objected to the production of this account, us involving a great many difficulties; the Motion was couched in much too general terms—the precise nature of the documents required ought to be specified.

wished to explain why the return relative to intestates had not been made. He had inquired into the matter, and found that to make up such an account as the hon. Member had moved for, and the House had ordered, would compel the Solicitor of the Treasury to suspend all other business in his office for six months. He wished to forewarn the House of the great expense also which the return would cause. He had no objection whatever to produce it; but he should wish that the House should first of all be in possession of an estimate of the probable expense of making out the return. If it chose to order the return after such an estimate was laid before it, of course it was in the power of the House to do so; but he wished that the House should, in the first instance, know the expense.

would undertake to say, that the whole expense would not be 50l. The right hon. Gentleman had shown him a return for one year, and he was sure that similar returns for every year might be prepared for 40s. each. The amount of some estates which went in this way into the hands of the Crown was immense: and he had been told only a few days ago of one estate of upwards of 100,000l. which thus went into the possession of the Crown. This was a source of public revenue, which was quite unexplored, and an account of which ought to be before the House. If there was a difficulty of making out the returns, from their magnitude, that was an additional reason why the House of Commons should inquire into the matter. The Solicitor of the Treasury was very well paid—he attended to a great variety of business, and ought to have time to furnish such an account. If the business of his office were conducted properly, it would not, he was sure, take one clerk three days to make out the return.

said, it was the duty of the Solicitor of the Treasury to lay an annual account before the Treasury, and there could therefore be no difficulty in making the return, unless indeed the Solicitors had rendered no account to the Treasury, in which case the return ought to be immediately and imperatively called for. He would recommend an abstract, and he was sure that it might be prepared for a few shillings.

had not refused the production of the paper. His observation was, that before the Motion was agreed to, it would be proper that they should be acquainted with the probable expense to which it would lead. If the hon. Gentleman would move for the accounts for the last seven years, which would probably just as well answer his purpose, they would be prepared much more easily and at considerably less expense.

would wish to know whether the accounts of the Solicitor to the Treasury were not annually rendered to the Treasury?

could not take upon himself to say, that during the last thirty years—the period embraced by the motion—such accounts as those sought for had been annually rendered to the Treasury; but this he knew, from the manner in which the department of the Solicitor to the Treasury was conducted, that the accounts of that office were as regularly rendered as they possibly could be to the Treasury.

again suggested, that, under such circumstances, an abstract of those accounts might, without much difficulty be procured.

said, that if the question went to a vote, he should support the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury.

was ready to accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and to limit his Motion to the last seven years.

said, that he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to a breach of one of its most important privileges. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members that on Thursday last, previous to his moving for an address to his Majesty to appoint a day of general fast, he took occasion to enforce the standing order of that House for the exclusion of strangers. On the succeeding morning, there appeared in several of the newspapers, a report of the proceedings that had taken place in that House during such exclusion of strangers from the gallery. Under these circumstances, he felt it is duty to bring such a matter under the notice of the House. He did so, because he thought it incumbent on the House to assert and maintain one of its most important privileges—that of the exclusion of strangers from its debates whenever there should appear sufficient reason to it for doing so—a privilege which would be utterly without value if it were to be in the power of any hon. Member to report their proceedings while that standing order was enforced. He did so, because this standing order was one of those high and invaluable privileges which they had received from their predecessors, and which they were in duty bound to preserve and hand down unimpaired and inviolate for the use and service of their successors. If, by their negligence and carelessness in the non-enforcement of their undisturbed rights, they were to allow this privilege to be thus openly, grossly and directly invaded, and thereby suffered to fall into utter and entire disuse, though they themselves might not reap the inconvenience that would thence arise, their successors, no doubt would, and the true blame must in that case attach to those upon whose shoulders at present rested the duty of preserving that privilege entire and unimpaired. They had no right to say, that they would treat with disregard the breach of that privilege, because, in a given instance, they might not clearly see the use of enforcing it. He trusted to be able, in a few words, to demonstrate to the House the utility of enforcing its standing order in this particular instance; and, with that view, begged to call the attention of hon. Members to the circumstances under which this breach of privilege had occurred. It was the undoubted privilege of that House to exclude strangers during its proceedings: and under such circumstances, the publication of its debates was a direct and wilful contravention of that privilege, flung in the face of the House, who had evidently excluded strangers for the purpose of keeping its debates secret from the public. Probably that statement, and his having called the attention of hon. Members to the circumstance that they, as the guardians of the rights and privileges of the House, were in duty bound to maintain them, constituted in themselves sufficient grounds for the Motion which he was about to submit to the House. He begged leave, however, to observe, that the individual who should choose, when the standing order was enforced against the admission of strangers, to publish the debates of that House, without either the intervention of those usual channels of conveyance whereby a certain degree of accuracy was ensured in the transmission of their debates to the public, or without any other means of guarding against their errors, must feel that in thus contravening the orders of that House, he was taking a course that would lead to much misrepresentation, and he must feel, that being debarred from those channels of information upon which a dependence could be placed, he ought to be held responsible for those blunders and inaccuracies which might go forth to the public in such a publication. In the report which in this instance had been given of the speech which he had had the honour of then addressing to the House, there was so much of what he had said, that it evidently must have been furnished by an individual who heard that speech, and who was present at the debate; yet, at the same time, he had no hesitation in saying that no plain intelligent man could possibly read that report without seeing that the design with which it had been drawn up was to throw the speech which he had made into complete and utter ridicule. He charged that individual, whoever he was, that made the report, with direct and deliberate falsehood. The direct and deliberate falsehoods that were to be found in that report he should state to the House; and he further charged that report with the general intention of throwing ridicule on the whole of his speech. He should now lay before the House the gross misrepresentations which that report exhibited of the sentiments that had fallen from him (Mr. Perceval) on the occasion in question. In the commencement of that report, he was made to assign as his reason for enforcing the standing order against the presence of strangers during the debate, "that he would not allow the public to know the blasphemies that might be spoken in answer to this speech—that the blasphemers, if any in this House, might not be able to give publicity to their blasphemies." Now, there was just so much of what he did really say in that part of the report, as to show that it was given by a person who was present on the occasion, but it contained in it, at the same time, nothing of the true animus and spirit of the observations that he then made use of. What he really did say with regard to the point, at the time, was, that it would ill become him, after the attention, both patient and respectful, with which he had been listened to on a previous occasion, when bringing forward a similar motion, to impute to any hon. Member in that House an intention to treat such a subject in a blasphemous or irreligious manner; but he added, that there were individuals out of that House who, as on the previous occasion, would try to make his speech the subject of blasphemous animadversion, and some of his near friends and relatives had objected to his bringing forward the Motion for that reason. He had said, that he had replied to them, "that without at all yielding to the force of such an objection, he had at once at hand the means of obviating it—that he had the power, as a Member of that House, of excluding strangers from the gallery during the debate—of thus taking away the possibility of any paper publishing it, and, in that way, of preventing that blasphemy which they dreaded on the subject." That was what he really had said, whereas this report made him talk of the blasphemy that might be spoken by the hon. Members in that House in reply to this speech. He should state to the House another instance of the gross misrepresentation which characterized this report, in proof of the expediency of this Motion, and also as tending to show, that when strangers were excluded, if any individual should have the power of attempting to give in full what then passed, they would be exposed to the greatest possible misrepresentation. In another part of this report he was represented as having said, "that he was sincere, and that he was arguing these truths in his usual way, when he is under an influence." No individual who read that phrase could for a moment doubt that the intention of the person who published what he said in such a shape, was to throw ridicule on his speech. What he said on that occasion simply was, "that upon any subject, when he entertained strong feelings, he might be afraid that his speech would partake of the warmth of feeling by which he was influenced, but that he was not in the present instance carried away by warmth or passion—that he but rarely trespassed on the House, and that he had been only induced to do so on this occasion by a strong sense of duty." There was another passage from this report of his speech which, he would undertake to say, no man who heard that speech, or who at all knew him (Mr. Perceval), could have put down and deliberately published, without knowing well that it was a falsehood. He was made to say, "Let the kings and priests be expelled, and all such mummery be averted, unless you will listen to my voice for a fast and humiliation." He would assert, that a grosser perversion could not possibly have been committed by an intelligent man of the sentiments that fell from another, than that passage exhibited, and that it was altogether an entire falsification of what had been said by him (Mr. Perceval) on that occasion. He thought that he only had discharged his duty to himself and to the House in bringing this matter under its notice—to himself in freeing himself from the falsifications which that report contained of his sentiments; and towards the House, in calling its attention to the due enforcement of one of its standing rules, so that hereafter it would not be in the power of any individual when strangers were excluded to publish their discussions, thus exposing hon. Members to the risk of having their sentiments grossly falsified and misrepresented. He should conclude by moving that the printer of the paper which he now held in his hand, The Times, should be called to the Bar of that House. He begged to observe, that the report of which he complained appeared under the regular head, and in the usual parliamentary report in two papers—the Morning Chronicle and The Times; while in another paper—the Morning Herald—it was put less ostentatiously at the end of the parliamentary report, and with a paragraph stating that it did not come from their usual sources. He thought it, however, better to select a single paper, with a view to try the privilege of that House, and for that purpose he had selected The Times. He believed that before he made his Motion, the first step to be taken was to hand the clerk a copy of the paper, and have it read at the table.

seconded the Motion.

said, that there could be no doubt, that by the rules of that House, the publication of its debates was in itself a breach of the privileges of that House. He did not understand distinctly, from what had fallen from the hon. Member, whether he meant to complain of every species of reporting; for, as the hon. Member must be aware, it undoubtedly did so happen that every kind of reporting of their debates was in contravention of the privileges of that House. He apprehended, however, that the observations of the hon. Member on this occasion, did not apply to reporting generally, but that he intended to complain of the particular instance of the report of his own speech. Now, unless the hon. Member meant to complain of reporting generally, his observations must apply to the reporting that had taken place in this particular instance, and then the question arose, how far that was his object, and, secondly, who was the individual meant on this occasion. He (Mr. Hume) had no hesitation in saying that, on the occasion alluded to, when he found that he could not raise the question concerning the exclusion of strangers, that he did then exercise that power which belonged to him as a Member of that House—that he did write down every thing as accurately as he could—that the same was done by other individuals, with respect to the debate which then occurred; and that, having done so, when the debate was over, he had given what he had written to a gentleman out of the House, to do what he pleased with it. It so happened that on that occasion he did not come in the way of the reporter for The Times, nor did he see any one connected with The Times, but if he had met the reporter of that journal, it was as probable that he should have given the report in question to him as to any other individual. He had not had time to read the whole of that report after it was published, but he had read the commencement of it, and his impression was, that it was correct. He had not given the quotations at length, as they appeared in the Morning Chronicle, but he apprehended the Scripture quotations were filled up from the parts of verses he had given. Further, as to the general report itself, he had heard other hon. Members say, that it was a tolerably correct account of what the hon. Member had said. He had made the report of the debate on this occasion, because it was attempted to exclude the public from hearing or knowing what took place in that House through the usual channels of intelligence, and he should do so again whenever a similar attempt was made. If any one was guilty of crime in this instance, he was the criminal, though he believed he had only exercised a right which belonged to him as a Member of that House. He could assure the hon. Member, that he had no other desire but to do him justice and to tell the truth. In doing what he had done, he had not committed a greater breach of the privileges of that House than was every day committed by the publication of their debates, which, he repeated, was in direct contravention of a standing order of that House—an order that he had over and over again endeavoured to get repealed. Again he would repeat, in reply to the complaint of the hon. Member as to the inaccuracy of his (Mr. Hume's) report of his speech, that he had attempted to give as faithful an acconnt of it as he possibly could; that it was not possible for him, unpractised as he was in such a matter, to follow an hon. Member in full through a speech that occupied nearly an hour and a half; that whenever a similar occasion arose in which those who could thus follow, hon. Members were excluded from the gallery, in order to prevent the publication of their debates, he would endeavour to supply a report of them—and perhaps more practice would make him perform it better than on this occasion, and that in that way he should do what in him lay to prevent the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member who should hereafter attempt it, from excluding the public from a knowledge of the proceedings that took place in that House. He had often before dwelt upon the inconvenience of leaving their debates to be published in an unauthorised form, and he had urged the propriety of having reporters duly appointed for reporting the debates of that House, and who would be responsible for the correctness of the reports which they furnished. While, however, he was for the adoption of such a measure as that, he was as much alive as any hon. Member in that House to the extraordinary and admirable accuracy with which the debates of that House were at present given to the public, whenever an occasion arose in which it was necessary to give them at any length. He had frequently, on such occasions, looked through column after column of the reports of their debates without being able to detect a single solitary error in them. A facility of making such reports was not possessed by him; but he could assure the hon. Member, that if he had not the power, he had at least the will, and that so far from having any intention to impart a false gloss to his statements, or to misrepresent his opinions, he had every desire to do him all the justice he possibly could. If there were any mistake in the report, the hon. Member might thank himself, for if he had not excluded strangers, his speech would, no doubt, have been accurately reported.

