Sitting of 13 June 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1.° Assessed Taxes; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland); Assessed Taxes Composition.
Reported.—Sugar Duties; Double Costs; Dean Forest Foot; Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts.
Private. — 1°. Toxteth Park Paving and Sewerage (No. 2).
2°. Lagan Navigation.
Reported.—Gait's Naturalization; London Bridge Approaches and Royal Exchange Avenues; St. Briarel's Small Debts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Masterman, from Cole. man-street Ward, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo Bridge.—By Mr. Stuart Wortley, from Holm. firth, for Alteration of the Poor-law Amendment Bill.— From Colchester Union, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.— By Mr. Bell, from Northumberland, and Durham, against the Employment of Children in the Mines and Collieries.—From the Subscribers to the Queen's County Infirmary, against placing such Institutions under the Control of the Poor-law Commissioners. —By Captain Berkeley, from Frenchay, for the Abolition of Church Rates; and from the Catholics at Bristol, for Equality of Civil Rights.—By Captain Thomas Wood, from Staines, and Winchester, against the use of Rail' ways on Sundays.—From Enfield, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; and from H. E. Edwards, against the West Middlesex Water-work Company.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, and Stebbing, for the use of Affirmations in lieu of Oaths.—From the Presbytery of Nairn, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Burgh and Parochial Schoolmasters of Scotland.—From Kingston-upon-Hull, for a Clause in the Municipal Corporations Act to confer upon Town Councils the power of Erecting and Regulating Lunatic Asylums.—From Trustees of Doncaster, and Hutfield Roads, Bawtry and Lelly Roads, and Bawtry-bridge and Hatton Road, against the Turnpike Roads Act.—From the Rev. B. Phillpott, for Amendment of the Law relative to the Rating of Tithes. —From Abraham Abrahams, for an opportunity to refute the Assertion of John Wren touching the Southampton Election.—From R. Smyth, against the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.

TEXAS—THE BLOCKADE.
Mr. D'Israeliwished to ask the right hon. Baronet near him, whether it was the intention of the Government, before they recognised the blockade of Mexico by Texas, to recognize the independence of Texas?
Sir R. Peelapprehended that the recognition of a blockade did not depend on the previous recognition of the belligerent state. There were several instances in which this country had recognized a blockade without having previously recognised the particular state instituting the blockade. In the present case, however, as he had before stated, treaties had been concluded with the Government of Texas, by persons having the authority of Her Britannic Majesty for that purpose; this occurred under the late Administration, but since he had come into office, he had seen no allegation whatever that the parties employed to make these treaties had exceeded their authority. It was not necessary for him to state whether he considered those treaties wisely conceived, or otherwise; all he had to say was, that they had been concluded, and as there was no allegation that the parties concluding them for the British Government had exceeded their authority, he did not feel it necessary for the present Government to advise her

1491
Majesty not to ratify those treaties, and they would accordingly be ratified by the time specified, namely, by the 1st of August next.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Viscount Mahonwished to ask the noble Lord opposite a question in reference to his bill for the correction of bribery. Several clauses of that bill rested on the supposition that election committees would continue, as at present, within the jurisdiction of the House. Now the noble Lord was aware that he and many other Members thought that the House would better consult the ends of justice by parting with that jurisdiction. The bill which regulated that jurisdiction was to expire with the present Session, and the question of its renewal was probably to be discussed with in a few days. He therefore wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would consent to postpone the second reading of the bill until the principle which he here pointed out had been discussed and decided?
Lord J. Russellconsidered that as the jurisdiction of deciding on election petitions, and as to who were lawfully and; rightly elected, had remained in the House for more than 200 years, they could not, as matters now stood, act on any other supposition than that the jurisdiction would so continue. Of course, if the House here-after decided upon parting with this jurisdiction, the House would make its other regulations and proceedings conformable to the change, and the measure now before the House, if passed into a law, would be ! also made conformable; but at present he saw no reason to postpone the second reading of his bill, on the mere supposition that the House might, perhaps, on some future day, take a view of this part of the subject altogether different from its long established principle.

COAL DUTIES.
Mr. Huttbegged to know what the right hon. Baronet proposed to do as to the coal duties.
Sir R. Peelsaid, Government did not intend to adhere to the duty which it some time since announced on the export of British coal, namely, 4s. The proposal: which Government now intended to make, and which he hoped would meet with the general assent of the House, would be,— that on round coal exported from this country there should be laid a duty of 2s
1492
per ton; and on small or screened coal, of 1s>per ton.
Lord J. Russellasked whether any drawback would be allowed in favour of coal exported for the use of steam-vessels in the service of British subjects?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the position of these steam-vessels in reference to the supply of coal had been taken into consideration by the Government, and the very great difficulty of allowing a drawback was one of the reasons which induced them to make the reduction in the proposed duty which he had just stated. He hoped that with this reduction the House would not think it necessary to incur the risk of fraud which the allowance of drawback would certainly involve. The loss to the revenue he estimated would be about 50,000 l.

THE GOLD COIN.
Mr. Childerssaid, that of late very great inconvenience and loss had been sustained by the public, more especially by the humbler classes, in consequence of the proclamation respecting the depreciated gold coinage. Every day innumerable cases were occurring in which poor people, ill able to afford it, were subjected to a loss of one shilling in the pound, and even more. It was very true that similar proclamations had been issued before, but the last of these was twenty-one years ago. He did not mean to say that the proclamation lately issued might not be a very proper and necessary one; but he thought that some method should have been, and, at all events, should now be devised, for mitigating the consequent loss. He would suggest, with reference to the poorer classes, that something might be done by the medium of the savings'-banks towards letting them receive the full value of what money they had.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas very glad that the hon. Gentleman had mentioned the subject, as it gave him an opportunity to dispel, he hoped, an impression which generally prevailed, and which had been given circulation to by interested parties, that the value of the old sovereign was greatly below that of the more recent gold coinage. Of the large number of sovereigns that were paid into the Bank, which gave a fair criterion, the deficiency in weight varied from 1¼ to per cent.; so that the loss of 3d. in the sovereign would completely compensate for the deficiency of weight in the average

1493
of cases. Some might be a little more, some a little less valuable; but certainly threepence in the pound was the utmost average deterioration. He was, however, at the present moment in communication with the officers of the revenue, with the view of facilitating the exchange of light coin, so as to meet the wants more especially of the humbler classes; but he was anxious in the interval which must necessarily elapse before this arrangement could be brought into operation, to have it distinctly made known to the public, that the diminution of the value was not in any case such as to justify the demands which were made by interested persons on the holders of light sovereigns.

PROVISION RIOTS AT ENNIS.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to ask whether the right hon. Baronet opposite would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House the coroner's inquest, and the report of the commissioners sent down by Government to Ennis, to inquire into the unhappy and frightful scene which had taken place there, and in which several had been killed?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that all he knew of the case officially was, that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, immediately upon hearing of this lamentable occurrence, sent down a Queen's Counsel to take a report of the matter, and that a verdict had been returned by the coroner's inquest; and under these circumstances, he hoped the House would not press at present for the papers.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that besides this, another inquiry of even higher interest was whether Government had done, or was about to do anything to relieve the fearful distress which prevailed in all parts of Ireland, even in Wicklow, the district nearest Dublin?
Sir R. Peelwould only say, that the Government was deeply alive to the importance of the subject.

CUSTOMS' ACTS — THE TARIFF — CABLES.
House in committee on the Customs' Duties Act. Upon the proposition that the duty on cables not being iron, tarred, or untarred, should be 6s. per cwt.
Mr. Mitchellproposed as an amendment that the duty be 8.s.. per cwt.
Mr. Gladstoneobjected to the amendment. He thought, that for an article of such general use in the navy, the protection should not be more than was abso-
1494
lutely necessary. He would therefore adhere to the duty of 6s., as proposed in the schedule.
The committee divided on the question that the blank be filled with "Six Shillings."— Ayes 163; Noes 35:—Majority 128.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Gordon, Lord F.

Aldam, W.

Gore, M.

Allix, J. P.

Gore, W. O.

Bagge, W.

Gore, hon. R.

Baillie, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Baillie, H.J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Barnard, E. G.

Granby, Marquess of

Bateson, R.

Greenaway, C.

Beckett, W.

Grimston, Visct.

Bernard, Visct.

Hamilton, W. J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hampden, R.

Bodkin, W.H.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Botfield, B.

Hastie, A.

Bowring, Dr.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Brotherton, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Hindley, C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hogg, J. W.

Buckley, E.

Houldsworth, T.

Buller, E.

Holmes, hn. W. A'C.

Bunbury, T.

Hope, hon. C.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Howard, Lord

Chelsea, Visct.

Howard, hon. H.

Christie, W. D.

Howick, Visct.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Clerk, Sir G,

Hume, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hussey, T.

Codrington, C. W.

Hutt, W.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Irving, J.

Craig, W. G.

James, W.

Cripps, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Darner, hon. Col.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Jones, Capt.

Denison, E. B.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Dennistoun, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Lambton, H.

Divett, E.

Layard, Capt.

Dodd, G.

Lefroy, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Duncan, Visct.

Lindsay, H. H.

Duncan, G.

Litton, E.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Lockhart, W.

Egerton, W. T.

Lopes, Sir R.

Eliot, Lord

M'Geachy, F. A.

Escott, B.

Mackenzie, T.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Ferguson, Col.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Fleming, J. W.

Mainwaring, T.

Ffolliott, J.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Forbes, W.

Marshatn, Visct.

Forster, M.

Martin, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Marton, G.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Gibson, T. M.

Miles, P. W. S.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Milnes, R. M.

Gladstone, T.

Mitcalfe, H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Morgan, O,

1495

Morris, D.

Sheppard, T.

Morrison, J.

Smythe, hon. G.

Mundy, E. M.

Somerset, Lord G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Somerville, Sir W.M.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Stanley, E.

Ord, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Pakington, J. S.

Stanton, W. H.

Patten, J. W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stuart, H.

Peel, J.

Strutt, E.

Philips, M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Pigot, Sir R.

Thesiger, F.

Plumridge, Capt.

Thornhill, G.

Polhill, F.

Towneley, J.

Powell, Col.

Tumor, C.

Praed, W. T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pringle, A.

Vernon, G. H.

Protheroe, E.

Waddington, H. S.

Rashleigh,W.

Wall, C. B.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Richards, R.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Round, C. G.

Wood, Col. T.

Scholefield, J.

