Sitting of 6 February 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1° Factories; Superior Courts (Common Law); Small Debts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Morpeth Union, for Amendment of Poor-law.—By Lord Clive, from Bath Church Lay Association, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Mr. S. Crawford, and Mr. Hume, from Crimbridge, and other places, for withholding the Supplies.—By Mr. Ross, from Belfast, respecting the State Trial.—By Mr. Walker, from Bury, for Relief from Window Tax.

ISLE OF MAN.
Dr. Bowringwished to put a question to the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, respecting the import duties into the Isle of Man. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government during the present session to bring forward any measure to abolish the import duty of two-and-a-half per cent. which was now so injuriously levied on the import of English manufactures into the Isle of Man, and also whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to remove or modify the present licensing system respecting imports into that place, which was attended with so much injustice.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that at present he could only go so far as to say, that he hoped that he should be able during the present session, to introduce a Bill to abolish the import duty of two-and-a-half per cent. now levied on goods introduced into the Isle of Man; he also hoped that he should be able to adopt some plan for the modification to a limited extent of the licensing system, so as to exempt many articles from its operation.

THE LIGHT GOLD COINAGE.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could inform him whether any return could be obtained from the Mint as to the number of light sovereigns of each date of coinage which had been returned to that establishment for re-coinage. He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Government could lay any information before the House as to whether the lightness of the gold coinage was occasioned by wear, or by what was termed "sweating;" or some such process, and if so, as to what proportion this had been done?
Mr. W Gladstonereplied, that he had made the fullest inquiries in the department with which he was connected, and the result was, that it appeared that there were no means of ascertaining the num-
274
ber of the various dates of the light sovereigns sent in for re-coinage. He understood that sovereigns of almost all the dates of the various coinages had been sent in for that purpose, but the mass was composed of the sovereigns of George III., and the early coinage of George IV. With respect to the question as to how far the lightness of the sovereigns was to be attributed to sweating, and as to how far to wear, the Government had no means of making a definite statement, but as far as the experience and observation of the officers of the Mint went, he was enabled to state, that it was believed that the practice of sweating had riot been applied to any serious extent so as to occasion the lightness of the gold coinage, but that it had arisen from gradual wear, although at the same time sweating might have been practised.

COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS.
Mr. Wallace, seeing the President of the Board of Trade in his place, wished to put a question to him respecting a notice which he had just given. It was his intention, on the right hon. Gentleman moving for the appointment of the railway committee, to object to any hon. Member being placed on it who was either a director or holder of shares in any railway. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform him how many, and which of the proposed Members of the committee, were directors or shareholders of railways?
Mr. W. Gladstonewas afraid that he could not, in answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman, give a very satisfactory reply as far as regarded the composition of the committee. In making out the list of the proposed committee, he was governed, in a great measure, by the circumstance that, he selected the names of as many gentlemen as possible who had served on former committees on the subject of railways. As to the directors of railways in the proposed committee, he could give the hon. Gentleman some information, and also as to one shareholder. He knew that four hon. Members whom he proposed to place on this committee were directors of railways. The hon. Member for Reading was chairman of the Great Western Railroad Company; the hon. Member for Southampton was a director of the Southampton; the hon. Member for Clitheroe was a director of the South Eastern; and the hon. Member for Ren-

275
frewshire was a director of the Glasgow and Greenock. The two first named Gentlemen were directors of what were called high-fare railways, and the two last of low-fare lines. There was, also, the noble Lord, the Member for Totness, with whom he had not yet been able to communicate as to whether he would consent to serve on the committee, but he had placed his name on the list because the noble Lord presided over the former committee on the subject as the representative of the late Government. He rather believed that the noble Lord was a director of a railway which was now in contemplation. With respect to shareholders, the information he possessed was very limited. He himself was the holder of shares in a railway company, but he was not able to give the hon. Member any further information as to the constitution of the committee.

CRUIZERS ON THE AFRICAN COAST.
Sir C. Napierwished to know whether the right hon. Baronet were prepared to lay upon the table the instructions which the Government had given to the commanders of cruisers on the coast of Africa?
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the whole question of the instructions to be given to the commanders of cruisers respecting vessels under the French flag, in the performance of their duty in the detection of slave ships, had been referred to a commission composed of Dr. Lushington and a distinguished officer, who had seen a good deal of service on the coast of Africa, he meant Captain Bayne. He hoped that in the course of a few days he should have an opportunity of laying them on the table. With regard to instructions occasioned by negotiations with the United States, he could not say that they were consistent with the instructions formerly given, but he did not think a due regard to the public service would allow him to give a more explicit answer.
Viscount Palmerstonwished to ask whether the Government had come to any understanding, or made any arrangements as to the power which the commanders of our vessels should have of visiting ships for the purpose of ascertaining their nationality? Although it might be unwise to lay on the Table such information as would afford information to slavers, still he thought that it was essential that Par-
276
liament should know so much of the nature of the instructions as to be enabled to form an opinion as to their being in conformity with the expressed intentions of Parliament. Although the Government might be satisfied with this, he also thought that the House should be satisfied.
Sir R. Peeltrusted that the noble Lord would not press him too much on the subject at present. The United States had not published the instructions it had issued to the commanders of its cruisers on the coast of Africa. He, however, could say generally, that, in the instructions that had been issued during the present year, they had maintained the principles for which this country had always contended, and that they were in substance the same as those which had been issued to the officers of Her Majesty's navy in former years.

COMMERCIAL TREATIES WITH FRANCE AND PORTUGAL.
Mr. Laboucherewished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the negotiations for forming commercial treaties between this country and France and Portugal had entirely ceased? It would be in the recollection of the House, that when the revised tariff was under consideration, the right hon. Baronet postponed dealing with certain important articles, in consequence of these negotiations, for instance, silk, brandy, and wine. He presumed that he ought not now to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he intended to do anything respecting the duties on those articles during the present session, but he thought that he might ask whether it were the intention of the Government to bring forward a Customs Bill at an earlier period than the usual Customs Bill was generally introduced.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that with respect to the negotiations for commercial treaties, which had been for some time carried on between this country and France and Portugal, he could state, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, that he considered as the Government of Portugal had refused to acquiesce in the final proposition of the Government of this country, that the negotiation for a commercial treaty with that country had ceased. As to the negotiations with France, no advance had been made since the last Session of Parliament, but matters remained as they were, and he could not say when they would be brought

277
to a close. With respect to the intention of the Government as to the Customs duty, he must beg to postpone any declaration until the opportunity should arrive of making the usual financial statement.

PUBLIC CEMETERIES.
In reply to a question from Mr. Maclean, as to whether it was the intention of the Government to bring forward any measure with a view to obtaining public cemeteries.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that since the close of last Session a very interesting report on the general question had been presented, and was now generally circulated throughout the country. He need not remind the House that Legislation on this subject was a matter of the utmost delicacy; and he was not, therefore, prepared to say that he should introduce any measure in the course of this Session. He was the more willing to delay the introduction of any measure on the subject, inasmuch as, generally speaking, the question of the health of large cities was now under the consideration of a commission, consisting of most eminent persons in science and knowledge of that subject; and until their report was given, he should not like to come to a final decision on the matter.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES.
Sir James Graham: It is now my duty, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to ask leave of the House to introduce a bill for regulating the Employment of Children in Factories. It will not be necessary for me on this occasion to trouble the House at any considerable length, inasmuch as the principal provisions of the bill which I propose to introduce are nearly identical with those which were contained in the bill which I presented to the House last Session, and which were founded on the report which has been laid before the House. I will briefly state to the House what are the principal enactments I propose so far as they alter the law as it now exists. And first, with respect to the age of children now employed in factories, as to whose labour there is a limitation in point of time. As the law now stands, the word "child" applies to children who are admitted between the ages of eight and thirteen. I propose in the present bill that the age shall be altered, and the term "child" be applied to persons between the ages of nine and thirteen, instead of eight and thirteen, and that such children shall not be employed for a longer time than six
278
hours and a half in each day; and also shall not be employed in the forenoon and the afternoon of the same day. By the existing law "young persons" are defined to be those who are between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. I do not propose to make any alteration in that part of the act, but I propose that such "young persons" shall not be employed in any silk, cotton, wool, or flax manufactory, for any portion of the twenty-four hours longer than from half-past 5 o'clock in the morning till 7 o'clock in the evening in summer, and from half-past 6 o'clock in the morning till 8 o'clock in the evening in winter; thus making 13½ hours each day, of which one hour and a half is to be set apart for meals and rest, so that their actual labour will be limited to twelve hours. By the law as it now stands all persons above the age of eighteen, without distinction of sex, are considered to be adults, and to their hours of labour there is no limitation whatever. Under this state of the law, many persons are employed as adults who are wholly unfit for the tasks to which they are subjected. It appears to me that females should not, under any circumstances, be required to work for more than twelve hours out of the twenty-four, and I propose a limitation of their labour, in the four great branches of manufacture to which the act refers, to that extent. On this subject I will read to the House a short extract from the report of Mr. Homer, one of the Factory Inspectors, dated October 11th 1843. In that Report Mr. Horner says,
"I am convinced that many females are employed as adults who do not fairly come under that class, but who are nevertheless obliged to work for hours beyond what ought to be required of them. Many of them work for thirteen, some for fourteen, and some for seventeen hours a day. Some are at constant work from six in the morning till twelve at night, less only by two hours for meals and rest. There are others who, after a day of hard toil, have only six hours in which to go home, take what rest they can get in the interval, and be back again at the factory; and let it be considered that on their return from their walks in inclement weather, they have to remain for many hours in a close room, in which the atmosphere is raised to a very high temperature. What constitution can hold out long against incessant toil of this description? Its fatal tendency is daily shown in the manufacturing districts by the ravages it makes on human life."
Another Inspector stated his entire concurrence in this statement, and in the de-

279
structive effects which were visible in the factories from an excess of labour; and he also deemed it necessary to limit the hours of labour for female adults. Such a limitation I consider to be both reasonable and necessary; and after the best consideration that I can give to the reports and to the evidence which it has been my duty carefully to consult, I have determined to propose a limitation to the continuous labour of females, satisfied that this incessant call on their exertions is alike injurious to their health and morals. The House I believe will regard with me that the limitation I propose is both reasonable and just. Another point on which I shall propose an alteration is that part of the law by which back or lost time is brought up and which has been made a frequent excuse for exceeding the law, in factories, where the double powers of water and steam are employed. I propose that no facility shall be given for making up lost time excepting where the power is water exclusively, and that lost time shall be made up within three months; that young persons shall not labour more than thirteen hours on any one day, and that there shall be a cessation of all labour between the hours of twelve at night and half-past five in the morning, There are several other provisions in the bill to which I do not feel it necessary to call the attention of the House, as they are nearly identical with those in the bill of last year. By one clause which I shall propose, power will be given to inspectors to notify to millowners whenever they observe that any portion of the machinery is dangerous, that in their opinion it requires to be cased or covered up, and if after such notification any accident shall occur injurious to any of the workmen employed, then the inspector shall be empowered to institute a suit for recovering compensation for such injury, and the damages awarded shall be given to the party injured. Another change I propose to make, relates to silk mills. It is well known to the House that those mills are not placed under the same regulations as to the employment of children as other mills. I propose to bring silk-mills under the same regulations in that respect as woollen, cotton, and flax mills, and that the same hours of labour, according to age, which apply to one, shall be made equally applicable to all those branches of our manufactures. I have now gone through the leading provisions of the bill which I propose to bring in, with the exception only of those portions of it which
280
correspond to the bill of last Session in relation to Education, and to which the attention of the House was then more particularly directed. With those parts of the Factory Act which prescribe rules for the education of children, I do not intend to interfere. I am satisfied with providing that children between the ages of eight and thirteen shall not be employed continuously for more than six hours and a half; and that one-half of each day shall be left unoccupied by labour, so that these children may be educated and instructed. The Government last year proposed some clauses with respect to the quality of the education, but the feeling in and out of that House with respect to them was such as to leave no hope that they could be proposed now with any better result. In allowing full time for education, and in not permitting any child to be employed who does not produce a certificate of attendance at some school, Government does all that it can under the present circumstances. I much fear that the enactments already existing as to factory education are almost illusory. The persons usually employed as teachers are but badly qualified to discharge the very limited duties they have undertaken. Even the stoker of the furnace is occasionally to be found acting the part of a factory schoolmaster. Besides this, there is, unquestionably a want of every proper facility and apparatus, such as books, paper, and other requisites for infant tuition. In fact, the system, as far as it has yet gone, has been one not of education, but of confinement in a school-room, without imparting to the children any knowledge or instruction whatever. I am, however, bound to say, from what has come within my own knowledge, that some of the most flagrant abuses are fast giving way under the force of public opinion, and that we may hope to see considerable improvements. I hope, and believe, that, generally speaking, the millowners themselves are desirous of bettering the condition of their youthful labourers by giving them the means of instruction. The experience of last Session, I repeat, has taught the Government not again to interfere with the quality of the instruction to be given to the factory children. It was the anxious desire of the Government to endeavour to frame a scheme of instruction founded on scriptural teaching, apart from doctrinal controversy, subject to the inspection of an officer appointed by the educational committee of the Privy Council; but the