I never did it in my life.

I am arguing no new doctrine; but I am bound to express the sentiments I entertain, and, most honestly believing that the hon. Member has acted from a misconception of the privileges of this House, to tell him that, every step he avows himself to have taken, has been in him a breach of the privileges of this House. The accuracy of the statement has nothing to do with the question. The privilege of the House is, that what passes in the debates of the House shall not be, circulated amongst the public. It is not necessary for me to point out to the House, or to the hon. Member, how extremely futile such a rule would be, if every Member could, of his own free will, put it aside; bull I will tell the hon. Member, that either he or I am completely ignorant of the privileges of this House—he, in supposing himself justified in giving to the public any speech made in the House, or I in presuming such conduct to be a gross breach of privilege.

said, that every hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the privileges of the House, must concur in what had fallen from the Chair. It undoubtedly was a breach of privilege to publish the debates, and whether that publication took place through the means of any hon. Member, or of any other person, made no difference in the matter. He (Lord Althorp) was rather surprised that his hon. friend had made the observations which he did. If his hon. friend would refer to any hon. Gentleman acquainted with the privileges of Parliament, he would find that it was clearly and distinctly a breach of those privileges to publish any of their debates. He submitted to the hon. Gentleman who had made the Motion, that having fully attained his object in clearing himself from any misrepresentation which might have gone abroad of his sentiments, he should not persevere, further on this occasion. He did not think that any further step which the hon. Gentleman could take would have the effect of more completely asserting the privileges of that House; and he did not suppose that the hon. Member in question contemplated any thing like strictly enforcing the privileges of that House against the publication of the debates. They had only to look back to the history of the last half century, to see how the practical enforcement of those privileges had been departed from. About half a century ago, it was considered a breach of privilege to publish the names of any Members who spoke in that House; but, nevertheless, fictitious names were resorted to, and the debates were given at length. He was sure that in the state of the public mind at present, it would be a vain attempt on the part of any man to enforce generally the privileges of that House against the publication of the debates. He now came to the question immediately before them. The printer of a newspaper obviously would do his utmost to procure all the information he could, and communicate it to the public, and in this case the editor of the paper in question had evidently made use of the best means in his power to obtain information. He stated that circumstance, in order to shew that the breach of privilege in this instance, as far as the newspaper was concerned, was not a more aggravated one than that which was committed every day in the usual way. The case was so clear a breach of privilege, that if the hon. Member persevered in his Motion, he must vote for it; but he did hope the hon. Member would see that such a course was not desirable, and that he would accordingly abandon his Motion.

thought, that the breach of privilege had not been committed by the editor of The Times, but by the hon. member for Middlesex. But then that breach of privilege was one which they were all liable to commit, if the privilege was enforced strictly according to its letter; for any Member who communicated verbally to a stranger what had occurred in that House, was guilty of a breach of privilege—he was guilty of a publication, if he spoke of their proceedings at his club, or in any other place. Now, the hon. member for Middlesex had done this, and the person who got the statement from him, might, as it seemed to him (Colonel Davies), publish it, without any breach of the privileges of that House. If the editor of The Times was guilty, others were equally so; and every editor of every paper in which the report appeared, ought to be called before the House. What would the hon. Gentleman gain by persevering in his Motion? Several attempts of the same sort had been made before now, and the House always got the worst of it. The attempt to insist on the privilege was contrary to the sense of the public; aye, and to the sense of every Member of that House; and he hoped, that as the hon. Gentleman had done what he considered to be his duty, in bringing this matter before the House, he would be satisfied and would proceed no further.

said, that it was for the credit of the House that the hon. Member brought forward his Motion, and upon that ground the House ought to support it. He thought it was a tenable Motion, both as regarded his character and the character of the House. He should be ashamed of himself if he did not offer his humble support in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member. Coupled with that Motion a question had arisen about the exercise of this privilege of excluding strangers. The noble Lord had referred to the middle of the last century, and had said that up to that time the names of the speakers were not given, but he would tell the noble Lord that that power was exercised in the middle of the preceding century. It was exercised at the time that Lord Strafford was brought to the bar.

said, that the least doubt could not exist in the mind of any hon. Member of the House whether or not the Speaker had correctly laid down the law of the House. Independent of such high authority, it was not to be denied that there was no more distinct breach of privilege than the publication of anything that occurred in the House. But could there be anything so ludicrous as the variance between the privilege and the practice? The privilege was, that it was criminal to publish anything whatsoever that took place within the walls—the practice was to publish as much as possible; and he remembered to have heard more than one hon. Member complain that the privilege was not sufficiently broken in his own case, by the reporters having given him too short a speech in the newspapers. The privilege, however, as it existed, was one without the breach of which the people of England would not be contented, if they were now content to the extent it went; and it certainly was one which, if rigidly enforced, there was not a village or hamlet in the country that would not strongly protest against its continuance. Even at the moment he was speaking, it was possible there might be strangers listening to their debate, which, of course, ought not to be the case; these strangers might, too, give to the public what occurred; and he then asked, could there be a greater absurdity than the variance between the privilege and practice? If, then, there was any occasion upon which this privilege might be waved, or one on which it might be, with a degree of impunity, broken, it was when religious dissertations were the subject of debate. The Members of that House differed, very many of them widely, in their religious tenets; and if religious discussions were once permitted, there was no reason why—and it would be almost impossible to prevent that consequence—the House should not at length be engaged in religious controversy. Nobody could doubt the religious sincerity of the hon. Member who had brought forward the present Motion, at least he (Mr. O'Connell) could not, favoured as he had been by hearing his dissertation the other night; but if the same Motion had been brought forward by any other man not equally well known, would it not have sounded like, and would not the world have believed it to be, fanaticism? He must, in any case, protest against any hon. Member assuming to be the bearer of a special mission to dictate ordinances of a religious kind, and he denied the authority of any individual for such a purpose. If the House were to allow theological discussions, was there any knowing where it would end, and might not some person rise up, on some other occasion, and perhaps astound them with a dissertation in the unknown tongue? He was only one Member of the House, but his humble opinion was, that if they once allowed the barrier between political and theological discussion to be broken down, there could no stop be put to the results that must inevitably follow; and he was therefore of opinion, that if ever an occasion had occurred where a breach of privilege was allowable, the present was that case; for if it was permitted that other subjects should go forth through the newspapers, why should not the country be informed on this head? The hon. Gentleman who made the Motion was decidedly free from anything like a tincture of vindictiveness, nor was he suspected by any one of a motive of that kind in having brought forward his Motion. This was a great benefit; for a religious zeal and vindictive spirit were, unfortunately, too often allied. Let the hon. Gentleman then consider this, and not to give a handle to any one to accuse him of a vindictive spirit; and the best mode by which he could avoid that, was by withdrawing his Motion. Besides, if the object were good, the execution was the only thing complained of. The accuracy of the report, as far as it went, was fair. It certainly did not give all the hon. Gentleman had said during the hour and a half which the House had had the pleasure of hearing him. He trusted, however, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, and if he did not, he (Mr. O'Connell) would move the previous question.

had heard with regret what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kerry with respect to the privileges of that House. He (Lord Milton) knew that the publication of the debates of the House were so ordinary a thing, and afforded such gratification to the curiosity of the people as to their proceedings, and the feelings of the people as to the conduct of their Representatives, that he should be sorry that it were taken away. However, the privilege of the House was not of that slight importance that the hon. member for Kerry would wish to represent it. It was essential, for instance, that the Representatives of the people should speak their sentiments free from fear or from influence, and he would ask, whether the object of freedom of debate was not attained more effectually while they retained within themselves the power of excluding strangers, than if that privilege were to be put an end to? He would ask, whether there might not be occasions when, not for the purposes of individuals, but to secure "ne quid detriments respublica capiat," it would be as well that they should have the power of keeping their debates within themselves? He remembered, when a very young Member of the House, it having once been proposed that the sense of the House should be taken as to the order for the withdrawal of strangers; it had not succeeded, nor could he agree to any such principle, as he thought the mere notice of the presence of strangers should be enough to exclude them. But, whatever discussion might arise upon this point, he should say, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, that it was at least important while the order was in force, that there should not be any reporter within the walls of the House. They might have occasion to exclude strangers for the benefit of the people themselves. It might be desirable, upon particular occasions, that what was said in that House should not find its way into palaces, any more than into hamlets, and it was as much against the Crown as against the people, that he desired to retain the privilege, and to enforce it, if necessary, for the preservation of the liberties of the people. He could contemplate a case in which it might be necessary for the independence of Parliament, that none should betray to the executive what took place within those walls. He did not say this as applying to his noble friends who composed the Government at present, but he urged it as a general principle in favour of their maintaining the privilege, which he was ready to allow ought to sit loosely upon them. Above all they must not permit an individual among themselves to communicate to others what they desired should not be made known.

begged to ask, whether, after what had occurred, it was necessary to take any further steps in order to have sufficient proof of the breach of privilege by the printer?

said, there were no further steps necessary on this occasion, because the breach of privilege did not rest on the correctness or incorrectness of the report. The breach of privilege consisted in the publication of what had taken place in the House. The paper was in their hands, and being laid upon the Table, was a sufficient proof of the breach of the privilege of the House.

said, that the simple question was, whether the hon. member for Tiverton had made out a sufficient ground for the House, on that occasion, to exercise its privilege? If he did not misunderstand the hon. Gentleman, he did no so much complain of the publication of his speech, as that it was not a correct report of what he said. Now, he confessed that it seemed rather an extraordinary thing for the hon. Member to complain of the incorrectness of the report of his speech, when that incorrectness arose out of the course which he had taken to exclude the usual persons through whom the proceedings of the House were made known to the public. Under such circumstances, he should vote against the proposition which the hon. Member had submitted to the House. He did not think that sufficient ground had been made out to warrant it.

had not been present at the commencement of the debate, or he should before have declared, that he could not allow his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, to bear the whole responsibility which belonged to him as a reporter. He had no hesitation in avowing that he also had taken notes of what had passed, and had endeavoured all in his power to give an accurate account of it. He had also given that account to a reporter. He was well aware that the giving any account of what had passed in that House was a breach of privilege, but he never was aware, and had still to learn, that notes taken by a Member was more exclusively a breach of privilege than those notes taken and published every day. As to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Milton) relative to Members not placing themselves in opposition to the rules of the House, he should only observe, that no Member, as the orders now stood, had an opportunity of gainsaying any one amongst them who should take notice that there were strangers present. As to the discretion of Members, and whether they exercised that discretion with prudence, that must depend upon the peculiar circumstances of every individual case. His opinion was, that in what he and his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had done in taking these notes, they had exercised a sound discretion; for he was convinced it was desirable that the people should know what occurred upon that as well as upon every other occasion in the House. However, it was yet to be decided, that, for a Member to take notes, and send them to a reporter, was a more particular breach of privilege than the ordinary communica- tion of these debates that occurred every day.