TELLERS.

Scott, hon. F.

Baring, H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Bankes, G.

Manners, Lord J.

Barclay, D.

Masterman, J.

Busfeild, W.

O'Brien, W.S.

Byng, G.

Packe, C. W.

Cochrane, A.

Paget, Col.

Douglas, Sir H.

Palmer, G.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Philips, G. R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pryse, P.

Gill, T.

Rumbold, C. E.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Russell, Lord J.

Halford, H.

Sandon, Visct.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Tufnell, H.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Henley, J. W.

Wilshere, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Wood, B.

Hodgson, R.

Worsley, Lord

Ingestre, Visct.

TELLERS.

James, Sir W. C.

Chapman, A.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Blank filled with Six Shillings.
Upon the question that the importation of unhewn Stones from foreign countries be free,
Mr. G. Bankesrose to move his amendment, that upon stones not particularly enumerated or described, nor otherwise charged with duty, the present rates of duty should be maintained. This he did on behalf of the persons employed in the trade, and particularly in the working of Portland stone, whose subsistence depended entirely upon their occupation of that branch of industry. His proposition would not restrict any of the comforts of the poor generally, because it was unnecessary for him to say, that their habitations were not built of this expensive material.
1496
None of the raw material of foreign stone came into our market. It was all wrought to a certain extent, and therefore the question was one between English and foreign labour. While the price of Portland stone at the port of shipment was 16 s. per ton, 11 s.per ton of that money was the proportion absorbed in labour, and the committee might judge how much mischief must be done by displacing this amount of labour, and admitting at a still greater advantage, French stone, which already, even with the duty, undersold our own article. The population of the Isle of Portland amounted to nearly 3,000, all of whom, with very few exceptions, depended entirely upon this article. He had moved for a return of last year's duty upon foreign stone, but had not been able to obtain it, and was therefore obliged to form his conclusions from the only data which were accessible to him; and judging thus, he was led to believe, that the importation of foreign stone was increasing, because he was informed that some of the churches of most recent erection, and amongst them those of Camberwell and Andover, were contracted for in foreign stone. It was true, and he was happy to say it, that that great national work, the Royal Exchange, was contracted for in Portland stone, because the citizens of London, justly proud of their national edifices, disregarded the question of comparative expense; but others would prefer the inferior article if it were only cheaper. And there was no doubt that the foreign stone was inferior, not only to the Portland stone, but also to the stone in many parts of Yorkshire, and particularly that beautiful description of which the two Houses of Parliament were being built. He did not wish his proposition to apply to limestone, or any other description of stone than that used for building; and he hoped the article would be omitted from the tariff, or, at all events, that the Government would take time to reconsider the item.
Mr. Christiewas persuaded, from inquiries which had been instituted, that the proposed alteration in the stone duties would not only benefit the public, but would also be of advantage to the labouring classes in Portland. An advance to free-trade principles would tend to make the labouring classes less dependent than they were upon the quarry-owners. At present the state of these classes was by 1 no means satisfactory. The truck system

1497
prevailed to a great extent. The workmen were only paid their wages once in six months, sometimes only once in the year, and, in the meantime, they were supplied, but at a high rate, with necessary articles by agents of the quarry-masters, who, when the wages were paid, deducted the value of the necessaries furnished from the amount. He would wish to read to the committee some statements he had received upon the subject from various parties in Dorsetshire and Portland. The first was from a merchant in Portland: it stated:—
" In this island there is a population of 2,800 persons entirely dependent on the stone trade, and subject to the injurious operation of the truck system. The quarry-men are paid every six months, and sometimes it is twelve months before they have a settlement with their masters, who all that time supply them with bread or flour at a higher price than they could get the same quality for, if paid weekly or monthly. Indeed, it may be said to be usually nine months from the time of commencing their work till a settlement is made by the masters..The price of best flour delivered here (in Portland) is stated to me, by a miller at Weymouth, at 48s. I believe for cash I could get it 1s. or 2s. less. The price the men are charged is 60s. a sack of 280 lbs.; some masters charge it less. The 4-lb. loaf here is 9d.; at Weymouth good bread may be bought at 7½d. the 4-lb. loaf. When the men are paid, the party who has supplied them with bread and flour sits at the pay-table and receives his money."
Another gentlemen, resident in Weymouth, stated as follows:—
" The alteration proposed in the new tariff would do more to help Portland, and the public generally, than anything else that can occur. The duty can be well taken off, and the public would then be relieved from a train of exactions and impositions which are disgraceful. There are two or three merchants in London who hold largely, and the rule of the place is, that the payment of wages only takes place once in six months; consequently, the workmen, during the interval, are compelled to have of the different agents things in kind, as they call it—flour, bread, butter, &c., of which an account is kept against them, charging them, of course, the highest possible price, and at the end of the half-year all this is set out against their wages. The men, on the other hand, in consequence of this, are quite reckless, and will have holidays when they like, and every now and then strike for wages. It was only last summer they struck, and there was scarcely a stone shipped from the quarries for six months; the men in the meantime working in the Crown and common lands, and making stone and selling it, cutting the
1498
quarry-holders up, until the latter were glad to accede to their terms, which, by the bye, were most rascally; but yet, with the prices they get, and in the way they pay, the gentlemen could well afford to give them."
He wished that the hon. Member for Knaresborough was in his place to hear these statements of the truck-system as it existed, not among corn-law agitators, but in a county a stronghold of Conservatism. He trusted that attention might be paid to the subject of wages in this island by the hon. Member's committee, or rather he would appeal to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ashley), whose philanthropy no party feelings could ever pervert. A large portion of the Portland quarries were Crown property. He understood that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lincoln) had, with a view to the approaching expiry of the Crown leases, sent the Crown surveyor down to Portland, and procured a new valuation, in consequence of which he had raised the rent very considerably; and he understood that the present Crown lessees had undertaken to renew the leases on the higher terms, while they were stating in petitions presented by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that the effect of the change in the tariff would be to compel the present owners and lessees of quarries to abandon the working of them. The noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman would correct him if he was wrong, and would, he had no doubt, have the goodness to confirm him in this statement if it were correct. These were the reasons why he cordially supported the proposal in the tariff which would confer a benefit on the public, do no injustice to the quarry proprietors, and open out a great prospect of good to the labourer in the Portland quarries.
Lord Ashleywas astounded at the communication which had just been made as to the extent to which the truck system was carried in Portland. The subject should have his consideration.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the proposed alterations in the tariff were not made with a view to local but general circumstances. They proposed to place upon stone in block a duty of 2s. per ton, which would amount to an ad valorem duty of about 10 per cent. The hon. Gentleman wished to have a greater amount of protection than the interested parties themselves required. They did not wish the present rate, which imposed an ad valorem duty

1499
of 20 per cent, to be maintained. He proposed one of 10 per cent., and he would certainly oppose the motion of the hon. Member.
Mr. Humethought, that the matter was more a question of proprietors than of workmen. He was sorry to hear a duty of 2s. proposed, as he understood that the originally-intended duty had been only 1s. per ton.
Captain Pechellsaid, that his constituents would be best contented by the imposition of no duty at all. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade would not make any concession to the proposition before the House.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that the point was not whether a concession should be made, or whether a point should be established; their proposal was, that rough stone should be admitted free, stone in blocks should pay a duty of 2s. per ton, and hewn stone a duty of 10 s. per ton.
Amendment withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
On the question that the duly on foreign Coffee be 8d. a pound,
Viscount Howickrose for the purpose of proposing that this duty should be reduced to 7d. The grounds on which he felt justified in resisting the proposed rate of duty, he would very shortly submit to the House. The right hon. Baronet, in the speech in which he introduced this tariff, calculated the loss to the revenue from his proposal at 170,000 l. Now, he thought the House must admit that that was an amount of revenue which ought not to be sacrificed unless for the purpose of effecting a satisfactory arrangement of those duties. If we were not to place these duties on a basis advantageous to the great body of consumers, he thought it better to leave them as they at present stood; particularly when it was remembered that the right hon. Baronet refused to repeal the duty on cotton wool, which, unfettered, must give such ample scope to employment, and when it was intended to call upon the House to impose a new duty on coals. The House was aware that the consumption of coffee had of late years very greatly increased. The whole supply of British possessions was altogether insufficient to meet the demands of the consumers, and the consequence was, that foreign coffee, at the higher rate of duty, entered largely into the home consumption. That being
1500
the case, it was perfectly obvious, that the price of foreign coffee, at the higher duty, was that which regulated the price of British coffee, and the difference between the duty levied on British and foreign coffee was a bounty levied on the British consumer for the advantage of the colonial grower. That such was the effect of this tax, he believed that no Gentleman, acquainted with our system of taxation, would be prepared to deny. He was one of those who were persuaded that all those systems of bounty and protection were erroneous; but, while he argued that such was the case, he also admitted, that the practice of a long series of years ought not to be suddenly swept away. He did not ask the committee to take away the protection which colonial coffee had hitherto enjoyed: he did not say that considerable protection ought not to be given to the producers of that coffee: but what he maintained was, that the amount of protection proposed by her Majesty's Government, was calculated on an erroneous principle, if it was not altogether prejudicial to the interest of the producer. The Government proposed that the coffee of the British colonies should be admitted at 4d. a lb., which, with the other expenses, would raise the price to 39 s. 2d. the cwt. Foreign coffee was to be admitted at 8d.the lb.; and adding in the same manner 5 per cent., the price would be 78 s. Ad. the cwt. Now, what was the real value of the articles on which these duties were" imposed? He had in his hand a state ment, by which it was calculated that colonial coffee of the new growth was to be sold at 112 s. to 117 s. the cwt., while Cuba coffee, of an exactly similar description, was selling in bond at 78 s. and 82 s. the cwt.; the difference in' price being a charge on the British public. That was to say, that the superior kind of coffee, the produce of foreign countries, came into consumption at 100 per cent, duty on the full value, and had a differential duty to sustain of 50 per cent. He thought that such an amount of duty was extravagant; but when they came to an inferior description of coffee (that which entered materially into the consumption of the working classes) the case was far worse. A constituent of his purchased in bond St. Domingo coffee at 34s. the cwt., while British coffee of a not better description fetched from 68s. to 70 s. the cwt. Now on this 1 coffee, worth in bond Ms. the cwt., a duty

