Sitting of 22 June 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. 1°. Charitable Trusts; Baths and Washhouses; Western Australia; Ordnance Survey.
3°. and passed. County Works Presentments (Ireland) Amendment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from various places, praying the House to pass a Bill for Compensating Proprietors of Land for Sites for Free Churches (Scotland), and for securing Accommodation to the Congregations.—By several hon. Members, from a number of places, for the Better Observance of, and for the Prevention of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on the Sabbath.—By Mr. Stanley, from Clergy of Twrcelyn, in the County of Anglesea, against the Union of the Sees of Saint Asaph and Bangor, but providing for the Immediate Appointment of a Bishop to the Newly Erected See of Manchester.—By Sir William Clay, from Manufacturers of Tobacco and Snuff in the Port of London, for Reduction of Duty on Tobacco. — From Inhabitants of the Parish of All Saints, Wandsworth, in the County of Surrey, for Revision and Alteration of the Laws relating to Jurors.—By Mr. Richard Hodgson, from Passengers travelling between Birmingham and Bristol by Railway on the 10th, 11th, and 12th Days of June, and from Persons engaged in the Trade of Public Carriers, for carrying out the Recommendation of Her Majesty's Commissioners, who have lately reported on the Gauge Question, and establish, at the earliest possible Period, a National Uniformity of Gauge. — By Viscount Emlyn, from Commissioners of Supply of the County of Nairn, for the Adoption of Registration of Births, &c. in

809
Scotland.—By several hon. Members, from various places, against the Abolition of existing Religious Tests in the Universities of Scotland.

NEW ZEALAND.
MR. C. BULLERrose to put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury, of which he had given notice on Friday. Some time since the right hon. Baronet had been pleased to say that he would give ample notice of the intentions of Government with respect to New Zealand; and he would now perhaps fully acquit him (Mr. C. Buller) of exceeding the limits of his duty when he asked whether it was the intention of Ministers, in the present Session, to bring forward any measure for the government of New Zealand?
SIR R. PEELreplied, that since the subject had been mentioned formerly, his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had given a good deal of consideration to the subject. His difficulty in giving a positive answer was now materially diminished by the contents of the recent accounts from New Zealand. On the last occasion he had not been able to give any pledge, because the British troops were then in chase of the enemy; but now there was good reason to hope that the authority of the British Crown had been established. Under these altered circumstances, he had no hesitation in stating his opinion that it would be highly desirable, in the course of the present Session, to bring forward a legislative measure for the government of New Zealand. As to the particular character of the measure, he abstained from giving any opinion. Whether it should be an enacting or an enabling measure, he would not say; but it was the intention of Ministers to introduce some legislative measure before the expiration of the Session.

THE DEAN OF WINDSOR.
MR. RICH: I wish to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government whether, when he made a recent appointment to the deanery of Windsor, considering the various Acts which within the last ten years have been passed for the repression of non-residence and pluralities amongst the clergy, and more especially considering the Act of the 3rd and 4th of Victoria, for carrying into effect the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners respecting deans and deaneries, as well as heads of colleges and professors in our universities—I ask the right hon. Baronet whether he has considered those
810
clauses by which all future deans were compelled to reside on their deaneries for eight months in the year at the very least; and while they are thus fixed to their deanaries, heads of colleges and professors are sought to be attached to their several duties and universities, by being relieved from those outlying canonries, as of Worcester and others, which were attached to them as part of their salaries, having canonries of Ely or Christ Church, which are part and parcel of the two universities, substituted for them. And, in the same spirit, heads of colleges were relieved from the charge of certain livings which were attached to them, receiving at the same time, compensation; and likewise several deans were, in the same anti-pluralist spirit, relieved from livings that had been attached to them. I ask the right hon. Baronet, whether he has considered that this process was specially applied to the two pieces of preferment concerning which I am inquiring, namely, that the headship of Magdalene College was relieved from the care of souls of the living of Ellington; that by an Order in Council the advowson of it was directed to be sold, the proceeds duly invested, and the interest paid from time to time to the master of Magdalene for the time being, manifestly thereby intimating that the master should have more time and opportunity to devote to his college duties; and the deanery of Windsor was in like manner relieved from the cure of souls, thereby implying that the dean should attend to his duties as dean, and that each of these dignitaries should, devote the whole of his attention to his high office. To fulfil the terms of his appointments, Dr. Grenville ought to reside six months of the year at his college, and to be in residence at the deanery in Windsor for eight months. I should be glad to know from the right hon. Baronet by what process the hon. and very rev. gentleman is to compress fourteen months' residence into one year? I must also ask whether either the college of which he is the master, or the Church itself, must not suffer by this arrangement? While fully subscribing to the merits of the hon. and very rev. gentleman, I wish it to be understood that my remarks are directed against the system.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had asked him a question with by far the most complicated preamble, and, although it was contained in one sentence, by far the longest sentence he had ever heard. He did not think it at all desirable

811
when questions were asked to introduce a great mass of argument; it necessarily justified argument in reply. The period to introduce an argument was, when the hon. Gentleman made his Motion. He protested against the course of the hon. Member, and should content himself merely with answering the question. The law prescribed what preferment should be held by deans. A dean could not hold any other cathedral preferment; but there was no disqualification as to a dean holding the headship of a college. Being acquainted with the character of the present Dean of Windsor, he had recommended him to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty had sanctioned the appointment. He did not make any stipulation as to the resignation of other preferments to which he was entitled by law. If the tenure of the preferment were incompatible with the deanery of Windsor, then the statutes of the college would afford a remedy. The visitor of the college would determine whether or no the tenure of the two were incompatible. If they were, proper steps would be taken that the dean might vacate the appointment. But he had no reason to believe otherwise than that the two appointments were perfectly compatible.

THE SUGAR DUTIES—CONDUCT OF MINISTERS.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on Thursday last, in consideration of the circumstances of the Session, and the time occupied in deliberation upon other measures, he had stated to the House it was his intention, in order that every opportunity should be given for that full discussion which seemed desired on the sugar duties, to propose this day that they be renewed for one month only. He had, at the same time, stated that he would take a course which would not interrupt the progress of that temporary Bill; and, on one hon. Gentleman taking an objection in some measure to his proposal, he had consented to the withdrawal of the objectionable notice, with respect to the reduction in duty, and had contented himself with a notice to renew the duties for a limited period. This notice had been given on Thursday, with a view that if any hon. Gentleman had any other notice to give on the subject, the House might be fully informed of any such intention. It was not, however, until late yesterday evening, at 7 o'clock—that he had received an intimation from the noble Lord the Member for
812
Lynn, that he intended on this (Monday) evening to move, on the House going into Committee on this subject, a resolution to the effect:—
"That the House was of opinion that the introduction of a Sugar Duties Bill for the short period of one month was calculated injuriously to affect the commercial interests of the country, and that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to have brought it forward at the usual period, and in sufficient time to pass through both Houses of Parliament before the expiration of those duties."
Now, he thought that, on a question of this importance, involving the character and conduct of the Government, and expressing a censure on them, it was desirable that the House should have had information of it having been the intention to bring forward this resolution. At the same time, he had no wish to interfere with the noble Lord in bringing it forward, so as not to interrupt the progress of the sugar duties, that they might be levied after the 5th of July. He had stated to the noble Lord that to bring this on that evening, after the intention with respect to the Protection of Life Ireland Bill had been known, would be inconsistent with the rules which the House had laid down for its guidance; and to bring forward a resolution of this kind afterwards would only have the effect of interrupting the progress of the Bill, and the first step necessary for the renewal of the sugar duties. If the taking this first step was postponed to Friday—for it was only in the Committee on Ways and Means that it could be moved—there would not remain days sufficient to pass any Sugar Bill whatever before the duties expired. The noble Lord surely could not desire that which would be the inevitable effect of such a proceeding: great loss to the revenue, and great inconvenience to the commerce of the country, consequent upon an interval in which there would be levied no sugar duties whatever, would be the consequence. He thought also he could satisfy the noble Lord that the course before proposed to be taken, would not interfere with proposing his own resolution. If it was desired that, instead of being continued to the 5th of August, the duties should be continued for any lengthened period, there was nothing in the preliminary resolution in the Ways and Means which could prevent that. The resolution merely was that the existing duties should be continued; and in Committee on the Bill it was in the noble Lord's power to move the making the period of continuance of what, under the circumstances,

813
was considered advisable. If the object was to pass a censure on Her Majesty Government, it was not necessary that the Motion should be brought forward at the time which had been fixed by the noble Lord, to the interruption of the other measure. The resolution might be moved at any subsequent stage of the proceedings on the Sugar Bill, and the noble Lord's object would then be effected without in any way interfering with the sole object of the Government, that the duties might not drop on the 5th of July. Having given this short explanation to the House, he ventured to hope that the noble Lord would not take the course which he had at first intimated his intention of pursuing; and he must take the liberty of adding, that he thought the House ought to have the fullest notice on the subject.
LORD G. BENTINCKwas quite ready to assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither he, nor any of the Friends with whom he acted, had the least wish to see the sugar duties expire on the 5th of July; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was quite right when he took for granted that the purpose of the resolution, of which a draught had just been read to the House, was to pronounce a censure upon the Queen's Government. The intention and wish was to censure them for leaving to so late a period of the Session the proposed Motion respecting the sugar duties. In his opinion they were greatly to blame for thus putting to hazard three or four millions of the public revenue. The sugar duties appeared to him to be a matter of very great importance; and he certainly should not interpose any obstacle whatever to the continuance of those duties; and he believed that he could answer for his Friends around him that they were quite ready to support any renewal Bill which yielded the existing protection, or to take the duties as they now stood, unaccompanied by the modifications which four or five months ago the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had shadowed forth to the House. If the responsible advisers of the Crown thought proper to propose a measure for one year, the course which he should take would be wholly different. They would then have his cordial support, and he doubted not the support also of the Friends by whom he was surrounded, for they, true to the principles which they put forth in 1841, when they turned out the Whig Government, were prepared to protect the produce
814
of our Colonies, as they had shown themselves ready to protect the produce of the mother country. They did not blame the Ministers for proposing to renew the sugar duties; what they blamed them for was putting so large an amount of the revenue to hazard at so late a period of the Session. The effect of treating the matter in the manner proposed by the Government would be to let in 30,000 or 40,000 tons of sugar without paying any duty. He need scarcely remind the House that the Government had only left themselves a margin of 70,000 l. to meet the demands which unexpectedly might come upon them in the course of the next year; and let the House picture to itself what would be the consequence of allowing three or four millions of revenue to be placed in jeopardy, with only a surplus of 70,000 l., and the chance and the probability, if the sugar duties were, in the manner proposed, brought under the consideration of the House, that some hon. Members might extend the debate upon the subject to seven or eight nights, and in that way render it impossible to get the proposed measure through both Houses with sufficient speed. The debate in 1841 was prolonged to eight nights, and the same untoward occurrence might again take place. The Government were in great danger of leaving the country to labour under a deficiency at the end of the year, and therefore did he desire to pass a censure on them for this delay. They had been told that there ought not to be a day's delay in passing some temporary measure. To that he replied, that he and the Friends with whom he acted would not allow such a measure to pass without censuring the Ministers who were thus hanging up the interests both of the East and of the West Indies. Such conduct appeared to be deserving of condemnation; and he was determined that to those who deserved it censure should be dealt out. The House was asked at the present moment to pass those duties for one month; but hon. Members whom he then addressed know well the state of political matters; they knew very well that at the end of a month the right hon. Baronet might not be a Minister of the Crown; they knew how probable it was that, he no longer being in power, the post of First Minister might devolve upon the noble Lord the Member for London. On his accepting the trust of forming an Administration, the noble Lord must necessarily

815
propose to the House an adjournment of some duration, for the purpose of gaining time to fill up the vacant offices which the noble Lord must supply with proper persons, and to get himself and his subordinates in the Ministry re-elected as Members of that House. It was obvious, therefore, there would be no time to pass any Sugar Bill. The Government asked a month; but he asked them to let the persons engaged in the sugar trade know what they were about. As to the opposition which he intended to offer to the Government, he could assure the House that it would be no factious opposition; and if a disposition to pass the measure for one year showed itself, then he should consent to suspend the Standing Orders for the purpose of getting the Bill through both Houses of Parliament with the least possible delay; but he should not consent to let any Government escape without censure when they allowed 3,500,000 l. of revenue to run within fourteen days of expiring before a Bill was brought in for its renewal.
MR. HUMEthought it would be better to settle the sugar duties once for all; but for the present it would be better to pass the duties for one month, and leave the full discussion of them to a future day. If they were to have a differential duty, which he feared must be the case for some short time, he hoped that the Government would let the trade know what they had to expect as soon as possible.
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, he should prefer the duty of 19 s. 10 d. to leaving the duty as it was. He must say that if the intention of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to injure the revenue, they could not take any course better calculated to produce that result than the course that they were now pursuing. If they wished to carry a vote of censure on the Government, they ought to propose it at once in a straightforward manner. They ought to move an Address to the Crown, setting forth that the House of Commons no longer reposed any confidence in the advisers of the Crown. He must take the liberty of adding that the farmers would not regard the hon. Gentlemen opposite as friends if they continued to insist upon protection for sugar. The farmers wished to see such a monopoly put down.
MR. BANKESdenied that the farmers would disapprove of protection. As long as he and his friends acted upon the principles which they professed, the farmers would support them, even though the
816
course which they took might somewhat militate againt the interest of the farmers as consumers of sugar. He and his friends contended that the delay which the Corn Bill occasioned, formed no excuse for postponing the sugar duties. He deprecated the Corn Bill, but he contended that it formed no reason why the revenue should not be provided for.
MR. BERNALcomplained of the injury to trade occasioned by this delay, and the extreme uncertainty as to when the subject would come under discussion. It would not be brought before a Committee of Ways and Means before Friday next, and the Bill could certainly not be passed before the 5th of July.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested that the wishes of the noble Lord might be accomplished as well at a later day as on the first proposition of the sugar duties in a Committee of Ways and Means. They might allow the House to go into a Committee of Ways and Means, and take the discussion at a future stage of the proceedings.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid that, whatever case the noble Lord might make out as to the censure of Ministers, the noble Lord could not reasonably object to a Motion continuing the sugar duties for the present. They might, he thought, now go into a Committee of Ways and Means, and proceed with the Motion at once, which would not take long. The full discussion of the question they might go into at a future time. If the present proposition were postponed till after the discussion on the Protection of Life Bill, there might be danger of not getting into it today; and, considering the notice that had been given, no one could say that he had been taken by surprise. It was unnecessary at that time for him to state his opinion with regard to the censure suggested by the noble Lord or with respect to the sugar duties; but he was very much of the same opinion with the hon. Member for Montrose: they had had two alterations in these duties proposed by Her Majesty's Government; they were about to have a third; and he thought the time was come when they ought to have a permanent arrangement.
MR. BARKLYsaid, that the time had arrived when the sugar duties ought to be settled on a comprehensive footing, and he therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry the Motion of which he had given notice.
MR. JAMESsaid, it was most desirable that the question of the sugar duties should be placed on a permanent footing, for the different Colonies had suffered greatly from uncertainty, and from having their interests affected, year by year, by the casualties of legislative enactments, or, as he might call it, the lottery of legislation. They had been the bone of contention in party politics, and he hoped this state of things would be put an end to. Under a general system of free trade, our West India connexions could not expect to be eventually an exception to the rule; but considering the alteration which had been made in their affairs by the abolition of slavery, for which they had received only an inadequate remuneration, he thought exemption ought to be made in their favour till the disabilities under which they laboured should be removed.
SIR R. H. INGLISrequested his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to avail himself of the encouragement afforded to him by both sides of the House, and not to delay the preliminary vote on the temporary renewal of these duties.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas perfectly willing, if it was understood that there would be no opposition, to go into a Committee of Ways and Means to pass the preliminary vote. If the House were prepared to adopt the resolution without discussion under present circumstonces, the noble Lord might upon another day enter upon the discussion of which he had given notice.
LORD G. BENTINCKthought he had made himself fully understood when he had stated that he would not be a party to risking the public revenue. He had thought the suggestion he had thrown out might have been adopted by all parties; but if it were not, it was not the intention of himself, or of his Friend the hon. Member for Westmoreland, to interpose the Motion of which he had given notice on any stage of the Sugar Duties Bill; he would not be the cause of any delay, but he would take a future opportunity of proposing a direct vote of the character to which he had referred.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould take the vote after the discussion on the adjourned debate. ["No, no:" "Move, move."] Well, then, he would move the Order of the Day on the Committee of Ways and Means.
The House in Committee of Ways and Means; a Resolution that the duties now
818
payable on sugars be further continued, was agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported.

PROTECTION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL—ADJOURNED DEBATE (FIFTH NIGHT).
The EARL of LINCOLNmoved the Order of the Day for the resumption of this debate.
MR. S. CRAWFORDrose to oppose the Bill, though he was concerned to vote in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government at a time when, in his judgment, he had been unjustly assailed and unnecessarily persecuted. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman, however, on the triumphant manner in which he had disposed of these most undeserved attacks. He should, indeed, go into the same lobby with several hon. Gentlemen opposite; but he had not any feeling in common with them, who had upon every occasion supported measures which he deemed oppressive to Ireland, who had always opposed any enlargement of the rights of the Irish people, and who, failing to damage the measures of the Prime Minister, had tried to damage the man. The people of England, however, would protect a man unjustly attacked alike from open assaults and from treacherous assailants, who blamed the Government for the delay they had themselves interposed. He hoped and trusted that he should give a fair and not a factious opposition to this Bill. He must say that it was not fit for the purpose for which it was intended. He would, in the first place, point out its defects; and, secondly, state what measures he thought would be useful for the suppression of crime. He would ask hon. Members to consider well the real embarrassments which must arise from such regulations as these. The peasants were to be confined in their houses for an hour after sunset to sunrise; and it would be impossible for them to carry on their business as farmers without subjecting them to the chance of transportation imposed as the punishment for this offence. The Bill prevented the parties from going to the farm offices outside their dwellings, though the care of cattle required the peasant to be out at all hours of the night, and cows and sheep required constant attention. Again, if the peasant worked out for hire, how was it possible for him to attend to his duty, which required him to be out long after and before the hours mentioned

819
in the Bill? In the shortest days they worked during twilight, and had then three or four hours to go home. It would be impossible, therefore, for them to avoid these penalties; and supposing any one entertained a malicious feeling against a man, or the magistrates or the police had a dislike to a particular individual, it would be totally impossible for him, if he was watched, to escape. At the trial the question raised would be, whether he was out on his lawful business; he would then have to apply to these very magistrates and police for a character; and the sentence passed would be proportioned to the character thus given by these irresponsible parties. Then, how was the hour to be defined? The hour of sunset and sunrise varied every day; and how was it possible to guard the peasantry from vexatious charges if there were a malicious disposition against them? Was it safe to put such a power in the hands of the police and magistrates? He asked, without meaning to cast any offensive imputation, whether, after the experience they had had in Ireland of the conduct of the magistrates, it was safe to place such a power in their hands? Looking at the state of Ireland, torn by political and religious dissensions, was it safe to give such an irresponsible power? Would they place such a power in the hands of the English magistrates against the English people? It was a repeal of the Habeas Corpus Act in the worst mode. It was a greater hardship than the curfew bell of the Conqueror; for then the people had only to put out their fires; they were not liable to transportation for going out of their houses; and the bell was sounded as a warning to them; whilst, under this Bill, there was no signal; and the peasants were left completely at the mercy of those who might have animosity against them. What would be the consequences to a poor man's family if he were transported? They would be left in utter destitution. In common fairness the families ought to be sent out with them if such a Bill passed. Again, it was in direct contravention of the legal rule that every man should be considered innocent till he was proved guilty; and yet it would be no remedy for the great and alarming evil of Ireland, the murders perpetrated in noonday, which indicated the most vicious state of society. At the same time, he was bound, in justice to the present Government, to say that the Bill was founded on precedents before established; and he gave the Government credit when
820
he said, that if they had not found precedent Acts of former times of a like character, they would never have proposed such a measure; and he must say also, that there were precedents, not only in the Acts of Tory Governments, but in Bills proposed and passed by a Government which generally acted on principles of political liberty. The Bill of 1835 was the same in principle as this; but that Bill was supported by the Liberal Members of the Irish body; and in 1837, when he moved for the repeal of that Bill, he could only assemble five Members in favour of his Motion, two of whom were English Members. Not that he wished to impugn the motives of the Government of that day, or of the Irish Members who supported them in the course they took; but it was a most unfortunate precedent, and they were to blame for that precedent being now acted upon by the present Government. It was, however, a pleasing thing to see the change that had taken place in the opinions and feelings of Members of that House, both on the one side and the other. He rejoiced to see that change; and he only recurred to former occurrences to show that they had produced many of the evils that were now complained of. It appeared that seventeen Coercion Bills had been passed at different times for the purpose of pacifying Ireland; but those Bills had been of no use; and it was now time that some other system should be tried. Now, what was the condition of Ireland? Murders were committed there to a frightful extent; and the persons who committed them were, to a certain degree, protected. The combinations for that purpose defied the efforts of all morality, as well as the efforts of those persons who had such influence over Ireland. All their exertions had been directed to prevent these agrarian disturbances, but without effect. What, then, was the cause of such a state of things? The whole community had no other means of support than land. From the confiscations that had taken place in former times a hostile proprietary had been created; and there was no controlling them so as to prevent their oppressing the people, besides the competition for land having increased that excitation to the greatest degree. If they looked to the Report of the Landlord and Tenant Commission, they would find that in some counties in Ireland—as, for example, in Roscommon—there was a mixture of large holdings, for the purpose of grazing, with small holdings, generally held

821
by tenants of those who possessed the former. It was true that the farmers gave to their tenants sites for houses; but they never felt the necessity of providing them with employment. Then, in his judgment, they could do nothing to ameliorate the condition of the people but by creating a responsibility on the part of the land proprietors and the large farmers for providing employment and subsistence for those people, and that could only be done by a well-organized Poor Law on the principle of the Act of Elizabeth. Had it not been for that Poor Law, England would have been in as bad a condition as Ireland was at this day; but the present Poor Law was in no way effective in providing employment; it gave relief to the aged and infirm; but it did not do that which a Poor Law should do — provide employment for the people. In this country, Poor Laws had existed for a large number of years; and yet they heard nothing of the confiscations of property that had been so much dreaded. The amount raised in this country for the purpose of the Poor Laws was 5,000,000 l. only, whilst the property of England was not less than 100,000,000 l. It did not amount to 1s. in the pound of the whole property. Why, then, was it to be dreaded in Ireland? He admitted that the Government had brought in various remedial measures for Ireland, and he gave them credit for it; but there were none of them that would act with sufficient speed to perform the objects they had in view. As for the Landlord and Tenants Bill, he would not go into that upon the present occasion; but he must object to it, because it gave no protection to the existing interests of the tenantry, and would not, in itself, tend to pacify the Irish people. He would admit that effective measures of police were necessary to accompany remedial measures for Ireland; but why not adopt the principle of the institutions of Alfred? By them the country was made the guardian of its own peace; the whole country was guarded by its own inhabitants, and had one interest in the preservation of its peace; and without such a system they never could have an effective means of establishing the law. But if he opposed this measure, he thought he was bound to show what measures were in his opinion required for the present condition of Ireland. Now, he should propose that the disturbed districts should be divided into certain divisions, and that each division should be suitable for a police station;
822
that a register should be kept of the inhabitants of every house in the division; that the inhabitants of each division should be called upon to perform the duty of special constables, according to the provisions of the 2d William IV., c. 108, and should be summoned upon an appointed day to patrol under the orders of the police; that fines upon a graduated scale should be enforced for non-compliance, and that each station should be furnished with constables' staves, &c. He would also give to the controlling magistrates and to the constabulary power to arrest and detain all suspicious persons by night or day, and to take them before a magistrate within twenty-four hours; and if an offence were committed and not discovered within thirty days, a fine should be imposed upon a district, according to the institutions of Alfred. He should also propose that in case a person was present when an offence was committed, and within a reasonable time omitted to use his best exertions to prevent an outrage being committed, such person should be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punishable accordingly. Also that the magistracy should hold a daily court in each disturbed district By those means they would by degrees render the people the guardians of their own peace; and they would adopt a constitutional means of taxation in each district. He would then propose that agricultural schools should be established. He know that the Board of Education had to a certain extent taken in hand to establish agricultural schools, but those were only county schools, and one in each county—it was only insufficient for the wants of the people, and he would recommend that an agricultural school should be established in every parish. He thought that nothing would tend more to the improvement of Ireland than such a system. But he regretted that such a measure as this had proceeded from the Government, from whom he acknowledged the country had received so much benefit; and whilst he was under the necessity of opposing them upon this measure, he must disclaim any wish by that opposition to defeat any other objects they had in view. To the English Members he would say, let them act in respect to this measure on the principle of doing to others as they would be done by, and he would put it to them whether they would pass such a measure as this for England? He would conclude by calling upon the House not to pass this Coercion Bill, but to adopt some remedial measures for

