occupied with the Reform of Parliament, and nothing was done. The same was the case in 1832; but there was a good excuse for this, as at that time a commission of inquiry was appointed. In 1835, when he had the honour of being Attorney-General, one of the earliest questions put to him by the present Attorney-general was, had the Government any intention of introducing a bill for the recovery of small debts? His answer was, that he should very shortly give notice of bringing in such a bill. A few days afterwards, his right hon. Friend quitted office on the Irish appropriation clause, and his hon. Friend, the present Attorney-general, succeeded him, and then forgot his question. He was not more awake to it, nor did he take any step in it during the next Session. In 1838, Lord John Russell introduced a bill for the purpose of giving to quarter sessions a mixed criminal and civil jurisdiction. In 1839, a bill was introduced, waking arrangements which were altered in committee, on which he believed the present bill was founded, and which gave opportunity for the recovery of small debts. Every individual who had spoken on this subject had admitted, that at present a grievance existed which ought to be remedied. When a debt to be recovered was below a certain sum, by the present system, the delay and expense actually amounted to a denial of justice. There had been but one expression in Parliament after Parliament, that something ought to be done to remedy this. He thought it important, that it should be known how this important measure had stood over. There were some points on which the bills which had been brought in differed. In some of them, it was provided, that the sheriff should have an assessor, to be appointed by the Lord-lieutenant, and that his salary should depend on the justices. But this was no feature of the present bill. It was impossible not to look at this bill but in conjunction with the bill which followed it in the Orders of the Day (the Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and Lunacy Bill), and at the enormous patronage which they created. These bills would create fifty officers, whom the Government had the power of appointing, when and where they pleased, as occasion might arise, He thought the
174
measure proposed in 1839, by the noble Lord, and the measure now brought in by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department much to be preferred to the one recommended by the commissioners, or to that introduced by Lord Brougham, in the House of Lords. It was much better to improve an existing system, than to introduce a new one. All the preceding bills had provided that assessors should be appointed from barristers of a certain standing; Lord Althorp's bill said seven years' standing, Lord Brougham's ten years, and the bill of 1829, before it went into committee, provided, that the assessors appointed, should be barristers of at least seven years' standing or attornies of one of the superior courts of Westminster, recommended by three of the judges. The bill came out of committee with these alterations—that the assessors appointed instead of being a barrister of seven years' standing, might be a barrister without any standing at all; and, instead of having an attorney recommended by three judges, they might have an attorney appointed with no recommendation at all. Nor was that all; a certificated special pleader, who after all, was but a candidate for the bar, who had kept a certain number of terms, was qualified for all these offices. He mentioned this, because it appeared to him quite essential that they should not adopt the views of the committee. The question, also, whether jurors were to be used or not, was one about which very great doubt had been and might, he thought, very fairly be entertained. In this bill, and several of the others, there was a power to examine the parties themselves, and to do away with the well-known principle of the English law, that they were not to examine interested witnesses. This principle might be admitted, when inquiring into very small matters, as in the Court of Requests; it might not then be improper to call the parties themselves; but when this bill extended to slander, to libel, to seduction, and to an action for criminal conversation, he should like to know what his learned Friend (the Attorney-general), would say to putting the defendant in an action for criminal conversation into the witness box, to be called on to admit or deny his guilt? He thought they should best consult the dignity of the administration of justice by exculpating the parties themselves from giving evidence in their

175
own favour. He thought it questionable whether the unlimited power of trying actions for libel, and slander, and seduction in country places, where such trials had never been held before, should be given. Though it was highly desirable, that the poor man as well as the rich, should have the opportunity of obtaining justice, yet this power might stir up a spirit of litigation. He understood the bill to be an echo of the report of the commission of 1833; but there was one thing in it not found in the report, namely, the power of imprisonment in execution, which he must say, he thought was liable to great abuse He thought it much better not to give any such power. If the payment of a debt could not be obtained by seizing the goods and chattels of a party, he protested against putting him in prison for it. There was another matter, also of great importance—the having a concurrent jurisdiction with other courts. They intended to introduce this bill at Liverpool; but Liverpool would be glad to be let alone; it had already a very good borough court. Bristol, also, would petition against this boon, if granted to them; and there were in various parts of England local courts which at present gave entire satisfaction. How was it to be ascertained whether the appointment of an assessor was wanted or not. Lord Althorp's bill had this provision, that the appointment should be made on a resolution of magistrates at sessions that such appointment was wanted. The present bill gave the Minister the power of making or withholding the appointments, not with the voice of the inhabitants, not from the resolution of the court of session, not on the certificate of authorised persons interested in seeing that the court should not be holden unnecessarily, but the court was to beholden in such places as Her Majesty might think fit to appoint. There was also a clause dividing the counties into districts—a power which, in the act introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, was exercised by the courts of session themselves. He would now call their attention to the bill next in succession in the orders of the day, giving the Lord Chancellor the power to nominate twenty-five more judges beyond the twenty-five appointed by the bill now under consideration; he alluded to the bill enabling the Lord Chancellor to direct certain proceedings, in Chancery, bank-
176
ruptcy, insolvency and lunacy to be carried to the county courts. The legitimate mode of ascertaining whether judges were wanting or not would be by petitions being laid on the Table of that House. He must say, that this bill, as it was now framed, appeared to him one of the most dangerous and unconstitutional it had ever been his lot to meet with. When Lord Althorp introduced his bill in 1833 he never dreamed of giving the power of appointing twenty judges to the Crown. He altogether acquitted the hon. Member opposite, and the noble Lord too, of any corrupt motive: but while he gave them full credit for wishing nothing more than the public weal, still he could not forget that the public out of doors would look upon this bill as an attempt to open a new source of patronage by the creation of fifty places at salaries of 1,500 l. a-year—a patronage, too, not to be exercised immediately, but to be kept in reserve. The public, "We shall see before some great political division six new places given away—after the division, perhaps, half a dozen more." He should like to have pointed out the places where these appointments were to be made—the names of the districts where the services of these judges were required. If after these facts had been stated, the table of that House were not covered with petitions from the public, be would vote for the bill of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But if it were the intention of the noble Lord, and his hon. and learned Friend opposite, to give to the Crown the power of creating this patronage, then he must say, that with the single exception of the exorbitant power given to the Poor Law Commissioners, of making edicts, having all the force of acts of Parliament, he had never met with a more unconstitutional measure than the one now before the House. This matter had been in progress for four years, a longer period than the average duration of Parliament. Parliament might end immediately; it was certain that it could not last very long. The noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland might again entertain the feeling that he would not consent to be member of the Government on sufferance. Other Members might feel that it was not fitting that the experiment now trying on this country should go on much longer. With the narrowest possible majority in that House, and with the people against them, the thing was impossible. He would

