Sitting of 4 June 1844

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Enniskillen, v. the Hon. Arthur Cole, acc. Chiltern Hundreds.
BILLS. Public—1°. Sugar Duties.
Private.— 2°. Rigby's Estate; Holmfirth and Dunford Roads; Campbell's Estate.
3°. and passed: — Pulteny Town Harbour and Improvement; Southampton Marsh Improvement; Rother Levels Drainage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Watson, from H. Pearson, Esq. for Enfranchisement of Church Leaseholds.—By many hon. Members (271 Petitions), against Dissenters Chapels Bill, and 45 against same. — By Mr. Watson, from Newcastle, against Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. — By Viscount Acheson (22), and by Mr. Fox Maule (12), for Legalizing Presbyterian Marriages (Ireland). —By Mr. Watson, from R. Dunderdale, and others, against Roman Catholic Clergy Conveyance Bill.—By Mr. Hurst, from Rural Deanery of Horsham, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Lord Harry Vane, from Coal Owners (4), for Repeal of Export Duty on Coals.—By Mr. Barneby (28), from Worcestershire, by Mr. Buck (17), from Devon, by Mr. Maunsell (30), from North-amptonshire, and by Colonel Rolleston (105), from Notts, against Repeal of the Corn Laws. — By Mr. S. O'Brien, from D. J. Wilson, for Reduction of Glass Duty.—By Mr. Henley, from Oxon, for Repeal of Stamp Duty on Hailstorm Insurances.—By Mr. Fox Maule, from Wood Sawyers of Perth, for Tax upon Steam Saw Mills.—By Colonel Wood, from St. Michael, Cwndu, against Commons Inclosure Bill. — By Sir Thomas Wilde, from Sheriffs Officers, for Compensation (County Courts Bill). —By Colonel Paget, from Llangefni, in favour of County Courts Bill.—By Mr. Kemble, from W. Warde, for Abolition of Fees on Acquittal.—By Mr. Hume, from Forfar, against Privileged Trades (Scotland).—By several hon. Members (5), respecting Poor Law Amendment.—By Mr. Fox Maule, from Dumfries, for Alteration of Parishes (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from J. Birch, respecting Public Offices, and Joint Stock Companies.—By Mr. Lock, from Wick, against Savings' Banks Bill. — By Visct. Acheson, from Newtown Hamilton, for Extension of Small Debts Bill (Ireland). — By Mr. T. Duncombe, from National Charter Association, for Inquiry into State Trial (Ireland).—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Ashton-under-Lyne, and Warwick, for better Regulation of Tailors' Trade.

ISLAND OF GUERNSEY.
Mr. T. Duncombebegged to repeat a question which he had put yesterday in the absence of the Home Secretary, as to the correctness of a statement which appeared in the newspapers, that 600 troops and a considerable quantity of military stores had been sent to the island of Guernsey. If the facts were as stated, he should like to know whether this addition to the force already in the island was ordered by the Government in the apprehension of any disturbance? From what he had heard on the subject, he was led to believe that the Go-
226
vernment had been hoaxed on this occasion, hut that at all events they were mistaken as to the information on which they had acted.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that information had been received by Government from the Governor of Guernsey, on whose zeal and discretion the utmost reliance might be placed, which induced them to send troops to reinforce those in the island. It was known that great excitement existed in the island, arising from local causes, and these were undergoing an investigation; but whatever these local causes might have been, he had the best reason for believing that the utmost reliance might be placed on the loyalty and attachment of the great majority of the inhabitants of the island.
Mr. T. Duncombewould ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, whether he had any objection to the Motion of which he (Mr. T. Duncombe) had given notice yesterday, for a copy of the judgment and commitment in the case of " the Queen v. O'Connell and others?"
Sir J. Grahamhoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion then; the copy was preparing with the utmost despatch.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH PRUSSIA.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper, "for a copy of a despatch from the Earl of Aberdeen to the Earl of Westmoreland, with respect to commercial relations between this country and Prussia, with any answer to such despatch from the Court of Prussia." If there should be no objection to the production of this document he would move for it at once, without troubling the House with any remarks on it. He supposed there would be no objection, as the document first referred to had already found its way into the public papers.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that in the present state of the correspondence he could not accede to the noble Lord's Motion. He could not say exactly that the correspondence was actually going on at the present moment—neither could he assert that it was concluded; but it would be necessary to wait in order to see the result of a letter which had been written by Baron Bulow. As to the letter of Lord Aberdeen first referred to having found its way to the papers, he could say nothing, as he had no knowledge of how it had been obtained; but he had no ground for thinking that it had been

227
published by the Prussian Government. Whether the copy published was a perfectly correct copy or not he could not say, as it had to undergo a double process, being translated in the first instance into German from the English, and after wards done back into English from the German.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that if there was a correspondence still going on on the subject he would not, of course, press his Motion; but if the correspondence had been brought to a close, he saw no good ground for resisting it.
Mr. Gladstonefelt it now necessary to state in a few words the grounds on which he would be justified in resisting the noble Lord's Motion, if he were to then press it. After the correspondence had come—he would not say to a close—but after communications had passed between the British and the Prussian Governments, in a tone which was calculated to bring about desirable results, another communication had been made by Baron Bulow on the part of the Prussian Government, which was drawn up in a tone and spirit different from those which had preceded it, and tending to different results. He would not say that its tone was a hostile one, but it took an argumentative style which showed that a strong difference of opinion existed on some points, particularly on that relating to the importation of iron. Finding this difference of opinion so strong, Her Majesty's Government thought it right to suspend the correspondence for a time in order to wait and see what might be the result of Baron Bulow's note. Under those circumstances, he felt justified in opposing the noble Lord's Motion; but he had no difficulty in pledging the Government to the production of the documents when ripe for the inspection of the House.
Lord J. Russell, under circumstances, would postpone his Motion for a fortnight.
Motion postponed.

COAL DUTIES.
Lord H. Vane: In rising, in pursuance of the notice which I have given of bringing the consideration of the Export Duty on Coal before the House, I must beg permission of the House, previous to entering upon the different considerations of the subject, to offer a few prefatory remarks, explanatory of the reasons which induce me this day to submit this matter to the House. Nothing, I need
228
not say, could be more remote from my thoughts, than any presumptuous wish to take the conduct of this matter out of the hands of my noble Friend, who on two occasions—in 1842, when the Government proposed the Measure of an Export Duty on Coal, as part of a series of fiscal measures, to fill up a deficit then existing in the finances of the country; and in 1833, when, after a year's disastrous experience of the operation of the impost, and apprehension of the detrimental effects of the impost which my noble Friend saw in prospect — submitted the matter to the House in a form to bring about the repeal of the Duty. I am anxious, therefore, Sir, to remove the notion that the noble Lord has, in any one respect, either with regard to the operation of the tax, now tested by two years' experience, on the Coal Trade; or with regard to its efficacy as a fiscal measure, or with regard to the necessity, in view of the financial state of the country, of abstaining from its repeal, seen reason to change his opinions; in each and all of these respects the opinions of my noble Friend remain unchanged with respect to circumstances, and unaltered with regard to future views; and if my noble Friend, having twice brought this question immediately before the House, thinks it more advisable and becoming in him not to moot it for the third time, I may, at any rate, count upon his efficient and valuable aid this night. I do feel, Sir, that it is also incumbent on roe to justify myself from a charge which might be imputed to me, of bringing forward this question, for the third time, in the face of two adverse opinions of the House, wherein the question has been decided by large majorities against the part which I now advocate, and, indeed, Sir, I do feel that the question ought to stand in a somewhat different situation, and ought to be presented in a somewhat different aspect, to justify me now for submitting a similar proposition to those before submitted by my noble Friend. But I do contend that I do bring it forward under different auspices, and that those who, viewing it as a complement of fiscal measures, to fill up a then admitted and anticipative deficit in the Revenue, now that we have an overflowing Exchequer, and a promised surplus for next year —the financial necessity no longer existing —would be perfectly justified in supporting me to-night, should I be able to prove (and the abundance of the matter is such that it will be my fault if I do not) the

229
injurious operation of the duty on the Coal Trade, and the entire failure of the tax as a mere question of Revenue. Had the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, argued that he must adhere, as to an inflexible rule, to introduce no alteration in his Financial Measures this year—that in the interval from this to next year, pressed by innumerable demands for the removal or relaxation of duties, until the question of the continuance of the Income Tax was finally settled he must sternly adhere to his rule—then the ground would have been cut from beneath me, and I should have felt a difficulty in submitting this proposition. But has this been the conduct pursued by the right hon. Gentleman? He has proposed certain reductions of duty; it may be that the reduction of the duty on foreign coffee may increase, in its eventual effect, the Revenue—I think the reductions judicious; but from wool the right hon. Gentleman has taken off the duty, thereby occasioning, in its first and direct effect to the Revenue, a loss of 90,000 l. But if the rule be not adhered to in one instance, and if similar reasons for departing from the rule be adduced, I do contend that I am justified in calling upon the House, on like considerations, to mete out the same measure of justice, or at least considerate regard, for the Coal Interest. The right hon. Gentleman may, no doubt, argue, that those interests have a higher claim for the relaxation of duties than the foreign Coal Trade; but at any rate the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, in bringing forward his Budget, that this Export Duty was an experiment: and the very circumstance of its being an experiment affords (inasmuch as the experiment has been proved in practice prejudicial) an argument for its non-continuance. A new tax is always more injurious than an old one, cœteris paribus: it is, no doubt, at all times advantageous to take off taxes which press upon the springs of industry: but matters accommodate themselves more or less well, no doubt, to old taxes, and infinitely more injury is inflicted and more derangement occasioned by a new tax, than by the continuance of an old one. Now, inasmuch as the great trade in coals for export arose from the removal of the duty in 1834, the tax imposed in 1842 has operated as a novel tax; hence, in this point of view, the claim of the Coal Interest for the removal of this tax is infinitely stronger than that of other interests who have been longer subject to a duty, But I will now
230
proceed, Sir, to consider more especially the injurious operation of the Export Duty, upon which, in the main, I lay my stress for calling upon the House for its removal; and I shall read a letter which was sent to me upon the subject of the Export Duty on Coal.
"Hardwicke, June 1,1844.
"My Lord: I am favoured with your Lordship's letter of 30th ult. A petition has been sent from the coal-owners of this district, to be presented on Tuesday next. It has been got up by the Coal Trade Company, and will probably be forwarded to the Newcastle or south Northumberland members.
"The effect of the Export Duty, as far as the northern countries of Europe are concerned, has been to induce them to import small and nut coal, where they formerly took large coals unscreened. There is no material alteration in the quantity sent to these countries, or if there is, it is due to other causes, as they must take their coals from us; but the discriminating duty of 1s. a ton between large and small coals, when the difference in price of these coals is, perhaps, not more than 2s. to 3s. a ton, is regarded as very oppressive; and hence the trial of small coals instead of large. This change has been felt most on the Tyne, where the collieries chiefly produce a low priced manufacturing coal, which, formerly, was extensively exported. In France the export has been most materially reduced. The Government of that country, immediately on the imposition of these duties, indicated their preference for the Belgian coals. In several of their marine coal contracts, which had formerly been confined to England, the Belgian coal was substituted, even on less favourable terms. The inclosed letter from M. Abbadie, of Charente, to our agent, will corroborate this. This highly respectable merchant had long been a customer of ours, and at the latter part of last year, had written to say that he might require 2,500 or 2,600 Newcastle chaldrons (6,500 tons) during the present year. But the alteration of the Government contracts induced him, as you will see, to withdraw all his orders, and this year we have only sent him about 100 chaldrons. This impolitic duty seems, indeed, to have awakened the French Government to the situation of their steam navy in case of any dispute with the English, and there is no doubt that they will now persevere in the opening out of their own mines, until they place themselves beyond the necessity of importing foreign coals, at least for their steamers. At the time the duty was imposed, I was negotiating with parties in Paris to supply that city with the best householders' coals, which we send to the London market, (the Hartlepool Walls-end). Our price for this coal at Hartlepool was to have been 9s. a ton on board of ship; and at this price, it was the opinion of the French party (MM. Ganneran and Co, bankers, Gullardet, Courtin du

231
roi, and Leroi Poitevin), that they could supply all the English families, at least in Paris, with English coals, at such a price as would induce wealthy parties to give the preference to them over either wood or Belgian coals. The plan was to import them to Rouen, and thence by railway to Paris, to avoid the difficult navigation of the Seine. But on the imposition of a duty of 5s. 8d. a chaldron, the project was abandoned, as the 2s. a ton swept away the whole margin of profit upon which their calculations were framed."
"In America, the operation of the duty is nearly similar to that in France. It is increasing the workings of their own lines, aided as they are by their own heavy Tariff duty. I am an owner of coal mines in Virginia, and I find by a report received from there a few days ago, that the workings are rapidly increasing. In 1842, we only raised 8,715 tons; in 1843, we worked 18,566 tons—and the estimate for the current year is 30,000 tons. These instances of the evil effects of this foolish impost are confined to my own experience. Almost every coal-owner in the north could, I dare say, furnish parallel cases.
"There seems to be a very mistaken notion in the minds of some of the advocates of the duty, that coal is a raw produce, and of limited quantity. Nothing can be more fallacious than both these suppositions. Coal in the mine does not sell on the average for 4d. per ton. At the port where it is shipped, the selling price may average 7s. a ton; the whole of this difference (1,400 per cent.) is labour, capital, profit, and all English. If we pursue it to the place where it is delivered, we shall find that by English capital and labour alone, that article which in its native state was worth only 6d., has become worth 20 s., 25 s., or upwards; and from the bulk of the article being so just in proportion to its value, it employs nearly ten times as much shipping to transport it as any other article of like value.
"The fear of exhausting our mines is, simply, ridiculous. Increase the present price of coals 5s. a ton, and you will add 500 years' coal to that which could be profitably worked at present prices. In the coal districts of the north, which are said to be worked out, it is only meant that the remaining coal could not be worked at present prices; not that there is no coal left. Wales alone has a coal-field to supply our present consumption for 1,000 years, without requiring the prices to be more than double the present price. It is a question of price merely.
"I fear I have entered more fully into this question than there was occasion for, and I have not time now to say any thing as to the pitmen's case. By the next post I will trouble your Lordship with a few remarks on it; and in the meantime I send a pamphlet, which may probably not have come under your Lordship's notice.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient servant.
"Lord H. Vane, M.P, &c." "M. F. WOOD."
I will abstain, as far as I can, from the repetition of those theoretical arguments heretofore adduced, except in so far as I conceive this to be necessary to illustrate the injurious working of the duty with reference to the Coal-trade, and the different interests connected with it. I fear that I shall be obliged to weary the House with some reference to figures, but I will spare the House as much calculation as I am able, as a very few figures will suffice to prove the predictions of those who foretold that the duty would have the effect of checking the export, at the time of the imposition of the duty augmenting in progressive increase, and Her Majesty's Government must be driven by the Returns at last produced from the less lofty position that they took last year, that they did not mean that the increase would not be checked, but that, at any rate, there would be no diminution of the actual amount of exports; whereas the Return exhibits the exports of 1842 and 1843, as I shall read for the House. But then it is maintained that, between the 11th of March, 1842, and the month of July, when the duty would come into operation, advantage was taken of the interval to press a greater proportionate export, with a view to the coming duty, and hence the export in the last two quarters of 1842 and the first of 1843 was by so much diminished. But if the export continue at an increasing or the same amount, the three later quarters of 1843 would have exhibited an immensely increased export with relation to the three former quarters. Now, let us look at the whole year; and what is the result? Is it possible to prevent the conviction penetrating the mind of every one that the trade, through this impost, so far from being in a progressive state of development, has become a declining trade, so far at least that 1843 exhibits, for the first time since the removal by the late Lord Sydenham of the Import Duty in 1834, a decrease— the increase having been gradual to 1843. No dexterity in grouping figures, no ingenuity of argument, no artifice of casuistry can satisfactorily explain away this plain statement of official figures:—

OVER SEA DUTIES ON COAL.