281
hope of effecting that, I confess, has vanished from my mind. Reliance must now be placed—and, happily, it is not altogether a vague reliance, for after what we have seen, we may look with confident hope upon the honest rivalry which has arisen between the members of the Church and Dissenters. I trust, from what has occurred, that a great effort will be made to diffuse amongst the dense masses of the population of this country useful instruction and sound knowledge in connection with scriptural truths. I am quite satisfied that if good schools were founded in the manufacturing districts, the parents of the children would have discrimination enough to prefer the good to the bad schools. If the Legislature provide for education in those districts, I am confident that the children will be instructed in a superior manner. At all events, I am not prepared on the present occasion, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the quality of the instruction to be afforded; all that I ask of the House is, to allow leisure to the children on each day—to prevent them being overstrained with toil, and to give them an opportunity of attending school for at least three hours every day, with the exception of Saturday, which is to be considered a half holiday. In conclusion, I must express my earnest hope that the diffusion of knowledge based on sound principles of religion, may tend to remove that which I consider, one of the greatest national evils—a dense population greatly deficient in knowledge, left without instruction, and destitute of religion.
Mr. Humecould not understand why the same regulations should not apply to other labourers as well as to those which the bill of the right hon. Baronet sought to benefit. Why not include every class of manufacturers in the country where children were employed? How much better would it be if the Government would take into consideration the causes of the present state of society, viz., the want of employment. The reports of the Factory commissioners proved that the Government could not legislate successfully on this subject, and he was anxious that they should look at the causes, and not attempt thus to plaster up the effects of bad legislation. He thought, moreover, that it was most unjust, that there should be a law to prevent the employment of children in one manufactory and allow it in another. As to the production of certificates of the education of the children to be provided
282
for by this bill, the law ought to require that every child in the country should be educated, and then the production of a certificate would be a very easy matter; but now to say that no child should be employed unless he produced a certificate of his having been instructed at school, and they did not provide the means of educating them, was complicating and adding to the mischief that existed. First let them remove the primary evils, and they would have no necessity for these supplementary measures—this patch-work legislation. The bill provided, that where by negligence of the proprietor an individual was injured, an action might be brought at the public expense, in order that he might obtain compensation. If that were to pass, why should it not be extended to all other manufactories? They heard of twenty men lost in a coal-pit, one day, and thirty or forty the next, leaving their families in a state of destitution; and why not let the provision apply equally to them, if there had been negligence and want of proper caution, and let there be one law throughout the whole country. This bill he considered unjust legislation, because it was partial. He did not object to the measure, but he should rather say that it ought to be well considered. He was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet state, that it was not the intention of the Government to interfere in any way in the education of the people. If one measure more than another were demanded, it was a general, universal measure of education, which would apply to all classes of the community. Every being who was to become a good citizen, ought to have a chance of being instructed in the elements of education; and he was sorry to find that religion was to be the sole prop on which the Government intended to rest. The Government ought, apart from such considerations, to give the people the education they required, and leave the clergy of all denominations to instil the religious opinions peculiar to their various sects into the minds of those who wished to receive them. A great responsibility rested upon the Government with reference to this matter for the evils which would arise from the continued ignorance of the people. He really had hoped that they would have adopted a system this year directly opposite to that of last year on this important subject.
Mr. Stuart Wortleythanked the right hon. Baronet for the great measure which he had proposed, one of the most important provisions of which was the limitation of the laws of labour for females. He hoped, however, that his right hon. Friend would take a further step in the right direction, by applying a similar rule to young men, which had also been recommended by the inspector of factories, in his report dated the 15th of January in the present year. Although he gave the measure his hearty approval, he hoped it would yet be materially improved.
Mr. Hindleywas desirous of expressing his thanks to the right hon. Baronet for having brought in this bill at an early period of the Session. He, like the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, would have been extremely delighted if the right hon. Baronet had made some further alterations in the hours of labour, and he did hope that in a future stage of the measure that part of the subject would meet with the serious consideration of the Government. It was not without some regret, that he heard the Member for Montrose express his disapprobation of this bill; that regret was increased, when he remembered how often he had voted with that hon. Gentleman in favour of free-trade, and he could not refrain from earnestly impressing upon him, and upon those who agreed with him in politico-economical doctrines, the expediency of reconsidering the vote which they were about to give on this bill. As to the right of the Government to interfere in such a matter, he must be allowed to say, that it was a right which no one could think of questioning. In the practical operation of the manufacturing system there were great moral and physical evils, and if the Legislature gave its aid to the establishment of manufactures, it was entitled to take care that the evils which they produced should not be allowed to exist at the expense of the great body of the people. Manufactures were a great good, but we should not purchase them at too high a price. He had not forgotten how frequently the friends of the working classes had been told, that to protect the labourer would be to foster foreign competition. This he believed to be a fallacy; for as every one must remember, a bill was introduced by Lord Althorp in the year 1833, to diminish, in some degree, the evils to which the working classes were exposed; and at that time it was predicted, that we should
284
be ruined by foreign competition. What had ensued? The annual exportation of cotton from Great Britain at that time, was 66,000,000lbs. The annual exportation at present was 158,000,000lbs., being a difference of 130 per cent. in favour of the mild and lenient system. In the year 1833, the annual consumption of cotton in this country, was 169,000,000lbs; at present it was 270,000,000lbs.; being a difference of 66 per cent. On these grounds, be ventured to say, that we had nothing to fear from foreign competition. All that we had to do was to move forward step by step—the last step taken was the best, and gave the best encouragement to future progress. He could, for one, bear testimony to the good effects of the means introduced within the last ten years for the benefit of the working classes; they had worked well both for master and man—for parent and child. It was said, that bills on this subject had been evaded; in reply to that, he should say, that acts of Parliament on many subjects had been evaded. A bill against murder would be evaded, for one criminal who was punished, three might escape; but that formed no reason why there should not be a law against homicide. During the last autumn he travelled in France, and had some opportunity of making himself acquainted with the state of manufactures there, and he rejoiced not a little to be able to say, that this country presented a most favourable picture in this respect, as compared to France. Here, happily, there was nothing like the white slavery of the Continent. In France, the working people went on at the rate of fifteen hours a day, with only half an hour interval. Not only were matters in this respect on a better footing in England than in France, but from the general tendency of public opinion he should say, that the feeling of the country was in favour of shortening the hours of labour, and he called upon the hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the Board of Control, who lately presided at a public meeting of the drapers' assistants, which had that object in view, to bear him out in the assertion which he had just made. It was universally felt, that human labour was quite overdone, and that the state of the law affecting it required immediate and material revision. It was said most truly, that the drapers' assistants required to be relieved from late attendances; but how could they be relieved if the working classes were not allowed to make their purchases at a reasonable hour? New mills were on the

285
point of being built in Lancashire. It was right to tell the parties engaged in these speculations, what they had to expect, just as the President of the Board of Trade was about to tell the railway proprietors what they had to expect. It was only right to let the manufacturers know, that though we required an extensive trade, yet that we would not take it at such an expenditure of human labour. It had been said, that the right hon. Baronet might as well think of restraining the steam-engine, as of limiting the hours of adult labourers; but he would remind the House, that in navigation the working of the steam-engine had been restrained. Even though the Government only went the length of relieving from the pressure of excessive labour the female portion of the population, a great object would be attained. The inspector told them, that women ought not to work for more than ten hours. The surgeons told them, that to work for twelve hours was highly injurious; he hoped then, that this and all other measures of relief would be carried forward in a right, strong, and bold spirit. He was in most cases the political opponent of the Queen's Government; it was, therefore, not for him to tell them, how they should carry the people of England along with them; but he could assure Ministers, that by measures such as these, they could show to the people of the north of England that the executive Government felt for, and were disposed to redress their wrongs. In doing this, they would do themselves immortal honour, and open up a long train of prosperity. Let them look to what The Times newspaper had done to support the interests of the labouring classes. What was the great secret of the success of that journal? its advocacy of popular rights. It had done itself immortal honour by its advocacy of the general interests of the great body of the people, and if the Government would only show a determination to do the same, they might rely with confidence upon the gratitude and support of the people.
Lord Ashleywould not on this occasion do more than express the warm thanks which he felt were due to Government for the advance they had now made towards a right settlement of this most important question, and he was sure that the whole country would share in that feeling of gratitude.
Mr. Blewittwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether this was not one of those bills
286
which came within the Standing Order of the House which prohibited the entertaining any bill relating to trade, religion, &c., until such bill had been considered in a committee of the whole House?
The Speakerreplied that this bill did not come within the Standing Order referred to.
Leave given to bring in the bill.

RAILWAYS—COMMITTEE.
Mr. Gladstoneproposed the following Gentlemen as a select committee on Railways:—Mr. W. Gladstone, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Seymour, Mr. Wilson Patten, Viscount Sandell, Mr. Gisborne, Lord Granville Somerset, Sir John Easthope, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Russell, Mr. Patrick Maxwell Stewart, Mr. Greene, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Tbornley, and Mr. Cardwell.
Mr. Wallacehad a strong objection to any person being appointed on this committee who had a direct pecuniary interest in railways. There were no fewer than five directors of railways on the list now proposed, besides the right hon. Gentleman whose name was first on the list, and who, though not a railway director, was, as he himself had stated, a considerable proprietor of railway shares. In order to come to a vote on this question, he would content himself with proposing that the name of the right hon. Gentleman should be struck out of the list, and he felt convinced that a large portion of the House would support him, and notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's official position, merely in consequence of the suspicious circumstance of his being personally interested in the subject. The House had on former occasions decided that such a circumstance constituted a strong objection to the appointment of a Member on a particular committee. He would merely take this, the first name on the list liable to the objection; it would be unnecessary and invidious, at all events at present, to name the other persons on the list similarly situated.
Mr. Gladstonethought this a fair subject for the consideration of the House. For himself, he had thought it his duty to look in some degree to what had been done on former occasions; and had he found any rule laid down by which persons connected with railways were excluded from a participation in the conduct of inquiries as to railways, he should very gladly have accepted the exemption,

287
deeply occupied as his time and attention were by other important subjects; but he found, on the contrary, that on the former committee of railway inquiry, parties directly interested in railways were charged with the conduct of these inquiries and therefore he had not felt himself justified on this occasion in shrinking from the responsibility himself, or in excluding Gentlemen who were concerned in the direction of railways. It was a great mistake to suppose that a uniformity of feeling pervaded the bodies who conducted the various railways. In point of fact, the interests of those who were connected with the existing railways were exceedingly different from the interests of those who were connected with the new undertakings; and the interests of the high-fare railways, as they were called, were quite different from the tendencies which must be supposed to pervade the low-fare railways.
Mr. Labouchereconsidered that if the House agreed to the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock it would be acting on quite a different principle from that which it had hitherto pursued. On all former committees to inquire into particular interests, whether mercantile or agricultural, the practice had always been, not merely to allow, but to make it a point, that there should be appointed, as members of such committee, a certain number of gentlemen specially and directly interested in the particular subject inquired into; and there was no reason why a railway inquiry committee should not follow the rule which had been uniformly carried out in all similar committees. With this view of the point, if the hon. Member pressed his motion to a division, he should vote for a retention of the name of the right hon. Gentleman, who, from his official situation, was a very proper person to form part of this committee, notwithstanding the admitted fact of his holding railway shares. It was another question whether the railway interest did not preponderate in the composition of this committee. He must confess, for himself, that on looking over the list of names, his impression was, that the railway interest was represented in that committee to a degree which might deprive the committee, in some measure, of that weight with the public which, for any useful purpose, it ought to possess. But this was quite a different question from the unjust,
288
inconvenient, and unprecedented proposition of the hon. Member.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman represented this as a novel proceeding. Now, he believed that the principle of conduct adopted in committees was much the same as that which prevailed in the House, and he would state that in the House he had himself, on more than one occasion, challenged the votes of Gentlemen upon questions in which they were personally interested. He had, for instance, challenged the votes of Mr. Pascoe Grenfell and other Members upon a question affecting the St. Katherine's Docks, on the ground that those Gentlemen were pecuniarily interested in that undertaking; the challenge was taken into consideration, the reason assigned admitted to be a valid one, and the votes were struck out. On previous occasions a similar principle had been acted upon by the House, and the same principle of securing a thoroughly impartial tribunal ought always to be carried into committees. He recollected having made, on a former occasion, a similar objection to that now advanced, and the answer he then received was, the committee has to ascertain facts; it is, therefore, desirable to have on the committee parties for and against the question. By this means the truth on both sides will be best elicited and the completest report be drawn up, because each party will take care to have the information supplied which best meets its views; and the House having thus full information on both sides will be the better able to come to a proper decision. But, despite this argument, he was of opinion that persons connected with the particular question should not sit on the committee.
Viscount Howickwould point out that the question as to the St. Katherine's Docks, was quite different from the present question. That was the case of Gentlemen voting on a particular measure, in which they were directly interested. This was a question whether persons interested in various railways were competent judges as to the rules to be enacted for the regulation of certain new railways about to be applied for. Obviously, this was quite a different thing from the case put by the hon. Member for Montrose. It would be a very inconvenient rule to lay down that persons connected with railways as shareholders should be excluded from railway

289
committees. He regarded the presence, for instance, of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade in this committee as desirable, not to say necessary. But, he was also of opinion, that the railway interest on the proposed committee was much too strong. It appeared to him that persons holding high situations in, the management of railways, such as directors, and above all, chairmen, were not the proper persons to be nominated on this committee. Such were probably the first, and among the most important witnesses who would be examined, and it would be greatly inconvenient to have the same persons appear in two characters, first as witnesses, and then as judges to decide upon their own evidence. If the motion was put to a division, he should vote for the retention of the names, but he hoped those who took a part in the management of railways would not be included in the committee.
Mr. Roebuckwould vote for the retention of the name of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade; but he quite agreed with what appeared to be a general feeling in the House against the admission into the committee of certain gentlemen, on account of their being deeply interested in the particular subject of inquiry. As the list at present stood, the railway interest was most unduly represented. Take one case among many others. There was Mr. Russell, the chairman of the Great Western Railway, nominated as one member, a man deeply interested in the subject of the inquiry, and in its results. There would be Mr. Russell acting on one and the same committee as a member putting questions, as a witness answering questions, as a party negotiating, and as a judge deciding; and the same would be the case with several other gentlemen. Persons connected with railways, and persons connected with the Government, would have the whole thing entirely to themselves, and the interests of the travelling public would find no representative in the enquiry.
Lord John Russellwould have been glad to have had the opinion of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade more fully stated on the subject of those persons nominated who were connected with railways. The general sense of the House was, that persons holding important offices in the management of railways ought not to be included in such a com-
290
mittee as this. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that he was acting in conformity with precedent in putting down the names of such persons; but he ought to have gone further, and told the House what was his opinion and judgment on the matter. He must confess, that were the right hon. Gentleman to state it to be his judgment that some of the directors of railways—that chairmen of railways—ought to be on the committee, he should pay great deference to the right hon. Gentleman's opinion; because, while on the one hand, there was doubtless an objection to interested persons forming any considerable proportion of such a committee, on the other hand, it was highly important to obtain, with reference to the eliciting of evidence, the co-operation of men practically acquainted with the subject. As to the number of such Members on a committee there was also some difficulty. How was the selection to be made among hon. Gentlemen who were connected with railways? If any one or two Members so situated were admitted, these one or two Members might be connected with a particular railway, whose principles of management were quite different from those of other railways, and the regulations adopted, perhaps on their suggestions, might be altogether dissatisfactory to the hon. Members connected with those other railways, who might then complain loudly that they had not been admitted. He should request the right hon. Gentleman opposite to state his opinion on the subject, as his own vote would be guided in a great measure by the right hon. Gentleman's judgment.
Mr. Gladstonethus appealed to, was quite willing to state his opinion. He must confess, then, that it appeared to him to be extremely desirable, if the House was prepared to admit that parties interested were in any form or degree to be allowed to act on the committee, that the directors of railways should be upon it. There was an abstract objection he would grant, to every person who had a personal interest; but this objection alike applied to shareholders in railways and directors; indeed there were many shareholders who had a far larger share in their respective companies than some of the directors. Mr. Glyn, he had understood, whose name was so intimately connected with the subject, had no more

291
shares for instance, in his particular company, than were necessary to qualify him as a director; but then the far greater information, experience, and practical knowledge of the directors gave them a title to take part in such a committee, much superior to that possessed by the great bulk of shareholders. It was therefore desirable in his opinion, whatever the abstract objection, to have a reasonable number of directors on a railway committee, for the sake of their valuable practical knowledge of the subject. On the former committee there were several gentlemen connected with railways, and those gentlemen connected with that interest who had now been nominated, had been selected solely for their acknowledged practical acquaintance with the subject. He frankly admitted, that this, which appeared a trifling matter, was in reality a very difficult subject. The House was tied down to some important rules which it was desirable to observe. He had been, he might say, assaulted by demands made upon him with reference to new schemes, or existing schemes, for railroads in different parts of the country; the parties complaining that there was no adequate representation of the districts with which they were connected, or the interests they represented. If it were the pleasure of the House to depart, in this instance, from the rule which had been laid down as to the number of Members constituting a committee, although it would be necessary to guard against such a precedent being turned to exceptionable uses hereafter, it would enable the House in the present instance to get rid of the principal difficulty; but if the House deemed it important to adhere to the rule of fifteen members, he was not sure that any mateterial improvement could be made in the committee as it stood. He did not think it very important whether there were three or four directors on the committee, for it was not by the votes of the majority that any steps would be really taken. The committee would have no decisive power, its operations being confined to a preliminary inquiry. Undoubtedly if he saw that any measure was likely to be carried in the committee by the votes of a majority, composed in part of directors of railroads, he should feel that the proceedings would lose a considerable portion of their weight. There were other Gentlemen in the House whom he should have
292
been most anxious to see on the committee if possible. Several of them had been on committees before, and one of them the hon. Member for Kendal, had taken a very active part in the composition of the Standing Orders relating to railway bills. The hon. Member for Inverness, also, had taken a very active part, not in committee, but in the House, with respect to railways, and had made some very important propositions; but in answer to an inquiry addressed to that Gentleman, he had stated that his attendance upon the committee could not be relied upon, in consequence of his not residing continually in the metropolis. There were details connected with this subject which it was very hard to adjust, and he should be very glad to hear suggestions from hon. Gentlemen as to the best mode of proceeding; but as to the specific proposition to postpone altogether the nomination of the committee, he thought the difficulties as to the composition of that body would be as great on a future day as at present; and as the present step must immediately bear on the bills which were coming before Parliament, and upon the rights of individuals, he thought it material that the inquiry should be instituted at as early a period as possible.
Mr. Hawessaid, it was of the utmost importance that this committee should be a committee carrying with it considerable weight, and worked with the utmost impartiality. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to place upon it those who were most competent and most impartial; but at the same time he must say he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the objection of the noble Lord—that the railway interest was too strongly represented, and on that ground a sufficient objection to its composition was, that the committee would have to consider not only those bills which bad been already, or might be hereafter, brought before the House, but also by instructions hereafter to be issued, to consider whether any and what alterations should be made in the regulations of railways already established. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that this was a most important era in railway history—that there were sixty-six bills of which notice had been given, and that it would be the duty of the committee to consider, not only the Standing Orders with respect to new bills, but also to deliberate whether

