The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-02 00:00:00

TWE SUN LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 2, 1860.

applied to England, 11.0 r, on the other hand, are those bo-
roughs of the size oil Birkenhead and. Staleybridge which
have no representative e. But there are two constitu-
encies in Ireland, on a county and the other a city con-
stituency, which, in, 'point of population, of property, and
in the number of elec tors, stand entirely apart from the other
counties and the other cities. Those are the great con-
stituencies of Cork and i,the city of Dublin. We propose that
there should be for the county of Cork and for the city of
'Dublin three members es ..ch, obtaining seats from the four
in England which by act of Parliament are now unappro-
priated. Two of these sea is will be given to Ireland for the
purpose of giving to the gi 'eat county of Cork and the city
of Dublin one additional ru ember each, making three mem-
bers for each of those caustituencies. The claim of the
Queen's university to hay.'a a member naturally arose for
consideration when the claim' of the London University was
allowed, and I should hive fel,f:tutremely glad if it had been
in my power to ask the house .tc' express its approbation of
the 4ueen's University in Irels lid, by assigning to it a re-
presentative in this house. I hope the day will come, and
that it will not be many years be,rore it comes, when Parlia-
ment will think it right to give the Queen's University in
Ireland a representative in this I louse, but at the present
time, looking to the small numbs r of years during which
the university has beenestablished, and what is the govern-
ing consideration at present, namay, the number of its
graduates, lam afraid it would not be right to make any
such proposal now. The total number of graduates being
only 260, I think it impossible at the present moment to give
a member to that university. There is' .another subject con-
nected with Ireland on which we prop, me to legislate in the
present bill. I had the honour to-night, to present a petition
signed by a large portion of the peers .3f Ireland, who com-
plain of the position in which they sten d under the clause of
the Act of Union, which defines their le gal position. They
ask why, if it is thought constitutionally right that it should
be open to them to represent constituenci es in Great Britain,
with which probably. they have less natural connexion than
with the constituencies of their own conntry, they should
be shut out by express enactment from representing their
friends and neighbours with whom their interests are asso-
ciated. We propose to remove that disqualification.
(Hear, hear.) We propose to enable them to stand towards
their friends and neighbours, the constituencies of Ireland,
in that relation in whieh they now stand to the constituen-
cies of England. With regard to matters of a purely
administrative character—l speak of the time occupied
in county elections, and polling-places, and matters of
that kind, tending to diminish the expense and excite-
ment connected with contested elections—those mat-
ters are regulated by a different act of Parliament,
and therefore I do not propose in this bill to make any alte-
ration whatever on that subject. What therefore is pro-
posed on the part of Ireland is shortly this—to make the
county franchise £lO, and the borough franchise £6, and to
give to the great county of Cork a third member, and to
the city of Dublin a third member, drawn from what were
formerly seats in England, and to remove the disqualifica- ,
Hon now operating on Irish peers ; and I trust that by this
measure we shall give satisfaction to the people of Ireland,
and increase the value and efficiency of the representation
of that part of the kingdom.
Mr. WHITESIDE said this would be the fifth reform
bill they had had for Ireland. When the Union was carried
200 seats were abolished and some boroughs bought up. In
1827 Sir R. Peel thought it right to change the old fran-
chise. He changed the old county franchise into a £lO
freehold franehise. They then had the Reform Bill of 1832,
and then the bill proposed by the friends of the right hon.
gentleman, which gave a £l2 occupation franchise for coun-
ties and £8 for boroughs. He thought the right hon. gen-
tleman had given no reason why that law should be changed
now. One thing had t seeped the attention of the right
hon. gentleman. The county of Cork was divided; there
was a west and an east riding. He thought the right hon.
member fell into an error in giving a third member for the
whole county, and he supposed that he meant to give the
additional member to the west riding.
Mr. COGAN asked whether there was to be any disfran-
chisement of the freemen, or whether those who were already
possessed of the franchise would be allowed to keep it. He
believed that at present in the city of Dublin that franchise
acted most injuriously. He must express a feeling of sur-
prise at the proposition to admit Irish peers as members of
that house. The Irish peers had a right to elect represen-
tative peers to sit in the other house of Parliament, and if
in additien to that they could sit in this house, they would
have a great deal of power. He would merely throw out
the suspicion whisk he entertained, and wait for the ex-
pression of the country's opinion. Another question
which he wished to ask the right honourable gentleman
was, at what time the measure would probably come into
operation ? He understood that there must be a registra-
tion of voters under the bill, and that registration would
probably take place somewhere about next November.
Would the voters then placed upon the list have to wait six
months before they could exercise their franchise ?
Mr. DAWSON wished to know whether the qualifica-
tion was to be a rating or an occupation one ?
Mr. VANCE wished to contradict, in the most unquali-
fied terms, the statement of the right hon. gentleman, that
the freeman franchise had a most injurious effect upon the
representation of Ireland. He was perfectly sure that the
Protestant freemen of Dublin, and he might say of Cork
also, had always exercised their franchise for the benefit of
their country. (Cheers and laughter.) No case of corrup-
tion had been made out against them for the last quarter of
a century. (Cries of oh.) He regretted as well as his hon.
and learned friend (Mr. Whiteside) that the right hon.
gentleman should have been advised to make any change
in the first franchise after the number of Reform Bills that
they had already had for that country, and he did not de-
spair of inducing him, after discussion, to retrace his
steps.

Mr. SCULLY, following the example of the hon. mem-
ber for Middlesex, begged to return thanks to the right
hon. gentleman for the additional member which be pro-
posed to give to Cork, for he (Mr. Scully) was now the sole
representative. He returned thanks, however, for the
county, and not for himself, because the additional seat
would only increase his chances of failure at every subse-
quent election. (Laughter.)