1501
was proposed of 74 s. 8d. That was a duty of 230 per cent, on the full value of the article, and a differential duty given as a bonus by the consumers of this inferior article to the British colonies of 115 per cent. He thought if the House considered for a moment what were the principles on which this tariff was recommended, they must conclude that such a scale of duties was altogether inconsistent with those principles, for that very evening he heard the right hon. Vice-President of the Board of Trade assert, that 20 per cent., except in some special cases, was a fair duty on manufactured articles. And on this, which was not a manufactured article, but a raw produce, entering largely into the consumption of the poor, the proposal was not to tax it at 20 per cent., but 115 per cent, as against British coffee, and 230 per cent, on the full value of the article. This was certainly a proposition which it was impossible to maintain in argument. It was impossible that the reduction of duty could be resisted on the same grounds as those taken up against the change in the sugar duties brought forward at his side of the House; for apart from the fact, that a considerable proportion of coffee came from the eastern hemisphere, where slavery did not extensively exist, there was no country from which we might expect a greater produce, as the consequence of a moderate duty, than Hayti, with which it was obvious we might carry on a much more flourishing commerce if our present system were abandoned. It could not be said, that it was the interest of the colonies to have these duties kept up. Did any Gentleman seriously conceive, that the present enormous duty could be permanently maintained? He must further argue, that the amount of protection now proposed in the tariff was larger than that hitherto enjoyed. It was perfectly true, that Hayti and Brazil coffee had been subjected to a heavier duty than that now submitted; but it was notorious, that the Brazilian coffee at 9d. duty, was allowed to come in from the Cape of Good Hope as British coffee. The real protection was, therefore, the difference between 9d. and 6d., together with the expenses of the voyage to the Cape of Good Hope, whatever they might be. Now, he was perfectly ready to admit, that the gentlemen engaged in this trade were not always of the same opinion as to the expenses of
1502
this voyage; and he was quite prepared to hear his noble Friend, the Member for Liverpool, representing the views of his constituents, give a much higher charge than that which he was about to contend for. But it appeared by the evidence taken before the Import Duties' Committee, that the expenses of the coffee of Brazil and Hayti going to the Cape of Good Hope, did not exceed ¾d. a lb. The present protection to British coffee was, therefore, 3¾d. and not 4d.; the amount of protection given by the duties of4 d. and 8d. The Ministers were, therefore, increasing a protection which at present was of an enormous amount. If it was supposed, that the colonies could not grow coffee without this enormous protection, the best policy was to wean them from the fallacy by degrees; for it was impossible to suppose, that our people would go on paying three times the price which the article ought really to fetch, for the purpose of maintaining our colonial interests. But if it was believed, that the colonies could grow such an article at a much smaller protection, it was obviously the interest of the colonies to bring down the price as low as possible. He thought if an unnatural stimulus were given to coffee, the produce in the course of a few years, under the present system, would exceed the consumption, and a depression naturally follow. As in many other cases, the artificial raising of the price far above the natural level, must in the end produce a great disadvantage to those who enjoyed the undue advantage. He next wished to know whether his motion could be resisted on the ground of revenue. He could scarcely believe, that the reduction of 1d. per lb. on foreign coffee would be resisted on the supposition that it must largely injure the revenue. As he had already stated, the foreign coffee regulated the price of the home produce, and, therefore, if 1d. per lb. were taken off, the consumer would derive an advantage, not only on the colonial, but on all the coffee that came into the market. The total amount of coffee consumed was 28,420,000 lbs. The reduction of 1d. per lb, would be a relief to the consumer of 118,000 l, The loss to the revenue would not be proportioned to the gain of the consumer, and was only to be calculated on the smaller quantity of coffee introduced from foreign countries. Of the 28,420,000 lb s. of coffee, only 10,849,000 lb s. was the pro-

1503
duction of foreign countries. The loss on the latter quantity was 45,000 l., while the consumer gained 118,000 l. But he was persuaded that the revenue would suffer no loss whatever, because he was sure that the reduction of the duty would lead to a large increase of the consumption—to an increase which it might be safely calculated would cover the loss of 45,000 l. He relied on the correctness of this calculation with the more confidence, because he believed that adulteration was at present carried on to an enormous extent, and of the 30,000,000lbs. consumed in the year, it was stated in a circular printed by the coffee growers, that 15,000,000lbs. were mixed with chickory, and such substances. Under these circumstances, his own opinion was, that it would be best to reduce the duty to 6d. on foreign, and 3d. on colonial coffee; but as he knew such a proposal would be met by the allegation that a great loss to the revenue must ensue, he thought it better to confine his amendment to the proposition that foreign coffee should be admitted at 1d. instead of 8d. the lb.
Mr. Gladstonecontended, that the general principle of the tariff could not be applied to the produce of tropical climates. He admitted that he did not resist this motion on the ground of loss to the revenue, though he must contend that the present duty was not an increase of protection. It was certainly true that the price of West-Indian coffee had increased since the promulgation of the tariff, but that increase was only of a temporary character. He acknowledged that the real guide in reducing the duty should not be the proportion of colonial to foreign protection, but the value of the article itself. He could only say that this was one of those articles, the reduction of duty on which affected materially our connection with foreign powers. He believed that our negotiations with the Brazils might be made to turn in a great measure on the admission of their coffee. Though he confessed the noble Lord had a strong ground for claiming the surrender of this duty at once, still he thought it was better to postpone the legislation until the measures proposed to be taken as to the admission of articles of British manufactures into other states were disposed of.
Mr. Humewas glad to perceive that the resistance to this motion was one merely of time. It was of the highest importance,
1504
in a moral and social point of view, to encourage the consumption of coffee instead of spirits. He would vote for the noble Lord's proposition, and only regretted that it had not been carried further.
Sir R. Peelmust admit, that the labour of slaves in the production of coffee was not so severe as that applied to the cultivation of sugar, and therefore he must forego the full advantage of the argument founded upon the considerations involved in the question of slavery. Like his right hon. Friend, he rested his opposition to the noble Lord's motion chiefly on the ground of the impropriety of throwing away the influence which the Government possessed over foreign powers, by retaining the duties until they saw a prospect of obtaining a reciprocal advantage by their reduction. It was the principle of philosophers that we should buy at the cheapest markets; but, unfortunately, we were not dealing with philosophers, and if we reduced duties without obtaining an equivalent, we should only remove a pressure from foreign governments, of which they would not be slow to avail themselves. At the present moment France contemplated an advance of duty on linen yarn. He ventured to predict, that if that proposition should be carried into effect, the nascent linen manufactures of France would be entirely ruined, and he had not the slightest doubt that his prediction would be fulfilled. He fully admitted the great importance of offering cheap and wholesome beverage to the people, with a view to induce them to substitute it for spirits, and he regretted on that account that he could not at the present moment consent to a greater reduction of the duty on coffee. The duties on coffee entered at present into our negotiations with foreign states, and he believed that if the committee should agree to the noble Lord's motion, they would throw away a great practical advantage.
Mr. Hawesthought that the Government were pursuing an unwise course in leaving so many duties unsettled. The coffee duties were now added to the list of several other duties which it was admitted would not be permanently maintained. This was a course of proceeding which subjected commercial transactions to great uncertainty. A considerable portion of the coffee at present consumed in this country was adulterated, but if the duty

1505
were reduced the adulterated article would be driven from the market, and in the end the revenue would be increased. He was informed, on good authority, that the price of Jamaica coffee was not likely to fall, and that the whole of the difference between the existing duties and those proposed by the Government would go into the pockets of the growers of colonial coffee.
Dr. Bowringwished the British Government to set the world an example of sound commercial policy, instead of pursuing a system of bargaining with foreign states respecting the reduction of duties. Nothing was more desirable than to create a greater demand for French produce in this country.
Mr. F. Baringcould have understood the objection raised by the right hon. Baronet relative to the coffee duties being the subject of negotiation with foreign countries if they had not touched them at all; but they had themselves proposed a reduction. What great harm, then, could arise from carrying the reduction further.
Mr. Villierswould vote for the noble Lord's proposition. If it should be found necessary to influence foreign powers, the Government could effect their object just as well by threatening to raise the duty again.
Viscount Howicksaid, it was some satisfaction to know that from what had passed, the present enormous differential duties would not be permanently maintained. Still, as he thought that the arguments advanced in opposition to his motion were not valid, he would divide the committee upon the question.
The committee divided on the question that the blank be filled with 7d.:—Ayes 48; Noes 81: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth P.

Forster, M.

Aldam, W.

Gibson, T. M.

Barclay, D.

Granger, T. C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Greenaway, C.

Barnard, E. G.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G:

Blake, M. J.

Howick, Visct.

Bowring, Dr.

Johnstone, A.

Brocklehurst, J.

Leader, J. T.

Brotherton, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Browne, hon. W.

Marsland, H.

Buller, E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Busfeild, W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Cobden, R.

Morris, D.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Morison, Gen.

Duncan, G.

O'Brien, W. S.

1506

O'Connell, D.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

O'Connell, J.

Strutt, E.

Pechell, Capt.

Thomely, T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Philips, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Rundle, J.

Wood, B.

Scholefield, J.

Wood, C.

Scott, R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

TELLERS,

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hawes, B.

Stanton, W. H.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Antrobus, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Arbuthnott, hn. H.

Hussey, T.

Arkwright, G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baillie, Col.

James, Sir W. C.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Kemble, H.

Bateson, R.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Botfield B.

Knight, H. G.

Bramston, T. W.

Lambton, H.

Burrell, Sir G. M.

Legh G. C.

Chapman, A.

Lindsay, H H.

Chelsea, Visct.

Litton, E.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Lockhart, W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lyall, G.

Clive, hn. R. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Mainwaring, T.

Collett, W. R.

Martin, C. W.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Masterman, J.

Cripps, W.

Mundy, E. M.

Darby, G.

Neville, R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Duffield, T.

Northland, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Palmer, G.

Escott, B.

Patten, J. W.

Forbes. M.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Polhill, F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Godson, R.

Round, C. G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Goring, C.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sandon, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sheppard, T.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Stanley, Lord

Grogan, E.

Stewart, J.

Halford, H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hampden, R.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Harcourt, G. G.

Vivian, J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wilbraham, hn. R.

Henley, J. W.

Young, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

TELLERS.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hodgson, R.

Pringle, A.