293
any alterations should be made for the protection of the public against the concentration or amalgamation of interests of different companies. Now, was the proposed committee the best adapted for this purpose? He thought not. The right hon. Gentleman had no objection to increase the number of the committee. He thought that would be a most objectionable departure from the rule which had been laid down, and which was invaluable in its operation. He trusted the House would not alter the existing rule on this point. He understood the House, then, to be adverse to increasing the number of the committee, and the hon. Gentleman was opposed to any alteration of the names. If he might venture a suggestion, it would be, that the right hon. Gentleman should suspend the appointment for the present, and if, upon inquiry, it should appear that there was a large preponderance of gentlemen connected with railways, that some alteration should be made to meet that objection. There were two Gentlemen not on it, the hon. Members for Kendal and for Inverness, than whom there were no two Gentlemen within the walls of that House more competent to assist in such an inquiry. The hon. Member for Bath also had given notice of a motion which he intended to bring forward on the subject; and having paid considerable attention to it he had some claims upon the consideration of the House. All he asked was, that in appointing a committee, which would have to deal with the interests of large masses of capital, care should be taken that it should possess sufficient moral weight; and he thought that object was hardly attainable from the present constitution of the body, after the objection which had been made. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would not persist in appointing the committee, because it was unpleasant to be called upon to divide upon particular names. If he were called upon to vote upon the right hon. Gentleman's name, he should certainly vote in favour of it, because it would be wrong to exclude him from any such committee; but there might be some names against which Gentlemen might find themselves in the painful position of being obliged to divide. He hoped that the number of the committee would not be increased, but that by the substitution of two or three gentlemen who were not connected, with railways, for those who
294
were known to have such relations, the object in view might be satisfactorily attained.
Mr. P. M. Stewartsaid, that as one of those whose names were introduced on the committee, there need be no difficulty or delicacy in disposing of his humble name as the House should think fit. His name had been placed on the list without consultation by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. He certainly felt grateful for the selection, although not in the least ambitious of the distinction which it conferred. After the manner in which the compliment had been paid him, it would have been uncourteous in him to decline, but the House would judge of his fitness or unfitness for an office of so much importance to the country when he stated that he was an honorary director of the Greenock railway, but not in any way connected with details, nor was he, as had been said by an hon. Member, a large holder of railway stock. It was of importance, that the right hon. Gentleman should consider what weight belonged to the objection raised against the fitness of some members of the committee, and if he was convinced, from the arguments which had been used, that their names were liable to the objections urged against them, he recommended his right hon. Friend to postpone the measure until he should have reconstituted the committee; but he was the best judge in the case, and as his name had been put on the committee without his consent, he should not take the least offence if it were taken off without his consent.
Mr. Warburtonwould state some conclusive reasons why he should not be placed upon the committee. In the first place, with regard to the details of the necessary regulations, he had no experience or knowledge whatever. In the next place, he held an office which took up his whole time, and would prevent his attendance at the committee; and, in the next place, although he was no subscriber to a railway, yet notice had been given of a bill in which he should be expected by his constituents to take more interest than otherwise by becoming a subscriber. These were reasons why he should not be placed on the committee. He considered the objections to the constitution of the committee to be very forcible; but he thought the objection urged by the hon. Member for Bath the most cogent of all. He did

295
not see on the committee one name which could be considered as representing the interests of the travelling public. He did not know whether his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, was either a director or a shareholder. Of his opinions he had no doubt. He was sure that he would attend to the interests of the travelling public; but he agreed in the opinion, that there ought to be on the committee neither directors nor shareholders. He concurred with the hon. Member for Lambeth, that the House should adhere to the number of Members already established, and thought the best way certainly would be, for the President of the Board of Trade not to name the committee on the present occasion, but to reconsider it. He did not object to the appointment of some who should represent the railway companies, but he thought there should be a proper mixture of interests, and that there should be some on the committee who went there to attend to the interests of the travelling public.
Mr. Hamiltonexpressed a hope that there would be some Gentlemen placed upon the committee who were connected with Ireland.
Sir John Easthopesaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman could be relieved from any difficulty by withdrawing his name, he should be most happy to accede to such an arrangement. It was quite true that he was a nominal director of a rail-road. He had been chairman of a board of directors, but he now stood in the situation of being a director, and holding an interest in a railway. He was sure it was quite unnecessary to disavow the operation of any personal interest, but he would leave it to the right hon. Gentleman to select some other name to which no objection could be made, and in that proposition he repeated he should be most happy to concur.
Mr. Gladstonesaid since he had spoken some Gentlemen had expressed their willingness to retire; that made a difference in his resolution. He was not anxious to press the appointment of the committee at the present moment, those Gentlemen having expressed the sentiments they had.
Sir G. Greybegged to mention to the right hon. Gentleman, as it was his intention to postpone and reconsider the constitution of the committee, that at present there were five Gentlemen on it connected with Lancashire.
Mr. Wallacehoped it would not be considered that he had said one word personally affecting any one of the Gentlemen named, and when he objected to the name of the right hon. Gentleman on principle, he begged to assure him, that there was not one individual to whom, personally, he should have less objection than to him.
Motion withdrawn.

STOPPING THE SUPPLIES—PUBLIC GRIEVANCES.
Upon the Order of the Day being read for going into committee of Supply,
Mr. S. Crawfordrose to make a motion, of which he had given notice on a preceding day. The motion was an unusual one, but it was one which he felt unusual circumstances called for. The ground on which he made his motion, was founded upon the continued refusal of that House to inquire into or redress the grievances of the people, which had frequently been brought before that House by petitions. It was his intention shortly to refer to the several points of grievance mentioned in the resolution which he should propose. Amongst the various grievances which had been stated to that House by petitions, one of the most important was, that that House was alleged not to be a fair representation of the people, and therefore it was said by the people that that House legislated unjustly for the interests of the people—that there was class legislation for the purpose of particular interests, and not for the interests of the whole community. It had been alleged in the corn-plaints which had been brought before that House that various monopolies bad been kept up for the purpose of maintaining those class interests, and that those monopolies were deeply injurious to the interests of the great body of the people. One of those monopolies of which the people most seriously complained, was the monopoly in the supply of corn, which they alleged was maintained for the purpose of protecting a particular interest. Taxes upon corn raised the price of the food of the working man, and at the same time they complained that it prevented the demand for his labour, and therefore, that by those taxes the interest of the merchant and that of the manufacturing public were greatly injured. That great question had been so often presented to their consideration and had been so often disregarded, that he should not then enter more particularly upon it. He merely referred to it as one of those griev-

297
ances which had met with no redress at the hands of the Legislature. Then there were other monopolies which were kept up for the benefit of the colonial interests and to the disadvantage of the people—such as the duty on sugar. There were yet other monopolies, such as those created by the Bank of Ireland and the Bank of England charter, and such others as arose from that conferred on the East India Company. Of all these monopolies the people had repeatedly complained, and no measure had been taken either to inquire into or redress them. But another monopoly which had been frequently complained of, and with the like want of success, was that religious monopoly conferred upon the different Established Churches of the United Kingdom. That was a monopoly which oppressed the people in a great degree, and of which deep complaints had been made. In England the Dissenting bodies complained of being taxed for the support of the Established Church, and of the ascendancy which the Church assumed over other sects. More particularly the people of Ireland complained of the monopoly of an Established Church in that country, maintained for the use of those who did not include more than one-tenth of the people. The people of Scotland also were beginning to complain of their Established Church. The people complained also, that they were loaded with an enormous burthen of taxation, the consequence of what they considered to have been unjust and unnecessary wars, which would not have been undertaken or continued by a House of Commons fairly representing the people. He was not one to say, that the public credit must not be maintained—the interest of the debts when incurred must be paid, but the people still had a right to complain of the manner in which those debts were incurred. They complained also of the expenses in every department of the State—of large salaries to officers, and of an unnecessary number of servants. They complained that the taxation which had been imposed upon the country was so imposed as to press much more heavily upon the poorer than upon the richer classes of the community; for whatever affected the necessaries of life pressed more severely upon the poor than upon the rich. These were all matters which had been frequently complained of by petition to that House, and that House had uniformly refused to inquire into them. The people complained also that laws had been passed materially injuring their rights,
298
and complained that those laws had been passed by a House which did not represent them. As an instance of one of those acts of which they complained, he would mention the Poor-law. They complained, and, as he thought, most justly, that whilst the duty upon corn was kept up, and the price of the poor man's food thereby enhanced, that House had reduced the powers of the poor man to procure food at a cheap rate. He would not enter into the merits of the Poor-law, but he must maintain, whether the old Poor-law should be altered or not, that they should not have infringed the poor man's rights, whilst they kept up laws prohibiting him from obtaining food. Amongst those particular laws which infringed the rights of the people, he should allude to that particular act relating to Ireland which was passed last year—the Irish Arms Act. That act inflicted an injury upon the political rights of the country; it was an infringement of every principle of political liberty, and could not by any possibility have been passed by a House representing the people of Ireland. It was found almost impossible to carry that act into effect. Marking the arms was an operation which would require such a length of time to execute, that he believed the life of the act would be nearly extinct before all the arms in Ireland could be marked; but that evil, serious as it was, sank into insignificance when compared with the arbitrary power which that act placed at the disposal of the magistrates. Such proceedings as those had produced the demand for the repeal of the Union; those arbitrary acts were declared to be not such as Ireland should submit to. The people complained that they had frequently desired that those arbitrary acts of the Government should be inquired into, but that their requests had been uniformly refused. It was needless to go further back than the last Session in proof of that statement; then various acts of the officers of the Government were complained of, but inquiry into all of them was denied. He did not say that the Government was guilty of all the acts charged upon them; but he maintained that they ought to have inquired into them. There were charges affecting the judges—charges concerning the treatment of prisoners in confinement—and charges touching the conduct of Government with regard to the restraining and dispersion of public meetings; all of which the House had unfortunately refused to investigate. Another thing complained

299
of was the enormous establishment of a standing army kept up for the home service. He was not aware of its present strength, but last year there were provided for the service of the United Kingdom 38,000 men; to these might be added about 9,000 constabulary in Ireland; making altogether very nearly 50,000 men. The armed constabulary of Ireland was, to all intents and purposes, a standing army, kept up without the consent of Parliament, and paid without coming to Parliament for the money. The people complained also that a hired police had been now instituted taking the place of the old and constitutional police. The people alleged, that if the laws were just and the Government impartial there would be no occasion for either that great army or that new system of police. Were the Government justly conducted and the laws just in themselves the people would require no coercion to keep them in obedience; it was the want of just laws, and of just principles of government, that rendered coercion at all necessary. The people, therefore, complained justly, that they were taxed to maintain a standing army and a hired police, from which good government would relieve them. But the most important charge of all was that which was brought against that House, of not being a true representation of the people. It had been alleged in petitions presented to that House, that, in consequence of the limitation of the franchise and the small number of electors which returned members to that House, the members returned could not be considered as the representatives of the people. Looking at the small number of electors, compared with the gross amount of the population, he would ask if any man could honestly declare that House to be a proper representation of the people? There was another cause why that House was stated not truly to represent the people, because, from the corrupt practices used at elections of Members of Parliament, which had been proved upon divers occasions, it could not be said to be a true representation of the opinions of the electors themselves. That being the case, and the number of electors being so small as compared with the population, he did not understand how it could be maintained that that House was the representation of the people. These facts had been stated to the House in various ways, and over and over again; the petitions of the people had stated them and sued for inquiry, and the House had received and
300
recorded those petitions, though it refused all inquiry. Those petitions had been recorded on the Votes, and there they had been suffered to remain, the House not having the courage to enter into an inquiry and to meet the charges brought against it. If the House was a true representation of the people, was it not a breach of its privileges to say that it did not represent the people? Yet the House submitted to that charge, receiving the petitions which contained them, and recording them, yet not contradicting them nor inquiring into them. They stood, therefore, in the position of culprits; they were as accused persons who durst not meet the challenge of inquiry, and being in that position they were absolutely and directly avowing themselves to be not the representatives of the people themselves, and that they held their powers not by proper means. In a petition presented two years ago, signed by 3,500,000 persons, it was stated—and the statement was not wrong—
"That the House was not elected by the people, that its acts were irresponsible of the people, and passed by interested parties."
That petition the House received, and the petitioners challenged the House to give them an opportunity to prove their assertions, offering to make the House both the judges and the jurors in their own cause; yet the House would not meet the challenge. They were accused, but they would not face the charge; they denied all inquiry; and were not fit to perform the acts of legislation required, especially that one of laying on taxation, until they instituted an investigation into those charges, and provided some remedies for the grievances of the people. Independent of this, it must be remembered that upon the occasion of the appointment of the Compromise Committee, the House was challenged by the hon. Member for Finsbury, who proposed that no man should serve on that committee who would not give a pledge that he had used no undue means to obtain his seat. What was the result! Only nineteen members voted for that motion. Was not that a proof that the House was not in a condition to deny the charges brought against it? Then, again, the proposed inquiry into the grievances complained of by the Chartists was negatived by a majority of 287 against 49. He did not intend to affirm that the rules of the House ought to be set aside and disregarded, except under extraordinary circumstances; which extraordinary circumstances