Mr. BLACK (who was received with laughter, and cries
of wait I) said that as hon. gentlemen from the sister coun-
try seemed to object to have two additional seats which had
formerly belonged to England given to Ireland, he shorid
be happy to accept them for Scotland, which had not got
quite her fair share of the representation. (Laughter and
cheers.)
Mr. LONGFIELD expressed his surprise at the proposi-
tion for removing the disqualification from Irish peers.
What petition from any part of the United Kingdom, "nu-
merously and respectably signed," which was now the usual
formula for all petitions, had been presented asking for such
an alteration ? He could not but regard the proposal as a
" fancy franchise," and as altogether uncalled for.
Colonel GREVILLE considered the proposal to give this
new privilege to Irish peers an extraordinary one. In Ire-
land a £lO county franchise was equivalent to a £l2 fran-
chise in England, and a £6 franchiseto a £7 10s. franchise.
Although, therefore, there was a-nominal equality between
the two franchises, there was not a real one. (Hear.)
Lord R. CECIL said he had listened in vain for the
reasons which had induced the right hon. gentleman to give
two of the four vacant seats in England to Ireland. Was
it because Ireland was more populous or more wealthy, or
that the Irish members were more useful in that. house.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr. MONSELL said that the propositions with regard
to the Irish peers struck him as most extraordinary, and he
believed it would give great dissatisfaction in Ireand. (Hear.)
An Trish peer was neither fish nor flesh in his own coun-
try ; but to give him the power of representing the people
when he was represented himself in the House of Peers
was a most absurd proposition, and one which he imagined
would not be accepted in that house. (Hear, hear.) He
agreed with his hon. friend near him, that the proposed
franchise for Ireland would not establish more than a nomi-
nal uniformity between the two countries. (Hear.)
Mr. MAGUIRE cordially agreed with the right hon.
gentleman as to the absurdity of the proposition with re-
gard to the Irish peers. The people of Ireland had not
their fair share of representation in that house, taking popu-
lation and wealth into consideration. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. LEWIS said that, on the mere introduction of the
bill, it was not his intention to enter upon a discussion of
the proposition for enabling Irish peers to sit for Irish
counties or boroughs, which the hon. member for Dungar-
van described as a revolutionary measure; but he wished
to explain to the house the reasons why the Government
made that proposition, leaving the house to judge whether
these reasons were not sufficient, and whether the Conser-
vative susceptibilities of the hon. member for Dungarvan
were not prematurely awakened. The Act of Union, in
the 4th Article, contained a provision which declared that
any person holding a peerage in Ireland should not be
disqualified from representing any county or borough
in Great Britain ; but that as long as he so continued a
member of the House of Commons he should net
be entitled to the privilege of peerage, or to vote for the
election of peers in Ireland. Such were the securities
which the Act of Union provided against the privilege of
the peerage being abused in the case of Irish peers having
seats in that house for English or Scotch counties or
boroughs. That house was led for many years by the son
of an Irish peer (Lord Castlereagh), who sat for the county
of Down. Aicer the death of his father he became ineligible
to sit for an Irish county, but he sat for an English bo-
rough. That was a remarkable instance of an Irish poor
possessing the right to sit and vote in tke English House
of Commons. The.objection, therefore, that there would be
a confusion of rights if an Irish peer, while he was a mem
ber of that house, were entitled to vote at an election o

representative peers was wholly inapplicable, inasmuch as
by the provision which they proposed to introduce the Go-
vernment were merely extending the rule which now existed
with respect to England and Scotland to Ireland. They
deprived no person of his rights; all they did was to say
that the disqualification which now attached to Irish voters,
of not being allowed, if they thought fit, to elect an Irish
peer as their representative, should be abolished. That was,
in fact, the whole extent of the proposal.
Col. DICKSON thought the clause relating to this matter
would be very strongly objected to in Ireland. It was a
common complaint in that country landlords had too much
territorial influence over their tenants, and this proposal
would tend to increase that influence. lie believed the Go •
vernment would not find a single Irish member in favour
of it.

that_cdhe
man.pis e
edependent
theredhe
not
Numbers
na
Sir J. SHELLEY said there was one objection which
applied to both the bills which had been proposed, namely,
wo•nasti?.:
pparyolvinesniotnofforramteas.ki ye tthheouvgohttetnhoatloenvegreyr
isbreartaeodfspheorueoldneb, enetnitolewd
dteisferxanerechisiesetdhesifran -
because they happened to be outer of town, when the rant!'
were payable. Too much power was now placed in the
handssirlovf
. s collectors.o TiR
E
VILE said
severalfranchise
members had men-
tioned
htohne.
~naenn
proposal to reduce the
coun-
ties from 12X to £lO. He wished Irisht okn o
w Nv h foret
h whether
the
proposed that any portion of the new
Irish franchise should have reference to houses or tene-
me3llltrs..CA RD WELL said the basis of this bill was the re'
duction °taw franchise in counties and boroughs, but 'illianfl
other respects it would be in conformity with the bill
he might
troduaed by his right hon. friend (Sir W. Somerville.) As
-
regarded freemen, the English law with respect to then,
limited the power of taking up the freedom to birth and
servitude. The Trislt law had other elements, and it was
proposed to assimilate it to the English law. With regard to
:elbut
trhegie sitiroapteidontlivoeubldilltawkeoieltlfdecrte,ceive
the
f ire the usual period for the revision of
vitbitoeleteyteotraiolnaseas'ns:e%tg'nNiuvttilihnbi regard to the reason why the Government
had proposed to give two new members to Ireland—one to
Cork and one to Dublin—he begged to say that, according;
to the last census, the county of Cork had 563,000 inhabi-
tants, its income tax valuation was £834,000, and the num
ber of electors was 15,895. Comparing these figures with
those relating to some of the largeconstituencies of England,
he thought there was ample reason for the proposed addi-
tion. Again, the city of Dublin contained a population of
254,000, its income tax valution was £989,000, and the num-
ber of electors was 10,660. If Birmingham ought to have a
third member Dublin might well claim the same advan-
tage. The object of the Governrueut was, he repeated, aim-

ply to give Irish electors a freer choice with regard to their
representatives.