thought, that the Motion of the hon. member for Tiverton, to have the printer of the publication brought up to the Bar of the House, was rendered unnecessary by the avowals which had been made by the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport. After what had been stated by those hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member must feel that his Motion was totally unnecessary. Let the House then consider what the statement of the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport amounted to. The hon. member for Middlesex had informed the House not only that he considered it no Breach of privilege to furnish the publications of the day with reports of what massed in the House when strangers were excluded, but that he would persevere in that course if the hon. member for Tiverton should again move for their exclusion. The hon. member for Bridport added to that, that there was not, in his opinion, any greater irregularity in the course which he had adopted than in the usual manner in which the debates were publish- ed. He (Lord John Russell) confessed that there appeared to him to be a very great difference. The publication of their debates in the ordinary manner was, he thought, useful and advantageous to the public, and therefore, although a breach of the privileges of the House, was, on most occasions, very properly connived at; but, at the same time, he considered it advantageous that they should have the power of excluding strangers, and of being able to reserve the debates of the House for the ears of its Members only. The hon. member for Tiverton had thought proper to exercise that privilege, and in doing so, had stated his reasons properly and clearly. It was, therefore, of importance, so long as the privilege was preserved, and so long as the House allowed publication by connivance generally, that in particular cases, like that under discussion, this privilege should not be infringed upon; and he trusted that his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, would see, that it was not proper for him again to pursue such a course as that he had followed on this occasion. Upon this understanding he trusted that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion would not feel it necessary to go any further, or call the printer and others to the Bar, who were no more than the instruments of some Members of the House.

spoke under the disadvantage of not having heard the earlier part of the debate; but he believed that the motion, and the only motion, before the House was, that, the printer of the publication alluded to should be called to the Bar. He felt great difficulty, and he was sure his hon. friend must also feel great difficulty, in assenting to that proposition, because, since the motion was made, two hon. Members had admitted, that they were the authors of the report. Under any circumstances, to visit the printer, who was only a subordinate agent in giving publicity to a report, with the censure of the House, was painful; but it would be infinitely more so after the principal agents had avowed themselves. Those agents were Members of the House, who, whether right or wrong, declared that they had acted under the impression that they were justified in what they did. That being the case, with what justice could the House proceed against the printer, who had been misled by two of the Members of the body whose privileges he had invaded? He trusted, then, that the hon. Member for Tiverton would withdraw his motion. The fact of the report being correct, or not, or of the hon. Members having given it as perfect as in their power, had nothing to do with the breach of privilege, and he trusted that the hon. member for Middlesex would bow to the decision of the Chair. With respect to the hon. member for Bridport, who had said that he was not aware of his committing a breach of privilege—

not any greater breach than was committed on ordinary occasions.

it was difficult to compare degrees of breaches of privilege, but it was impossible to deny, that this was a breach committed under aggravated circumstances, and having been committed by an hon. Member of the House, it was the more objectionable. Hon. Gentlemen could reserve to themselves the right of moving for an alteration of the law, but he doubted not but that they would yield obedience to the law as it stood.

could not consent to call the printer of the newspaper to the Bar when two hon. Members had admitted that they were the authors of the breach of privilege complained of. The publication of any speech, when strangers were excluded, was a gross breach of privilege, but it became ten times worse when it was committed by Members of the House. The hon. Members were no doubt in error, and he trusted they would admit they were.

had no reason to complain of the alleged breach of privilege. He had never been better reported in his life. There was no misrepresentation of what he had said. Had the privilege of the House been put in force every night during the debates on the Reform question, he believed that the public would have been much better informed with respect to what had been said on that subject than they could possibly be by reading what was published by the reporters in the gallery. He agreed with those who thought that the hon. member for Tiverton ought to withdraw his Motion, after the open avowal of the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport.

had previously risen to avow himself the agent through whom the public had been informed of what had passed, for the purpose of leaving it to the hon. Gentleman whether it would be right to proceed against the printer, for whom he (Mr. Hume) was ready to be answerable. The Speaker having laid down the law on the subject, it would be his duty, on another occasion, to take the sense of the House as to how that law was to be limited; for, as it appeared to stand at present, a Member was prevented from giving a note of any single thing that passed in the House, and, therefore, it would be a very difficult thing to avoid a breach of privilege. If any one wished that the proceedings of the House should be secret, he was not the man; but, of course, he felt bound in common with every other Member, after the Speaker had stated what the rules of the House were, to accommodate himself to those rules. When he had violated (since it now seemed that it was a violation) the rules of the House, it had not by any means been intentional on his part, for he certainly at that time was not aware that to publish the notes of a speech made within those walls was more criminal in a Member of Parliament than in a reporter.

after what has fallen from you, Sir, as to the law upon the subject, I shall not venture to deny, that this is a breach of privilege; but what I meant to say when I formerly addressed the House was, that I imagined that it was as much within the right of a Member of Parliament as of any other person, to put forth the debates that take place in this House. If, indeed, the Member who moved for the exclusion of strangers had taken the sense of the House upon that question, instead of having it granted to him as a matter of course, I should then say that it would be culpable in a Member to give publicity to what occurred, in defiance of the resolution of the House. But when it is in the power of any individual Member, on his own opinion, to take from the other party the opportunity of recording his sentiments before the face of the public, I do not think that, in principle, it is more culpable for a Member to give a report of the proceedings than for any other person. I beg further to say, that I should not have done it, had it not been told me in the lobby by a very old Member of the House, that one of the very best speeches he had ever heard, had been reported by a Member under similar circumstances; and indeed, I remember, that strangers being excluded when Earl Moira made his famous speech during Mr. Pitt's Administration, I read a report of that speech, notes of it no doubt having been furnished by some of the Members of this House. If, however, it is to be understood that to furnish notes under similar circumstances is to be considered as a breach of honour, I shall at once feel bound to subscribe to the rule.

the hon. Member for Bridport has admitted, that if I had made a motion for clearing the gallery, and had succeeded in carrying that motion, it would then have been a breach of privilege to publish what took place. But I beg to remind the hon. Gentleman, that the House, at the commencement of every Session, makes a standing order for the exclusion of strangers in such terms that it is in the power of any individual Member to enforce it. Any violation, therefore, of the secrecy of debate, under such circumstances, is as much against the orders of the House, as if the question had been carried by a distinct motion on each particular occasion that the standing order is enforced. After the avowal that has this evening been made by the two hon. Gentlemen, I feel bound to consent not to press any motion for calling the printer to the Bar. I feel very grateful to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, for the clearness with which they have laid down the value of this privilege of the House, as a security for the freedom of debate in this country, and the consequent necessity that there is, that that privilege should be preserved inviolate. With respect to what has fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kerry, who has expressed himself in his well-known tongue of sneer and irony, I shall not say a word. I, however, beg to say, that I claim no peculiar mission to speak to the House on any subject, but I do claim the common right of a Member of this House to speak on any subject that has reference to matters of common interest to the general well-being of this country. Another hon. Member has said, that the whole object of this motion was for the purpose of clearing my own character, inasmuch as it was attacked by the report that has appeared of my speech. If I know myself, I will not disavow that I feel gratified at having this opportunity of exposing the gross perversions of that report; but if it had not come within the defence of one of the most valuable privileges of this House, I would not have gone two feet out of my way for the sake of the whole report. Under the circumstances which have come before the House since I made my Motion, I am willing to withdraw it. It might have been a question whether the conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex, and the hon. member for Bridport, ought not to have been noticed by the House; but, after the declaration of those hon. Gentlemen, that they are ready to bow to the decisions laid down by the Chair, and after the warning that this evening's discussion will afford to the printers and editors of newspapers, I feel that the object which I had in view will be as fully answered by letting the subject here drop, as by prosecuting it still further, especially as the hon. member for Middlesex has announced his intention of bringing the whole question before the House on a future occasion. I shall, however, feel it to be my duty, if a similar violation of the orders of this House should again take place, to call upon it to proceed against all parties who, after this notice, shall act in opposition to the feeling that has this evening been expressed.

feared that the fate of the unfortunate men was already decided; but if it were possible for the Ministers to relent, he would put it to them, whether blood enough had not already been spilt, and whether it was necessary that more lives should be forfeited? The poor deluded creatures mentioned in the petition had been worked to desperation by the atrocious instigation of the public Press; and he would ask, whether such unfortunate men as these ought to be made to expiate their crimes on the gallows, when those who egged them on were suffered to escape with impunity?

said, the manner in which the petition had been presented to the House by the hon. Baronet, made it unnecessary for him to say much on the subject. The hon. Baronet had correctly stated that the petition had come too late before the House, but he might also have stated that the petition at any time would have assumed an inconvenient shape, for, strictly speaking, it had reference to a question in which that House could not properly interfere; and on this point he lamented that the opinion of the Attorney General, which, no doubt, would have had great weight with his constituents at Nottingham, had not been attended to at the time. It was adviseable that the different parties in the State should keep themselves within their own limits, and that there should be a distinct line drawn between the Crown, as the executive Government, and the legislative authority of the House of Commons. It was not on this point, however, that he wished to engage the time of the House; but as the petition was to be printed, and would, therefore, go forth to the country, he could not help expressing his regret that it contained allegations both untrue and incorrect, so that it was impossible for him (having been made acquainted with its contents through the courtesy of the hon. Baronet) to pass it over without a few observations. The petition alleged, that such short notice had been given of the Special Commission, that it had been impossible for the prisoners to prepare their defence, and that threats and privations had been resorted to by the Magistrates, to extort confessions. He would venture to state, from his knowledge of the Gentlemen who were thus referred to, that these statements were absolutely unfounded and incorrect. He might, however, have had some difficulty in making this assertion if the petition had not contained other allegations, to the effect, that in the court of justice, and in the very presence of the Judges, facilities had been refused to those who acted as intermediates between the prisoners and their legal advisers. The petition containing two such charges as these, he could not but regret that it had ever been presented; as its only effect could be to prevent that returning good will which, he trusted, would take place between the labouring classes and those who were set over them in authority in the country. He begged to state, that in what he had said, he was not merely pronouncing his own opinion; for the learned Gentleman (Mr. Hill) who had acted as counsel to most of the prisoners, had also been impressed with a feeling so different from that expressed in the petition, that at the close of the trials he had addressed the Court, and said, that in justice to the prisoners, who had been discharged, he begged to say how grateful he felt, on their part, for the leniency of those who had conducted the prosecution on the part of the Crown, and that he trusted that the example would not be lost on them, or on the population of the town of Nottingham, terms which he (Mr. Denison) thought were quite sufficient to contradict the allegations which were put forth in the petition.

merely rose on this melancholy occasion to state, what he did not doubt the House would be glad to hear, which was, that the Crown had thought proper to reprieve two of the unfortunate persons who had been ordered for execution at Nottingham—a fact which he trusted the House would receive in proof of the Government having given the fullest investigation to the whole bearings of the case.

felt himself called on to deny that any improper means had been resorted to by the Magistrates, or by those employed under them, either to extort confession, or to prevent the prisoners from preparing for trial. He had heard, however, that the Magistrates had been remiss in their duty, and that if proper steps had been taken, the mischief might have been avoided. He hoped that these occurrences would tend to attract the notice of the public to the severity of the criminal code, and the necessity of inflicting capital punishments on murderers alone.

had not heard these charges before. At all events, if the gallant officer was inclined to attach credit to them, it was his duty to bring them forward, and prove them.

had heard the charges only as reports.

said, he had no doubt that there were such reports abroad—a feeling of that kind, at all events, prevailed in the district.

presented a Petition from Ludlow against the importation of Foreign Gloves. He could not support the petition generally, as it prayed for the re-enactment, of the prohibitory laws. But he was bound to assert, that the petitioners were most respectable persons, and he had no doubt they felt the distresses they complained of. Perhaps, however, it might be adviseable to afford the petitioners what they most ardently desired, and that was an opportunity of establishing their case before a Committee. If the Motion were for a Committee to inquire and report to the House, he should feel bound to oppose it, but if such Committee was limited to the receiving of evidence, and fully inquiring into the facts of the case, he should be inclined to give his assent to the proposition, because, under the present difficulties of trade, he thought it was of extreme importance that all the grievances complained of should be properly weighed, and that there should appear on the part of the House a disposition to attend to the case in that shape which the petitioners thought most advantageous to their own interests. With respect to the prohibitory laws themselves, if it could be shewn that there was room for any improvement by their being partially or wholly re-enacted, or that disadvantageous changes had taken place in the trade of the country since their repeal, he would be ready to join with those who thought they ought to retrace their steps. It was for these reasons that he was prepared to lend his assistance to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.

would not say one word in reply to the right hon. Gentleman; he only rose to request the gallant officer (Colonel Davies) would postpone his Motion, in order that the House, with the least possible delay, might go into the Committee on the Reform Bill. He sincerely hoped that the friends of Reform would not press any motion that was not of the utmost urgency, otherwise the House could not go on with the Bill.

