might also, under certain conditions, bring from countries in Europe articles not the produce or manufacture of those countries. The result of the whole of the arrangements was, that the principle of the navigation laws had been adhered to as closely as possible; keeping always in view the great object of rendering this country the entrepôt of the merchandize of the world, and extending our own export trade. With regard to exportation, it might be truly said to have no limits, except the means of payment possessed by foreigners. The limited state of those means was the real cause of the distress our manufactures experienced. That limitation operated as a serious check on trade. It was obvious that if adequate returns could be obtained from abroad, an unlimited extension might be given to our commerce. This consideration had induced the abandonment of those narrow and contracted notions on which many ancient commercial statutes had been founded. The doctrine was no longer maintained, that to limit the trade of other countries was advantageous to our own. Indeed, precisely the contrary was the truth. Any measure which tended to increase the wealth of foreign nations was calculated to produce an increase of our own. The increase of the trade of foreign countries offered the best security against the distress of our manufacturers. On these principles the bills had been introduced.

The Earl of Harewood did not object to the principle stated by the noble earl as to freedom of commerce tending, by increasing the wealth of other countries, to augment our own, but thought, that to carry such a principle into full effect the means ought to be affoded to our own manufacturers of entering into competition with those of foreign countries; for instance, with regard to the woollen manufacture, the duty imposed upon foreign wool tended to increase the price of the manufactured article, so as to prevent it, in a great degree, from entering into that competition.

The bills were read a second time. Earl Bathurst called the attention of the House to the Colonial Trade bill, and the West Indian and American Trade bill. The noble earl described the state of the law by which the trade between the United States and the West Indies was at present regulated, and the departures which had been made from the principle VOL. VII.

of the navigation law with respect to colonial intercourse. As the law now stood, American ships could carry the produce of the United States to foreign colonies, and that produce could afterwards be introduced into the free ports in the West Indies. Thus the articles wanted reached our islands through a circuitous channel. The object of the present measures, therefore, was, to permit that trade to be carried on directly, which was now carried on indirectly. It was, however, proposed to lay such a duty on the produce of the United States, as would give a fair preference to the produce of our own American colonies.

The Marquis of Bute said, that when measures were proposed which would give additional encouragement to the manufacture of sugar, it was to be feared that they might also increase the slave trade. He therefore wished some measure to be brought forward for the better registration of slaves. When an enactment for this object was proposed, it had been argued, that it was a matter which ought to be left to the colonies themselves. The legislatures of several of the colonies had indeed passed laws for the registration of slaves, but he doubted the efficiency of those acts. He was prepared to contend, that the parliament of the United Kingdom was competent to enact a general law for the registration of slaves. Such a lay was strictly a measure of trade; and he never had heard the power of parliament to regulate the trade of the colonies disputed. The bills were read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, June 17.

LABOURERS WAGES.] Mr. Littleton presented two petitions, one from the miners, iron-makers, and coal-masters of Dudley, praying, that the House would enjoin a more strict observance of the law, which directs that labourers should be paid only in money, and not in provisions or other commodities. The hon. member complained that the law was open to perpetual invasion; that it exposed the poor man to the hardship of taking such provisions, and at such prices, as the master chose; and that when the House came to legislate between the labourer and his employer they ought to be tender of the interests of the former. The health and industry of the poor man were his only portion, and, therefore, the House should

4 C

tude.

Mr. Robinson was of opinion, that the existing law was bad, and that no law could be framed, that would not be evaded, and lead to perpetual interference between the employer and the employed. In some cases, masters might make payments to their labourers in provisions which were bad, but there was no way of preventing this but by the imposition of penalties; and, notwithstanding all the penalties that could be imposed, still it might be possible to evade the law. If such a law were to be re-enacted, he would object to it, upon the ground that it was at once unnecessary and inefficient.

Mr. D. Gilbert thought the law inefficacious and unnecessary. The competition of trade was as full a protection to the workman who was paid in provisions as to the man who received his wages in specie.

Mr. Ricardo thought it impossible to renew so obnoxious an act. Mr. Owen prided himself upon having introduced the provision system. He had opened a shop at New Lanark, in which he sold the best commodities to his workmen cheaper than they could be obtained elsewhere; and he was persuaded that the practice was a beneficial one.

Lord Stanley thought the measure injurious, as tending to excite misunderstanding between the labourer and the employer, which was very injurious to the former, as a labourer when turned out of one establishment could not easily find employment in another.

Mr. Monck objected to the payment of workmen in commodities, but not to paying them in provisions. On the continent, the practice of farmers was, to pay their labourers as much as possible in provisions; and the same practice would be extremely beneficial in this country. His hon. friend (Mr. Curwen) had adopted it with the greatest success.

Mr. Hume said, the practice in Scotland was, to pay in provision, and he had never seen that practice attended with ill consequences. He trusted the law would be repealed.

Ordered to lie on the table.

SCARCITY OF PROVISIONS IN IRE LAND.] Mr. V. Fitzgerald begged to ask a right hon. gentleman, what farther relief was contemplated for the distresses of Ireland; and how the funds already ob

situation of Ireland no longer admitted of delay. If any persons supposed that the charity of England, even added to the sums already voted by parliament, would be sufficient to meet the calamities of Ireland for the next six weeks, such persons deceived themselves.