Leave was then given to introduce the bill.
THE SCOTCH REFORM BILL.

The LORD ADVOCATE then rose to move for leave to
bring in a bill further to amend the laws relating to the
representation in Parliament of the people of Scotland. He
said he would commenee his remarks by stating what the
Government proposed to do with the remaining two seats.
By this bill it was proposed to add one member to Glasgow,
and another to the universities of Scotland. He hoped the
house would agree that these two seats had been well and
justly selected, and ho hoped they would turn out bene-
ficial to the country. As regarded the alterations proposed'
to be made in the franchise, they would be assimilated as
nearly as the condition of the country would allow to those
in England. He proposed an occupation franchise:of £lO in
counties and £6 in boroughs. But, along with that, he also
proposed to simplify the registration. (Hear.) In Scot-
land they were in the position of having a complete valua-
tion from year to year, which showed at onoe who were the
proprietors, the tenants or occupiers, and the value of all
preperties. They made an experiment in this direction
some years ago, but he proposed to go a great deal further.
He proposed to take the valuation roll as the basis of the
franchise. (Hear.) By that they would get rid of some
of the machinery of the Reform Bill, because the valuation
roll would itself be the register, and the whole business of
the registration would be conducted by the assessor of the
county or borough. (Hear.) The appeal court might thus
meet in October or Nov., and have very little to do indeed.
With regard to the property franchise in counties, which
had been hitherto £lO, a considerable pressure had from
time to time been employed to introduce the 40s. franchise ;
it was, however, after the best consideration, not thought
desirable to do that ; but according to the proposition he had
to make, it was intended to reduce the property franchise
in counties from £lO to £5, which, allowing for certain de-
ductions, would be almost equivalent to M. The great
danger of a property franchise in Scotland was the creation
of fictitious votes. Even the £lO franchise was used to a
large extent for that purpose; and it was obvious that,
when the franchise was reduced to £5, the facilities for
creating fictitious votes would be still greater ; therefore, in
order to obviate that difficulty, he nroposed to introduce a
clause of residence. (Hear.) He did net know that he had
any further observations to make to the house, and he
should now move for leave to bring in the bill. (Hear.)
Mr. BAXTER protested against the injustice of the re-
distribution of seats for Scotland. He might be allowed to
say that the whole reasoning of the noble lord the member
for London on that part of the subject struck him as being
singularly fallacious. Bat he. could not understand why,
if Dublin was to have an additional representative, Edin •
burgh should be left out. He begged to give notice that in
the event of the house assenting to the second reading of
the bill for England and Wales, it was his intention to
move that it be an instruction to the committee to disfran-
chise four or five more English seats, in order to take steps
towards giving Scotland that justice to which she was
entitled. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it seemed to him that the
principle upon which the Government were proceeding was
a desire to promote a uniformity of the franchise in the
three kingdoms, with one important exception. He appre-
hended by what fell from the right hon. gentleman the
Secretary for Ireland that the franchise in Ireland was to
continue as it had been hitherto, the rating. In Scotland
the franchise was to be determined by the valuation roll,
which they were told would approach as nearly as possible
to a rating franchise in England. He, therefore, felt sorry
that the noble lord had determined to make an exception in
this important respect. He had long been of opinion that
a county franchise upon rating would simplify the registra-
tion very much, and he trusted the Government would
even now take that subject into consideration. (Hear.)
Sir J. FERGUSSON said the subject of reform occupied
a much more prominent place in Scotland than in England,
and he was of opinion that the proposal of the Government
would be viewed by reformers in Scotland as a very mode-
rate measure indeed.
Sir G. C. LEWIS wished to say a word or two in reply
to the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) as to
the bases upon which the Government proposed respec-
tively to found the franchises of England, Ireland, and
Scotland. The subject of value had been attentively con-
sidered by the Government before they made these pro-
posals ; and- they made them as they now stood for the
following reasons :—ln Ireland the valuation of all tene-
ments was a Government valuation, founded on a
uniform principle, and, therefore, there could be no diffi-
culty in adopting it as the foundation of the Parliamentary
franchise. The franchise was defined by the amount at
which the tenement was rated. In Scotland the franchise
was not a rating franchise, but according to the clear yearly
value of the holding—the amount set down on the valuation
roll. This was found to a great extent in the income tax
assessment, and was tolerably uniform throughout the
whole of Scotland. When such a standard was in existence
it was unquestionably most desirable that it should be acted
upon. The right hon. baronet, who was such a thorough
master of all our rural economy, would not attempt to deny
this. But in England, unfortunately, no such uniformity
of valuation existed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—But the law requires it.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—Yes, the law requires that the rating
should be upon the value; but, as a fact, they knew that
no control was exercised over parish officers, and that there
was a different mode of rating in different places—that in.
some parishes certain deductions were made, whilst in others
the rating was made up to the full value ; so that if a Par-
liamentary franchise was so bestowed where there existed
such inequality, great injustice would be done. He would
very much like to see an amendment in the present law in
this regard ; and indeed had a bill prepared on the subject,
which, however, there was not much chance of passing
whilst Parliament was so much occupied. His desire in
passing such a bill, however, would not be to found the
present measure of reform upon it, but solely having regard
to the present mode of assessment.
