List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Beaufort
Newcastle

Montrose

Exeter

Boston
Southampton
Bolton

Redesdale

Colchester

MARQUESS.

Brougham

Ashburton

EARLS.

Shrewsbury
Huntingdon

Winchilsea

EARLS.

would not consent to make any alteration | certainly feel it my duty to take the sense in the details of the schedules of this Bill, of the House on this Motion. as to the duties upon silk, but that your On Question, House divided; Contents Lordships would persevere in passing the Present 43; Proxies 31: Total 74. NonBill as it now stands. If your Lordships Contents-Present 42; Proxies 36: Total should consent to hear counsel in Commit- 78. Majority against the Motion 4. tee 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 Richmond 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 What I beg particularly they object to. 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.

Airlie
Selkirk
Orkney

Oxford

Dartmouth

Stanhope

Pomfret
Warwick

Mansfield
Carnarvon
Malmesbury
Egmont

Lucan
Nelson

Charleville
Orford
Lonsdale
Eldon
Ranfurly

VISCOUNTS.

Strangford
Gage
Doneraile
Lake
Combermere

Bangor
your Stanley
Hastings
Clinton

The DUKE of RICHMOND said: 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 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

Moray

Seafield

Ferrers

Tankerville

Aylesford
Macclesfield

Mayo

Longford
Glengall
Yarborough
Gainsborough

VISCOUNTS.

Hereford

Arbuthnot

De Vesci
O'Neill
Sidmouth
Exmouth
Canterbury

BISHOP.

St. Asaph

BISHOP.

Reay

LORDS.

Beaumont

Saltoun

Sondes

LORDS.

Willoughby De Broke
Dynevor

Bagot

Grantley
Clonbrock

Alvanley
Gifford

De Saumarez

LORD BROUGHAM expressed 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

The DUKE of BUCCLEUCH stated, 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.

by counsel, who, they said, could give ex- | honour as a Peer, whether he was in his planations to their Lordships which no place at the time and heard the question person could give without being profes-put? sionally 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 over

ruled 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 GLENGALL protested 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 LANSDOWNE said, 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 GLENGALL then put the question to the Duke of Buccleuch-on his

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 the rules observed in your Lordships' recollect; but I know that according to all House with respect to Peers being present House, though I was not in my seat at the at debates, I was actually within the moment. I heard the question distinctly put from the Woolsack; and I was standwho has just been alluded to, though I ing in the House with my noble relative

the House.
was present some time before he entered

The EARL of GLENGALL disclaimed

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 CHANCELLOR thought 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 GLENGALL would now put the same question to the Earl of Home, and ask him, upon his honour, whether he

was in the House, and heard the question put?

The EARL of HOME had 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 REDESDALE confirmed 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 WICKLOW said, 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.

The DUKE of RICHMOND was 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 EARL GREY entirely agreed with the which they do not mean to attend, you noble Earl, that they could hardly adopt a shall not hear the statements which you more judicious course than to abolish the desire, in order to form your judgment on use of proxies; and if the noble Earl the question to be submitted to you. My would make such a proposition, he could Lords, I cannot conceive a stronger case, ensure him of his hearty support. But especially when you recollect that the obwhile proxies existed, he thought parties ject is not to decide either for or against were entitled to use them. His noble and the petitioners; but simply, shall the petilearned Friend had called this a judicial tioners be allowed to state the case in a question. Why he might as well have manner which they think most conducive called it a geographical question, or a geo-to their interests. But I do not rise to logical question, or a grammatical question-for it had no more resemblance to a judicial question than any other which came before their Lordships.

LORD BROUGHAM explained that he did not call it a judicial but a quasi judicial question.

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 Com

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 protec tion to the domestic industry of this country; and I am much mistaken if many years elapse before we have the manufac turing 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

mittee, 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 cathedra, 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-object that the principle of protection is 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

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