regretted he could not comply with the request of the noble Lord. The question was one of great importance to a numerous population, who would be greatly dissatisfied if the House should refuse to spend a few hours in considering their distressed situation. He should endeavour, however, to be very short.

said, the noble Lord had only to agree to the Committee, and then there would be no cause for delaying the question of Reform.

said, the best introduction which he could offer to the consideration of the House, on rising to state the unfortunate circumstances in which the glove trade was placed, and the means of altering them, was the petition which he held in his hand, which was signed by 2,000 of the clergy gentry and, other inhabitants of the first respectability of the city of Worcester, none of whom were in any way connected with the glove trade, a fact he could confidently assert, as the greatest care had been taken to exclude all those from signing it who might be supposed to have a personal interest or bias in the question. With respect to the glove trade itself, he could affirm that there was no branch of the manufactures of the country in a greater state of depression, and he was sure no branch had a stronger claim to the attention of Government. The gloves made in this country were no ephemeral production; these were connected with no speculative or delusive doctrines, and there was nothing in their manufacture of a temporary and transitory nature. In better days this manufacture had furnished employment to many thousand persons. He trusted the House would also bear in mind that in this manufacture there was nothing unwholesome, no confinement of children, to the destruction of their health, and the deterioration of their morals, no congregation of large numbers in extensive factories, by which they became liable to be influenced by the seductive arts of factious demagogues, whose trade was, to excite ignorant persons to outrage and sedition. So far from any of these evil effects being connected with the glove trade, the very contrary was the fact, and he would affirm, as a consequence, that the city of Worcester had for a series of years been one of the most orderly in the kingdom. From the peculiar manner in which the manufacturing of gloves was carried on, the wives and children of men employed in agriculture, or other out-of-door occupations, were allowed to take work home to their own cottages to complete, and when executed to return it, to their employers. With all these favourable circumstances to recommend the trade to public consideration, it was now in such a wretched and depressed state that those who were accustomed to procure ample employment with moderate remuneration in the manufacture of gloves, were at the present moment nearly starving from want of work. But upon this point, he would not have recourse to declamation, but put the House in possession of a series of facts which he apprehended would be found fully sufficient to fill up the picture, the melancholy outlines of which he had drawn. In order that the real state of the trade might be fully ascertained, a committee of individuals had been formed in Worcester, for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of the workmen employed in this manufacture: and the result of that investigation, on which every reliance might be placed, he had now the honour of introducing to the House. It. appeared from the report of that Committee, that there were 120 masters in Worcester, each of whom formerly manufactured, on an average, about 100 dozen pair of gloves in the week; but at the present moment not more than one-third of that quantity was made; that, in consequence wages to the amount of 3000l. a-week had been taken out of circulation; that the Poor-rates, as compared with the Poor-rates in 1825, were as 4s. 6d. to 2s. 6d.; that the weekly payments at the House of Industry, which in 1825 were 14l. are now upwards of 40l.; that in a tour of inspection through the town, undertaken by persons perfectly competent to the task, in which the condition of 1,000 workmen was taken indiscriminately, it, was ascertained that 113 were in full employment, 465 employed partially (many of whom did not make half-a-crown a-week) and 422 altogether destitute of all employment whatever. He regretted to be obliged to add, that those persons had no less than 1748 children dependent on them for support. He need not inform the House, that as the glove-manufacturers had no machinery connected with their trade, they would at all times find it a matter of great difficulty to compete with the foreign article, even if the protecting duty which the law pretended to impose were fully enforced. The law said, that that duty should be thirty per cent.: and the late Mr. Huskisson, in his speech on the silk trade, stated, that the repeal of the prohibitory laws was proposed for the purpose of promoting a reciprocal feeling on the part of other governments, and with a view to put an end to smuggling. The result, promised by that right hon. Gentleman, he was sorry to say, had not been realized. When foreign gloves were altogether contraband and prohibited, they were liable to seizure wherever they were found; but now, if a smuggler was taken with a bale of them on his shoulder only a 100 yards from the beach they could not be seized; and, there- fore, it was evident, that so long as smuggling existed at all, more gloves were admitted than the law tolerated or allowed. An instance, he was sorry say, had lately occurred with respect to smuggled silk, on which a penalty of 25,000l. was levied; and how then could it be said that other smuggling was not going on, of which Government had no knowledge? Who, likewise, had not read of the subterraneous passage discovered at Margate, which extended a considerable distance into the solid rock, and had been constructed for the purposes of smuggling? If those engaged in such undertakings could afford expenses like these, was it not clear that their profits must be in proportion? They had formerly heard described in glowing terms what France would do in imitation of the example England was setting. He fully remembered the effect which Mr. Huskisson's speech on that subject made in the House, and on no one did that speech make a greater impression than on himself; certainly he had hoped from its statements to see the nations of the Continent liberal in return for our liberality. But what was the fact? France actually prohibited some of our manufactures, and gloves were among the number. To shew the feeling which actuated the Government of that country, he would mention some facts: In 1825, our imports amounted to 1,835,000l., and our exports to 279,000l.; in 1830, our imports were 2,328,000l., and our exports (exclusive of colonial produce) 486,000l. So much for reciprocity on the part of France. But having shewn, that smuggling had not diminished, and that our exports had not increased, it might perhaps be alleged that, at all events, our revenue had improved under this system. But the very reverse was the case. Under the present system, the duty on foreign skins and on French gloves produced 20,000l., while, under the former system, the duty on the foreign skins produced 63,000l.; so that it fully appeared that smuggling was carried on to a great extent; that there was no reciprocity, and a diminution of the revenue. But he might be told, that there could not be distress in the glove trade, because the number of foreign skins imported had increased. True, they had, but on what account? Because fashions had altered, and the thicker and coarser texture of the British skins were not now fashionable. The glovers, feeling this pressure upon them, naturally asked for a return to the former system. He, however, at present, limited his demand to merely inquiring what means could be devised for their relief; and he thought that if Government allowed a Committee to be appointed, means might be discovered to enforce that protection which the Legislature affected to give. The appointment of a Committee with this object in view, he had reason to know, would afford the glovers material satisfaction. But if it should be discovered by inquiry that nothing short of actual prohibition could save the trade from destruction, however opposed he was to the principle of restriction generally, yet he would infinitely prefer returning to the old system than be a party to consigning thousands to ruin. It was true, that free trade was admirable in theory, and it might even be so in practice, if we had not so long pursued the opposite system that it was next to impossible to extricate ourselves from it. When it was considered what individuals in this country had to pay in the shape of taxes and poor-rates, it was clear that, under any circumstances, it was almost impossible for us to compete with the manufacturers of the Continent. He should not press this matter so warmly on the attention of the House if the protection of this trade would occasion detriment to any other branch of the manufacturers of the country. But such was not the case; he defied any one to shew that there would be a single necessary article of life enhanced in value by affording due protection to the glove trade. The French glove was neither more nor less than a pure article of luxury, and the people of this country would be equally well clothed and fed if there was not such a thing as a French kid glove in existence. He was aware that it was laid down as a general maxim, that all men ought to buy where they can buy cheapest,—which might do very well in a primitive state of society; but he could shew to demonstration that the purchase of cheap French gloves was the dearest bargain England ever had. What with the loss to the revenue, and the increase of the poor-rates, which, taking all the glove districts, might be reckoned at 100l. a-week, the loss to the country amounted to 47,500l. a-year. From the returns, it appeared that the average importation during the last three years had amounted to 87,000 dozen pair of gloves, to which must be added the quantity smuggled, which, taken at half the number regularly imported would give a general total of 130,000 dozen pair. To compensate for the inferior cost of these gloves, there was 47,500l. for the additional amount of poor-rates and expenses consequent upon the new employment of the home producer. The real price of this cheap French article was to the country 7s. a dozen, in addition to the price paid by the purchaser. And what was the advantage for all this loss? Nothing more than that ladies and gentlemen of fashion might wear an article of delicate texture, while thousands of honest industrious people were starving. He was sure that if his fair countrywomen could see the scenes of distress which existed in these distressed districts, they would much rather administer relief than deck themselves in these articles of foreign luxury. But he might be told, that capital must be transferred from channels which were unproductive of profit. Human beings were not mere machines; they had wants and feelings; and a change of this sort was calculated to produce acute suffering to a whole generation—they could not, if they would, become agriculturists or iron-workers in a moment; and even if they could, what branch of the manufacture of this country was in so flourishing a state as to receive and find them employment? All that he asked on the part of these distressed persons was, that the House would allow their case to be investigated; and supposing that the Government could not agree to what the Committee might recommend, what mischief would be done? It would, at least, be gratifying to those individuals to know, that the House had not turned a deaf ear to their complaints. This was not a question like the Currency or the Corn-laws, which would agitate the whole community; on the contrary, its object applied to very limited districts; and alteration, should any take place, would not, in any degree, be felt by the nation at large. In conclusion he begged leave to move, "That a Select. Committee be appointed to inquire into the present distressed state of the glove trade."

seconded the motion.