Blank filled with 8d.
Viscount Sandoncalled the attention of the House to the injustice of the proposed modification of duties to the holders of naturalised coffee in bond. They had imported their present stock on the faith of a law which had given them an advantage over the importers of foreign coffee. He moved to insert in the schedule, that coffee imported from any Bri-

1507
tish possession within the limits of the East India Company's charter, not being the produce thereof, being now in bond to arrive before the first day of August next, should be admitted at a duty of 7d. per lb.
Mr. Gladstonewas somewhat taken by-surprise, his noble Friend having altered his motion in a very essential manner. Even for the modified proposition, however, his noble Friend had made out no case. The holders of this description of coffee had placed themselves in their present position by an excess of specula-lion, and by taking advantage of a law not originally intended for their benefit.
Viscount Howicksupported the modified proposition of the noble Lord, and thought the case made out was particularly strong as related to coffee actually in bond, which must have been imported before the change in the duty could have been anticipated.
Mr. Humesaid, that the consumer had benefitted by the speculation, although it had been undertaken by private individuals for their own benefit, but he doubted whether the principle ought to be carried out beyond the coffee already in bond.
Mr. Baringcould not understand the distinction that had been endeavoured to be drawn in this case, nor what was the difference in the expense that had been incurred by those parties to that incurred by any other persons under a protective duty. The parties had had two years' notice of the intention of Government to alter the duties.
Sir R. Peel,after stating that it was not on account of his opposition that the bill of the former Government was not proceeded with, said that the parties interested had had two years* notice that the alteration of these duties was under the consideration of Parliament. In the present case, advantage had been taken of the lax manner in which an act of Parliament had been framed, and he saw no ground for making a distinction. He had felt throughout that it would have been impossible to carry this tariff through the House with that general assent which it had received, had there not been a general impression that the Government were disposed to act with equity towards all the interests concerned. The Government had already affected the interests of the stone quarries without notice.
1508
Then on timber no drawback had been given, although the claim of the parties interested was a legitimate one, and the new duties were to come into operation on the 25th of October, which was only three months' notice. The holders of this coffee ought to be dealt with as alt the other parties had been, and on the same general principle. He felt it his duty to adhere to the proposition as originally made, for he did not feel satisfied that in this case any just ground had been made out for exception.
Mr. Kembleregretted, that the Government had opposed the modified proposition of the noble Lord, and contended, that the public had derived benefit from the speculation of the coffee holders.
Viscount Sandon,under the circumstances, felt compelled to divide.
The committee divided, on the question that the words be added to the Schedule. — Ayes 69; Noes 133-.—Majority 64.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Kemble, H.

Aldam, W.

Leader, J. T.

Barclay, D.

Lyall, G.

Blake, M. J.

Mangles, R. D.

Bowring, Dr.

Marsland, H.

Bramston, T. W.

Masterman, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Mitcalfe, H.

Brotherton, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Browne, hon. W.

Morris, D.

Busfeild, W.

Morison, Gen.

Byng, G.

O'Brien, C.

Carew, hon. R. S.

O'Connell, D.

Cobden, R.

O'Connell, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Ord, W.

Divett, E.

Palmer, G.

Douglas, Sir H.

Patten, J. W.

Duncan, G.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, W.

Scholefield, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Stanton, W. H.

Ferguson, Col.

Strutt, E.

Forbes, W.

Thornley, T.

Forster, M.

Tufnell, H.

Gibson, T. M.

Villiers, hon. C.

Granger, T. C.

Walker, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Wallace, R.

Halford, H.

Wawn, J. T.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Wilbraham, hon. R. B.

Henley, J. W.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Wilshere, W.

Howick, Visct.

Wood, B.

Hughes, W. B.

Worsley, Lord

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Sandon, Visct.

Johnston, A.

Philips, M.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P

Antrobus, E,

1509

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Hodgson, R.

Archdall, Capt.

Holmes, hon. W. A' Ct.

Arkwright, G.

Hope, hon. C.

Bailey, J.

Hornby, J.

Baillie, Col.

Howard, Lord

Bankes, G.

Howard, P. H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hussey, T.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Irton, S.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Johnstone, H.

Bateson, R.

Jones, Capt.

Bell, M.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Knight, H. G.

Boldero, H. G.

Knight, F. W.

Botfield. B.

Lambton, H.

Broadley, H.

Langston, J. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Legh, G. C.

Buller, E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lindsay, H. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Litton, E.

Chelsea, Visct.

Lockhart, W.

Chetwode, Sir J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Christopher, R. A.

Mackenzie, T.

Clayton, R. R.

Marsham, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Martin, C. W.

Clive, hn. R. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Morgan, O.

Collett, W. R.

Mundy, E. M.

Copeland, Ald.

Neville, R.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Newry, Visct.

Cresswell, B.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Cripps, W.

Northland, Visct.

Currie, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Damer, hon. Col.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Darby, G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, J.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Philips, G. R.

Duffield, T.

Polhill, F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Pusey, P.

East, J. B.

Richards, R.

Egerton, W T.

Rolleston, Col.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Eliot, Lord

Round, C. G.

Escott, B.

Rundle, J.

Esmonde, Sir. T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Russell, J. D. W.

Filmer, Sir E.

Ryder, hon. G. D,

Fleming, J. W.

Sanderson, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Scott, hon. F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Sheppard T.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Godson, R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Stanley, Lord

Gore, hon. R.

Stewart, J.

Goring, C.

Stuart, H.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Thesiger, F.

Grant, Sir A, C.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Gregory, W. H.

Turnor, C.

Grogan, E.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Vivian, J, E.

Hastie, A.

White, H.

Hawes, B.

Young, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hodgson, F.

Pringle, A.

Duty on coffee agreed to.
On the question that the duty on Tea be 2s. 1d. a lb.
Mr. Lindsayurged the propriety and advantage of a reduction of the duty on an article so rapidly increasing in consumption.
Sir R. Peel,looking at the present position of affairs with China, and at the amount of revenue derived from tea, felt a reluctance to give any assurance on the part of the Government in respect to a reduction of the duty.
Mr. Manglesasked, why the Government did not propose to introduce a differential duty in favour of tea grown in British India?
Sir R. Peelwas unwilling to adopt any step which would hazard the revenue derived from tea, and had some doubt as to the policy of encouraging the growth of Assam tea.
Resolution agreed to.
On the question that a duty of 16s. the cwt. be levied upon Corks squared for rounding,
Mr. T. Duncombeproposed to reduce the duty upon cork imported in this state to 1s.. per cwt.
The committee divided on the question that the blank be filled with 1s.—Ayes 81; Noes 137:—Majority 56.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Gore, hon. R.

Barclay, D.

Granger, T. C.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Grogan, E.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Halford, H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Blake, Sir V.

Hastie, A.

Bowring, Dr.

Hawes, B.

Broadley, H.

Heneage, E.

Brotherton, J.

Henley, J. W.

Browne, hon. W.

Hinde, J. H.

Chapman, B.

Hindley, C.

Christie, W. D.

Hodgson, R.

Clayton, R. R.

Hollond, R.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hume, J.

Colville, C. R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Currie, R.

Leader, J. T.

Curteis, H. B.

Lockhart, W.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Lowther, J. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Mangles, R. D.

Ellis, W.

Marsland, H.

Evans, W.

Martin, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Mitcalfe, H.

Ferguson, Col.

Mitchell, T. A.

Forster, M.

Morris, D.

Gill, T.

Murphy, F. S.

Gordon, Lord F.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Gore, W. O.

O'Brien, W. S, 3C2

1511

Ogle, S. C. H.

Saunton, Sir G. T

Paget, Lord A.

Strutt, E.

Palmer, R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Pechell, Capt.

Taylor, T. E.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Towneley, J.

Ponsonby, hn.C. F. C.

Tufnell, H.

Pryse, P.

Wallace, R.

Redington, T. N.

White, H.

Rundle, J.

Wilbraham, hon. R. B

Russell, Lord J.

Williams, W.

Sandon, Visct.

Worsley, Lord

Scholefield, J.

TELLERS.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Duncombe, T.

Stanton, W. H.

Wood, B.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Adderley, C.

Filmer, Sir E.

Ainsworth, P.

Fleming, J. W.

Allix, J. P.

Ffolliott, J.

Antrobus, E.

Forbes, W.

Archdall, Capt.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Bailey, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Baillie, Col.

Gaskell, J. M.

Bankes, G.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Gladstone, T.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Beresford, Major

Gore, W.R. O.

Bernard, Visct.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Blackburne, J. I.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Boldero, H. G.

Granby, Marquess of

Botfield, B.

Gregory, W. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Grimsditch, T.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grimston, Visct.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Buckley, E.

Hawkes, T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Cardwell, E.

Herbert, hon. S.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hervey, Lord A.

Chetwode. Sir J.

Hodgson, F.

Childers, J. W.

Hornby, J.

Christopher, R. A.

Howard, P. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hughes, W. B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hussey, T.

Cochrane, A.

Hutt, W.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Copeland, Ald.

Irton, S.

Corry, right hon. H.

Jermyn, Earl

Courtenay, Lord

Jones, Capt.

Cripps, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Damer, hon. Col.

Knight, F. W.

Darby, G.

Legh, G. C.

Denison, E. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Divett, E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Douglas, J. D. S.

Lindsay, H. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Litton, E.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duncombe, hon. O.

M'Geachy, F. A.

East, J. B.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Manners, Lord J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Marsham, Visct.

Eliot, Lord

Martin, C. W.

Escott, B.

Meynell, Capt.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Miles, P. W. S.

Fellowes, E.

Morgan, O.

1512

Neeld, J.

Shirley, E. J,

Newry, Visct.

Somerset, Lord, G.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Stanley, Lord

Pakington, J. S.

Stewart, J.

Patten, J. W.

Stuart, H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Sturt, H. C.

Peel, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Taylor, J. A.

Polhill, F.

Thesiger, F.

Pollock, Sir F.

Thompson, M. Ald.

Pringle, A.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Turnor, C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Waddington, H. S.

Russell, J. D. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Whitmore, T. C.

Sanderson, R.

Young, J.

Scott, hon. F.

TELLERS.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Baring, H.