177
ask any Member of the Government whether he did not know that after Easter circumstances might arise which would render a resignation inevitable? Was this, then, a time to create fifty new places?—to be conferred on whom? Why, on gentlemen who had not yet come to the bar—unfledged lawyers—men of no standing—men who had but just put on their wigs and gowns. But the clause on which he look with the greatest alarm was that one which made attornies eligible to the office of judge. These men might be agents for boroughs, gentlemen perfectly conversant with the management of borough A or county B. He should be sorry to hear it said of the Government that this bill bill had been passed, and others postponed, for the purpose of putting them in possession of fifty more places to give away in the event of a general election. He was perfectly ready to go into committee on this bill for the purpose of carrying out a measure such as the public had been long led to expect, and he should feel happy to concur with his hon. and learned Friend in making whatever could be made of it, so as to bring it to perfection before it should pass into a law.
The Attorney-Generalcould not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend had taken a most extraordinary course on the present occasion. He first of all blamed him and other Members of the Government for having allowed year after year to pass without bringing forward this measure, and then turned suddenly round and said, "You are bringing forward this measure not at all with a view to the public good, but in order to extend the patronage of the Crown." With regard to the delay which, it had been alleged, had taken place, he would appeal to the nation whether since 1835 the Government had not exerted itself to the utmost to improve the laws and amend the institutions of the country? His hon. and learned Friend had never once adverted to the Municipal Bill. He ought not to have forgotten the bill with respect to the execution of wills, a bill which bad been applauded by all the rest of the profession, although it had met the disapprobation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ripon. The present bill was introduced in 1839; it was then referred to a select committee composed of Members taken from both sides of the House. The right hon. Baronet, the
178
Member for Pembroke, took the lead on that occasion. They were, as he understood, unanimous on all the clauses except the one regulating the appointment of the judges. The right hon. Baronet, the Member far Pembroke, thought that the judges ought not to be appointed by the Crown, but rather that they should receive their appointment from the lords or the ladies of manors, fearing that the manor courts might be prejudiced by the improvements made in the county courts. The right hon. Baronet stood alone on that question: his objection was overruled, and the bill was reported by the committee exactly in its present shape. He thought it therefore rather too much to complain of the manner in which the bill was framed, and to charge the Government with having brought it forward solely for the furtherance of party purposes. A more gratuitous and unfounded charge he never heard. The object of this bill was to remove a blot from the administration of justice in this country. The present state of the law (as had been justly observed by his hon. and learned Friend opposite) amounted to a denial of justice to all persons seeking to recover debts under a certain amount. In suing for a debt under 20 l. the costs were generally three or fear times the amount recovered. If you went to the county courts, you found no competent judge; if you went to the manor courts you were still worse off; if you went to Westminster you were ruined by costs. The defect had been felt for centuries and had been pointed out by Lord Bacon, Lord Hale, and the most enlightened writers on our jurisprudence, but up to the present time no remedy had been applied. He thought that, as his hon. and learned Friend had expressed no intention of opposing the second reading, he might have reserved the objections which he entertained to certain clauses until the bill was in committee. He might, if he chose, move in committee that the judges be appointed by the lords or the ladies of manors—by the sheriff, or by the lord-lieutenant. By whom were these judges to be appointed? New judges there must be. The defect of the bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was that it did not appoint any new judges whatever, but left the jurisdiction still exercised by the sheriff or his deputy, both of whom were changed every year, and who would be wholly incompetent to decide the graver questions, which by the proposes extension of their jurisdiction to amountd