Mr. CAIRD agreed with his hon. friend the member for
Montrose that the proportion of additional members allotted
to Scotland was not what justice required. He must express
his opinion, however, that the proposed registration of
voters was a great improvement on the present system, and
that it should be self-acting was also of the greatest impor-
tance.
Mr. BLACKBURN concurred in thinking that the fran-
chise in the three countries should be as nearly uniform as
possible; but this was not secured by the proposal of the
learned lord. Scotland ought to have 70 representatives at
least. The addition of two was not sufficient. (Hear, hear.)
Four at least ought to have been added. He wor'd give no
opinion as to the amount of property franchise—whether it
was too high or too low—but it ought to be the same for
England, Scotland, and Ireland. (Hear, hear.) He should
be glad to see the 40s. county franchise extended both to
Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. KINNAIRD warned the Government against not
satisfying Scotland. The Scotch members were a compact
phalanx, and, under the leadership of the Lord Advocate—
(a laugh)—might be very troublesome unless their reason-
able demands were complied with.
Mr. B4ILLIE asked whether additional polling places
were to be provided in Scotland.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that additional polling
places would be provided. With regard to residence, he did
not mean to enforce it when the property was above £lO.
Neither did ha mean to deduct the feu-duty. With respect
to the complaints which had been made by members from
Scotland, he thought that Government, having four seats
to dispose of, had acted most fairly in giving two to the
largest city and county in Ireland, one to Glasgow, and one
to the Scottish universities.
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
Lord W. GRAHAM Suggested that there should be a
new valuation in Scotland.
MASTERS AND OPERATIVES BILL.
Mr. MACKINNON moved fora select committee to take
into consideration the provisions and practicability of the
11fasters and Operatives Bill; and whether any alterations
or improvements could be made in the said bill.
After some remarks from Sir G. C. Lzwrs and Lord J.
MANNERS the motion was agreed to.
THE SERPENTINE.
Mr. COWPER moved that the select committee on the
Serpentine do consist of the following members :—Mr.
Cowper, Lord J. Manners, Sir J. Shelley, Mr. Blackbe-n,
Sir M. Peto, Mr. Joseph ocke, Mr. Walter, Sir J. Paxton,
Lord Fertnoy, Mr. Byng, Mr. A. Egerton: Captain Arch-
dall, Sir F. Smith, Mr. Beach, and Sir W. W. Ridley.
Power to send for persons, papers, and records—five to be
the quorum—which, after a division, was agreed to.
REFORM BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL brought up the Reform Bill amid
the cheers of the house, and it was ordered to be read a
second time on Monday, the 19th inst.
:CUSTOMS ACTS.
The house went into committee on the Customs Acts.
Upon the article with regard to cotton manufactures,
Mr. NE WDEGATE said he should be obliged if the
Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the value of the
importations of manufactures of hosiery which had hitherto
entered into this country, under the present duty.
The CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER replied
that the principal articles imported had been cotton fringes
to the value of £46,000 in the year 1858, 123,000 pair of
cotton gloves, 187,000 pairof cotton stockings, 86,000 cotton
socks, and £36,000 in value of other cotton goods. He be-
lieved the whole of the goods imported could not be over
£50,000.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE thought the people of this country
would not benefit much by the introduction of artificial
flowers.

Mr. AYRTON regretted the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer was moving these items without giving any assurance
to the working people of the country that he had carefully
considered the position of the persons engaged in these
small handicrafts in England as compared with the position
of persons similarly engaged in foreign countries. He
should 'se glad to learn that ow working classes were not
prejudiced by the arrangement. It might perhaps be said
that they must sacrifice their interests as other classes had
been called on to do in other respects ; but there seemed to
him to be a great difference between the working popula-
tion and those classes who had been invited to make sacri-
fices.

Sir 3. PAKINGTON could not allow this schedule to
pass without recording Lie protest against the waste of
revenue which the Government were about to make.
Looking through the whole of the schedule, it was im-
possible to imagine a more wanton waste of our resources.
In consequence of what passed at the close of the debate
on Tuesday night, it seemed to him that the question was
how far it was worth their while to sit there discussing
these articles. After considerable difficulty they obtained
from the Government on that evening a statement to the
effect that the rejection of any one article would vitiate the
treaty. He therefore thought that it was a waste of time
to discuss the different items, and to consider whether it was
wise or desirable to adopt them. On the other hand he could
not help hoping that, without regard to the effect upen the
treaty, the present schedule would be debated in reference
solely to English interests and to the question how far it
war de.sirable, as a matter of English policy, to abandon a
large revenue by remitting the duties on such articles as
clocks, corks, embroidery, artificial flowers, leather manu-
factures, gloves, musical instruments, oils, silks, and
watches. (Hear, hear.) These 10 articles, which were com-
prehended in the schedule, yielded upwards of £400,000 a
year; and ought we to part with that large sum when we
were increasing our direct taxation and retaining the pre-
sent duty on tea and sugar ? The noble lord the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs admitted in his despatch that the arti-
cles which were not articles of necessity would not be dealt
with by the Government in their financial arrangements.
The noble lord also spoke of the collateral effects of the
treaty. What would be the first of these collateral effects F
If he could trust the intelligence which had reached London
that day, the first collateral effect was likely to be the
seizure of Savoy by the Emperor of the French. (Hear.)