301
at present existed, from the causes he bad mentioned. His resolution went to require the House to consider the demands of the people, to consider whether or not there were faults in the system of representation, and, if faults were found in it, to remedy them. He would not depart from the principles which he had declared to be those upon which reform should proceed; but he wanted not upon this particular occasion, to commit the House to those principles. All he demanded was, that they should go into an inquiry, to ascertain whether those principles were right or wrong; or what were the principles upon which reform should be carried out. It might be said, that his motion, if carried, would be a nonentity unless he went further. He was prepared to say what he would do, if the House would affirm his resolution. He would then move, either that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on an early day, or that a select committee be instituted to inquire into the present state of the representation. It might be said that the inquiry would last an immense time, and that the delay of the supplies during that time would be productive of great mischief. But suppose the Government should say that they were ready to go into the proposed inquiry, then he would be ready to vote the supplies for three, four, five, or six months, or for such a time as might be thought necessary for the inquiry. If he could get from the Government any promise of any desire or intention of instituting such inquiry, he would not impede the supplies. It was far from his wish to do so; he would rather induce the Government to do something for the people, Whether a minority of that House could succeed in stopping the supplies or not, was a question that he would not, upon this occasion, discuss. He wanted a majority to go along with him in asserting the principle that the grievances of the people should be redressed before the supplies were granted. It was not his intention at present to go further, if the House would accede to that proposition. He would not say, however, what he might hereafter think it proper to do; but if any individual member would undertake or attempt to proceed in a course with regard to the supplies which should not be supported by public opinion out of doors, and a sufficient number of Members in that House, he was not the man that would attempt it upon his own individual responsibility. He wished to bring his proposi-
302
tion fairly before the House and the public by discussion, and then it would be for ,the Members of that House and the people out of doors to say how far they desired this particular mode of action to be carried out. He should then pursue that course which prudence and judgment under the circumstances would dictate. He was aware that there was an objection to raising the question of a grievance upon going into committee of supply; and, unless that course were supported both in and out of the House, it could not be successful. He did not contemplate repeated adjournments; but he wished that those Members who represented the popular interest should bring forward motions on going into supply, not to overrule the house by a minority, but to get the majority of the House to agree with them; and, though they might be defeated at first, he did not despair of ultimately getting a majority of the Members of that House to maintain the principle for which be contended. He did not charge the present Government in particular with inattention to the prayers of the people; he admitted that other Governments, as well as the present, had been neglectful of the grievances of the nation. He did not think the existing Government more guilty than many other Governments; and he was aware that he should be opposed on this very motion, not by them only, but by the principal supporters of the late Government. Inquiry was his object; and, if any Government refused to comply with the demand for inquiry it then became the duty of that House, as a body, to refuse to go into a committee of supply until that inquiry and the redress of the grievances of the people were afforded. That was the general and constitutional principle for which he contended. He wished the House to recollect their position; they stood there as criminals before the people, whose heavy charges were recorded on its Journals, and therefore, as being incompetent justly to legislate for the people until they redressed the wrongs of the country. He would not trespass longer upon the patience of the House, but conclude by expressing a hope that lie had brought forward this question in a temper and manner not unbecoming. He had no wish to be offensive to any one; but he had thought it his duty, not only to his constituents, but to the people at large, to bring forward the motion, and to state the points he had submitted to the consideration of the House. Having done so, he

303
would now move the amendment of which he had given notice:—
"That whereas complaints have been made to this House on various occasions, by petition, to the effect that the people are suffering under unjust and partial legislation, and under the effects of monopolies of various kinds, political and ecclesiastical, created and kept in existence for the benefit of favoured classes; that by the taxes imposed on food, for the support of one of these monopolies, the supply is restricted and the price raised, whilst at the same time the demand for labour is diminished and wages reduced, and the profits of manufacturing and commercial industry deeply injured; that the burthen of general taxation has been increased to an intolerable extent, by an extravagant expenditure in every department of the state, and that this taxation is so imposed as to press most oppressively and heavily on the industrial portion of the community; that laws have been passed injurious to the rights of the people, and arbitrary proceedings of Government have taken place dangerous to public liberty; that, in order to sustain this system, an unconstitutional amount of standing army is kept up for the home service, and the ancient constitutional constable superseded by hired police; all which would be wholly unnecessary if the grievances of the people were redressed, and just and impartial government established; it is further complained, that these and other grievances are produced by the bad constitution of the Commons' House; that by the limitation of the suffrage, the long duration of Parliaments, and corruption and undue influences in the election of representatives, this House, as at present constituted, does not truly represent and is not responsible to the people, and therefore does not legislate for their interests; that, notwithstanding frequent respectful petitions presented to this House, the complaints of the people have neither been inquired into nor redressed; that from these causes an alarming state of discontent prevails generally over the united kingdom; it is, therefore, the immediate duty of this House to make inquiry into these complaints; and as this House can have no right to vote supplies except as being the representatives of the people, it is imperatively necessary that the charges brought against its present constitution and competency in the petitions which have been received and recorded among its proceedings should be inquired into, and if found to be justly made, redressed, before this House shall proceed to the voting of supplies."
Mr. W. Williamsrose to second the amendment of his hon. Friend without any hesitation; but had it involved the principle of a small minority of that House engaging itself to stop the supplies against a large majority, he should not be anxious to support it, knowing the vast and important results that would follow should it
304
be successful. The simple object of the amendment was to obtain inquiry into the existing grievances of the people, with a view to their being redressed. The hon. Member had stated generally what he considered to be the grievances of the people, as they were expressed in the petitions which had been laid on the Table of the House. He agreed with the hon. Mover as to the existence of the grievances and the detail he had given of them in the resolution. His hon. Friend had not gone so far as he might, according to examples which were to be found on the Journals of the House. The noble Lord, the Member for London, when he introduced the Reform Bill, stated the object of it to be in these words:—
"That the people should send to this House their real representatives, to deliberate on their wants, and to consult on their interests; to consider their grievances, and to attend to their desires; to possess the vast power of holding the purse-strings of the monarch, and to lay the foundation for most salutary changes in the well-being of the people."
There was nothing so strong as that in the resolution proposed by his hon. Friend. He would ask the Members of that House—and the noble Lord in particular, were he in his place—whether any of those important objects had been obtained by the Reform Act? He believed every honest man must answer in the negative. The people supported that measure; they were ready even to risk their lives, because they believed that it would produce those effects which its promoters stated. But what had been accomplished? Nothing; not a single hope had been realised. A short time ago, three millions and a half of people complained, that they were not properly represented in that House. In 1642, the House of Commons resisted the arbitrary conduct of the King, and committed the supplies to commissioners, instead of being paid into the Treasury; which act not only laid the foundation of putting a stop to the attempted tyranny, but led the monarch who attempted to violate the ancient constitution of the country to the scaffold. Again, William the 3rd, on ascending the Throne, entered into a compact with the people, called the Declaration of Rights. In fulfilment of that solemn engagement, the Triennial Parliaments Bill was passed in 1693 by the Lords and Commons; but the King violated the compact and refused to give his assent to it. The House of

305
Commons—ay, and the House of Lords too, had virtue enough in those days to press upon that monarch compliance with his engagement, and they therefore repassed the bill which he had rejected. Bishop Burnett, who might be considered the best historian of those times, and who best undertood the political movements of that day, said—
"It was expressly told the King by the Parliament, that they would grant no supplies unless he gave his assent to that bill, and they acted accordingly."
"Now, there was nothing so violent in the proposition of his hon. Friend. The first and most important grievance complained of in the amendment was, that that House did not represent the people of this country. He admitted, that it was right for the majority of that House to rule, provided they really represented the people. That House not being a fair representation of the people, his hon. Friend was not only justified in the course he now proposed, but would have been justified in going much further. How did the facts stand with regard to representation? 5,000,000 out of the 6,000,000 of the adult population of the United Kingdoms had no voice in the election of Members of Parliament; yet that House in its injustice threw upon those 5,000,000 of the unrepresented the burthen of at least two-thirds of all the taxation of the country. If any hon. Gentleman disputed it, he was quite prepared to prove the fact to be as he had stated. This was a grievance which the people felt was intolerable. The highest authority in the country, Her Majesty's Prime Minister, in introducing the Income Tax made use of a most remarkable expression, which he would beg leave to quote. No doubt at that time the right hon. Baronet's friends had admonished him against the adoption of a tax that would so severely affect their own pockets, and no doubt he wished to stand well with the class to which he belonged, and seeing how easy it would be to throw the burthen on the backs of the defenceless, unrepresented 5,000,000, he felt he must make out a strong case before he could justify himself to his friends in imposing that burthen upon them. The right hon. Baronet, therefore, used these remarkable words:—
"I cannot consent to any proposal for the increase of taxation on the great articles of consumption by the labouring classes of the community. I say, moreover, that I can give
306
conclusive proofs that you have arrived at the limits of taxation on articles of consumption."
This was a notable declaration, and when he heard it from the right hon. Baronet, he said it exemplified great frankness and manliness of character. What did this important fact prove? It proved that they had laid the great weight of taxation on the backs of the unrepresented 5,000,000 to the very utmost they could bear, and the right hon. Baronet, with that judgment and sagacity which distinguished him, clearly saw, that it would be imprudent to increase the weight where it already pressed so heavily, lest it might break the camel's back, and he, therefore, called upon the higher classes to assist him in providing for that vast and extravagant public expenditure of which they themselves took so large a portion. Looking to the course of legislation in that House, no one could wonder at the dissatisfaction of the people. According to Blackstone, it was only because the people were present in that House at the making of the laws through their representatives that they were bound to obey the laws when made. He should like to know what this country would be without the 5,000,000 of the unrepresented of Great Britain and Ireland. What would be the value of their land? What would be the value of their mines, their manufactures, their ships, their colonies, their commerce? What would be the value of all those without the labour, the skill, the ingenuity of these 5,000,000. Whence did they supply their army and navy? All the resources which constituted the riches and power of this country were derived from those unrepresented classes who were now complaining of the injustice inflicted on them. With regard to the constitution of that House, the origin of all the evil, he must say, so far as regarded the interests of the people and the disposition to alleviate oppression, the Reformed House of Commons treated the people worse than the old boroughmongering Parliament. Every one who read the evidence given before the committee in 1836 must be satisfied that the election which took place in the beginning of the preceding year was carried by means of the grossest bribery, coercion, and intimidation. More recently a committee was moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, with the same view. That hon. and learned Member brought charges against the electors of certain towns for having received large sums in the shape of bribes—a

307
committee Was granted to investigate the facts; but in the progress of the debate it was laid down as a rule, that whatever amount of bribery might be proved against any constituency or Member, no reflection should be cast on either; thereby admitting that the whole proceeding was but a common affair. When Mr. Maddox brought forward a charge against an individual for having sold a seat in that House, Lord Castlereagh declared, that the sale of seats was as notorious as the sun at noon-day; and he now maintained that the same unconstitutional object was still effected by means of intimidation and corruption. At the Harwich election, it was proved before Mr. Roebuck's committee, that ninety-six voters had been bribed with an expenditure of 6,300 l., thirty-three having received 3,000 l.,. To call a House so constituted a representation of the people was altogether ridiculous. He would instance two boroughs, each sending two Members—Thetford with a constituency of 160, and Harwich with 181 voters, returned four Members; the city of London, with a constituency of 18,000, returned four Members; the West Riding of Yorkshire, with 30,122 voters, returned two; and Manchester, with 12,150, returned two: so that 18,000, the constituency of the city of London, or 42,272, the constituency of the West Riding and Manchester, were neutralized by 341, the combined constituency of Thetford and Harwich. They might call this toryism or conservatism, but certainly it had no pretension to be considered a representation of the people. Without going into too much detail, he could mention seventy-four towns which returned 121 Members, with a combined constituency less than that of the West Riding of Yorkshire, which only returned two Members. Yet they called that a fair representation. Forty Members constituted "a House," who could vote away public money by thousands and millions, and pass laws having the most important bearing on the entire people of the country. There were towns returning twenty-one Members, of which the united constituencies amounted to 2,923, and there were twenty other towns with 154,340 voters which returned twenty Members; the latter being entirely defeated or swamped by the former. He could name other fifty-one Members returned to that House by a constituency of 8,557, who outvoted fifty others returned by 279,618 voters. What could they expect but corruption and neglect to
308
redress the national grievances in a House of Commons so constituted? Who were the high constitutional authorities on this subject? Lord Chatham's axiom was, that taxation without representation was tyranny. Mr. Locke held the same principle; so did Lord Grey and Lord John Russell. In 1831, the year before the passing of the Reform Bill, during the existence of the old boroughmongering Parliament, the expenditure amounted to 47,140,000 l.; in 1843, the expenditure amounted to 49,950,000 l. being an excess of 2,810,000 l. over 1831, both being years of profound peace. Taking a middle period, he found that in 1836 the expenditure was 44,200,000 l.; while in 1844 it was 49,950,000 l., being no less than 5,750,000 l. above the expenditure in 1836, the addition being more than the whole taxation of the United States of America for maintaining every department of the Government and payment of the interest of the public debt. Yet the United States had done that, which no Chancellor of the Exchequer ever could do in this country; they had paid off the last shilling of their debt. It was true they had incurred some debts since; but he would be bound to say, that the newly incurred debt would not long be unpaid. He spoke of the Government of the United States, not of the State Governments. Was it not a most remarkable fact, that the difference between the expenditure of this country eight years ago and at present should exceed the expenditure of that great republic, whose population was equal to that of Great Britain; a republic which was bearding us, raising its crest against us, and from which we had more to dread than from any other quarter of the globe? The taxation of this country was now greater than during any year of the last war. One of the most enlightened men of his day, a gentleman who had proved himself to be well acquainted with the condition of the country; he meant the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department—had made a statement in this respect, which he believed was rather under than over the mark. He said, that in 1812, the amount of taxation was 69,000,000 l.; the price of gold was 5l. 1s.; in 1813 the amount of taxation was 73,200,000 l., when the price of gold, bought with depreciated paper, was 5l. 6s. 1½d. In the first instance, there was a depreciation of the currency, as compared with the standard

309
value of 38½ per cent., and in the second instance there was a depreciation of 41 per cent. Reducing this to the present standard of gold, at 3l. 17 s. 10½d. per oz., the average taxation in those two important years of the war, when the greatest exertions were made by this country and foreign nations to emancipate themselves from the thraldom of Napoleon, would be 45,000,000 l., 10,000,000 l. less than the amount of the taxes of the last year, after twenty-eight years of peace. He would ask any honest man if, after such a statement the people of this country had not just grounds of complaint? These were facts, and he challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to dispute them. But, besides the difference in the value of the currency, the deteriorated condition of every interest in the country made the taxation press much more heavily than it did at any former period. Let them take any artisan, mechanic, or labourer, and he would venture to say the average of them would now require more than the wages of two days to pay their taxes, when in 1812 and 1813, the produce of one day would have been enough. Three pounds of iron, two pounds of cotton twist, and four yards of calico would now be required, where one would have sufficed at the former period, and the same observations would apply to every produce of the industry of the country. The taxation last year amounted to 55,000,000 l. for the purposes of the general government alone; the people being obliged to pay for their own local government, and the protection of person and property in addition to all this. According to a most important statement of the Poor-law Commissioners, he found that the local taxation amounted to 12,000,000 l.; and this, he believed, was vastly under the actual amount. The local taxation of the city of London was estimated at 188,500 l.; but he had reason to believe, that it was not less than 500,000 l., including charges paid to the corporation, taxes on coal, poor-rates, church-rates, and tithe. But the estimated 12,000,000 l. applied only to England and Wales; taking the local taxation of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, and including tithes which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had described as a tax, the amount would be more than 25,000,000 l., making altogether a taxation of 80,000,000 l. on the people of this country, independently of the large amount paid to Dissenting and Catholic clergymen for the maintenance
310
of places of worship, schools, &c. The bulk of that was paid by a population of 18,500,000; for, with all her complaints, Ireland was much better off than England with regard to taxation. The taxation of Ireland did not amount to one-twelfth of the whole taxation of the empire. The taxation of France amounted to very little more than 50,000,000 l., out of which, besides the payment of the public expenditure, the clergy were paid, and nearly all those taxes which, in this country, came within the range of local taxation. Such was the disproportion between the taxation of England and that of other countries; and, in order to exact the vast amount from the toil and the sweat of the brow of the labouring millions, it was necessary to maintain a large standing army and a military police; for, without such aid, it never could be collected. And that army had been very much increased. In 1822 the army, independent of the Artillery and some other corps, amounted to 91,750 men. In the last year there were 129,481 men voted. At the commencement of the last Session, the Government told Parliament that they would reduce it by 5,700 men; and yet, before the close, they came down with a bill to add a permanent military force, of 10,000 men, which, if they went to the extent of the power given by the act, would answer to the Prætorian Guard of the Roman empire. He did not mean to say that the Government intended this when they came down with the proposition; but they had established the principle by the bill, and they might depend upon it, that some of their successors would act upon it. They could to-morrow, if they liked, discharge to the extent of 10,000 picked men from the army, and place them on half-pay, and call them the next day into permanent service under the bill referred to. The addition of these 10,000 men made the military force, at the beginning of the present year—and that, too, on a peace establishment—no less than 139,481 men, or 30,700 more than the number of men voted in the year before the passing of the Reform Bill. Now, it was of such things as these that the people complained as oppressions and grievances. They would not endure them. The whole system of taxation was partial and unjust. Those who imposed the taxes always took care of themselves and the order they belonged to. There was not a more unjust and partial system of taxation on the face of the globe.