179
of 20 l. would be brought before them. He saw no chance of securing the appointment of persons capable of fulfilling the duties of the office unless that appointment were made either directly by the Crown or by some one who would be responsible to Parliament. The intention, of the bill was to appoint judges at once all over the country. Wherever power of appointment was given to the Crown the same terms were made use of. In the bill appointing the Vice-Chancellor the terms used were identical with those employed in the present bill. Therefore the apprehensions of his hon. and learned Friend were altogether groundless; and when his hon. and learned Friend asserted that suspicions were entertained out of doors he could not help thinking that his hon. and learned Friend threw out insinuations with a view to pervert the public mind, and generate suspicions which but for him would have had no existence. He did not wish to enter then into the details of the bill; but he must say that he objected to the clause respecting the imprisonment of the person, and should wish to see it expunged, or greatly modified. He should have no objection to a limited imprisonment for the non-payment of the instalments of a debt, if upon investigation by the judge he should be of opinion that the default was a culpable one on the part of the debtor. He believed that this bill would supply a defect which had long existed; and that the House generally would feel that his hon. and learned Friend opposite had not shown much good taste in selecting the present occasion for an exhibition of party feeling, and an attack upon the Government.
Sir E. Sugdendisclaimed any party feeling on his own part, but he did recollect many measures connected with the administration of justice which were made party questions. Such occasions were, indeed, considered the most favourable for party contention, and, therefore, he was the more astonished at hearing the surprise expressed by the Attorney-general at what had fallen from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdon, who had shown no party feeling on the subject—["hear" and laughter.] He saw there was a sensitiveness on the opposite side. He should be surprised if the noble Lord opposite felt sore at being reminded of his own declaration, that he would no longer be a Minister upon sufferance; and as regarded the other observations which had been made, his hon. Friend had
180
said that he acquitted the Government, but that he was afraid the people out of doors might not coincide in that opinion. It therefore appeared that his hon. and learned Friend was endeavouring to excuse the Government rather than to make a charge against them. Now, for his own part, he should certainly not treat this as a party question, but, on examining the provisions of the bill, and considering for what purposes they might not only be executed, but perverted, he would call upon the House not to confine its scrutiny to the bills now before it, but to recollect the other measures as connected with the administration of justice which were pending; also the state of the courts to which those measures were to apply. There was a bill for the appointment of two equity judges, which involved the question whether part of the busines under the Court of Review should be restored to the Court of Chancery. The noble Lord had very adroitly thrown the blame upon him, of the country not having two equity judges, because he had threatened to divide the House on the question. But, although he was put forward as the ostensible cause of the postponing of that measure, there were some little arrangements which rendered it desirable that it should not be passed. He wished the House and the country to know what was taking place now the bill was brought in; and he (Sir E. Sugden) gave notice that he would offer no opposition to the appointment of the first judge, but that he might take the sense of the House on the question of the second. The bill had been standing ten days ago for committee, and the noble Lord put it off till the 22nd of March, a month from the time for which it had been fixed. Now was it for this bill for which the country was represented to be clamouring that the other was postponed? He should like to know why that bill was postponed, and this, which was not intended to be carried immediately into execution, was passed. The country was aware that the Court of Review was an entire failure. He did not speak of the commissioners, whose office might be made very useful; but he thought the noble Lord was called upon to lay before the House his intentions with respect to the Court of Review, because he was throwing indirectly on the jndges, by these bills, the business of the Court of Review, and he was, therefore, entitled to ask the

181
noble Lord why be did not at once abolish that court. His two new judges could without difficulty do the requisite business, as the administrative part of the business of the court might go to the commissioners and to the Court of Appeal. The first thing that the House had to look to was that the Court of Review should be abolished, and the next question to which they ought to direct their attention was with respect to the Court of Insolvency. That court sent judges to try insolvent cases on circuit. These new judges, it appeared, were to have delegated to them the powers of the insolvent judges. Now the country was entitled to know what was the intention of the Government with respect to these two courts—the Court of Insolvency and the Court of Review, and to expect that an arrangement should be brought into this measure, or introduced in a separate bill, for the determination of the constitution of those two courts. There was another important point to which he wished to cull attention. The noble Lord proposed to transfer the present business of the Court of Exchequer to these judges. Thus he threw a great part of the business of the Court of Review, a great part of the business of the Court of Insolvency, and a great part of the business of the Court of Exchequer upon the new judges in Chancery; and yet he left the business of those courts where he found it, doing nothing at all to meet the increase of business. If the noble Lord looked at the report of the committee, he would find that Mr. Justice Alderson said that, with management, one judge at law might be spared from the present business, and his labours appropriated to other purposes. Now, there was a remarkable circumstance connected with this measure. The Government had issued a commission to inquire into bankruptcy and insolvency; and all the commissioners with the exception of one, Mr. Commissioner Law, made a joint report, from which that one disagreed on grounds which were certainly worthy of consideration. The Attorney-general seemed, however, to be aware that this bill, however it night be borrowed in part from other bilk, was, in fact, founded upon the report of that commission. Not one word had been uttered in the House on that point. Was this the way in which the House was to be treated. A voluminous report was made by commissioners appointed by the Government—a measure was brought in,
182
founded on that report, and not a word was said about the report. The commissioners were of opinion that bankruptcy ought to be very much encouraged, and that a man ought to be enabled to make himself a bankrupt and to make bankrupts of others with greater facility than could be done now. They were of opinion that there ought to be but one court to deal with the affairs of debtors in general, whether they were traders or not—whether they were bankrupts or insolvents—one court for the administration of the effects of all persons in debt. The object hitherto seemed to have been to see with how much facility you could break a man up. He certainly had no sympathy for fraudulent debtors. He had very great sympathy for those whose property was taken by the incurring of improper debts, but on the other hand he had also great sympathy for the struggling debtor, situated as thousands were, who, if they had been broken up by the old system, as they would be by the new, would never have been able to stand against the difficulties which many of them had surmounted. He thought it unwise, therefore, to make provisions by which, if a man could not meet his engagements within two or three days, he was to be broken up. But to return to the recommendations of the commissioners. They thought there ought to be local judges, twenty-two or twenty-three in number, to go circuits, to have the powers of the commissioners of bankrupts, the commissioners of lunacy, and all the powers proposed to be vested in the judges to be created by these bills, and yet net a word was said on the subject of their report. The majority of the commissioners—there being only one exception—had said that arrest of the person in execution ought to cease. He could never agree in the bill as it stood on this point. In all other bills a maximum of imprisonment for small debts had been stated; but here was left by law a man's discharge quite indefinite. He was disposed to say, although he felt the inconvenience of abolishing arrest for debt, yet in the case of small debts, where they were bringing the court to every man's door, and giving execution against him within eight days, he doubted whether that ware a wise provision. Let the House recollect that this was not, as it had been called, the poor man's bill; it was the bill of the middle