And he was disposed to agree with those eminent aithori-
ties both in and out of the louse who declared that a colla-
teral effect of the treaty would be, instead of its creatiag

good feeling and encouraging friendly relations between '
England and France, to strengthen the war party in
France. (Hear, hear.) He must add that, viewing these
remissions as they affected British interests and English
policy, they appeared to him to be a wanton waste of re-
venue on articles which were not of general consumption,
and upon which there could be no objection to derive re-
venue.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it
was entirely for the right hon. baronet to judge for himself
whether it was a waste of time or not to discuss the articles
proposed for remission. The right hon. baronet and himself
might perhaps come to the same conclusion upon that sub-
ject, though he was afraid upon very different grounds. (A
laugh.) He had thought that the doctrine of unrestricted
competition had been conceded by the right hon. baronet,
but now he found it stiffly contested by him. The right hon.
baronet denounced the surrender of this revenue obtained by
differential duties as a wasteful proceeding. He (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) did not think it was convenient
now to discuss the general principles upon which the finan-
cial scheme of the Government was founded. He was con-
tent to argue that there existed very strong reasons for the
removal of these duties. But the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets and the hon. member for North Warwickshire de-
murred to the Government proposals on two different points
of view. The hon. member for North Warwickshire com-
plained of their parting with duties levied on articles of
luxury, and the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets re-
gretted that they were abandoning duties on articles raised
by handicraft, and not by the great capital of great estab-
lishments. These were two questions totally and absolutely
distinct. With respect to articles of luxury, it was a great
fallacy to suppose that differential duties levied on such ar-
ticles were better than other differential duties. It was a
proper thing to consider when they were raising revenue
whether or not they should first select articles of luxury, but
when they came to the question of imposing differential
duties on articles because they were articles of luxury, they
then involved themselves in the some folly and evil as if
they were not articles of luxury. Why should they give to
one class the power of obtaining a higher price or profit
than another ? It signified not a rush what the article
was, or whether it was one of luxury or not, It was a
bad and unjust principle as between English workers. The
true principle was to give to the purchaser perfectly free
and unrestricted choice of all articles of industry; but by
differential duties to secure a particular price to a particular
class of goods, as compared with another class of goods, be-
cause they were articles of luxury, they generally failed to
accomplish the object they had in view, did positiue mis-
chief to the very people they intended to benefit, and did
that which was decidedly wrong, because they created a mo-
nopoly in favour of a particular class. But the hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets said there was the case of handi-
crafts and of needlewomen. Now, to talk of protection to
needlewomen by protective duties was just as rational as to
talk of protecting the peasants of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire
by the corn laws. (Hear, hear.) The condition of our
needlewomen was a melancholy fact in the state of English
society ; but with respect to foreign labour they had nothing
to fear, for unhappily they were much lower already through
the competition of English labour than they would be if ex-
posed to foreign competition. (Hear, hear.) He confessed
that he should have thought that the hon. gentleman who
represented the Tower Hamlets was well aware by that time
of that fact. He must know that they were entirely beyond
the reach of any legislation. With regard, however, to the
class of people who made artificial flowers and embroidery,
he hoped the case was different. The wages of those em-
ployed in embroidery were not, he trusted, low, and he had
no reason to suppose they would be lower. The hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets said that the abolition of protection
worked in a totally different direction in different cases. He
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not award of that
diversity of experience, and he had yet to learn in what case
within the limits of this country protection had been abolished
without a great benefit resulting. There had been paraded.
before the house the question of corks, and if hon. gentle-
men now revived it he would undertake to show that it
was the most wretched case which had ever been brought
upon the floor of the house. (Hear, hear.) And with re-
gard to the nine other articles, not a single voice had
reached him either from masters or workmen against the pro-
posed abolition of duties. He might remind the committee
that, besides all the general principles which led them to
the conclusion at which they had arrived, they had in N Lew
a great reform of the customs administration and a great
reduction of establishmenta. Even where it appeared, on
fr6it inspection of the tables of revenue, that £lO,OOO or
' £20,000 was realised by one of these articles, that did not
show the real profit which it yielded. They were all arti-
cles of a nature to require very minute investigation, which
entailed a very great deal of delay and expense. For these
reasons he hoped, and felt perfectly convinced, that these
votes would receive the approval of the committee.
Sir J. PAK INGTON explained that he had not objected
to the repeal of these duties on the ground of their being
differential duties, but because, in the present state of the
finances, it was a wanton waste of the resources of the coun-
try to part with upwards of £400,000 of revenue derived
from these articles.
Mr. NEWDEGATE had heard with much pleasure the
able speech of the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets,
which made him think the old Tories were going to be joined
by the Radicals again. (A laugh.) Political economy had
indeed been turned into a car of Juggernaut, and driven
over the people. Everything was sacrificed to a blind de-
termination to abolish import duties, for the sake of the ab-
stract doctrines of a school, or of a few large interests. This
ought not to be.
In answer to a question as to whether any time would be
allowed,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was
proposed that the reduction or abolition of these duties
should take effect immediately, but there was no informa-
tion to lead him to suppose that any injury would be done
to any class by the immediate operation of the change.
The next article in the list was that of artificial flowers.
Sir W. Joliffe, Mr. Steuart, and Lord J. Manrkers reite-
rated the same objections which had before been taken to
the sacrifice of revenue by the repeal of those differential
duties, which would not make the articles any cheaper.
Mr. CRAWFORD could not admit that taking off the
duty would have no beneficial effect besides reducing the
price to the consumer, If articles at this sort, displaying
French *taste and skill in design, were allowed to come in,
it would be the best possible thing for those people in this
country who were engaged in the manufacture of these
commodities ; for they would learn more taste and skill in
competing with the French manufacturers.
Mr. VANSITTART wished to know whether the whole
course of this legislation was for the protection of our own
people or of the foreigner.
Lord W. GRAHAM asked whether there was any in-
spection of things imported into this country ; for, if he was
rightly informed, things had been imported into this coun-
try which would greatly shock the modesty of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer.