Sheppard, T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

On the proposal that Straw hats or bonnets imported into this country should pay a duty of 8s. 6d. the lb.
Dr. Bowringthought, that they ought as much as possible to extend their commercial relations with Tuscany, and as he had reason to believe from statements made to him, that the proposed duty would amount to 35 per cent, he hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would consent in this case to the application, on the principle which he had laid down of an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent. He begged, therefore, to propose that an ad valorem duty of 20 per cent be substituted instead of the proposed duty of 8s. 6d. per lb. on straw hats, and of 7s. 6d. on straw platting.
Mr. Humeseconded the motion.
Mr. W. Gladstoneacknowledged, that it was of great importance to encourage their commercial relations with Tuscany, but he did not think the Government of Tuscany would be dissatisfied with the change now proposed.
Amendment negatived.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—I& #x00AA. Witnesses Indemnity; Slave Trade Abolition (Argentine Confederation); Slave Trade Suppression (Hayti); Slave Trade Treaties.
2ª. Peerage Pedigree Evidence; Testimony Perpetuating.
Private.—1ª. Britwell Salome Inclosure; Kilmington Inclosure; Lord Southampton's Estate.
2ª. Burntisland and Granton Pier and Ferry.
Reported. — Brewood Free Grammar School; Lincoln Roads; St. Pancras Improvement; Ely Place Improvement; Camberwell and Peekham Lighting; Boston Harbour (No, 2).
3ª. and passed:—Great North of England Railway; Hawke's Divorce; Boston Harbour (No. 3); Brentford Gas.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Traders in the Strand and its neighbourhood, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Metropolitan Bridges.—From the Stewartry of Kircudbright, against the Income-tax.— —From Ballmaclash, and Rathdrum, for the adoption of a new plan of Education in Ireland.—By the Bishop of Bangor, from the Rural Deanery of Arllechwedd, for the Repeal of that part of the Act which provides for the Union of the Sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.—From the Lord Provost and Town-council of Edinburgh, against the Granton and Burntisland Pier and Ferry Bill.

THE GOLD COIN.
Lord Beaumontwished to ask the noble Lord the President of the Council, whether it were the intention of her Majesty's Government to take any steps to alleviate the inconvenience and alarm occasioned by the recent proclamation with regard to the gold coin of this country? This inconvenience was chiefly experienced by the holders of the gold coin of the reigns of George 3rd. and George

1467
4th., but those were coins with which no tricks had been played, which had not been plugged nor sweated, but which by reason of long use and circulation had become light. The persons who chiefly suffered from the existing difficulties which were experienced in procuring the value of light coin were those who, by reason of their small means, were unable to collect a large amount of money, 50 l. being the smallest sum which the Bank of England undertook to purchase, and they were compelled to resort to common tradesmen who charged a much larger percentage than was just.
Lord Wharncliffewas glad that his noble Friend had put this question to him, and had thus enabled him to make a communication to the House which he thought would relieve the public of a great deal of anxiety and apprehension upon this subject. He was aware that the charges made for exchanging the light sovereigns, many of which were in circulation, were in some instances monstrous, and he had been informed that in some instances as much as 1s. was charged upon each sovereign changed. He was happy to be able to inform the House, that it had been found on an average that the loss upon the gold coin sent into the Bank of England did not exceed 1½ or 2 per cent. He was glad to say, that the Government were taking measures, and were in communication with various public boards, in order to give greater facility for the exchanging of light coin, both in London and the country.
The Duke of Clevelandhad heard of many cases of very serious inconvenience which had resulted from the system at present in force, and he believed that, unless some measures were taken to remedy the evil, inextricable 'confusion would result. The actual deficiency in the sovereign in many cases did not arise from any unfair practices having been resorted to, but from the weight of metal being lessened by use and wear and tear. It was extremely hard, therefore, that the public should, where such was the case, be subjected to such deductions.

INDEMNITY OF WITNESSES.
Lord Broughamsaid, that there was a bill brought up to their Lordship's House from the House of Commons to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships. At present, however, he should do no more than say, that the bill was the sane which had
1468
before been introduced into that House, but a part of which had been omitted, in his opinion very considerably to the detriment of the efficacy of the general measure. It was, nevertheless, highly desirable that their Lordships should on no account hesitate to pass the measure, and he should to-morrow move that the Standing Orders be suspended, in order that it might plainly appear that there was no impediment, no obstacle, presented by their Lordships, but every facility afforded by them, for the conduct of the inquiries necessary to be made into the late alleged acts of bribery.
Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND).
Lord Campbellrose, in pursuance of notice, to submit to the notice of the House the circumstances which took place on the trial of James Henry, at the late Spring Assizes for the county of Stirling, respecting the examination of William Simpson, as witness, as to his religious opinions. It was a subject of the greatest importance to the liberty of conscience, and the due administration of justice. If there had been no departure from the law of Scotland on the occasion to which he referred, it would be indispensably necessary for their Lordships, in their legislative capacity, to remedy the law. But on this subject their Lordships judicially had no jurisdiction. The determination of the courts of Scotland was final and conclusive. Not only the High Court of Justiciary, but if any of the circuit courts gave a decision, unless the point was specially reserved, that decision was final. He would first lay before their Lordships the facts as they occurred on the trial, according to the most authentic information he bad been able to obtain, and he believed that information might be entirely relied upon. A person of the name of Samuel Henry was indicted for an assault on a constable in the discharge of his duty. The constable's name was William Simpson. The man was likewise indicted for a common assault upon a person of the name of Smart, and the only witness who could prove the assault upon Simpson was Simpson himself. He was accordingly called as a witness on the part of the prosecution. An objection was made to Simpson being a witness, which, if duly established, was certainly a good objection. An oath, was necessary before a witness

1469
could give his evidence, and an oath could be of no binding authority unless the party taking it believed in the existence of an overruling Providence. The evidence of Simpson was objected to on the ground that he was an Atheist, and if this objection had been properly established the witness must have been rejected. But what was the proper mode of taking that objection? How was the objection to be ascertained? By the examination of the witness himself upon his belief. Instead, however, of that course being pursued, Simpson was at once put on his trial for blasphemy. Without one question being put to him, four witnesses were successively examined to prove that he had made statements which, if true, were very much to be condemned, as to his not believing in a God—as to his not believing in the Christian Revelation—as to some doctrines of the Church of England and the church of Scotland, and also respecting his having in his possession some books of Volney and Voltaire. These four witnesses made statements of which he had had no notice, and which he could not be expected by the help of other testimony to rebut or contradict. The witness was himself afterwards examined. He then declared that he believed in the existence of a God, in a future state of rewards and punishments, in a God by whom he was created, and to whom he was accountable. The oath was then administered to him, and he ought to have been examined in causâ. Instead of that, however, he was again examined with the sanction of the judge, as to his religious opinions; and in answer to the questions put to him, he again stated that he believed in the existence of God, in a future state of rewards and punishments, and in Divine Revelation. He stated, in addition, that he went to church regularly, but that he did not partake of the holy communion because he was under scandal; that is to say, that he had committed some irregularity for which he had not made the necessary atonement. He stated, however, that if that scandal were removed. he should very gladly partake again of the rites of the church. He denied that he had in his possession the works of Volney or Voltaire. The examination was then undertaken by the judge himself. But that judge, instead of protecting the witness, though no doubt the judge believed he was acting according to the law of Scotland, and with the most conscientious feeling, asked him if he belived in the scheme of Christianity
1470
as disclosed in the Scriptures? He said he did. The judge was not satisfied, bat asked him if he believed in the doctrine of the Atonement? The witness said that he did. He then said that he did not believe in the whole of the Scriptures. The judge having asked him in what part of the Scriptures he did not believe, he replied that there were parts of them which he could not comprehend. After that examination, the judge did not, as had been stated in the public journals, reject the evidence of the witness, but he did what was more fatal to his reputation—he intimated an opinion that, under the circumstances, the witness could not be believed, and he recommended the counsel for the prosecution not to proceed to examine him. The Advocate-Depute adopted the suggestion of the judge; that part of the prosecution which was to be supported by his testimony was withdrawn, and the prosecution was proceeded with only as regarded the assault upon Smart. Now he found fault with the proceedings thus taken, in three main particulars. He complained, first, that extraneous evidence was given respecting the religious belief of the witness; secondly, that the witness himself was not examined in the first instance; and, thirdly, that the judge, instead of rejecting or admitting the evidence, had taken upon himself to intimate that the witness could not be believed. He had taken considerable pains to ascertain what was the law of Scotland upon the subject of the reception of evidence, under such circumstances as he had detailed. So far as he could learn, the law of Scotland upon the subject coincided with the law of this country, and ought to be the law of every civilized country. He believed that according to the law of Scotland, as well as according to the law of this country, the evidence as to the belief of a witness ought to be confined to the examination of the party himself. The question to be determined was, not what the witness believed in past times, but what he believed at the time of his examination. If he had entertained the most heterodox and sceptical opinions at any past time, this would not have disqualified him if he had come at last to a right understanding. Then who could tell what his belief was at this time, except himself? If any evidence was to be received upon that point, all must be taken, and a malicious party, against whom a respectable and unexceptionable witness might be called, might produce evidence