183
classes, of the shopkeeper, and the tradesman recovering debts from the labourer and the artisan. The poor man had not to carry his superior to the small debts court, but his superior had to carry him thither; and these judgments might be held in terrorem over him to compel him to continue his dealings at a particular shop. He was disposed, therefore, to think that in a Small Debts Court Bill there ought to be only execution against the goods and not against the person, but at least if you took the person you ought to discharge him within a limited time in proportion to the amount; the bill was objectionable on this ground. His object, however, in rising, was to say that the House was taken by surprise in consequence of not having the proper explanations afforded. He said the noble Lord ought not to create new courts and new judges without considering what surplus of labour and time there was which might be applied to the purpose. Every one was agreed that there ought to be a Small Debts Bill, and that it was unseemly that there should be so many applications for separate bills, and that some general measure was not adopted. It was necessary that these two bills should be considered as one, and he complained of their being separated. However, the House had the two bills before them, though they might be considered as one. There were at this time about 400 county courts and courts of requests in operation in the country for many of the purposes intended by these bills; and besides sufficient persons to do all the business of the courts of review and the business of insolvent courts, there were 700 country commissioners, that was, 140 lists, five persons in each list. Most of this great machinery had already been adapted to the exigencies of the times, and more of it might have been so adapted without any great violence. The bill did not affect to abolish the county courts, though it did the courts of requests, but why they should abolish the latter he could not divine. The class of persons for whose benefits those courts were established still existed, and he could see no reason why the courts should be put an end to. If the House or the country thought that this was a Small Debts Bill they would find themselves much deceived. It was no such thing: if it had been he should not have offered the objections which he
184
now urged against it. The bill of his right hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney-general), which was a Small Debts Bill, he to a great extent approved, though he did not pledge himself to its details. But what was the dispute between them as to the nature of these courts? He was surprised to hear his right hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney-general) say, that nobody had ever found fault with the principle of this bill. Why, this was a measure which possessed all the vices, but none of the virtues, of the bill, which Lord Brougham, as Lord Chancellor, brought in in the House of Lords in 1833, and which was opposed by Lord Lynd-hurst with the most convincing arguments that he ever read, so that the noble Lord had really left nothing for any one to do but to take up and read his arguments, in order to make the House of the same opinion. Whoever would read the debate on the question, could not fail to rise from its perusal with both pleasure and instruction. But now his hon. and learned Friend said, nobody ever disapproved of this measure. Why the House of Lords rejected a measure ten times better than this, totally different from it, for whereas that bill had some good in it, this had none. [The Attorney-General: What of the court of reconciliation?] Oh, that was a little bit of phantasy of the learned Attorney-general. He would not surely laugh at his own Lord Chancellor, whom he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was bound by his retainer to support. Ten years ago he asked for a court of reconciliation, when every body laughed. There was, therefore, no such court, and people were obliged to go to a justice of the peace for a reconcilement; but, instead of that, on going there, they were sure to fall out. If they had a court of reconcilement in the Bill, it would add an item to the measure, but would not add to the reconcilements. He considered the present bill was well calculated to frighten the country. He looked with jealousy upon such a thing as the appointment of some fifty judges being vested in the Crown, or the Lord Chancellor as an officer of the Crown, and regarded it as an unconstitutional power. His right hon. Friend, in his first bill, said, that the number of judges should be twenty-four, and that they must be barristers of ten years' standing. The committee made a report that they