Mr. Goulburn assured the right hon. gentleman, that, from the moment the Irish government determined to assist the people, every course had been taken which could expedite such assistance and render it available. A committee had been formed in Dublin, by order of the lord lieutenant, to communicate with those districts in which the greatest distress prevailed; and certain funds which had been left in the lord lieutenant's hands against exigency, by the act of 1817, had been immediately placed at that committee's disposal. In addition to this, he (Mr. G.) had submitted a measure for the employment of the poor upon public works. That measure was divided into two branches: the one empowering the lord lieutenant at once to use all sums which had been presented by grand juries for such public purposes: the other, placing a farther sum of 50,000l. at his command, and persons had been dispatched into those districts most distressed, with full authority to commence such plans as seemed most likely to give relief to the people. He believed that the works, in many places, had already commenced, and that relief to a considerable extent had followed. In common with the right hon. gentleman, he felt the calamity as a deep one. It was, however, satisfactory to know, that the distress was confined to a limited, and not very extensive, portion of the country; but still there was enough to call upon parliament for farther assistance when the present funds should be exhausted.

Mr. John Smith said, that, from facts which had come to his knowledge, as a member of the London Tavern committee, he could not but be surprised at the speech which the right hon. secretary had just delivered. The Dublin committee might have done all in its power, but it had not done sufficient in the way of relief; for the last accounts from Ireland were more calamitous than ever. would state facts to the House, on which it might rely. In the county of Clare, there were now 99,639 persons subsisting on charity from hour to hour. In Cork,

He

there were 132,000 individuals, who must perish with hunger if they did not receive relief. In one barony of the county of Clare, many persons had actually perished from famine. It was for government to say what, under such circumstances, it meant to do; but the first duty of any government that was worth one farthing, was to protect its subjects from starvation. Enough had not been done, and therefore government ought to take more decisive measures.

Mr. Spring Rice said, that in the county of Limerick, out of a population of 67,000 persons, 20,000 were subsisting on charity. However great the sums placed at the disposal of the London Committee, it was impossible, even if they trebled their amount, that they could do more than relieve the present suffering, and that only in a very slight degree. He trusted that measures of employing the poor would be resorted to, and speedily; for while the legislature deliberated, the people perished.

Sir E. O'Brien said, that if an effort was not made to relieve the Irish before harvest, they would fall upon the new crop so eagerly and prematurely, that next year would be equal to this in misery.

Sir J. Newport said, that unless means were found to employ the population of Ireland, the foundation of an ulterior evil would be laid, which would not only exist through this or through the next year, but would strike at the root of all industry for a long period to come. Large as the means, and great as the benevolence of this country unquestionably were, those means and that benevolence were incapable of affording efficient relief, unless the means of existence were drawn from the immediate neighbourhood of the sufferers. The aid that might be afforded ought to take the shape of reward for labour, rather than that of a boon to mendicity.

Mr. Secretary Peel perfectly agreed with the right hon. baronet, that this was not a mere pecuniary question. The importance of the subject lifted it above the ordinary rules of financial calculation. The question was not, whether a sum of money should be advanced to Ireland. The Irish government were endeavouring to give relief in every possible way: not with strict regard to the principles of political economy, for unhappily the case was one that compelled them to set all ordinary rules at defiance. Engineers were engaged to see what works could

be commenced, that would afford occupation to the people; and 6,000l. had already been appropriated, not for any public undertaking, but in order to effect improvements of a local and private nature.

SCOTCH BURGHS ACCOUNTS BILL.] On the motion for recommitting this bill, Mr. H. Drummond moved an instruction to the committee that they have power to divide the bill. This was agreed to, and on the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair,

Lord A. Hamilton declared his decided opposition to such a bill as the present being considered in any degree adequate to redress the abuses complained of by the inhabitants of the royal burghs of Scotland, and confirmed by the three reports of committees of that House. To call it a remedy for these admitted abuses, was a total misapplication of terms. No two things could be more opposite than the reports of the committees of that House and the bill of the learned lord. The bill referred only to the accounts of the burghs. Now, the regulation of the accounts did not constitute a tenth part of the admitted abuses in the administration of these burghs. It did not meet the paramount abuse of selfelection, from which alone so many mischiefs originated. The learned lord was mistaken, if he thought such a measure would satisfy the petitioners. Since its introduction almost every royal burgh had petitioned against it. Not a solitary. petition had been presented in its support. It was not in the nature of things, that with the feeling of burgh reform that existed in Scotland, such a bill could satisfy the just claims of the people.

The Lord Advocate said, he considered the bill consistent with the report of the committee up stairs, and that it went directly to remedy the evils complained of. He would receive with attention any amendment which was calculated to remove the grievances complained of, but he would oppose himself to any violation of the chartered rights of the royal burghs.

Mr. J. P. Grant denied that the bill was at all founded on the reports of the committees of that House. Those committees detailed a variety of abuses to which the present bill not even adverted. As to chartered rights, he knew of no rights, in virtue of which self-elected magistrates assumed the power to vote them.