1471
of what the witness had said forty or fifty years before, which might be true or might be false, and which, if true, the opinion had been long since changed, and which, if false, he would have no power of disproving. For these reasons he believed the law of Scotland, and certainly the law of Eng- land, had made it the invariable practice, with regard to questions of religious belief, to confine the examination to the party. who was to be a witness. He was now speaking in the presence of judges of great learning and experience, and he appealed to them whether they knew of any instance in their practice, either in Westminster Hall, or on circuit, where witnesses were called to prove the religious belief of the party about to give evidence. It was laid down in a book of great authority, Phillips on Evidence, that
"The only means of ascertaining the competency of a witness, with reference to his religious principles, was by examining the party himself."
During all his time, and under every chief justice from Lord Kenyon down to his noble Friend who now presided with such advantage to the country over the Court of Queen's Bench, any attempt to do more had been invariably discountenanced. What was done in the present case? W. Simpson was called, and instead of being asked whether he had a belief in the Godhead and a future state of rewards and punishments, was at once, and in a moment, put upon his own trial for blasphemy. Their Lordships were aware of the extreme caution of the law of Scotland to enable a party to prepare for his trial. He must for forty days have a copy of the indictment, and a list of all the witnesses. Here, however, this witness was put upon his trial, for an offence which, if he were guilty, would render him, not only in his own country, but all over the world, altogether in famous. Here the party had no notice of his trial, and four witnesses were examined, who were asked whether he had not denied the doctrine of the Trinity? — whether he had not spoken irreverently of the Holy Scriptures? —and whether he had not lent one witness (named Ray) a copy of Volney and Voltaire? Not only was this contrary to the existing law in this country, but contrary to the law of all countries in which due attention was paid to the character of witnesses, such was the care taken in England of the character of witnesses, that if a witness were
1472
asked whether he had committed any offence, or whether he had not said something, if he denied the truth of the charge no evidence could be called upon it. And did not all the reasoning on which this case was founded apply, it fortiori, with regard to the religious opinions of a witness, who ought himself alone to be examined, and his examination ought to be taken as conclusive? He now came to another matter, which was if possible more serious, in reference to the examination that took place with regard to the religious opinions of the witness. If this examination were according to the law of Scotland, there was nothing like it in Europe since the inquisition; for witnesses were called, not only to prove the belief as to the being of a God, and also a future state of rewards and punishments, but also as to all his peculiar doctrines on disputed points of theology. He held that this examination was wholly unnecessary} and if it were unnecessary it was entirely wrong. The court must ascertain whether an oath is binding on the conscience of a witness, and the proper mode of administering an oath that would be binding, but beyond that the judge ought not to proceed. As it was laid down upon a great heathen authority.—
"Nullum vinculum stringendam fidem jurejurando arctius,"
An appeal to the Supreme Being was not only justifiable but necessary. It was an appeal calling the Deity to witness; and to know whether a witness believed in him, and that he enjoined truth and prohibited falsehood, was required; but if this examination were to be extended, a witness would have to state, not merely that he believed in the Christian religion, but whether he was a Calvinist or an Ar-minian—a Unitarian, Trinitarian, or So-cinian—a Tractarian or Puseyite; or whether he disliked the doctrine which was now so much in vogue. It was laid down, not only in England, but in Scotland, that a person need not even be a Christian to be examined. By the English law a Jew might be sworn by Jehovah upon the Old Testament; a Turk might be sworn on the Alcoran, and so was a Gentoo on his own mode of oath, so that it was binding upon his conscience, as it had been held by Lord Hard wick, who called to his assistance the different chief justices. Since that period every one might be examined on taking the oath most binding on his

1473
conscience. On reference to the authorities he found the law laid down so far back as the year 1712, in the case of Menzies v. Morrison: —
" It being objected against a Jew, who was adduced as a witness in a cause, that Jews bear a rooted hatred against all Christians; the Lords thought, that if a Jew were a witness in a cause betwixt a Christian and a Jew, there might be reason in that case to suspect him; but it being betwixt two Christians, his disowning Jesus Christ for the Messias did no more incapacitate him than it would do a Socinian, our formula jurandi mentioning only God in the general; and though a Jew did not swear on the New Testament, yet he will swear by Jehovah or the law of Moses. Nay, which is more, a Turk or a Pagan is capable, for in Captain Green's case of piracy, two heathen boys were admitted; and if in criminal, why not in civil cases? It was also remembered that the Queen had knighted Sir Solomon de Medina, a Jew, and if capable of honours, why not of bearing testimony? And we allow Quakers to declare in their own way; the Lords, therefore, admitted him sine nota."
And in the case afterwards, in 1770, of Nicholson v. Nicholson, it was said,—
" A negro slave, not a Christian, but who believed in a God and a future state, was admitted as a witness in a civil case, and this was affirmed on appeal"
By the House of Lords. It was laid down by Bankton, b. iv., s. 30, that—
" An Atheist-infidel cannot be a witness, but a Jew or a Mahometan may, because he owns the being of God, to whom alone appeal is made in an oath. And, therefore, if one declares his acknowledgment of God, the objection is removed, though he does not believe the blessed Trinity of persons, or even denies revealed religion."
And Burnet, p. 395, said,—
"A witness is not set aside because he is not of the Christian persuasion. If he believe in a Supreme Being, and understand the obligation of a solemn appeal to the Deity, he will be admitted to give evidence after making such appeal."
" It is now held," (said Tait on Evidence, p. 347,) "although less liberal ideas seem to have been at one time entertained, that all persons are admissible as witnesses, whatever their religious principles may be, provided they believe in a God and a future state of retribution, in which falsehood will be punished."
And since that period all other examinations into the character of a witness was overruled. In the case of the King v. Taylor, in 1790, Peake, p. 11, in a trial
1474
which took place before that eminent judge, Mr. Justice Buller, he stopped the examination as to particular religious opinions, and asked him,—
" Whether he believed in God, the obligation of an oath, and a future state of rewards and punishments?"
The witness answered in the affirmative, and was admitted. The late Lord Chief Justice, Lord Tenterden, then Mr. Chief Justice Abbott, in the year 1S20, in the Queen's case, laid down the law, saying,—
"I conceive that if a witness says he considers the oath as binding on his conscience, he does in effect affirm that, in taking that oath, he has called his God to witness that what he shall say will be the truth, and that he has imprecated the Divine vengeance if what he shall afterwards say is false; and having done that, it is perfectly unnecessary and irrelevant to ask any further questions."
All the authorities had subsequently adopted this as the law; and Philips, p. 910, in his work on evidence, to which he had already referred, thus summed up the rule: —
"If such issues were permitted, judicial investigations would be interminable; the expense might be enormous; and the character of persons called as witnesses might be unjustly assailed by evidence which they would not be prepared to reps',"
" The proper mode," (he said,)" of examination for this purpose, is not to question the witness as to his particular religious opinion:-, but to inquire generally whether he believes in the existence of a God and in a future state. "
If that were the rule, how had it been acted upon in the case to which he had referred? The witness had declared his solemn belief in the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments; and further, that he was accountable to that God which had created him. He was asked also, not only whether he believed in divine revelation, but his opinion with regard to disputed points of Christian theology. The judge himself had asked him if he believed in the Atonement, and questioned him as to the particular parts of the New Testament which he did not believe. Four witnesses were called, who were asked whether he had not denied the Trinity, and whether he had not in his possession books which were said to be profane, written by Volney and Voltaire. If this precedent were suffered to remain, and if it were to be acted upon, in what situation would a person be who was subpœnaed to give evidence in a court

1475
of justice? In the first place, he would have to be examined himself as to any doubts he might have entertained at any former period of his life. Their Lordships must recollect that some of the most conscientious members of the Church of England had at some periods of their lives doubted; that some had even gone over to the church of Rome; and then, having repented of their errors, had come back to the church in which they had been baptized. Was a person who had been subpoenaed to dread an examination into all the doubts he had entertained and into all he had said at a period of time long passed? Let them take the case of the greatest philosopher— the most profound reasoner, Sir Isaac Newton himself. It was well known that, he held peculiar doctrines as to some points of Christian theology: ought he to have been examined as to his part in Arian controversy? It would be committing a most monstrous injustice if such questions were allowed to be asked. But let them see how the mischief would be aggravated if they were to examine witnesses as to what had been said upon this point or other points at any former period of the witness's life. If the evidence were true ought such facts to be revealed, and blazoned, and discussed in a court of justice? Suppose a Prelate of great piety and learning, who was an ornament to his church, should be called as a witness, should it be permitted for any malicious person to give evidence of what he had said in his schoolboy or college days? They must receive all evidence if they receive any, and was there not great danger that false evidence would be brought? How could a person be prepared to refute and contradict on the instant a perjured witness, brought to swear most distinctly to supposed facts? Would they not possibly thus lose the evidence of a most pious roan, and an ornament to society? The English law, therefore, wisely said that a witness was to give his own account of his opinions, and that his statement was to be received as conclusive; because he could not be called upon to vindicate every act of his former life, and could not be prepared on the instant to produce evidence to contradict false testimony. If such examinations were allowed, the trial would be infinite., The party might call witnesses to prove that the witnesses against himself were wholly irreligious, and so they might go on, witness to witness, into an endless examination. For these reasons, the law
1476
said, that this evidence should not be permitted, and most melancholy would it be to see any further attempt made to change it. The witness Simpson was asked if he had Volney and Voltaire in his library? He denied that he had; but supposing that he had admitted the fact. They were works full of error, but it did not follow, because a man had them in his library that he believed the doctrines they inculcated. All would recollect the time of Algernon Sydney, who was illegally convicted because he had in his closet a manuscript work on the Government, which no eye had seen but his own. Another instance not so well known was quite apposite. It occurred on the trial of Archbishop Laud. One of the articles exhibited against him was that he had favoured the Papists, and that he had in his possession the Papist liturgies, and other works on the Romish faith. His anwer was,
"True, I have such books in my library, and I have them to refute the errors of Popery, and to reclaim to the Church of England those who have erred. Moreover, I have the Greek liturgy, and I have a dozen copies of the Alcoran, which I have deliberately read; and shall it be said that because I have the Alcoran in my possession. I am a Mahometan? "
What right had they to ask the contents of this man's library? and how could they draw a fair inference that he was an infidel even if he had possessed that which he denied, the works of Volney and Voltaire? He now came to what he considered the third deviation from correctness in this trial. He had heard it said, that the objection was removed, if it was shown that Simpson was not rejected as a witness, and because the Lord Justice Clerk had only intimated to the counsel for the Crown that he ought not to press for a conviction. He considered that that was the worst part of the case. If the judge had found, that the rule of law was imperative, and that the evidence could not be received, he was bound to reject the witness; no stigma would then have been fixed on the witness. He apprehended, that the office of the judge was to determine whether the witness were competent or not; and if he were competent, it was the office of the jury to determine whether he were entitled to credit. After stating that he was a member of the Church, and would participate in the Lord's Supper if he could, an intimation was given by the judge to the counsel that, as the witness could not be believed, it would be better not to press the charge.