185
should not be of less than ten years' standing, and it was thought that it might be objected that a sufficient number of men, properly qualified, would not be found in the profession. At this moment they wanted two new judges in equity, and then there would, of course, follow the appointment of registrars, clerks, and other officers; they had bills before the House concerning other judges, and for fifty judges under this bill. Why this was a wholesale legislation! It was the creation of courts without end. But there was a boldness in the proceedings of the Government which he could not but very much admire. It was not a little shoplifting concern, it was a highway robbery; but its magnificence and extent were an extenuation of the faults that might be found in it. The expense he would venture to say—he did not know that he could put it at much less—would be between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l. a-year. It was true that the present was a time of great prosperity—our country was in no danger from foreign aggression—we were quiet at home and our income greatly exceeded our expenditure, and therefore we could afford to spend 300,000 l. or 400,000 l. a-year upon seventy-six new judges; the only difficulty being the appearance of the "no patronage" Government. He had some recollection of having heard some time ago that the Government were determined to proceed on "no patronage" principles—how painful, then, must it be to men who really intended to carry out that principle to have forced upon them—involuntarily—an extent of patronage that would be sufficient to appease the most greedy desires for patronage that could possibly exist. He would now state to the House what Lord Brougham thought should be the character of these judges. He said, that, as to judges of ten years' standing, that was not intended to be the only qualification for a local judge. The person chosen for a judge must be selected for his learning as well as his standing, he must be a man of unsullied honour and unimpeached integrity; above suspicion as to his skill and experience, and such a man as would do honour to Westminster Hall. No Minister should dare to appoint a man whose character was not such as could be sanctioned by the public voice. His Lordship agreed that the controul of the judges in Westminster Hall was necessary; he said, however, that he had not
186
brought in a bill for the purpose of insulating as well as localising the administration of justice, and for studding the whole country over with courts of justice, unconnected with each other, and placed beyond the controul of the courts at Westminster. His Lordship allowed an appeal from the local courts to the courts in Westminster Hall on all matters relating to points of law. Why, Lord Brougham had spoken more disrespectfully of this bill than anything he had pretended to say. He said that he had not studded the country with courts not under the jurisdiction of Westminster Hall, but this bill did so. The courts contemplated to be established by the present measure, went beyond the noble Lord's bill in many respects; while his Lordship said, "I must have judges of great standing and integrity, who must be approved of by Westminster Hall; even then I will not trust them without giving the courts in Westminster Hall a prevailing voice over them;" but this bill exonerated them from all responsibility of this description, and proposed that a Sergeant-at-law, or Barrister-at-law, or a certificated special pleader, or an attorney might be appointed. Well might his hon. Friend, the Attorney-general, say, that that bill differed from the noble Lord's; it was very true that it did. They had taken no limits, and might as well have inserted in their bill "any professional man," and then they might take an attorney who was a man without practice and without a knowledge of the law. This showed that the Government had not been anxious not to restrict the appointments to a small class. As one of them whose duty it was to watch over the interests of the people, he was bound to say, that it was the duty of this House to see that powers were not given to the Crown that were liable to abuse. By this bill there was to be no counsel or advocate allowed without the leave of the judge, and there was to be no attorney employed if the damages to be recovered were not above 40 s.; but if an attorney should be employed, and the damages for example were not above that sum, he would receive nothing. So that, if a man brought an action for trespass or libel, and the damages recovered were only 40 s. his attorney would not be awarded a farthing. There was another point. The plaintiff was to pay 5 per cent. on the sum to be recovered towards a building—for there

187
was a building mania in the bill; and another 5 per cent. as a deposit for costs. If the sum were not recovered the attorney was not to be entitled to costs; and if the whole sum were recovered he was only to receive 10 s. 6d. for all his trouble and advice. With an attorney for the incompetent judge, an attorney for the clerk, a jury of only five, selected in a most objectionable manner, and with no counsel before them, they must expect attornies in such a case to make up by quantity for what they lost in quality. The great objection to a local courts bill was, that it would encourage attornies to create all possible feuds and disorders in their neighbourhood. At present the law was sure. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, a man might be told whether he was likely to succeed or not. The judges administered the same law; there was a constant communication kept up between them, and there was an appeal to the higher courts when any difference arose between them. This kept up a current of pure law throughout the country, of the great advantage of which few people were aware. There were few counsel of eminence in their profession who did not give thousands of opinions every year, and whose opinions had not the effect of strangling many cases which would otherwise be carried into court, but which the parties were induced to abandon Upon being informed that the Mile of the law was against them. Now it must be clear, that if these fifty judges were scattered throughout the country, a great diversity of decisions would arise; but the bill provided no means for correcting that difference of opinion. In certain cases, indeed, there might be a removal to a higher court. But there was no attempt in the bill to give an appeal so as to correct differences of opinion. If at starling, good men were appointed to act as judges under such a system, they would deteriorate; it was not in human nature to prevent such a result. For those who were acquainted with the practice of courts of request knew it was not pretended that the rules of law were strictly followed; they were departed from to meet the hardships of particular cases, and the effect of that course was to plunge the whole country into doubt. It was not pretended that the business of these courts was strictly judicial, the duty of the judge being to settle squabbles
188
about debts, one party swearing that the money was due to him, and the other declaring that he did not owe it. The usual course was to settle the dispute by cutting it short and asking the defendant how he would pay it. But under this bill the business would not stop there. The right to the possession of land, or to tithes, or to tolls, would become questions to be tried in these courts. Lord Brougham gloried in the fact that he had followed the report of the commissioners, and that he had not attempted to bring such questions into his courts, although he was so particular in having barristers of ten years standing, who should be men of high qualifications and sterling integrity for judges. Not merely small debts were to be disposed of in these courts, but actions of all kinds for the recovery of damages; actions for slander, libel, seduction, criminal conversation, and actions against magistrates and others for false imprisonment. These were cases which might lead to endless disputes, or at all events would certainly involve many grave and important points of law—cases in Which questions of character, rather than fact, would be raised; and by whom were they to be decided? By an attorney, perhaps, of two days' standing. What chance was there then for a man seeking reparation for injuries, or resiting a vexatious suit, obtaining fair and ample justice? We should deal with human nature as we found it. The judges of such Courts ought to have a proper check upon them; and two things were necessary to keep them in order—a vigilant and an intelligent bar, and a court of appeal above them. Without these two checks very few of the judges would do their duty in a manner satisfactory to the country. Only by such means was the fountain of justice to be kept pure, and the impartial and improper administration of the law secured. It might be said that the bill would carry the means of obtaining justice to the very doors of the people. But surely it was not desirable to attempt to persuade men to litigate. They could not expect to persuade a man that another owed him 10 s. for bread or beer, it was true; but it was possible to induce a man to bring an action for some supposed slander or suspected seduction, and thus the number of actions at law would be increased, which it would be better for the parties and for society to prevent. It