said, it would be much more agreeable to the Ministers, if they could at once assent to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, than for him to be under the necessity of opposing it; but it was their duty to consider the subject in all its bearings, and ascertain whether the concession to the demand made, might not increase the very distress, the existence of which he did not dispute, and of which the petitioners complained, and thus defeat the object common to both the Government and the petitioner. So far as Government was concerned, he could assure his hon. and gallant friend that he entertained an earnest desire to relieve the distresses of the glove trade; and he would readily proceed in the course pointed out, were he not convinced that so proceeding could have no effect in remedying the evil. That must, he thought, be evident to all those who had heard his hon. and gallant friend's statement, for he had never heard such inconclusive premises as those on which he had built his argument. He did not think that his gallant friend had, in any way, succeeded in connecting the depression and distress of the glove manufacturers with the importation of French gloves. He would endeavour, as shortly as possible, to state the facts of the case to the House, as they really appeared; and he believed he should be able to produce such testimony as would satisfy hon. Members that the distress, which he deplored as deeply as his hon. and gallant friend, was not attributable to the importation of French gloves. He thought he could clearly show what was the cause of the distress. His hon. and gallant friend had maintained with him those principles of reciprocity which had been some time acted upon; but now his hon. and gallant friend thought he had made out a special case which called for a departure from those principles. As his hon. and gallant friend had mentioned the name of Mr. Huskisson in connection with the subject, he also begged leave to illustrate his view of the case by a remark taken from the speeches of that lamented gentleman, who had said, "that he had conversed with many persons connected with trade, for the purpose of gathering their opinions, and that he had universally found, that though they were in favour of free trade, they always made out a special case for excepting their own branch from its operation." His hon. friend was exactly in that situation, being willing to take advantage of the general benefit arising from free trade principles; but, at the same time, unwilling; to make the sacrifice in his own case necessary to bring those principles into operation. His hon. and gallant friend had told the House, that if the duty which the law imposed, could be properly and fully levied, sufficient protection might, perhaps, be afforded to the glove trade of this country; and he had inferred, because there had been smuggling in silk by the house of Messrs. Leaf and Co., that there was also smuggling carried on in French gloves. That was a very illogical conclusion, and, he believed, it was contrary to the fact. He was convinced, that there had not been 100 dozen pair of gloves smuggled into the country. The duty on gloves was small, and the risk so great, that he did not apprehend smuggling was carried on in that article to the extent that his gallant friend imagined; valuable commodities of trifling bulk were the articles chiefly dealt in by smugglers; gloves did not partake of these characteristics, and they were liable to injuries from being secretly run. Another of his hon. and gallant friend's statements was, that, from these causes, employment, had been diminished in this county, and distress increased; but if he could shew to the House, as he proposed to do, that, there had been a large increase in the consumption of the raw material, and an additional number of persons employed in the manufacture, it would follow, that other circumstances than those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member had created the distress which he must admit, did exist. In the calculations he should offer to the House to prove those positions, he should refer to papers on the Table, as well as to other information he had acquired. He had taken the importations of two periods of five years;—viz., from the year 1820 to 1825 inclusive (the prohibition on French gloves having been removed, as the House would be pleased to bear in mind, in 1826), and from the year 1827 to 1831 inclusive. Now, the average number of foreign skins of each year imported in the former period, amounted to 2,632,000, and in the latter period, the number of skins imported amounted to 3679,000, making an increase of 1,047,000. He thought he should be able to show that, those skins were made almost exclusively into gloves, and unless there was some more expeditious mode of labour now different from what formerly existed—unless one man could now do as much work as two effected then, it was obvious there must be an increase of employment, and the distress complained of could not justly be traced to the source to which it was imputed. His hon. and gallant friend had alluded to a change of fashion, but that was not an argument which he could make use of with justice, in trying to shew the causes of the present distress; for the fact of beaver gloves having formerly been worn, and kid gloves being now worn (when it is well known that a gentleman wears out three pair of the latter for one pair of the former), only proved that the consumption, and consequently the employment, must have greatly increased. But in order to put the House in full possession of the whole bearings of the subject, he would state the general result of the actual number of gloves manufactured during the two distinct periods to which he had already adverted. It appeared, then, that the general comsumption of gloves, made from both English and foreign skins, had increased. This was clearly established by the returns on the Table. Between 1820 and 1825, there were, upon an average, 39,5,000 dozen pairs of gloves made from foreign, and 203,000 dozen pairs from English skins every year, making a total of 598,000 dozen pair. But by the average of the five years ending in 1831, it appeared that there had been manufactured from foreign skins 552,000 dozen pair, and from British skins 240,000 dozen pair, per year, the total average being 792,000 pairs. This gave an average of 194,000 pair more in the latter period than the former. From these statements it would appear that, so far from the distress being produced by the removal of the restrictions upon the importation of foreign gloves, there had been an actual increase of employment to the manufacturers of this country, equal to the increase exhibited during the latter five years, as compared with the former. He would not take Worcester as a fair illustration of the state of the glove trade, for other trades were carried on to a considerable extent in that city. Yeovil, however, was differently circumstanced, for it depended altogether upon the glove trade. He had caused inquiries to be made into the state of the manufactories in that place, and their present condition, compared with their former condition, supplied a complete answer to those who complained of the effect of removing prohibition. When the prohibition was first taken off, there were twenty-seven glove manufactories at Yeovil, and now there were no less than forty. The increase of the population in Yeovil had also been more than commensurate with the increase throughout the rest of the country. Since 1821 it had actually increased twenty-seven per cent., while the increase in Somersetshire generally was only thirteen per cent, and while the average increase of England was only sixteen per cent. The ratio of the increase of population was, therefore, clearly greater than the ratio of the increase of work which would of itself account for a great portion of the depressed state of that trade. Besides, if the evil were to be attributed to the removal of the prohibitory duties, how was it that the importation of foreign gloves had not increased within the period specified? It had scarcely increased at all. He found that in the year 1827, the quantity of gloves imported was 865,000 dozen pairs; in the year 1828, 1,189,000 dozen; in 1829, "837,000 dozen; in 1830, 1,066,000 dozen; and last year, 1,188,000 dozen, being about the same quantity as was imported in the year 1828. He was also of opinion, that the manufacturers of this country could not be undersold by those of France to any considerable extent. They both resorted to the same market for the raw material: the French went to Italy for silk, so did the English; the English bought their needles at Birmingham, so did the French; but, probably, in the making up of the finer sorts, the workmanship of the French was neater than ours; and, therefore, the importation of a limited quantity would continue until we could compete with our neighbours in the excellence of the manufacture. Indeed, he understood that the whole of the glove manufacturers agreed, that they could not make some fine work as well as the French; though in making strong gloves they were superior, He saw no reason in this admitted inferiority of our manufacturers as to one article, that they should be allowed to fax the whole community by prohibitory laws; on the contrary, he saw in it a strong reason why such laws ought not, to exist; for he was convinced, that so long as the manufacturers had no competition to dread, they would make little or no improvement. Having shown, he hoped, that the distress did not arise from a diminution of employment, or from an excessive increase in the importation of foreign gloves, he was bound, he thought, to state, according to his view, what was the cause of the distress. It arose, he believed, chiefly, as was well known to those who had attended to the matter, from the excessive importation of the raw material, and the consequent general depression of the price the article. He thought a great portion of the evil might be attributed to the excessive importation of skins which had taken place within the last year. In the year 1830 there had been imported 3,155,000 skins; but in the year 1831, there had been imported no less than 4,240,000, being an increase of one-fourth. The causes of this sudden increase, he would endeavour to explain. At the end of the year 1830, there was apparently a limited quantity of skins in the market, speculations were the consequence, and an immense importation was the ultimate result. Skins were brought from places from whence no skins ever came before—prices which were high in 1830, and even up to February, 1831, fell at once more than half. The article which was worth then 20l., might be had now for 7l. 10s. The manufacturers who had taken large stocks, were obliged to work them up; they were compelled also to force a market, and prices fell; and they must either continue to manufacture at a loss, or cease to manufacture at all, until this superabundant stock could be got rid of. Having these heavy stocks, and being unable to dispose of them, they were obliged to limit their operations, and turn off many of their workmen. This was one cause of the existing distress; and for this, he feared, there was no remedy but time, until the superabundant stock in hand was reduced. There was another cause which ought not to be overlooked, as having a considerable share in producing this temporary depression in the glove trade—viz., the fashion which sprung up last year, and which still existed, of wearing what were called Berlin gloves. In one week, in Leicester, they had turned out as many as 50,000 pairs of those gloves, and there was no doubt that such a great consumption might, for the moment, have affected the sale of articles of a different description; but the necessity of equalizing the supply with the demand, afforded a sufficient reason for the existence of the distress of the glove trade. He wished to ask the hon. Member for Worcester, whether the trade of that place did not differ considerably at the beginning of the respective years 1830 and 1831? No doubt it did when the price of skins altered; and when the supply should become once more proportionate to the demand, he had no doubt that the distress would pass away; but till that was the case, employment must be deficient, and distress felt. He wished also to remark, that the export trade which this country had formerly possessed had decreased, because it was the fashion to patronise other gloves—because the Americans, who used to wear our beaver gloves now used kid gloves; and our export trade was not, in consequence, three-fourths of its former amount. All shewed, however, an increased consumption in this country, because, whatever was not exported had been consumed here. He had hitherto argued solely with reference to the distress complained of by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and endeavoured to shew that it could not be fairly attributed to taking off the prohibition. But he was prepared to argue it on much wider grounds. Much as he should regret any diminution in the manufactures of this country, there must be some limit to prohibition; and having fixed that limit, the House would hardly be prepared to depart from it. The House would never say, "We will protect the manufactures of this country to just such an extent as will be likely to exclude any foreign commodity, and the moment a foreign commodity comes in, we will increase the protecting duty." Hon. Members should make up their minds whether they would or would not have a foreign trade. That such a country as this, which depends for its very existence almost on its foreign trade, should be alarmed at such a case as this, appeared to him quite unnecessary. Exporting in one year articles of the declared value of thirty-seven or thirty-eight millions, it was not for us to become alarmed when an article, the produce of other countries was brought here. Undoubtedly some protection ought to be afforded to our own manufactures, but ought not to extend beyond what is just and reasonable. A protection of thirty per cent was given to our gloves in the year 1826, and the importation then allowed had not, as he had already shewn, diminished our own manufacture. He believed that the present system operated beneficially; but even if it had not satisfied the expectations of its advocates, the House would depart from the principle it had already laid down, and would admit a most injurious system of policy, if—because a case was made out—which had not, however, been done in the present instance—that some manufactures suffered depression in consequence of the partial introduction of foreign manufactures, it were immediately to have recourse to prohibition. What could we ask from other countries—how could we expect any thing but a bad system from them, if we were constantly altering and changing our own mode of proceeding? Throughout Europe it had been said that we could not be in earnest—that we were only admitting articles in respect of which we did not fear the competition of other countries—that we knew our own superiority—and that we did not adopt the system because we were desirous of buying at as cheap a rate as we could, and wished other countries to do the same, but because we were conscious of our own superiority. If we were to give up our system, that would be to acknowledge that we had given up the doctrines of free trade, and we should destroy the well-founded hopes we may now entertain, that a better system will be adopted by other countries. There was in them a better spirit, and a better understanding with this country now than formerly. We did not ask them to take our goods, simply on the ground of their superiority; no, we were able to say, "look at your own restrictive system, and say whether it has not caused you much injury; and think, therefore, whether you had not better change it." That, he believed, they were now about doing. They were aware that they had acted absurdly towards themselves; but if we adopted a different system we must immediately give up all hopes of inducing them to adopt a system different from that of which hon. Gentlemen opposite so often complained. With regard to the Motion the hon. and gallant Gentleman justly admitted that the only result he could obtain by the appointment of a Committee would be, to reconsider the question. The inquiry which the Committee would have to make, would be, whether prohibition should be adopted, or whether the protecting duties should remain. Not conceiving it possible that the House would ever again consent to resort to prohibition, it would pursue a course most injurious in its effects to the persons the gallant Member represents, among others, if it were to consent to this inquiry, because it would induce those individuals to buoy themselves up with a delusive hope, which would prove most injurious to the trade in question. Assuring the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that he looked with much regret upon the distresses of the people, and no one could sympathize with them more strongly than he did, but at the same time considering that instead of good, injurious results would arise from the appointment of a Committee, he must, though with reluctance, give his vote against the motion.

contended, that it was impossible to ascertain in that House the correctness of the multifarious details set forth in such a mass of figures. The only means of arriving at the truth, or coming to a rational conclusion, was by means of a Select Committee. The fact of the distress prevailing in the glove trade had been admitted, and it was the duty of the House to grant inquiry, and endeavour to ascertain whether it was in the power of the Legislature to remedy the evil. The state of the country was miserable in every part, and was generally ascribed to our having a redundant population, compared with our means of employment, and yet the House was told, it was not a legitimate object to protect our own industry from foreign competition; unless the condition of the manufacturing population was improved, dreadful must be the results. The question of the glove trade was not important in itself only, it also involved the important question of the silk trade, and he might say, the principles of free trade itself; if this system of free trade was good, it was manifestly improper to establish it with respect to one article of manufacture and not to extend it to all—to corn, for example. But he doubted if even Ministers would attempt that—and if they did, they would assuredly be defeated by the landed interest, which had such weight in both Houses of Parliament. He denied that the distress was temporary—it had existed since 1826. As to the assertion that the native workman had not as yet received a sufficient stimulus to compete with the foreigner, he asked if it were not a sort of mockery to declare, that a man who was himself starving, and had a family in the same condition, had not received a sufficient sitmulus for exertion? Abstract principles onght not to be allowed to weigh against the distress of a large body of the people. Besides, the claim of the petitioners was not for prohibition, but for inquiry; and this, at least, the House of Commons ought not to deny them. The question to be decided was most important, because, although hon. Gentlemen might consider the glove trade itself of little consequence, yet if they refused inquiry into its state, the arguments which they themselves used in this question might be turned against them hereafter, and the decision of that night would be quoted as a precedent for refusing any applications that might afterwards be made. It might be true, that a change of fashion had partly caused the distress. The glove manufacturers of Worcester did not complain of the prosperity of those at Leicester, but they felt, that, burdened as they were, they ought to be protected against foreign competition. They were not prepared to hear that inquiry was to be refused, because it was possible false hopes might be excited which might end in disappointment; the condition of the country was gradually deteriorating; the poor-rates had increased 10l. per cent throughout the kingdom, and the revenue was falling off in the same proportion, and these effects could be distinctly traced to the free-trade system. But then, said the hon. Gentleman, we only want "time to bring things about, if we again resort to the prohibitory system, how can we expect the continental nations to abandon their restrictions'?" He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had preached such doctrines on the other side of the channel, but the French people were wedded to the old and rational system of protecting native industry. Every act of our cajolery had produced a contrary effect to that which was intended. He would never believe that there was any such change as that the right hon. Gentleman had boasted of, until he saw it displayed in some public act. America followed the example of France in protecting its own trade. All sorts of fictions had been brought forward to conceal the true state of the difficulties under which the whole population was suffering, to such an extent that it was painful to witness the general privation. This state had now continued for the last seven years, and was hourly increasing under the right hon. Gentleman's panacea of free trade; and yet all inquiry was refused. In addition to all other evils, a great stagnation had been consequent upon the agitation of the question of Reform, which had unsettled men's minds and habits, and the speedy arrangement of which was now looked to as calculated to improve the condition of the country. He trusted this would be the case, for he was an ardent friend to the measure; but a long course of vicious legislation would not be removed by one act, however beneficial. We had got into a wrong track, and the sooner we changed our course the better. The free trade, of which the right hon. Gentleman was enamoured, could only lead to the impoverishment of those who were already poor—the enriching of those who were already rich—and a positive separation between both classes. He must conclude by entreating the House to grant the inquiry prayed for.