1477
William Simpson must, therefore, have been considered guilty of blasphemy, and from the religious feelings of his native county, which he honoured and respected, when W. Simpson retired into the country, he would be considered a degraded and disgraced man, and when he died, it would be thought that he ought to be buried in the sand of the sea shore. He had seen it stated, in a forced argument on this subject, that the witness had a remedy, because he might bring actions against the four witnesses if they had given false evidence. These four witnesses ought never to have been examined, and as they spoke to conversations with Simpson, he was wholly without evidence to contradict—he was without any remedy, and must submit to the degradation and infamy that rested upon him. He humbly argued, that the judges ought to have determined either that the evidence of the witness could not be received according to the law of Scotland, in which case the law would have been to blame, or they ought to have permitted him to be examined, and have left it for the consideration of the jury whether he was to be believed. Neither course had been followed, but a recommendation was made to the Advocate-Depute, a young gentleman who could not be supposed to be willing to resist the recommendation of the learned judge. This part of the case was withdrawn, and Simpson retired from the court as a person on whose oath there could not be the slightest reliance. It might be thought, that the mode of proceeding tended to promote religion. His humble opinion was, that it had a directly contrary tendency, and that on every account it ought to be condemned. It was not by this mode of proceeding that they could punish the individual entertaining heteredox opinions. Let them see by this rejection what injury they did to the parties deprived of the evidence. Their Lordships might experience it— they might have evidence rejected with regard to the execution of a will, because the opinions of one of the witnesses were not orthodox. Again, in another case, was a murderer to be allowed to give evidence to cause a witness to be rejected— that the murderer might escape with impunity? It seemed to him, on every account, to be of the last importance that this, which he would call a great constitutional question, should be settled. According to the best inquiries which he had been able to make, he did not believe that this was the law of Scotland; but if it
1478
were the law of that country, it was a defective law, and ought, as soon as possible, to be removed. He would conclude by moving for a copy of the record of the last assizes for the circuit of Stirling, on the trial of James Henry for an assault upon William Simpson. He confessed, however, that his main object was to obtain the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whether this were the law of Scotland; for if it were the law, he would give notice of a bill by which it should be altered. He wished to cast no blame upon the judge. If he had erred, it was through mistaken views of the law; but that he had erred was his decided opinion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the motion with which his noble and learned Friend had concluded, was quite irregular. It was, indeed, in the extremest degree irregular. The noble Lord had given no notice of the motion. It was not his intention to follow the noble and learned Lord into his discursive comments on the law of evidence in England. He acceded to everything the noble and learned Lord had stated; there was no doubt about it. They were not, however, speaking of the law of England— they were now referring to the law of Scotland, and the question, and the only question was, what was the law of Scotland on this point? He much regretted the course which his noble and learned Friend had pursued. If his noble and learned Friend had reason, or thought he had reason to complain of the law of Scotland, he was perfectly capable by giving notice of a motion, or a resolution, or by introducing a bill, to apply a remedy. If, on the other band, his noble and learned Friend complained of the administration of the law, he ought not to have acted upon light rumour— he ought to have communicated directly with the learned judges themselves. The course which his noble and learned Friend had taken was calculated in the highest degree to impair the due administration of justice. It was not his noble and learned Friend's intention to make any motion as to the conduct or character of the learned judges; but, without having that view, he had brought their conduct and character under consideration for the purpose of subjecting them to comment and controversy in that House. The statement made by the noble and learned Lord he would undertake to say, upon the authority of the learned judge presiding at this trial, was wholly unfounded, and without any warrant whatever. He should

1479
not discharge his duty to the learned judge of Scotland, and to the Lord Justice Clerk, who presided at the trial, without stating shortly and concisely what the circumstances of the case were. Their Lordships would see, after that statement, that there was no reason for the extraordinary, perverted, and exaggerated statement of his noble and learned Friend. Two learned judges had presided on that occasion— one of those judges had been in practice at the bar in Scotland, with great reputation and credit to himself, for a long series of years. He had held the office of Solicitor-general for fourteen or fifteen years— he was more practised in the criminal law of Scotland than any individual now living. The other judge was Lord Medwin, a person of great learning and of irreproachable character, who had sat upon the bench administering justice for many years. Was it likely that two such individuals should mistake the law which they were administering in so important a case? Was it probable that the statement of his noble and learned Friend could be correct? The case was a prosecution for an assault— the witness called to prove that the defendant had committed the assault was the chief constable of Kinross. It was objected by the counsel, on the part of the prisoner, that he was not a competent witness, because he did not believe in the existence of a Deity, or in a future state of rewards and punishments. That, his noble and learned Friend had said, was a good and valid objection to the competency of a witness according to the law of England. That objection was admitted to be valid by the judges, and the counsel for the prisoner proceeded to do that which he stated, on the authority of the learned judges themselves, was according to the Jaw of Scotland, and according to the practice of the courts there—the counsel for the prisoner called witnesses. If the Lord Justice Clerk and the other learned Lords were satistied that this was the law of Scotland, what right had they to prevent this examination? Two witnesses were sworn, who deposed to the fact of conversations with the prosecutor, in which he had not only denied the existence of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, but had endeavoured to inculcate these doctrines upon the witnesses themselves, who were young men little more than twenty years of age. Two other witnesses were called who did not state the same facts, and, as their Lordships
1480
knew it was extremely difficult to prevent witnesses, in such examinations from stating facts not immediately relevant to the objection, and not in strictness referable to it. The counsel for the prisoner, Mr. Logan, had conducted the examination with great propriety. He had endeavoured to exclude everything which was not strictly in point, and both the learned judges had interfered for the same purpose, but had felt the difficulty of so restraining the witnesses as to prevent circumstances from coming out, which in strictness were not applicable to the immediate subject matter of inquiry. It had come out that the prosecutor ridiculed the Christian religion— spoke contemptuously of the person of our Saviour— and had used other expressions too shocking for him to repeat there or anywhere, and unfit for the public ear. What was the course then taken by the judges? It was directly opposite to that stated by his noble and learned Friend. The counsel for the Crown insisted upon cross-examining these witnesses. He had a perfect right to do so; but the learned judges did that which by the law of Scotland they were bound to do — the oath was administered. It was preceded by the question, "Do you believe in the Deity, and in a future state of rewards and punishments?" The answer was, "I do." The oath was administered, and the party was examined as a witness by the Advocate Depute. Not one question was put by the judges— the whole examination was conducted by the Advocate Depute. The judges had no right to interfere— it would have been improper for them to do so; but in the course of the examination, when the inquiry was made whether the party was willing to communicate, the Lord Justice Clerk did observe, "Surely you do not mean to communicate, when you do not believe those passages of Scripture which relate to the life of Christ?" The witness hesitated a moment, and then said, "I do not understand." The learned judges then consulted together, and were of opinion that the objection to the competence of the witness should be over-ruled. Such, however, was the impression of the judges, and he believed upon every one present in court, that one of the judges did say to the counsel for the Crown, "Do you press this case?" The Advocate Depute said, "I have already made up my mind not to do so." Other evidence was given against the prisoner for another assault, and he was convicted. That was

1481
the real case. There was no examination by the judge. The judges presided whose names he had mentioned, and when he mentioned their names he was sure that every one would pay the greatest respect to them, and they concurred in their statement of the proceeding. If the law of Scotland, taking the facts from the judges, was such as he had stated, was there any blame to be imputed to the judges? He was sure their Lordships would say there was not. They had acted in conformity to their duty, and to what they considered to be the law of Scotland. It was the law of Scotland; and were their Lordships to sit there to hear appeals against the administration of that law? As the noble and learned Lord entertained some doubt as to what the law of Scotland was, he had under the hands of the learned judges a statement of what the law of Scotland was—of the practice under the law, and various arguments in its support. He would not enter upon that question—he would not enter into a consideration whether the law of England or the law of Scotland were better in criminal or civil matters—he would not permit himself to have his attention withdrawn from what he considered to be an attack upon the learned judges, which ought not to have been made without a communication to those learned individuals, and if there had been any communication, he was satisfied that the subject would never have been brought forward in that House. It was the law of Scotland. He found it so laid down by Stair and by Erskine, but he would not enter upon that, because he would not argue as to the law. It was not competent for him to say, that the authorities were not correct. The Lord Justice Clerk stated, that this was the law of Scotland, and that it always was so; and Lord Medwin asserted that it had been the law throughout the whole of his career: nay more, he had the authority to the same effect of the present Lord President, who had presided so many years over the highest criminal court in Scot land-— the High Court of Justiciary. Then what was the charge against these individuals? A person was brought to trial, an objection was made, which they were bound to investigate; and how was it made? It was made according to the law of Scotland. The judges stated it now to be the law. He would not be driven into an argument ad inconvenientem as to whether this law was bad, or whether it ought to be altered. If his noble and learned Friend
1482
would bring in the measure which he had threatened, he would consider the merits of the two systems. He had not, in the present case, considered them, because such a consideration would not be in accordance with his views of the present discussion. When any bill was before the House, he would consult the eminent lawyers of Scotland. He would contrast their opinions with the opinions of those who advocated the law of England, and he would then say whether he would support a change. But this was for the future. All he would now say was, that no imputation rested upon the character of these learned judges. He would put it to his noble and learned Friend himself—recollecting that he had recently held a high judicial situation— that he might be again called upon to fill one equally high—whether, without any communication with these learned judges, their conduct ought to be brought forward for attack, and through his noble and learned Friend, for he was not the authority, such charges should be made for the purpose of calumniating and attacking these eminent individuals.
Lord Denmanwould bear testimony to the correctness of what his noble and learned Friend had said with respect to the law of England. The practice of Westminster Hall, in which he had been not a few years, independently of the time he had occupied a judicial situation, had been uniform. These questions were not put to any other individual than the witness himself; there was no other authority appealed to than his own account. With regard to which course was best, the subject was not then under discussion, but he thought that the English mode of proceeding had been founded, in a great degree, on the strong sense which the judges entertained of the great inconvenience of discussion upon these points; of the impropriety of having religious doctrines buffetted about in courts of justice; and of the extreme scandal which might arise from such a course. He would not venture to give an opinion as to what the law of Scotland was, or as to what the law ought to be; but with regard to the law of evidence generally, it would hardly be thought that a rule was right in one country which was not admitted generally to be right in all. If the law in this country were admitted to be right, it would be well worthy of consideration whether they
should not revise a law by which an indi-