189
would be infinitely better for the poor that their time and their money should not be wasted in such litigation. By the second bill, which the hon. Gentleman reserved as a bonbon, these judges were actually to act as commissioners of bankruptcy, and the business of the Court of Review, which had commenced with four judges, and now had but one, was to be transferred to them. They were also to be commissioners of lunacy, and to deal with Chancery business. Thus cases involving the most difficult and important points of law were to be referred to these new and incompetent tribunals, and duties which they never could perform were to be imposed upon them. He believed the present measure to be one which would be repudiated from one end of the country to the other, when it was sufficiently known. It was evident that it had been prepared piecemeal, and without any adequate knowledge of the subject. He should, therefore, feel it his bounden duty in the future stages of this bill to give it his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, at that hour of the night it was not his intention to enter at length into the subject of the bill before the House, and more especially when he heard bath the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken upon it declare their approbation of its principle. But whilst they made this announcement they took the utmost pains to overthrow that principle by every word they had spoken; and it struck him that they gave their approbation to the principle of this measure rather from a feeling that they date not oppose it than from any real partiality in its favour. It was conceded, however, as a principle recognised by both sides, that redress should be brought home to the door of the poor man by a system which he should continue to designate—notwithstanding the ridicule of the right hon. Gentleman—as one of speedy and effective justice. [Sir E. Sugden: I never ridiculed it.] Throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech the whole scheme was treated with absolute derision. He should not address himself to all the clauses of this bill. There were many matters touched on by the right how. Gentleman, which he admitted he did not feel competent to deal with from want of technical knowledge; but there were also several remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman which he should be sorry to a allow to go unanswered to the
190
public. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the qualification of the judges, taking for granted that the operation of the measure would be placed in the most unworthy hands, and endeavouring in every way to depreciate a measure which, he would venture to say, would be looked to with as much, if not more, interest than any bill before the House. The right hon. Gentleman said, that no period of practice was proposed as a standard of competency in the judges. That was not the fault of the Government; for when a measure fixing the period at seven years was introduced in 1832, and referred to a committee composed of Gentlemen from both sides, it came back precisely in the form in which it Was at present. It could not be denied that a vast mass of grievances existed, that A discrepant administration of the law took place; and it was to assimilate the law, not only in different districts, but through the whole of England, that a great and extensive—and, if the right hon. Gentleman wished—a bold change was to be attempted. If blame were attached by the public to such a proceeding, he was ready to take his share of it. And so far front attempting to conceal the number of judges, he placed it on the first page of the bill. He should next deal mm the objection that the purpose of this measure was concealed by dividing it into two bills. He would state at once why they were separated. The passing of the first measure was essential to the operation of the second; but the second might be rejected, and yet a beneficial reform be conferred by the first. He was sure that if he had united these bills he should have been met by the objection, "You are connecting things totally at variance, and the only remedy is to throw out your bill." It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat disappointed that the opportunity was not allowed him of following that course. The first of these bills proposed the appointment of twenty-five courts for England. Lord Brougham's Bill proposed to make an experiment in a few courts with twenty-four superadded. Now, by this bill the whole work would be accomplished by twenty-five. The right hon. Gentleman dwelt on the monstrous expenses of these courts. Now, when that question was discussed, he should show that, instead of this being a vast expenditure, a saving