Effect on the aggregate Export:—

1828

228,618

tons

1834

452,406

203,788

tons

Increase for seven years, 24,872 tons per annum during the period while the duty was levied.

1834

432,406

tons

1841

1,500,701

1,068,295

tons

Increase for eight years, 133,274 tons per annum during the period when no duty was levied on English vessels.

1841

1,500,701

tons

1843

1,547,297

46,596

tons

Increase for two years, 23,298 tons per anuum during the period while the duty was levied again, And considering the rapid increase of steam navigation during the last two years, there ought to have been, besides the regular increase of the period while the duty was not levied, viz., from 1834 to 1842. a much greater increase of Export, instead of only 23,298 tons, as shown above (see returns, p. 2, 10th May, 1844).

Effect on the Export to different countries:—

Russia, 1841

75,595

tons

1843

114,605

39,010

tons

Increase, owing to the non-payment of the duty in 1843, Russia being now in reciprocity, and paying only the same duty as English vessels; while previously, Coal Exported in Rusian vessels was subject to a duty of 4s. per ton. This exhibits the effect between a duty of 2s. on round, and 1s. on small coals, and 4s. on all descriptions.

Norway, 1841

15,207

tons

1843

18,233

3,026

tons

increase. This is owing to the establishment of extensive iron works at Laurvig by Mr. Treschow, of Copenhagen. Ten cargoes of 300 tons each, exported by one broker at Newcastle, to these newly erected works.

Denmark, 1841

148,724

tons

1843

134,529

14,195

tons

decrease, owing to the effect of the duty. Suhr and Son are the great importers to Denmark, and extracts of letters from them could be furnished to show the effect of the duty on their sales.

Prussia, 1841

115,501

tons

1843

147,360

31,859

tons

increase. This increase is owing to the establishment of numerous manufactories in Prussia, to the quantity of coals used for making coke for the Prussian railways, and to the establishment of Gas Works. There has been a decrease of round (the effect of the duty) of 42,136 tons, and an increase of small of 73,095 tons, showing the effect of a difference of duty of 1s. per ton.

Germany, 1841

169,695

tons

1843

147,127

22,568

tons

decrease, owing to the importation of foreign coal into Germany, and to the increase from German Coal Mines of Silesia and elsewhere since the imposition of the duty.

Holland, 1841

171,242

tons

1843

149,816

21,426

tons

decrease. While there was no duty the export to Holland regularly increased: 1834, 94,447 tons; 1841, 171,242 tons (see 12 Ap. 1842, p. 10)—while now the Belgian and German (Huhr. coal) coal successfully compete with the English, and the export has diminished.

France, 1834

59,690

tons

1841

451,003

391,313

tons

increase for eight years, 48,914 tons annually, while no duty was imposed.

1828

35,410

tons

1834

50,690

14,280

tons

for seven years; 2,040 tons increase only; and

1841

451,003

tons

1843

453,594

7,591

tons

for three years; 2,530 tons increase only; as in a former period, while duty was imposed. France was particularly alluded to as being supplied with Belgian coal, to the exclusion of the English, when the duty was imposed. The above result shows the effect in the most clear point of view, and, considering the vast increase of steam-boats in France, shows that if the duty had not been imposed, the increase, instead of the paltry amount of 2,500 tons, would have been 50,000 or 60,000 tons annually.

Spain 1841

34,786

tons

1843

46,831

12,045

tons

increase. This is owing to the establishment by English Companies of extensive lead mining operations in Murcia, and to the English and French steam-boats and Spanish boats obtaining coals at Cadiz, Malaga, Alicant, and Barcelona.

Italy, 1841

38,887

tons

1843

43,939

5,052

tons

increase. Also owing to the use of steam boats recently established in different parts of Italy, and the increase would have been much larger; a great quantity of French coal from Marseilles, &c. being used, and by the use of coal as back

235
freights, the French obtain great advantages over the English in the Italian ports.

Malta, 1841

50,131

tons

1843

37,935

12,196

tons

decrease. The effect of the coal mines of Calais in France upon this place and the Mediterranean was pointed out when the duty was imposed. The above fact shows that the fear of competition from this quarter was well founded.

Turkey, 1841

48,059

tons

1843

41,335

6,724

tons

decrease. The effect of the coal mines of Heraclia, in the Black Sea, was also pointed out, and they appear to have already produced the anticipated effect (see Epitome of Arguments.)

Egypt, 1841

21,122

tons

1843

10,977

10,145

tons

decrease. Effect of competition with foreign coal mines. (See Epitome of Arguments.)

East Indies and China, 1841

63,698

tons

1843

29,961

33,737

tons

decrease. This may be owing to the impulse given to the export by the China war, and the diminution now that the war is over.

British North American Colonies and the West Indies, increase from

1841

148,182

tons

1843

168,845

20,663

tons

increase, owing to the establishment of the West Indian and American lines of steam packets, the coals for which must be procured; but the increase is far short of that which ought to have accrued to this country, had all the coals been supplied from Great Britain.

United States, 1841

52,207

tons

1843

34,866

18,341

tons

decrease, owing to the imposition of a duty on the importation of English coal into the United States, by which, together with the British duty, the export of coals from this country is nearly prohibited.

Mexico and Brazil, 1841

14,166

tons

1843

24,941

10,775

tons

increase, owing to the establishment of lines of steam packets. The greatest effect, it will be seen, arises from the competition with the Belgian and French coal, but particularly the former, where the amount of duty, from the shortness of the voyage, bears the greatest ratio to the selling price of the coals at the
236
port of delivery. The effect of the duty cannot be better illustrated than by the comparative effect of the export of coals paying 2s. and the coals paying 1s. per ton duty.

1842 Oct. and Jan. quarters

147,479

tons

1843 Oct. and Jan. quarters

240,428

92,949

tons

increase in small coals, while the export of round has generally been diminished. The returns of small and round in the years 1841, 1842, and 1843, do not give the comparison; as (see return 10th May, 1844), no account of small, was kept until the quarter ending October, 1842.
I am now arguing on the supposition that you do not wish to check the export. The right hon. Baronet, both last year and this year, on the Budget, contrary to the argument which he had previously advanced in 1842, admitted that apart from financial considerations, this duty upon coal was not to be defended. The question of fact, that the export has been checked by the duty, has been resolved affirmatively; it is no longer matter of doubt, or controversy, or cavil. But how is this check effected? By the ruinous operation of the duty on the trade, and on the shipping interest frequenting the southern ports. It must be borne in mind, that great capital has been laid out in the opening of mines, and in increasing the facilities for promoting the export trade, on anticipations of increase, and not alone from calculations founded on the state of the trade, as it then was, hut as it was likely to become, when the force of our example should induce the formation of railroads over the whole surface of the European Continent. The use of gaslighting has made rapid progress in Germany, and but a very few years have elapsed since Paris has been partially lit with gas. Now, those who undertook to open mines at great cost, and make these great outlays of capital, had this comprehensive market in prospect. If, therefore, there was no decrease of sale to foreign ports of coal in 1843, as compared with 1842, still the circumstance of non-increase would prove the evil working of the duty, regard being had to the increased want on the Continent of coal. Let me remind the House that the railroad from Rouen to Paris, was opened in May, 1843, and is entirely worked by English contracts for coal. The coal-field in the south of France, as far as it has yet been worked, is not sufficient to supply the increasing demands for steam navigation in the Mediterranean, as well as the railroads formed and projected. A new railroad has

237
been of late completed, as far as the rails are laid down, from Montpelier to Nismes, and will be soon in operation. Why do I quote this? To prove the increasing demand immediately for coal in France; and when we consider the immense lines of communication which are about to be constructed in France, the demand for English coals, and, moreover, the small coal, of which little use is made here, seems almost infinite. Should we not rather, then, retain this trade, by throwing no fiscal impediments in the way of its unrestricted development, than incur the risk of driving the French into foreign markets, or whetting their industry to work their own coals, when they might derive their supplies from hence with more advantage to themselves and to us? and indeed, Sir, as English capitalists furnish money for the construction of French railways, so would English capitalists furnish the means of working foreign mines. But I may be told that Sweden, previous to the imposition of the Export Duty, levied an Import Duty, and that, standing in need of British coal, she has taken off that duty, and that the British Exchequer derives the benefit which otherwise the Swedish Treasury would have received; but I find that, notwithstanding this, the export to Sweden has diminished in 1843, as compared with 1842, by nearly one-third, so that the export trade cannot bear the present duty, although the Import Duty in Sweden has been taken off. But would even this particular instance be an answer to the general impolicy of the duty, provided that that duty check the trade to France, to Holland, to Germany, and those countries which take the most coal? Sweden is a poor country, whose natural resources are extremely limited. Access by sea is closed nearly six months in the year. Timber, in which the country abounds, is of slow growth, from the rigour of the climate, and the ungrateful nature of the soil; and except in Scania the cultivation does not admit of great improvement. Far be it from me to underrate the, trade of this country; but still, from the nature of things, it must be of limited extent, and for the extension of our coal exports we must look to the more promising markets of the south. If we had the entire monopoly of coal, if dependence were mutual, then, indeed, there would be a sufficient reason for an Export Duty; but this notion has been over and over again combated. The very circumstance of active competition between the
238
Belgian and English coals refutes it, and this without regard being had to the mines in France, half explored and half worked, and leaving out of the question the anthracite mines in France, of which species of coal I am informed great use is now made in America. There is the Russian demand of rising importance—there is the prolongation of the line now in operation from Petersburgh to Tzarskoselo, which is in the course of rapid construction, extending to Moscow. Here is a market where there is active competition between Belgian and English coal. The Russians have no coal sufficiently contiguous for the service of that railway, although in the more eastern parts of Russia there is a most extensive ridge of coal-field. Here, therefore, is a market of the utmost importance to gain. English coal can be served at cheaper rates than Prussian Silesian coal as far as Berlin; but here too the competition is near, and the railroad from Hamburgh is served by-British coal; it can, perhaps, hardly be expected that the railroads in the other parts of Germany, in the proximity of coal-fields, should be served by other than that coal. There is another mode in which this duty has proved of great injury. I am not about to urge this argument invidiously. I know that all taxation is an evil, but that its necessity justifies it—the national credit, the preservation of the peace and order of society, and national defence; but, nevertheless, I think it may be shown that this peculiar tax has, in the respect to which I am going to allude, special objections. I. mean, that certain pits are obliged to cease to work one day in the week, in consequence of the operation of the duty. The right hon. Baronet, in the case of factory labour, called upon the House not to impose a restriction of the hours, which would be tantamount, as far as cessation from work, to the establishment of another Sabbatical institution. But here is a duty which produces a like effect in certain mines—I do not mean that this applies generally, but in the pits where the operation of the duty requires the pits to be laid in (the technical expression) that which the right hon. Baronet deprecated with regard to factory labour is occasioned, and colliers being paid by piece-work, in such proportion that a hard working man, a hewer, may earn 3s. 8d. per diem, the loss of one day to his week's wages creates considerable diminution in the amount of wages. But I shall be told, in relation to the remuneration of other labourers, that even this de-

239
duction made, the aggregate weekly amount is still considerable. But the habits of this class are not those of domestic economy; they are careless and thoughtless; they are not wont to eke out their earnings to purchase the largest amount of necessaries and comforts; you cannot change their improvidence; discontent is immediately engendered if they have not the same large means—large, relatively speaking; and this discontent operates in conjunction with other supposed complaints, to produce strikes, and all the evils incident upon them to the workmen themselves, the coal-trade generally, and the different interests more or less connected and made up with the coal-trade. There is, moreover, a much larger proportion of small coal, which requires very little labour, exported since the imposition of the duty than previously when the export was free, on account of the advantage of the discriminating duty. The larger coal or round coal is the labour coal, and the quantity exported of this, which furnished labour to colliers, has much diminished, and the export of small coal has been substituted; but had no duty on export existed, the larger or labour coal would have been exported in an increased ratio in addition to the small coal, which affords very little labour, although a small profit to the coal-owner. I am come, Sir, to the consideration of the effect of this tax upon an interest of general concernment. I am sure that the hon. Members for the northern sea-ports will bear me out in affirming the correctness of my assertion, that it has been most disastrously felt by that interest; but the right hon. Gentleman will say, how can the effect be multiplied? Now, we never have pretended that the evil inflicted was only commensurate with the scanty revenue received—we maintain that it checks the Export Trade— that this checks employment — that less shipping is employed in the Export Trade, because less coal is exported: that, consequently, all those persons seeking, and who would derive employment from the increasing export, are thrown out of employ, or receive reduced employ. In periods of difficulty, even without profit to keep matters straight—to keep their people in work—to preserve the trade—works are continued without a gain—greater quantities of coal would in such cases be exported than the market naturally demanded. There would be this incidental advantage, that it would open our markets, and when a foot-
240
ing was once obtained, engagements, correspondents established, the first and great step being gained, such would continue, and new openings would be made, and new undertakings engaged in. I admit, that these are problematic advantages, easily lost, and perhaps factitiously acquired, but they are the advantages of a great trading and exporting country. Such advantages, as far as the export of coal can contribute, paying an outward freight, and thereby enabling an inward freight or commerce and exchange, to take place with less of gain and profit from these sources. And now, Sir, when the great staple trades of the country are reviving; when to assist that revival in the woollen trade which has already taken place, as may be proved by the comparison of the return of 5th of January, 1844, with the 5th January, 1843, the Government has taken off altogether the duty on wool, foregoing the revenue of scanty amount in consideration of the benefits to be derived by the trade; would it not be politic to forego, in like manner, the paltry pittance received from the Export Duty, not to assist, as in the woollen trade, a trade which has revived, but to prevent another trade from perishing, which has a material bearing on the prosperity of the country, in which the amount of workman's wages is 30,000 l. per week. It has been from all times considered a great national object to encourage a nursery for our seamen; the commercial and imperial greatness of this country is so dependent upon a powerful mercantile navy, that I need not enlarge upon this topic. You are not called upon to give artificial bounties, but to remove restrictions which diminish the number of our vessels and the employment of our seamen. With a fair field and no favour, I have a perfect confidence in the hardy tars of this United Empire. Notwithstanding the jealousies of rival nations, the covert efforts of foreign statesmen, or the suggestions of royal pamphleteers, let us but be true to ourselves, let us protect our shipping interest, and not endeavour to raise a paltry revenue at the expense of a service which it ought to be our darling object to foster, and I for one stand in no fear for the result. If I have proved that the coal-trade is suffering depression, not arising from that general depression prevalent for some years, because it has not revived with the revival of other interests; if I have proved the injury accruing to the shipping interest; if I have proved that the financial