protested against the right of a Minister of the Crown to come down to the House, and make use of documents which had not been previously placed in the hands of every Member. Those documents might be grossly incorrect, and no opportunity was afforded to the House to detect their errors. It was impossible that they could be detected at the moment, and in that assembly, and even to examine them required the calm consideration of the closet. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the existence of distress, but how did he account for it? The hon. and gallant member for Worcester stated, that only a small portion of the people of Worcester were employed; and what was the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman? The answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the gallant Officer, was inconsistent with itself, and in no wise invalidated the arguments which had been urged for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. It only showed the determination which existed in the right hon. Gentleman's mind to support a particular theory; however absurd and pernicious that theory might be. The facts which had been stated by the gallant Officer were of such a nature, as in his opinion warranted, and indeed called upon, the House to agree to the Motion before it. They were met by statements that the manufacturers had mistaken their own business, and had supplied themselves with larger quantities of raw material than was necessary, and that they and their workpeople were suffering from the consequences of their own speculations. These remarks, however, allowing them their utmost force, were only assertions; and the true way, therefore, to ascertain their worth was, to subject them to the test of a Committee of Inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman had accused his hon. and gallant friend of illogical deductions, but surely nothing could be more illogical than the right hon. Gentleman's own conclusions, when he deduced from the fact of a larger importation of skins, that a greater number of gloves were made. Besides, common sense taught him to suppose that the great abundance of the raw material would only tend to the extension, not curtailment of employment. The argument then of the right hon. Gentleman was most illogical and extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman declared against prohibition, and said, that the House had declared against prohibition, and that other countries would keep up their prohibitions, if we departed from our free, trade system; but was there in all those statements any argument why the distress of the people should not be inquired into, and alleviated? The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was in direct contradiction to all those flourishing symptoms of prosperity he described. The country was not prosperous: and the right hon. Gentleman knew that trade was far from prosperous. If there were any one question which ought to be considered in preference to another—any one subject which ought to take precedence of the boasted Reform of the Constitution, in which Ministers were sedulouslyengaged—it was the dreadful state of distress in which the people were plunged. That had been rapidly increasing under the present system; and he certainly had entertained a ray of hope that the advocates of that system would have come forward, and fairly and candidly avowed that their experiments had not been successful, but had been productive of much distress. He had, he said, hoped for a moment that they would have come forward with the acknowledgment that their system had only added to the calamities which before existed; that even if their principles were correct, they adopted them at an inauspicious moment; and that, therefore, instead of proceeding step by step further into the existing gulf of wretchedness and ruin, they would give up their erroneous opinions, and would protect British trade, and encourage the employment of British capital. In these expectations, however, he had been disappointed: they still clung; to their own opinions, they adhered to the experiment, for making which they had no justification; they still persevered in a system which had no precedent, and no imitators; and which had been rejected as mischievous by every commercial country, in Europe and America. In times like these, such was not a proper course. It should not be supposed that one measure would prove a panacea for every evil. At the hour of peril, when we saw ourselves surrounded on all sides by distress of the most dreadful and heart-rending description—when the stock of the fanner was destroyed in all parts of the country by midnight conflagrations—when the labourers and their wretched families were starving—when insurrection was walking by day, and incendiarism stealing forth by night—his Majesty's Ministers would deceive the House and themselves, if they succeeded in persuading both, that such a state of thing's would be remedied by the measure of Reform, which they spoke of as a panacea, and suffered to usurp the whole legislative functions of the Parliament. He called the attention of the advocates of the free trade system to the statements which were made on its first introduction. It was then proposed as an experiment—nothing more; the House was told—"All we ask, all we desire is, that you will give the system a trial, and wait the result of the experiment." The experiment had been made—the trial had taken place—years had elapsed since—and all men were now competent to judge whether it had been followed by success or failure. When Mr. Huskisson introduced this system, he expressly stated that it was an experiment, and that its success was uncertain; and he was justified in saying that its introduction was accompanied by an implied pledge that it should be altered if it did not succeed. It was known that distress was now universal. The right hon. Gentleman said, that this branch of trade was not more distressed than other branches of trade. When the system of free trade was introduced it was said, that there would be a great increase in the revenue—that it would be in the power of Government to reduce taxation—that money would flow abundantly into the Treasury—and that foreign Powers, seeing its great success, would adopt a similar system. But. America had taken another course, and look at the difference between her situation and the state of England. America adopted a different system, and let those who told the House with triumph to wait till next Session, look how that country had prospered—let them, too, compare the state of England under the government of our prohibiting' ancestors with its situation under an enlightened Aministration. The American President stated, in his speech to the Congress, that in the one year after the adoption of the restrictive system, the revenue of the country amounted to double its expenditure; and he speaks of the flourishing state of the manufactures, the large amount of capital invested in them, and the prosperous condition of the country. Let any man compare this statement with the condition of this country, and say, if he could, that the system of free trade, accompanied, as it, was by deep distress, should continue, after the trial which it had had. The House was told, when it wished to impose a prohibition—"Your prohibition will be met, by prohibition. Foreign governments will not be content with your protecting your own manufactures. If you persevere in this system, you will be excluded from all the ports of Europe." America had not been afraid to protect every branch of her own trade; the United States were not in a worse condition on that account; on the contrary, they were in as favourable a condition as any country on the face of the earth, and had as free access to the ports of other nations. He implored those who advocated these theories to look round on the condition of the country—to observe the great distress among all the productive classes—to see the stagnation in every branch of our trade, and to look with some alarm at the feelings of dissatisfaction now so prevalent among all classes. He would implore hon. Gentlemen to remember, that ruin and distress had been contemporaneous with the adoption of these theories of foreign trade. It was the bounden duty of his Majesty's Ministers to go into the consideration of the particular trade now under discussion, as a part of that system which, unhappily for the interests of this country, had been so popular; and he was convinced that, on investigation, it would appear that its decline, as well as the decline of many other branches of manufacture, had been owing to the adoption of free trade. He would challenge any man to point out any other reason why this country should not be in a state of prosperity. All the national distress was owing to the adoption of a number of absurd schemes and theories—following the advice of certain quacks, who promised to raise the country to the height of prosperity, instead of which, they had occasioned universal ruin and dismay. He would ask his Majesty's Ministers, whether they were ignorant that capital was diminishing in the hands of the manufacturer—that profits were decreasing—that the wages of labour were declining—and that, if effectual measures were not adopted to stop the progress of the evil, the whole character of the people of this country would be changed? Were the productive classes less industrious or less steady than formerly? Were capitalists less speculative, or was there less science and knowledge in the land? No one would be hardy enough to affirm such a proposition. Whence, then, the prevalence of distress in all parts of the country, and among all classes of the community? The House was bound to retrace its steps with respect to our commercial policy. By doing so, it might regain the confidence of the nation, which it had lost by pursuing a course which had been so detrimental. The manufacturing classes were looking with great anxiety to the result of tonight's debate, and he felt satisfied that unless the Motion of the gallant member for Worcester was agreed to, the labouring classes would feel that they had nothing to expect from the House or the Government. It was of the last consequence to secure the confidence and attachment of the people; and that could only be done by ensuring the industrious man an adequate reward for his labour. It was of the utmost consequence that an inquiry into the present state of trade should be gone into without delay, with a view to the adoption of some effectual plan for the relief of general distress. He was in hopes that some hon. Gentleman would have brought the whole question forward, and would have urged the House to devote itself to the investigation of the whole of the circumstances connected with the finances,—the currency—with agriculture, and with commerce, and manufactures, restoring, if possible, the country to the state in which it was before these pernicious theories were adopted. He was in hopes that some hon. Gentleman possessing weight and influence in the House, would have brought the whole question under consideration; but whatever reception the Motion might meet with, he should discharge his duty to the country, and endeavour to show that the new system had been detrimental to all classes. The question before the House, was a part only, and a very small part of the subject, but it was of the greatest importance to the general trade of the country that it should be inquired into; and he should not be acting justly towards the sufferers, or be doing his duty to his country, if he did not support the Motion of the hon. and gallant member for Worcester.

said, it was quite true, as had been stated by the hon. Member who had just sat down, that the profits of capital were low, and the wages of labour still lower; but he denied that the result was to be ascribed to the adoption of the principles of free trade. The hon. Member (Mr. Attwood), seemed to think that the manufactures of America were flourishing, because that country had adopted a restrictive system. In that proposition he could not concur. He believed that the restrictive system was more complete in England than in America [no, no]. At all events the different condition of the two countries was attributable to causes perfectly obvious, and which had no connection with the existence of a restrictive system in America. There were no Cornlaws in America, and the duties which the American government imposed on foreign manufactures were not so high as those imposed by the Government of this country. The chief cause of the vast difference between the two countries, however, was, that in America taxation was light, and land cheap. The causes of distress in this country were, in his opinion, heavy taxes and the Corn-laws, both of which operated in diminishing the profits of industry, and leaving labour without an adequate reward. Free trade had nothing whatever to do with producing distress, except, indeed, to alleviate that produced by the other causes he had assigned, and it was because the country had not free trade that distress was so generally felt. The absence of a free trade in corn raised the price of bread and all provisions. The Legislature of this country had commenced at the wrong end; and, in his opinion, much that had been done must be undone, before these kingdoms could arrive at a prosperous state. If the present system was persisted in, he was satisfied that the effect would be to drive the manufacturing capital out of the country, and greatly to diminish the rentals which the Corn-laws were intended to sustain.

said, there was a time when the abstract arguments of philosophers, delivered in a few consecutive sentences, like those which had fallen from the hon. and gallant member for Ashburton (Colonel Torrens), had much more weight than they had at present. The time, however, was past when such arguments could be listened to by any practical man. He believed he could satisfy the House that the hon. and gallant Member's statements were founded on most erroneous views; but it would really be a waste of time to attempt to refute his arguments. The people of England knew that there was not a free trade, and in that he and the hon. and gallant Member agreed; but the people of England also knew that what was called free trade had been tried, and that it had completely failed. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think that this country was less prosperous than America, because provisions were dear in consequence of the Corn-laws. It was a notorious fact, however, of which he begged to remind the hon. and gallant Member, that provisions were cheap now in this country compared with their price before the conclusion of the war—though they were dear now, as compared with the price in America. It was an undoubted fact, however, that, previous to 1815, provisions were dearer than at present, and that the country then paid nearly 30,000,000l. more in taxes than it now paid; and yet, though corn was dearer, and taxes higher, the country was then in a state of comparative prosperity. The financial operations relating to the currency he had no doubt had produced some effect; but still there was the question—which he wished the lovers of abstract economy to answer,—how it happened that when corn was much dearer, and taxes higher, the country was comparatively prosperous? As to the question more particularly Under consideration—the state of the glove-trade—he confessed he had heard with great surprise that it was not the intention of Government to grant a Committee. The Government had removed the prohibition on the importation of foreign gloves, and imposed a fixed duty. The glove-trade was admitted to have fallen subsequent to that alteration into a state of unparalleled depression and distress. In the petitions presented to the House on this subject, it was alleged that, since the removal of the prohibition, enormous quantities of foreign gloves had been smuggled into the country, and had come into competition, paying none of that duty which was assigned for the protection of the home manufacturer, with him to his ruin. Under such circumstances, was it not fair to give the petitioners an opportunity to prove their case? This House of Commons, it was said, was to remedy the defects of all previous Houses—it was assembled to form a new Constitution for the country—it was an incorrupt and incorruptible House of Commons—and now that it was put on its trial before the country, on a question involving the deepest interest of the working classes, ought it not to prove itself the House of Commons it assumed to be, and was it not its duty to take the petitions of the people into consideration, and not to reject them unheard? To prove itself worthy of the great task it had undertaken, of forming a new Constitution, and remedying the defects of all former Houses of Commons, he contended that they were bound to enter into the inquiry now proposed; and, at all events, it was clearly their duty not to decide against the glove-makers without hearing their evidence. The people, he could assure them, were getting weary of mere promises and protestations. They wanted deeds; not mere words! They looked for a commencement of some of those benefits which had been so long promised them. Examine, therefore, he would say, before you decide; hear, before you determine.