311
All the despotic countries of Europe imposed the great weight of their taxation on the richer classes; but the tax on land in this country was only 1,100,000 l. or 1,200,000 l. out of 55,000,000 l. The great weight of the taxation of this country was laid on the necessaries of life, as they had been told by the right hon. Baronet opposite last year, those necessaries were taxed up to the last penny they would bear. In proof of this he would refer them to the result of the attempt of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Baring) to add a tax of 5 per cent. on those taxes, and 10 per cent. on the assessed taxes. That right hon. Gentleman contended, that the additional tax would produce 2,500,000 l. more, but the produce actually fell short of the taxes of the preceding year. He repeated, that the taxes on the necessaries of life were most unjustly imposed. Look at the duties on tea. Tea sold at 10 d., and tea sold at 5s. the pound, paid the same tax of 2s. 2d. per pound. So that the humble inhabitant of the garret, earning perhaps 3s. a week by sewing, and who could get scarcely anything else but tea, paid five times as much duty for the article as was paid in proportion by the rich occupant of the Treasury Bench opposite. Then, too, the commonest brown sugar, which was often mixed up with unwholesome materials, paid the same proportion of duty as the finest refined sugar. Common tobacco paid a duty of 800 per cent., while the duty on cigars, which were composed of the finest and richest tobacco, was only 150 per cent. On the champagne and burgundy, which formed the beverage of the rich, the duty was only 17½ per cent, while the tax on the labouring man's beer was more than 100 per cent. These inequalities were, he maintained, just grounds of complaint, and they were looked upon in that light by the people of this country. We had it on authority, that 10,000,000 of the people of this country were living on potatoes and oatmeal the food of cattle. Such a state of things could not continue, a society had been formed by the rich in this metropolis, headed by the most distinguished of the clergy, for the purpose of relieving the distresses of the poor, and of preventing those scenes of starvation which had recently so frequently occurred there. To them and to the whole community he would address the memorable words once used by the right hon. Baronet, the Home Secretary:—
"Whenever this country presents the spec-
312
tacle of millions supplicating for bread, then will the people sweep away all titles, and pensions, and honours."
Sir R. Peel—Sir, I am very willing to admit that the hon. Gentleman opposite is fully entitled to that credit which he took to himself of having discussed that motion he has this night brought forward, with moderation and temper. I think it is impossible for any man who has listened to the observations of the hon. Gentleman not to admit this—and I think, also, that it would not be just to attempt to raise any prejudice against this motion by imputing to the hon. Gentleman the possible design, at any future period, to obstruct the business of this House by frequent and vexatious motions of adjournment. Whatever course the hon. Gentleman may be hereafter advised to adopt—and my confidence in his good sense leads me to hope that unless supported by a very large body of the people out of doors, and by a majority within the House, he would not consider himself justified in pursuing that one to which I have just referred. Of the motion of the hon. Gentleman we must judge by a reference to its own merits; and I am sure that he will admit that I have met it in a corresponding spirit with that in which the hon. Gentleman has brought it under our notice. I take, therefore, this resolution as it is, and I ask the House at once whether, or not, it be for the public interest that this House should pass a vote in favour of it? The resolution, Sir, consists of two parts. The first insists on its being the immediate duty of this House to make inquiry into grievances alleged or complained of; and the second point denies the competency of the House to grant supplies or to perform any legislative functions whatever, by a defect in its constitution. Why, Sir, if this resolution were to be carried, the House of Commons would, to use a quotation of the hon. Member opposite, pronounce itself criminal in the face of the country, and the sooner it abandons its duty the better. This resolution, as well as the speech of the hon. Gentleman, is an impeachment of the power and competency of the House, the remedy suggested for which would be the greatest social revolution which any country has ever witnessed. Sir, the hon. Gentleman enumerates, among the grievances of the people, which he alleges require immediate redress; the monopoly enjoyed by the

313
East-India Company, and the monopoly granted to the Bank of England. He there complains of the passing of the New Poor-law, and considers that it affords a just ground of complaint, and requires, with these monopolies I have named, an immediate inquiry. The hon. gentleman then passed on to the Church Establishment, and stated, that the people of this country were disposed to complain of the existence of the Church Establishment in this portion of the empire, whilst in Ireland he considers it to be a still greater grievance than in this country, in consequence of the peculiar state of society in that part of the kingdom. Even in Scotland, too, says the hon. Gentleman, the people begin to complain of a Church Establishment. Not satisfied with these complaints, the hon. Gentleman even includes in his catalogue of grievances the new police force of the country, and among the various establishments respecting which he prefers charges against Parliament, is that of the old office of constitutional constable of the abolition of which he complains, and of its supersession by a hired force. The Corn-laws constitute, also, another great grievance; and what the hon. Gentleman proposes is, that we should withhold supplies to the Crown until all these various matters—the charter of the East India Company, the Bank charter, the new Poor Law, the Church Establishment, the Corn Laws, and the Constabulary Force—shall have been investigated; in short, until the House of Commons shall have passed a resolution to make one simultaneous inquiry into all these questions—that is to say, the supplies having been voted for the service of the year, from April 1843, until April 1844, the House of Commons shall institute such an inquiry as this, into the entire social state of the three constituent parts of the United Kingdom, and of our colonial dependencies. Such a course of proceeding, Sir, is perfectly impracticable. And does the hon. Member suppose—even if his own views of the state of society justify him in asserting every thing that is contained in his resolution—does the hon. Member seriously think that it would conduce to the remedy of any one of these complaints he has preferred against us, or that it would lead to a satisfactory conclusion of any question connected with a complicated state of society such as our own, that we should proceed to pass a
314
resolution such as this? In the first place, how, let me ask, is such an inquiry to be made? The hon. Gentleman does not mean to bring forward a motion for a committee of the whole House for the purpose of embarrassing the Government. We understand that—we know that such a motion implies a want of confidence in the Government. The House, generally, on such a question, looked upon a motion involving it as representing the views of one party in Parliament in opposition to those of the other; but what the hon. Gentleman proposes is, that before we grant to the Crown the usual supplies for the public service, we shall resolve ourselves into a committee of the whole House, for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into all these various and important matters. Why, Sir, what would be the effect of such a step, even were it possible? Its effect would be to raise expectations we could never gratify—whilst the still more probable result of such a resolution would be a perfect conviction of the folly of the House which should agree to it. But the hon. Gentleman is not contented with affirming the policy of his resolution; he goes still further, and, in the second portion of it, he says, that
"This House can have no right to vote supplies, except, as being the representatives of the people, it is imperatively necessary that the charges brought against its present constitution and competency in the petitions which have been received and recorded among its proceedings, should be inquired into, and, if found to be justly made, redressed before this house shall proceed to the voting of supplies."
And then the hon. Gentleman refers to a petition presented some two or three years ago, and very numerously signed, which impeached the competency of the House, and asks us how we can with decency enter upon the duty of voting supplies for the service of Her Majesty before we have enquired into all the charges contained in that petition. Why that petition demanded a complete and radical reform in Parliament as essential to redress the grievances of the people. The hon. Member who seconded this resolution, stated that there are six millions of adult population in this country, and that only one million of them are represented in the legislature—that the House is guilty of having subjected the remaining five millions to taxation, without giving them,

315
at the same time, a fair and adequate representation in Parliament; and his proposition is, that we shall confer the right of the suffrage upon the whole of them. The hon. Gentleman does not come forward as the advocate of household suffrage, but maintains that the right to possess the franchise shall be co-extensive with taxation. But if that principle be a just one, I confess I do not see how he can refuse the right to the female portion of the community. Though the hon. Gentleman says that it is unjust to subject five millions of people to be taxed without possessing the right of the suffrage, he is obliged to limit his proposition to something less extensive—and excludes females, while on his principles both the male and female portion of the community ought to be invested with the right to vote. The hon. Gentleman appears to say, that they ought. I can only say, then, that the hon. Gentleman comes forward as a more comprehensive reformer than any that has hitherto appeared in this House. But why limit the right of suffrage to adults alone? You subject parties under age to taxation, and you make the youth of eighteen years of age liable to serve in the army, and according to the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman, if you impose taxation on such a person, you ought, at the same time, to give him the right to the suffrage to an equal extent. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's proposal is neither more nor less than this, that the whole of the population of this country, and of every part of the United Kingdom, who pay taxes through the operation of indirect taxation, shall, both male and female, have a share in the representation of the people. If the principle of the hon. Gentleman be a just principle, is it possible he can contest this conclusion? and depend upon it, his new House of Commons will very speedily be liable to the same charges as are brought against the present, and that a petition will necessarily be soon numerously signed by females and youths and presented to it, saying—"We are entitled to the right of the franchise"—and the new House, arraigned by hundreds and by thousands of persons, will end in being bound to admit its own incompetency and be exposed to the same charges as are now brought by the hon. Gentleman and those who think with him, against the present House of Commons. From the speech of the hon.
316
Gentleman I should have thought he was contending for a repeal of the Reform Bill—and for a return to the old borough-mongering Parliament; for his argument was, that the infusion of the democratic principle into this House has disappointed the public expectation, and inflicted a heavier burthen of taxation on the country than it had before been required to bear. The hon. Gentleman did not, certainly, bring this forward as a taunt against Reformers—he was not prepared to twit the noble author of the Reform Bill on this account—but he brought his estimates with respect to different periods together, and shewed that, under the Reform Bill, there had been an addition of 10,000,000 l. to the burthens of the people. He says that, in the year 1822, the more moderate Parliament of that day had a standing army of only 91,000 men—that you have reformed the Parliament, and the army is now augmented to 137,000, and the taxes also are very heavily increased. It would be a legitimate conclusion from the hon. Gentleman's principles to go back to those happy times when the army was no greater than the amount he states, than to follow the hon. Gentleman in the perilous career he proposes—for his whole argument went to show that economy of the public money, and a resistance to oppression, do not depend upon the constitution of this House, but upon the virtue of the men in it. The hon. Gentleman went back to the year 1692, and says that the House of Commons of that day claimed for the people the right of having frequent Parliaments. William the Third, a powerful monarch, departed from the engagement he had entered into in this respect, and the consequence was, that the House of Commons determined to refuse the supplies till the public faith, which had been pledged by the Crown, should have been fulfilled. But that virtuous Parliament, which, in two successive years—backed, too, by the House of Lords—controlled, and justly controlled, the will of the Crown, had a much less free constitution than the present Parliament enjoys; and I must say, judging from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, I should have inferred that he is no friend to the present Parliament, and that he is making an ingenious argument to show his preference to be in favour of going back to that of 1822—nay, still further, if you have the courage to do so—even to the Parliament of 1692.

317
But again, the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of this present Parliament was somewhat qualified, for the hon. Gentleman, paying a compliment to myself, for which I beg to return him my sincere acknowledgments, said that when it became necessary for us to make a great exertion to equalise the revenue with the expenditure of the country, the present Parliament did, what? Impose additional burthens on the poorer classes, and duties upon articles which, though not of exact necessity, yet in a great measure, partake of that character? No; the hon. Gentleman's charge against the present Parliament was not that they included in their taxation articles of general consumption, but that they were contented to lay an additional burthen upon themselves, instead of trying to lay it on the great body of the people. And they did so—but I cannot see that, in doing so, they betrayed a keen desire to increase the burthens of the people—or that they by any means deserve that blame which could justify these charges against their competency. Take the Poor Law Act, for instance. The hon. Gentleman refers to that law as one great grievance. Did the Legislature pass that Act merely from a wish to make an alteration in the law? Was it without inquiry that we passed the Poor Law Bill? No; commissions were appointed expressly to inquire into every part of the subject, and the great and crying abuses of the late system of relief of the poor were brought to light; and a Government, having no other view with reference to that law than to remedy the evils of the old system, which threatened to destroy the comfort and undermine the private character of the bulk of the population, incurred without flinching great unpopularity by introducing the Bill in which their remedy was embodied. Again, with respect to the charter of the Bank of England, I should like to see how the hon. Gentleman, having obtained his committee, and a resolution to inquire into the subject of the Bank charter having been concurred in—I should like to see how the hon. Gentleman would go on? Is he aware of the inquiries which have already been made upon this subject? Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to conduct such an inquiry? Is he aware that, for three Sessions, one branch of the subject alone occupied the attention of a committee of this House—that another committee was subsequently appointed to in-
318
vestigate it, which did not make its report until the end of the then Session of Parliament? Is the hon. Gentleman ignorant of all these inquiries? if not, how can he come forward and say that into none of these grievances has inquiry been made? If he thinks that the subject of the Charter granted to the Bank of England was not fully investigated, I wish him joy of any inquiry at the bar of this House which he could institute into the whole case of the Bank Charter. And what, I should like to be informed, are we to do with regard to the Church Establishment whilst that inquiry is going on? I will venture to say, with reference to the duration of such an inquiry, that the hon. Gentleman will find such a variety of opinions upon every part of the subject—so much business added to the investigation in reference to Country banks, and to Joint Stock banks—so much discussion connected with the question of the Currency Bill of 1819—that I am sure he would be obliged to postpone ad Græcas Calendas all the other questions which his resolution embraces. With respect to the other questions, the Church Establishment, Reform in Parliament, and so forth, they are subjects to be decided on by the deliberate sense of the House, after full and adequate discussion, by select committees of the House, or by committees of the whole House. These, then, Sir, are the grounds on which I resist this motion. I say that it is impracticable, and that it would be absurd, to pass a resolution pledging ourselves to inquire into eight or ten different subjects, embracing the entire state of domestic society in this country. For the House of Commons to make a public confession of its own incompetency, and to declare itself "criminal," because a petition was presented two or three years ago, charging it with such imputations, appears to me most extraordinary, and I must say, it is equally improbable that the House of Commons will consent to place itself in such an anomalous position. The hon. Gentleman entered into a variety of details, but the House will, I think, agree with me, that this is not the proper time for discussing such matters. The deep importance of the various matters to which the hon. Gentleman adverted I am perfectly ready to admit, but I am not prepared to admit that this House is in a situation to enter upon inquiries into the several questions