241
necessity, which was alone the justification of the duty, no longer exists; if the House is penetrated with the conviction, that these points are proved, I then call upon the House to adopt the same policy which Her Majesty's Ministers have adopted with respect to wool, and I respectfully invite them to accede to my Motion. The noble Lord then concluded by moving, that this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration so much of the Act 5 and 6 Vict. cap. 47, as relates to an Export Duty on Coal, with a view to its immediate repeal.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the Motion of the noble Lord, the House would agree with him in thinking, that the noble Lord need not have apologised for introducing the subject, for he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never heard a statement made in that House which bore more fully on every point of the subject, and which had been more clearly and forcibly urged upon their attention. He must at the same time say, as regarded the Motion with which the noble Lord's statement concluded, he was unfortunately obliged to differ from the noble Lord; and he should shortly state to the House the reasons on which that difference was grounded. If he refrained from following the noble Lord in all the observations which he had made with regard to the small amount of the Revenue derived from the tax on coals, and the evils which he alleged to result from it, he begged to assure him that it was not from any want of respect towards him, but solely because he thought the question lay within a much narrower compass. The noble Lord directed the attention of the House to the effect which he attributed to these duties in reducing the hours of profitable labour in the collieries, and diminishing the profits of shipowners whose vessels were engaged in the coal trade. If he could show the noble Lord that the amount of coal raised was not less than it had been previously, the noble Lord could hardly maintain that it was the duty which had produced the effect of displacing labour in the collieries. If in addition to that, he showed that the export of coal was nearly as extensive as before, then the noble Lord could scarcely hold the opinion that the tax had operated prejudicially to the shipping interest in connection with the coal trade. The noble Lord had justly stated, that as compared with 1840, there was a
242
diminution in the exports for the last year; but if he compared them with the exports of 1841, the noble Lord would see there was an increase. It was not a fair comparison to contrast the exports of 1843 with those of 1842, for in consequence of the announcement, in the beginning of 1842, that the coal duties would be interfered with, a more than usual quantity of coal was disposed of in the beginning of that year, the amount sold in the first half of the year being very much greater than that sold in the latter half. Therefore, in order to have a fair estimate of the amount of coals exported comparatively since the duty of which the noble Lord had spoken, they ought to compare the exports of 1843, when the duty was in operation, with 1841, when there was no fear of a change in the duties, and consequently nothing to induce an unusual sale. It would be seen, by comparing the returns for 1843 with those for 1841, that so far from the quantity of coal exported in 1843 being less, it exceeded that exported in 1841—the excess was not considerable he would admit, but still there was an excess. He might, therefore, be permitted to doubt whether the duty had operated to prevent the export of coals. Now, he would ask, had the coal duties alone produced the effects to which the noble Lord had adverted, and had no other causes operated to produce them, independently of coal duties. Take the Colonies of this country. What was the effect there? Was the quantity of coal exported to the Colonies in the period to which the noble Lord adverted greater than in former years? On the contrary, the quantity of coal exported to the Colonies in 1841, was 344,000 tons; in 1842, 353,000; and in 1843 it fell to 307,000 tons; so that in the quantity of coal exported to our own Colonies where it was independent of duty, there was a considerable decrease, The paper on the Table showed that there was, in 1843, also a decrease in the quantity of coal brought to London, where there was no variation occasioned by the amount of duty. It appeared that, in 1842, there were 2,754,000 tons sent to London, and in 1843, only 2,663,000 tons, so that here was a falling off upon which the duty could have no effect. At Guernsey, Jersey and other places where there was no duty, it would be found that, in 1843, as compared with the two preceding years there was a falling off even in those places which were not affected by duty. That falling off no doubt bad greatly affected the

243
shipping trade, particularly the shipping employed in carrying coals. The noble Lord had adverted to the falling off in our Colonial exports, and had truly stated that that falling off must have been prejudicial to the shipping interest; but that circumstance had no reference to the question then before the House, as the duty did not extend to coals exported to our own Colonies. It had been said, at the period when the duty upon coals exported to foreign countries had been proposed, that that measure would have the effect of ruining our coal trade with France; but he found that our exports of coals to France had been greater in the year 1843 than they had been in the year 1841. So that to the very country with respect to which the greatest alarm was expressed by the coal owners, at the time when this duty was imposed—to that country, respecting which the greatest complaints had been made, the export of coal had increased. With respect to Russia, again—the export of coals had considerably increased. But, said the noble Lord, formerly coal was sent to Russia in foreign ships at a high duty, and now, in consequence of our treaty of reciprocity, it was sent in Russian ships, which paid a low rate of duty; but how stood that matter? To take the duty as a test. The quantity sent in 1842, was 83,000 tons, and in the following year 116,000 tons, and the duty paid in the former year was 4.000 l, and in the last year, 9,000 l., and therefore, the increase of duty was greater in proportion than the increase in the amount of coal. The noble Lord was therefore incorrect in attributing to the export duty any injury to that branch of our trade. It would be remembered that, when the subject was before under discussion, those interested in the coal trade had made great complaints of the embarrassment occasioned to the trade by the great quantity of small coal with which they were overloaded, and for which they could find no market. Now, if a comparison were made of the quantity of small coal sent out at present with the former amount, it would be found that the increased export of small coal was very considerable. In the year 1842 the small coal exported was 148,000 tons, while in 1843 the export was 456,000 tons, giving a very large increase in the amount of small coal exported since the duty was imposed, and yet on this small coal the duty was most complained of as oppressive. With respect to the depression of the shipping interest, would the noble Lord tell
244
him that that depression was confined to those ships engaged in the coal trade of Newcastle and Sunderland? Had there not been a general lowering of freight in, all branches of trade? and if that were admitted, which he conceived to be the case, from the gestures of an hon. Gentleman opposite, what ground was there for imputing to the coal duty that it was the basis and cause of the depression complained of? But it further appeared, that with some of our Colonies, especially Canada, so far as coal was concerned, there had been more employment for the shipping interest in the last than in preceding years. Although the export trade to that Colony on the whole, was diminished, yet the amount of coal exported was greater than in antecedent periods. If then, the House was to judge of the effect of the duty from the documents on the Table, and from the information which they possessed with respect to the effect of the duty on the exportation of coal, there was no ground whatever for the House to yield to the proposition of the noble Lord. When he had the honour of submitting his financial arrangement for the year, he stated the grounds upon which it was impossible for him to extend beyond narrow limits the remission of taxation for the present year, and he thought his proposal met with general concurrence. He might have made an improper selection of articles to be relieved from duty. He might in the noble Lord's opinion, have committed an error in not substituting coal for wool, or some of the other articles, upon which the duty was reduced, but if the noble Lord looked at the duties which he proposed to reduce, he doubted whether he would not find that the reduction was calculated to aid that particular interest which he considered would be so beneficially affected by a reduction of the duty on coal. Since his measures were proposed, he had received distinct assurances from ship-owners that they would be highly favourable to the interest of that individual class. It was from gentlemen deeply interested in shipping, and thoroughly conversant with the trade, that he had received that declaration. He maintained, therefore, that there was no ground made out by the noble Lord which should induce the House to change the decision to which it had come. It was always a painful duty to resist attempts for the remission of taxation, urged upon the House with great power and ability, but his resistance was based upon

245
the narrow ground of the impropriety of affecting the revenue beyond what in the judgment of the House, the revenue could bear, and because there was no evidence that if a remission of taxation could be effected, this particular article was the one upon which the duty ought to be remitted. He should certainly oppose the noble Lord's Motion.
Mr. Graingersaid he could not forbear from expressing his astonishment at the ground assigned by the right hon. Gentleman for resisting the proposition of the noble Lord, and to show that his astonishment was well founded, he would remind the House of the reasons assigned by the Government when they first introduced this measure, and when they opposed the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Howick) last year. He regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury was not in his place, but he had the consolation of thinking that he was much more agreeably employed elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had justified the tax on the ground that such an article as coal was a perfectly legitimate source of revenue, and when the noble Lord below him brought forward his Motion last year, the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not consent to it, because nine months' experience was not enough to enable us to judge of the effects of the Tariff, and that they were not then discussing how they should appropriate a surplus revenue to the reduction of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman added also, that this duty was imposed by a large majority of the House, not because it was a good tax in itself, but to make up a deficiency in the revenue, and that these reasons still existed, as there was still a deficit. But now, forsooth, after the Government had, last year, led every one to believe that as soon as there should be a surplus in the Exchequer, then the time would have arrived for taking off the tax, up got the Chancellor of the Exchequer and said, "Oh, forsooth, I won't discuss the question upon any such ground. It won't do for me, having a large surplus revenue, to discuss this question upon the same terms as last year. If I remit this duty, I shall be beset in all quarters with applications for remission of taxes." He would ask the House whether there was any fair comparison between this and other taxes which called for remission, when the state of the revenue would allow it. This was
246
a recent tax, it was not to be compared with those which had existed for years, and which might be suffered to continue for two or three years longer. If the tax was imposed in a moment of necessity, it ought to be taken off the moment that necessity ceased. He did not grudge the wool growers the remission that had been granted to them, amounting to 90,000 l. or 100,000 l., but he said that the Coal Duty ought to have been repealed in preference. He came now to another ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman thought proper to resist this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there were any proofs that this tax operated injuriously to the export of coal, and then he took the years 1841 and 1843, and because there had been a small increase in the latter year, amounting to about 47,000 tons, he said there was a proof that no injury had been sustained in consequence of the imposition of the tax. The question was, who had paid the export duty? Had it been paid by the foreigner? He did not think the right hon. Gentleman would venture to assert that it had. Was it intended when the tax was laid on that it should be paid by the shipowner or the coalowner? The argument of the First Lord of the Treasury was, that as in foreign countries there were heavy import duties on coal, it would be hard if this country could not derive some little revenue from it, and that we should tax those articles the exportation of which would bear it. If the Government were now satisfied that the tax, so far from falling on the foreigner, was borne by the shipowner and the coalowner, what pretence had they for continuing it? If the foreigner did pay it, of course the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared with documents to show that the tax had had the effect of raising the price of coal in the foreign market. But was it not known, on the contrary, that coal was sold at still lower prices in the foreign market than before? It might be said that the coalowner could afford to pay the duty; but even supposing he could afford it, no person could think it right that so large a sum should come out of the pockets of so few men. Were the shipowners, then, in a condition to bear it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the shipping trade was depressed; but he asked, did that depression exist only amongst those connected with the

247
coal trade? Why, was there ever so fallacious an argument? Granting that there was a general depression in the shipping interest, what could be more calculated to increase that depression than to throw a number of ships out of employment? This was the natural effect, and if inquiry were made in the north of England, it would be found that owing to the depression of trade, the freight obtained by the shipowners was next to nothing, and now the duty was distributed between the shipowner and the coalowner. He had a Return of the quantity of coal exported in 1833 and in 1841, before the tax was laid, and it appeared that in 1833 the quantity of coal sent to foreign countries, excluding our Colonies, was 449,659 tons, and in 1841, 1,500,701 tons, being an increase of upwards of two-thirds in eight years. The average of the eight years showed a progressive increase of 132,630 tons, and he was entitled to assume, that if the tax had never been laid on, the increase in the exportation would have gone on in the same proportion. But every one connected with the trade knew that if this bar had not been opposed to it, the increase would have been to a larger extent, and taking the eight years, there would have been in 1842 and 1843 an increase of 165,260 tons, giving a result of 1,665,960 tons. Now, taking the amount actually exported at 218,606 tons, the right hon. Gentleman argued that the quantity of coal exported had not fallen off. He asked if there was any compensation in the amount derived by the revenue for the large quantities of coal in the pits thus left unworked. The right hon. Gentleman now had his pockets full—he did not say how he had filled them—and the coalowners had a right to say that before the surplus was employed for any other purpose, they were entitled to demand that the Coal Duty should be taken off. He called upon the House before they voted for the rejection of the noble Lord's Motion, to consider whether this was a fair and equitable tax or not. It was against all principle to impose a tax which even its supporters could not defend on any other ground than that of mere expediency; and would the House allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to run away from the ground upon which it bad been put by the First Lord of the Treasury last year? He trusted they Would not, and that Members who had
248
supported the Motion before would support it again, and that Members who had been absent from former divisions would now support it for the first time. He was sorry he did not see in his place the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London. Last year the Government said they had a high authority for imposing this tax— that of the noble Lord the Member for London. Why, the noble Lord had given his assent to it in the most cautious and guarded manner possible. He said that he should not feel justified in refusing it, provided the tax did no injury—meaning, that if the statements of the Government were deserving of credit, he ought to agree to it; but the absence of the noble Lord last year and to-night, must show the Government that he began to doubt of the expediency of his vote, and to fear that his ingenious mind had been imposed upon by the statements made to him. He trusted this would be a lesson to the noble Lord for the future, and that he would not allow himself to be won over by statements, but would examine every question for himself; and he was sure he would not again give a vote which had excited the surprise of every one on that side of the House.
Mr. Warburtonsaid it was not from revenue considerations that he intended to defend this tax, although he thought that even upon that ground it was defensible. Mr. Ricardo, in his celebrated work upon taxation, distinctly laid down this principle, that if any country produced a commodity at a much cheaper rate than another, that was a perfectly legitimate subject of taxation, and it was proper to lay an export duty on it. He thought that on such considerations alone this tax was defensible; but it was not so much on these grounds that he intended to support it. What he contended was, that if the matter was fully investigated by the Government it would be found that there was but a limited quantity of this commodity at a moderate distance below the surface and accessible to the sea, and on that account, in the same manner as in a town in a state of siege you would break through the ordinary rules of political economy, and would not allow the soldiers to throw away their rations, so here you should in like manner depart from the ordinary principle. In the case of an article annually produced, such as corn, it was right to follow the ordinary maxims of political

249
economy; but with respect to coal, which was not produced annually, and which was to be found only in a limited quantity in the vicinity of the sea, it was perfectly justifiable to take means for regulating the sale of it, so as to secure to the inhabitants of your own country a priority of consumption of so important an article. Before a Committee of the House of Lords, in 1830, Mr. Taylor, the coal agent of the Duke of Northumberland, gave evidence, that there was coal enough accessible to the sea in Northumberland and Durham to last for 1,727 years. If he were merely to examine the data of this calculation he should at once bring down the number of years to one half; for he found that Mr. Taylor underrated the consumption of the coal of Northumberland and Durham, and stated it at only one half the real consumption, so that he should bring down the number of years from 1,727 to about 863 years. But he should not be content with that. There were several eminent scientific men who had given their opinions on this subject. Amongst others, Professor Sedgwick, of Cambridge, and Dr. Buckland, of Oxford, had examined these coal districts, and rated the time for which they would last at 300 or 400 years. But he would bring evidence from Northumberland and Durham—not taken at a time when the object was to underrate the quantity of coal, but when it was the interest of the witness to underrate its duration as much as possible. He referred to a Committee of that House which sat upon Ecclesiastical cases, and before which a witness was called—a highly respectable gentleman from Northumberland—a solicitor much interested in coal property, and who had formed an exact estimate of the coal property of the see of Durham. The question was whether the holders of Ecclesiastical leases should be allowed to redeem their interests and become the purchasers. Thus it was the interest of those whom the witness represented to underrate the quantity of coal, and the number of years it would last. The House would remember that the witnesses from Northumberland and Durham, in 1830, estimated the duration at 1,727 years. He would now read the evidence of Mr. Dalton, in 1837, before the Ecclesiastical Committee, and the House would hear his estimate of the duration of the coal of that district. The witness said that some calculations esti-
250
mated the duration of the coal at 1,700 years, but that Dr. Buckland and others were of opinion that the whole would not last more than 400 years, and that thus there were differences of opinion to an enormous amount. He said it was impossible for any human being to make a correct estimate from the quantity of unexplored coal, and after giving some description of the different qualities of coal, and the prices which they fetched, he made this important statement—that as regarded the best coal, from the most accurate information he could obtain, he apprehended that the best coals from the district of the Wear would be exhausted at the end of the present century; that is, in about sixty years. One witness declared that the coals, that is, the best coals, must be exhausted in sixty years; so much, then, for the validity of the calculation of those who estimated that the coals would last for 1,727 years. They had then this calculation before them, that by the end of sixty years that species of coal wherewith the London market was supplied would be exhausted. What then did Mr. Buddell say in the Committee of 1830?—That if he were given a month, and had the aid of requisite agents from the Government, he should be able to give a precise estimate of the quantity of coals and the probable time they would last. He knew that before the coal would be exhausted, there would be a large increase in the price, that that increase must postpone the period when it might be utterly exhausted, and yet it could be quite within the duration of the life of many he addressed, to see either the coal exhausted, or an enormous increase in its price. There was a peculiarity belonging to this article of coals, and why they should facilitate its exportation to foreign countries, independently of the consideration that they were exporting the best quality of coal, and that peculiarity was very well known to most of the Gentlemen in whose presence he spoke. In Mr. Porter's "Progress of the Nation," there were explained the regulations adopted in the trade of coal, and which applied to the vend of coals in the counties of Northumberland and Durham. The general course of these regulations was this—a limited quantity of coals was only allowed to be raised, and each of the collieries was only allowed to sell a certain portion of the limited