Th 3 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that there was an inspection to prevent the admission of
the articles the noble lord referred to.
in answer to a HoN. MEMBER, who asked a question
with regard to linen yarns,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
believed that the duty on linen yarns in France was for-
merly from 10 to 20 per cent. We had no specific conven-
tion on the subject of any one article of manufacture; but
he understood it was the intention of the French Govern-
ment to follow the course which was taken in England, and
place the duty on half manufactured goods in subordinate
relation to fully manufactured goods. He therefore in-
ferred that as the duties on linen would be reduced to be-
tween 25 and 30 per cent., for the safety of the linen manu-
facture of France, the duty on linen yarns would be reduced
in proportion ; and consequently, without being able to give
a pledge on the subject, his expectation certainly was that
the duties on linen yarn would be reduced to as low a point
as that at which they stood before 1842.
The item wus then agreed to.
On the item of opera glasses,
Mr. VANSITTART asked if the Berlin opera glasses
were to be admitted to the same privilege as those of
France
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
would be no distinction.
The item was agreed to.
On the item of silk,
Sir J. PAXTON said the interest of the silk manufacture
was so large that he trusted the committee would give him
their attention for a little time while he brought the subject
as clearly as he could before them. He believed that there
were about 30 towns and villages employed in the manufac-
ture of silk, but Coventry, Macclesfield, Derby, Spitalfields,
and Manchester were the chief seats of the manufacture.
From all these places, he believed, except Manchester, there
had been petitions to that house against taking off the duty
on silk; but from Manchester his hon. friend the member
for Birmingham had presented a petition for the remission
of the duty. Now, on look'ng over the duties on silk, he
found that none had been levied on the kind manufactured
in Manchester. Last year the duty on silk amounted to
£387,000, and £166,000 of this was levied on articles simi-
lar to those manufactured by his constituents at Coventry;
and, therefore, he thought they had a right to be heard on
this question. The silk manufacturers at Coventry had been
for the last month in a depressed condition. As soon as the
announcement of the treaty was made the Mayor of Coven-
try and a deputation of the inhabitants waited on him (Sir
J. Paxton) and his colleague, and the mayor said he could
hardly be answerable for the safety of his city if the duty
were taken off. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Paxton) did not
altogether concur in the dismal forebodings of the mayor;
but still the eh see would undoubtedly strike a great blow
at the prosperity of the town he represented. Nor must the
committee suppose that it was a place which had not pro-
gressed with the times. In 1821 the population of Coven-
try was 21,000; in 1859 it was 42,000. In 1840 there were
in it 18,000 persons employed in the silk trade ; in 1860
there were 28,000. In 1840 there were 4,732 small hand-
looms ; at the present time there were only 500, but of large
steam looms there were 6,550; and while in the former
year the production of silk ribbons was 795,000 yards, it
was now no less than 2,300,000 yards per annum.
(Hear, hear.) The tax on silk had never been considered
a burdensome one; and even the Liverpool Financial
Reform Association, in whose steps the Chancellor of the
Exchequer seemed to be treading, had declared that, so
long as customs duties were levied at all, the duty on
silk ought to be retained. The tax was 16 per cent. ; and
the trade of Coventry would have been content to surrender
half of it at once, and the other half in soy en or eight years,
by which time they might be prepared to meet the shock ;
but, as it was, they considered that their industry had been
bartered away for a French treaty, under which they got
no equivalent. (Hear, hear.) He (Sir J. Paxton) believed
that he was as good a free-trader as any man in the house,
and his constituents were also free-traders. (Derisive
cheers.) They were free-traders, and they were willing to
give up the Irotective duty they enjoyed provided that their
own productions were admitted into France on equal terms.
(Hear, hear.) He begged to move the following amend-
ment :—" That it is inexpedient to reduce the duties on silk
manufactures without making provision forthe simultaneous
admission of English manufactured silk and ribbons into
France on equal terms." (Cheers.)
Mr. MASSEY said the hon. baronet had not moved his
amendment in precisely the terms of his n. otice ; but though
he had now omitted all specific notice of the treaty, which
the committee were not considering, the motion had clearly
a substantial reference to the engagements of that treaty.
It did not therefore appear to him to be one that he could
filly report to the house, and he should therefore decline to
accept it.
au-
fam Mr. AYRTON suggested the following addition to the
original motion, in lien of the amendment:
"being mn
ct es of, or imported directly from, anycountry which
permits the free importation of the silk manufactures of the
United Kinealoin." (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. I' AXTON eagerly accepted this suggestion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE wished to know if the resolution as
now put was in order.
Mr. MASSEY—Yes; certainly.
Mr. S. BOOTH hoped the right hon, gentleman would
not give way to the appeal now made to him. The people of
Coventry were very good free. traders some 14 or 15 years ago
but now they were desirous of having that indgl4pw, e 4.1
tended to them which they refused tq others under similar
circumstances. He trusted that all these remnants of pre•
tection would he given up, The remission of the duty on

silk was one of the most important in the treaty. It was
one from which a great many people would derive consider-
able benefit, and it was one of the last upon which the right
hon. gentleman should give way. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the hon. gentleman who
spoke last spoke as a Conservative. He (Mr. Newdegate)
was practically an older Conservative than the hon. gentle-
man, and be should advise him, if he intended to stand well
before the country, not to encourage an internecine war
between the various interests of the country. He himself
had cast aside the friendship of eminent statesmen, but he
did so on no narrow grounds. He did so because he believed
it to be unwise for this country to be dependent on foreigners
for its supply of food. He deprecated the principle of now
turning round upon other interests because they had sup-
ported the abolitiou of protection to agriculture. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to silk, Mr.Pittretained prohibition in
its favour. Was Mr. Pitt an ignorant and benighted states-
man ? Mr. Huskisson retained a duty of 33 per cent. ; and
Sir R. Peel retained a duty of 15 and 10 per cent. These
statesmen were of opinion that such an amount of protection
was necessary to counterbalance the natural advantages pos-
sessed by France with regard to silk. This duty was one
most easily levied, and it was one with regard to which the
right hon. gentleman, who had a deficiency of £5,000,000
to make up, would complain of as an ignorant impatience of
taxation. The remission of duties which had taken place
formerly were accompanied by great distress. Mr. Hus-
kisson's measure was passed in 1826, and in 1831 Mr.