823
Ireland, and not to give the magistrates of Ireland powers which they would refuse to entrust to the magistracy of England.
MR. SEYMERsaid, that the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, with the skill of a tactician, having supported the first reading of this Bill, concluded that the period had now arrived when, by mustering his own party, and calculating upon the support of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, he might succeed in placing Her Majesty's Ministers in a minority, and his own party upon their seats on the Treasury bench. He would therefore inquire what was the nature of the Bill on which this great party division was to take place? Had hon. Members opposite read the Bill? They argued as if all Ireland were to be placed by it for all time in a state of coercion. But the Bill was temporary, and its powers would expire in 1849, while its operation was local and partial, and under the control of the Lord Lieutenant. Neither did it follow because the Bill was to be enacted, that it was ever to be enforced against any county, parish, or person in Ireland. Such a Bill he was willing to concede to the present Ministry, because its government of Ireland seemed to be dictated by a just and generous spirit. That, at least, was the opinion entertained as to the Maynooth Bill, and which was so expressed by the hon. Member for Cork, and other hon. Members. He then had no fear that they would abuse the powers given to them by this Bill. He would adopt the language of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and say, that as long as parts of Ireland remained in their present state, he would give the powers confered under this Bill to any Government that obtained the confidence of Her Majesty, because if they abused those powers the people of England and Scotland would not allow a week to elapse without driving that oppressive Government from office. They would naturally conclude that what was the fate of Ireland this week, might be their own the next. He found hon. Members fond of talking of "justice to Ireland;" but he asked such persons had they no sense of the denial of justice to the families of those persons who were murdered in the open day, by the murderers receiving refuge in the districts in which they committed the crime, and whose claim to the hospitality of neighbours and strangers was that they were murderers? He had heard these things said in the presence of Irish Members, and
824
not denied by them. If such were the state of Ireland, it must be plain that if Parliament did not interfere, private revenge would take the place of public justice. What, he asked, was the amount of liberty in the disturbed districts, when he found in one of these counties—Roscommon—the following cases to have occurred in the course of the present year? One man compelled to give over grazing on his master's land; another forced to pay money to a wife and not to her husband, to whom the money was due; a third forbidden to let land to strangers; a fourth prohibited from marrying a widow for whom a different person had proposed; and the fifth, a stranger, forbidden to take land. Thus they saw a servant not allowed to take care of his master's property, a man not suffered to marry the wife he chose, and a third forbidden to pay money to where it was due. Here they found all the rights of property in abeyance. But then, it was said that the state of Ireland was considerably improved of late. He doubted if it were much better; and if it were, then the improvement might be attributed to fear of the Coercion Bill. It might afford hon. Members in that House (who, he was sure, had no communication with these cowardly assassins) arguments in opposing this Bill. The outrages might be discontinued for a time; but he feared, when Parliament was no longer sitting, that these outrages would be renewed when the power would no longer exist for putting them down. Another argument that had been used against this Bill was, that there was a great deal of crime in England, and no such means of suppression were devised. He admitted that most atrocious crimes were committed in England; but then hon. Members ought to remember that most of the murders in England were committed in secret; those committed in Ireland were perpetrated in the open day. Now, a greater number of the murders committed in secret in England were prosecuted to conviction, than of the murders committed in Ireland in the open day. This fact showed that there was no analogy between crime in England and in Ireland. He admitted that there ought to be remedial measures for Ireland; but they were not agreed as to these remedial measures; and even if they were, these measures could not come into immediate operation, and never could be carried into complete effect until they had resident proprietors in Ireland. But how were they to have resident

825
proprietors? Some hon. Members proposed a tax upon absentees. ["No!"] He had certainly heard of such a tax elsewhere; but he thought he could suggest a tax as efficacious as that on absentees—it was a tax upon agitators. He thought a handsome revenue could be derived from that tax; and out of it, he thought, should be paid a premium upon those who had the courage to reside upon and improve their estates in Ireland. The hon. Member for Pomfret (Mr. M. Milnes) asked them if they would not pay some attention to the opinions of the Irish Members—a term generally applied to Members from all parts of Ireland but the north; but when he was asked to give value to their opinions, he also remembered that those Members were opposed to the Union ["No, no!"] At least the most of them were, and those that were not, he had heard were under notice to quit, unless they would mend their ways. Another argument used was, that the Whigs would govern Ireland without a Coercion Bill. That might be a very good argument for those who placed confidence in the Whigs, and who would intrust themselves to the guidance of the noble Lord the Member for London, of whom it had been said by a very good authority that "he was ready to take command of the Channel fleet;" but he for one objected to sail under the noble Lord's orders. It had been stated that the present Bill would only prevent murders by night, and that a majority of the crimes of this description were committed by day. He did not think that statement correct. The murders of magistrates, and of gentlemen of that class, were perpetrated by day, because they did not leave their houses at night; but the majority of murders were committed upon poor farmers by night. There were eighty-five cases of firing into dwellings—a crime which was mostly committed at night. Upon the subject of this Bill there was a division among hon. Members sitting upon the protection benches. He protested against its being imagined that he was a lukewarm protectionist, because he intended to support Her Majesty's Government upon this Bill. He was as strongly attached to protection as any of his hon. Friends around him; and he should have been glad if by his vote he could have placed Her Majesty's Government in a minority upon the Corn Bill. But why should he, as a protectionist, be called on to oppose Her Majesty's Government upon a question in which he believed
826
them to be entirely in the right, in order to bring into power a Government still more strongly attached to the principles of free trade—a Government that would not give them even the three years' protection clause of the Ministerial Corn Bill, and which would offer an official place to the hon. Member for Stockport? He should not object to seeing that hon. Member in the Ministry; because, if they were to have had measures, they would at least have the consolation of having them supported by good speeches. Nothing had surprised him more than the strong personal feeling evinced on the subject of this Bill by some of his hon. Friends around him. He had asked one of them how he meant to vote on this Bill. His reply was, "I mean to take the straight course, and vote against the Bill." Now, he thought his hon. Friend was not about to take a straight course, if he voted for the first reading, and was going to vote against the second. He, having voted for the first reading, meant to vote for the second reading also; and if his hon. Friend would not call his a straight course, he would call his hon. Friend's a crooked course. He had heard his hon. Friends near him say, "We count on so many honest men and true, who will vote against the Coercion Bill." He felt his face becoming hot when he was told this. Were they who supported the Bill not honest and true men? What pledge had he ever given that he would not support a Coercion Bill? He said, confidently, that in supporting this Bill he should vote with his party; for he was persuaded that more protectionists would vote with the right hon. Baronet in favour of this Bill, than with the noble Lord opposite against it. By the Ministerial party he had been told, "We are glad you are going to vote like a gentleman on this Coercion Bill." These strong personal feelings, on both sides, would lead one to suppose that there was infused into the question a little of the leaven of the odium theologicum, which raged inversely with the difference of opinion. The comments made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War (Mr. S. Herbert) had been adverted to. He had known that right hon. Gentleman for several years, and was convinced that he would never take any course that was not perfectly consistent and honourable—and every Member of the protectionist party would probably say as much for those Ministerialists with whom he was personally intimate—yet, when the

827
Ministerial party was spoken of by some of his Friends the protectionists, the right hon. Gentleman with the rest, they were called all sorts of hard names. The use of these might, indeed, be sanctioned by the example of Mr. Fox, and of other great orators in bygone days; but nobody would ever persuade him that they were necessary for the purposes of free discussion, or should be introduced into the debates of that House. The opinion he entertained on that point was aptly and tersely expressed in a few words by a Latin poet—Decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile; which, in reference to the example of Mr. Fox, he might freely translate, "Imitate his eloquence if you can, but not his violent language." He, for his own part, being of a somewhat lethargic temperament, or of what medical men called a lymphatic temperament, had no disposition to apply to hon. Gentlemen the strong language which he had heard used in that House; and should Her Majesty's present Government remain in office, he thought the party with which he was connected would be able to conduct their opposition without the use of hard words, though some hon. Gentlemen might suppose abstinence from such language altogether incompatible with party warfare. He trusted that the bitterness of party spirit would soon be assuaged. It was with great regret that he found himself differing on this question from many hon. Gentlemen with whom he had hitherto acted; but it was without the slightest hesitation as to the propriety of the course he was taking, that he expressed his intention to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda, and in favour of the second reading of the Bill.
MR. CALEB POWELLnever heard a speech which showed more utter ignorance of the condition of Ireland and the Irish people than that which had just been delivered. The speech of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) the other evening, was, however, one which it was much more gratifying to turn to. It was, in his opinion, one of the ablest that he had ever heard in that House. The hon. Gentleman had dissected the returns which had been laid on the Table, and on which the present measure was supported. He had shown that out of 2,000 offences, there were no less than 805 under the head of "threatening notices," and of these only three had been followed by the commission of outrage. He was,
828
therefore, justified in regarding these threatening notices not so much as waste paper, but as emanating from the scouts of the police. That was not the case with England. They had recently an instance in the case of M'Dowall, the late master of the Andover Union workhouse, who was violently assaulted while returning home, after watching the proceedings in the House of Commons; and there were many other instances of a similar character which he might bring forward that happened in this country, and which would justify him in saying that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have brought forward a Coercion Bill for his own country, instead of one for Ireland. He confessed he could not imagine a greater satire on the Irish policy of Her Majesty's Government than this measure. Under it, policemen of the most ill-conducted and evil-disposed habits, such as they had an instance of in the newspapers the other day, were to be invested with authority for violating the personal liberty of the inhabitants in every district to which the Lord Lieutenant was pleased to extend the Act. The present Government found Ireland, in 1841, in a state of perfect political and social tranquillity, because the constituted authorities had the confidence of the people; but the Government of the right hon. Baronet commenced by selecting for the highest situations in the law individuals who were the most obnoxious in the country, and who had been for years among the foremost vilifiers of the people and religion of Ireland. He was sorry not to see the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Benett) in his place, as he wished to allude to an expression that had fallen from that hon. Gentleman in the course of this debate. The hon. Gentleman expressed a wish to have the advocacy of the repeal of the Union, or, in other words, the advocacy of a repeal of an Act of Parliament, made high treason. Now he, in advocating repeal, regarded it as an inevitable event; and yet there was no Gentleman in that House more anxious than he was for a long connexion between the two countries. He believed the principles which he advocated were better calculated to maintain that connexion than those of the party opposite. He believed that connexion was highly necessary for the welfare of both countries, and he expressed that opinion whenever he advocated the repeal of the Union in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that repeal of the Union meant a dismemberment

829
of the Empire; but he had got a fact as a reply to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, and that was, that a domestic Legislature continued in Ireland, co-existent with British connexion, for a period of 420 years. But to return to the Coercion Bill, and to the 800 and odd threatening notices with which it was supported. On his return from Ireland recently, he found a letter addressed to him at the House of Commons, which contained at the top an allusion about "coming death to the Saxon foe." Underneath was a coffin and cross bones, with the inscription, "Powell's surtout," and the words, "Here is your fate if you vote for the bloody Coercion Bill." Now, that letter was of course only a hoax; and he had no doubt but that a large proportion of the 805 threatening notices were of a similar character. During the existence of the former Government, informers were discouraged; but since the accession of Her Majesty's present Ministry they had again become numerous, and were known in the country by the name of Paddy M'Kews. It should also be recollected that the individual who had called the Irish people "aliens in blood, in language, and in religion," had been elevated to the highest judicial position among the English people, and that the press of England had been in the habit of describing eight millions of the Irish people as a filthy and felonious rabble; while their clergy, many of whom he had the pleasure of knowing, and who, for learning and piety, might rank with any class of men in Her Majesty's dominions, were described as "surpliced ruffians," and a "demon priesthood." These exhibitions of hostility to Ireland had, besides, been made use of by the right hon. Baronet in ousting his political opponeuts. He hoped the hon. Gentleman who preceded him, and who proposed to impose a tax on agitators, would include the members of the Anti-Corn-Law League in his plan; and then if the English people were found to submit to such a system, the people of Ireland could not fairly complain of it. The fact was, he believed, that social order could be maintained in Ireland by the existing laws, if fairly administered, and by a Government in whom the people had confidence; but he also believed Her Majesty's present advisers had not the least chance of regaining the confidence of the Irish people, and that they could not do anything more gratifying to the inhabitants of that country than to resign office.
MR. W. R. COLLETTsaid, he should give his decided support to the Bill. He would be no party to any political move. The state of Ireland had not changed since the first reading of this Bill, to which he had given his support. No doubt the introduction of the measure had had the effect of producing a temporary lull, but no real change had taken place in the disposition of those lawless individuals by whom the outrages were perpetrated. He was the owner of some slate quarries in the worst part of Tipperary, where nearly a thousand persons were either directly or indirectly employed; and he knew that robberies and outrages accompanied with violence were constantly perpetrated in that district by ruffians with their faces blackened. He only wished that he were at the head of a troop of cavalry or a body of police, that he might have the opportunity of hunting them down. It was in reference to such districts as this that the Lord Lieutenant ought to be invested with the powers conferred by this Bill; and if hon. Members who opposed the Bill knew as much of Ireland as he did, they would see the necessity which existed for such an enactment. It was idle to say that the Bill was directed against the Irish people—it was directed solely against these bands of lawless marauders; and he maintained that the Government were as much justified in resorting to it, as the Governments of Rome or Naples were justified in taking measures to capture the bands of robbers by which their territories were infested. He knew that the outrages in Ireland amounted to 365 in a year; in fact, that twenty-four hours never passed without the occurrence of some robbery or assassination in the district from the silver mines and the quarries down to the Shannon, and this had gone on for the last eight years. He thought that if the police had the power to take into custody suspicious looking characters, it would have a great effect in repressing the commission of these outrages. How such criminals could meet with any sympathy amongst their fellow countrymen surpassed his comprehension; but the fact was undoubted, that these murderers and assassins were shielded from the consequences of their crimes. Why, he knew the exact price of robbery and assassination in Tipperary. He knew that 2l. 10 s. was the sum paid if the individual singled out was not shot, and 6l. 10 s. if the shot took effect. He had embarked a large sum in Tipperary, partly with the

831
view of benefiting himself, and partly for the purpose of benefiting that part of Ireland. As to any profit to himself that had long ceased to exist—for the last six years; but he as an Englishman should think himself highly culpable if, through his means, 500 men accustomed to handle gunpowder and pickaxes were turned suddenly upon the county without employment. If this Bill should not pass a second reading, he believed that an unheard-of amount of crime would be the result. He believed that a temporary measure would be sufficient to meet the evil; and he hoped that an extended intercourse by means of railroads would do much, in the course of a few years, to mitigate the feelings which led to these outrages. Ireland only required to be fostered and cherished, but the law must be enforced. He had been warned not to go to Ireland, although he had never used a single harsh expression to any of its inhabitants, and most conscientiously desired to promote their welfare. For many years, ever since he had the honour of representing Cashel, he had taken a great interest in Ireland, and had done his utmost to forward its interests, and it was heartbreaking to meet with such a return. He asked those who repudiated this as an unconstitutional measure, by what means they proposed to protect life and property in Ireland? Every Monday morning he received dreadful accounts of outrages and violence from Ireland; and he never sent his secretary from the quarries to Limerick for money that he was not stopped on the road. He was surprised to hear that the days of the present Ministry were at an end. He had expressed his want of confidence in them as regarded the corn question; but should any other question come before them, whether it were their national or their foreign policy, it would be his greatest pride to give them his support.
MR. HALSEYsaid: Sir, I will not trespass long upon the patience of the House; but I wish to state the reasons which induce me to oppose this measure. I gave my vote in support of the first reading, not because I acquiesced in the principle of the Bill, but because I felt that courtesy and justice demanded that we should not refuse to take into consideration a measure recommended to our deliberation in a Speech from the Throne, and handed down to us from another House of Parliament; but I did this, feeling that it remained open to us afterwards to form our
832
opinions upon the merits and principles of the measure. I oppose this measure, first, because I do not think that it is called for by the present circumstances of Ireland. I grant that the amount of crime and outrage in that unhappy country is most horrible; but I maintain that the positive amount of crime, taken by itself, is no test of the necessity for a Coercion Bill, or else we should have to make the Bill perpetual and not temporary; but the question for our consideration is, whether the increase in the amount of crime is so rapid and so violent as to defy the resources of the common law. I will not enter into those statistics which so many hon. Members have gone through before me; but I will only say, that I have looked into those blue books and returns which have been laid before us; and I confess that I cannot there see such recent increase in the amount of crime as would, in my opinion, justify this Bill. But we are told that the common resources of the law have failed. How have they failed? We hear much about the intimidation of witnesses, and the sympathy with the criminal so generally evinced; but is this Bill calculated to afford a remedy for these evils? It is true that there is one clause relating to the intimidation of witnesses; but that is merely a penal clause, and affords no facility for the detection of the offender. And the Bill itself contains so much that is irritating to the innocent as well as the guilty, that in my opinion it will strongly tend to increase the sympathy now felt for the criminal, and will thus render more frequent the intimidation of witnesses. Besides all this, if it is necessary to ask for these unconstitutional powers, I confess that I have a strong objection to entrust them into the hands of the ordinary executives of the law: it is a direct encouragement for them not to rely on their own energy and activity, aided by the powers of the law, but to come to us in any difficulty, and to ask for extraordinary powers: it is not the way to teach them to combine moderation with firmness; but it will encourage them to carry matters with a high hand, and not to seek to conciliate the affections of peaceable subjects. I do not charge the Irish police with all this; on the contrary, I believe that they have very generally performed most difficult duties with equal temper and firmness; but I do not believe that this Bill is likely to encourage them to persevere in their present good conduct. I do not wish to enter into personalities; the

833
motives and intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers are for their own consciences: but the public conduct of public men is a fair subject for comment; and in their conduct I confess I have found strong inducement to oppose this Bill. They told us that they should make this measure dependent upon the success of their Corn Law. Now, I cannot acknowledge that there can be any connexion whatever between a temporary measure, justified only by urgent and immediate necessity, and purporting to protect life and property, and a mere commercial scheme which is to come to maturity in three years. We know that a gift delayed loses half its grace. This measure, if now carried, will have lost half its power in the repression of crime; but will have acquired a power of irritation as regards the Irish peasantry, which will not be allayed for years to come. As I said, I do not pretend to judge of the motives of Her Majesty's Ministers. I do not say that the state of Ireland does not, in their opinion, require such a measure; but I do say, if such is their real opinion, that their remissness is most culpable. In such a case, delay is not less than a crime. They may be actuated by good intentions; but good intentions not regulated by fixed principles are more likely to lead to evil than good, and certainly deserve no confidence. The events of this Session have inspired me with more than distrust of Her Majesty's Ministers; and I will not assist to place irresponsible and unconstitutional powers in the hands of those in whose stability and in whose principles I can place no confidence whatever. For these reasons I shall give to this Bill my hearty and honest opposition.
MR. V. STUARTdid not rise to deny the existence of crime to a very fearful extent in Ireland. He admitted the existence of crime, and the necessity of punishing the criminals; but he would not be carried away by what was nothing more than a panic, and heedlessly vote for a measure, the effect of which would and must be to increase the evils which it was intended to put down. The policy of the present Government, as of too many other Governments, had been to bring the common law into disrepute, to teach the people to rely for aid and protection on violent remedies. The object should be to inculcate a feeling in favour of the ordinary law, where it was not to be found; and where such a feeling did operate, to leave the people to themselves. It was not to be wondered at that
834
the people of Ireland had no confidence in the law, when that law was constantly being superseded by a temporary and violent legislation, permanent only in its evil effects. Was obedience to the law a natural feeling? He thought not: there must be a conviction that it was a good law before the people to whom it applied would be in favour of it; and for that reason all law should be based in justice. There were few such laws in Ireland: Judges from the benches in Ireland told them that the law of landlord and tenant was for the good of the one, and to the injury of the other—beneficial to the landlord, and opposed to the interests of the people; and as the people felt as well as learned the truth of this, it could not be expected that they should show anything but hostility to those who governed them. The practical effect of that law was most destructive; it placed immense power in the hands of individuals; and, as the frequent ejectments of tenantry proved, that power was often turned to bad and unjustifiable purposes. A necessary sequence of extensive crime was the system of depending for the procuring of evidence upon offering large rewards; but nothing could be worse than such a system. There was in Ireland a horror universally felt of an informer; and could anything prove more strongly than the stigma which was attached to the man who assisted in carrying out the law, that the law was in itself bad? The present Bill would undoubtedly produce a temporary lull; but it would be that lull which preceded the storm; and instead of proving a remedy it would be found to be an aggravation. They had long failed in their attempts to govern Ireland; they had tried many systems; and their only chance now was—to make their laws just, and their punishments merciful. Let coercion be forgotten in this new code, and Ireland would cease to be pronounced their "greatest difficulty."
MR. ROEBUCK, in accordance with all the principles which had hitherto directed his political career, should give his vote against this Bill. All modes of legislation, all Bills and Acts of this description, were mischievous: first, because they were inefficacious; and, next, because if efficacious in some measure, they were much more efficacious for evil than good. And when he looked to the state of the people of Ireland, and also to the past history of that country, his feeling became stronger as to the injustice and folly of such a measure as the present. For, was this a novel experiment in