251
vend. The ordinary course of purchase and sale was this—the purchaser offered his money, and the vender immediately let him have his commodity, and the parties were most pleased when there was the most expedition in the shipping of the cargo that had been purchased. This was not, however, the case with the coal-trade. If a Frenchman and an Englishman went to the same markets, in the ordinary course of trade, and both offered the same price for the same article, both would be supplied on the same terms, and at the same time. This was not the case with coals, for 30 s. per chaldron would be about the price charged to the English purchaser, but the foreigner who went to purchase would be allowed to purchase at 18s. the Newcastle chaldron, so that the English purchaser would be required to pay 70 per cent. more than the foreign purchaser. ["Ob, oh!"] Yes, be stated that which was the fact. He had been upon Committees on this subject, and he too had found there that this question had been always shirked. There could be no more valuable evidence than that of Mr. Porter on this very subject. He was a disinterested party, and he told them that 18s. was the price to the foreigner, whilst the Englishman had to pay so much more. And then these persons who upheld this system, talked of the interest they felt for the shipping trade, and yet they detained English captains and English ships that came to them for coals—they kept them lying idle, supposing they had delivered the quantity they had agreed to sell, for a fortnight at a time. That was a grievance to the shipping interest they had it in their power to put an end to, and yet they persevered with it. Then there was another point to be remarked upon. There was a small coal—it was called "beam coal." There were in it particles of coal about the size of a walnut, which could not pass through the sieve. That very description of coal could be applied to most valuable purposes in England, if the coalowners would allow it to be used. It was, for instance, a species of coal that could be used with great advantage by lime-burners. Now they were sending to the Pacific for guano, for the purpose of benefitting the agriculture of this country; but why, he asked, did not the coalowners of the north allow this nut, or beam-coal, to be burned in England as well as by foreigners, when their doing so might be of
252
such advantage to agriculture? He knew himself a great lime-burner—a gentleman who had once been a Member of that House, and who was well known to those he addressed. That gentleman had endeavoured to get this coal. He was a rich man, and there could be no doubt that his bills would be paid, and though he wanted for his business this very species of coals, and though the coalowners of the north sold it to the foreigner for 3s. a ton, yet the English purchaser could not get it at that price, nor at anything like a reasonable price. The English lime-burner would have been glad to have purchased the beam coal at a price proportionate to the large coal, and though the coalowners of the north sold it to the foreigner for 3s. the ton, still he could not get it. Then, he said, let this odious monopoly be done away with; for of all the monopolies that had ever been heard of, that which embraced almost the whole vend of that which was called the great coal districts was the most odious. The best price coals here were from 25 s. to 30 s. the ton, whilst in the foreign market, on account of the low price at which it was procured, it would be sold at some 50 or 60 per cent. less, yes, and that for the same description of coal. ["No, no."] He maintained that the same description of coal could be bought abroad some 50 or 60 per cent. less than it could be bought in the London market. That was, he said, in consequence of the odious distinctions which were made by the coalowners between the foreign and English purchasers. Now, if he could bind these coalowners by any bond that that they would now and for evermore abandon this system, that the odious restrictions of the vend should be abolished by them, then, he said, it would be a cheap bargain with those coalowners to give them the benefit of the removal of the duty: but as he did not see how that bond could be enforced, then he said that until these restrictions were removed, the Government did well in equalising, as far as it could, the coal trade; for by the laying on of a moderate duty on the export of coals, it brought a little nearer an equality of price between the best coals as purchased in London and as purchased on the opposite coasts of the Continent. It was with these views he supported the Chancellor of the Exchequer most willingly in his proposition to maintain this tax.
Mr. R. Hindesaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had attacked the manner in which the Coal Trade was carried on in this country; but his observations on this point did not appear to have much reference to the question before the House. What the coal-owners complained of was, that the present export tax operated to encourage other nations to compete with them, and to exclude them altogether from many markets. It had been observed, in the course of the debate, that there were other causes independent of the tax which had caused a diminution in the coal trade to foreign nations? and, in proof of this, the diminution which had also taken place in the coal trade to our Colonies had been referred to. The truth was, however, that the export to the East and to China had diminished in consequence of the war; and if the East Indian and China trade were excluded, there would be found to be a great increase in the Colonial coal-trade. A strong objection to the tax was the injurious effect it had on the British shipping. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not defend this tax abstractedly, but that the question to be considered was, which would be most beneficial to the public—this tax or the substitution of some other? There was, however, a peculiarity attending this coal tax which was not to be found in connection with many other taxes, namely, that if it were continued to 1850, it would create a competition against the British coalowners in almost all other countries in the world, who would turn their attention to the opening of coal mines; so that, by the time that tax was abolished, all the mischief would have been done. For these reasons, he should give his cordial support to the Motion.
M. Humeagreed with the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Warburton) in thinking that a more disgraceful combination did not exist than the combination among coalowners. He thought it fairly came within the combination laws, and he had made a suggestion to this effect to the Attorney General, who, however, had not agreed with him. Last year this combination appeared to have been held together by a very slender thread, and there were symptoms of its breaking up, and of the benefit of a free market being allowed to the public. Nevertheless, the system still continued. Evidence on the subject of this combination had been brought for-
254
ward in 1836, and it appeared that it was the London brokers, who managed to ascertain what was the average price which would pay those included in the vend, that was to say, those who contributed a certain amount towards the supply of the London market. This price they fixed at 22 s., and whenever the price fell to 21 s., then fewer cargoes were sent to market, and thus the price was again brought up. There might be 180, or even 500 ships lying in the Thames waiting to unload, but their cargoes were only brought to market in such a succession as would keep the price of coals up to the regulated rate. This was a system which it was impossible not to comdemn; it was injurious to the shipping interests, and was not ultimately beneficial to the coalowners themselves. Now, what was the capacity of the coal mines? Instead of producing only 2,300,000 tons a year for the London market, there was a statement on the Table of the House which showed that the coal mines were capable of producing 4,000,000 tons a year for the London market. The colliers, however, were not allowed to work according to their capacity; but there was a prescribed amount of coal which each was allowed to produce, so that not more than 2,000,000 or 2,300,000 tons a year should be brought to the London market. It was with great regret that he saw this system could not be put down; but of this he was quite sure, that if he were sitting on the benches opposite, and had the powers of the Attorney General, it would be for him much more easy to convict these coalowners than Mr. O'Connell and his coadjutors; and he was sure he would have much less trouble with the jury, and everything else. A conspiracy more decided against the public than that of the coalowners there never had been; and it was to be remarked that the monopoly they desired to uphold applied to London alone. Now, as regarded the duty itself, he had from the first always advocated its repeal. In 1833, a Committee had reported that the tax ought to be taken off. In 1834 the export of small coals was 50,000 tons, and so it went on increasing until the year before last, when the duty was laid on, and then there was an export of 500,000 tons to France alone. In the three ports of the Tyne, the Wear, and the Humber, there were, in 1834, 1,497 ships employed; and in the year 1841

255
there were employed 4,220 ships. What was the result? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that things were now much the same as in. 1841. Why, if it had not been for this tax, they would have gone on increasing, and they were to consider how many persons were employed in various ways by means of this trade. He repeated that the export tax was injurious to British shipping. Our mercantile navy was going to rack and ruin, and yet the Government were for continuing the duty on coal, to the still further detriment of the shipping interest engaged in that trade. They should also recollect that in most countries coal had now been discovered, and consequently the supply from this country must henceforth be less required. We formerly supplied the United States; but they would henceforth be able to supply themselves with the coal of their country. Our policy, therefore, was to sell while we could, for fear we should not be able when we would.
Mr. F. T. Baringsaid, that having opposed this tax at the time it was first introduced, he felt bound to say, that nothing that he had seen since, either in his own experience or in the returns before the House, had given him ground to alter his opinion as to the great inexpediency of having imposed it. Neither could he forget the circumstances under which the imposition of this tax was brought about—the negotiations between the coal-owners and the Government, by which the stern virtue of the former was softened down, and they were induced to acquiesce in the imposition of the tax, under the promise that the Government would take it off at the first convenient opportunity. Now, last year and the year before there might have been some pretence for saying that the Government could not take off this tax, but this was not the case now; the right hon. Gentleman, thanks to the Income Tax and other sources of revenue, being in the possession of a considerable surplus. But even this surplus would be increased by the alteration of the Sugar Duties proposed last evening by Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. the Secretary for the Board of Trade last night said, that he expected that this alteration would lead to an increased consumption of 20,000 tons of sugar, which, at a duty of 34 s., would give an increase of 700,000 l. He thought that this was ample to afford the loss of 100,000 l., or 120,000 l., upon the article of coals. He (Mr. Baring)
256
objected to this tax very strongly, upon the principle, that it was a tax upon exports; and he thought that the Government was rather inconsistent in adopting it, when they had recently prided themselves upon taking off the ½ per cent. generally upon the exports of the country. The principle upon which the Government acted then was the right one, but it was very inconsistent with it now to lay on a tax upon the export of coals, which, upon small coals, amounted to the rate of 50 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that they had not found the tax to produce any injurious effects. Yet was it not the fact, that under the reduced duty, the exports were increasing every year, and that the shipping employed, as a necessary consequence, was increasing also. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the exports were not less than they were in 1841, but he should recollect that but for this tax the increase which was annually going on would have progressed, and that the exports now would have been considerably greater than those of the year 1841. Taking the average of eight years under the reduced duty, the annual increase had been 133,000 tons; so that the exports in 1843, instead of exceeding those of 1841 by 47,000 tons, should have done so by 266,000 tons. Yet the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated that the tax had not been injurious. Now, as regarded the shipping interest, taking colliers on an average to be of 300 tons burthen, the experiment of 1833 caused an increase of upwards of forty-four ships per year. That was the result of the measure recommended by a Committee of the House, and proposed by his noble Friend near him, the Member for the City of London. The result, therefore, of the measure of the present Government had been to put an end to the additional employment that had been given to the shipping. That being the case, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was most extraordinary. He contended that the tax ought to be continued, our shipping being in a state of great distress, and our coal trade falling off. Why, to him that appearance was the strongest argument for taking off the duty. There was one point which had been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him. It was the combination entered into, as he said, by the coal-owners to keep up prices, and if there was anything which would induce him to wish that hon. Member to be Her Majesty's Attorney-General, it would be because his hon.

257
Friend was determined to put an end to that combination by all legal means. He objected strongly to the principles on which that combination was founded, but he understood that this combination, or vend only included a part of the coal districts, and was by no means general or universal. It therefore did seem to him a little hard, because there were certain wrong principles adopted in carrying on a trade, principles in which all who were engaged in that trade did not concur, therefore the whole of the trade should be punished. Such were the observations which occurred to him on this question, and such were the reasons which induced him cordially to support the Motion of the noble Lord.
Mr. Liddellmust say, in answer to the taunt which had been thrown out by the hon. Gentleman opposite against the coal proprietors for assenting to the imposition of this tax, that those parties had acted with greater prudence as regarded their interests, and those dependent upon them, in giving a limited concurrence in the proposition, than they would have shown in resisting the Government to extremes. He for one, however, yielded to that proposition, not without the hope that as soon as the circumstances of the country would admit of it the Government would hasten to remove the tax. When hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, threw out taunts of this description against Her Majesty's Government, and those who supported them in this House, he could not help reminding them, that but for the blunders and bungling policy of the party who sat opposite when they were in power, the present Government would not have found it necessary to impose this and other unpopular taxes. This Her Majesty's Government at least might say, that it was under them, that for the first time since the Whig party entered office in 1832, a Chancellor of the Exchequer had been enabled to lay a favourable balance sheet before the country. Well, certainly he might say so as far as regarded the period since 1836, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite assumed the duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer. Again he repeated, he hoped that this tax was one which would not be long persevered in. He must say, however, that he was somewhat alarmed at the line of argument which he had heard adopted to-night, and the facility with which Her Majesty's Government, instead of the arguments which they had formerly
258
used on this subject, adopted those which had been started by others on the present occasion—that of the hon. Member for Kendal, for instance, as to the danger of falling short in our supply of coals, if exportation were increased, The fact was, that the hon. Member for Montrose and the hon. Member for Kendal, although they might go out into different lobbies on this occasion, had both fired their shot at the unfortunate coal-owners. The subject of the regulation of the vend, he thought was one better adapted for investigation before a Committee, than in this House; and if such a Committee were appointed, he doubted not that the result would be to disabuse the public mind of many erroneous impressions to which they had been subjected. In the Morning Chronicle of this day, for instance, he found an article in which all the arguments of the hon. Member for Kendal had been anticipated.
"The great coalowners, it was said, through the medium of a combination which has existed, with some partial interruptions, ever since the year 1771, restrain the amount of production in order to keep up the price to the English, especially the metropolitan consumer; and the extent to which this is carried is illustrated by the fact, that the same coal for which the Londoner pays 30 s. a ton is sold in the distant market of St. Petersburgh for 15 s. or 16 s."
Now, in the same paper in which this assertion was made, that the consumers of London were made to pay 30 s. per ton for their coals to the coalowners, he found the account current of the coal market for the previous day, by which it appears that in spite of all the disadvantages which the coalowners laboured under from the present unsettled state of the trade, where by between 30,000 and 40,000 men were kept out of employ; and notwithstanding that from those circumstances, the coalowners were unable to work their pits at all at present, the price for the best coals, the Lamb-ton for instance, was 25 s. 9d. and 25 s. 6d.; and that of ordinary coals, 21 s., 19 s., and 18s. per ton. This was the state of the market, influenced by all these disadvantageous circumstances; but in the early part of the year, he found that the highest priced coals had been repeatedly sold as low as 19 s. and 20 s. per ton. It was the city dues, and the charges of the retail merchants, that enhanced the price of coals to the London consumer. As to the charge