191
would be effected as regarded what was paid in reference to county courts, bankruptcy, and insolvency. He might refer to the report of the commissioners of bankruptcy for a complete answer to every one of the points urged by the right hon. Gentleman, a report by which the right hon. Gentleman said he was taken by surprise, though it must have been in his hands since July, 1840, the date at which it was printed. When the proper time for discussing the several clauses arrived he should be ready to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He was not so wedded to any one of them, that he should not be ready to adopt any that might be shown to be better. But he hoped that hon. Members, when addressing themselves to the bill in committee, would do so calmly and without any harsh feeling. He cared not in whose hands the patronage of the judges was placed, his object was to give the lower classes of the country a ready access to justice. His only object was to carry a bill such as the hon. Member for Huntingdon had admitted it was the duty of the Government to introduce, and the duty of that House to pass in some shape. He would not detain the House longer, but he hoped they would permit the bill to be read a second time.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that the kind feeling of the Government towards the poor was well evinced by their Poor-law Amendment Bill.
Mr. Hawessaid, that when the hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite attacked the bill in the spirit displayed by them that night, he was led to suppose that the whole weight of their influence would be brought to bear against passing such a measure at all. With all the objections they had started, he could not perceive they proposed anything better. The principle of the bill had been before the House for twenty-five years, and all that the hon. and learned Gentlemen had done had been to object to the details of the present measure, and that without being prepared to substitute anything in their place. All they seemed able to say was, that the Government was grasping at an enormous amount of patronage. But when they said that they forgot there were 700 commissioners scattered about the country, to administer the law, and he really was astonished to find that "the head and front of the offending" of the bill was, in the estimation of those hon. Gentlemen, the
192
amount of patronage it would bestow. Numerous petitions had been presented to that House, praying for the extension of the jurisdiction of small debt courts, but he bad not heard of one petition which prayed that the judges of those courts should remain as they then were. The people required a superior class of judges, and how was the difficulty to be avoided of the patronage that would be created by their appointment? Did hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to delay the bill in the hope that they would one day enjoy the patronage it created? Much had been said about the expense; but when the proper time arrived, he was sure the hon. Under-Secretary would be able to furnish the House with statistics showing that a large saving would accrue to the public. He did not see how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could prove his statement, that the present measure was calculated for the middle classes, and not for the poor. He considered that the tendency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks was to disparage the cheap and speedy administration of justice. He appealed to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who, he was convinced, felt the great importance of the subject, and who he trusted would not permit narrow and technical arguments to weigh in his mind against a beneficial measure of such a nature as that before the House.
Mr. Shawsaid, that at that late hour, he would observe upon but one point of the bill before the House, and even that he was only induced to do, because he was himself personally connected with the administration of a system of local jurisdiction in Ireland, similar to that which the present measure proposed to establish in this country. What struck him forcibly, and the more so in constrast with the Irish civil bill jurisdiction, was the want of a provision in the bill for securing uniformity and certainty of decision, in matters of law. The bill required no qualification for the judges of the county courts, except that they should be either barristers, special pleaders, or attorneys of any or no standing—whereas in Ireland they must be barristers of at least six years' standing. Here they were to be debarred from practice; but in Ireland they were generally barristers in good practice, thus having their judicial decisions subject to the opinions of the pro-

193
fession with which they mixed, and their own professional character and prospects to sustain; but the most important difference of all was, that the bill then under consideration gave no appeal—but dotting the whole country over with local judges removed from practice in Westminster-hall, and each acting upon their own uncontrolled opinion, it would introduce contrariety of decision in the different districts, and that uncertainty which was, perhaps, the greatest of all evils in the administration of justice while under the Irish system, there was an appeal from the assistant-barrister to the next going judge of assize, who, if he had any doubt, reserved the point for the twelve judges, who conferred together in contradistinction to the practice which had been so frequently referred to in late discussions in that House, in respect of the elective franchise, though founded on precisely the same statutory jurisdiction, ruled the case according to the opinion of the majority; and these cases were reported, and regulated the practice of the inferior courts upon one uniform and fixed principle. He was as friendly as any Member of that House to bringing justice, to the utmost extent that was practicable, within the reach of every class and person in the community; but he thought bad law could not be cheap on any terms, and he was apprehensive that uncertain and bad law would be the result of the measure before them, unless some such correction as he suggested were applied to it. He approved of the principle of the measure. He was of opinion that it worked most beneficially in Ireland, and, if judiciously tried and carefully controlled, he saw no reason why the same good effects should not be produced by it in England.
Mr. E. Vivianinquired whether this bill was to interfere with the stannary courts of Cornwall.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, it was not.
Bill read a second time.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Lord Keane's Annuity.—Read a third time;—Tithe Composition (Ireland); Court of Exchequer (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Richmond, from Gaolers, and subordinate Officers of Gaols in England, for Pensions when old age rendered them incapable of performing their Duties.—By Lord Hill, from Ellesmere, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By the Earl of Mountcashell, from Londonderry, and by Lord Wharncliffe, from a Presbytery in Ireland, for the Abolition of Church Patronage in Scotland.—Dy the Earl of Hardwicke, from the Board of Guardians of the Caxton and Amington Union, Cambridge, against the Poor-law Continuance Bill.

MR. KERR
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that he had a petition to present from a gentleman with whom he was not acquainted, and therefore could not answer for the correctness of the circumstances which he was about to state. Feeling, however, that his case was one of importance, and his complaint of a serious nature, he had asked the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, to communicate with one of his colleagues in that House, as to the truth of the statement. The petition was from a gentleman of the name of James Kerr, a barrister of the Inner Temple, and formerly judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, Lower Canada. He had held the situation for forty years, but had been deprived of it without any trial, or any opportunity being given him of making any defence. He, therefore, hoped the noble Marquess would state the cause of the gentleman's dismissal.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he had not communicated with the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, on the subject. He was really sorry, however, that the gentleman in question had been so ill-advised as to bring the matter again before their Lordships. He was aware that he was a person very respectably connected, and he believed that he had acquired the good will of a large portion of the people of Lower Canada. At the same time, as the petition had been presented, it was impossible for him to pass over in silence the allegation that he had been dismissed without trial. He would state to their Lordships what had occurred. Mr. Kerr was judge of the Admiralty Court, Lower Canada. In the year 1815, a sum of money, amounting, he believed, to about 1,500 l., was placed in the hands of the registrar of that court,