835
the government of Ireland? Had the experiment been confined to one party, or had it been tried by all? The House knew it was not a novel experiment; that for the last eighty years all parties had been trying coercive laws; and that every such attempt had been followed by increased disturbance. In speaking to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who brought forward the present Bill, he must say a word as to their motives. He believed their motives to be as pure as motives could be, and that their intention was, it could not be doubted, to provide means for the security of life and property in Ireland. But though he conceded to them, completely and frankly, all the benefit they could derive from the admission, he must discuss the question with them as to the propriety of the means they were about to take to attain that beneficial end. It was useless to hide from themselves that Ireland was in a fearful state for herself as well as for England. She was threatened with many calamities. The greatest that could befall her would be separation from England. However it might be thought that the miseries of Ireland had been created by the dominion of England, still he believed her sole hope to be in her connexion with this country, and that if to-morrow saw the separation, civil war and misery would run throught the land. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen said "no." He hoped they would never try the experiment. The consequences would be disastrous to themselves as well as to the poor peasant. It was, however, useless for the House to hide from itself that Ireland had for ages been misgoverned, and it was impossible to say that this Bill was not in continuance of the same bad system. The people of Ireland had been always treated as a conquered people: the consequence of this treatment was, that doubt and distrust were created in their minds as to England's laws and dominion. A large portion of the miseries now afflicting the people arose from this state of mind. What, then, ought to be the course of the Legislature? Violent diseases, it was said, required violent remedies; but he denied the illustration, physically, morally, and intellectually. He recommended, on the contrary, mildness and gentleness; and he told the House that unless the people of Ireland had confidence in their justice and their laws, all coercion would fail. He would therefore ask hon. Members seriously to consider the means best calculated to improve the state of the
836
popular mind. Let them come forward with a wise, well-considered, large, and generous policy, for you could only make them love you by being just. If hon. Members considered the effect of this Bill, he could not for a moment doubt what vote they would give. Hon. Gentlemen opposite declared that they could not support the present Bill, because they had no confidence in Her Majesty's Government; but it by no means followed that they would not themselves, should they ever come into power, propose the same measure. He perceived that one of their great leaders shook his head. He meant the hon. Member for Evesham, and doubtless the hon. Member was deeply in their counsels. But he recollected a speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, upon the first reading of this Bill, when he declared that the blood of every murder which took place in Ireland, whilst that Bill was under discussion, would be upon the heads of those who opposed it. And why was it that the right hon. Gentleman did not possess the confidence of the noble Lord? Because he had done one great thing for the people—because he had freed trade from the shackles which formerly surrounded it—because he had passed a measure through that House which the people of this country desired—because, in fact, of the generous and liberal spirit which the right hon. Baronet had evinced. There was also another set of opponents to this Bill—he alluded to the Members of the Opposition, from whom he thought the House and the country deserved some explanation as to the change of their opinions. He was in that House in 1833, when, under Lord Grey's Administration and with the support of the noble Lord the Member for London, and of the right hon. Gentleman on his side of the House, a Coercion Bill was passed, the like of which never disgraced the Statute-books of this country. He heard the noble Lord express surprise that the right hon. Gentleman, in adopting his opinions, had not expressed some sort of regret for having found fault with him upon a former occasion for holding the same opinion. He remembered also that the majority of those who supported the Bill under Earl Grey's Administration did not hesitate to reproach, with almost opprobrium, all who opposed the Ministerial legislation. Now, however, the noble Lord had taken up other views, and he had not expressed the slightest regret that he had before blamed others for

837
holding the self-same opinions which he now entertained himself. But more than that. In 1833, that outrageous Bill, with its court-martial clauses, its sunset clauses, and its domiciliary visits, lasted till 1835. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: One year.] He could show how it was. That Bill passed by a large majority. It was opposed only by a large section of the Members for Ireland, and by a very minute section of English Members, of whom he was one. In 1834, the Whigs ceased to exist; but, in 1835, having ousted the right hon. Baronet, the Whigs again came in under Lord Melbourne, and on August 1, 1835, another Coercion Bill was introduced. He admitted that it was much modified and less arbitrary than the former Bill; but Coercion Bills seemed to get milder and milder—each more modified than its predecessor—the present, he hoped, would be the last that they should see. Before, however, he consented to aid in bringing in any other Government in the place of the right hon. Gentleman, he must have a distinct assurance from them that they would not bring in a similar Bill. The Bill of 1835 contained some remarkable clauses. There was the famous sunset clause, and the power of domiciliary visits. Now he regarded that as a very bad species of legislation; but when he applied to the authorities on Irish matters for their opinions—to the hon. and learned Member for Cork, for example—what did he find to be his opinion with respect to that very sunset clause? And the House must remember that that Bill of 1835 was far more stringent than the present measure. The hon. and learned Member for Cork upon that occasion said he thought—
"That this Bill was calculated to meet an exceeding great evil, in the suppression of disturbances which at present disfigured the whole face of society in that country. What he alluded to were the agrarian disturbances, which, although they generally originated in some acts of local oppression, spread with the force and rapidity of infection, bringing within their vortex many who would willingly keep themselves aloof if they could. The Bill introduced by the noble Lord dispensed with the old system of special commissions, than which nothing in his opinion could be more objectionable. Those Commissions inquired into cases of outrage, of the perpetration of which, unhappily, there could be no doubt. The only doubt was as to the perpetrator; and in detecting this, these tribunals were most defective. He verily believed that the special commissions retaliated by day the blood shed by night, and that in very many instances innocent parties suffered. The present Bill, if he had rightly understood it, directed the meeting of the magistrates at sessions to deal with actual cases of offences against the
838
laws, and also authorized them to keep these persons within doors who were found out at night without being able to give a good account of themselves. Whilst it gave protection where it was wanted, the Bill took from no man the right of being tried by a jury. Its only infringement upon public liberty was the power given, as he had already observed, to deal with persons who went out by night, having no lawful business to take them out; and if it should be effectual in suppressing this most baneful practice, it would have a most salutary operation, and produce the greatest benefit in Ireland. He felt convinced that the Bill would work well. He only wished its provisions had gone a little further, and that it had proceeded to touch those affiliated societies which existed in Ireland, and flourished in spite of the law, but which it was the bounden duty of the law to put down."
What did the hon. Member for Meath, a member also of the Repeal Association, say upon the same occasion? The hon. Member said—
"It was impossible for His Majesty's Government to allow things to go on as at present in the north of Ireland, where there was not security either for life or property. [Cheers.] He would ask the Gentleman who cheered, and the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Percival) among them, whether they had any connection with the north of Ireland? He himself happened to have some connection with it; and when he heard the hon. and gallant Officer inquiring whether certain individuals in Monaghan had not been acquitted, he felt tempted to say, with Sir Frederick Stone, that to appeal to the north of Ireland for redress for an Orange injury was a farce."
[Mr. H. GRATTAN had voted against the measure.] From the hon. Member's words he should certainly have thought that he had approved of the Bill. If the hon. Member said he opposed it, however, that was, of course, enough. But he wished to ask a question of the noble Lord the Member for London, who had lately, and only lately, discovered that these principles of legislation were injurious. It was said—and he thought it right to be perfectly frank and explicit upon the subject—he trusted the noble Lord would not take offence at the question he was about to ask; but he thought it was due to the country and to the noble Lord himself, that the question should be asked—it was said that during last winter, if the noble Lord had succeeded in forming a Government upon the resignation of the right hon. Baronet, that Lord Besborough was to have been Lord Lieutenant of Ireland upon the express understanding that he should go on with the Coercion Bill. [Lord J. RUSSELL: It is entirely false.] If the noble Lord said it was entirely false, that at once put an end to that report, and he had done the noble Lord a service by asking the question.

839
But he had not yet done. The present Bill was introduced by the Government into the House of Lords. Who had supported it in the House of Lords? Why, the most earnest supporters of the noble Lord were the supporters of the Bill. He contended, then, that he had a right to believe that they would sanction another Bill of the same sort if the Administration were changed to-morrow. He found, upon this occasion, two parties voting in conjunction against this Bill, who had never voted together before; and he must say that he looked upon such a combination with something like suspicion. The change of the noble Lord's opinion was, no doubt, an honourable change; but it came at an inopportune time, and with an inopportune effect, for with the present combination of parties, he feared that they could expect but little which would tend to the real benefit of the country. The noble Lord was not in a position to govern this country by the aid of the friends upon his own side of the House. The consequence would be the disruption of the Liberal party; the result would be the same as in 1840, 1841, and 1842—the bringing in of measures only to reject them, an attempt at governing by a minority, and losing credit, in fact, every day with the country. If the protectionists should by any extraordinary freak of fortune ever occupy the Treasury benches, the House would very soon show them what the value of their position was. If the country should receive from the noble Lord an assurance that he was willing, as a wise, generous, and comprehensive statesman, to propose great remedial measures for Ireland, sure he was that the confidence of the country in the noble Lord and his party would be greatly increased; but if this subject were to be made the vehicle of a mere party move to obtain office without deserving it, and without being able to maintain it, it would be a disgrace to all concerned, and to none so disgraceful as to those who had reaped every advantage from the liberal policy of the right hon. Baronet, who could make such a return for one of the greatest boons a Minister ever gave—a boon so great as to gain for that Minister the universal and well-deserved approbation of the country.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid: I wish, Sir, it were in my power to dissipate one tithe of the fears and suspicions which so oppress the hon. and learned Member for Bath, or to clear up one tithe of the mysterious and contradictory circumstances of
840
the past, to which he has alluded; but I cannot, and must confine myself to answering the direct challenge he has thrown out to Gentlemen who, sitting on this side of the House, are prepared to vote against the measure now under discussion. In answer to that challenge, then, I tell him that my objection to this Bill, is an objection of principle; and, were it not for the language of the hon. and learned Member, and the insinuations that are so plentifully dealt in both within and without these walls, I should have been content to give a silent vote in accordance within my Tory principles against this Whig measure. I object, in the first place, to this measure, as being alien and abhorrent to the principle of English Toryism. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bath admitted that it was to Whigs and Whiggism that we owe Irish Coercion Bills; and if I refer to history, and ask how the great founder of that Irish Tory party which I will hope still exists; how "he who writ the Drapier's Letters;" for whose condemnation the Whig Minister of the day offered a reward of 600 l.; who devoted his brilliant genius and great talents to the cause of Irish freedom and Irish nationality — if I ask how Dean Swift, and those great men who were associated with him, would have treated such a measure as this, my judgment must be given against it. Again; if I refer to those statesmen who have left the impress of their wisdom and their principles on the history and traditions of their country—to Strafford and Ormonde, Clanricarde and Tyrconnell, Bolingbroke and Wyndham, and guide myself by their examples, how can I arrive at a conclusion favourable to the spirit of this Bill? Nor, Sir, if quitting the past I approach the future, am I willing to associate Toryism with such miserable remnants of Whig legislation and Whig tyranny as this proposal is a part of; and, therefore, unless some overwhelming case of necessity can be established, without any hesitation I should vote against the second reading of this Bill. Well, then, is this necessity proved? I cannot discover it in the statistics and returns submitted to us by the Government. I will not weary the House by quoting a single figure, or alluding to a single return, but will content myself with saying that, having paid attention to that evidence, to my mind the case is not proved; but that if any hon. Gentleman, after weighing that evidence and studying the speeches of the noble Lords the Members

841
for London and Lynn, and of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, comes to a different conclusion, why, in Heaven's name, let him vote for the Bill. But I know it may be said there are cases in which a Government is not justified in laying bare before the public eye the crimes and disaffection of a whole population, and this may be one of those cases: but then, Sir, I apprehend we invariably find in the conduct of the Government that evidence which its proofs and language do not supply. Now, have we such supplementary evidence on this occasion? I wish to argue this question in the fairest and most courteous manner with the Government; and I will therefore admit—and it is a very large admission—I will admit that, entertaining the convictions they did, it was right for them to pass the Corn Bill through the House of Commons, before they proceeded with this measure that is to protect life and property in Ireland. Well, for argument's sake, I make that admission; but of what service to the Government is that enormous concession, unless followed by another which it is absolutely impossible to grant? To justify your delay in pressing on this measure (if you are really convinced of its great importance), I must not only concede that you were right in postponing it to the Corn Bill, but also to the Tariff; and I ask any one—the hon. and learned Member who spoke last, or the keenest Leaguer in or out of the House—I ask him how he can say, or I believe, that it was necessary for the salvation of the Empire, to deprive the framework knitter of Leicestershire, the paper stainer of London, or the Spitalfields weaver of protection, before you afforded it to life and property in Ireland? Whether I look, then, at the statistics of crime in Ireland, or the practical commentary on them afforded by the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers, I deny the existence of any overwhelming necessity. But even admitting the necessity to be proved—admitting all the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Collett) has said to be correct, I have to ask myself this question before I consent to this Bill—will its provisions meet that necessity? And, Sir, I have listened in vain during all these long debates for any arguments that should convince me they will. In the first place, I observe that many of the powers conferred by this Bill are already possessed by the Irish Government, and that stripping the Bill of this superfluous garniture,
842
what do we find as the real practical provision which is to secure life and property in Ireland? Why, that which has been called the Curfew Clause. All the crimes, therefore, which are committed in the open day will remain untouched, unprevented by this Bill, which, indeed, should be called, not "a Bill for the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland," but "a Bill for the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland during the night time;" supposing, that is, that this curfew clause will really protect them during the night: for, Sir, I own it seems to me at least doubtful whether those hardened miscreants who are not now deterred by a sense of the guilt they bring on their own souls, nor yet by the rigours and penalties of existing laws, will be deterred from their settled purpose of crime by the addition of another law to the Statute-book. It seems to me that those whom this law will retain in their houses from sunset to sunrise will be the peaceable, the orderly, the well-affected, and that thus the field will be left all the more open for those determined villains who will brave your new, as they have braved your old laws, to perpetrate their crimes, which might perhaps be prevented or discovered had you not by this law deprived of the opportunity of witnessing them the orderly and loyal. And what will be the effect of such enactment on the minds of those who, knowing themselves to be innocent, are yet subjected to this odious and harassing confinement? Surely, Sir, if this curfew clause fails to intimidate, it cannot fail to exasperate and alienate from Imperial rule those whom there is no need to alienate still more. But, indeed, most Irish Gentlemen on this side of the House whom I have heard express an opinion on this Bill, have acknowledged it to be impotent for good; and yet they ask us to vote for it, and intend to vote for it themselves, on what, were it not for the melancholy dignity of the subject, I should call the very Irish ground of "anything being better than nothing." Now, Sir, I will ask these Gentlemen, before they vote for a measure which they themselves do not like—which is most abhorrent to the people among whom they live—which is opposed by every Irish Member save one, on the opposite benches, and by a great body of those English Gentlemen with whom they ordinarily act—on such a ground, to consider carefully what that "something" is they meant to support, and what that "nothing" is of which

843
they speak so slightingly. That "something" is a Bill such as I have described this Bill to be, and that "nothing" than which a curfew clause is said to be better, is nothing more and nothing less than the laws and constitution of this imperial realm. No, Sir, I cannot consent on such a plea as that to vote for this measure. But there is another consideration which I am told weighs with many, and ought to weigh with me, in favour of this Whig measure of coercion. I am asked to support it as a proof of confidence in Government. Now, Sir, it has been my fate ever since I came into Parliament to have had serious differences with Her Majesty's Ministers; and whenever those differences have demanded it, I have never hesitated to vote against the right hon. Gentleman, whilst I have always given a hearty and zealous support to those measures which have accorded with my principles and convictions; and did I believe that this Bill was a right, and just, and wise measure, I should heartily support it: but believing it to be exactly the reverse, I cannot consent to show a late confidence in the Government by voting for a measure of which I althogether disapprove. I now come, Sir, to a very delicate subject, which I should fear to touch at all had not the eloquent peroration of the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London, and a great portion of that which we have just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Bath, made it one of public interest. That hon. and learned Member stated, as he always does, his views on this delicate and grave matter, very ingeniously and very cleverly; but I own I think the aspect under which the noble Lord presented it to us, was the most consistent with fact. Rumours then are afloat that so great is the affection of certain influential Gentlemen opposite for free trade in general, and this free-trade Government in particular, that they intend to vote for this measure, although they detest it, in order to keep this Ministry in power. It was not long ago that I was obliged to call the attention of the working men of the north to the admission of their free-trade rulers that the price they would have to pay for the establishment of free trade was two additional labours of labour per diem. And now, Sir, it appears, if these rumours are well founded, that the price the Irish peasantry will pay for that unknown blessing is the deprivation of their
844
liberty, and confinement from sunset to sunrise. I hope, Sir, that if this be, and this Bill be carried by such votes, those Gentlemen who act as the guides and instructors of the Irish people, and by whose extraordinary influence that peasantry has been reconciled to a repeal of the Corn Laws, will not fail, when asked by the peasant of Connemara, or farmer of Leitrim, "Why is it that I, loyal, peaceable, well-affected, am deprived of my liberty, shut up in my miserable hovel from sunset to sunrise, debarred from innocent recreation after a day of toil?" to answer, and answer truly, "You are thus treated, not because English Liberals, as they call themselves, thought you deserved such treatment, but in order that free trade may be established, and your oats sold at rather a lower price." Well, Sir, none of these considerations can induce me to vote for this Bill, which I think, and have now assigned my reasons for thinking, unnecessary, and if necessary, inapt for its own purposes. I shall give, therefore, an unhesitating vote against the second reading, in the hope and expectation that the rejection of this Bill will not be the mere temporary rejection of an odious and tyrannical specimen of exploded Whig legislation, or cause solely the substitute of one Whig Government for another, but that it will lead to kindlier feelings and juster sentiments: to a re-establishment of those ties of sympathy and affection that, in other days, bound the two great national parties together; and thus, in the words of my hon. Friend, the Member for Pontefract, secure the real Union between England and Ireland.
SIR J. GRAHAM: I did not rise immediately after the hon. and learned Member for Bath, thinking that some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House would probably have been disposed to take that opportunity of replying to him; and I can sincerely say that I gave up that opportunity of addressing the House with some reluctance, when I remembered that, since the noble Lord the Member for London had spoken upon the present question, no Member of Her Majesty's Government had addressed this House in defence or vindication of the measure now under discussion. It is therefore on this account, as well as for other reasons, which cannot fail very readily to suggest themselves to the minds of hon. Members, that I now rise, under some danger, I fear, of wearying the House; but I beg to say, that I

845
have very little to add to what has been already said in support of the Bill at present under consideration; and I think I shall best discharge the duty which I have thus commenced, by proceeding with it now rather than at any subsequent period of this debate. I shall begin by observing, that I do not take up this measure as one fully defensible upon grounds of abstract or constitutional right. I have heard it said that this Bill is highly unconstitutional. I admit that it may be so considered; and I admit, likewise, that it is quite incumbent upon the responsible advisers of the Crown to make out and prove a case of clear and undeniable necessity; and I am at the same time most anxious, in establishing that necessity, to avoid as much as possible any cause of irritation, and to divest the present discussion of anything like party acrimony. The House, I am sure, will bear in mind that the Bill now before them is by no means a novel measure; but I am most unwilling to advert to the past; I am, on the contrary, more desirous of applying myself to those points which prove the necessity of the Bill that we propose to bring forward for the better government of Ireland. I hope, however, that the House will allow me to advert to one remark made by the hon. Member for Bath. I quite agree with that hon. and learned Gentleman in thinking that that doctrine is most unsound which declares that violent maladies necessarily require violent remedies; and I quite concur with him, and with all hon. Members who think we are called upon to establish an absolute necessity for the enactment of this Bill. In the course of the present discussion, much has been said of the delay in passing this measure, or rather in not urging it forward. In reference, however, to the remarks made upon this subject, I must do the hon. Member for Lambeth the justice to say that he did not exceed the fair limits of debate, and that upon the whole his manner of treating this measure was somewhat different from that of other hon. Members at the opposite side of the House. The noble Lord the Member for London took a different view of the subject. He thought that we ought to have laid before the House a temporary measure with respect to Ireland, and a temporary measure with respect to the importation of foreign corn. Now, in my opinion, and I persuade myself in the opinion of the House likewise, there is no policy more unsound than that which proceeds upon temporary measures.
846
[Lord J. RUSSELL: The Government proposed such measures in the month of November.] I will not be led away from the question properly under the consideration of the House, by interlocutory remarks, into an angry controversy on topics which have no necessary connexion with the present subject of debate. The case to which the noble Lord refers is one dissimilar—utterly unlike the measure now under discussion, and proposed under totally different circumstances. The proposition in the month of November last had reference to the abrogation of the existing Corn Law, and the substitution for it of one by which an article of the first necessity should be introduced into this country. Now, it so happens that the Government fully and signally succeeded in that which formed our primary object. The question of the Tariff was indissolubly connected with the Corn Bill from its first introduction; and if Her Majesty's Government had for a moment hesitated with respect to either, we must have signally failed. It must be remembered, that when this Bill first came from the other House, at the end of March, the hon. Baronet the Member for Drogheda proposed that it should be postponed until after the other Orders of the Day; and the noble Lord opposite gave his decided support to that proposition, thereby promoting to the uttermost of his power a delay greater than that which has taken place. I should further observe that the Government, having to deal with the abrogation of the Corn Laws, and endeavouring to obtain the consent of Parliament to that measure, had to make a decision not unusual on the part of Ministers. They had to press that which was of primary importance, and to postpone that which they considered to be of secondary importance. I have already stated that, with reference to Ireland, from the destitution which existed in many districts of that country in an article of prime necessity for life, it was of the greatest importance, both for Ireland, when the distress prevailed, and for Great Britain, where the people are called upon to contribute aid to that distress, that the first consideration of Parliament this Session should be directed to an alteration of the Corn Laws. That was my opinion at the commencement of the Session, and at this moment I have no reason whatever to take another view of the subject; but I still regard the passing of the Corn Importation Bill as the primary object. If that be admitted. I think it cannot be shown that there has

847
been any unnecessary or avoidable delay on the part of the Government in urging this measure on the careful consideration of Parliament. Thus much as to the first point of delay. I said that this question rested mainly upon evidence; that it is a question of necessity, and that it must rest upon facts. I am very unwilling to go over the ground again, or to refer to the details which have been introduced into this discussion, more than I cannot avoid. But attempts have been made to cut down the facts of this case by speeches on both sides of the House; and it is therefore absolutely necessary, with the indulgence of the House, that I should restate some of the principal facts, and establish what I believe to be incapable of refutation, that in certain parts of Ireland, even up to the present moment, crime dangerous to life and property is increasing to a fearful extent. It has been attempted to show that whatever was the case with reference to the disturbed counties, in respect to the whole of Ireland crime is not on the increase. I said on a former occasion, what I now repeat, that happily it is no part of my duty to prefer an indictment against the Irish people generally, for, comparing the crimes committed in 1845 with those committed in 1844, throughout the whole of Ireland, as to a large proportion of the Irish people, crime has not increased to such an extent as to justify the passing of this Bill, and therefore I rest this measure mainly upon the condition of the five counties I specified before, namely, Tipperary, Roscommon, Clare, Leitrim, and Limerick; and I also must add, that the tendency of crimes of this description, unless checked, is to spread rapidly, and they will spread, and have already spread, into the counties adjacent. I should wish, in the first place, to call the attention of the House to the small proportion which the population of these five counties bears to the population of the whole of Ireland. The population of the whole of Ireland is 8,500,000; whilst the population of the five counties to which I have referred is somewhere about 1,400,000, or one-sixth of the whole. I must beg you to observe also the area of these five counties as compared with the area of the whole of Ireland. The area of the whole of Ireland is 20,000,000 acres; the area of the five counties is 3,500,000. I would also wish to state, that concurring in the observations made upon the other side with reference to threatening notices, I exclude them from the comparison of crimes
848
which I am about to institute. I think the hon. Gentleman who spoke with great ability on this side of the House—I mean the Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer)—made an observation as to threatening notices well worthy of attention. I do not think that in the present condition of Ireland, threatening notices are to be treated as casual offences. When crimes of a murderous character are also rife, threatening notices are to be regarded in a different light from that in which they would be in those different parts of the country where crimes of that description are of rare occurrence; and I am prepared to omit from the enumeration I am about to make all reference to threatening notices. I must also remark, in reference to what has fallen from an hon. Member on the opposite side, that the returns from which I shall quote are made according to the established mode of the constabulary returns. Now observe that the total crimes in the five disturbed counties of Ireland, in the first five months of 1846, excluding threatening notices, was 1,074; and the same return for the same five counties, for the same period in 1845, was 1,330; being an increase in crime of 25 per cent, that is, in crime of every description. Now, I will take crimes of an insurrectionary and agrarian character; and in the first five months of 1845 the number was 779; whereas, in 1846, for the same period, it was 933, showing an increase of 20 per cent. I should wish to carry this enumeration still further; and I will specify the crimes concerning which I wish to institute a comparison, and they are crimes either of a murderous or insurrectionary character. They are nine in number—homicide, violence to the person, aggravated assault, assault endangering life, demand and robbing of arms, bearing arms, unlawful oaths, attacking houses, malicious injury of property, and firing into dwellings. I will begin with the crime of homicide. In 1845, in the same five counties, the number was 20. In 1846 it was 28. In the whole of Ireland, in 1846, they were 78; and therefore these five counties bore to the whole of Ireland the proportion of 36 per cent. Of violence to the person, they are in the proportion to the whole of Ireland of 68 per cent. In the five counties the aggravated assaults are in the proportion of 48 per cent to the whole of Ireland. Of assault endangering life they are 38 per cent; of demanding and robbing of arms, 72; of appearing in