259
of monopoly, and the alleged combination { in regard to the "vend," there was too much competition to give the coalowner any great power in this way. The coal-owners of the north wished for no secrecy or concealment. If the hon. Gentleman opposite wished it, let him move for another Committee on the subject, and call before it the agents of the principal coal-owners. The very fact of so large and so respectable a body of men coalescing together and remaining constant to their own laws was a strong proof of its necessity. Had no other trade done the same thing? Yes. The iron trade had found it necessary, and it was not fair, because the rules of political economy forbade it, to stigmatise this system in almost entire ignorance of its necessity or of its effect. The coalowners had now this export duty to contend with—and with all the other obstacles against them, he ventured to say, that they had not gained during the last year a profit of one per cent upon their capital. A petition had been presented to the House from the colliers, by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and he must say that the statements of that petition, of which but a very small part referred to the question before the House were incorrect. He thought it unfair, however to bring the subject of the strike of the colliers under the consideration of the House incidentally without any notice being given, and he trusted that the hon. Member who had presented that petition would not follow that course. The colliers possessed many comforts and even luxuries which were unknown to labourers in the other parts of the kingdom, and if they were not extremely ill-advised, the time was not far distant, when there would be a satisfactory termination of their unhappy disputes. He once more conjured Ministers to give their attention to this subject, not to persevere in a tax so unjust and injurious so as to make those who had supported it, repent the vote they had given.
Mr. T. S. Duncombethought his hon. Friend, the Member for North Durham, was premature in accusing him of bringing forward the case of the strike in the coal districts on that occasion, for it did (so happen that he had not intended to intrude upon that point more than one or two sentences from the petition which he had presented from the colliers out on strike, which he thought bore immediately upon the question before the House. But
260
there was one observation which had been made by the hon. Gentleman while explaining the reasons of the high price of coals in this metropolis. In reply to an observation from the hon. Member for Montrose upon that part of the case, the hon. Member for Durham said, "You must recollect that the workmen have been for a long time on strike, and that there is consequently a difficulty, from the scarcity of labour, in working the coals at the pits;" and he added—and he (Mr. T. Duncombe) was sorry to hear it, as that opened up the whole question—that the roughness of the men added to the difficulty. [Mr. Liddell: No, no.] The hon. Gentleman had certainly used the words, for he (Mr. Duncombe) had taken them down at the time. Now he would say, looking at the number of men out on strike, amounting, he believed, to some 20,000 or 30,000, and the distress which they must have suffered from being out of employment for so long a period as eight weeks, that their conduct had been not only peaceable but most exemplary. [Mr. Liddell had not made use of the words which the hon. Gentleman attributed to him.] The hon. Gentleman, he was bound to suppose, did not intend to use the expression. Now, he could well understand why the masters and coal-owners did not wish to go into the question of the strike. He could understand that they might not be prepared to go into that question. Very great misrepresentations had gone forth as to the conduct of the men in reference to the strike, and if they were now to go into that question he (Mr. T. Duncombe) would be able to prove to the House and to the country, that it was the masters who had struck, and not the workmen. It was no question of wages that had led to the cessation of work, but entirely one of personal safety with the men, which had been endangered by the masters; besides which, certain bonds had been introduced by the masters this year, which were previously unknown, which the men (most properly as he thought) had objected to. The men, however, offered to refer the whole of the points in dispute to honourable and fair arbitration; this they state in their petition, and he asked, were the masters prepared to meet them in that fair and equitable offer or not? If they refused, they would be the parties in the wrong, and not the men. The men alleged in their

261
petition that many unfounded statements had been made for the purpose of prejudicing their case; that so far from refusing to come to terms with the masters, they had made many attempts, though ineffectually, to arrive at an amicable settlement; and they concluded by praying for a Select Committee to inquire into the whole case, and that legislative measures might be passed for their protection. Amongst other grievances, the coal-workers complained that they were paid for their labour by measures which were frequently incorrect, and by which they were considerable losers; and they desired that the masters should be compelled to pay for the coals obtained by weight, and really he could see no objection to this very reasonable request. The House had passed an Act to compel coals to be sold by weight, instead of by measure. That Act was for the protection of the masters, and no doubt also for the protection of the public, by preventing those frauds which, under the previous system had existed—then why not pay the men who worked the coals from the mines in the same manner? When the men called for Legislative interference for their protection, it was not for the purpose of regulating wages, or in any way interfering with the rate of remuneration, but what they asked was, that the Government should appoint inspectors to see that the works wherein they were employed were safe. The men also complained of the system of fines, and they alleged that the necessity for the fines arose from the bad ventilation of the mines, by which they were compelled, for their own personal safety, to work in the dark, the consequence often being, that after two or three weeks hard work, they found the fines left them in debt, instead of getting paid for their labour. If the masters were compelled to provide better ventilation, the men would have more light, and would be able to clear their coals themselves. They further complained that they were not paid, as other workmen, weekly, but only once a fortnight, and that it was the custom of the masters always to keep back one week's wages. The first three weeks the workman received no wages, but at the end of that time a fortnight's wages were paid to him, the other week being kept back in the hands of the master. He thought these were all matters which, if the masters
262
meant fairly to the men, might be left to arbitration as they had proposed. It was said the men were combined together against the masters. But why were not the men to unite together for their mutual interests as well as the masters? The masters were now combined together as had been stated by the hon. Members for Kendal and Montrose, not only against the men, but against the public. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) rejoiced to see that in London a new regulation had been made by the Lord Mayor to prevent vessels lying in the river for the purpose of keeping up the markets. As he understood, the Lord Mayor had very properly provided that vessels should not be permitted to lie more than three market days without unloading, and that if within that time they did not discharge their cargoes, they should be compelled to go back out of his jurisdiction, and begin again at the far end. He hoped and believed, that the vigorous measures of the Lord Mayor would defeat the combination of the masters against the public. At present he understood, that combination was so stringent as to prevent those masters who were desirous of acceding to reasonable terms with the men, and trading fairly for the public, as well as their own advantage, from doing so. It was his intention, in accordance with the prayer of the petition, to vote for the abolition of the tax; and he must say he had heard no grounds, in the various speeches which had been made against the Motion, to induce the House to continue a tax which was most injurious to the master, and consequently to the workmen, and equally so, he was satisfied, to the public and the consumer in this country; while, on the other hand, it was not of sufficient importance as a matter of revenue, to justify the Chancellor of the Exchequer in upholding it.
Sir G. Clerksaid, it had been asserted by more than one hon. Gentleman in the course of the debate, that the grounds of defending this tax had been changed on the present occasion from those which had been relied upon in previous discussions upon the same question, and that the arguments upon which the Government had depended upon those occasions having been found no longer tenable, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken up a new line of defence altogether. He, however, could see no such change in anything that had been

263
advanced by his right hon. Friend. He did not mean to hazard any opinion as to the probable duration of the coal mines of this country—whether they would be sufficient for the supply of one or two centuries; but he thought there was something in the arguments of the hon. Member for Kendal, that every year was rendering the working of the mines, which produced the best coals, more difficult and expensive in consequence of the increasing distance of the coals from the surface, and it was quite clear, that long before the whole of the coals should be exhausted, a very considerable increase in the price must take place to the consumer in this country; and if the export of coals were to go on increasing at the rate which some hon. Gentlemen anticipated, it would be necessary to take means to check it, for the sake of the consumers here, even supposing the coal mines should continue productive for a much longer time than it was calculated they would. With regard to the documents which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had quoted, and which it had been said he had depended upon in defence of the tax, instead of the arguments which had been urged in its favour on former occasions, his right hon. Friend had merely referred to those returns for the purpose of rebutting the argument which had been advanced, that the shipping interest had suffered under the operation of the duty. And he contended, that if the Government could show, as they had shown, that there had been no diminution in the exports in consequence of the duty, they made out a sufficient answer to the argument of the ruinous effects of the tax on the coalowners of the north, and the shipping interests engaged in the coal trade. It had been said, that no time could be more appropriate for the removal of the tax than when they had a surplus revenue. Upon that point he thought his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted wisely in the selections he had made of the articles upon which to reduce taxes; and he confidently expected, that more public benefit would result from those reductions than could possibly follow from the removal of the export duty on coals.
Viscount Howickcould assure the House that he should detain them but for a very few minutes. He had on a former evening so fully explained his views on this subject, and it had already been so fully debated,
264
and the arguments upon it, one way and the other, had been so completely exhausted that he felt he should not be justified in detaining them at any length. At the same time, his constituents were so deeply interested in the abrogation of this tax, that he could not refrain from offering one or two observations. If he or the House required any proof of how truly at a loss the Government were for any grounds for defending this most impolitic tax, he thought it was clearly afforded in the truly inconsistent arguments of the right hon. Baronet who had just spoken; for, whilst in the latter part of his address—for the purpose, perhaps, of allowing time for his friends to come in, the hon. Baronet endeavoured to show that this tax had not been injurious to the trade. At the beginning of his speech he admitted there was much force in what had been said by the hon. Member for Kendal, as to the danger of the supply of coals being exhausted, and the consequent necessity of checking the export. Did they impose this tax to check trade and husband the supply of coal? If, so, there was an end of the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. But if they rejected this argument, then, he said, let them fairly debate the question upon other grounds, and look at its effects on the welfare of the community. But really the right hon. Gentleman must have had immense confidence in the gullibility of the House when he brought forward that argument of his relating to the probable exhaustion of the supply of coal. For except the hon. Member for Kendal, who was and had been for many years, afflicted with a sort of monomania, upon this point, he did not believe that there was another Member of the House who ventured to take his stand upon that ground. Why, they knew that in addition to the supply of coal in the north of England, the best geologists told them that there was in the Welsh field a probable supply for two thousand years, and that in addition to what might be obtained from Scotland and Ireland. Now for his part, he was content to legislate for the next two thousand years, and to trust that no great injury would accrue to those who came after that time. As to the coal trade being injured by the tax, he thought that Government had virtually confessed the case against them. He thought it had been shown most clearly and indisputably, that the trade had been injured by this tax.

265
The trade in coal had become flourishing beyond example, in consequence of the repeal of an impolitic tax on coal. For eight years it was advancing year after year. Then this tax was imposed, in spite of the warnings of opposition, and instantly the increase of the trade was stopped. Did they not all know how short was the step from a check on a growing to a falling-off trade? He did not wish to detain the House, but he must refer to two points, not very intimately connected with the discussion, but which had been already very pointedly alluded to in the course of the debate. The hon. Member for Kendal first referred to the regulations for vends, and the hon. Member for Durham took up the cudgels in favour of the coal owners. Now he objected to all these regulations and combinations, whether existing among masters or workmen. He knew that in this respect great injury had been inflicted by the coalowners upon their own interests, by their own most injudicious acts. It was that regulation of the vend which brought upon the coalowners of the Tyne and the Wear, the competition of that of the Tees, and which was now throwing into the market the coals of Scotland and of the northern part of Northumberland. They had, in the latter place, a very valuable coal field, which had been hitherto very little worked, but which would soon, as he hoped, send a valuable supply of coal to the market. Thus, they in Northumberland profited by the mistakes of those who entered into the combinations alluded to. The opinion he now expressed would probably be not a little distasteful to some of the most influential among his own constituents; but he must honestly say that he was pursuaded the regulation of the vends had been most injurious to the coalowners by whom it was established. But because these regulations of vend were injurious, that was no reason for keeping on the tax now so much complained of, and which affected severely many parties who had nothing to do with the combination in question. He knew that large contracts had been entered into for supplies of coal to be sent abroad, and which had been thrown up since the imposition of the tax. Was it just, then, to punish those who were not parties to the regulations by keeping up this obnoxious impost? But further, he was astonished to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose—that hon. Gentleman who had brought in a Bill to repeal former impolitic laws against
266
combinations—he was astonished to hear him say that he would put down these combinations, if he could by means of the Attorney General. The interests of these who formed them would eventually put them down; but he held it to be no matter for the House to interfere with. On every principle they were bound to leave the coalowners to themselves. He would just touch upon another topic, certainly somewhat irrelevant to the question, but which had been alluded to during the evening, and that was the unfortunate strike now existing among the pitmen. Feeling as he did, deeply anxious that this unfortunate and injurious strike should come to an end —a combination which was so injurious, not only to the parties immediately concerned in it, hut to many others—he did deplore that the hon. Members for Durham and Finsbury should have thought fit to discuss such topics as those of the differences between masters and men. The only duty of the Government, and of that House, in supporting the Government, was to maintain the law—to take care that neither masters nor employers were guilty of violence, or breach of the law, in endeavouring to maintain their own interests. The House, he considered, had no right to pronounce an opinion as to the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the demands of the masters on the one had, or of the workmen on the other. He would not pronounce any opinion—indeed, he would venture to say he had not formed a decided opinion— as to these differences between the masters and those whom they employed. He would however, express his earnest hope that a sincere desire would be manifested on both sides, by mutual concessions, and by a spirit of moderation and conciliation, to bring these unfortunate differences to a speedy and satisfactory termination. He hoped that neither party would allow themselves to be misled by those who he feared had some interest in keeping up these differences. He would give his most cordial support to the Motion of his noble Friend.
Mr. Humpherysaid, he would not have attempted to address the House but for the statement of the noble Lord who had just sat down—that the House had nothing to do with differences between masters and their workmen. He begged to state to the House the facts of a case which had come before him in his magisterial capacity during the last week. There were, he understood, about 50,000 sailors employed

267
in the coal trade, and some of them had applied to him under these circumstances: They stated, that they had entered into an agreement to come from Newcastle or Sunderland to London at 4l. per voyage; some of them arrived here in April, and in consequence of the cargoes of coals not having been sold, they remained here at the present time. It appeared from the charter parties that an agreement had been made between the masters and the coal-owners that if the vessels were detained in London three market days, their masters or owners should receive 1½d. per ton for each market day. Now, there were three market days in the week, and the masters were consequently receiving 4½d. per ton, per week, and were thereby secured against any loss from remaining here. Some of the ships had been eight or nine weeks in the port of London, the masters receiving this sum, while the poor men who contracted to undertake the voyage for 4l. were compelled to remain here for a period during which they might have made three voyages. Now, was this a case in which the House ought not to interfere? According to the opinion of the noble Lord, the reply of the House would be, " No; we have only to see that the men do not commit any act of violence or injury." But, he would ask, what was to become of the families of these poor men during their detention here? Some of them had families of eight, nine, or ten children, and to them this was a matter of very serious importance. He would now offer a few observations as to the tax which the noble Lord (Lord Howick) and other hon. Gentlemen had objected so strongly. In France they can buy our coals at 15 s. per ton, while in London we are obliged to pay for the same coal from 20 s. to 25 s. per ton. ["No, no."] "Yes, yes, I say you can." Why, then, should we give the French manufacturer the opportunity of purchasing coals so much cheaper than the English consumer does, and allow the French manufacturer to have such an advantage over the London manufacturer This ought not to exist for one moment. [An Hon. Member: "The City dues."] The City dues, I beg to say, are only 1s. 1d. per ton. They said that they did not send the best coals to France. What, then, did they send? The French manufacturer required the same quality of coals as we consume in London. For his own part he was for increasing the duty. He quite differed from his Friends
268
on this point. He went on a different principle. He said that Frenchmen should not have coals cheaper than the people of London had. But they would say, "if you can raise the price of coals in France the Belgians will soon supersede you in that quarter." Why, then, would the Belgians not supersede them in London? There was no duty on the imported foreign coals. [" Yes, yes."] What was it then? He contended that there was none, or if any, not more than 1s. per ton. If he had his will, he would put a duty upon coals exported to France, so as at least to raise the price of British coals there to a level with the London prices, so that the manufacturers should be on an equal footing. However, the coalowners had powerful interest both in this and the other House, and so he supposed that on this point they were safe enough. He would, however, on this occasion give his hearty support to the Government measure.
Mr. Huttsaid:— I am not sorry that I gave way to the worthy Alderman below me (Humphery), because I am sure that the House will be of opinion that he has thrown great light on the question under its consideration, and that he has unfolded his views on the subject of the Coal Trade in a manner which ought to be highly appreciated by the constituency which he represents. The worthy Alderman has explained to the House the hard case, as he conceives it, of certain sailors brought before him in his magisterial capacity, who were detained on board a collier in the river until the ship was discharged. I hope the worthy Alderman will not forget, when he has to deal as a magistrate with that case, that the men entered into an arrangement to do so at the time they were engaged, and that they made the bargain with a full knowledge of the duty they would be called on to perform. The case may be a hard one—perhaps it is so; but if the men think with the worthy magistrate that they have reason to complain, they will of course not enter into any such engagements on a future voyage. But now, Sir, for the subject under discussion. I must express my regret and surprise at the tone assumed by the Government in regard to it. I had hoped the Government had condemned this export duty on coals— that they were growing ashamed of it— and that, with the additional duty on Irish spirits, it was now considered by the