Brocklehurst stated before a committee that the silk weavers
were ina poor, ragged, and miserable condition. In Coventry
£40,000 had to be distributed amongst the poor people in
addition to the peers rate after that measure had taken
effect, and in Nuneaton two-thirds of the people were out
of work. Let it not be said, then, that these free trade
measures had not produced distress Let him remind the
hon. member for Birmingham that last year, in reply to
a communication from certain working men, he stated that
so much was this country mixed up with the miserable com-
plications of foreign affairs, that he was not surprised at the
wish of the people to emigrate. Now, he would ask that
hon. member and that house, was not this treaty a severe
taste to our people of the misery of our being mixed up with
foreign complications ? (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. A. TURNER observed that the hon. member for
Coventry (Sir J. Paxton) had stated that all thti silk trade
were unanimous against that part of the treaty which re-
lated to silk, with one exception—Manchester. He (Mr.
Turner) was proud to say it was so. (Hear, hear.) It
might be said that this treaty or budget was such a Man-
chester treaty or budget that the people of Manchester were
bound to support it in all its particulars. He was glad to
say that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had ex-
pressed a unanimous opinion in favour of this budget.
(Hear, hear.) He held in his hand a memorial on the same
subject, dated November, 1852, which had been presented
to the right hon, gentleman the member for Buckingham-
shire from the silk trade of Manchester. The memorial set
forth that their trade was in a depressed condition, that the
workpeople were not fully employed, and that that branch
of manufacture was almost stationary. They went on to
say this was owing chiefly to the limited nature of the fo-
reign demand for their goods, and they were of opinion that
was attributable to the high protective duty, owing to which
they could not compete with the foreign manufacturer, and
that threw the manufacture almost entirely into the hands
of the French and Swiss. Now he (Mr. Turner) was of
opinion that if the Manchester manufacturers of silk, cot-
ton, or any other branch could not maintain their position
against competition with foreign nations, it was time for
theta to turn their attention to some other branch of busi-
ness, and he firmly believed that instead of their being in-
jured by competition, they would be stimulated, as they had
always been by competition, to renewed exertions in trade.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir E. GROGAN, as a representative of a city which car-
ried on a rather extensive trade in silk, would give his sup-
port to the motion of the hon. member for Coventry.
Mr. BRIGHT would not long take up the time of the
house. The hon. gentleman the member for Warwickshire
laid very heavy charges at their door—that they had no
principle of justice and no feeling of benevolence towards a
portion of our people; that, indeed, was but the very least
of what he said during a long speech. Another conclusion
his mind seemed to have arrived at was, that he (Mr. Bright)
and others could influence the legislature of France. Well,
he must say he found it quite hard enough to do his duty
towards his constituents in his own country. As for the
amendment, it in effect was, that we were not to take any-
thing free from France or from any other country, unless
France or that other country took something, or every-
thing, or anthing from us. Suppose we were to apply that
principle to corn, what then ? As regarded France, now
there was a sliding scale in the importation of corn. They
had no sliding scale here, but if the hon. gentleman carried
his resolution he would be quite in order, and it would be a
consistent proposition to propose another resolution that we
were •to have no more cattle or corn from France unless
France consented to have corn and cattle from us. (Hear.)
He believed the people of Coventry were labouring under a
great delusion in thinking that (to use a favourite protec-
tionist term) they should be "inundated" with French
silks. Nor could he see why the French people might not
suffer themselves to be led away by a similar fallacy that
they would be inundated with the silks of Coventry. He
could not see that the same articles would be exported from
France to England and from England to France without
being a profit to the manufacturers in both countries. The
Coventry manufacturers bought their silks as cheaply as
the French manufacturers bought theirs, the latter also in
many cases buying in China and in Italy. Well, in what
other element of cost was there such a difference ? It could
not be said we were not superior to France in power of ma-
chinery. A phantom haunted many of late regarding the
sending of our coals to France, Well, at any rate, we had
our coals for our manufactures on the spot, and so consi-
de"ably cheaper. In cotton and in all other manufactures
the machinery producing power was cheaper than in
any other country. Well, another element in the cost of
production was the wages of labour ; but here too any one
conversant with the condition of France of late years must
know that the wages of labour there as well as here were
on the increase. (Hear.) As to the respective abilities of
the French and English workmen, he had never spoken to
any gentleman able to form a judgment on the subject who
was not of opinion that an English workman in any depart-
ment of mere labour, not design, was superior to a French
workman. (Hear.) As to design and skill, there was no ap-
preciable difference between the two countries. There were
many trades in this country which were furnished with
French designs by Frenchmen residing in England, and
indeed a man might easily bring from France the best and
newest designs, were he so inclined, at little or no cost, in
his carpet-bag or portmanteau. His hen. friend the mem-
ber for Coventry spoke of the increase in prosperity and
population of Coventry during late years. Well, but did
not this show the great enterprise, industry, skill, and capi-
tal of her manufacturers, and their vast command of machi-
nery power—all tending to establish what no one could
doubt—their complete success. He ventured to say that if
his hon. friend came here in ten years to come, as he (Mr.