319
with respect to taxation to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. The hon. Gentleman, among other instances of unjust taxation, mentioned the article of tea, and he said it was a gross and scandalous injustice to the poor to lay an equal duty on all descriptions of tea. The House must be aware that there was a discriminating duty on tea, which duty was established from a desire to consult the interests of the great body of the consumers. Why was it abandoned? It was not abandoned as the act of the Government, or from any wish to interfere with the interests of the consumers, but after a laborious investigation by a committee of the House of Commons, which led to the conviction that the difficulty of collecting the duties was so great as to render the imposition of an equal duty indispensable. That was the opinion of a right hon. Gentleman opposite the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who then held office as one of the Secretaries of the Treasury, and whose opinion had great influence with the Government; and I think I may appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to confirm me in what I say, that if an equal duty on tea was substituted for a discriminating duty, it was not with any view to bear hardly on the working classes, or consult the interests of the Government, but merely to give facilities for the proper collection of the revenue. If you could, without fraud, raise an equal amount of revenue from a discriminating as from an equal duty, the Government would have no objection whatever to apportion the duty to the quality of the tea; but that was found to be impracticable, and therefore it was that the equal duty was substituted for the discriminating duty. Sir, with regard to the article of beer, I think that the comments of the hon. Gentleman cannot have any weight at all events in reference to my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it was on the advice of my right hon. Friend that the Government consented to abandon the tax on beer, considering it to be untenable as distinguished from the duty on malt. The House seeing in the proposition of my right hon. Friend a means of adding to the comfort of the people at once acceded to it. The House, therefore, agreed to a diminution of the revenue in this particular instance, for no other purpose than that of adding to the comforts of the people; and consequently I deny the
320
charge made against this House, of being inattentive to the wants of the people, and of having no disposition to undertake any inquiry which we think may conduce to the advantage of the people. On all the subjects to which the hon. Gentlemen have adverted, there has been full and frequent inquiries, and that, I say, shows that there is a strong desire in reference to taxation to consult the interests of those on whom taxation falls; but, at the same time, I conjure the House not to lower themselves in the eyes of the country, or injure their character by such a declaration as that we are incompetent to legislate, because a petition numerously signed has claimed for the whole people a right of suffrage, and has branded the House as the unworthy representatives of the nation.
Mr. Humewished to draw the attention of the House to the real objects of the motion of his hon. Friend, which had been to a great extent avoided by the right hon. Baronet. He must admit, that some parts of his hon. Friend's arguments did not strike him as being so forcible as others; but he would put it to the right hon. Baronet, whether any time could be so appropriate, and whether his hon. Friend could avail himself of any opportunity more fitting to bring before the House the state of the country, than that he had chosen for the purpose? He could not, therefore, agree with the right hon. Baronet, that this was not the fitting occasion to introduce such a resolution as had been proposed. The right hon. Baronet had not taken notice of the important part of the motion. The first observation of his hon. Friend was, that many of the wishes of the people were neglected and passed by without consideration by the House. Now, was that denied? Did the right hon. Gentleman deny the universal suffering of the people? And, if not, why did not he turn his attention to the subject, with a view to providing a remedy for the evil? His hon. Friend had said, that it was this admitted suffering that formed one of the principal grounds for bringing forward his motion. True, it might be difficult to meet that giant grievance, but look at the extent of the destitution, and the various instances of distress and suffering which occurred daily in a land like this, abounding in wealth and luxury. What he asked, therefore, was, that the House should should turn its attention to that which

321
was the main object of the motion—to bring before the House an exposition of the distress of the country, in order that, if possible, some remedy might be devised and applied. It appeared, however, to be the intention to lie by, as in the last Session, and to trust to Providence for better times, leaving the misery and distresses of the people to relieve themselves. Within the House no remedy had been suggested. Out of the House it had been suggested that the supplies should be stopped. Now, with regard to the proposition for stopping the supplies, it was true that in 1835 he had himself given notice of a motion for that purpose, which he had intended to move; but the circumstances of that period were different from those of the present. In 1835 the Crown was about, to carry on the Government by means of an Administration not enjoying the confidence of the majority of that House. That was, therefore, the proper time to say to the Crown, if you dismiss those Ministers in whom the majority of the House and the country have confidence, we will refuse to vote those supplies, without which the Government cannot be carried on. That would have been to say, "The House of Commons have not confidence in the Government." But the circumstances were now changed. Now the majority of the House is with the Government. How, then, could they stop the supplies, when those supplies were to be voted by the majority of the representatives of the people (so called at least), and that majority is with the Government? Such a thing could not, and ought not to take place. But the second part of the motion, which was the most important, went to declare that the House, as at present constituted, did not represent the opinions of the nation at large, and his hon. Friend had told them that out of doors that opinion prevailed almost universally. It appeared that that House represented not more than one-sixth or one-seventh of the whole adult population of the country. The House, being a representative body, ought to represent all interests and all classes, and he contended, with his hon. Friend, that it did not. He (Mr. Flume) would go further than his hon. Friend, and would say the reformed Parliament, as now existing, had done what an unreformed Parliament would not have done. The noble Lord who brought forward the Reform Bill, said at the time, that the
322
main object of that bill was to ensure to all classes in the country fair representation in that House, and to do away with class legislation. But had that object been effected by the bill? Had it been carried out? No such thing. The suffrage was so narrowed under the Reform Bill, and the number of electors so small, that the bill was, for all its main purposes, a failure. He had hoped, that a full and fair representation would have been given under that bill, but, like many others, he had been disappointed. Why, the authors of that bill, ineffective and limited as it was, had themselves turned round and checked its operation. He did not so much blame the House itself, for the House was, perhaps, better upon the whole, but the electors generally. In many places, the constituencies were of the highest character, and no charge of corruption could be brought against them, but in others the grossest corruption had been exhibited, and they had sent a majority into the House, many of whom owed their seats to money only, and who, when they came there, consulted their own interests and not those of the country. It was because the House was so constituted, and because the great majority of the people found that they were not represented, that so much discontent was exhibited. He was sure the right hon. Baronet could have no idea how the House was constituted. He wished to show, that the great mass of the people out of doors had a just ground of complaint, and had a right to call on Parliament (or at least those who were of his way of thinking) to say, that they ought to take steps to make the country happy and wealthy, and to remove the discontent that now existed, and the danger that was likely to arise to property and person, if the present state of things was permitted to remain. It was bad legislation that had produced and kept up monopoly, and it was time to consider whether it was to be attributed to the acts of the House of Commons or not. He thought nothing could be more preposterous in a country professing to be free, than to have two classes—one free, and the other slaves. He had understood we had abolished slavery in our dominions throughout the world, but to this day slavery existed in England to a great extent. He had seen the other day a definition of the terms freedom and slavery, and he referred to it, as in that definition

323
consisted all his opposition to the present state of things:—
"To be free (said the writer) was to be in a condition to give assent to the laws of the state, either in person or by those representatives in whose election the people had a voice."
And of such freemen, there were not more than 600,000 or 700,000 in this country. Now, what was the definition, as given of slavery. It was;—
"To be in such a position as to have no will of our own in making the laws by which we are governed, either in person, or by our representatives."
That definition was taken from the Times newspaper, at a time when that paper was the best and most strenuous advocate of liberal principles in the country, and when every question of parliamentary and political reform was advocated by that paper. Now, what was the condition of England at this moment? There were between 600,000 and 700,000 freemen, and all the rest were slaves. [Hear, hear!] He was glad to see hon. Gentlemen approved of that description, or if they did not he should be glad to hear from them a more appropriate definition. From the result of an analysis of the electoral body of this country—taking every county and borough in the United Kingdom—it appeared that out of the 658 Members of which that House was composed, 347, forming a majority of the whole, were elected by 180,603 individuals. Or, in other words, one-fortieth of the whole male population of this country returned the majority of that House. There was no part of the whole population of the country who suffered more than the miscalled freemen. He thought, also, that his hon. Friend had not been fairly treated by the right hon. Baronet in regard to the Poor-law. There was nothing in the resolution relating to the Poor-law, but an observation had fallen from his hon. Friend that it was unjust to the poor man to carry out the law as it was carried out. The principle of the Poor-law was, that every man, while he could work, should depend upon himself for support, and not upon others, that was the principle upon which he had supported the Poor-law Amendment Bill, and upon which a Poor-law should be maintained; but the injustice and the hardship was this, that while they declared, that every able-bodied labouring
324
man should depend upon his own labour alone, they placed acts upon the statute-books, that precluded his obtaining employment for that labour; they limited the demand for labour by those acts which prevented the admission of food from foreign countries. They took from the labourer the means of supporting himself at the same time that they told him he must depend upon himself for support. That was the hardship which, as his hon. Friend had said, the poor man had to complain of, and in that the right hon. Baronet had not dealt fairly with his hon. Friend. As he had supported the Poor-law, he intended that every man should have the fullest opportunity of obtaining a market for his labour, and that be should be supported by his own exertion rather than by charity; and the general desire throughout the country was, that the people should be supported, not by charity, but by labour. Hon. Gentlemen who were the advocates of monopoly satisfied their consciences by instituting numerous charities; but the people wanted employment for their labour, not charity. They did not want the sop of charity to the extent of one-twentieth part of what was taken from them by the monopoly. The burthen of taxation fell most severely on the poor man. Of the excise and custom duties nearly one-half the whole was paid by the industrious and working classes, and notwithstanding this they placed an additional burthen on them, by taxing their food for the benefit of others. Now, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were the advocates of the Corn and other restrictive laws, whether that was acting like Christians—whether that was obeying the divine precept of "do unto others as you would they should do unto you? "He thought the persons who had petitioned the House had a perfect right to complain under such circumstances. The great evil was defective representation. Let the voice of the people be heard in that House, and all other evils would vanish. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the difficulty of entering into the proposed inquiry. Why, if there were forty difficulties, might not forty Select Committees be appointed to investigate them?—and if he was told they could not appoint more than four or five, that fact alone was sufficient to show that the House as at present constituted was not competent to discharge its duties. Let

325
them appoint a separate Committee (if necessary) for every grievance. There were many amongst the Members of the other side who would not willingly deprive the poor man of his right. He regretted to see on the other side of the House, the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, who he knew, would not withhold from any man his right—for a more highly honourable man than the gallant colonel, was not in that House—and he would say to him, "do unto others as he would they should do unto him." Let him suppose himself placed at the bottom of the scale, would he not try to slide up? Would he not try to better his condition. Then he ought to be anxious to give the labouring man, who was the strength and sinew of the country, and to the artizan that to which he was entitled. He regretted only one part of the resolution—that was that which declared the House not competent to grant the supplies—but in all the other points the resolution was properly expressed—therefore, though disagreeing with that particular paragraph, yet agreeing with the general tenor of the Motion, he should support his hon. Friend if he went to a division.
Colonel Sibthorpe: The hon. Gentleman had said that he regretted to see him (Colonel Sibthorpe) on that side of the House. He had sat in the company of his hon. Friends around him for many years, and he hoped he should remain there a great many years more. With regard to the condition of the country, it had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that wages had been lowered. That was not the case in the county with which he was connected. He had letters from farmers in that county informing him, that the labourers there were fully employed, and that they were perfectly content with every thing but the movements of the Anti-Corn-law League. The labourers in Lincoln were receiving 12 s. a week, and in some cases, as much as 15 s. a week. He did not concur in wishing his right hon. Friends out of the administration; he hoped they would long remain there, and, above all, that they would keep out the party opposite, who had, during ten years, endeavoured to govern the country, but with so much success, that they had at length been driven from office by the general voice of the country, with that opprobrium they deserved. He had received a letter from a gentleman whom he
326
characterized as a most honourable and intelligent individual, in which he stated, that "Sir Robert Peel had reason to be proud of his position, from the improved circumstances of the country." As to the Anti-Corn-law League and their poison, he would only say, that the members of that body went, round the country like quack doctors, only telling how many they cured, and not caring how many they killed.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question. Ayes 130; Noes 22: Majority 108.

List of the AYES.

Ackers, J.

Gore, M.

A'Court, Capt.

Gore, W. O.

Allix, J. P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Antrobus, E.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Arkwright, G.

Granger, T. C.

Astell, W.

Greene, T.

Bailey, J. Jun.

Grimston, Visct.

Baillie, Col.

Hamilton, J. H.

Baird, W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hamilton, W. J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Harcourt, G. G.

Beckett, W.

Hardinge, rt.hn.Sir H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Henley, J. W.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Blakemore, R.

Herbert, hon. S.

Borthwick, P.

Hodgson, R.

Botfield, B.

Hope, hon. C.

Broadley, H.

Hornby, J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Howard, Sir R.

Buckley, E.

Humphrey, Mr. Ald.

Buller, E.

James, Sir W. C.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Jermyn, Earl

Clerk, Sir G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Clive, Visct.

Jones, Capt.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Knatchbull, rt. hu. Sir E

Colborne, hon. W. N.

Lawson, A.

Connolly, Col.

Leslie, C. P.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Lindsay, H. H.

Cripps, W.

Lockhart, W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Denison, E. B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mackenzie, T.

Dodd, G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Douglas, Sir H

Maclean, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

M'Neill, D.

Drummond, H. H.

McTaggart, Sir J.

Egerton, W. T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Eliot, Lord

Maule, right hon. Fox

Escott, B.

Meynell, Capt.

Flower, Sir J.

Morgan, O.

Forster, M.

Neville, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Northland, Visct.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

O'Brien, A. S.

Gisborne, T.

Oswald, A.

Gladstone, rt. Hn. W. E.

Owen, Sir J.

Godson, R.

Paget, Lord W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Peel, rt. hot. Sir R.

327

Peel, J.

Stuart, H.

Philips, M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Trelawny, J. S.

Pollock, Sir F.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Praed, W. T.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Pringle, A.

Trollope, Sir J.

Pulsford, R.

Trotter, J.

Pusey, P.

Turner, E.

Rashleigh, W.

Turnor, C.

Rawdon, Col.

Vesey, hon. T.

Repton, G. W. J.

Warburton, H.

Richards, R.

Wood, Col. T.

Ross, D. R.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Yorke, H. R.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Young, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Sibthorp, Col.

TELLERS.

Stanley, Lord

Fremantle, Sir T.

Stewart, J.

Baring, H.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Hindley, C.

Blewitt, R. J.

Hume, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Leader, J T.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bright, J.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Butler, hon. Col.

Wakley, T.

Butler, P. S.

Wallace, R.

Duke, Sir J.

Wawn, J. T

Duncan, G.

Ellice, E.

TELLERS.

Fielden, J.

Crawford, S.

Gibson, T. M.

Williams, W.