269
Cabinet as a great practical error in administration. This tax was first laid on in opposition to the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee, and in direct contravention of the policy of an Administration of which two leading Members of the present Government were a part. The fact was, that the first Lord of the Treasury had learned, from Dr. Buckland, that there was no coal except in England, and but a very short allowance of it here! The right hon. Baronet in possession of that great fact, concluded that a free exportation of our stock would expose posterity to an alarming risk of being some day out of coals; and therefore, out of tenderness to generations to be born many centuries hence, he thought it proper to overlook the necessities of the race now living, and to tax the exportation of the produce from mines. This anxiety, however, of the right hon. Baronet and of his Government for the welfare of posterity, has avowedly been thrown away. Our stock of coals is not quite so limited as was supposed. The discoveries of pitmen have refuted the theories of the philosophers; and it is an established fact, that the coal-field is far more extensive than the geological statesman had ever imagined. The noble Lord has alluded to the district in Northumberland with which he is connected by property. In that district a valuable seam of coal has been of late discovered beneath the mountain limestone, where we used to be told it was vain to look for it; and in the southern division of Durham, another seam of coal has been developed, which geologists assured us could have no existence. I recommend these facts to the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Kendal. They exhibit the folly of attempting to legislate on geological principles. But the first Lord of the Treasury had another argument in support of his tax—an argument which has been taken up by the Secretary of the Treasury in the absence of his leader to-night. We possess a monopoly of coal in this country; and by taxing the export of it, we shall render it dearer to foreign manufacturers, and so give an advantage to our own in the competition of business. That is, Durham and Northumberland are to be taxed, to promote the advantage of Lancashire. A factitious advantage is to be created for one portion of the community, by gross injustice and injury to another. And this is free-trade, I sup-
270
pose, "in the abstract." Yes! export machinery without restrictions — the maker of machines has as much right to the foreign market as the maker of cotton cloth—but impose restrictions on the productions of the coal owner, in order to benefit manufacturers! This is consistency! To my mind it sounds very like folly, or something worse. The President of the Board of Trade has taken no part in the present debate. Last year his only argument was the state of the Exchequer. Well; you have replenished the Exchequer—why do you continue the tax? If the tax was justified by the pressure of public exigencies, when that pressure has been removed you are bound to remove the tax. I do not object to repealing duties on wool, vinegar, or glass; but I contend that coal had, on your own showing, a prior right to relief. The other points which have been raised in the course of this debate have been so satisfactorily disposed of by preceding speakers, that I will not trouble the House by again adverting to them. But before I sit down, I must say a few words in reply to the observations of my hon. Friends near me, the hon. Members for Kendal (Mr. Warburton) and Montrose (Mr. Hume). These hon. Gentlemen, acting in accordance with some opinions which, I am told, are put forth in a weekly paper, have raised the cry of monopoly against the coalowners. It has been remarked by the author of a very remarkable work, recently published—I am speaking of the author of Coningsby [laughter]—that in dealing with popular questions, nothing is so useful as a cry. I do not impute to my hon. Friends the use of this delusion with the same disreputable object with which it is commonly had recourse to. But, acquitting them of that, I must infer that they have raised the cry, because they are not capable of distinguishing between matters essentially different in themselves—that they have committed a gross blunder which, as public men and Members of Parliament, they ought to be ashamed of. A monopoly created by legislation is a gross abuse—it is an act of power by which one portion of the community is robbed for the dishonest purpose of pampering the interests of another. Such a proceeding cannot be too strongly denounced. But the monopoly of the coalowners is not of that character—it arises out of no special edict of the law—

271
it has its origin in the very institution of private property. Every man is a monopolist of his own property—of his own house; and he ought to be subject to no denunciation or odium on that account. The coalowner has a perfect right—not merely a legal right, which I would not too much insist on, but a right every way consistent with the best interests of society— to sell his coals in the highest market—to sell them in what manner he pleases, or not to sell them at all, unless it suit his pleasure and convenience. To get up a cry against the coalowner, and more particularly to expose him on this account to the operation of an unjust and oppressive law, is something new in the science of politics and morality. Such legislation would be becoming in no man—least of all is it becoming in transcendental economists and philosophers. [Laughter.] Why raise the cry exclusively against the coalowner? Why is he to be selected as the object of your virtuous indignation, and of the animadversion of the law? Is the regulation confined to the Coal Trade? Does it not exist in almost every other? I am not defending its policy—that is another question. I only say it exists everywhere, and is everywhere else uncensured, but in regard to coals. I read almost every week in the newspapers, that the ironmasters have met at Wolverhampton or Gloucester, and determined to raise the price of iron 5s. or 10 s. per ton. Does any one question the equitable and moral character of the combination which enables the ironmasters to do this? and would it not be a most iniquitous proceeding, because the ironmasters exercise in this respect one of the simplest rights of private property, that therefore they should be punished by the imposition of a duty on the exportation of iron, or by the continuation of such a duty, if there had been a Government sufficiently absurd to impose it? Then should the coalowner be so treated? Then why retain the coal tax? The tax is a disgrace, not merely to the Government, but to the Legislature of the country.
Mr. Humerose to explain: He had been accused of charging the coalowners with carrying on an unfair monopoly. Let the House look to the evidence before it upon the subject. [Loud cries of" Order, order," " Chair, Chair."]
The Speaker: The hon. Member must confine himself to an explanation.
Mr. Hume: Certainly, strictly. I wish to explain that the coalowners—[Loud cries of " Order, order."]
Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker—[" Order, order."]
Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Member for Montrose was not allowed to proceed, he would remark for himself that he had never heard anything more plain than the case which was made out by his hon. Friend against the coal owners, and which had not yet been controverted. He understood that these parties possessed a monopoly of an injurious and most improper kind, and that they carried it to the utmost extent to which it would bear. He was astonished to have heard a Liberal Member of the House, the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland, rating some of his hon. Friends for having brought under the notice of the House the grievances of upwards of thirty thousand people. He thought it a subject upon which the House ought to be informed, and that Government would do well to lend a favourable ear to the proposition made, that the dispute should be settled by means of arbitration. As to the subject immediately under the consideration of the House, he considered it to be a most unjust and injurious law, whereby 800 or 900,000 tons of coals were now spoiling at the bottoms of the pits, instead of having been raised and sent abroad, to the profit of both coal and ship owners. In the name of the large commercial constituency which he represented, he protested against the duty.
The House divided on Lord H. Vane's Motion: Ayes 74; Noes 110.—Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Visct.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T

Aglionby, H. A.

Duncan, Visct.

Aldam, W.

Duncan, G.

Bannerman, A.

Duncombe, T.

Barclay, D.

Dundas, Adm.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Dundas, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Egerton, Lord F.

Bellew, R. M.

Fielden, J.

Blewitt, Rt. J.

Forster, M.

Bowes, J.

Gibson, T. M.

Bowring, Dr.

Granger, T. C.

Bright, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Browne, hon. W,

Guest, Sir J.

Butler, P. S.

Hawes, B.

Cobden, R.

Heron, Sir R.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hinde, J. H.

Collett, J.

Hodgson, R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Howard, hon. C.W.G.

Denison, W. J.

Howick, Visct,

273

Hume, J.

Stewart, P. M.

James, W.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Layard, Capt.

Strutt, E.

Leader. J. T.

Talbot, C. M.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Tancred, H. W.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Traill, G.

Maclean, D.

Trelawney, J. S.

Maher, N.

Tufnell, H.

Mitcalfe, H.

Wakley, T.

Morris, D.

Walker, R.

Morison, Gen.

Wallace, R.

Napier, Sir C.

Ward, H. G.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Wawn, J. T.

Ord, W.

Wemyss, Capt.

Plumridge, Capt.

Worsley, Lord

Pulsford, R.

Wrightson, W.B.

Rawdon, Col.

Rice, E. R.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hutt,

List of the NOES.

Ackland, T. D.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Adare, Visct.

Goring, C.

Adderley, C. B.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Allix, J. P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Antrobus, E.

Granby, Marquess of

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Greenall, P.

Arkwright, G.

Greene, T.

Astell, W.

Halford, Sir H.

Baillie, H. J.

Hampden, R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Boldero, H. G.

Henley, J. W.

Botfield, B.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Bowles, Adm.

Herbert, hon. S.

Boyd, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Brisco, M.

Hope, G. W.

Broadley, H.

Humphrey, Mr. Ald.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hussey, T.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Campbell, Sir H.

Johnstone, H.

Chapman, A.

Kirk, P.

Chelsea, Visct.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Clerk, Sir G.

Lawson, A.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Collett, W. R.

Lyall, G.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Cripps, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Denison, E. B.

McNeill, D.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mahon, Visct.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Mainwaring, T.

Drummond, H. H.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Eaton, R. J.

Manners, Lord J.

Eliot, Lord

Master, T. W. C.

Escott, B.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Filmer, Sir E.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Flower, Sir J.

Morgan, O.

Forbes, W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Forman, T. S.

Norreys, Lord

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir. T.

O'Brien, A. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Packe, C. W.

Gardner, J. D.

Palmer, G.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Patten, J. W.

Gladstone, Capt.

Plumptre, J. P.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Polhill, F.

274

Praed, W. T.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Pringle, A.

Tennent, J. E.

Pusey, P.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Rolleston, Col.

Thompson, Ald.

Round, C.G.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Round, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Vivian, J. E.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Warburton, H.

Sheppard, T.

Smollett, A.

TELLERS.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Young, J.

Stanley, Lord

Baring, H.

SHIPPING INTEREST.
Mr. Lyall, pursuant to the notice which he had given, moved,
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state and condition of the Commercial Marine of this country, and to take into consideration, and report on the best mode of encouraging and extending, the employment of British Shipping."
The hon. Gentleman said, that the terms of his Motion would give sufficient latitude for inquiring into the whole subject, and he therefore hoped the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Bolton, would not press the Amendment of which he had given notice.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that he had the interests of the ship-owners as much at heart as any Member of that House, and his earnest wish was, whenever the Committee was appointed, that they should proceed fairly and fully to investigate the whole question, and ascertain the real cause of the distress. He made these observations in no hostile spirit, for his object was, that the attention of the Committee should be directed to the best mode of promoting the true interests of the parties concerned, and if he saw before him the prospect of a full investigation he should not now put the House to the trouble of dividing.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that so far as the Government were concerned, they had no wish to oppose the appointment of a Select Committee for the purposes set forth in the Motion then before the House. At the same time, he thought it was not fitting that he should omit that opportunity of saying a few words. It appeared to him that the Motion brought forward by his hon. Friend was worthy of being supported; but if he did not offer a short explanation, he feared there might prevail some misapprehension as to the spirit in which Her Majesty's Government gave their support to the present Motion. It appeared to him that the state of our commercial Marine was such as to justify the

275
Motion which had been brought before the House; the more especially was he disposed to support the Motion on account of its having been brought forward by a Gentleman whose sound and temperate views of the laws which affected our commercial Marine eminently qualified him for the task of conducting the investigations of that Committee, and of bringing these inquiries to a satisfactory and beneficial issue. It was well known that at the present moment that great and important interest was exceedingly depressed; but that admission did not necessarily show that the policy was bad by which that interest was regulated. In such a case, however, no Committee of Inquiry ought to be appointed, unless there existed a reasonable prospect of removing the distress and the difficulties which existed, by effecting some possible change in the laws which bore upon that interest. There were, for example, the Navigation Laws, and other Acts, which might fairly come under the consideration of the Committee, and it might possibly be expected that some amendment of those laws would be proposed in their Report. Now, he wished to guard the Government and the House from the imputation of being supposed to think that the present depression could be ascribed to the existing Treaties of Reciprocity. No doubt those Treaties of Reciprocity would in some quarters be expected to form a main object of inquiry with the Committee. But he certainly did not assent to the appointment of the Committee with any such intention; and he did think that mischievous effects might ensue if the notion went abroad that after the lapse of so many years there existed any intention of departing from those treaties. He wished it to be understood, that he considered it totally impossible to do anything of the sort. He should consider any proposition to abandon those treaties as wholly visionary. They must be maintained unless this country were prepared to embark in war on a large scale. Between the evils of war and the maintenance of those treaties we had no choice. But he did, nevertheless, think it quite fair that the state of the shipping interest should occupy the attention of a Committee of that House. He thought that it was a matter which ought to be inquired into on commercial, political, and national grounds. All such matters should, he considered, be investi-
276
gated from time to time, and it seemed to him that on the present occasion it might be a legitimate subject of inquiry for the Committee to ascertain, if possible, how far the existing depression had been brought on by the duties which affected our commercial Marine, and how far those might be alleviated? Finally, it appeared to him that the present state of the trade gave sufficient reason for the Motion then before them; and having thus guarded himself against misapprehension, he was willing to give the proposition his support.
Sir C. Napierconcurred in the Motion. During the last three years there had been a great diminution in the commercial Marine of this country. As a naval officer he deeply regretted this, because the Navy must ever rely on the merchant service for seamen. He hoped and trusted the Committee would go into the inquiry fully and fairly, and without allowing themselves to be influenced by any party motives.
Mr. A. Chapmansaid, the shipping interest had reached a point of depression that was unparalleled in his recollection. It was his wish, and that of his constituents, that a full and fair inquiry should be had; and he was sure that the Committee about to be appointed would conduct the inquiry fairly and impartially.
Dr. Bowringwished to have some express understanding as to his amendment. Was it intended that the "causes of the distress" should be inquired into?
Mr. Gladstoneanswered, that they might form a legitimate subject of inquiry, but he thought it better that these words should not be inserted in the Motion.
Mr. Hawessaid, that it appeared from the terms of the Motion that the Committee was to inquire into the best mode of encouraging the shipping interest. He did not know what "encouraging" meant, and he thought the expression ought to be defined, as it must be considered that the Committee was appointed on the responsibility of the Government. He wished that some additional words should be inserted, so that the Committee should be appointed to inquire into "the causes which had led to the present state of depression" of the shipping interest. As the Motion now stood, the causes of the distress could not be inquired into. All that the Committee would have now to inquire into was the present state of the shipping interest, but of its present state the House knew beforehand. Was there any object-