Bright) hoped his hon. friend would, he would admit that
the progress of the trade in Coventry was even greater in
the interval. Protection not only made arts and manufac-
tures wither and decay, but it also seemed to enfeeble the
mind and reasoning powers of those who were subject to its
influence. (Laughter.) In its advocates there was an utter
want of logic, an absence of faith, and a giving way to ter-
ror—of which even children ought to be ashamed. (Hear,
hear.) His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had challenged any member to point out a single class
of operatives or capitalists which had been deteriorated
during the last ten years by the changes which bad taken
place in our legislation ; and, indeed, it must be surmised
that the few who still upheld such principles practically
every day of their lives condemned them. He was glad to
hear a member for an agricultural county (Mr. Sclater,
Booth) say that the principles which had been applied to ag •
riculture might be applied to manufactures. He (Mr.
(Bright) thought the argument irresistible. Events had
shown how false the prediction of the working of those prin-
ciples had been in the case of the land, and that they had
been not pernicious, but eminently beneficial. Therefore
he hoped the right hon. member for Coventry would take
courage, and when he went down to his constituency tell
them that he had great reason to think those dangers had
been much over-stated, and he trusted that in future meet-
ings nis hon. friend would have the satisfaction of telling
them that though he had made this final and hopeless
effort, he must then congratulate them that they had en-
tered upon the field of enterprise opened to them in the
proposal now laid before the house.
Mr. AYRTON rose amid loud cries of ,g Divide." His
hon. friend the member for Birmingham had never been
able to induce the working people of England to adopt any
of his dogmata, nor the people of the United States his no-
tions of free trade. There was no people in the world who
had ever adopted those philosophic dogmata of free trade,
which, though striking in the abstract, were not applicable
to the condition of all classes under all circumstances.t
France, above all other nrtions, stood by protectitohnreull(ci
prohibition, and yet its silk trade had increased
school.
head.
this
se vi amb
al e.
talkedw thin
not
shortot
logic, p r io
but
absoluteof years . n
oTnhs
een
se ne:rManchesteryegnreetoahnt
t
The application of abstract
tion__ on the
circumstance would lead in stohmeeoreYasuneshdteroreetvh4.m
ginable hardships. There was na
production of silk. It was said while silk goods
such
hat
couldwere imneptortbeed
sent
mt
there. France
Butht ethesamgoeodskiinmdpoortfed
from
France were manufactured of the best kinds of French silk,
and were used by the wealthy, who did not complain of the
duty. But the commoner sorts of silk, made of China silk,
were manufactured as cheaply here. (Hear, hear.) He
asked what, if all the silk manufactories were sthueyt up to-
morrow, would become of the people ? Why h
go into Lancashire and obtain employment in the cotton
trade. Well, who would profit by the transaction? (Ironical
Hear, hear's.") Why the manufacturers of thenorth. He
should not wish to see one interest sacrificed for another,
and therefore should support the motion of his hon. friend.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, said he was
anxious before the committee went to a division to say a
tfieown
.w
It
words
hadon
beenthe important
asserted
thatsu subject jtehcet
presentunder their
propositioncon sid considera-
tion.
freeeeeratsneths
meats which
esrmkeecloeaomidsfeehtmt,
owebhconuoamd:
ndGt recommended
aodetbstwyneetetepoei the notice of the committee under the
hrsnonhetnmherdi
that
enteredsu:lllv Governments
fihontaot that
ert
thbseeiet
nwtvaoepket
political
England
enns
avgtlhhl
engage
the merits
migd
ate
ahgr
nieetdys
inthtahtestmatoesmt
eenxtpwliacist
emnaenwnherietho
iln,rfaonrince.
was thetrheeNvecorivme of the fact. (Hear, hear.) The proposition
to which he invited hon. members' to assent was made on
no wont. rreenedeendt toth
years,e m
andas beingcalculated
mitsonoywnwinithelhites—le;aslarteioe
n ha
itself to prove highly beneficial to the coutry. If, iherefore,
the proposal was one which in itself was good and sound,
no sufficient reason, he should contend, for rejecting it was
to be fonnd in theitetrateetcateistryichnubeemdy;stance that it was made through
weretll e mes eo dut
lehu let
etonof
mba ma(
:eft tpenra
prepared
ofahr
eosadvrh.t)ioc hNa
dnonwti
te„ rhi
leabenefits
befor
brought forward by 'the hon. member for Coventry with
great moderation, when the peculiarity of his position was
taken into account; but it was one to which, nevertheless,
the Government did not deem it consistent with their dutyk
to accede. The committee was probably aware that as re-
garded the great article of ribbons theduty levied in France
was lower than that whichwe levied on French silks. It was
a duty amounting to 7 per cent.—or somewhat at the rate
of 3s. per lb.—on the value of the goods, wbo
shich we imposed, while nominally 15 per cen
t. the dutys in
point of fact considerably more upon the silks which we
imported. The whole question had, however, bran argued
upon the broadest grournls in the course of the discussion,
both by the hon. member for North Warwickshire and
the honourable member for the Tower Hamlets, who had
taken the committee back one or two generations
into the past-(cheers)—and who had put forward views and
opinions which, if they were hood for anything went to the
very root of the course of legislationb which we had been
pursuing for the last 18 years. (Hear, hear.) It alight,
indeed, after the speech which they had just heard, be very
fairly said that the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets
was a Protectionist—(hear, heat)—nav; something more
than a Protectionist, for he seemed to be an advocate of the
principle st setting up State ws rehouses such as those which
he had pointed out were established in Lyons, in which by
the providence of Government a supply of the raw material
was provided for the manufacturer, (Hear, hear.) The
original tape of the debates on free trade had, in fact, been
regiyed the speech of the hon. gentleman, by whom the