849
arms, 80; of unlawful oaths, 87; of attacking houses, 69; of malicious injury to property, 38; and of firing into dwellings, a most serious and murderous crime, 79; and taking these nine crimes in the year 1845, for the first five months in the same five counties, the aggregate of such crimes is 665; in 1846 the aggregate is 872, whilst, as I said, the total number in Ireland was, in the same five months in the year 1846, 1,446; and therefore the proportion which these counties bear to all Ireland in offences of this description in the first five months of the present year, the population of these counties being only one-sixth of the whole, was 66 per cent. Now it has been observed, and I think by the hon. Member for Newark, that this Bill, even if effectual, can only be so against crimes committed by night; and the noble Lord the Member for Durham assented to the proposition. A return was made to the other House, in which there were enumerated the crimes of homicide or attempts to murder, and in which also the precise hour when the offence was committed is given. With regard to homicide, there has been committed by day, between sunrise and sunset, between the 1st of January and 25th of May, 27 homicides; and 48 between sunset and sunrise, showing that the majority of murders is committed by night and not by day. But the attempts at murder are more remarkable still; there were only 13 between sunrise and sunset, whereas there were 45 between sunset and sunrise; showing that a large majority of the offences against which this Bill is directed has been committed by night, and not by day. I do not wish to dwell invidiously upon another part of the statements the hon. Baronet made; but it is necessary that I should advert to it. Something was said of a comparison between the homicides committed in England and in Ireland between 1841 and 1845. Now the average number of homicides in England was 110, for a population of 16,000,000; and it must be observed that in the criminal returns of England, infanticide is included under the head of homicide, and that nearly one-half of the crimes classed as homicides in England were cases of infanticide; but in Ireland the average number of homicides, excluding infanticides, was 128; that is, whilst the homicides of England were only as 1 to 150,000 of the population, during the same period the homicides in Ireland were as 1 to 64. I also beg to call the attention of the House to the comparison of convictions
850
in England upon this crime of homicide being as one in three and three-quarters, whereas in Ireland it is only as one in eight and a half. And when it is said that crime of this description is at the present moment suspended in the disturbed districts to which I have alluded, I can only say that I have this very day received an account of a most atrocious murder in the county of Clare. It is from the report of Sir Charles O'Donnell, on the 18th of June, to the Commander in Chief, giving an account, in that district, in the last month, of four murders of a most distressing and outrageous character; and I can assure the House that upon the whole, murderous attacks of this fatal description have not been suspended since I last addressed the House upon this measure. [Mr. POWELL: In what part of Clare?] I beg pardon of the House, for, on looking at the report, I find that it was in the county of Galway. [Mr. SHEIL: That is not one of the five counties.] But it is immediately on the border. I will read the account:—
"I have to state that on last night, about the hour of one o'clock, two men came to the house of Patrick Hill, of Bolay, demanded admittance, and asked for something to eat. Hill was in the act of getting some bread for them, when they broke in the door, and told him they wanted to speak with him outside. Hill requested they would allow him time to put on his smallclothes. They replied that they would not detain him many minutes. When they got him outside, they brought him a distance of about forty yards from his house, and there inflicted several bayonet wounds on his body; his wife (who remained in the house with a young child) heard his screams, and ran to his assistance. When she came to where her husband was, he was prostrate on the ground; one of the party knocked her down; after which the unfortunate man (Hill) received a stroke of a stone on the chest which almost immediately deprived him of life. I can furnish no further particulars at present. Deceased's wife is in a state of distraction, and no other person has come forward as yet."
If the hon. Gentleman really doubts this account, I think it will be my duty to read a part of the report from Sir C. O'Donnell up to the 18th June. There is an account of one murder, I think, in Roscommon; one, I think, in Westmeath; three in Leitrim, and four in Clare, all enumerated, and the details are given in the report of the last month. This brings me to recollect the observation made by the noble Lord the Member for London with respect to the case of Leitrim; and the noble Lord and some other hon. Gentlemen observed that the success of the measures taken by the Government in respect

851
to Leitrim, demonstrated, in their opinion, that this measure was unnecessary. Now the population of the five counties is 1,400,000; of Leitrim it is less than 200,000, whilst the area of that county is only 192,000 acres; so that, with reference to the population and the area, Leitrim forms but a small proportion, and it is quite possible, with reference to such a small locality, for the Government to concentrate its force, and to use means of repression, which become impracticable when applied to a larger area. It is true, that by the measures introduced by the Government of which Lord Morpeth was the Secretary for Ireland, that the Lord Lieutenant may proclaim a district, and may add to the police; yet that power of addition is not unlimited, but under the Act of Parliament is subject to restriction. With respect also to the military, how is it possible for the Government to distribute over five counties the military force in annihilating numbers as they did over a single county, such as Leitrim? Again, I must observe that the measures taken with regard to Leitrim were adopted last summer, when it was possible by patrols during the night, and in encampments to exercise a commanding power over the population; but measures such as those adopted in Leitrim, I can assure the noble Lord, are, to the best of my judgment, entirely inapplicable to the larger area of these five counties. Even with respect to Leitrim, several murders have recently occurred there; and if the noble Lord the Member for that county were in his place, I should appeal to him with confidence whether the condition of Leitrim negatives the necessity of the measure I am now pressing on the notice of the House. Then with respect to Roscommon: I know not whether the Member for that county is present; if he be, I would appeal to him whether he is not cognizant of this fact, that in the course of the last spring a particular tenant did receive notice that he was not at liberty to plough a certain piece of land which had been transferred to him under a legal contract? A threatening notice was conveyed to him which he dared not disobey; some of the landlords offered to lend him their teams of horses to plough the land; an application was made to the Government, that the danger attending the life of the men who went with those teams of horses was such that the Government should give permission that policemen in plain clothes should perform the operation of ploughing
852
the land; the Government refused, and much blame was attached to them for that refusal. This I mention as a fact which occurred in March last, and I believe the hon. Member for Roscommon is cognizant of all the circumstances. Something has been said of the social intercourse in Ireland not being interrupted — that these statements are greatly exaggerated, or altogether fictitious. [Mr. C. POWELL: Hear.] Has the hon. Gentleman read a Paper now on the Table of the House, furnished by Colonel Macgregor to the Irish Government? I am talking now of Roscommon. I will read the account of the gentleman himself, writing to the stipendiary magistrate:—
"Currestona, March 13, 1846.
"My dear Wray—Having dined at Mr. Harry Browne's, at Leabeg, last night, and having previously received several threatening notices to be on my guard, I ordered a patrol of three men—viz., Constable Baskaville, Sub-constable Geoghagan, and Sub-constable Gorman, to be at my house about nine o'clock, to watch the neighbourhood; and as Leabeg road was one upon which it was necessary to patrol, I requested they would call at Mr. Browne's for me, and escort me home; they did call as desired, about ten o'clock, and I accompanied them back towards my home. At about a quarter of a mile from my residence, and as we were proceeding quietly along, we heard the sound of footsteps, as if a party of men were running, and in about half a minute we came up with four men, armed with long guns and a piece of a scythe, whom we challenged; they immediately stopped, and we made them prisoners, each of us taking one and their arms. While endeavouring to secure them, they attempted to rescue themselves; two succeeded by knocking me down, and made off to their party that was on before them, which, to the best of our opinion and what we could learn from the neighbours, numbered at least 200 men, and in the meantime the other two escaped; Sub-constable Gorman having followed one of them by my orders, came up with the main body, who immediately cried out, 'Come on, boys? Will you see our men taken? They are only four' (we were four). We then retreated, the whole body following, and having attempted to make an entry into the house of a man named Luke Cowen, the party cried out to surround us, and to come in our rear, in which they succeeded, and whilst I and the police were endeavouring to force an entry, there were several shots fired at us, which happily did not take effect beyond breaking the windows and furniture of the house. Having made our entry, we placed a man at each door, and one at a window with bayonets fixed. We remained quiet, and in a few moments we thought we saw the end of the house on fire, which proved to be true; and lighted sods of turf being placed in each corner of the thatch of the house, we momentarily expected to be either burnt to death or suffocated, and at the same time knowing that if we left the house we should be shot as we came out. Most fortunately the man of the house opened the door and called the neighbours, and commenced putting out his furniture.

853
After some time they, evidently very reluctantly, came to our assistance, being in dread and terror of their lives, and succeeded in tearing down the burning thatch, which eventually proved our safety. We remained in a state of defence at Cowen's house from half-past ten o'clock p.m. until eight this morning, when, having reconnoitred, we proceeded to my residence, and, having dressed myself, proceeded to the barrack at Ballintubber, and, having reinforced our party, started to Castlerea, to lay the details of this gross and unparalleled outrage in this hitherto peaceable neighbourhood before you. I cannot close this anything but exaggerated report without higly eulogizing the gallant, steady, and determined conduct of the police, who, placed in such imminent peril, displayed such coolness and bravery as contributed greatly to the preservation of our lives; and, although overpowered by a large party, succeeded in holding possession of the house (and scythe) until daybreak. I beg leave to bring under the notice of Government the excellent conduct of two men named Concannon, who, at the risk of their lives, helped to quench the fire over our heads, but for which we should have been consumed, or shot in endeavouring to make our escape, as resistance would have been useless, from the smallness of our party, and the numbers and determination of the assailants. I regret, from the darkness of the night, and the perilous situation we were placed in, we could not identify any of the parties."
Here, then, is a picture of social intercourse in Ireland, of the happy conclusion of an evening spent in dining with a neighbour, and visiting a friend. I have had a careful examination made of these returns, and find that the homicides in four years, 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, were 513 altogether, which, deducting 67 women, leaves a total of 446 men. And is it true, as has been asserted, that the labouring classes are not the sufferers, or are they not rather the principal sufferers from the state of crime that you are called on to prevent? Out of 446 homicides, 261 are those of persons in the labouring class of life, servants, woodrangers, and herds; 91 are farmers and their sons; 13 are bailiffs and land stewards; and 10 only are in the situation of gentlemen. This state of tyranny and oppression falls therefore mainly on the peasantry. Of the attempts at murder, after deducting twenty women, there remain the cases of 436 men. Of these 94 were farmers and their sons, 87 woodrangers, &c., 45 land stewards, &c., and 39 were gentlemen. The hon. Member for Waterford has stated that this measure has been forced on the Government by party feeling in Ireland, and that it is not the result of our conviction of its necessity. I can assure the hon. Member that such, is not the case.
854
Throughout the summer and autumn of last year, Government continued to receive from the grand juries, from the deputy lieutenants, and from the magistrates of Ireland, without distinction of party, the strongest assurances that a measure of this kind was absolutely required. I admit the reluctance with which I listened to to these suggestions; I admit the unconstitutional character of this measure; and nothing but the strongest conviction of the necessity of such a measure induced me to be a party to its introduction. A great deal has been said about the grievances of Ireland, and that we should endeavour to remove by measures of an opposite character all the grievances in the first instance. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London said what I admit, generally speaking, is the case, that these crimes do not for the most part spring from religious or political differences. I admit that poverty and competition for land are the originating and primary causes of these crimes. But though that may be their origin, it is important to bear in mind what are the admissions made by hon. Members from Ireland. Hon. Members may carp at our measures; but they admit that society is disorganized in the districts in which it is proposed to apply this Bill, and that, from whatever cause, the whole framework of society is shaken and disturbed. The noble Lord having said, that the cause of the outrages was neither political nor religious, glanced at the measures necessary in his opinion for the tranquillization of Ireland. The noble Lord dealt with the question whether the relief of able-bodied men out of the poor rate was necessary; and I agree with the noble Lord that an indiscriminate relief of the able-bodied out of the poor rate is not a remedy to be recommended at this unhappy crisis. The noble Lord then considered the question of the cultivation of waste lands, and he expressed himself in favour of some measure of this kind. Now the noble Lord must be aware, that for the space of forty years this subject had been entertained by every Government in succession. I do not say that it does not afford some means of relief if judiciously adopted; but how the noble Lord thinks it a measure of present relief from the evils we are now discussing, I cannot imagine. Her Majesty's Government have introduced a measure on the law of landlord and tenant which is now on the Table of the House. We are told that a law on the subject of distraint and ejectment is required; but I do not believe

855
that such a measure, further than we have carried it, can be adopted, consistently with the rights of property. If it can, I am prepared to go that length. A reduction of the stamp duty upon leases has also been recommended; and we have now on the Table of the House a measure reducing the stamp duty in such cases to a minimum. Then it has been said that the labouring poor ought to be employed. What has been the course of the Government this Session? There are not less than 14,000 men now receiving daily wages from the Government in various parts of Ireland, employed in public works. The hon. Member for Rochdale recommends the establishment of more agricultural schools, and admits that we have taken active measures for that purpose. But the hon. Member says that thirty-two schools are not enough, and that there must be more district schools; it so happens that we have anticipated his recommendation also; and at this present time Government are doing what they can to follow out that view. The giving encouragement to landlords to drain their land was the next point raised; and what have the Government done this Session? They have already amended a clause in the Public Works Act, reducing the rate of interest; and the Secretary at War has laid on the Table a Bill authorizing the loan of 1,000,000 l., in aid of draining to the landlords of Ireland, the landlord paying 3 per cent, and 2 per cent going to form a sinking fund by which the whole will be paid off in twenty-two years. With respect to public works, a measure has received the sanction of the House which removes the impediments to their execution, and the Government is prepared to recommend a grant of money to the amount of 120,000 l. for public works. The education of the people has also been adverted to; and I have often called the attention of Parliament to the fact, that under the Irish Board of Education not less than 400,000 children are receiving an education which will bear a comparison with that of any other country in Europe. I have now gone through the whole of the measures recommended by the hon. Member for Waterford, and I have shown that they either have been considered by the Government, or that proper means have been taken in carrying them into effect at the instance, and under the immediate direction of, the Government. I now come to the part of the Bill levying a tax to be paid by the disturbed districts. It is admitted that
856
persons cognizant of crimes do not assist in the apprehension of offenders. To a certain extent Lord Morpeth's Act permitted districts to apply for an increase of the constabulary, and allowed the Lord Lieutenant to add to the police; and the expense of this addition being borne by the county, amounted, in fact, to a fine upon the district. But the objections made to that charge was, that it was made not on the particular district, but upon the body of the county, and that the Act distributed the burden over too large an area, instead of confining it to the locality where the offences were committed. I am sorry it is not in my power to doubt the indispensable necessity of rendering it the interest, I am afraid I must say the pecuniary interest, of persons dwelling in the disturbed districts to maintain the public peace. I regret to say, that in many parts of the; country the concealment of offenders is studious, and in the disturbed districts almost universal. In the evidence given before Lord Devon's Commission by Mr. Kennedy, I find a graphic description of the extent to which criminals of the most atrocious description are concealed, though the offenders are well known:—
"At what seasons are the poor rates generally collected?—In May and August; in a very bad time of the year. I think the farmers shelter those people guilty of outrages through the country, under the fear that if the intimidation was not to continue, they would be ejected and turned out. I have not a doubt that that is the fact. I have remonstrated with the people, and spoken to them about harbouring them, and making free with bad characters; and that is what they told me.
"Do you conceive that that was the real reason, or if it was from fear of them?—No; they are not in dread of them by any means; but they wish the system to go on, that they may be kept in their farms, and they open their doors and give them protection. If there were a hundred police after them, it would be of no use; the people will come upon the road and meet the men, and mix with them. The police will start after them; the four men will divide; they run after them; and, if they catch any one, it is the wrong man. They say, 'That is him!' or 'That is him!' and they get hold of the wrong man. That is quite common."
By a fine upon the district all householders will have a direct pecuniary interest in discovering an offender, and in joining in his apprehension. The hon. Member for the county of Limerick asked me, if in the case of crimes of a most atrocious character prevalent at Sheffield, I was prepared to propose additional legislation. I have since proposed a measure of the most stringent character to meet this class of offences; and an hon. Gentleman, one of the Members

857
for Sheffield, has proposed an alteration of the law of England, with reference to the fine imposed on the vicinage. By the law of England whenever damage is done to property, accompanied by riot, the hundred is liable. The proposition was, that whenever a dwelling was destroyed, the hundred should be liable, as in cases of riot, although no open violence may have been used. I did not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member; but there is this difference between the two countries—in England property is assailed, and life is generally spared; in Ireland property is respected, but life is sacrified with the most barbarous wantonness. I now approach another part of the subject. I refer to an appeal made by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) with reference to the conduct of myself. I have had the honour of a long acquaintance with the noble Lord, and I thought I fully appreciated his character. I knew him to be bold, and I had fancied that he was generous. I was slow to believe that in his bosom there was any dark recess where angry resentments were cherished; which lapse of time could not mitigate, and public duty could not restrain, when public interests required the sacrifice. I am still unwilling to believe that I have fallen into a mistake. But the noble Lord says I am wanting in fairness—that while I have changed my opinions, I have not done justice to him and his former Colleagues by withdrawing the language which I held when opposed to the noble Lord. I am not prepared to defend any particular expressions which I may have used in debate. It is possible my opinions, honestly entertained, might have been conveyed in more appropriate language; but that I have done injustice to the noble Lord or his Colleagues, I do not feel myself called upon to acknowledge. If I had felt that any such retractation was justly due, I should not be unwilling to make it. I am anxious to avoid saying a word that can tend to increase irritation or protract discussion; but when the noble Lord says that I, and those with whom I act, overthrew a Government whose principles and measures we subsequently adopted, he must permit me to remind him, that he overthrew the Government of Sir R. Peel in 1835, by carrying a resolution in this House in reference to the appropriation of the property of the Church of Ireland, or a certain portion of it, to secular purposes: that he, when in office for some time, proposed to act on the principles of that resolution:
858
and that at last he abandoned it, in a manner which I will not characterize, because more severe expressions were applied to that abandonment by some of those who are now followers of the noble Lord, than I should choose to employ. Then, as to free trade in corn: though those with whom I act in the Government have changed their views on this particular doctrine, yet the noble Lord and those with whom he acts were sudden converts under very suspicious circumstances. Let any Gentleman read the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton in 1840, on Mr. Ewart's Motion as to sugar, and he will there see laid down the distinction between free labour and slave labour sugar more broadly and distinctly than it has ever since been laid down by any hon. Member. The acts of a Government must be taken in connexion with the declarations of its chief. With regard to the free importation of corn, what were the declarations of Lord Melbourne? Did he not, up to the very last year of his Administration, contend that any change whatever was especially objectionable, and that the notion of introducing free trade in corn into this country was to be regarded as insanity? I believe his expression was, that he thought it madness. It was not till Lord Melbourne's Government was on the eve of dissolution, when power had departed from it—it was not till the very last moment of its expiring existence, that the principle of free trade was enunciated by that Administration as the principle of their Government; and there is this difference between the conduct of myself and my Colleagues, and of the noble Lord and his Colleagues—we, in changing our views, have given effect to a principle which we really believe to be indispensably necessary to the welfare and happiness of this community, by the sacrifice of our personal interests and feelings, and by the sacrifice of power. The noble Lord and his Colleagues changed not less suddenly than we did; but by their change of opinions they sought, as I contend, the maintenance of their Administration, and the discomfit of their political adversaries. Under these circumstances, any retractation is quite impossible, though the particular form of expressions which I may have used in debate, may not be justifiable. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) has adverted to the measures proposed in previous years similar in effect and tendency to that which is now before the

859
House for the protection of life in Ireland. There can be no question that the measure introduced by Lord Grey, in 1834, was infinitely more stringent than that which we are now debating. That which was doubtless an unconstitutional measure was proposed by Lord Grey from a deep conviction of its necessity. Lord Holland concurred in the Act of 1833, by which trial by court martial was substituted for trial by jury. So did Lord Althorp; so did Lord Brougham. My right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), when he conducted the affairs of Ireland in 1835, governed without a measure of this description. The courts-martial had ceased, and nothing but the ordinary law of the land was in operation. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Had the Act expired?] The Act had expired before that time. Lord Melbourne proposed a measure less stringent than that to which I have now referred, but more stringent than the present Bill. The variations have been pointed out. The right of domiciliary visit was given in the Act of 1835. No such power is given by the Bill now before the House. The Lord Lieutenant, besides, was empowered to select a judge who should try offences under the Act. What are the provisions of the present Bill? Parties can be bailed on application to a single magistrate; and the Lord Lieutenant has power to order the liberation of a party before trial, if he see cause, even though he stands committed. But who is to be the judge? Not one selected by the Executive Government, but one of the twelve judges of assize. The case must go before the grand jury in the first instance, and must be tried by a petty jury at the assizes. It is assumed that transportation under this Bill is the penalty for offences. It is the maximum penalty, which can only be awarded by one of the twelve judges of Ireland on his responsibility. The whole machinery of this Bill, I undertake, on going into Committee, to demonstrate, is infinitely less stringent than the enactments of the measure of 1835. The offences in Ireland specially reported by the police were, in 1835, 10,225. It is said this measure will be ineffectual. Judging from experience, I demur to that statement. In 1836 crime fell to 8,067. That was the first year in which the Act of 1835 was in operation; and in 1837, the second year, crime fell to 6,775. The hon. Member for Bath has referred to what passed in 1835. He quoted from a speech of the noble Lord
860
the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth), who introduced the measure, and also from a speech of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, who warmly supported it. He also read a passage in which the hon. and learned Member for Cork condemned special commissions, which the Government had been reproached for not adopting in the repression of crime. I am about to state what took place in 1837, when, upon the ground that crime had decreased, a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. S. Crawford), that the Act of 1835 be repealed. Crime had decreased, as I have already stated. But what was the speech made by the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire in resisting that Motion?
"I must express my regret that His Majesty's Ministers cannot reconcile it with their sense of duty to assent to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman at this time. The House will recollect, that in 1833 and 1834 the state of Ireland was such that the House felt itself bound to pass two laws of a very stringent and coercive character. I will not now discuss the propriety of those measures, or inquire as to the sufficiency of the grounds on which they were submitted to Parliament. In the year 1835, my noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) thought he was justified in proposing a measure of a less severe and stringent character, and which, by extending over a larger period of time, would avoid the objection of frequent renewal. His enactment, then, was for a period of five years; and Parliament having taken all the circumstances into consideration, I think it would be exceedingly inconvenient and improper, instead of waiting for the expiration of that period, to go into the question with a view to the cancelling the arrangements which were then made. I admit that my hon. Friend did express his dissent from the measure at the time it was introduced; but I think I may add, that it passed through both Houses of Parliament, his being almost the only dissentient voice. My hon. Friend has told us that the measure has been a dead letter. I am happy to say that the Government has not been called on to act upon it. Yet, though I trust I am warranted in thinking that there is nothing in the present state of Ireland of a very menacing or dangerous character, I cannot flatter myself that things have quite attained to such an extraordinary degree of improvement, that, considering what changes might possibly occur, the House would be disposed to dispense with the powers which the Act in question has created. Seeing, then, that no practical inconvenience has resulted from the law, and that it was passed with a perfect understanding as to the period of its duration, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press his Motion while there are other important practical measures awaiting the consideration of the House."
The Bill had passed without opposition except from the hon. Member for Rochdale, and the hon. Member for Limerick. Then, what was the course taken by the hon.