139
which, in the course of law, became the property of the Crown. Mr. Kerr, on going to England, transferred this money to his own agent in London, and up to the year 1834 made no account of it, but kept it at his own disposal. Sundry letters at that period passed on the subject, and about the commencement of 1834, the money was repaid. The circumstances, however, came to the knowledge of the Admiralty, and the result of their examination into the case was, that Mr. Kerr was dismissed. The transaction was also made known to his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle), who was at that time Secretary for the Colonies, and he had felt it his duty to dismiss Mr. Kerr from the office of judge, which he held in the Court of Queen's Bench, Montreal. In 1839, Mr. Kerr transmitted, through Sir John Colborne, an application, in the nature of an appeal to the favour of the Government, but he (the Marquess of Normanby) could see no reason whatever for disturbing the decision that had been come to. Under these circumstances, he regretted that the gentleman had been advised to petition their Lordships, and that he had been obliged, in consequence, to state the facts of the case.

CANADA—ST. SULPICE.
The Marquess of Normanbylaid on the Table a copy of the charter granted to the seminary of St. Nicolet, Lower Canada.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to know whether the noble Marquess had looked into the report of Chief Justice Stuart, in regard to the legal right of the seminary of St. Sulpice, and whether or not it was to be laid on the Table?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had looked into the report, but he found that there was that objection to the production of it which he stated yesterday. Strictly speaking, the report was the opinion of one of the law officers of the Crown, and, according to the general custom, was to be considered as confidential, and ought not to be given to Parliament. On examining the report, he did not see any special circumstances to induce their Lordships to depart from the usual custom. Supposing that it was produced, he did not think that it would help the rev. Prelate at all in making out his case. He admitted, however, that the opinion was against the legal right being in the Crown; but he hoped, when the discussion came
140
on, that he should be able to convince their Lordships, that the rev. Prelate had no case whatever.
The Bishop of Exetersaid, that he would not press for the production of the paper, but he submitted to their Lordships if it would not have been fairer on the part of the noble Marquess, if he had, on his own responsibility, refused at once to produce the report, than to have said, that there was nothing in it which would support his case. He did not think that a correct mode of proceeding. The despatch of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Ripon) would completely answer his purpose, and enable him to sustain the position which he meant to maintain before their Lordships.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that the accusation of unfairness was so often made by the rev. Prelate, that it now lost much of its force. He would remind their Lordships that he had made the admission that the legal opinion was, that the right was not in the Crown, and that therefore, the report could not assist the argument of the right rev. Prelate. Under these circumstances, the right rev. Prelate had asked for that opinion—
The Bishop of Exeter: No, no, no. I asked for the special report of Mr. Stuart, because I understood it dealt with the legal question. The noble Marquess says that the report would not support my argument. Why did he withhold the report, and yet attempt to produce an impression that it was unfavourable.
The Earl of Mintorose to order. The right rev. Prelate had interrupted his noble Friend, and was now making a speech himself.
The Bishop of Exeterthought that the noble Marquess had finished.
The Marquess of Normanbycould not conceive how the right rev. Prelate could have thought that he had finished, for when he interrupted him, he was in the middle of a sentence. The right rev. Prelate said, that he had asked for the special report of Mr. Stuart, and in answer he (the Marquess of Normanby) told him that he considered the report as the opinion of the law-officer of the Crown, and therefore, could not consent to its being laid on the Table. At the same time, he volunteered the admission that he did not think it would be useful to the right rev. Prelate's case, even if produced, because the law-officer in question had stated it

141
as his opinion that the legal right was not in the Crown.
The Bishop of Exeterregretted that the noble Marquess had ever mentioned that the opinion of the law-officer was unfavourable to his argument. He also regretted that the noble Marquess had thought proper to say, that he (the Bishop of Exeter) was in the habit of throwing out insinuations of unfairness. He never did so without giving the parties an opportunity of meeting the charge. He was also sorry to add, that the spirit so frequently manifested of late on that side of the House sometimes provoked him to use such expressions.
Subject at an end.

POOR-LAW COMMISSION (IRELAND).
The Earl of Glengall The Earl of Glengall moved that a clerk in the office of the Poor-law commissioners of Ireland, and Mr. D. Phelan, an assistant-commissioner, be ordered to attend at the bar of their Lordships' House on Tuesday next.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he had no objection to the inquiry being extended, but he thought it would be better if the noble Lord postponed his motion till after the examination of Mr. Stanley. At present, when the annual election of guardians was taking place in Ireland, it would be exceedingly inconvenient for Mr. Phelan to leave that country. If the noble Earl pressed the other part of his motion, he had no objection to the clerk in the office of the commissioners being ordered to attend.
The Earl of Glengallthought that the presence of the gentleman to whom he had referred would be so very necessary, that he should consider himself bound to persist in his motion.
After some further discussion, it was agreed that the Marquess of Normanby should write by post to desire the attendance of the clerk, and that the attendance of Mr. Phelan, the assistant commissioner, should be deterred until it appeared that his presence was absolutely necessary.
Upon this understanding, the Earl of Glengall consented to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Adjourned.