LANDLORD AND TENANT COMMISSION, (IRELAND).
On the main question being again put,
Mr. Wakleysaid, that he had a question to put to the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury, respecting the Landlord and Tenant Commission. It was not his object to enter into any remarks upon the general question of the subject into which the Commission was constituted to inquire, but he wished to put the question of which he had given notice, observing that the House had been on a late occasion somewhat startled on hearing the right hon. Baronet observe, that the Commission was entirely composed of Irish landlords. The other statements made by the right hon. Baronet, were gratifying. The means which he stated had been submitted to the disposal of the Commission for the due accomplishment of their object, as well as what had been stated with reference to the appointment of a secretary, were all gratifying; but he did believe that it was impossible that the Commission could accomplish its object if it consisted merely of proprietors of land in Ireland. The discussion which had lately taken place with respect to the
328
appointment of gentlemen on the railway committee, who were either railway directors or proprietors, had shown clearly, that the sense of the House was against submitting to any investigation carried on by persons themselves interested parties. He did not for a moment mean to deny, that the Gentlemen constituting the Commission were men of the highest character, and most scrupulous honour; he did not so far cast any reproach upon the constitution of the Commission; but if the investigation was to accomplish its object, and if it was to satisfy the public, and particularly the aggrieved party, it should consist of tenants as well as landlords; and he was sure, that in this House, where there were so many farmers' friends, if the matter was put to the vote, the landlords would not vote against adding tenants to the Commission. The complaint was, that the grievances were inflicted by the landlords—there were very few complaints against the tenants. Now, if it was true, that the landlords were the aggressors, he would ask, if it appeared sound in principle that they should select from that class those who were to constitute the Commission? He could not believe that it was proper to adopt such a method, and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet opposite would have no objection to introduce the names of some tenants into the Commission. An Irish Member had remarked to him that he did not know any tenants who were competent to aid in the inquiry. If this were true, it was certainly a most extraordinary fact. For, himself, he could not believe the statement; but if it were actually correct there would, he thought, be no difficulty in finding plenty of tenants in this country who would be able and willing to aid in the investigation. Let it be recollected that it was the tenant who was the persecuted party—the oppressed individual—he who expended labour and skill and anxiety—it was upon him that the burden chiefly fell, and the public would not be satisfied with the investigations of the Commission as now constituted. He trusted, that there would be no objection to the adoption of his proposal.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that there was one of the proposals of the hon. Gentleman which he certainly could not adopt—that of placing English tenantry in the Landlord and Tenant Commission for Ireland. If he entertained such a proposal he must as-

329
sume that he could find no occupying tenants in Ireland capable of taking a part in the inquiry. Now, if he had taken that course, he could anticipate the observations which would have been made upon the proceedings of the Government—the charges which would have been levelled against them of an intention to insult Ireland. He certainly did not agree with the Irish Member alluded to by the hon. Member; but he very much doubted whether, by selecting Irish tenants as members of the Commission, they would be adding much to the benefit of the great body of small tenure holders of the country. The question was, of whom the Commission was composed, and what was the disposition which they had shown? It was not his fault that there were not some names on the Commission of gentlemen who were the greatest ornaments to the peculiar classes to which they belonged. The first person he applied to to be a member of the Commission was Mr. More O'Ferrall. Now, why did he select that hon. Gentleman? Not on account of his great knowledge of the subject, but on account of the sympathy which he had so often manifested with the occupying tenantry. To show how little they had been disposed to mix up with the subject, the question of religious differences, he had also applied to Sir Patrick Bellew to be a member of the Commission. He wished to make the House aware of the animus of Government in appointing the Commission, for upon the character of the gentlemen composing it, on the manner in which they had been in the habit of managing their estates, on the estimation in which they were held by, and the sympathy which they had shown to the occupying tenants, would depend the claims to public confidence of the Commission, and not upon the particular classes from which the gentlemen composing it were taken. The commissioners had addressed themselves to the Poor-law guardians in every union throughout Ireland. These guardians were the representatives of the tenants, and the Commission would be disposed to listen fully and attentively to their evidence. The Commission had met with a cordial response from these guardians, and, therefore, the occupying tenants of all classes would have full opportunity of stating their cases to the Commission, while the character of the gentlemen composing it was a sufficient
330
guarantee that their representations would be in every respect attended to. The Commission had to present to the House a report, and also the evidence upon which that report would be founded. They had shown the most anxious desire to make both as comprehensive as possible. If he thought it would add to public confidence in the Commission, he would willingly accede to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, but he did not believe that such would be the case; and he hoped that the public in general would not be of opinion, that it would be a wise action to alter the constitution of the Commission.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordwished to state, without casting any imputation upon the Commission, that there was a general feeling in Ireland of dissatisfaction that the Commission was wholly composed of landlords. People would have greater confidence in the decision of the Commission, if some other persons than landlords were members of it. The object of the Commission was to inquire into how the interests of holders of small tenures could be best secured. Now, the larger tenant was competent to take care of himself; and he felt bound to say that there was no description of persons by whom the smaller tenants were more oppressed than by large holders or middle men. Although he was not disposed to acquit the landlord of all blame, by that class of middle men were the small tenants most oppressed; and, therefore, it would not be any protection to the great mass of the small farmers, to place middle men or large holders upon the Commission; but he did contend that it would be desirable that there should be one or two men of high character, who were neither landlords or tenants, but who, without being either, would take an interest in the investigation, and suggest such a Course of inquiry as might be most advantageous for the elucidation of the objects of the inquiry.

DISTURBANCES AT ROSKEEN.
Mr. F. Mauleregretted, that he should delay the House going into committee of Supply, but as this was an occasion on which he might constitutionally bring under notice what he considered an attack upon the liberty of the subject, he would take leave to ask the Lord-Advocate a question as to an unfortunate dispute which had recently occurred in Scotland arising out of the unhappy divisions at present existing in the Church. A

331
riot had occurred some short time back in a parish called Roskeen. Two individuals were arrested by the civil authorities, but I made their escape; some said, they were rescued, others that they escaped through the culpable negligence of the officers. It was necessary to take steps to re-capture them, and the authorities of the place, acting, as he supposed, under some apprehension of a riot, in consequence of those which had taken place elsewhere, provided, in addition to the civil and excise service, a military guard. They arrived at Roskeen on the 3rd of October, the deforcement having taken place on the 26th of September, and the civil authorities, aided by the Excise, arrested six individuals accused of aiding in the escape of the two men first apprehended, He was informed, but he trusted the account was exaggerated, that those six individuals were taken between one and two o'clock in the morning, whilst in their beds, and were carried to a place appropriated as the guard-house for the local residence of the soldiery. That place was intended originally for a bank safe. It contained an outer room with a barred window, and an inner room with a window similarly defended. One might have thought, that the military being in the outer room, the prisoners might have been put in the inner room; but it was stated publicly, and he had not seen it contradicted, that the petty authorities—and he said petty authorities, because he meant to draw a distinction between them and the higher authorities—not content with trying to keep the prisoners in the inner room, put them into the bank safe, the dimensions of which were nine feet eleven inches and a quarter in length, three feet nine inches in breadth, and six feet eleven inches in height, built particularly for the exclusion of air, and for the protection of the bank books from fire. Such was the place into which the civil authorities put six individuals—five men and a boy; and he was told, that they confined them there from two o'clock in the morning, until nine o'clock the same evening—seven hours, with this exception, that one individual was taken so ill about an hour after his confinement, that he absolutely vomited blood, and the cries of the others drawing the attention of those who had charge of the prisoners, they opened the door, and took out that individual, but they re-closed it on the rest, who were kept there until nine o'clock in the morning, when the Lord-
332
lieutenant of the county, who had acted throughout all those unfortunate disturbances with great humanity and firmness, for which all were ready to give him credit, arrived at the spot, and gave the prisoners air. He was further informed, that of those individuals who had so suffered, one upon examination before a magistrate was immediately dismissed as entirely guiltless of all crime, and that the other five were committed to prison to take their trials: that they had been admitted to bail, but up to that moment, in February, this having happened early in October, they were untried, their innocence not proved, nor had the authorities who administered justice in Scotland substantiated their guilt. Whether they were guilty or innocent was, however, of no consequence now; but he wished the learned Lord-Advocate to state to the House, whether the facts were as he had represented them; and if they were, or if they bore even a semblance to them, then, whether he had taken any measures to punish those who could be guilty of so great a crime—for a crime he would term it, under the cloak of the administration of justice, putting persons merely taken up unconvicted, and, therefore, bound to be held innocent, into such a place as that he had described, the horrors of which he would answer for it, were as bad as those of the black-hole of Calcutta. He wished to know further, whether any steps had been taken to bring those five individuals, who were at present on bail, to trial; so that they might have the opportunity of either making out their innocence, or, if guilty, of making some atonement to the laws they had transgressed.
The Lord-Advocatehad ascertained that five of the individuals alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman were confined in an apartment of very small size for a period nearly, but not exactly, as long as that mentioned by him. On the morning on which they were arrested, they were taken to the guard-house, and the persons who had the custody of them, having been informed that there was danger of an attempt to rescue, and a rescue having been effected a few days previously, they put the prisoners in the place in question, rather than in a room not sufficiently secured. That was clone between three and four o'clock in the morning, and the prisoners were liberated between eight and nine; but the door was frequently opened during the morning, and when any of the

333
prisoners wanted anything, they called for it, and whatever they required was given to then. He stated that, upon the information of some of the prisoners themselves, given in the course of the investigation. They did not then complain of want of air, or of the closeness of the cell. It was not until some time towards the middle of January that any complaint had been made, or that any information had reached him on the subject. The respected Lord-lieutenant of the county was on the spot. The sheriff of the county, who also had conducted himself with the greatest propriety throughout all the proceedings, and the sheriff substitute, were likewise in the village at the time. The prisoners were brought before the sheriff in the course of the day for examination; but, neither to him, nor to any authority, in so far as he (the Lord-Advocate) was aware, did they make any complaint, either then or at any subsequent period. He only I learned the circumstances accidentally, by having his attention directed to a statement published in an Edinburgh newspaper, on the eve of certain trials there, connected with the proceedings in Ross-shire, and as soon as his attention was called to it, he made inquiry into the circumstances through the sheriff of the county. It was only within the last few days that he had received a report of that inquiry. He was not able, therefore, to state, that he had conclusively made up his mind as to the course he should adopt with respect to the persons who had charge of those prisoners. That the place in which it was considered necessary to confine the prisoners was so small, was much to be regretted; but as far as he had looked into and considered the report he could not find that there was any intention to oppress them, or to treat them with harshness or unnecessary severity—and he did not see any grounds for taking proceedings against those who were in charge of them. With regard to the proceedings against the persons concerned in the recent violations of the law in Ross-shire, he had to state, that having brought to trial in Edinburgh some persons who were considered most culpable, and having obtained convictions against some of those who had committed the greatest violation of the law, he thought he should be justified in dealing with the others in a milder manner, and he resolved, therefore, that such as were put upon their trial should not be put to greater expense or inconvenience than was necessary in their defence,
334
and that instead of being tried in the superior court they should be tried in one where the expense would be less, and the punishment consequent on conviction would probably be inure lenient. He was still in hope, that in regard to many, no prosecutions would be necessary.

THE CIVIL LIST
Mr. Blewittsaid, he wished to correct an unfair statement which had been made out of doors, as to the question lie had put to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government respecting a deficiency in the Civil List. It had been stated in one of the morning journals that it was an unfair intrusion upon the Queen's private affairs. It had been stated as if he had believed the report, and had meant to prejudice Her Majesty in the estimation of the public. He most conscientiously declared, as a most loyal subject of Her Majesty, that that was not his feeling. There was not a Member of that House who was not aware of such a rumour being in circulation, and some might have believed it. Now, if he had been the humble instrument of putting an end to that report and of restoring Her Majesty to that popularity—[The rest of the sentence was drowned in the laughter of the House.] He had not the slightest intention of bringing Her Majesty into discredit in any way, and when such unfair observations were made out of doors, he ought to have been allowed an opportunity of correcting them.
The House then went into committee pro formâ. Resumed and adjourned at half past ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Gaming Actions Discontinuance.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Redesdale, from Boston, and 28 places, for Protection of Agricultural Interest.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from Belfast, complaining of omission of Roman Catholics from Jury (Dublin).

PROPERTY OF FELONS.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he rose, in consequence of the notice which he had given yesterday, to call the attention of the House to a circular letter addressed by the Lords of the Treasury to the clerks of the peace of the different counties, on the subject of property belonging to felons. It was dated the 2nd of December, 1843, and was signed by the assistant-secretary of that body. In bringing forward this subject he did so without meaning to impute blame to any one; but at the same time he must observe that all matters of this kind were formerly settled by application to the Secretary for the Home Department, to which department this subject naturally belonged, and he thought that the course taken by the Lords of the Treasury would not have been adopted if the question had been duly considered. As the law at present existed, the property of every person convicted of felony went to the Crown. Under these circumstances, those whose duty it was to look after these matters were naturally

261
anxious to seize as much of such property as they could; but, in acting on that principle, they ought undoubtedly to adhere strictly to the law. Still, the magistrates and the ratepayers in counties thought it very hard upon them that they should have to maintain the prisoners, and yet receive no part of the expense out of any property of which, at the time of conviction, they might be possessed. They felt it to be very hard indeed that all the property should go to the Crown, and nothing should be set aside to repay the county for the expense that had been incurred. The circular letter, however, went further, and he was sorry that the Lords of the Treasury were not better advised than to send it forth. The first paragraph of the circular directed,
"That in every case of committal for trial, either at the quarter or general Sessions or to the Assizes, the Magistrate should state on the back of the warrant of commitment what money, goods, or effects have been found in the possession of the prisoner, and in whose hands deposited; so that the same may be entered in the quarterly return sent to their Lordships by the clerk of the peace, and be duly accounted for to the Sheriff."
Now, he had no objection to that, for at present the governor of every gaol was bound to take an inventory of all property in the possession of persona committed for trial, and they were responsible for its not being made away with; but to the second paragraph he felt the strongest objection. That paragraph ran thus:—
"I am further directed to suggest, that in cases where there is reason to believe that persons accused of felony have any property whatever other than that found in their immediate possession, inquiry should be made at the residence of the prisoner, or at any other place known to have been frequented by him, for the purpose of ascertaining the particulars and value of such property, and the result communicated to the clerk of the peace, in order that the same may be included in the quarterly return above-mentioned."
How was this order to be carried into effect? Why, if a constable were to enter a house for the purpose of making such an inquiry, he would be liable to an action for trespass; but, supposing he were allowed to enter the House, how could he distinguish whether the property there belonged to the prisoner or not? How could he tell who had, or who had not, a legal claim to the property? Would he be allowed to examine partnership accounts? Such a proceeding was not recognized by the law of the land; and if such inquiries were made,
262
he would go to the prisoners as a visiting magistrate, and tell them to make over their property to some person before their conviction, for it did not become the property of the Crown until that conviction took place. He trusted that the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) would agree with him, that the second paragraph of the letter had better be omitted, that the Lords of the Treasury should withdraw it altogether, or that it should be amended. The noble Duke concluded by moving for the production of the letter.
Lord Wharncliffehad no objection to the production of the letter. By the common law of the land, as the noble Duke had correctly stated, the goods of convicted felons were forfeited to the Crown; and, until a few years ago, a regular return of such goods was made. Some very strong instances had, however, arisen, where the property of prisoners had fallen into other persons hands illegally, and had been retained by those persons. One occurred at Brighton, when 40 sovereigns were taken from a prisoner, and not given up. A still stronger case had occurred in Westmoreland, when no less a sum than 2,000 l. was kept back, and was with difficulty, and after a long lapse of time recovered. He admitted, that in particular cases, the recommendation contained in the second clause of the letter could not be acted upon; the first clause was perfectly right; the constables were bound to state the amount of money found on the persons of prisoners, and magistrates ought to attend to that suggestion. The second clause he did not think the Treasury expected to be obeyed in the way the noble Lord suggested; it was not intended to put the magistrates or clerks of the peace or of assize to any expense; but was intended as a suggestion to the magistrates that they should do something more than merely commit the prisoners. The object of the principal recommendation was, that on every apprehension the officer should be compelled to mark on the back of the commitment the amount of money found upon the prisoner. He thought that it would be well for the magistrates to attend to that suggestion, which he conceived would be attended with beneficial results. It was also recommended, that when the constable took the prisoner into custody he should inquire into the property possessed by the prisoner; but he knew not on what principle

263
his noble Friend could suppose that it was thereby intended that the constable should inquire into the undivided profits of partners.
Lord Broughamwas very glad that this subject had been brought under their Lordships' notice. It was quite impossible to defend the second paragraph of the letter, which was directly contrary to law. It was there recommended, that the constable should inquire into the amount of property belonging, or which he had "reason to believe," belonged to a prisoner. It was utterly impossible to defend such a clause, inasmuch as it encouraged an officer to commit a trespass.
Lord Campbellconceived, that it was the duty of the Secretary for the Home Department, or the Lords of the Treasury, to have submitted this letter to his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, or to the Attorney-general before it was issued. The second paragraph was evidently contrary to law. With respect to the forfeiture of the property of felons, he was of opinion, that the sooner the law relative to it was revised the better. As the law stood, if a convicted felon were possessed of 100,000 l., it was all forfeited to the Crown. Now, surely, some portion of it ought to be reserved to meet prosecution or other expenses.
The Duke of Richmondthought it would be desirable to have a letter written to the different clerks of the peace, directing that the second clause (which he thought ought to be omitted) should not be acted on.