861
and learned Member for Cork? Having supported the Bill in 1835, he joined with the noble Lord in resisting its repeal. The hon. and learned Member said, "The object is to prevent rather than to punish." It is precisely on that ground that I recommend the present measure. The hon. and learned Gentleman said—
"The object of the Act in question is to prevent rather than to punish. It does not take away trial by jury; but it allows barristers of a certain standing to be called in to try the cases which may arise. I am ready to take my share of any odium that may attach to the continuance of this Act—it protects the people of Ireland against the poorer class of disturbers. I, for one, should be exceedingly sorry were His Majesty's Government to consent to its repeal."
Yes; "the object of this Bill is to prevent rather than to punish." That is the very ground upon which I recommend the present measure — the same ground which Mr. O'Connell took in resisting the repeal of the measure of 1835. The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to observe, that the measure did not take away trial by jury—that it proposed that barristers, appointed for the purpose, should try certain offences. Instead of barristers, we propose that offences should be tried under this Act by the judges of the land. The hon. and learned Member for Cork was ready to take his share of any odium arising from the continuance of the Bill, for it protected the people of Ireland against the poorer classes of disturbers; and on that ground I support the present measure. The number of crimes had fallen in the ratio I have shown down to 1837; and in 1838 the number was 4,900; in 1840, 4,600. Then the Act expired. During the whole Administration of Lord Melbourne, until within nine months of its close, their Government had the powers of an Act more stringent in its machinery than the Bill which we are now discussing; and although the penalties were in some instances less severe, yet this is a matter of detail quite open to future discussion. In 1837 they resisted a Motion for a repeal of the Act; and Mr. O'Connell joined them, characterizing the Act as a protection of the people against the poorer disturbers. The number of outrages which had been, as I have stated, 4,600 in 1840, began to rise again in 1841—they amounted to 5,361; in 1842 the number of offences was 6,535; in 1843, 5,875; in 1844, 6,327; in 1845, 8,095. Observe, my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) and his Colleagues have administered
862
the affairs of Ireland during five years without a measure of this description. We have relied upon the ordinary law and the constitutional authorities. During five years of Lord Melbourne's Administration, except for a short period in 1841, they had a stringent Act for the repression of crime; crime diminished; and when the proposition was made in consequence to repeal the Act, they deliberately refused to consent to that proposition. On the ground of political necessity they were forced to adopt the measure; and they felt themselves, on the same ground, constrained to oppose its repeal. I do not wish unnecessarily to intrude on this House other authorities in immediate connection with the noble Lord opposite; but I cannot overlook declarations made in the other House of Parliament within the last two months in reference to this particular measure. The hon. Member for Bath referred to some such authorities. I cannot be mistaken as to the opinion of Lord Lansdowne. I have been reminded that in the course of this Session I myself have declared that with reference to the people of Ireland, we ought to legislate with a view to their feelings, their wishes, and even their prejudices. The hon. Member for Bath and others had referred to this sentiment with commendation; and some Gentleman said that similar expressions had been used by Mr. Fox. Now allow me to remark that the first Coercion Act was brought in by Lord Grey, the intimate friend of Mr. Fox, and not only professing his principles, but through his whole life steadily acting up to them. The second Bill of that nature was introduced by the Government of Lord Melbourne—the noble Lord the Member for the city of London being Home Secretary — Lord Holland (who was referred to as having entered a protest against some such measure at an earlier period) giving his sanction to its introduction; while the necessity, as I contend, for such a measure, was not then nearly so strong as now. The last surviving Colleague of Mr. Fox is Lord Lansdowne; and I cannot be deceived as to his sentiments on this subject. It is not regular to refer to what occurs elsewhere; but I was present and myself heard Lord Lansdowne say that the necessity of this measure was fully established—that whatever might be the character of measures of conciliation which might be introduced, social or political, it was absolutely necessary that this measure should be their

863
precursor; and he gave his unqualified support to the second reading, although the noble Lord observed that there were some minor details which might require amendment; but Lord Lansdowne did not divide the House of Lords against the third reading, and therefore, so far as he was concerned, the rational conclusion is, that this Bill in its present shape had Lord Lansdowne's sanction. Lord Melbourne had expressed the strongest opinion in a letter to the Secretary of the Repeal Association, that the measure had been too long delayed, and ought to be immediately pressed forward. And, therefore, I say that those to whom the noble Lord and his Colleagues profess to look up with the highest deference as constitutional authorities, all give their sanction to the provisions of this Bill. But the noble Lord, at the close of his address, made an appeal, in which the noble Lord the Member for Newark joined. I have all along admitted that the measure is unconstitutional, harsh in its aspect, and that nothing can justify it except necessity: that is the doctrine of the noble Lord the Member for Newark, and of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London. I cordially join with them in the expression of that feeling. I do not think that from any extrinsic circumstances—anything unconnected with the merits of the Bill—any Member would be justified in voting for its second reading unless he was prepared to admit its necessity. That this is constitutional doctrine, as propounded by the noble Lord the Member for London, cannot be denied; that it is sound and wise policy there can be no doubt. I think it would be fatal to the connection between England and Ireland if the people of the latter country were led to believe that unconstitutional measures can be supported in this House apart from the question of their imperative necessity. I advocate no such party obligations; and I fully recognise the justice and wisdom of the noble Lord's advice. But, at the same time, I cannot forget that there are in this House Gentlemen who supported the first reading of this Bill on the ground of its necessity, and said that the guilt of any blood which might be shed in consequence of its delay would rest upon the Government. I say that if those who supported the first stage of the Bill on the ground of its necessity, not with a view to any other object, convert the question into one of want of confidence in the Government on any ground
864
extrinsic from the merits of the Bill, they will give to those persons in Ireland whose lives or property are in danger from want of the measure, the strongest reason for saying that confidence can no longer be placed in a British Legislature, and the most specious pretext for seeking a severance of the connection between the two countries; and I say that the Gentlemen so acting will gratify their personal resentments at the expense of great national interests. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Colquhoun) asked me a question as to a particular clause in this Bill, and stated that, according to the answer he should receive, his vote would be decided. It would be highly indecorous on the part of a Government, when pressing the second reading of any measure, to bind themselves by saying that in a mere matter of detail they would yield no point whatever to reason and to argument when the Bill was in Committee; but as to the question referred to by the hon. Member, that is, as to the clause preventing persons being out of their dwellings, in a proclaimed district, between sunset and sunrise, and affixing to that misdemeanor, as the maximum of punishment, a sentence of transportation; I am bound to state that to the provisions of that clause it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government firmly to adhere. The measure is proposed from a deep conviction of its necessity. What motive on earth could Her Majesty's Government have for pressing the measure, except a deep and conscientious conviction of that necessity? As far as my official knowledge goes, the necessity for this measure is seriously felt in Ireland; and my anticipations will be greatly deceived, if, this measure being rejected, a necessity for it is not demonstrated in the ensuing winter. Notwithstanding many difficulties and serious outrages, we have for five years conducted the government of Ireland without asking Parliament to grant us any extraordinary powers. Charged with the maintenance of peace in that country, under the most adverse circumstances, and knowing that our power would be shaken to its foundation, we have not shrunk from the responsibility of proposing this measure. To have done so lightly, would have been inexcusable; having done it from a conviction of its necessity, to shrink would be base and ignominious. We do not shrink from it — we adhere to the opinion that it is necessary. And I deliberately state, I am satisfied the time

865
is not far distant when the Executive, however constituted, will require all the powers of this measure. Let those who doubt that necessity, resist this measure, regardless of all the consequences of that resistance; but, on the other hand, let those who are satisfied of that necessity, give it a manly and cordial support apart from all questions of confidence or want of confidence in the existing Administration. That question can be raised at any time and upon other issues; but I say, it will be most inexcusable, unjust, and dangerous, to object to the second reading of this Bill for the better preservation of life in Ireland, because an opportunity is sought to overthrow a Government by placing it in a minority. I may be wrong; but I have a deep conviction that if all those who are conscientiously satisfied that in the present circumstances of Ireland this Bill is necessary, shall support the second reading, the result of the division will not be doubtful.
MR. LABOUCHEREfound himself, by the observations that had been made, called upon unexpectedly to take part in this discussion. He could, not, however, permit the observations made by the right hon. Gentleman to remain for a moment unanswered. He had been attacked—unjustly attacked by the right hon. Baronet. This was not the first time an unjust attack had come from the same quarter. Some years ago the same attack had been made; and he had had the opportunity of meeting and disposing of it, of refuting it. And now it was revived by the right hon. Baronet, who had at the same time thought proper to give him—what he thought he should never hear from him—a lesson on consistency! Undoubtedly consistency was a great public virtue; but then he did not think it, and this he wished to say to the right hon. Baronet, as a matter of utter indifference, whether a person might say and unsay the same thing, for never until now had they heard as if it were a matter of indifference, undertaking the defence of measures and then defending them; and never until now did they find a public man, and never before now a statesman saying in a single sentence that he disposed of all his former principles. Humble a Member of Parliament as he was, he could not find himself thus attacked for a want of consistency and not at least attempt to show that the attack was not deserved—not that he meant to say that in the twenty years which he had been in Parliament, one was
866
not to modify their opinions. But this was another case: here he was attacked as having voted one way, and turned round and voted exactly in the contrary manner; the endeavour was made to persuade the House and the country that he had suggested that which he had previously resisted. The right hon. Gentleman was his accuser. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if the House wished to see the principle laid down for the exclusion of slave-grown sugar, he would refer hon. Members to the speech delivered by him in the year 1840. He was then President of the Board of Trade; and, acting in that capacity, he had urged as a member of the Government, and as such resisted the introduction, not merely of slave-grown, but of all foreign sugars, for he did not draw the distinction between slave-grown and other sugars. His objection was to all foreign sugars; for he said that their own Colonies, after the experiment they had been subjected to in the abolition of slavery ought not to be so far injured as to raise the flood-gates (that was his expression) and let in all the sugars of the world to come in competition with them. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who was, he must observe, a perfectly fair opponent, did him the justice to say, that when he supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Mr. F. T. Baring) that though there was to be found in his arguments on the former debate much that was worthy of attention, yet that there was no inconsistency in his voting for the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth. It was rather hard then, after this, to hear the insinuations that had been cast upon him. And this too, introduced on the question of a Coercion Bill for Ireland. What, he asked, had his conduct on the Sugar Bill to do with such a subject? He regretted to have to refer to a matter thus personal to himself. And yet the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be sorry to infuse any acrimony into the debate. If such was really the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, he was a most unfortunate orator; for more misrepresentation, more acrimony, and more personal bitterness, he had never heard than from the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion. It was especially unbecoming in the right hon. Gentleman, charged with the conduct of a Bill of this description; and when the interests of a nation were at stake, they might surely hope that no odious insinuations, no party taunts, and

867
no wretched acrimonious spirit, would be permitted to pervade their discussion. He was sorry that they should be driven to such a wretched expedient; for if they were to commence casting in the teeth of one another their mutual offences, there never would be an end of it. He did feel very strongly that the right hon. Gentleman and his party had acted most unfairly towards the late Government, but especially most unfairly towards Ireland, by making it the constant subject of attack when that Government was in office. The Members of the present Government, when sitting on the Opposition benches were constantly exciting the mind of Englishmen, by raising up every wretched bigoted feeling, by fomenting the old No-Popery cry, and this merely for the sake of embarrassing and thwarting the Government. Their only object was to embarrass and thwart the late Government; but in doing so they distracted and shook the Empire. Of all parts of the conduct of the former Opposition, that it was which he thought was the most reprehensible, the least excusable, and the most injurious to the country. He would now only say, that when the Gentlemen opposite got into office, he was ready to admit they had conducted affairs in a more satisfactory manner than he had expected. They had acted in such a manner that he began at length to think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) was little better than a Whig. The measures of the right hon. Gentleman were so very like those of his own Friends, that notwithstanding his recollection of the conduct pursued in opposition, he was able to give to the right hon. Gentleman his support; and it would be found that during the five or six years the right hon. Gentleman was in office, he more frequently would be found supporting than opposing his measures. As to the question before the House, he said they ought to vote upon it on its own merits. It was no reason because Members felt grateful to the Minister for the Corn Law, that they ought to make him a present of the liberties of Ireland. To pursue such a course of conduct, would be most likely to make a Repealer of every Irishman. He did then trust that Members in giving their votes would look only to the merits of the question. His vote would be given against the Bill from the conviction, that however disturbed might be state of Ireland, that this measure could not prove, and was not calculated to prove, any mitigation for these
868
evils. One circumstance had struck his mind, when the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the moral effect to be produced by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the measure was most unconstitutional, and was only to be justified by extraordinary circumstances; but then it was not the fault of the present Government that this Bill was not engrafted on the Constitution as a permanent measure. When he first heard of that proposal it struck him as a great affront to Ireland, and as a great affront to this Parliament. It was not until the Government had been driven from pillar to post in the House of Lords they had abandoned that proposition. The conduct of the Government then stripped the measure of the moral effect it might have had upon the condition of the country. There was only one other point in the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of the Home Department that he meant to notice. It was that those who voted for the first reading, and did not do so with the second reading, would not be justified in adopting such a course. He was surprised to hear language of that sort from one having the Parliamentary experience of the right hon. Gentleman. According to him everybody who voted for a first reading, was bound to vote for the second reading of a Bill. [Sir J. GRAHAM: If convinced of its necessity.] These were words of course. Every one knew that it was very seldom Gentlemen felt themselves at liberty to vote against the first reading of a Bill introduced by a Government, and scarcely ever against a Bill sent down from the House of Lords; and as far as this Bill was concerned, they were reminded by the Government that, in voting for the first reading, they were not merely pledged to vote for the second reading.
SIR J. GRAHAMexplained: He had been misunderstood as to what he had said with respect to persons voting for the first reading. All he had said was this, that those who voted for the first reading, and remained, in their conscience and judgment, satisfied of the necessity for this measure, were bound to vote for the second reading, and not to give a vote on grounds extraneous of its merits.
House adjourned at a quarter past One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a. and passed. Explosive Substances.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Duke of Richmond, and the Bishop of Hereford, from Froxfield and Hereford, for Repeal of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—From Llanfynydd, praying that Measures may be taken for promoting the Cause of Education in Wales, and also for Pecuniary Aid from the Government.—From Glasgow, and other places, praying that a Bill may be passed compensating the Proprietors of Lands for the Purchase of Sites for Free Churches (Scotland).

CORN IMPORTATION BILL.
LORD ASHBURTONrose, pursuant to notice, to move the following Resolution:—
"That, whatever may be the Alterations which it may be expedient permanently to make in the Laws regulating the Introduction of Foreign Corn, it is the Opinion of this House that the sudden Admission of the large Quantity of Wheat and Wheat Flour now in Bond at a very low Rate of Duty, while the Prices are moderate, and the Prospect of the approaching Harvest is promising, may be productive of great Injury and Injustice to the Cultivators of the Soil of the United Kingdom; and that some better Provision against such a Calamity should be provided than is contained in the Bill now before the House."
The noble Lord said that he was not about to ask their Lordships to enter into the general question, which had been so often argued, as to the policy of the great change now in progress in our commercial laws, and also in the law relating to the duty on corn. The whole question had been deliberately discussed; and their Lordships had decided against two Amendments that had been moved, by very nearly the same majority in each case. Therefore he felt that if he were again to call on them to enter into the general subject, he would be giving them unnecessary trouble; though, at the same time, he must admit, that if he thought, by pursuing the matter further, he could change their opinions, he would spare no pains or exertion to induce them to do so. But, presuming that the Government were right in their general policy—presuming that the measure itself was right—he wished to call the attention of the House to the mode in which it was proposed to be carried into effect, to show the want of caution which was manifested in reference to the subject, and to contrast the conduct of the present Government and Parliament in this respect with the conduct of former Governments and Parliaments; he would not say upon similar occasions exactly, because upon no occasion had there ever been before their Lordships a measure of such immense importance as the one now before them. Their Lordships were aware that we had lived under a system of Corn Laws ever since the introduction of civilization into this country, and that now there was to be a total change, an entire abandonment of the system; and the question which he had to propose was, whether, since this was to be the case, some means could not be devised to prevent its immediately effecting the ruin of the great body of the agriculturists of this country? Undoubtedly they were
764
about, in their present course of legislation, to take away the whole of protection—at least at the end of three years—he might even say at once; because the 4s. duty was hardly worth taking notice of; and this they were to do suddenly, and without any precautions that it should fall upon different classes without any immediate shock — without any immediate oscillation of prices; and this, too, contrary to the practice of Parliament in former times, and contrary to the dictates of justice and common sense. He begged the House to look at the state of the case. There was at the present moment a large quantity of foreign corn in bond, ready to be introduced into the market immediately upon the passing of this Bill. Suppose the Bill to pass that House at the end of this week, as in all probability it would do, and to receive the Royal Assent on the Monday or Tuesday following, then the whole of the vast quantity of grain would come immediately into market, to the total paralysation of that market, and to the complete stoppage of all commercial operations. There was, at present, an unprecedented amount of grain in bond: he did not know the exact quantity; but sometime ago he knew that there was something like 2,000,000 quarters of wheat. Since that time additional quantities had been pouring into the country from all quarters of the world. The outcry about the anticipated famine had induced everybody connected with the corn trade, whether in the Black Sea, the Baltic, or America, to scrape together everything in the shape of corn for the purpose of pouring it into our market. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Trade would probably be able to tell the House the total quantity in bond at the present moment. He (Lord Ashburton) would only say, that, judging from what he saw stated in the daily papers, the quantity must be immense. He had observed, for instance, that in the week before last there had been imported into Liverpool no fewer than 56,000 barrels of flour; and that, from the 3rd to the 9th of June, fifty-one ships laden with grain of one description or another had passed the Sound on their way to the various ports in the United Kingdom; thirty-two of these being laden with wheat, five with barley, twelve with oats, and two with peas. Now, that being the state of the case, he begged their Lordships to look to the little chance there was that this immense supply would at all be wanted.

765
Undoubtedly, if there was a bad harvest—if there was a real deficiency of corn in this country, even this quantity, large as it was, would not be more than might be required, and would not be felt in the price; but if there was a good harvest, which he hoped there would be, then this vast surplus, this load upon the market, so much beyond what was required for consumption, would certainly have a most disastrous effect upon the farmers of this country. During last year, although all other parts of Europe were suffering from want of corn, the prices here were moderate, and the supply regular and steady; and yet the whole amount of corn imported, exclusive of what came from Canada, and which came in under all circumstances, did not amount to more than 80,000 quarters. The average importation for the three preceding years was about 550,000 quarters. Undoubtedly, during some previous years there were large quantities received and wanted. In the years 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842, the average importation was about 2,400,000; but during the six years ending 1837 it was as low as 104,000 quarters. The quantity at present in bond could not be much short of 2,500,000 quarters; and if the Government must carry out their desperate experiment, they should at least do it with a little more judgment. If we were treating this in a factious manner—as a question affecting Government merely—he would say that the greater the confusion the measure produced the better. If he wished to see the country disgusted with the experiment, he would say, "Give the Government rope enough;" and, certainly, if they did so, they would not come down to the end of the year without the whole country being convinced of the injustice and absurdity of the law. He now wished to call the attention of the House to what former Parliaments and Governments had done when dealing with much smaller quantities of corn than they had to deal with at present. Former Parliaments and Governments proceeded with great caution. On one occasion, in 1822, when an Act was passed, not to take away protection, but merely to mitigate it, so careful was Mr. Huskisson to prevent the evil consequences which would arise from a large supply of grain being suddenly thrown upon the market, that he caused it to be enacted that the importation of foreign corn should be restricted until prices reached a certain
766
amount. On another occasion, in 1826, when there were only 400,000 quarters of wheat in bond—only one-fifth of the quantity at present in bond—so careful was the Government to prevent any violent oscillation of prices by its introduction, that they made a regulation to let one-third of it in every three months, and also securing a duty of 10 s. per quarter. These were the precautions which were taken by a former Government when dealing with cases of much less importance than the one which the present Government was dealing with, without adopting any precautions whatever. Was there any difficulty in making some arrangement of the same description in this case? The Government displayed a great amount of feeling for the parties who were shippers of corn; but very little for the people in this country who would be ruined by the inundation of corn which would take place. The resolution he proposed was simply a precautionary measure. On the facts of the case it appeared, that if they let in so great a quantity of corn at once, they would be exposing the country to great and unnecessary risk; therefore he thought their Lordships would not be justified in passing a measure of this kind, regardless of the interests of the persons concerned. He was sensible of the peculiar situation in which the country stood, with one party on the point of going out, and another party ready to step in; but still he could not forbear taking that opportunity of pressing on their Lordships the paramount necessity of legislating on this occasion with prudence and justice. He had wished to go further into the question than the facts he had stated; he had not aimed at inducing their Lordships to retrace their steps—would to God he could do that!—but he wished to press on their Lordships whether they ought not to interfere so as to conduct this experiment in a better mode than that in which it was at present proposed to conduct it.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEshould abstain, as the noble Lord had done, from entering into the general question, and confine himself strictly to the particular proposition before their Lordships. The noble Lord's speech was dark with alarm and fruitful with prophecy; but any address more at variance with facts and more unsupported by argument it had not been his fortune to hear in that House. His noble Friend endeavoured to convince them that there was now in bond in this country, and likely to be in bond, some enormous

767
and unheard-of amount of foreign corn. It required no great knowledge to have accurate information on this point; but his noble Friend, from not having sufficient information, had greatly exaggerated the amount in stating it at 2,500,000 quarters. By the latest returns transmitted from the Custom-house, the amount certainly did not reach, in wheat and wheat-flour together, 1,900,000 quarters; and so far from any likelihood of its being unduly increased, as far as the information of Government went, the very reverse was the case. From every quarter of the world the same accounts which reached Government during the autumn of last year relative to the expected deficiency in the then approaching harvest, which were afterwards realized by the result, were again arriving. Both this year, and last year, nature seemed to be setting her various elements in conspiracy against us. What he meant was this: it had been repeatedly asserted that there never could be a general deficiency of crops, for that the overflowing harvests of one part of Europe were sure to compensate for the bad crops of the other parts; but in this instance nature herself seemed to have put the elements into conspiracy to deprive us of supplies from all the various sources from whence we could expect to derive them. In the north of Europe there was an alarming deficiency of corn, from the superabundance of wet; in the south there was an equal or greater deficiency, from the ravages of the grub. It was notorious to all the readers of newspapers, and confirmed by the information which reached Government on all sides, that in Poland and the corn-producing countries of the north of Europe, the people were now in a state, not of want or scarcity merely, but of starvation. It was an equally notorious fact, established, if not by the newspapers, at least by the official information received by Ministers, that in the south of Europe, and in Anatolia, which produced a considerable quantity of corn, they were dying by the road sides. Therefore, if it were a point of importance to have an abundant supply of food, he was justified in repeating that nature was setting herself in array against us, to afflict us with a deficiency. The noble Lord had endeavoured to lead their Lordships to suppose that under the new law, even if matters did not go farther than they were now, there was a quantity of corn in this country which would be brought into the market such as
768
had never been heard of before; and he had directed their attention to the three years 1843, 1844, and 1845, to show the small quantity introduced at that time. Why his noble Friend took those three years, and stopped there, he knew not, unless it were because numero Deus impare gaudet. Would the House permit him to state one or two other years immediately preceding those years? In 1844 there were 400,000 quarters; in 1843, 814,000 quarters; but whereas there were now in bond 1,900,000 quarters of wheat and wheat flour, there were admitted in four weeks of 1842, under the law which at present existed, 2,180,000 quarters, varying from 64 s. to 61 s. 7d. In 1841, again, there were admitted 2,017,000 quarters. So much with respect to the quantity about to be introduced, and the proportion it bore to the amount introduced in former years. But he denied that Her Majesty's Ministers were open to the imputations cast upon them by the noble Lord, or that they deserved to be blamed for any want of precaution. When his noble Friend said that Government were proceeding indiscreetly, and that something or other should be done which would let this immense amount of corn into the market gradually, he had forgotten that Government did make such an attempt, not last week or the week before, but more than a quarter of a year ago, when the quantity of corn in bond was considerably less than now. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government then proposed that the same rule should be applied to ensure a gradual admission of the corn as was customarily applied in the case of merchandise and of other articles in bond; their Lordships were aware that it was the invariable practice, on the passing of a resolution for making an alteration of duty in the other House of Parliament, that a Treasury Order was issued, by which goods were permitted to be taken out at the reduced duty, bond being given by the importers for the payment of the difference between the duty paid at the time of sale and the old duty, if the measure should not pass. In answer to a question put to him, his right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury stated that it was his intention to apply that rule to corn as well as to other articles imported. To this declaration great exceptions were taken, and strong objections made, on constitutional as well as other grounds. His right hon. Friend,