277
tion to add some words to inquire into the causes of the distress. If not, he should cordially support the Motion thus altered. Perhaps it might be found that there was no branch of the commercial interest which had been so nursed and protected, and which had been so often complaining, as this interest. They had always been having something done for them. Probably, however, if the Committee came to inquire into the causes of the distress, they would go no further, for the causes he was persuaded, would be found in those restrictions on trade which affected the shipping interest more than almost any other interest. He moved that after the words "of this country," the words "and into the causes of its present distress," be inserted.
Mr. Lyallsaid, that in the wording of his Motion he had wished to avoid all expression of opinion that there was distress. He wished the Committee to inquire into the facts, and ascertain whether there were distress or not.
Mr. Humewas in favour of the insertion of the words, because there were those who wished to go back to the system that was in vogue twenty or thirty years ago, and to investigate the causes of the existing distress would give an opportunity for showing whether they were right or wrong.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, his objection to the words was that he was afraid they would go to create a misapprehension out of doors as to the real intention and object of the appointment of this Committee. He was afraid that practical effect would follow, considering the extent of the popular cry that the existing distress had arisen from our Reciprocity Treaties. He thought there would be that danger in the adoption of the words. He thought the words as they stood were perfectly safe and intelligible. As to the meaning of encouraging the employment of British shipping, there might be gentlemen who wished to abolish altogether all differential duties on ships of different nations; they might consider that to be one mode of encouraging British shipping. He should be glad if the hon. Member would with-draw his motion.
Mr. Huttthought, that the hon. Member for Lambeth ought to agree to this, after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. He would take this opportunity to ask the reason why some papers for which he had moved last Session, and
278
which would have exhibited the reasons why British ships were charged in foreign ports dues which were not charged on foreign ships, had not been laid on the Table. They would have thrown great light on this subject, and he regretted that the Order of the House with respect to them had not been complied with. He had made every inquiry in the proper quarters, but he was not able to find why obedience had not been rendered to the Order of the House.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, he should be as glad, and he was as curious to see the returns as the hon. Member could be; but the hon. Member must recollect that the preparation of returns of this nature took a great deal of time, as they ran a good deal into detail. In this country they found it difficult enough to get such returns, and in foreign ports, where they had to depend altogether on the consuls, who had not the facilities for obtaining detailed returns that we had here, it was still more difficult. He could only recommend patience to the hon. Member; but he could assure the hon. Member that he would make every exertion in his power, by requesting his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office to reissue his circular to the consuls at the foreign ports from which no returns had hitherto been made.
Sir W. Jamesconcurred with the hon. Member for Whitby in considering the present state of the shipping as most lamentable, and one into which it was most desirable to have a full and fair inquiry.
Mr. Wawnsaid, he had just returned from the borough he represented (South Shields), and he could say the shipping interest was in a most deplorable condition. He hoped some measure might be suggested for alleviating the burthen of taxation which pressed on the shipping interest so as to enable them to compete with foreigners. They would look with very great jealousy at the construction of the Committee. He hoped such Members might be appointed on it as would duly represent the shipping interest, though he wished only for an equality, not a majority of Members belonging to that body.
Viscount Palmerstonwas glad to see, that there was not much difference between his hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Both were agreed, as every one must be, that the Committee was not intended to go into the question of the Reciprocity Treaties. The necessity

279
of these treaties as a measure of self-protection to this country, was so obvious to everybody who had bestowed a moment's consideration on the subject, that no Committee would conceive it to be their duty to re-open that question. The right hon. Gentleman apprehended that if the words proposed by his hon. Friend were inserted, either the Committee or the public might imagine that such was the intention of the proposers of the Committee. He did not think that a valid objection to the adoption of the words, and it seemed to him that an inquiry into the origin of the distress was necessarily involved in the very Motion of the hon. Gentleman, because, if you inquired into the condition of the mercantile navy, meaning thereby the distress which now prevailed if you inquired how you could encourage and promote its prosperity, you must necessarily inquire what bad been the cause of the distsess. Unless you investigated the cause of the distress, you could not propose any effectual remedy. Therefore, it seemed to him that the words suggested by his hon. Friend were so naturally involved in the Motion itself, that it was really a matter of words rather than of substance which was discussed between them, namely, whether the addition of these words would make the Motion more clear, and put the Committee more completely in possesion of the course it was intended to follow. The causes of the distress were various, independent of, and unconnected with the Reciprocity Treaties, and the inquiry should be directed to the effects of competition, of domestic restrictions, and to the various disadvantages under which the shipping interest of this country might labour. His hon. Friend on his left hand had taken advantage of this discussion to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite; and he would take the liberty of following the example, and asking a question connected with this subject, which, if the right hon. Gentleman could not answer at present, he would perhaps bear in mind, and return an answer at some future day. It related to a matter that was very important to the shipping interest, and which had frequently been brought under the consideration of the House; he meant the State Duties. There had been a very long negotiation on this subject. They were told at one time that the negotiation was going on, and twelve months
280
ago they were told that it was virtually broken off. Papers were then asked for, and it was stated that they could not be produced while the negotiation was proceeding. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what had become of that unhappy negotiation, and whether it was now dormant, or in that state of annihilation and extinction which would permit Government, without prejudice to the public service, to lay before Parliament Papers showing what had passed on the subject? With respect to the production of Papers, he would not press for them now, but if the negotiation was still pending, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give an answer on that point at some future day.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the noble Lord was quite correct in his remarks, that a very long negotiation had been proceeding on this subject, for, in point of fact there was a negotiation going on for eleven years, at least for seven or eight years, while the noble Lord was at the Foreign Office. But the noble Lord was not altogether correct in calling it an unhappy negotiation; it had now reached, at least had substantially, he considered, reached its conclusion, and one which he thought would be satisfactory to the mercantile body and the public at large. An arrangement had been agreed to between the Government of Her Majesty and the King of Hanover, though it had not yet reached its formal term, and some of the details of which were, at the present moment, in process of adjustment. It was, therefore, not in such a state as to enable the Government to lay the Papers before the House; but, at the same time, it was in such a state that he had not the least hesitation in using the expression he had employed—a state of virtual and practical conclusion. He believed the day was fixed on which the negotation was to be carried into effect; he was not positive, but he thought the 1st of October. He was not surprised that the noble Lord, after what had passed, should feel an anxiety on the subject, and the Government would be very glad if, when the day came, they could lay the Papers on the Table. Although he would not bind himself to their production, he hoped that very shortly, and certainly before the close of the present Session, the Papers relating to the negotiation would be produced to both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount Palmerstonwished to know whether the effect of the arrangement would be to reduce the Stade Toll?
Mr. Gladstonethought it would tend greatly to the disadvantage of the public service, and to mislead the House with respect to the nature of the arrangement, if he were to answer that question, or give any further information.
Mr. Milner Gibsonsaid, the public would be better satisfied if they were informed that the country would get rid of the Stade Duties altogether. Hanover had done nothing to facilitate the navigation of the Elbe, or to make any adequate return for the sums levied on British ships.' He did not think that the public would be satisfied with a mere diminution of the duties. He hoped that his hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt) would take another opportunity of bringing on this subject, as well as another that was also important to the shipping interest—that of the Sound Duties. These were open to great doubt, and he hoped the matter would be thoroughly sifted by the Committee. He wished to know the position in which the question before the House stood. He understood the hon. Member for Bolton meant to move certain words as an addition to the motion of the hon. Member for London. Taking the words of the Motion, there might be some doubt as to the subjects into which the Committee were to inquire. Very often, when some question arose on which a Committee did not like to enter, they got rid of the difficulty by saying, "We have no authority for this, it is not on the Votes." He hoped his hon. Friend would press the words he proposed to add, because it was plain, that unless the Committee was to go into the question of the effect produced on the interests of the commercial Marine by the restrictions on the supply of naval stores and provisions, there would be no fair, good, and impartial inquiry into different branches of the question. He did not look on the maintenance of those restrictions as an article of religious faith, as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to consider it; he thought we should inquire into the bearing of restrictions on all branches of our industry; and particularly, when inquiring into the state of the shipping interest and the effects of competition, we should examine how far English ships might be prevented from succeeding by these restrictions.
The amendment moved by Mr. Hawes put and negatived.
On the original question being again put,
Dr. Bowringwould be satisfied with the words proposed by his hon. Friend; but looking to what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that he intended the inquiry should be conducted on a large scale, he could not see that any inconvenience would result from adding the words which he proposed. The hon. Member for London had no objection to the words, they grew out of the Motion, and it was admitted that they ought to form a part of the inquiry. He should therefore move that words be added to the Motion, as follows:—
"And that the said Committee do examine into the effect of the Taxes on Materials used in the building and equipping of British Ships; also into the effect on Wages and Ship Stores of our restrictions on Provisions (in respect to the expence of navigating British Ships), and to consider and report to the House on the expediency of removing the same, in so far as they may be found to prevent the British Shipowner from competing successfully with the Foreign Shipowner."
Mr. Gladstonewas sorry to be under the necessity of objecting to the words now proposed to be added, and he objected more specifically to them than to those suggested to the hon. Member for Lambeth. They were in their nature calculated to lead to misconstruction, and to make it seem that the inquiry of the Committee was to be in a particular mode and direction, while, in point of fact, it was general. He most distinctly objected to any particular specification of the objects of inquiry, which might lead to the belief that one portion of the shipping interest was to be made the subject of investigation to the exclusion of other points in connexion with the matter. In fact, the amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton would have the effect of restricting the labours of the Committee.
Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade appeared to think that the amendment which the hon. Member for Bolton had proposed, was calculated to limit the inquiries of the Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman had given the House an assurance that the subject would be inquired generally into, he trusted that the hon. Member for Bolton would withdraw his amendment.
Dr. Bowringexpressed himself satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had stated to the House, and should withdraw his amendment.
Sir C. Napierwished to know whether they would appoint a fair Committee? He hoped it would not be packed from the other side of the House.
Amendment withdrawn.
Original Motion agreed to.

MAGISTRATES AND POLICE OF SHREWSBUUY.
Mr. Humewas sorry at that late hour to bring the subject of which he had given notice under the consideration of the House. He would state shortly the object of his Motion. Hon. Members might have seen the petition to which it referred on the Votes. He was induced to bring the matter forward because it was a case of great hardship towards a poor man, following his vocation as a hawker. He hoped that that circumstance would not induce the House to refuse to entertain the question. It was not his wish to say anything calculated to offend any individual connected with this affair. He was only induced to bring the subject before the House in consequence of certain facts which had come to his knowledge, and which appeared to establish a case of great oppression towards the individual in question. He would first state the circumstances of which he complained. It appeared that Alfred Moore was a licensed hawker. He earned his living by pursuing this trade, and was endeavouring to save a sufficient sum to enable himself and family to emigrate to one of our Colonies. On the 2nd of September, 1843, when Alfred Moore was pursuing his business in the town of Shrewsbury, he was stopped by a policeman of the name of Thomas. The policeman asked Alfred Moore to show his license. Before the man was asked to show his license his basket was taken from him and placed upon the ground. The hawker produced his license. Before he had ventured to bring this matter before the House, he had made an application to the officer and had ascertained that Alfred Moore had been a regularly licensed hawker for several years; that he had been appointed to sell goods, and bore an excellent character. Those facts having been established to his satisfaction, he was disposed to listen to his statement, which was sim-
284
ply this—On the 1st of September, 1843, a policeman of the name of Thomas desired Alfred Moore to produce his license. He complied with the demand and showed the license. The policeman took the hawker's box and placed it upon the ground. The policeman after examining the license said, "Take your box and go about your business." The language of the policeman gave offence, and Alfred Moore said, "You have no right to take my box." Other words followed, and Thomas (the policeman) took the man into custody and locked him up for two hours. At ten o'clock he was bailed out. The next morning he was taken before the magistrates, and after waiting two hours (no witnesses having been examined), the magistrates retired. Soon afterwards the clerk said, that the Mayor considered him (Alfred Moore) guilty, and committed him to solitary confinement in the House of Correction for three months, for endeavouring to levy charitable contributions under false pretences. Two or three days after his confinement, Moore applied to the Home Secretary requesting his interference, but the answer he received was that no relief could be afforded him. He (Mr. Hume) having heard of the circumstances, and of the universal good conduct and proper behaviour of the man, applied himself to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, but he was told that no remedy could be obtained except by suing the magistrates; but that was a course altogether so difficult for a poor man to pursue, that he (Mr. Hume) had felt it his duty to bring the matter before that House, to show to that House and to the country the manner in which individuals of the best character might be punished, and that severely, by the present system of summary convictions — a system which he until now had no idea was practised by magistrates to anything like the extent that it really was. The charge against Moore was that of asking charitable aid under false pretences; and the only ground for such a charge appeared to be, that in the House where he lodged resided some persons who had carried on the practice of sending circular letters asking charity, coupled with the circumstance that there was found in his possession a certain card containing the names of Lord Alford and several other persons with sums of money opposite them. That, however, as he was given to under-

285
stand, was neither more nor less than the amount of money received in return for goods sold at the Houses of these different persons. He was informed that three or four persons in connection carried on the same trade, and that it was a mutual agreement between them that each should enter upon a card the quantity of goods sold to, and the price obtained from, every person who dealt with him. He complained that the magistrates should have assumed that Moore should have written begging letters, without comparing his handwriting as they had had ample means of doing. He found from the last Return presented to Parliament upon this subject, that no less than 72,028 persons were committed by summary convictions in one year. If the punishment those persons suffered were slight in its nature he should not say so much about it; but of that number those who were confined for less than one month were 34,895; between one and two months, 21,691; between two and three months, 7,649; between three and six months, 7,106; between six and twelve months, 796; between one and two years, 169; and between two and three years eight; whilst 144 were sentenced to be whipped, fined, and imprisoned for an unlimited term. It did appear to him that there should be some limit to the exercise of such power upon the part of Magistrates; and it had struck him that it would have been proper for the Secretary of State, after the good character of the man had been made known to him, and the circumstances of the case fully detailed, to direct some person to make inquiry into the subject, and to procure the man's discharge if it should be found that he had been improperly convicted. He should add, that this commitment was not made by the County Magistrates, commonly called "the unpaid," but by the Mayor and City Magistrates of Shrewsbury; and he should also add, that he had himself no complaint to make of the Mayor, who had been very candid in his statement, and had given the reasons which had guided the Bench in its decision. Those reasons, however, did not appear to him to be sufficient, and he could not but regard the case as one of the grossest injustice. He had taken the greatest pains to ascertain the truth of the matter; he believed the man to be perfectly innocent, and that the policeman was very much in fault.
286
For these reasons he begged to move that there be laid before the House a copy of the commitment of Alfred Moore, licensed hawker, at Shrewsbury, upon the '2nd of September, 1843.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, if he had had any idea that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montrose, was about to bring before the House the question of Summary Jurisdiction, he should have requested him to introduce the matter in such a form as would call for a reply from some Gentleman holding a more important position in that House than himself—in such a form that perhaps even the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, might not have deemed it unworthy of notice.! But when he (Mr. D'Israeli) saw that question brought forward upon so isolated a point, and under circumstances so limited as those connected with the commitment of one licensed hawker, he hoped that the House would not deem it arrogant upon his part if, even at so late an hour, he rose to defend his constituents. The hon. Gentleman admitted with that candour which characterised him, that he had met with every attention from the Mayor, and had had every advantage offered to him in prosecuting his inquiries in the present case; and he (Mr. D'Israeli) might add that the hon. Gentleman, who had certainly had considerable experience in bringing forward grievances to that House, had never brought any case forward under circumstances so peculiarly advantageous. No sooner did the magisterial functionaries find that the hon. Gentleman intended to bring forward this case than—confident in their own innocence, or alarmed, perhaps, at the threatening attitude assumed by the hon. Gentleman—they posted up to London, and, instead of consulting their representative, they went at once and consulted the hon. Member himself. They made the hon. Gentleman completely acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, and they were astounded when they heard that he intended to bring the subject before the House. The parties then came to him and asked him what they could do. He told them their only chance was that it was not at all impossible, judging from the observation he had made of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman during the time he had been in the House, that the hon. Gentleman might misunderstand their case, and misstate his own. It had turned out