thought, that as the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson), had given notice that it was his intention to bring the question of free trade under discussion by a regular motion, at some future period in the Session, it would be more convenient to discuss it on such a motion, when all the details might be examined into, than upon an isolated question like that of the glove-trade. Taking this view of the subject, he should not think it necessary to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Borough-bridge (Mr. Attwood). It was very true that the manufactures of America were described as being in a very flourishing state in the speech of the President, but he had the authority of a Committee of Congress for saying, that the prosperity of the manufactures of America was independent of causes growing out of the restrictive system which had been adopted in that country. With respect to the question immediately under consideration, it was important to look fairly at the circumstances attending it, in order to decide whether it was at all probable that from the appointment of a Committee any legislative enactments would emanate which might be expected to remedy the evils complained of, and improve the condition of those engaged in this particular trade. If it was not probable that the appointment of a Committee would lead to such results, he believed he was only acting in accordance with the usual practice of the House when he refused to sanction the appointment of such a Committee. The House could not properly appoint a Committee from whose labours it had not been shewn that any advantage or good could be derived, but the mere appointment of which would tend to encourage delusive expectations. As to the statements relative to the quantity of smuggled gloves brought into this country, he believed they were greatly exaggerated. It was well known that a regular rate of insurance was fixed upon silks and other articles smuggled from foreign countries; but no such insurance was effected upon gloves, which proved that smuggling could not be carried on in that trade to any considerable extent. He admitted that the accounts from the Custom-house were not to be taken as conclusive on the quantity of foreign gloves imported, but he was perfectly satisfied that smuggling was not carried on in this trade to such an extent as could seriously injure the home trade. There was nothing therefore in the Revenue-laws to be altered from which any material benefit could be derived by the glove-trade. It was then to be examined whether the depressed state of that trade was owing to the removal of the prohibition, and the consequent importation of foreign gloves. Now he thought there could be little difficulty in coming to a decision on this question when it was remembered that since the change of the law, and the removal of the prohibition, there had been a great increase in the quantity of the raw material imported, which showed that the trade had not failed in consequence of removing the prohibition on the importation of foreign gloves. Without entering further into the arguments, he might be allowed to say, that he agreed entirely with his right hon. friend (Mr. Poulett Thomson) when he stated, in one word, that the distress in the glove-trade was to be ascribed to over-trading. The hon. member for Boroughbridge (Mr. Attwood) argued that it was absurd to say, that the importation of too large a quantity of raw material, by the merchant or manufacturer, had produced distress amongst the workmen. It was not to the importation of the raw material that his right hon. friend ascribed the distress. It was to the fact that the large quantity of raw material imported had been worked up, which in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) mind sufficiently accounted for the former prosperity and present stagnation, and consequent distress of those engaged in the trade. Upon these grounds he considered that no case had been made out for a Committee and such being the opinion of his Majesty's Government, in accordance with the custom of the House, they could not consent to appoint one. The distress in the glove-trade was not proved to have arisen from any legislative enactment. Since the removal of the prohibition there had been an importation of foreign gloves, he admitted, but not in that degree, which could be looked upon as ruinous to the home-trade. His view was, he thought, amply confirmed by the fact, that the importation of foreign gloves was accompanied by an increased importation of the raw material. That great distress existed amongst those engaged in the trade, he was sorry to be obliged to admit; but he did so explicitly, and it was the more necessary he should do so, because it had been charged against him, that on a former occasion he had stated that the glove-trade was in a state of prosperity. At the beginning of last year, when he made that statement, he understood that those engaged in the trade were at full work; and he did not think that his statement then was inconsistent with the admission which he now felt bound to make. He was of opinion, however, that when the large stock in hand was disposed of, the glove manufacture would flourish; and, at all events, he was satisfied that the distress depended on circumstances which no Committee of that House had any power over, and for that reason he should oppose its appointment.

entirely concurred with the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in thinking that it was a mischievous delusion to appoint a Committee to inquire into distress, the causes of which were not under the control of the Legislature, When he (Mr. Baring) came down to the House, he was entirely disposed to concur with his Majesty's Government, that the distress of the glove trade was not a case calling for inquiry before a Committee; but he confessed that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had awakened doubts in his mind on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman's speech suggested that there really was something to inquire into, which he (Mr. Baring) had not expected. His own views on this subject were very decided. He thought that, in the case of mere luxuries, made use of chiefly by the wealthy, we might properly pay something more, in order that the labour of our country should be consumed, rather than that of foreigners. This was the opinion he had always entertained as to the article of gloves, and other manufactures, such as ribands—which were merely luxuries. In the manufacture of this article forty per cent., perhaps, was expended on the raw material, and sixty per cent. on the labour, and it was far better, as he thought, that the consumer should pay four or five per cent more for the encouragement of the home producer. If the persons previously employed in this trade were not able to procure further employment, they would necessarily be thrown on the parish for support, and, therefore, on the strictest principles of political economy, it was better to pay four or five per cent. more to the home manufacturer, and keep him employed. This was the light hi which he viewed this question, but it was a view always lost sight of by Gentlemen who came down to that House with scraps taken out of books of political economy, with which they endeavoured to smother the question. It was stated, that not only the interest of the labourer, but that of the consumer, must be attended to; and to that, as a general proposition, no one could dissent; but the question was, whether it was not consistent with sound policy, and even with the interest of the consumer, that he should pay something more for the article of luxury, in order to keep a large number of the working population in employment, and prevent the necessity of their coming on the parish for subsistence? The only difficulty which arose as to carrying this view of the question into effect, and the only modification which it admitted of was, that if the protection was too large, it brought the smuggler into operation. This was the late Mr. Huskisson's view of the question, who uniformly contended, that if the duty was above thirty per cent it would encourage smuggling, injuring the manufacturer and injuring the revenue. Upon that principle he should have objected to an increase of duty, but when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) told the House that at the present day there was no smuggling in this article, why, then he considered it was worth while to see whether nine or ten per cent more might not be imposed, which perhaps, would be sufficient to protect the home manufacturer from foreign competition, at the same time that it would not operate as an encouragement to the smuggler to engage in extensive speculations. He did not say that an inquiry would lead to this result, but, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it seemed worth considering. Some allusion had been made to America, particularly by the hon. and gallant Member (ColonelTorrens), who was a great authority on all the abstract doctrines of political economy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's observations on this occasion, seemed to him to be a sort of preparation for some motion which the hon. and gallant Member was about to submit hereafter, on the state of the Corn Laws. The hon. and gallant Member seemed desirous to take this opportunity of feeling his way on the Corn Law question by the observations which had fallen from him as to the relative prices of food and bread. No doubt the question of the Corn Laws was one of grave consideration, and one which, whether it was brought forward by the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire, or by the hon. and gallant Member, should have his best attention. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, seemed to think that one of the chief causes of depression in this country was the high price of labour, consequent upon the dearness of food and the amount of taxation. It was a singular circumstance, however—and one of which he was sorry to find it necessary to remind the hon. and gallant Member who was so great a theorist, that of all the civilized, countries in the world America was the country in which the highest price was paid for labour. In the price of labour it was the highest; and as to bread, it was second amongst the civilized nations of the world. On the average, bread was dearer in America than in France, or any other civilized country, except England; and labour was thirty or forty per cent higher in America than in England. Every one knew that it was not the price of corn alone that influenced the price of labour, but that many other things contributed. He was also sorry to be under the necessity of differing from the hon. and gallant Member on another point—he meant the extent of the protection afforded by America to its manufactures. Within a very short period certain manufactures in America had advanced most rapidly, and were now, he believed, in a very flourishing state. He was satisfied, however, that not one shilling of capital would have been invested in the establishment of those manufactures, if it had not been for the system of protection which had been extended to them. It was felt, therefore, that protection was absolutely necessary for an infant manufacture, though it might be possible that in its maturity it could go on without protection. The manufactures of America had ample protection, though that country needed protective laws less, perhaps, than any other country in the world. There was ample room in that country for every body. The people of America might go back to the cultivation of land, even if they took all their manufactures from other countries, and by that pursuit alone they might enjoy abundance and prosperity. In no country in the world, therefore, was the system of protection less applicable; but yet in America it was deemed expedient to abandon the free system, and the result had proved the wisdom of the course adopted. As he was upon this subject, he would inform the noble Lord, that if Government did not look to the tax on raw cotton, there was great danger that America might beat Manchester in some branches of that trade. The tax on raw cotton amounted to fifteen per cent, and it operated as such an encouragement to the American manufacturer, that if it was continued, the principal trade of Lancashire might be endangered. He had been told that the Americans expected very soon to be able to send the coarser articles of cotton manufacture to Manchester, and to undersell the home manufacturer. If the House should come suddenly and precipitately to the adoption of any sweeping measures of change which would affect the price of agricultural produce, those measures would be the means of creating extensive and general mischief, for a time at least, whatever might be their ultimate result. The home markets would be injured to a degree of which hon. Members had no conception, by a sudden transition from one extreme to another. He admitted that if a Committee, after a thorough examination of the subject, should come to the conclusion that the distress which now prevailed was temporary in its nature, and should make a sensible report to that effect, it would be so far beneficial. He understood the feeling of manufacturers, not only in the glove trade, but also in the riband trade, to be, that a duty of forty or fifty per cent was no protection to them—that nothing short of an absolute prohibition could be of service to them. He thought that there could be no such thing as a total prohibition, for the smuggler would prevent it. If he thought that, an additional ten per cent would be productive of satisfaction and advantage, he would support such a proposition.

said, he was obliged to his hon. friend opposite (Mr. Baring) for having overset the gloomy expectations and apprehensions which were entertained by some hon. Members; but in the few words, he proposed to address to the House, he should confine himself to what had been said by the hon. Baronet the member for Okehampton, who contrasted the distress now prevailing with that prosperity which had been felt in the latter years of the war. He thought the hon. Baronet had given too favourable an account of the state of the country at the time of the war. Did the hon. Baronet remember the distresses of 1808, consequent upon the order of Council, when a Committee of the House had set many weeks to inquire into the general state of manufacture. Again a singular inquiry took place in 1812, when the distress, accompanied by outrages, was very extensive. He would also appeal to another test to shew the fallacy of the hon. Baronet's remarks. There were more bankruptcies about the close of the war than there had been at any period since, except during the panic of 1825. The present state of the country was not at all to be compared to its condition at the period of the war, for although, as his hon. friend said, some branches of manufacture were in depressed circumstances, yet there was no ground for saying that the mercantile or manufacturing interests were generally distressed. He might refer to the woollen and cotton trades, in proof of the comparative prosperity which now prevailed in particular branches of trade. He was also obliged to his hon. friend for exposing the impolicy of imposing restrictions upon the importation of raw materials; and when these subjects came forward for more enlarged discussion, he hoped his hon. friend would recollect the opinions he had tonight expressed.

said, that the appointment of a Committee would, in his judgment, tend to excite expectations which could not be realised. The present distress which unfortunately existed in the glove trade arose from temporary circumstances, and it was perhaps at this moment diminishing. He was certainly opposed to the principle of prohibition, which would prevent the growth and improvement of manufacture, and would produce great inconvenience and distress, both to the manufacturing and the agricultural classes. In all branches of industry there must, from the nature of things, be, from time to time, action and reaction. But whenever a season of distress arose in any pursuit, whether it was occasioned by changes of fashion, by some accidental stagnation, or by whatever other cause, there were always persons ready to attribute it to the operation of the free trade principle. There was one view of the case however, that had not been noticed; he alluded to the improvement all manufactures underwent from competition. The silk trade was one great proof of this, and he had little doubt but that the stimulus required to keep pace with our neighbours would induce the glove-makers so to improve their manufacture as to prevent them in a short period from fearing foreign rivalry.