769
therefore, at once withdrew the proposal; and the noble Lord, the late Secretary for the Colonies, in his speech the other night gave him credit for having done so. He said, therefore, that things had taken the course which his noble Friend now blamed them for having neglected; and it was only in deference to precedent, and the manifestation of sentiment in that and the other House, that the proposal was withdrawn. He must say, therefore, that it was wholly incorrect to say that the Government had been inconsiderate with respect to the gradual working of the measure. With regard to the resolution now moved, he should endeavour to persuade their Lordships not to agree to it, because he believed it to be unjust in principle; and so far from having a beneficial effect, that it would be most injurious in its operation to those whom it was intended to benefit. His noble Friend helped them to no solution of the difficulty he presented to them; and he had a right to ask his noble Friend how he would propose to deal with this question? The resolution declared that corn in bond should not be admitted except on some other terms than at present. What were those terms to be? If they affirmed the resolution as it stood, they would attempt a most glaring act of injustice towards those who were possessors of the stock in bond. The corn now in bond would be dealt with in one way, while the corn which arrived next week would escape the resolution, and be admitted as provided by the new Bill. His noble Friend had altered the resolution, which, as it at first stood, was a mercantile monster in phraseology, for it talked of the "importation" of corn in bond. The resolution as it now stood ran, "that the sudden admission of the large amount of wheat now in bond," &c. Now, at whatever point the noble Lord would propose to introduce a check, a line of distinction would be established, and great injustice done to those on the one side as compared with those on the other. It was a matter palpable and glaring to all, that the resolution was directly in the teeth of the warehousing system. They had taken great pains to establish that system; and on the very first occasion of its coming into active operation, would they consent to inflict a discouragement on it by a measure of encouragement to the foreign dealer? This proposal would place corn in bond at a disadvantage, as compared with that lying in warehouses on the other side of the water.
770
If the noble Lord proposed to admit no corn till the price reached 60 s., which was probably what he intended, this was neither a fixed duty nor a sliding-scale, but absolute prohibition; and every Member who had ever voted to admit corn upon any terms, must vote against it, to be consistent. The resolution, as regarded those who had lately imported corn, would be an ex post facto law of the most unjust kind; for while, by the law of 1842, the holders might bring it into market at whatever price they thought fit, if it were for their interest, this resolution would interdict them till corn should reach the certain fixed price of 60 s. They would therefore, if they adopted this resolution, be departing from the law of 1842, as well as from the principle of the warehousing system, and from the principles that ought to guide commercial transactions generally. There was no resemblance between the case of 1826 and the present; in that year a large quantity was admitted to meet a prospect of scarcity, admission being prohibited till the corn reached a very high price. He submitted, also, that they would not be doing a favour to those in whose favour this resolution was intended to operate. He asserted, on the authority of those who were practically acquainted with the subject, that whatever effect might be exercised by the amount of corn now in bond on the price of the article, that effect had been produced long since. To every man engaged in those transactions, it was notorious that the whole of the transactions in the corn trade, external and internal, had been carried on with reference to the stock in bond. It was said, and in his opinion with much truth, that in mercantile matters, if you desired to make a change, it should be effected at once and with as much eompleteness as possible; and he very much doubted whether the most expedient course would not be that the change in the duties on corn should be made at once; but you could not deal with those matters on their merits alone, and while it might have been more beneficial to admit the full supply at once, yet looking to the possibility of exciting fears, and a recurrence to the panic of 1842, he believed it was better to abstain from a sudden alteration, and allow the abolition of duties to come into gradual operation. He was most sincerely convinced that the very worst thing you could do for those likely to be affected by the change would be to hang up the matter in suspense; a

771
suspension of supply was infinitely more mischievous than the admission of any supply, however abundant. To give an instance of the effects to which he alluded, he would refer to what had occurred in the silk trade. When the duties were reduced there had been general apprehensions of an over-supply; the prices consequently fell exceedingly low. But subsequently, when the supply actually had come in, the prices rose, inasmuch as all the mischief which could be done had been effected before its arrival. He had no doubt but that the same result would be produced in regard to the Corn Bill. The present resolution, if approved of by their Lordships, would inflict a great injustice on the dealers in corn, and would not only have an injurious effect on them, but would utterly fail, as he maintained, to produce that benefit to the cultivators of the soil which the noble Lord intended it should effect. All the transactions in corn which had produced the present prices, had been carried on on the understanding that this Bill would pass into a law. For these reasons—because he believed the full effect of the expected supply had been already produced—because, under the circumstances, he thought it better to admit the corn now in bond into consumption—he trusted their Lordships, looking to the injustice and probable injury to the corndealers and to other classes which might arise from the suspension of the present Bill, would not give their consent to the resolution moved by the noble Lord.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Ashburton) had represented him as saying a few nights ago that no corn would come in at all from abroad; but what he had said was, that he did not see that any great quantity could be brought in by anticipation for sale at the prices supposed. He had also stated, and now repeated, that the prospects abroad were anything but satisfactory, and that he knew of cases where corn had been purchased in this country for exportation to Holland. When addressing their Lordships the other night, he stated that the price of grain had risen 4s. and was still rising. Accordingly, he found that the Mark Lane Express of that very day said—
"There was, as compared with last Monday's supply, a slight increase in the quantity of wheat exhibited at Mark Lane this morning. Still the show on the Essex, Kent, and Suffolk stands was decidedly small, nor was there much fresh up from more distant counties. The millers being sadly
772
in want of fresh wheat took off the best qualities at rather higher terms."
Thus they would see that the supply was rather short.
EARL GREYtrusted that their Lordships would not consent to the resolution, without some explanation from the noble Mover as to its practical consequences. His noble Friend opposite had already pointed out the objections to the measure; but what effect, he asked, would the success of the resolution have? Supposing it to be carried, still the Corn Importation Bill remained on their Lordships' Minutes as appointed for a third reading. Did the noble Lord think if the House adopted his resolution, that he could come down to the House and say, that having agreed to that resolution, of course they could not agree to the third reading? Or was his resolution a roundabout and indirect way of throwing over that Bill? [Lord ASHBURTON: No, no!] His noble Friend said it was not. Then, what would be the consequence of it, if their Lordships were to pass the resolution that night, and to-morrow they were to pass the Corn Bill? Why, the resolution was useless—it was worse than useless, because it intimated to the corn importers that if they did not take care, and if the noble Lord had his will, some measure would be introduced to check the introduction of corn; they therefore would not lose a moment in entering the whole quantity at their disposal for consumption; so that the noble Lord, by his resolution, would defeat the intention of procuring a gradual admission of foreign corn into this country, and produce a totally opposite effect. It was impossible, then, his noble Friend could mean to carry the resolution, and pass the Bill to-morrow; so that he was bound to assume it was an indirect way of throwing out that Bill; for, to postpone that measure indefinitely was, in effect, to throw it out. He supposed the noble Lord meant to suspend the Bill till some other measure could come up from the House of Commons, in accordance with the terms of his resolution; but he thought it would be more manly to propose an Amendment to the Bill. Either the proposal of his noble Friend was altogether useless, or it was an indirect, irregular, and most objectionable measure, calling upon that House to postpone or reject the Bill. It was impossible to escape from this dilemma. If he intended to throw the Bill overboard, let him move his Amendment on the third reading of the

773
Bill; but after the House had in every stage of the Bill, and on three separate divisions, rejected all the Amendments which had been brought forward—when the country was calculating that this measure was about to pass at once—he hoped the noble Lord would not prevail on the House to follow him in such an indirect, unusual, irregular, and most objectionable course as that suggested by the Motion before the House, to which he trusted it was their Lordships' feeling that it was quite impossible to consent.
LORD REDESDALEwas certain his noble Friend had no intention to throw out the Bill indirectly, and it was just because he had no intention to do so that he had adopted his present course. If his noble Friend had taken the course suggested by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) and had proposed his resolution as an Amendment on the Bill, its succes might have been ruinous to that measure; whereas the Bill would stand perfectly secure if the resolution was passed in its present shape. The noble Earl (Earl Dalhousie) had not stated fairly the manner in which his noble Friend had suggested that his resolution should be carried out. His noble Friend had referred to what was done by Mr. Huskisson as to the introduction of foreign corn under a particular measure; and though, as the noble Earl said, the cases were different, they were only different on this ground, that there was less danger when Mr. Huskisson proposed his plan, than on the present occasion. Mr. Huskisson introduced corn to meet a scarcity and high prices; but it was now proposed to introduce a large amount of corn when prices were low, and when there was no prospect of scarcity. Though the prices had been rising for the last few days, it was doubtful whether that rise was not confined to Mark Lane, and was altogether a fictitious advance in the price. The present measure would be hurtful to the producers of grain. He should like to know on the faith of what law the farmers had sown their grain, and under the existence of what law they had made their sales: was it in the belief that a large introduction of grain was to be admitted? Surely they never had contemplated such a law as the present, nor could they have contemplated it, and it would be unfair not to adopt some measure to relieve them from a sudden and unexpected pressure.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that while some of their Lordships entertained
774
apprehensions that much detriment would ensue from the present Bill, and others had the conviction that it would produce great benefit to the country, he had not as yet heard any noble Lord, but his noble Friend who had so lately addressed them, who did not deprecate delay. The Motion of his noble Friend was, in effect, to produce delay to the great question before the House; and he proposed their Lordships should stop the measure until they saw what the House of Commons would do with the resolution. But the noble Lord had given them no intimation of the precise mode in which he proposed to carry his resolution into effect. He quite agreed too with his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that any effect which the apprehension of a great supply would be calculated to produce, had been already occasioned by the quantity of corn in bond. It was altogether a mistake to suppose that because a certain quantity of corn was in bond, and could be brought forward on any particular day, it was therefore sure to be all brought into the market on that day; and the prices would not depend on the quantity of corn which was saleable, but on the quantity which was absolutely sold. Was the produce of the harvest, for example, all brought into the market when it was in a state of readiness for it? He believed that for the first week or two an effect would be produced on the amount and price of corn, as compared with the ordinary quantities and rates, but thought this effect would be rather attributable to the distress of the holders of corn, who would be compelled to bring it into market. However, he most earnestly trusted that whatever decision their Lordships might come to, they would not consent to any delay to the great measure before their Lordships.
The EARL of WICKLOWconsidered that if it was true, as had been stated by the noble Lord, that there was in bond at the present time such a quantity of corn as would tend to lower prices too much, and also the prospect of a large harvest all over Europe, then he would say it was expedient to adopt the resolution; but if, on the contrary, there was not such a large quantity of corn in bond as would affect prices in the way stated, and if the accounts from all parts of Europe led them to anticipate that there would be no great importation of corn, then the necessity for the resolution would fall to the ground. The whole question turned on the matter of fact, and,

775
as his opinion had been much swayed by what had fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Dalhousie), he should vote against the resolution.
LORD ASHBURTONreplied, he had not the slightest wish to throw out the Bill, and should indeed hesitate to take any step towards throwing out that measure, seeing the state of their Lordships' mind on the matter. The proposed law would let in at once, and in a mass, a quantity of grain, which no one could say was now wanted; and, in case of good harvest, there would be added to this quantity all against which other countries shut their ports. Here was a danger against which noble Lords ought to protect their fellow subjects.
On Question, House divided — Content 47; Not-Content 70: Majority 23.

CUSTOMS DUTIES BILL. — THE SILK TRADE.
On the Order of the Day for the House being put into Committee being read,
The DUKE of RICHMONDrose to present a petition from the silk manufacturers and silk weavers of Macclesfield, and said he would state the substance of it, as a part of his case. The petition stated that figured and fancy goods were constantly imported at from 60 s. to 70 s. a pound. That silk was as much a luxury as sugar, coffee, &c., which had now become necessaries of life, and which were highly taxed; and they therefore prayed that this branch of trade should be thought worthy of protection. He had also a petition from the Spitalfields weavers, praying to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House. Their Lordships must feel how difficult it was for any Member of that House to make himself master of a complicated question of this kind; there were technical terms to be used, and a great deal had to be stated, of which it could not be expected that a Peer requested to present a petition could make himself master, but a learned counsel received full instructions, and could make himself acquainted with every detail. As a proof of this he might mention that the proposed Bill held out the promise of a protection of 15 per cent, whereas the petitioners stated they could prove that on several articles the protection would be but 9 per cent. The petitions from Macclesfield did not say they were opposed to free trade, but that upon inquiry it would be found their trade would be an exception to the general rule. He must confess that he had now no hope as to the Government
776
measures not passing; but if they were prepared to place in jeopardy the landed interest, that was no reason for abandoning the operatives, and he for one should be always as eager to obtain protection for them as for those who dealt in corn. He had always looked on the Corn Laws as the keystone to the arch of protection; but he, for one, should never forsake the domestic industry of the country. Could any man deny that silk was an article of luxury? And who would grudge to pay a little more for such an article, if by doing so he felt he was supporting a large class of the operatives of this country? But he was told that smuggling would be the consequence of retaining the duty, and the same ground was taken as to the spirit duty. Let the Government look after the Custom-house officers, and there would be no fear of smuggling; let not the servile followers of Ministers be alone appointed to situations in our Customs; let the best men be appointed, and he answered for it not half the smuggling which had hitherto been practised would occur. Even now there was little or no smuggling in the maritime districts, because officers of the royal navy were there appointed—men who would disdain to take a bribe. He should ask them to allow the petitioners to call witnesses—not to offer any long obstruction to the passing of this measure, but merely to give them an opportunity of stating their case through counsel. He asked only for what had been granted in the case of municipal corporations of England or Ireland. These men had not the power of the corporations; but they were entitled to equal respect, for they honourably earned their bread with the sweat of their brow: they had a right to expect, aye, to demand, a fair hearing. The noble Duke then cited a number of instances in which counsel had been heard when a particular class was affected by legislation. There had been great distress among the Spitalfields weavers; but during most trying circumstances, they had borne heavy afflictions with as much credit to themselves as good subjects, as members of a Christian community. He therefore moved, that these petitioners be heard by counsel at the bar.
The EARL of DALHOUSIE, desiring to echo most sincerely and heartily the testimony of respect which the noble Duke had paid to the character and past conduct of the Spitalfields weavers, and to add a similar testimony to the character of all

777
in the country engaged in the silk manufacture, felt that it was but an ungracious task that he had to discharge, in endeavouring to persuade the House not to accede to this proposal. It was true, that counsel had very frequently been heard at the bar upon various measures under consideration, and heard in Committee on Bills affecting particular trades; but the noble Duke was asking the House to hear counsel for parties interested in a general measure of customs law, whereas in all those precedents the measure was either one affecting one particular trade, for which trade counsel was heard, or it was a Bill regulating that trade, and sometimes in a particular locality only. The latter was the case in 1821 he thought, when there was a Bill for regulating, not the whole silk trade, but that trade in the particular district of Spitalfields. With regard to precedents, too, the House must remember what took place in 1808, when the Earl of Derby presented a petition from Liverpool, submitting that certain clauses in the Orders in Council Bill were injurious to the petitioners' interests, and praying to be heard. To this it was objected that it was contrary to the usages of the House to hear counsel against a Bill for aid and supply. The present Bill, he begged to remind their Lordships, was a Bill for aid and supply. In 1815, with respect to the Corn Bill, the same principle was adopted; and in the present case the House ought not, according to those precedents, to hear counsel with respect to individual or special interests, when a question of general policy was before the House. The present was a measure of general policy; and if their Lordships were to consent to hear the weavers of Spitalfields by counsel on the present occasion, they could not refuse to hear other parties, and it would be impossible, under those circumstances, to carry on the public business. He trusted the noble Duke would not press the Motion that the petitioners be heard by counsel, because it was not to be supposed that there were not noble Lords in that House perfectly capable of stating the case of the petitioners.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, if it was so contrary to principle, so contrary to the forms of their Lordships' House, and so contrary to the usage of Parliament, as his noble Friend had described it, to hear counsel against a Bill, he would be the last to give his vote in favour of it. There was, however, the greatest difficulty in
778
even slightly understanding the details of the question—the petitioners stating that the 15 per cent left by the Bill would be practically only 9 per cent; and therefore he thought that not only would the speech of counsel be of great service in elucidating the facts, but he should not tie down the petitioners' hands so as to preclude the examination even of witnesses. The great question that had been so long before their Lordships was now nearly at an end; but he would do the noble Lords who advocated protection the justice to say, that though human passion was unavoidable in the course of the debates that had ensued upon its introduction, and during its progress through the House, never was there a case of the kind conducted to an issue with greater candour and more fairness than this had been by the noble Lords in question: and though he freely admitted that they had had many temptations to create delay through what occurred in another place, they had nevertheless abandoned their chance without reluctance, to allow the business of the country to be sped onwards. He felt the most unbounded confidence in the assertion of his noble Friend, that the request of the petitioners was not made for the purposes of promoting delay. He differed, no doubt, from his noble Friend in respect to the merits of the general question; but that was no reason why information should be shut out upon it. The petitioners distinctly stated that there were certain points in connexion with their trade, and the effect of the measure upon it, which could not be understood without professional assistance. That was a reason why their prayer should be granted. It was not a sufficient ground to refuse it because only one out of several trades affected by the Bill sought to be heard: the others might not have the same grounds as they had. With respect to the precedents cited by the noble Earl, he could not conceive how the facts of one case could have been so utterly perverted as were those of the great case of 1808. He had appeared at the bar of the House as counsel in that case, and had not alone spoken against the Orders in Council, but had examined between forty and fifty witnesses during the three weeks it lasted. On that occasion, too, he had argued not only against the particular matter complained of, but against the whole system. He, therefore, marvelled how any one could for a moment have a doubt upon the subject. Counsel was also heard in the

779
case of the Municipal Corporations Bill on the part of particular corporations; and as far as he was concerned, he would freely admit, not without advantage and information. When great alterations were making in the general policy of the country, it would not be wise on the part of their Lordships to press them on to the exclusion of information, on the ground of the necessity of hurrying on the measures proposed. As an enemy to commercial restriction of all kind, and a friend to free trade, he should feel exceedingly grieved at any act of their Lordships which would have the effect of excluding information upon the subject under discussion. If any class of men deserved the kind consideration of the House, it was the numerous, the ingenious, the industrious, and the hard-faring people engaged all their life long in the silk trade. It was a trade the most precarious in its nature, and the most liable to be affected by any change; and no branch of industry was more subject to the visitation of severe distress. He had known them in prosperity, and he had known them in adversity; but he had never known any body of men more patient under privation than they were, and therefore more justly entitled to their Lordships' sympathy. If, therefore, his noble Friend pressed his Motion to a division he should support him; but he trusted that the Government would not reduce him to that necessity, but would accede to it.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that if the Motion of the noble Duke were adopted by their Lordships, they would be adopting a principle which, if carried into effect, might prove an obstruction to the transaction of public business in reference to any Bill repealing or imposing duties. If persons on behalf of the silk trade were heard by counsel, there would be no reason why persons on behalf of the linen, cotton, timber, and other trades should not be heard. The noble Duke had said that if their Lordships would allow counsel to address them, he would pledge himself that they would not speak at length. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) feared, however, that those learned Gentlemen would make long speeches; and he had suffered under such inflictions in that House and elsewhere. The noble Duke also proposed that witnesses should be heard; and if the House acceded to his suggestion they might have to hear speeches avid evidence, not only with reference to the silk trade, but every other trade which might be
780
affected by this Bill. If this were to be the case, any further legislation on this subject during the present Session would be effectually obstructed. He gave the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) full credit for not having thrown obstructions in the way of proceeding with the Corn Bill; but, if they once admitted lawyers to the bar, the noble Duke would have no power to restrain the mischief he would thus have introduced. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) had heard something about precedents; but he thought it more desirable to make good precedents than to follow bad ones; and he was satisfied, if their Lordships sanctioned the noble Duke's proposition, they would establish a principle fatal in many cases to the progress of legislation on the most important matters.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: Before you proceed, my Lords, to divide upon this point, I wish to remind your Lordships what the question for your decision is. It is that counsel shall be heard in Committee upon this Bill in favour of the petition of the Spitalfields weavers. Now, I beg your Lordships to recollect, that in Committee you will have to examine and consider the details of the Bill, the schedule of which provides that certain duties shall be levied upon silk goods. Now, my Lords, I beg to recall to your recollection that you cannot, consistently with the common practice, make any alteration in these details in Committee, without an infraction of the settled rules of proceeding which have existed for more than 200 years, as between the two Houses. Your Lordships have been pleased, in your late discussions in the Committee on the Corn Bill, to adhere strictly to this practice; and you refused to agree to Amendments which, it was admitted, would have the effect of losing the Bill. But the consequence would not be only the losing of the Bill. The consequence of making alterations in Committee in the money clauses of Bills of Supply and of Customs has invariably been, not only the loss of the Bills, but afterwards, in point of fact, entirely to paralyse the proceedings of Parliament. If your Lordships are desirous of avoiding these inconveniences—inconveniences which would be felt by the public, and particularly by your Lordships, most severely—I conclude you would have the same feeling upon this Bill as you displayed upon the Corn Bill—that whatever might be the effect on your Lordships' opinions of the arguments of counsel, you

781
would not consent to make any alteration in the details of the schedules of this Bill, as to the duties upon silk, but that your Lordships would persevere in passing the Bill as it now stands. If your Lordships should consent to hear counsel in Committee against the details of a Bill, the alteration of which may be attended with the greatest possible inconvenience to your Lordships and to the public, by impeding the progress of public business, you will only listen for a considerable time to arguments upon which, you will be sensible at the time, you cannot act, and which will not induce you to make any alterations in the Bill. By this course your Lordships will establish a precedent which may be useless as to yourselves, and most injurious to those who will avail themselves of this precedent, and employ counsel to come here and plead their cause, while your Lordships must know that their arguments can have no avail in inducing you to make any alteration in the details of the measures they object to. What I beg particularly to draw your Lordships' attention to is, that the object of the noble Duke's Motion is to induce you to listen to counsel in Committee on a Bill which levies duties upon customs, and which you cannot alter without infringing the ordinary usages of Parliament.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid: I had not intended to reply upon this question; but after what has been said by the noble Duke, I must protest against the principle he lays down. If this is to be the constitution of Parliament, I would ask your Lordships whether it is not a mere farce, that we are to be called on here, night after night, to go through the stages of a Bill, and then, forsooth, we are to be told that we cannot alter it? I contend that these petitioners have a right to be heard at your Lordships' bar. I will not detain your Lordships by saying more on that subject; but I will only add, that if this is to be the course to be pursued by the Government, I hope they will alter your Standing Orders, and that they will determine that the Queen's consent and the Commons' is sufficient to pass a measure. This must be the result, if the argument of the noble Duke is to have any weight in this House. If that argument had been used by a young man who had just come from school, I should have taken no notice of it; but when it comes from my noble Friend, the noble and gallant Duke, I am bound to protest against it, and I shall
782
certainly feel it my duty to take the sense of the House on this Motion.
On Question, House divided; Contents—Present 43; Proxies 31: Total 74. Non-Contents—Present 42; Proxies 36: Total 78. Majority against the Motion 4.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Boston

Richmond

Southampton

Beaufort

Bolton

Montrose

Redesdale

Newcastle

Colchester

MARQUESS.

Brougham

Exeter

Ashburton

EARLS.

EARLS.

Airlie

Shrewsbury

Selkirk

Huntingdon

Orkney

Winchilsea

Oxford

Moray

Dartmouth

Seafield

Stanhope

Ferrers

Pomfret

Tankerville

Warwick

Aylesford

Mansfield

Macclesfield

Carnarvon

Mayo

Malmesbury

Longford

Egmont

Glengall

Lucan

Yarborough

Nelson

Gainsborough

Gharleville

VISCOUNTS.

Orford

Hereford

Lonsdale

Arbuthnot

Eldon

De Vesci

Ranfurly

O'Neill

VISCOUNTS.

Sidmouth

Strangford

Exmouth

Gage

Canterbury

Doneraile

BISHOP.

Lake

St. Asaph

Combermere

LORDS.

BISHOP.

Reay

Bangor

Willoughby De Broke

LORDS.

Dynevor

Stanley

Bagot

Hastings

Grantley

Clinton

Clonbrock

Beaumont

Alvanley

Saltoun

Gifford

Sondes

De Saumarez

LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his regret at the result of the division, and particularly at the manner in which it had been carried. He should very cheerfully have supported the measure, if his adversaries had had an opportunity of stating their case; as it was, he should tender the measure his support very reluctantly. The question was rather a judicial than a legislative question; and yet it was decided by the votes of persons who were absent—persons who were in Ireland, or on the Continent, or even at Madras. This being a quasi judicial question, where parties came before their Lordships craving redress from an apprehended injury, and respectfully and humbly begging to be heard

783
by counsel, who, they said, could give explanations to their Lordships which no person could give without being professionally instructed, those Peers who were present resolved—by a narrow majority, indeed, but still they did resolve—that counsel should be heard. In this state of things some one called for proxies. He was very sorry that such a call should have been made. He was not, of course, at liberty to protest against it; but he knew that some of those who, in obedience to the call, had exercised their undoubted right of producing the proxies, would have been the last to call for proxies themselves. He thought this decision dealt a serious blow on the right of voting by proxy in their Lordships' House. He doubted if proxies would stand such a case as this much longer. If a noble Lord, who was not now alive, had been present (the Marquess of Westminster), how greatly would he have been rejoiced at this proceeding, and justly; for it would have advanced the cause for which he contended—of the abolition of proxies—by half a century. He had no recollection of such a case as this ever happening before, where the proxies of those who were absent overruled and reversed the decision of those who heard the case. There might have been such a case; but, at any rate, this was one of a most grievous and crying nature; because it was a refusal of the petition of parties who petitioned to be heard at their Lordships' bar.
The EARL of GLENGALLprotested against this decision, and on this ground, that a few years ago he had been placed in a position in the House which rendered it impossible for him to hear the question which was put to the House. After the division, a noble Marquess put it to him, upon his honour, whether he was in the House and heard the question? He replied that he was not; and the same being the case with other noble Lords, their votes were not taken. Now, as he knew that there were noble Peers on this occasion in the same position, he must enter his protest against the decision on that ground.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, as he was the person referred to, he could confirm the statement which the noble Earl had made; and he would add, that no person who was not in the House when the question was put was entitled to vote.
The EARL of GLENGALLthen put the question to the Duke of Buccleuch—on his
784
honour as a Peer, whether he was in his place at the time and heard the question put?
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCHstated, that he was not only in the House, but that he heard a considerable portion of the noble Duke's (the Duke of Richmond's) reply.
The EARL of GLENGALL: But was the noble Duke within the House according to the usual interpretation of "the House?" He saw the noble Duke enter the House along with the Earl of Home, and his impression was that the noble Duke was not within what was usually called the House.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCH: If you come to the strict meaning of the House—[Loud cries of "Hear, hear!"] Perhaps noble Lords would be so good as to hear what he had to say before they cheered. He would not be put down by any clamour. If the noble Lord meant to ask him whether he was so many inches—
The EARL of GLENGALL: I ask the noble Duke—
The DUKE of BUCCLEUCH: When the noble Lord is in order, I shall answer the question which he has put; but I will not state my answer in any other words than those in which I choose to state it, and not in the words of others. I have to state that whether I was actually in front of what is technically called the Woolsack, or in any other place, I cannot at this moment recollect; but I know that according to all the rules observed in your Lordships' House with respect to Peers being present at debates, I was actually within the House, though I was not in my seat at the moment. I heard the question distinctly put from the Woolsack; and I was standing in the House with my noble relative who has just been alluded to, though I was present some time before he entered the House.
The EARL of GLENGALLdisclaimed any intention of personal discourtesy to the noble Duke; and he would leave it to their Lordships to say whether the noble Duke was sufficiently in the House at the time to entitle him to vote.
The LORD CHANCELLORthought that if a Peer was within the four walls of the House at the time a question was put, he was entitled to vote.
The EARL of GLENGALLwould now put the same question to the Earl of Home, and ask him, upon his honour, whether he

785
was in the House, and heard the question put?
The EARL of HOMEhad no hesitation in saying that he was in the House, that he heard the question, and that he had been in the House some time before the Duke of Richmond concluded his speech.
LORD REDESDALEconfirmed this statement, as he saw both noble Lords in the House before the question was put. The only observation which he was disposed to make on this extraordinary discussion was, that the majority of those who were present in the House were anxious to hear counsel on the subject, but were prevented from doing so by those who were not present, and who did not care whether counsel were heard or not.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, the noble and learned Lord opposite (Brougham) expressed his belief that this was the only occasion where a Motion had been overruled by the votes of those who were absent. Now he might remind his noble and learned Friend that when he sat on the woolsack, he (the Earl of Wicklow) brought forward a Motion on the subject of Irish Education, which he carried by a majority of those present; but the Motion was overruled by the Government of which the noble and learned Lord was a member calling for proxies. He must say, that though he had voted against the Motion, he thought this was an injudicious use of proxies. He did what he could do to prevent the abuse; and he wished he could see some noble Peer of weight and experience, rise to propose their abolition altogether; and in these reforming times, he did think that a few more such injudicious uses of proxies on the part of their Lordships, would lead to their abolition altogether.
EARL GREYentirely agreed with the noble Earl, that they could hardly adopt a more judicious course than to abolish the use of proxies; and if the noble Earl would make such a proposition, he could ensure him of his hearty support. But while proxies existed, he thought parties were entitled to use them. His noble and learned Friend had called this a judicial question. Why he might as well have called it a geographical question, or a geological question, or a grammatical question—for it had no more resemblance to a judicial question than any other which came before their Lordships.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained that he did not call it a judicial but a quasi judicial question.
The DUKE of RICHMONDwas bound to submit to a majority of their Lordships, though he was afraid the decision would greatly lower them in the eyes of the country, who would feel their decision to be injurious because it was unjust. All he could now say was, that it was out of his power then to enter upon the case of the silk weavers, and, therefore, at whatever time it might come on, he should move that it be postponed till he had made himself in some degree master of the case. All he could now do would be to read the brief which had been given to a learned Serjeant, who would not have taken up half the time which he (the Duke of Richmond) would do; but he was resolved that their Lordships should hear the whole truth.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I do not rise to complain of this decision, but simply to say, that if ever there was a question where the voice of those who were present ought to have ruled the decision of your Lordships' House, it is on a question where, with a view to influence the judgments of those who are present, in a matter where persons who are deeply interested appeal to your justice, and desire you to hear what they have to say in an authentic and authoritative manner. Your Lordships who are present, and who have to decide this question in Committee, have decided that you will hear what the petitioners have to say; but your verdict has been overruled by those who are not present, and who cannot be present in Committee; and after you have declared that in your Committee you desire to hear the arguments of the parties interested in this question, the names of those who are in other parts of the world have been put in for the purpose of saying, that, in the Committee which they do not mean to attend, you shall not hear the statements which you desire, in order to form your judgment on the question to be submitted to you. My Lords, I cannot conceive a stronger case, especially when you recollect that the object is not to decide either for or against the petitioners; but simply, shall the petitioners be allowed to state the case in a manner which they think most conducive to their interests. But I do not rise to prolong discussion, nor to interpose delay; still less do I object to your Lordships' going into Committee to consider the various articles which are to be brought under your notice. But I think it will tend to the saving of your Lordships' time, if I now, on the question of going into Committee,

787
make a few observations on the general tendency of the Bill, in respect to certain articles enumerated in it, rather than afterwards call your Lordships' attention to these individual articles at the time they respectively come under discussion. My Lords, if I were desirous to find fault with Her Majesty's Government, and to contrast their conduct on this Bill with their conduct on the other Bill, I should have no difficulty in showing that this Bill is utterly inconsistent with the principles of free trade and of condemnation to protection, which my noble Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, pronounced, ex cathedrâ, to be the future rule and principle of Her Majesty's Government. Having taken away all protection from agriculture—that is to say, from corn—you proceed in this Bill to lay down a system of protective duties—duties levied, not for the purposes of revenue, but levied exclusively on the principle and for the purpose of protection. You draw a distinction between the raw material and the finished article, which is a direct encouragement and protection of our native industry—you draw a distinction in every one of the articles in this Bill of a differential duty in favour of the produce of your Colonies—articles in themselves very immaterial; but, so far as the distinction goes, recognising the principle, first, of protection to domestic industry, by exempting the raw material from the duty to which you subject the finished article; and, in the next place, recognising the principle of a differential duty in favour of articles the produce of our Colonies, against articles of the same kind the produce of foreign countries. It is because I find the principle of protection recognised and upheld in this Bill, that I consent to go into Committee to discuss its provisions in detail. I know it has been calculated and said, that if once you sweep away what noble Lords opposite call the "monopoly of the landowners,' you will find them the confederates and coadjutors of those who would attempt to remove protection from all other articles. I hope experience will falsify that prediction. I hope the landowners and the agricultural interest will not consent so far to stultify the cause in which they have been engaged — a cause in which, let me tell you, they are still engaged—a cause in which they will continue to be engaged—as to say, that because you may succeed in taking away from them that protection which they have
788
hitherto enjoyed—they will spitefully extend to others a principle, the application of which they say, as regards agriculture, is unjust. To act on such motives, would be acting in a spiteful mood, visiting upon others those injuries which they have themselves experienced. I say, my Lords, we have not abandoned, and that we do not mean to abandon, the principle of protection to the domestic industry of this country; and I am much mistaken if many years elapse before we have the manufacturing interest of this country thoroughly sensible of the mistake they have committed, and earnestly requesting of the Legislature to give them that protection which they have been so desirous you should withdraw from others. I might object that the principle of protection is not fully and fairly carried out in this measure, but I shall not dwell upon this point. I am anxious to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to some details of the measure in which reductions have been made, which I think I can prove to your Lordships are not consistent with the true interests of this country. But I must again observe, that the principle of protection is recognised in this Bill, and it is therefore only with regard to the details of the measure that I wish to address a few observations to your Lordships. It will be for your Lordships to decide, after you shall have heard the explanation, which I hope will be given on the part of Her Majesty's Government—it will be for your Lordships to decide whether or not you are satisfied that they have made out a case, either on the principle of protection or on principle of revenue, for the alteration of duties which they propose. I did not expect this Motion to come on to-night, and I regret I have not had an opportunity of referring to some Papers which have been recently laid upon your Lordships' Table. I am about to deal with this measure chiefly on the score of revenue, for I beg your Lordships to observe that you have at this moment a calculation of only a very small surplus revenue, even with things as they are, for the service of the current year; and if the calculations respecting the revenue which I have made are accurate (and I have taken every pains they should be so), those who are in office this time twelvemonths, whoever they may be, will be in great danger of experiencing a deficiency in the revenue. Yet, my Lords, it is under these circumstances that the Government think it wise and politic

789
to introduce a Bill for the purpose of reducing or repealing the duties on numerous most important articles, which last year produced to the revenue 2,739,187 l.; and in this reduction you only take credit for a diminution of 357,000 l. on the article of corn—an amount much lower, I believe, than the average of late years. Then there are articles on which duties are to be altogether repealed, to the amount of 55,879 l. It is proposed that we shall reduce by one-half the existing duties on articles which produce a revenue of 2,326,000 l.; and, with the exception of such a portion of that revenue as may be made up by an increase of consumption, the loss to the revenue on those articles alone will be, according to the calculation I have made, no less than 1,338,000 l.; to which, if you add 400,000 l. for corn, you will have a positive loss of revenue under the operation of this measure to the amount of more than 1,738,000 l. I am aware that a certain increase in the consumption will make up a part of the loss; but that there will be a serious defalcation of revenue arising from the reductions proposed by this Bill, will readily be admitted on the part of the Government themselves. That there will not be a very serious defalcation of revenue, has not even been contended for by the Government. Now, I believe that, if there be one financial maxim more universally recognised than another, and which is perfectly consistent with sound sense, it is this, that the articles which a Government should select for a reduction of duty should not be those which were yielding a progressively increasing revenue; for thereby you are not only depriving yourself of large and profitable resources, but you are doing that which is not needed; for the progressive increase of duty shows that the duty already existing does neither press in an undue degree upon the consumer at home, nor restrain the foreigner from entering into competition with the home producers. Therefore, I say, in whatever way you regard it, there is no political reason for the abolition of such a duty. Now, tried by this test, let me take a few of the articles in the Tariff. I will take the duty upon butter and upon cheese. In 1842, in the general revision of the Tariff, the duty upon those articles was left unaltered. Does it appear that, in consequence of the duties upon butter and cheese, the imports of these articles have fallen off very considerably? If such appears to be the fact, then a primâ facie case is made out
790
that there is an undue exclusion of these articles from entering into competition with our domestic produce. But if on the other hand it can be shown that so far from there being a decline, there is a positive and progressive increase in the imports, then I say the charge of monopoly and undue exclusion falls to the ground. But let us go to the figures. In 1843, immediately after the passing of the late Tariff, the duty levied on butter was 151,953 l.; in 1844, 186,000 l.; in 1845, 247,000 l. Now with respect to cheese: in 1843, the duty levied on this article amounted to 91,000 l.; in 1844, to 117,000 l.; in 1845, to 141,000 l. On these two articles, therefore, you realized in 1843 a revenue amounting to 243,000 l.; yet under the pressure of this duty the revenue upon them in 1845 increased from 243,000 l. to the sum of 389,000 l. I must, then, ask what ground you have, either on the score of revenue or of an undue pressure on the foreign producer, for the reduction of duty on these articles which is now proposed, and for making the large sacrifice of revenue to which that reduction would necessarily lead? Again, let us look at the case of live animals, on the importation of which a moderate duty was imposed in the year 1842. Has that duty excluded them from our markets? You did not expect that they would be largely imported; and I do not say that I apprehend any serious competition in those animals from the foreign producer. The amount of the duty on live animals in 1843 was 1,500 l., in 1844 it was 5,300 l., and in 1845 it was 18,500 l. What ground, then, is there for depriving your revenue of the moderate amount derived from that source, and putting it into the pockets of the foreign producer?—for that I believe will be the effect of the proposed change. Again, let us look at the silk duties. I believe that our exports of silk goods have been of late years nearly stationary. I do not mean to say that our exports were not more this year than last year; but I mean to say that if you look to the Papers laid on the Table by Her Majesty's Government, at an early period of this Session, you will find that in the course of the last ten or fifteen years the exportation of British silk manufactured goods has not made any considerable progress. I believe even that there were three or four years, some six years ago, in which the exportation of British silk goods was greater than it is at the present

791
moment. But in the meantime the importation of foreign silk goods has very largely increased under the existing duties. In the year 1843 the amount of duty on foreign silk goods was 241,000 l.; in 1844 it was 286,000 l.; and in 1845 it was 323,000 l. Thus your Lordships see there has been a large increase in the importation of the foreign article; and a revenue was derived from it, with no loss whatever to the home producer, of 320,000 l. Yet, in the face of this fact, you are about to lower by one-half the duty on the introduction of foreign silk goods. I ask your Lordships, is not this a wilful and a wanton sacrifice of revenue, without any corresponding good to the British consumer? Now I come to the article timber. In 1842, the duty upon foreign timber was very considerably lowered—it was altogether removed from colonial timber. The effect of this lowering of the duty on Baltic timber has been that since 1842 there has been a very large increase in the amount of Baltic timber brought into consumption in this country. I beg leave to remind your Lordships that this is no trifling article of revenue. In 1843, foreign timber produced 713,000 l.; in 1844,916,000 l.; in 1845, 1,046,000 l. Is there any proof in this article that the duty pressed unduly on the consumer, or excluded the foreigner? And yet, for no conceivable reason that I can see, my noble Friend proposes to reduce two-fifths of the duty upon foreign timber, which yields, as I have said, 1,046,000 l. To sum up these articles I have enumerated, which in the aggregate, in 1843, yielded a revenue of 1,199,000 l., increased so, that in 1844 they brought in 1,500,000 l., and in 1845, 1,770,000 l., being an increase of above 600,000 l. in two years. So that neither for the relief of the consumer at home, or of the producer abroad, you are about to sacrifice 1,777,000 l. of revenue. I will now pass to articles which, though not very important in themselves, are important inasmuch as they involve the interest of great numbers of our operatives. The next articles I will call your Lordships' attention to are boots and shoes. And here allow me to observe that whatever advantage the consumer derives from the reduction of the duty in this article, that reduction will not in any way operate to the advantage of the lower classes: the advantage will be solely derived by the higher classes—those who are best able to afford the loss of that which the revenue would
792
otherwise gain. Well, but what else will this reduction do? I say, my Lords, it will displace a large quantity of labour—it will throw out of employment a great number of persons who are now usefully engaged in this manufacture. Before the year 1842 the duty on foreign boots was 54 s. per dozen. You lowered it in 1842 to 1l. 9s. 4d., and the importation immediately rose from 4,820 pairs in 1842, to 8,353 pairs—I mean of boots—no alteration has taken place since then, and 1l. 9s. 4d. has stood as the duty since 1843. Now, I beg your Lordships to observe that from 4,821 pairs, in 1841, the importation increased to 8,353 in 1842; and from that to 12,220 in 1843; and from 12,220 in 1843 to 13,261 pairs in 1844; and thence to 14,387 in 1845. I repeat that persons in the higher class and best able to pay for luxuries, are the chief buyers of French boots. I declare I am at a loss to conceive upon what grounds the Government have interfered with this article, and propose to reduce the duty from 1l. 9s. 4d. to 11 s. per dozen. On the article shoes and boots, I spoke only of boots before. There were imported in 1841, 39,000 pairs of shoes, whilst in 1845 there were 82,000 pairs imported. The existing duty, therefore, does not prevent the foreign producer from entering our markets on fair and reasonable terms. There are two other articles to which I wish to refer—I mean stained paper and pillow lace. The duty on the first of these articles was not changed in 1842. The duty on stained paper is now 1s. 3–5d. per dozen yards. In 1841, there were imported 13,479 yards, and in 1845 there were imported 30,000 yards. So that there was a progressive increase of the foreign manufacture in our market. Yet we are now called upon to reduce the duty from 1s. 3–5d. to 2d. Now, with regard to pillow lace, I must observe that this is an article which is almost entirely produced by manual labour, and principally by female labour; and as the article is one of luxury, the reduction of the duty can only benefit the rich in this country at the expense of a very humble and helpless class of our operatives. Before 1842, pillow lace was subject to a duty of 30 per cent; but in 1842 the duty of 30 per cent was reduced to a duty of 13 l. 2s. 6d. per cent. In the year 1843, under that altered duty, the revenue derived from the importation of pillow lace was 6,486 l., and in 1845 it was 12,000 l.; and yet not content with

793
that large increase, you are now about still further to reduce that duty from 13 to 10 per cent. Now, I do not say that I shall call on your Lordships in Committee to strike all these articles out of the Bill; but I do say that before your Lordships consent to alter the duties on these articles, you ought to have an explanation from Her Majesty's Government of the principle on which they propose these alterations. If Her Majesty's Government can show that under the present law there is not a fair and reasonable competition in these articles between the foreign and the home producer, and that the home producer practically enjoys a monopoly, then I shall not for one moment object to the reduction or even the repeal of these duties. But as it appears that the importation of these articles is every day increasing, and that the competition in them between the foreign and the home producer is every day becoming more and more brisk—I say that your Lordships ought to receive some explanation from Her Majesty's Government before you consent to sacrifice a large amount of revenue, and to give a further encouragement to the foreign producer, which it is obvious he does not require under the present state of things. What are the calculations upon which they intend the revenue shall be recompensed for these deficiencies? I protest, my Lords, I know not how these wants are to be supplied. I have thought it would be more convenient that I should make these observations before going into Committee, in order to give my noble Friend the President of the Board Trade an opportunity of entering, if he pleases, into an explanation on the part of the Government of the principle on which the Bill is founded; of the calculations into which they have entered; of the results which they anticipate from the measure; and of the reasons which have induced them to sacrifice an amount of revenue which I doubt whether the country can at present safely afford to lose.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, that his noble Friend seemed to think that Her Majesty's Government had introduced that measure as an entire free-trade measure, and had at the same time been guilty of the inconsistency of recognising in the Bill the principle of protection.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that what he had stated was that there was an inconsistency on the part of the Government in introducing a measure like that in which they recognised the principle of protection,
794
after they had renounced that principle in their Corn Bill.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, that the Government did not propose that measure as a measure departing altogether and at once from protection. The principle they desired to follow was that of removing from all articles of food—from all articles of first necessity — all duties whatsoever; while upon all articles which were not of first necessity, but which entered largely into the consumption of our population, they were desirous of reducing the duties as far as considerations of revenue would allow. They did not stop there; but they proposed to reduce the duties on all articles of general clothing. The duties upon the articles of cotton, woollen, and linen manufactures, had been entirely repealed; but the duties on several smaller items had been retained, not for purposes of protecting the larger manufacturers, but the poorer classes of the working people. Further than this the Government had had no other intention than that of reducing the duties not only on all manufactured goods, but also on the raw produce; and they accordingly had proposed to reduce the duties on fully manufactured articles a certain amount, on half manufactured articles a certain amount, and to do away altogether with the duty on the raw material. The duty of 20 per cent on manufactured goods they proposed to reduce to 10 per cent, and that on half manufactured goods to 5 per cent, while they removed the whole impost from the raw material. They did not propose to throw away at once the principle of protection altogether; and therefore his noble Friend had no right to accuse them of not fully carrying out the principles of free trade, since they had never professed to do so. But when his noble Friend asked them what was the difference between the raw material and the manufactured article, he asked a question the answer to which was so obvious that it seemed strange it could have been asked by him. Was it not essential to the best interests of the manufacturers of this country that they should have a cheap, and a constant, and good supply of that which would keep them employed, without entering into considerations of revenue on this subject? But with respect to articles in a state of half or whole manufacture, he was prepared to state that this duty of 10 or 5 per cent was a perfectly just one, and defensible on considerations of revenue. The Government were also asked

795
how they proposed to make up the deficiency of revenue likely to result from the carrying out of their present proposition? The noble Lord had stated the computed loss to be about 1,400,000 l. Now, he was not disposed to question the accuracy of his noble Friend's figures; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the other House of Parliament, in alluding to this subject, had estimated the diminution of revenue from these reductions at about only 700,000 l. But his noble Friend asked them how they proposed to make up this deficiency? They did not hold out any hopes, or at least they gave no guarantee, that the revenue would be made good; but looking to the experience of the past they had every reason to believe that in consequence of the increased consumption of the country, the stimulus given to its commercial resources, and the progressive improvement of its social and manufacturing condition, the revenue would not be lost to the amount stated, but rather be increased. The large reductions of former years, and the increased amount of revenue which followed, gave them every reason to hope that a similar result would again follow. In the year 1842 the entire of the amount of the Excise and Customs duties of this country had amounted to 32,100,000 l.; while in 1845 they had increased to 33,400,000 l., although during that period Customs and Excise duties had been repealed to the amount of not less than 5,100,000 l. The Government, of course, could not give a guarantee that the revenue would be replaced; but they were fully justified from the experience of the past in expecting that it would be so. He would then briefly refer to the several articles alluded to by his noble Friend. The first two articles touched upon were those of butter and cheese. He fully admitted the correctness of his noble Friend's statement, that, under the existing duties, the consumption and importation of these two articles were increasing. But the Government could not profess to act upon the principle upon which they were acting, unless they introduced these two articles of butter and cheese into the present proposition, seeing that they were two which entered so largely into the consumption of the poorer classes of the community, and ought to be, therefore, subjected to the same reductions which were intended for other articles of a similar sort. His noble Friend who had just spoken, and indeed other noble Lords who
796
thought and acted with him, seemed to think that the duties on these two articles were of long standing, and that they had been imposed and should be retained for purposes of protection. Now the fact was, that these duties were of modern origin, having been only recently imposed. There had been no duty on butter up to the time of the end of the late war, similar to that which was now imposed on it. On this matter, then, they were doing no more than placing the duty on the article in the same state in which it formerly was. With respect, therefore, to the reduction of the duty on butter and cheese, they were doing no more than carrying out the principle by which they were regulated in the entire of these proceedings, of reducing the duties on such articles as entered largely into the consumption of the poorer classes, and that too without reference to the immediate revenue which they yielded. His noble Friend also had entered into the case of the reduction on the import duties on live cattle. But he at the same time said that he did not entertain any apprehensions as to this going to a dangerous extent. On this point, too, it would be only necessary to say that the Government had been influenced by the same principle as that to which he had already alluded, as being that on which the whole measure of the Government was based. His noble Friend had next taken the silk trade; but as a noble Duke on the cross benches was to bring this case specifically before them in detail, he would abstain from anticipating what might be said on that subject. His noble Friend laid stress upon the increasing imports of this article, and therefore increasing yearly additions to the revenue. Now this was strictly correct; but it did not therefore follow that either the importation or the revenue was increasing as it ought, or as it would do if there were no smuggling. He would say, however, that with respect to this article the reduction of the duties on silk had not been made so much with reference to the question of protection as to that of revenue. The duty was said to be 30 per cent universally; but, in point of fact, it ranged from that up to about 250 per cent. Now this was an anomalous state of things. Twenty-five years ago, a Committee of that House had taken this subject into consideration, and they had then recommended a duty of 15 per cent to be established instead of that then in existence. To show, however, to what an extent the

797
revenue of this country was defrauded by the system of smuggling carried on in this article, it would be only sufficient to state from authentic and official returns, that from the year 1827 to 1843, the amount of silk goods entered at the Custom-house of France for exportation to this country had been 6,332,000 lbs.; while the amount entered here in England, upon which duty had been paid, was only 3,100,000 lbs., not one half the amount that ought to have come in. These returns, he maintained, fully justified the course which the Government proposed to take with respect to this article—to put a fixed duty of 15 per cent on it, instead of that which was formerly placed on it. He had no doubt they would see in future years a very considerable increase in the importation, to the prevention of the illicit trade, and the great increase of the revenue. His noble Friend, also, had alluded to the increase which had taken place in the importation of foreign timber from 1842 to 1845; and he had accordingly asked why the duties were proposed to be changed on this article? His answer was, that the same principle which had been applied to other articles had been applied to this, the consumption of which had so much increased, and become so much a better of necessity in this country; and, moreover, it was an article, the consumption of which was closely connected with the consumption of other articles which increased the revenue largely. Having relieved colonial timber of all duty, they had considered it right to reduce the duty on foreign timber to 15 s. a load. His noble Friend had next alluded to the question of boots and shoes. Now the Government had never put this reduction forward as a measure calculated to be beneficial to the poorer classes of the community; they had never put it on grounds either of revenue or protection. It had been done entirely on the equal application of the principle by which they had dealt with all other manufactured goods, as iron and the like; and they did not think it right to exclude manufactured leather from the operation of the same principle. His noble Friend also alluded to the case of stained paper. Now this grievance of the paper stainers, attempted to be put forward by his noble Friend, was the weakest that ever was relied on. At present there was a duty of 1s. a square yard—a duty which he maintained to be monstrous. It was said that the manufacturer here had to compete with the foreigner,
798
under the disadvantage of an excise duty. Now the excise duty in question was only about half a farthing a square yard. He knew of no reason why the paper stainers in this country should not be able to compete with the foreigner at a duty of 2d. It was said by the paper stainers that they had to labour under a disadvantage arising from the superior designs of the French manufacturers. Now he could see no reason why the paper stainers of this country should not rival foreigners in design as well as in those qualities so essential to superiority; and he anticipated great success to result from the exertions which had been made to establish schools of design in this country. The only other article to which the noble Lord had alluded was pillow lace. The noble Lord said that pillow lace was an article in the manufacture of which the poorer classes were engaged, and yet the Government had proposed to reduce the duty. The present was an ad valorem duty of 12 l. 10 s., which it was proposed to reduce to 10 l., in order that the workmen employed might be placed on the same footing as those engaged in other branches. He did not pretend that the present measure was one of complete free trade. It was only following up the course which the Government had been pursuing for the last four years, which was the removal of all duties on articles of food and clothing—the reducing of duties on articles that entered largely into the consumption of the people, more especially of the poorer classes—the taking off of all duties whotsoever on raw materials, and the reducing of duties on manufactured articles to as near as possible an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. That was the principle on which the measure was based, and it was for their Lordships to say whether that principle was sound or not. All he could say was, that, as far as might be, the details of the measure would be found to work out that principle.
EARL STANHOPEthought the noble Lord who had just sat down had overlooked the real gist of the question, which was the effect which the former reductions in the Tariff had had on the productive industry of the country. If their Lordships would only consent to hear evidence at the bar upon that point, they would learn that the effect of former reductions had been to throw numerous bodies of industrious workmen out of employment, and almost to ruin them. It was quite true, as the noble Earl had said, that the measure was not

799
one of complete free trade. It was still a measure of protection—but of diminished protection—of protection diminished without any just cause, and at the expense of the industrious classes of the country. Upon that point they were entitled to every information; and he wished to know from the noble Earl whether he was willing to lay on the Table copies of all remonstrances received by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, and by the Board of Trade, against the reduction of duties now proposed?
The EARL of DALHOUSIEcould not answer for all the remonstrances sent to the First Lord of the Treasury, though he believed that the remonstrances received by him had been communicated to the other Members of Government; but, with regard to those remonstrances which he (the Earl of Dalhousie) had received, he was ready to lay the whole of them on their Lordships' Table; and it would perhaps be satisfactory to the noble Earl to know that it would be an extremely small collection.
EARL STANHOPEsaid, it would appear that whatever remonstrance there might have been to the Government, it was needless to attempt to petition that House after what they had heard that night. Did he understand the noble Duke to say, that not a single article of the Tariff could be altered according to the constitutional rules of Parliament?
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, that their Lordships had not been in the habit of altering, and could not alter, any money clause in a Money Bill. The present being a Money Bill, which specified certain duties or customs, their Lordships could not, according to the practice of the House, alter those duties or customs.
EARL STANHOPEthought it would be well if they sent the measure back to the Commons, and thus rejected it. For it would now be asked all through the country, "of what use was the House of Lords?" He would say that the essential point to be considered was the effect which the measure would have on the industrious classes. A great deal of hypocritical pretence of care for those classes had been put forward in another place; but he contended that the direct effect of the Bill would be to reduce the value of the productive industry of the labouring classes, for which reduction no compensation would be made by any of its enactments. He was opposed to the measure, because it was another step in the progress of that free trade which he
800
thought could not be carried further without danger, and which if persisted in, would, he was convinced, lead to the absolute and irremediable destruction of the whole industrial and commercial interests of the country. There was another question which he was desirous of putting to the noble Earl near him.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONbegged to explain. Their Lordships, he begged to remind them, had uniformly recognised the principle of not altering money clauses in Bills of Supply, and that uniform principle had been acknowledged in the discussion on the Bill which had been lately under discussion in that House.
EARL STANHOPE: What Bill?
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: The Corn Bill; and he begged also to remind their Lordships that they had for 200 years recognised that mode of doing business between the two Houses. He would further beg to remind their Lordships, that the consequences of their altering money clauses in Bills of Supply would be productive of great inconvenience to the country, and would amount, in fact, to a negative and a discontinuance of all the business of Parliament.
The DUKE of RICHMONDbegged to remind the noble Duke that he had himself voted with the noble Duke in opposition to the Corn Bill brought in by Mr. Huskisson in the other House, and which had been thrown out in that House.
EARL STANHOPEresumed: The question he wished to ask the noble Earl was (as we understood the noble Lord)—in what quarter had the Government sought for advice upon their measures?—who were the parties, not belonging to the Government, with whom they had consulted?—and what opinions had been expressed by them thereon?
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, that it certainly was rather amusing to hear the noble Earl thus catechising the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and calling them up one after another to answer questions. On all matters of a public nature, he was quite ready to answer the noble Lord; but when he extended his inquiries so far as to ask who those persons were, not being Members of Her Majesty's Government—who those individuals, other than official, were—who had been consulted by the Government, he might have himself known that it would be a breach of propriety for any Member of the Government to answer him. It would be neither more

801
nor less than shifting the burden of responsibility from the shoulders of Her Majesty's responsible advisers to those of other and inferior persons, who were altogether irresponsible. The measures brought in by the Government had been proposed upon their own responsibility, after a long and anxious investigation, and much inquiry. They pressed them forward upon their own responsibility, and upon their own responsibility they were now offered to their Lordships' consideration.
EARL STANHOPEonly wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had taken the opinion of any impartial, intelligent, and well-informed persons as to these measures? The late Lord Liverpool was in the habit during the war of consulting every day an eminent capitalist. But it was in vain to argue about this Bill any more than the Corn Bill, such a strange conversion of opinion had taken place on both sides of the House. Their Lordships must take the consequences. There would be a general reaction of public opinion; the principle of free trade would become odious even among the manufacturers; and they would be amongst the first to solicit Parliament to restore that system of protection under which the country had so long flourished, and had acquired such prosperity.
The EARL of RIPONmust say, that judging from experience, if eminent merchants had been consulted on this occasion, the result would have been but a collection of contradictory opinions. When the Tariff of 1842 was framed, he and the Vice President of the Board of Trade were occupied for many weeks in hearing the representations of parties upon various points; and some of the results in those instances would show that the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) might well doubt the accuracy of his views. Among those who were expecting to be ruined were the glovers of Worcester and Yeovil; and he (the Earl of Ripon) in vain told the deputation from that body, that they were chiefly injured by the then high duty, which made it impossible to prevent smuggling, the truth being that the only way to beat the smuggler was to make the trade unprofitable to him; however, the duty was lowered, and in two or three months one of that very party came to him and stated that he had been over to France, and found upon thorough inquiry that they had been quite wrong. Then there were the persons concerned in the Irish provision trade,
802
one of whom was overheard to say as he left the office, "I wonder how the devil those two gentlemen could know so much about salt pork?" The Tariff certainly did that trade no harm. So with the boot and shoe trade: the experiment was said to be a dangerous one; but the whole quantity of boots that came in last year was 14,000 pairs—a quantity that practically made no difference: there was not less leather used here in the manufacture. Then there was the milling interest: they wanted the duty on flour increased; but, if they were ruined, it must have been in years when there was little or no flour imported at all. Therefore, his (the Earl of Ripon's) experience had led him to receive with great doubt all these prophecies of ruin. If all such prophecies made since he had been in office had been fulfilled, there would not be a single branch of national industry that would not have been ruined.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought the House had a right to hear something from the Government upon a subject to which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had alluded—the connexion of the present measures with the question of finance—in what condition they expected the finances of the country to be placed when their measures should be carried? Were they prepared to say that after carrying those measures, they anticipated the possibility of the removal of the property tax? In diminishing to such an extent the indirect taxation of the country, was not Parliament making it a matter of inevitable necessity that that heavy burden, for the first time imposed in a period of peace—imposed under an exigency of circumstances, and somewhat in consideration of existing difficulties, and for a definite period, could not be removed at the time specified? He was not saying that it might not be wise and just to continue it; but let the fact be understood; let it be known that in gaining a great commercial good, they were entailing financial difficulties upon themselves. There was but a surplus of 70,000 l., and that was shown only by altering the mode of taking the Estimates, and estimating the expenditure in some cases, not for the whole of the year, but for a portion only. The increased consumption had been something of an equivalent for the revenue sacrificed in the reduction of duties: but only a quack could connect this large increase of consumption exclusively with that reduction; it was to be traced to the enormous activity

803
in trade; the enormous amount of wages paid to the labouring classes; and unless we could rely upon that as a continuing cause, it was clear that, with the present surplus, we could not expect an easy state of the finances. In short, with the reductions now making, there seemed no escape from a continuance of the property tax. He confessed that he was anxious to see these principles of free trade carried out as rapidly and as fully as circumstances would permit; and he grieved that his noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley), with his great ability and authority, had put himself at the head of the opposite party. The position taken by his noble Friend might weaken his own power, but it could not impede the course of commercial freedom. His noble Friend had said, that repealing the duties on raw materials, whilst a duty on the importation of the manufactured produce was maintained, involved the principle of protection. That was a great fallacy. Their Lordships were bound to repeal the duty on the raw material; because, if a duty was taken on the raw material, a duty was then laid on in the first instance, which became aggravated as the article passed through all its various stages of manufacture; and the amount received by the Exchequer fell infinitely below the amount paid by the public. That was a reason for a repeal of the duty on the raw material, wholly separate and distinct from any consideration of protection; and a repeal of the duty on the raw material was besides only a matter of justice to our manufacturers, who exported the article in a manufactured state. The manufacturers of this country required no protection, and demanded none. His noble Friend had, on a former occasion adverted to the evidence of Messrs. Ashworth and Greg, who he observed had told a Committee that they would be exposed to the competition of America. That was true; but what did Mr. Ashworth add? He said that he was not afraid of the Americans in any market of the world; that there was nothing in the position or skill of British manufacturers to make them afraid of any competition; the British manufacturer had the advantage of railways, canals, coal, iron, skill, industry, and of every element necessary to make cheap goods, and he might rather challenge competition than otherwise. The evidence of Mr. Greg was equally conclusive: he said that America, from her water power, might upon her own soil beat the British manufacturers
804
in some articles; but when the capital and skill of the British manufacturers came into operation with respect to the finer goods, they might then beat America in every country in the world, and in her own markets likewise, if she only opened her ports. Under these circumstances, he (Lord Monteagle) thought it was most extraordinary that the evidence of these gentlemen should be appealed to as establishing that the English manufacturer would be under a free system of trade beaten by the foreign manufacturer. He was ready to admit that there were some faults in this Tariff—some very absurd discriminations kept up between colonial trade and foreign trade; but all the advances made in the direction of freedom of commerce, only proved the necessity of proceeding onward steadily and equally. When they repealed the duty on the export of machinery, in respect to which this country was preeminent, and when by so doing they exposed the British manufacturers to a more active competition on the part of their foreign rivals, such a step involved in its consequences everything else that had been done in the way of relaxation of duties. He concurred in what had fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Dalhousie) as to the impossibility of checking and preventing smuggling, whatever amount of vigilance might be used, so long as they held out to the smuggler the inducement of high duties. When, with respect to spirits, for instance, they imposed a duty of 22 s. a gallon on an article not worth much more than 3s. a gallon, could they hope to prevent smuggling? It was said, that by this Tariff they were asked to reduce the duties on luxuries, such as carriages, &c. But it was not a fair and just representation of the case to state the reduction of the duty as a mere benefit to the consumer, for whom the foreign article was imported. How was that article paid for? By British labour, which had been employed on every bale of goods and on every portion of British manufactures sent out of the country to pay for the foreign article. Any attempt to talk of these luxuries of the rich as contradistinguished from the labour of the poor, was just one of those fallacies which might answer very well in poetry, or provoke a cheer when sympathy was appealed to; but which, when the real material interests of mankind were gravely and seriously considered, must go for nothing. It was by labour that those luxuries

805
were purchased, and that labour procured wages for our countrymen.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, that the noble President of the Board of Trade had stated certain things as the result of the Tariff of 1842, which appeared to him the (the Marquess of Salisbury) problematical. He could state, that when the Tariff was altered in 1842, American provisions were used by several of the shipowners of Liverpool for provisioning their ships. By way of experiment, they were used for short voyages; but it was found they did not keep, and the crews returned in a wretched state for want of provisions. What did the shipowners then do? They sent out Irish curers to America, and the American provisions were now cured in the same manner as Irish provisions, and were very generally adopted for ships; and, until Irish provisions could be obtained at as cheap a rate as American, there could be no doubt the latter would continue to be used. The milling trade in the neighbourhood of London had also been entirely destroyed by the operation of the Tariff. He thought there could be no doubt, that if they diminished the revenue derived from duties, they must resort to direct taxation; but did their Lordships believe that, at a time like the present, considering also the war which would be commenced throughout the country against a system of direct taxation, they could afford to relinquish the revenue accruing from protective duties? Those duties, in his opinion, had not only been most effectual in producing a good revenue, but also in affording encouragement and protection to British industry. He conceived that the measures of Her Majesty's Government were tending very materially to reduce the revenue of the country, and would be injurious to its best interests; and on these grounds he objected to the present Bill.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, it had been stated that the diminution of revenue occasioned by the reductions of duty proposed by the Government would be made up by the increased importation and consumption of those articles on which the duty was to be reduced. He had not objected to the Tariff of 1842; but the experiment then tried had not been attended with very favourable results with regard to the increased importations anticipated from a reduction of duties. It was true that there had been an increase, but that increase had not been at all in proportion to the increase
806
under the old Tariff. He took from the Parliamentary returns the following facts:—Our exports were, on an average of the five years preceding 1836, 203,000,000; 1841, 250,000,000; 1846, 268,000,000. So that the increase of five years, under the old Tariff, was 47,000,000; under the new, only 18,000,000. Again, the duties imposed by the Tariff of 1842, averaged 20 per cent on manufactures; now 10 per cent was the average proposed, although the American Secretary of State had recommended 20 per cent, as calculated to produce the greatest amount of revenue.
LORD ASHBURTONsaid, that the measure now before the House would cause so great a reduction in the revenue, that an income tax, which ought to have been reserved for a period of war, would be rendered indispensable in this country during a time of peace. He believed—though he hoped he might be mistaken—that the theory of perpetual and unwearied prosperity of the country, upon which so much reliance had been placed, was entirely fallacious. He did not concur in the broad and general principle—that discovery which seemed to have been made in the present generation—that free-trade principles ought to be indiscriminately applied. He considered that they might be fatal to the industry of this country, and that our policy might not be reciprocated by other nations. He considered that the only justification for the reductiou of duties was when they arrived at such a point that the smuggler came in and deprived the State of its revenue; for he thought it far better that the duty should be reduced, and that the public should obtain the advantage, than that it should be gained by the smuggler. He could not conceive on what ground it was not considered good policy to raise a revenue upon French cambrics or any other article, so long as they could keep the smuggler out of the market; but it must be remembered that much of the extensive smuggling which had recently taken place had been carried on with the connivance of our Custom-house officers.
The Order of the Day for going into Committee, read.
House in Committee accordingly.
On Clause 2,
LORD STANLEYsaid: I will not repeat what I have so recently stated on this subject, but I shall content myself with stating that this proposed reduction of the duties on foreign timber appears to me to be absolutely throwing away a considerable

807
portion of revenue. The duties were reduced within the last three years from 55 s. to 25 s. per load; and colonial timber was reduced at the same time to a mere nominal amount, for the purpose, as it was avowedly declared in 1842, of keeping up some relation between foreign and colonial timber. The consequence was, that while the consumption of colonial timber has increased in a very slight degree, that of foreign timber has increased in a very great degree from 700,000 loads to 1,700,000 loads in last year; and now the House is asked in the present state of the revenue to sacrifice, upon the article of foreign timber, 400,000 l. out of the million which is now brought in. He thought that no serious injury would be done to any one, but great good to the nation, and therefore he would move that this clause be omitted.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, the noble Lord was under a misapprehension as to the increased import of foreign timber as compared with Canada timber. If he would look to the Papers on the Table, he would find that of hewn timber there was imported from the Baltic in 1841, 136,000 loads; in 1842, 108,000 loads; and in 1845, 282,000 loads. Of deals, in 1843, 229,000 loads; and in 1845, 342,000 loads. On the other hand, a reference to the accounts of the imports of colonial timber would show that in 1841 the import was 619,000 loads; in 1842, 418,000 loads; and in 1845, 797,000 loads. Of deals there were imported, in 1842, 170,000 loads; and in 1845, 498,000 loads. He could not, therefore, understand how the noble Lord could say that there had not been relatively an increase in the import of colonial timber. With regard to the motives which had induced Her Majesty's Government to propose this reduction of duty, he would not fatigue their Lordships by going into the arguments he had before urged. It was sufficiently shown that the increased import of foreign timber did not prevent the increased import of colonial timber; and as regarded the revenue, all experience in similar cases led to the belief that, notwithstanding the reductions, the increased consumption would ultimately produce at least as much revenue as was received before the change.
EARL STANHOPEobserved that the noble Earl had said nothing of the loss of 600,000 l. of revenue occasioned by the reduction of these duties.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, he had already admitted the loss to the revenue; but the consumer had received the benefit of it.
The EARL of GALLOWAYsaid, the reduction of duty would be a great boon to the agricultural interest.
On Question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill:—Contents 54; Not-Contents 52: Majority 2.
On Clause 6 being put,
The DUKE of RICHMONDrose and said: My Lords, after what has occurred this evening—after the manner in which the petition of the silk weavers has been treated—after calling in proxies to vote on that important question—I cannot think of proceeding with a clause to-night which so materially involves the welfare of the silk trade. I will not be a party to proceeding further with this clause to-night. I do not think I am very unreasonable in asking your Lordships to postpone the discussion upon this clause. I have not had time to prepare the case which I could wish to lay before your Lordships this evening.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, he had no objection whatever to the postponement of the clause.
The Committee then went through the Bill as far as the Table of Duties.
House resumed, and adjourned.