287
exactly as he bad anticipated; the hon. Gentleman had totally misunderstood every circumstance which had occurred, and had misstated the case which he ought to have brought before the House. The House must have observed that the hon. Gentleman had really made no distinct allegation. Here was a person convicted, who afterwards had an opportunity, of which he availed himself, of appealing to the visiting Magistrates to examine into the matter, which they did not. He then appealed to the Secretary of State, and he did not think proper to interfere. The case was now brought before the House of Commons, and the House, he trusted, would follow the example of the Secretary of State, and not interfere. The hon. Gentleman had called this a case of great injustice. He did not wish to enter into the details; but it appeared that the conviction of the individual was with the hon. Gentleman a sufficient argument, to prove his assertion. But what were the facts upon the sworn information before the Magistrates, and not upon the desultory statement of the hon. Gentleman? He would state them, and then leave the House to draw its own inference. It seemed that a person, a hawker, had been called to account in the Market-place. The hon. Gentleman seemed to deny that he was drunk, but the officer swore that the hawker was drunk; and a respectable officer would not swear to that fact unless there were some circumstances to justify his opinion. The person was arrested; and the hon. Gentleman said, that he was confined in a lock. up house before sunset, and not taken before a Magistrate. It so happened, that though he was not immediately taken before a Magistrate, a Magistrate saw him, and he was admitted to bail, directions being given that very good bail should be taken, the Magistrates having particular reasons for giving such directions. And there were sufficient reasons in the papers taken from him; not that mysterious letter from the lady. [Mr. Hume: The Mayor's letter.] He thought the affair would turn out to be a mare's nest, and not a mayor's letter. It so happened that a system of begging-letter imposition had been carried on in Shrewsbury to a great extent. A card was found on which was a list of the commissioners, and orders executed by this Alfred Moore, the hawker; and among them was the
288
name of an hon. Gentleman who represented the county of Salop; and those not acquainted with his handwriting would have taken it for a genuine signature. But if that hon. Gentleman were present in the House he would have no difficulty in showing the hon. Gentleman that he had not given the order for 10 s. worth of cutlery. There was the signature of Mr. Armstrong, equally genuine. And, moreover, he had the letters of the lady, but he would not trouble the House with them at that late hour. But the Town-clerk would prove that they were in the same handwriting as those which were sent to the Shrewsbury post. The man and his wife were examined before the magistrate, and the account they gave of each other was perfectly incorrect. They were examined separately. The man swore that he had arrived at Shrewsbury about a week before. The wife afterwards swore they had been three weeks in Shrewsbury. A signature was traced as that of another person, who was also examined, and who swore that she had not been acquainted with the woman; but the man swore that they had been three weeks acquainted with her. Among the papers of Alfred Moore was found a successful imitation of the handwriting of the Town-clerk, so perfect that it might deceive any person not particularly acquainted with his handwriting, and which was intended to bear upon another begging transaction. [Mr. Collett: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will state the nature of it.] He was stating the facts as sworn, and the House would draw any inference they liked. He wished to impress upon the House, how totally different was the character of the case from that which it had been represented to be by the hon. Member for Montrose. It had been investigated with the greatest care; the inquiry occupying the whole day. By the information sworn, it appeared that the man was examined early in the morning, and the case was adjourned until six o'clock in the evening, and then the magistrates entered into the case and decided it; the decision having been communicated from the Bench, as he was informed, by the Mayor, and not by the Town-clerk, as the hon. Gentleman assured the House that it was. The Mayor himself delivered the sentence, the prisoner never having cross-examined one of the witnesses. [Mr. Collett: Who were the witnesses?] As the hon. Gentleman asked

289
who were the witnesses, he seemed to be ignorant of the case. The witnesses were, John Thomas, the officer who arrested him—the head of the police of Shrewsbury, Mr. John Peel, the town-clerk, who entered into all the circumstances of the letters, and swore that he believed the writing upon the card and the letters of the lady to which the hon. Member had referred to be the same, and who also swore to the forgery of the signature of the hon. R. Clive, a Member of that House. The other witnesses were Johanna Shore, who kept a house resorted to by such persons in the Abbey-causeway; and Priscilla Rogers. These circumstances took place in the month of September; and he mentioned that, because it had been said in a local print not under the influence of the hon. Gentleman, but one which admired him, that this affair was a consequence of magistrates being made by a Tory Government. Now, every Gentleman concerned in the transaction was a magistrate either appointed by the late Government or chosen to office by municipal influence. The appointment of the magistrates, then, was not in the least dependent upon the influence of the present Government, and the principal individual, Mr. Cooper, was one who had greatly admired the hon. Member for Montrose until the hon. Gentleman determined to bring this case before the House; for it was by his advice, and upon his recommendation, that the magistrates of Shrewsbury had consulted the hon. Member for Montrose upon the subject. Therefore the House would see there was no party feeling in vindicating the conduct of the magistrates. Under these circumstances, then, he must say that there never was a case at any time, in any Parliament, or in any country, not even any case that the hon. Gentleman himself had ever brought forward, so utterly unworthy of notice. It was a case so totally devoid of all pretext of complaint, that he defied any one to point out a parallel even in the greenest period of the career of the hon. Gentleman, when he was in the habit of bringing cases of grievance from all parts of the globe, which were instantly disproved, and turned out to be exactly the reverse of his allegations; although at that period the hon. Gentleman told Mr. Canning, when charged with making unfounded allegations, that he (Mr. Canning) was the " greatest alligator" in the House.
290
There never was a complaint more unfounded than the present, and never had a case been more thoroughly investigated. Circumstances of a very complicated fraud were discovered, and the delinquent was treated as he deserved to be, according to the law of England, as a rogue and a vagabond. This was the client of the hon. Gentleman. The case, as he had stated, happened last September, and the hon. Gentleman had disturbed the town of Shrewsbury ever since with his correspondence and examinations. After seeing the matter on the Notice-book of that House for at least two months, he certainly thought the hon. Gentleman would have had something of a case; but, when the hon. Gentleman asked whether any evidence had been given, he should have thought that the Mayor, whom he pumped so successfully, his friend the Town-clerk, and the other municipal authorities, with whom he had been in frequent communication, might not have left him so wholly in the dark as to the merits of the case as to conceal from him the testimony of the four witnesses whose names he (Mr. D'Israeli) had mentioned to the House. This fact, however, showed how the hon. Gentleman had investigated the subject. Upon the whole, he could not help thinking the House would give a decided negative to the Motion.
Mr. Collettwished to know, whether it was for being drunk, or for having begging letters in his possession, that the man had been taken into custody?
Mr. D'Israelisaid, he had already stated that the man had been taken into custody for being drunk in the market-place; and, according to the conviction which had been read by the hon. Member for Montrose, it appeared he was convicted as a rogue and a vagabond, because he had endeavoured to procure charitable contributions under false and fraudulent pretences.
Mr. Humethought if bold assertions and a perversion of facts could do anything, the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had made a good defence. But he wished to know what the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) could have meant when he said that the only redress the man had was by action at law? Did not that imply an opinion that the man had been unjustly treated? He denied that the man was drunk; there was no other evidence to prove it than that of the policeman who

291
had committed the outrage upon him. It was an invariable rule with him when he received a complaint against any man to give him an opportunity of answering it; and upon this occasion he had sent a copy of the Petition to the Mayor, requesting him to give him any explanation of the circumstances he might wish; but in the meantime he considered it a case of gross injustice. He had received his statement, and, along with Mr. Clive, he had met the Mayor and Town-clerk, and asked them why they had searched this man? The reply was, merely because he was drunk. He repeated there was no proof that he was drunk, and of the nine names on the card seven had been written to for the purpose of inquiring whether the man had not sold them goods, but no answer was received. There was not the shadow of proof of forgery against the man. Yet he was confined for three months to hard labour on bread and water, without being permitted to see even his wife. He still thought the case one of the grossest hardship, and he did expect to hear from the right hon. the Home Secretary whether he did not disapprove of such proceedings as a violent outrage against the liberty of the subject?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, as the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the answer given by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, but called on him to give some explanation of the part he had taken in the matter, he would make a very few observations to the House. To the best of his recollection, the Petition was presented to him by this individual while still in prison. The hon. Member for Montrose was incorrect in stating that parties summarily convicted had no redress, and no opportunity of appeal in case they were wrongly convicted. The Petition was presented to him praying that he would advise Her Majesty to extend to the prisoner the mercy of the Crown, and he referred it to the convicting magistrate, who, as the hon. Member had correctly stated, owed his official dignity to popular election. He was the Mayor of Shrewsbury. The Mayor informed him of the facts of the case, which in every particular corresponded with the statement made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. The prisoner was drunk in the Market-place; a police officer went up to him—he was very abusive, and being very abusive and disorderly he was taken into custody. The hon. Member for Mon-
292
trose said, that was no proof that the man was drunk; but the fact rested on the sworn testimony of the police officer taken before the Mayor and his brother magistrates. When the man was searched at the station-house, a certificate, purporting to be signed by eleven persons who had given him money in charity was found upon him, recommending him as a fit object of charity. Several frauds had been committed at the time in the neighbourhood by a person having a certificate in the French language, and the magistrate, after an examination, was satisfied that the certificate signed by the eleven persons and the French certificate were both written by the prisoner. After an examination, which lasted the whole day, they came to a decision, founded both on sworn and documentary evidence, that the accused had obtained money on false pretences, and they committed him as a rogue and vagabond for three months. This explanation he (Sir J. Graham) had received from the Mayor in answer to his inquiry, and he had come to the conclusion that on the whole the magistrates and the Mayor had arrived at their decision after due caution, and that it was not a case in which he could advise Her Majesty to extend mercy to the prisoner. The prisoner remained in gaol, and then a letter was written to him asking what remedy he had? The term of his imprisonment having then expired he answered, that there was no remedy except a proceeding at law against the magistrates for false imprisonment. He (Sir J, Graham) had formed his judgment on the facts as they were reported to him. He did not neglect the case, but made due inquiry of the magistrates. They sent their statement in reply, and he then believed, and he still believed, that statement, and he further thought that for the sake of justice complete punishment ought to be inflicted, and now he equally thought that this person was convicted upon full testimony and on full examination into the case.
Mr. Humesaid, there was no other evidence against the prisoner but that of the police-officer.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it was impossible for him in that House to try the case over again. He believed that the Mayor and the magistrates had no interest to distort the facts.
Mr. Aglionbyunderstood the right hon. Secretary to say that the man was con-

293
victed for obtaining money on false pretences. He had yet to learn that a magistrate had the power of summary conviction on such a charge. There must be an indictment tried by a jury before a man could be convicted and sentenced on such a charge. But the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to say that he considered the magistrates had rightly punished the man in question on that charge.
Sir J. Grahammust protest against discussing a question of law in that House with all the legal acuteness of the learned Gentleman. But as a matter of courtesy—
Mr. Aglionbywanted none of the right hon. Baronet's courtesy. But after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet on the subject, he wished to ask him the question—not to argue any legal point— whether he rightly understood the right hon. Baronet to approve of the magistrates having convicted this man summarily, on a charge of getting money on false pretences.
Sir J. Grahamreferred to the statement sent him by the magistrates. After repeating the circumstances of Moore's apprehension, it went on to say that papers were found on him at the station-house which turned out the next day to be forgeries. He then referred to the conviction, which was under the 5th of Geo. IV., c. 83, sec. 16, which stated, that "on the 26th day the said Alfred Moore did, in the said borough, endeavour to procure charitable contributions from Mr.—under false and fraudulent pretences," and that in conformity with that statute he was convicted for so endeavouring to obtain money on false pretences. The right hon. Baronet then referred to the Clause of the Act before-mentioned, which after setting forth who should be entitled to bear certificates, enacted that "Every person asking alms or relief under, and by virtue of, any certificate or other instrument hereby prohibited, is liable to be declared an idle and disorderly person as if he or she had no such certificate."
Mr. Aglionby: That is not obtaining money by false pretences.
Sir J. Graham: No; but what I object to is, trying to crush a conviction by arguments in this House on technical grounds.
Mr. Wakley: Undoubtedly; if there was any opportunity of avoiding such an appeal. But to the poor man the Courts
294
of Law were not open, unless he could pay a lawyer. In this case a grievous wrong had been done to this poor man, and it had by no means been lessened by the argument of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury. It was a great perversion of the powers of mind possessed by that hon. Member to endeavour by wit and eloquence in that House to palliate the conduct of these magistrates. The conduct of the authorities had been most reprehensible. This man was apprehended on some offence, taken by the police-officer, and the result was, that he had been sent to gaol. He (Mr. Wakley) had had some experience of gaols, and could assure the right hon. Baronet, notwithstanding all he had clone with respect to them, that a sentence even for a short period was equivalent to a sentence of death. Several such cases had been before him—one in particular, which he meant to bring under the notice of the House. It was his conviction that hundreds—nay, thousands— of innocent persons were incarcerated. It was most important that cases of this kind should be inquired into. They were now giving a lesson to all England with respect to the administration of justice, and he asked the right hon. Baronet whether these proceedings were warranted against a man who was apprehended on the charge of drunkenness. [Sir J. Graham: No.] Yes; that was the accusation. He was asked for his license, and he produced it; but the officer had first interfered on the ground that the man was drunk in the market-place. Was it lawful on the part of the officer to search the individual and to take his papers? And not only so, but the meddling officious mayor must fain go into a prying, pettifogging, paltry examination of the man's papers, making-up and manufacturing a charge from them, after having stolen them. ["Oh ,oh!"] According to the law the man's papers were stolen from him, there being no law justifying their seizure under such circumstances. Was there one tittle of evidence to show that money had been obtained under false pretences? [Sir J. Graham: We are not trying the case.] Certainly not; and it is unfortunate the case should be before the House. He trusted that his hon. Friend would see further into the case, and that he and others would aid the poor man with means for bringing his claim before a court of justice. An attempt to brine the case before a court of

295
justice should certainly have been made before it was mooted in the House. And this being, it appeared, the opinion of Gentlemen opposite, he hoped they would assist in enabling the man to obtain justice.
Motion negatived.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a Slave Trade Treaties.
3a. and passed: Courts Martial (East Indies); Stamp Duties.
Private.—1a. Pulteny Town Harbour and Improvement; Southampton Marsh Improvement; Rother Levels Drainage; Passingham's Estate.
2a. W. H. B. Jordan Wilson's Estate; Sidmouth and Collumpton Road.
3a. and passed:— Manchester, Bury, and Rossendale Railway; Salford Improvement; Birkinhead Improvement; Coventry Water Works; York and Scarborough Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Alresford, and several other places, for Protection to Agriculture. By Lord Lorton, and Earl of Roden. from Derrymore, and 3 other places,
224
against the Dissenters Chapels Bill.— By Earl of Bandon, from Macroon, and 4 other places, for the Extension of Scriptural Education in Ireland. From Wood Sawyers of Belfast, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. By Earl of Roden, from Rathfriland, and 3 other places, for Legalizing Marriages solemnized by Presbyterian and Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY BILL.
Lord Campbellsaid, as their Lordships did not seem to be much overburthened with business, he would take the opportunity of putting a question to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, with reference to the Bill for the Transfer of freehold property. The noble and learned Lord introduced a Bill on the subject in the early part of the Session, which was certainly a step in the right direction, but for which he (Lord Campbell) would have introduced his Bill on the subject again; but as no further progress had been made with it, he should like to know what the noble and learned Lord's intentions on the subject were. It was a subject of considerable importance; for one of the great defects of our law was the expense of the conveyance of freehold property. So enormous was that expense, that the cost of the conveyance of a small freehold was greater than the price of the fee simple. To remedy this evil, it was important that some measure should be adopted without delay; he should, therefore, be glad to know if the noble and learned Lord meant to resuscitate his Bill or not.
The Lord Chancellorsaid that he was very glad he had given his noble Friend an opportunity of amusing their Lordships. The measure which he had alluded to was certainly one of great importance, but it was of a very complicated nature, and he (the Lord Chancellor) felt it to be his duty after having laid the Bill on their Lord ships' Table, to circulate copies of it amongst some of the most eminent conveyances in the metropolis, many of whom had returned answers, but there were still six or seven of them who had not done so. If his noble and learned Friend had condescended to have given him notice of his Motion, he would have communicated with those gentlemen who had not yet returned their answers. It was certainly his intention, when he had obtained the opinions of these gentlemen, to proceed with the Bill. It was suggested to him by a noble Friend near him, that the delay in obtaining the answers of the gentlemen to whom he had alluded, might be occasioned by no fee having been

225
put on the Bills sent to them. He was obliged to admit that no fee was marked upon them.
Lord Campbellsaid, that the opinion of a lawyer without a fee was not good for anything.
House adjourned.