1483
vidual, coming as a witness to inculpate others, might be suddenly put upon his own trial.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the law of England had been correctly stated by his noble and learned Friend; but this was the case of judges sitting in Scotch courts, who were bound to proceed according to the law of Scotland.
Lord Abingerdid not think that he was called upon to state his opinion at the present time as to what was the law of England. He had his opinion upon that subject, though he did not believe himself to be then called upon to state it; but he did venture to state to their Lordships his opinion that they ought not to assent to the passing of any censure upon the Scottish or Irish judges merely for some miscarriage, as they found it stated in the newspapers. Their Lordships sat in that House for two purposes; they sat as a legislative body, and they sat also judicially to hear appeals. If this were to be the subject of an appeal, that would be the right time to consider it. They might be called upon to join in an address to remove these judges, and what would be the situation in which they would be placed if, when they were so called upon, they had already passed a vote of censure? The judges of Scotland and Ireland would not be fairly dealt with if they were to be censured upon some representation in the newspapers, or on some private communication made to a noble Lord. Whether those judges were right or not, he would not then determine or debate; he would only enter his protest against a practice which was becoming too common in that and the other House of Parliament, of attacking individuals who were not present to defend themselves. What right had they to pass a censure on these judges? Any coffee-house politician might do that. They did not sit in that House as a debating society to pass censure here and there. Till the bill announced by the noble Lord were before the House, he would not even consider whether the law was right or wrong, he would merely protest against these discussions.
Lord Broughamwholly differed from his noble and learned Friend, for he did not think that any charge was made against the judges. His noble and learned Friend near him had merely stated, that his opinion leant against the practice and the course taken at the Scotch trial; and
1484
he had stated, that if this was the law, and if the course taken were according to the law, his noble and learned Friend gave a general notice of his intention to proceed legislatively for the purpose of altering the law. There was no one who was disposed to hold higher than he the sacredness of the judicial office, there was no man who had more constantly and habitually discountenanced any light attacks upon a judicial tribunal, and he would have been the first to reprobate the course of his noble and learned Friend, if he considered that he had attacked the judges who had tried the cause. He held that their conduct stood unimpeached and also unassailed upon the present occasion. They had not mistaken the law, they had not miscarried; their Lordships had had it declared, that the law was in conformity with this proceeding. Of the law of England there was no doubt, all were agreed upon that; they might have a preference for this law over the law of Scotland, but that was not now the question. Their Lordships had the deliberate statement by the judges who had presided at the trial of what the law was, and they had appealed to their brethren on the bench, who were out of the scope of the present inquiry, who agreed in stating, that they had rightly apprehended the law, and truly and properly administered it. This was the opinion of the Lord President, who for thirty years had presided in the High Court of Justiciary. He spoke with great doubt when he hesitated to think that this was the law of Scotland, because he had necessarily had no experience of what the law was, because there was no appeal to that House from Scotland in matters criminal. Their Lordships were supreme in matters civil, but in the criminal law they had no jurisdiction. His doubt would arise because the practice might not be clearly defined, the objections might be so rarely made, that they could hardly have formed a precedent, and the practice was totally irreconcileable with his ideas of what the course of proceeding ought to be, arising probably from his own practice: but even if there was any foundation for his doubt, even if the law were not so clear as it had been declared to be, he would only observe, in fairness to the judges, that the counsel for the prisoner tendered the witnesses. Whose place was it to object to this evidence? The counsel for the Crown? The coun-

1485
sel for the Crown had allowed the examination to pass as a matter, of course. Therefore, if the law was to the contrary —at all events, if the matter only remained doubtful, and if, upon the whole, reconsidering their judgment, they should consider that there had been a miscarriage, anything less venial than to allow the examination to proceed, when there was no objection, he could not conceive. Not only was nothing affixed to the conduct of the judges, but they were not assailed. No blame attached to them from the beginning to the end. If, on further inquiry, the law of Scotland should be found so different from our own, as no doubt it would, it would be time to consider whether an alteration in that law was not advisable. When the proper time came he was ready to give this subject his best attention—that great attention which it deserved from the high interests involved, and the great delicacy which he freely admitted there was in adopting a proposition for an alteration of the established law of Scotland. He recollected that when he was abroad some years ago with a learned Friend presiding in one of our courts, he was struck, on attending a trial, to find that though a child, who did not understand the obligation of an oath, could not be examined; yet the evidence of two adults was received, to whom the child had told her story not upon oath. He, with the full authority of Lord Ellen-borough, had made a representation, which he hoped had, ere this, led to an alteration of the law. It was not many years before, that the law of England was thought to assimilate to this very state. In the year 1779, Mr. Justice Buller, on a trial for a rape on a child seven years of age, who could not be examined, had admitted the evidence of the mother and another adult, who had heard in conversation with the child the facts, and a conviction was had upon that evidence. It was true, that upon the matter afterwards coming before the twelve judges they were unanimously of opinion, that the conviction ought not to have been had, and a free pardon was granted. This showed the danger of saying that anything was not the law of Scotland because it was different from our own. It also showed the danger of stating, that our own was so much better a system than any other. He had only to add his satisfaction that the result of that inquiry would be to
1486
place, not only beyond assault, but also beyond the possibility of suspicion, these learned judges; and if upon inquiry the law should be found in the state in which he had no doubt upon their authority it would be found, he would willingly consider whether a law to which he was not prepared to give any approbation, should continue.
Lord Campbelldid not regret that he had brought forward the subject, not withstanding the remarks of the noble and learned Lord. It was gratifying to find that all the noble and learned Lords who had spoken had agreed as to what the law in England was, and although the noble and learned Chief Baron had declined to give his opinion of the law, he had not stated, that the other noble Lords were in error, or expressed any doubt of the correctness of their statements. He could not say with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), that he considered the law of Scotland to be as laid down by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, on the authority of the judges of Scotland. He had used his own reason and research to find out what the law of Scotland was. He sat four days in the week by the side of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), to hear appeals from the courts in Scotland, and he had again and again agreed with his noble and learned Friend in overruling the decisions of the Court of Session, ay, and that too when the judges had been unanimous in favour of that decision. It was upon no light ground that he said so, but he must declare, that his opinion was, that those two learned judges were mistaken. He had read Bankton, and he had read Stair, and he found no authority, no text, no report, of any decision which would justify any such law as had been delivered by those learned judges. But he did not speak from his own researches only; he had inquired from those who had great experience in the law of Scotland, and they had told him, that the proceeding at the trial in question was quite new, and had caused the greatest surprise and consternation.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that in justice to the learned judges he must repeat, that it was difficult to restrain the witnesses from stating things that had no direct bearing on the case before the court, and that the judges were constantly obliged to interpose to stop them. Mr. Logan, who

1487
was counsel for the prisoner, did the same.
Lord Campbellwould ask their Lord ships whether it was likely, that without any question being put, the witness (Mr. Simpson) would say, that he believed in the Atonement, and in the doctrine of the Trinity, 'and that he had never said, that he disbelieved that doctrine, and that he went to church every Sunday? Did their Lordships believe, that all this was said by the witness without any questions being put to him? It followed inevitably—whether the questions were put by the judges or by the counsel—that those questions were put, and that it was in answer to them that these statements were categorically made. He believed that all this was contrary to the law of Scotland, and that the law of Scotland was free from the reproach of subjecting a witness to have his conscience tried as if he were before an Italian inquisition, and of putting a witness to the torture as to all the doubts and difficulties that might have passed through his mind, during a long life, on religious subjects.
The Lord Chancellormust again state, that the learned judge at the trial frequently interposed, and said, that it was no objection to the competency of the witness that he did not believe in the Christian religion. The only question was, did he believe in a Deity and in a future state?
Lord Campbell:The case thus became worse and worse, for if there was no objection to the competency of the witness, why were the questions put, and why did not the judges interpose?
The Lord Chancellor: What the judges stated to him was, that it was extremely difficult for the court to prevent the other witnesses from saying things that were not evidence; and it was in consequence of those irrelevant statements that the judges interposed, and not on account of questions being put, for none were put, leading to those statements.
Lord Campbellwas not speaking of what other witnesses said; he was speaking of what William Simpson himself said. Did their Lordships believe, that Simpson, without any questions being put to him, would have said, that he believed in the scheme of Christianity as disclosed by the Scriptures? Did their Lordships believe, that he of his own accord, would have said that he believed in the Atone-
1488
ment? Questions must have been put, and if not by the court, they were put with the sanction of the court, and the judges had, therefore, in his opinion, neglected their duty in not immediately interposing, as Lord Den man would have done, as Chief Justice Tindal would have done, and as the Lord Chief Baron would have done, to protect the witness from such improper inquiries. But, then, said his noble and learned Friend, their Lordships had no jurisdiction. He begged leave to differ from that opinion. Besides their judicial and legislatorial functions, they had a function of a corresponding nature with that which was possessed by the House of Commons. The House of Commons was called the grand inquest of the nation; and at the beginning of every Parliament that House appointed a grand committee of justice. It was true their Lordships did not go through that form, but they exercised a general jurisdiction in seeing that justice was properly administered, and it was one of the most important and beneficial functions belonging to their Lordships. It was only by a mode such as the one he was now adopting that matters of this description could be brought before their Lordships and animadverted upon. He knew nothing of the witness Simpson; he might be a very profligate person; but what was law for him would be law for every one of their Lordships, and law for the right rev. Prelates if they were called upon to be witnesses in a court of justice: the precedent, therefore, which this case would set would be productive of the worst consequences if it were allowed to pass without animadversion. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had complained of the irregularity of the present motion without notice. He had concluded with the motion that he might not be subjected to the charge of making a long speech, and not submitting any motion whatever. However, if his noble and learned Friend persisted in his objection, he would not press his motion. [The Lord Chancellor certainly should object to it.] He would, then, with the permission of the House withdraw the motion: but he trusted it would not be forgotten that it was the unanimous opinion of all their Lordships who had taken part in this debate that all the proceedings which took place at Stirling would have been stopped by the Jaw of England, and that there was every

1489
reason to believe that the law of the two countries was the same. For the Lord Chief Justice Clerk, Lord Medwin, and the Lord President, the three judges who had decided this case, he entertained the most sincere respect; but he continued in the belief that they, though with most excellent motives, fell into a great mistake, and were guilty of miscarriage on the trial to which he had referred. He trusted their decision would not be found to be the law of Scotland; but if there should be any doubt upon the subject, or if a declaratory act were necessary, he would pledge himself to bring in such a bill as should remove all doubt, and make the law of Scotland as clear and certain as was the law of England on this important question.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that as neither his noble and. learned Friend on the Woolsack, nor the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Brougham) could persuade the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) that the law of Scotland was as it had been laid down by them, with the authority of the Scotch judges themselves, it was not likely that anything an unlearned person could say would have any effect. But with respect to the facts of the case, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) was in error when he said that questions had been put to the witness Simpson for the purpose of eliciting certain answers upon the various doctrines of the Christian religion. The fact was, that the witnesses who were examined before the examination of Simpson stated things calculated to impugn Mr. Simpson's credit as a Christian, and even as a believer in a Supreme Being. Simpson was afterwards called, and, having been sworn, was examined by the counsel for the Crown, who brought him forward, and it seemed but justice to the witness that certain questions should be put to him, with a view to set himself right. He thought that was a circumstance which sufficiently accounted for the learned judges having allowed that species of inquiry to go on.
Motion withdrawn.
Their Lordships adjourned.