CHINESE TREATY.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, he should take that opportunity to ask the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, some questions with reference to one or two points connected with the Treaty recently entered into with the Chinese—an explanation respecting which would render that important document complete and intelligible. That Treaty was, he thought, one of the very utmost importance, and it ought consequently to be well understood. Under that Treaty they were about to enter on anew field of commerce—under that Treaty they looked forward to a great intercourse of trade; and, as much of its success must depend on a strict adherence, on our part, to the terms of that Treaty, and the condition by which their future intercourse with the Chinese was to be regulated, it was essential that no misunderstanding should exist. And this was equally
264
important also to foreign nations, who would in all probability be expected by the Chinese government to adhere to the whole of the regulations entered into by us. He was sure that their Lordships had heard with great satisfaction the declaration contained in the Speech delivered by Her Majesty at the opening of the Session, in which Her Majesty stated, that in her negotiations with China, she had "uniformly disclaimed a wish for any exclusive advantages;" and that it had been Her Majesty's desire, "that equal favour should be shown to the industry and commercial enterprise of all nations" with China as that which was granted to us. And their Lordships had no doubt understood from that announcement, that Her Majesty's desire had not been expressed in vain; and that in future the commerce of China would be opened to all countries. But there was no evidence in the Treaty then before their Lordships to prove to foreign countries that this was the case. British subjects, British ships, and British commerce were alone adverted to; and he looked in vain for any proof of those liberal feelings towards other countries which Her Majesty had expressed. He had no doubt the noble Lord would be able to inform their Lordships, that this was owing to some accidental omission or temporary delay, but it was desirable that no misapprehension even for a moment should rest upon a transaction which reflected so much honour upon this country, and established such an important principle of free competition for the whole world, in that which might possibly become the greatest market of the world, under a tariff so wise and liberal as that which the Chinese had adopted with respect to our manufactures, and the benefits of which would probably be extended to the produce of other countries, For this candour and liberality, and all the advantages they would derive from it, the Chinese were of course indebted to the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to the eminent and enlightened officer by whom the Treaty had been negociated; and he was sure they could make us no better return than by undertaking to frame a tariff for us upon the same model as the one they had just accepted at our hands, and infusing into our commercial legislation the same spirit that would henceforth animate their own. The regulations appeared to him to be framed most carefully with a due regard to the customs of the Chinese, and with a view to prevent those insults and frauds

265
on their side, and the quarrels and disorders on ours, by which the intercourse between the two nations had been so frequently interrupted. These regulations, he apprehended, must be considered as part of the Treaty, equally binding with and having the same force as the Treaty; because in the second article of the Treaty they were referred to, and thus formed an integral part of it. But as this was no where positively affirmed, it was desirable to know that they were so understood and intended by Her Majesty's Government, whether British subjects were bound to obey those regulations, and whether Her Majesty's representatives in China had authority to enforce those regulations, as a portion of the Treaty engagements between the two countries? Some of those regulations were of a very stringent character, and they ought to be well known in this country, because on their due observance depended perhaps the continuance of our peaceful intercourse with China. The third regulation, respecting masters of ships, provided for the imposition of various fines for different offences. One of them imposed a fine of 500 dollars, and the confiscation of the whole cargo for unlading without a proper permission being first given; but nowhere did he find it stated, in these regulations, by whom or how these fines were to be levied, nor how they were to be applied. The next question he wished to ask, referred to the thirteenth regulation, which was one of the most important of the whole Treaty; but which did not appear to him to be expressed with sufficient clearness. It said, "Regarding the punishment of English criminals, the English Government will enact the laws necessary to that end." It had been stated, that Her Majesty's Government had framed a code of laws for this purpose, and the public should be made aware from authority if the fact were so; and therefore he wished to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government had drawn up any code of laws for the punishment of British criminals in China, in fulfilment of the regulation, and, if not, when those laws would be framed and in force? as it might be of urgent necessity, that Her Majesty's representatives in China should be empowered to enforce the provision of this regulation as early as possible. He wished also to know, whether, when the code was framed, all the consuls at each of the five ports where British subjects are now permitted to trade, were to have the
266
power of executing and carrying into effect those laws, or whether that duty was to devolve only on the Consul-general or chief authority at Hongkong? The fourteenth regulation was the next to which he would refer, which was to the effect, that an English cruiser would anchor at each of the five ports that were now opened to us in China. He regarded this as a wise regulation, and necessary for upholding the power of the consul, as well as for keeping the Chinese authorities in check. He hoped, therefore, that the provision would not be of a temporary but permanent character, and as for the expense, he was sure it would be well bestowed, and he thought that money applied for the maintenance of peaceful relations between the two countries, would never be grudged by the people of England. He found it stated in the fifteenth regulation, that the British consul would henceforth be security for all British merchant ships entering any of the five ports; but it did not appear whether this meant security for the good conduct of the ship's company or for the payment of the duties to the Chinese Government; but whether it was the one or the other, he could conceive circumstances under which this security would place the consul in a position of considerable embarrassment. These were the questions he had to ask of his noble Friend. He was afraid that he had somewhat exceeded in length what the notice he bad given might have led his noble Friend to expect, but these doubts had occurred to others as well as to himself, and he was anxious that no misapprehension should exist respecting a Treaty, which would not fail to produce satisfaction throughout Her Majesty's dominions.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, the regulations to which his noble Friend referred had been drawn up jointly by Sir H. Pottinger and the Chinese Commissioners, and therefore, certainly might be taken as a part of the Treaty. First, with respect to the punishment of criminal offences, two bills had been passed in the course of last Session—the Chinese Courts Bill, and the Foreign Jurisdictions Bill, by the operation of which Her Majesty's Government were empowered to frame laws for this purpose, and to carry them into execution. The governor and council of Hongkong had been accordingly empowered to frame laws for this purpose, and under one or both of these acts the governor of Hongkong would appoint persons to carry out the regulations, and it was intended that at

267
each of the five ports the consuls should execute the regulations applicable to each port. With respect to the presence of a British cruiser at each of the ports, he quite agreed with his noble Friend, that it was a regulation of the greatest importance; but he did not wish to be understood to say, that at no time should any port be without a British cruiser anchored there, but no port should be long without, and he trusted that each port would always have one, except when the exigencies of the naval service might require their temporary absence. The 15th clause certainly did present some difficulties, which he was not surprised that his noble Friend had misunderstood. During our former intercourse with China, as noble Lords would remember, the Hong merchants gave security to the Chinese Government for the payment of the duties. That body no longer existed, and the question, therefore, when this Treaty came to be settled, was, how the security to the Chinese Government was to be given? It was done in this manner—there was not a direct pecuniary security on the part of the consul; but if his noble Friend would refer to the third regulation, he would find it provided, that
"Whenever a British vessel shall have cast anchor at any one of the above-mentioned ports, the captain will, within four-and-twenty hours after arrival, proceed to the British consulate, and deposit his ship's papers, bills of lading, manifest, &c., in the hands of the consul. The consul, having taken possession of the ship's papers, will immediately send a written communication to the superintendent of customs, specifying the register tonnage of the ship, and the particulars of the cargo she has on board; all of which being done in due form, permission will then be given to discharge, and the duties levied as provided for in the tariff."
When the Chinese officer at the port was satisfied with the payment of the duties he would grant the port clearance, which being shown to the consul, the captain would have his papers returned to him, and the ship would then, but not till then, be ready to sail. The consul, therefore, would incur no pecuniary responsibility, but would exercise that degree of authority which would practically give security for the duties to the Chinese government. He begged to say, with respect to the principle which had actuated Her Majesty's present Government in their negotiations with the government of China, that it had always been their desire; that the privileges ac-
268
quired by this country should be extended to all nations alike. It was true, that did not appear in this treaty, but Sir H. Pottinger was aware from the first of the desire of Her Majesty's Government on the point, and a Supplementary Treaty had been signed by Sir H. Pottinger and the Chinese Commissioners, in which he had no doubt the clause had been inserted, although it had not been transmitted to this country. Sir H. Pottinger had undoubtedly done his work very well, but he was not quite a diplomatist, and had been somewhat unmethodical in his communications with the Government at home. For this reason, though Sir Henry had written to say, that the Treaty had been signed, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) could not undertake to say, that the article would be found in it, though he had reason to believe it would. They all knew, by a proclamation of the Chinese government, that the tariff had been extended to all nations, and that this had been done by an edict of the Chinese government. To show how justified was Her Majesty in declaring what had been our principle with regard to these negotiations, he had only to quote a paragraph from one of the first of his communications to Sir Henry made early on his coming into office. On the 4th of November, 1841, Sir Henry was told, that a secure and well regulated trade was all that the Government desired, and that he should constantly bear in mind, that we sought for no exclusive advantage, and demanded nothing which we were not willing to see enjoyed by the subjects of all other states. With that knowledge in his possession at so early a period, it was exceedingly probable, that there might be an article to that effect in the Supplementary Treaty. As soon as that Supplementary Treaty arrived, it would be laid before the House, and he trusted that it would be found to be as satisfactory to their Lordships and the public as the original Treaty would be.

CORN-LAWS.
The Duke of Roxburghesaid, he was prevented from making a few observations on the first evening of the Session by his desire not to introduce any topic which might interfere with the unanimity which prevailed on that occasion. He had then intended to put a question to the Government with regard to their intentions on a subject which, although not distinctly mentioned, was yet alluded to by the noble Earl who moved the

269
Address—he meant the subject of the Corn-laws. As, however, on the same evening a declaration was made in the other House of Parliament to the effect that it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration in those laws, he now merely rose for the purpose of stating the sincere gratification he felt, in common with many of their Lordships, at that announcement. He felt satisfied that it would tend to remove much of that state of doubt and uncertainty which had prevailed so long, and had weighed down an interest already sorely depressed and well nigh ruined, and that it would restore confidence to the agriculturists and enable them to resist the attacks so unscrupulously and unjustly made against them when they saw the Government stand forward so nobly as it had done in defence of their rights. He was satisfied it would gain for them the support of the agriculturists of this country; and, for his own part, he begged to express his thanks to Her Majesty's Government for the announcement they had made.

BANK OF ENGLAND AND BANK OF IRELAND.
Lord Monteaglein rising to move for the returns of which he had given notice, relating to the liabilities and assets of the Bank of England, said he would first remind their Lordships how the matter now stood. When his noble friend Earl Spencer—then Lord Althorp—introduced the bill for the renewal of the Bank charter, he accompanied that bill with another relating to the circulation. From the state of the public business, and also from the misapprehension which prevailed at that period, the second and most important bill did not pass into a law. The Bank charter having been conclusively settled for ten years, no further measure of importance had since been introduced to Parliament. In the course of last Session he took the liberty of adverting to the subject, when the noble Duke opposite said the present Session would be the most convenient time for entering upon this discussion. In that opinion he concurred entirely, but in exact proportion as it was contrary to the public interest to have a premature discussion, it became important that all the information that could properly be given, should now be laid before Parliament, to enable them to discuss it with advantage; and as a question of this description was likely to
270
originate in the house of Commons, it was necessary to consider in what position the two Houses would stand on the subject. In the other House, during the time of the late and present Governments, there had been a mass of most important evidence taken before a Parliamentary committee; that evidence had been partly communicated to the House of Lords, and it was, therefore, important to know whether it was the intention of the Government to institute any inquiry by means of a select committee of that House. In putting the question he was far from expressing an opinion in favour of that course, for he thought the information at present before Parliament was quite sufficient for all purposes of useful legislation; but if a committee were to be appointed, it was clear that it should be done as soon as possible. His question, therefore, was whether it was intended to institute any such supplemental enquiry, and next whether in the event of there being no inquiry of this description instituted, it was the intention of the Government to lay before Parliament any documentary evidence stating the negotiations they had had on the subject with the Bank of England. It was possible, that it might be impolitic to produce some of this correspondence, but if there were any papers in it which indicated the course intended to be taken by the Government and the reasons on which they had come to their conclusion, and were prepared hereafter to defend it, he thought the sooner they could be produced consistently with the public service the better. In the course of the last inquiry, most important and valuable information had been given by men who were qualified, not only as men of learning and science, but also from their practical experience, to form a sound opinion on the subject. Among them were Mr. Horsley Palmer, Mr. Loyd, and others, and these gentlemen advocated most strongly the principle of looking to a central issue of notes. This was, however, misunderstood, and a great outcry was raised on the part of some persons against any measure which contemplated a central issue as being the creation of a monopoly of banking. These Gentlemen, however, and those who agreed with them never dreamed of creating a monopoly of banking. Banking as such ought to be as free as any other trade; but the issue of money, the transfer to a paper cur-

271
rency, the exercise of what in simpler times was a prerogative of the Crown, the power of restraining and regulating by paper the circulation of money throughout the land, was no creation of a monopoly of banking, but only the exercise of that species of general regulation on the part of the supreme authority in the State without which no monetary system could be considered safe, and without which they would cast undue responsibility on the Bank of England. Nothing could be clearer than that if, in a time of exigency, they could reduce the amount of circulation, the effect would be to enhance the value of money; and if all over the land banking establishments existed with unlimited power to issue a paper circulation, the enhancement of the value of money by the Bank of England would be an additional motive for such banks to counteract the action of the central bank, and render the exchanges more unfavourable to the country than it would otherwise be. This doctrine and the prejudices of the public bad hitherto stood in the way of a settlement of the question; but he thought the sooner the terms agreed to between the Government and the Bank were made known, the more likely there was to be produced in the public mind a feeling of satisfaction on the subject. He did not now wish to elicit what the proposition was, nor did he throw out these suggestions with any other view than that of assisting the measure when it should be brought forward. The third question be wished to ask was, whether the alteration in the law which was contemplated on the subject of banking, would apply to Ireland as well as to England. He did not mean as part of the same bill, but contemporaneously, and on the same principle. He was sure, that whatever the plan was, it was important, especially at the present time, to show that the system recommended for this country was of the same character and founded on the same principles as that which was about to be introduced in Ireland. The noble Lord concluded by moving for an
"Account of the average liabilities and assets of the Bank of England, during the years 1842 and 1843; balance sheet of the public income and expenditure for October, 1843, and 2nd January, 1844; and an account of the sums received from sale of stock, remittances from China, and from property tax, during the years 1841, 1842, and 1843."
The Duke of Wellingtonreplied to the first question of the noble Lord, that, upon the information at present in possession of the Government, it was not intended to recommend to their Lordships the appointment of a committee of inquiry on the subject, the information already before Parliament being considered sufficient. With regard to the second question, he had to answer that he was not aware of any documents being prepared which it would be desirable to lay before the House; but the noble Lord might rely upon it, that as soon as any documents were in a state to be laid before Parliament, it should be done at once. Upon the last question, the noble Lord was perfectly aware, that the renewal of the charter of the Bank of Ireland depended on entirely different circumstances and different principles from those on which the renewal of the Charter of the Bank of England depended. But it was the intention in the present Session of Parliament to adopt measures for the renewal of the Bank of Ireland charter on the same principles as the Bank of England. He must say, that the noble Lord had clearly shown that he perfectly understood the principles upon which the renewal ought to be carried into execution; but he (the Duke of Wellington) hoped to be excused if he did not then enter into the discussion of a measure the principles of which must be first stated in the other House.
Motion agreed to.

THE IRISH POOR-LAW.
Lord Monteagleasked if it was intended by the Government to propose any committee of inquiry into the Irish Poor-law during the current Session of Parliament.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad stated in the last Session that there would be no objection to such an inquiry. Since that the Government had obtained important information with regard to new buildings in Ireland, and he himself hereafter should have no hesitation in moving the appointment of a committee: but he desired to postpone it until the return of those noble Peers who were connected with Ireland, and who, in consequence of their anxiety to be in Ireland under existing circumstances, were now absent.
Adjourned.