said, he did not mean, at that late hour, to go into all the details upon which some hon. Gentlemen had entered. He merely wished to call the attention of the House to the question brought before it by his hon. and gallant friend below him. He could himself bear testimony to the distress which prevailed. Of that distress, unfortunately, there could be no question. But that was not now the subject for the consideration of the House. The mere question was, whether or not the distress was occasioned by the importation of French gloves? Upon this point he differed from the petitioners, and also from some of the opinions of his hon. and gallant friend, for he thought that the distress, not being caused by the admission of French gloves, could not be remedied by any change which the Legislature might make in the law on that subject. He had stated, on a former occasion, that the French and the English manufacturer purchased their raw materials at the same market, and for the same price. In France the price of labour, in that branch, instead of being less, was, he believed, somewhat more than in this country. Therefore, in this respect, the manufacturers of the two countries were placed in nearly equal circumstances, and it was impossible for the French manufacturer to undersell the English maker, after paying the duty of 4s. per dozen pair, which was the lowest scale, on the importation of that article. It appeared from the documents which had been referred to, that the importation of skins, since the alteration took place, had increased from 2,600,000 to 3,600,000—an increase of 40 per cent. There was only one branch of the glove trade in which the French manufacturer entered into competition with us, and it appeared that our proportion of the quantity produced was on the increase. It would be difficult to say that the cheapness of labour was the cause of the distress. On the contrary, he thought that the importation of articles of a superior description from France—and it was only such that, were imported—rendered the use of what were called kid gloves more general, and at the same time improved the manufacture. If, then, the manufacture was increased, it could not have reduced the price of labour, or turned the workmen out of employment. But he was bound to explain what he conceived to be the cause of the distress. The manufacture of Worcester was formerly confined principally to what were called beaver gloves. People now very generally wore kid gloves, and thus diminished the consumption of the Worcester article. The consequence was, that the Worcester manufacturers had entered into competition with Yeovil in kid gloves. This, therefore, was not a competition between France and England, but a competition between different parts of this country. And not only had the use of kid gloves increased, but the exportation of beaver gloves to America was very much diminished. If exact returns could be procured, he believed, they would show that the diminution of the exportation to America was equal to the importation of kid gloves from France. There was another cause to which he would allude—namely, the practice, which had become very general, of wearing gloves like those which he now had on—of white cotton. Perhaps he ought to apologize to his hon. friend for exhibiting those, but he should be equally bound to apologize to the hon. members for Nottingham and Leicester if he discontinued the use of them. It was well known that the discontinuing any ornament of the person would throw hundreds out of employment at the time. These cotton gloves had come very much into use, and must interfere materially with the manufacture of kid and beaver gloves. He knew it would be impossible to procure a satisfactory comparative return of the quantity of cotton gloves made formerly, and now, but he believed, if he stated the increase-at 300,000 or 400,000 dozen pair, he should much underrate the quantity. Another reason to which he would advert was the high price of the raw material last year, which had checked speculation. There was still another circumstance which it was necessary, to mention. There was a tendency to bad trade in many branches of industry. He did not wish to introduce any subject not connected with the question before the House, but he felt bound to state, that when the Reform Bill was thrown out by the House of Lords, the warehouses in London and the manufactories in the country were deserted. The division of last month had, however, caused an improvement. When he was in the city he had occasion to see many Gentlemen engaged in trade, and they said to him "Depend upon it, we shall have a good trade" always, assuming that the Reform Bill was sure to pass.

said, that while hon. Gentlemen were congratulating each other on the prosperity of the country, the prospects opened to the industrious classes of the community were very different; for while the House was cheering, the people were cheerless; In the present case, there were many conflicting statements submitted to the House, and the only mode, therefore, of arriving at the truth was to appoint a Committee to investigate the subject in detail. He should like to know where was the proof of the prosperity or the revival of trade which was so much boasted of, or that Leicester or Nottingham had received any benefit from the depression of the glove trade at Worcester? He had seen some persons from Nottingham within these few hours, who represented trade there as being in a most distressed and disastrous condition. It was easy to account for distress in the time of war—but now, at a time of profound peace, when a large amount of taxes had been remitted, in a country unrivalled for its resources and for the industry, skill, and ingenuity of its population, what was the occasion of the deplorable distress which pervaded both the manufacturing and the agricultural districts? To that distress was to be attributed the lamentable increase of crime which we had latterly witnessed. He feared that coming events would undeceive gentlemen as to the fancied prosperity of the country. He wished he might be a false prophet in this instance, but he had lately been very much amongst the industrious classes, and he had never before seen so much despondency and suffering as he had then witnessed. If something were not speedily done to ameliorate the condition of the working classes, he feared we were on the verge of a commotion, which would put an end at once and for ever to the wealth of England. It was not only the agricultural and the manufacturing classes that were affected; the monied interests were equally depressed; and he would undertake to say, that on the Royal Exchange there was not now one half the wealth that there was at the close of the war. He knew that many of the assertions in contradiction to the prayer of the petitioners were errors, and if a Committee was appointed he would undertake to shew that the smuggling of gloves had been carried on to a great extent, and he regretted to observe, that Government was ignorant of the transaction. By the course of policy we had pursued, our own labourers were supplanted in our own markets, and unless we retraced our steps, we should completely destroy our manufacturing prosperity. He could not hear all these assertions of the prosperity of the country without giving them the contradiction which his experience enabled him; and he implored the House to take the subject into its most serious consideration.

was as sensible as any Gentleman could be of the impropriety of addressing the House at any length at such a late hour; and he would not detain the House many minutes. But conversant as he had been with the subject now before the House, he could not refrain from stating the grounds upon which he should oppose the Motion. He opposed the Motion upon the ground stated by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for that was the ground of his opposition to a similar motion, when he had the honour of being connected with the Board of Trade. From that, ground (viz. that there really existed no "competition" against which the protection demanded could be given) he could not depart. He could not agree to the appointment of a Committee without, seeing his way out of the effect of such appointment; and with- out being convinced that some beneficial and practical result would be produced by it to the parties interested. Being satisfied, on the present occasion, that no good could result from this Committee, and that no proposition on this subject could now be acceded to by the House which would not tend to place the parties in a worse situation than that in which they stood, he could not vote for the Motion. That no good would result from such a Committee to this trade in particular, must be allowed even by the hon. member for Boroughbridge (Mr. Sadler) who admitted that all the particular details and arguments brought forward by the hon. and gallant member for Worcester had been demolished by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had made to the House. He thought that the speech of the hon. member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) shewed that the present distress of the leather-glove trade did not arise from foreign, but from home competition. Many powerful speeches had been made in favour of the proposition for a Committee, but they were chiefly devoted to discussions upon the question of free trade; and that was not the immediate question before the House; though he was glad to find that there was to be a full discussion on the merits of that system, upon the intended Motion of the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson). Nothing, however, had been said by any of the hon. Gentlemen who had enlarged on that topic tending to shew that any beneficial result would follow from the adoption of the present Motion. One word with respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Thetford. The hon. Member thought it might be possible to give some increased protection to the glove trade by an additional duty. The argument against that plan was short. In point of fact, there was no competition against which the additional duty would operate as a protection. But the hon. Gentleman, in justifying that increased protection, would carry us further into the quesber of free trade than even the hon. memtion for Boroughbridge. He would give a greater amount of protecting duty to articles of luxury than to necessaries. Hitherto the system of free trade had been considered as a good system, provided its scope could be made to extend to every commodity and every branch of our foreign commerce.

said, that several petitions from Somersetshire had been presented that evening from the distressed glovers by an hon. Member, whom he was much surprised had not spoken on the Motion before the House. He had been requested to support the prayer of those petitions which demanded the prohibition of foreign gloves; but he could not make up his mind to support the petitions to that extent, not then having heard the arguments on the subject to which he had since so attentively listened, although he must confess that he did not see why the luxuries of life should be allowed to be freely imported, whilst one of the chief necessaries, corn, was prohibited by law. He had, as he said before, attentively listened to the arguments which had been used for and against the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the cause of, and to provide, if possible, a remedy for, the distress in the glove trade; and he must say that he had not heard a single reason on the part of the Members of Government why that Committee should not be granted. To some of the opinions which had been put forth in the course of the debate he was directly opposed. It had been said, that the cotton and woollen trades were comparatively well off. He was astonished at that assertion; there never was a period when the hand-loom weavers were in so depressed a state as at present. At all events he was decidedly of opinion, that the House had better grant the Committee, if it were only for the purpose of showing the manufacturers how much they were mistaken, than, by refusing to inquire into their distresses, to drive them altogether to desperation.

said, that he had given his opinions on this question on a previous occasion, and had nothing now to induce him to trespass upon the House, but he had been so pointedly alluded to, that he could not refrain from stating his reasons for having remained silent during the discussion on the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester. That Motion had been fully discussed by the gallant Member, and by the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade; and the question then diverged so widely from the original subject into an enlarged view of the general principles of free trade, that, as a young and inexperienced Member of that House, he had deemed it more becoming in him to remain a listener than to offer his sentiments to them; and he, in consequence, had made up his mind to give a silent vote upon the Motion, a determination which, but for the marked manner in which he had been alluded to, he should have kept.

said, he would address but very few words to the House in reply to the arguments which had been urged against his Motion. The persons who were suffering such severe distress from want of employment in the glove trade, attributed it to one sole cause, and had, through him, laid their case before the House, on which their only hope rested. It appeared that Ministers had determined to deprive the petitioners of this resource. He would not reply generally to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, because they had been fully answered by several hon. Members who had addressed the House, but he must beg leave to address one or two remarks to him, and to the hon. member for Ipswich. Although it might appear like presumption for him to enter the lists with so great an authority as the latter, yet nevertheless, as the hon. Member had stated that the French could not make gloves cheaper than the people of this country, he felt bound to say that his information was directly contrary. He had been assured by persons who had carried on trade with them in these articles that they could completely undersell the English manufacturer. The wages of the French workmen were lower, from the superior cheapness of food, and they procured the raw material at an easier rate. With respect to the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, who had dealt so largely in figures, he must say to them he could not reply, as he had not time to assure himself of their being correct, but he must observe, that the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have obtained his information more from the factors than the manufacturers, to the former of whom it was a matter of comparative indifference whether the English or the French maker was in the most prosperous circumstances. On one point, however, the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. He had said there were forty glove manufacturers in Yeovil, when the fact was, there were but thirty. Another argument he must notice; it was said the distress was temporary, but it had been in existence in 1826, and had continued getting worse ever since. In that year he had waited on the present Lord Goderich then Chancellor of the Exchequer, to represent the depressed state of the trade; his answer was, "The free-trade system is just established; let us see how the system will work." In 1832, this answer was repeated by the right hon. Gentleman. In conclusion, he must say, that he looked with great anxiety to the result of the decision on the Motion, for the distress of the glove-manufacturers was altogether unparalleled, and he should be sorry to see the hopes which they had formed, of obtaining some relief by the appointment of a Committee—disappointed. He should, therefore, persist in his original intention of pressing the House to a division.

observed, that he had not anticipated the debate on the glove trade would have lasted till so late an hour. He was, in consequence of the consumption of the whole of this evening on this discussion, obliged to announce that he should bring on the Reform Bill in Committee to-morrow. He moved that the Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, be appointed for to-morrow.

said, he must remonstrate upon the lateness of the hour at which the noble Lord had given this notice of his intention to depart from the understanding prevailing in the House as to the mode of proceeding on Wednesday. It would be very inconvenient to many who, at so short a notice, could not arrange to be in their places to-morrow evening.

observed, this was the first opportunity he had had, in consequence of the continuance of the debate on the Motion of the hon. and gallant member for Worcester, of acquainting the House with his change of intention.

said, he had taken it for granted, with all those who heard the arrangement announced by the noble Lord, that Wednesday was to be an open day, and now he regretted to find that the noble Lord was resolved to devote it to the Reform Bill. It was not his intention to offer any opposition of a factious or dilatory nature to the Bill, so as to impede its progress, though he should not compromise the hostility he felt to many of the provisions of the Bill. He hoped the noble Lord would not persevere in this infraction of the understood arrangement, but would be content to leave to-morrow an open day.

said, unless they devoted to-morrow to the Reform Bill, as Thursday would be taken up, no doubt, in a great degree, by the Motion of the hon. Baronet on Belgium, there would be only one other day of this week in which they could expect to make any progress with the Reform Bill in Committee.

said, the delay of to-night had been occasioned at any rate by a Reformer. The people must observe that the Bill was making but little progress.

observed, his motion had been postponed to meet the convenience of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs.