sound policy to open the trade with France; and whether the proposition was regarded as a fiscal regulation, or as a measure of political expediency, he thought it ought to meet with the sanction of the House. on the gallon. It was not, however, the intention of Government to increase the duty on Cape wine until the year 1834, thus allowing an additional year to the persons engaged, to withdraw their capital from the trade. But how had the Cape Trade prospered under this boasted Mr. Herries said, that although the protection? He would give the House noble Lord was personally incapable of an opportunity of judging of the case, by any thing tortuous or indirect in conduct, stating the amount of the importation of yet he did think, that the course pursued Cape wine for each year, during the last by Government in this measure, did defour years. In 1827, the importation of serve the epithets applied to it by the hon. Cape wine amounted to 698,000 gallons; member for Aldborough. The proposition in 1828, to 652,000 gallons; in 1829, to was at first brought forward simply as a 579,000 gallons; and, in 1830, to 537,000 matter of finance, but afterwards it was gallons. It therefore appeared, that the advocated as a great question of political present protection had not the desired ef- and commercial policy. The hon. Memfect of making the trade prosperous. But ber then referred to the Methuen Treaty, there was another strong objection to it, and read the clause which permitted with respect to the revenue. It was well England to introduce French wines, withknown, that Cape wine was used as a great out any difference between them and menstruum for adulteration, and therefore Portuguese, on her paying the penalty of affected the produce of the revenue arising the exclusion of her woollen goods; and from the wine duties. If there were time-contended, that although Portugal, from ly notice given to the persons who had having originally had conditions too onerembarked their capital in this speculation, ous imposed upon her, had been led, on he could not conceive that any injury many occasions, into conduct which dewould be inflicted on them. They would manded reprobation, yet that we had, upon then be able to withdraw their capital the whole, derived great benefit, political from a trade which was already declining, and commercial, by our connection with without the interference, or rather, under the Peninsula; and that it was, and althe fostering protection, of the Legislature. ways had been, conceded by all former GoIt was not intended to do this immedi-vernments, that nothing could be more ately and if it were fixed by Parliament, impolitic than to avail ourselves of the that the plan should be brought into oper-right we possessed to depart from the ation in 1834, he could not perceive that any injustice would be done to our own colonists. It had been said, that the increase of duty would create an increase of price on the article, and thus diminish the consumption; but he conceived, that the amount of duty proposed to be added to the present duty on Portuguese wine was so small, that no decrease of consumption need be feared. If the consumption continued the same, an increase of revenue of 180,000%. would take place, and the tax, at the same time, could not be felt by the consumer. The French trade in wine, it should be recollected, occupied not less than 5,000,000 of acres, and fully one-tenth of the population of France; and he could not help thinking that, as the result would be to bring a considerable share of French capital into activity, there would be corresponding results in favour of the staple trade and manufactures of this country. He conceived it therefore to be a measure of treaty. Mr. Canning, for instance, he could take upon himself to say, had scouted the idea. And he begged to ask the House, if, under the present circumstances of Europe, the course pursued by Ministers was a politic course to pursue? It had been frequently debated in the late Cabinet, how, in the best, and fairest, and most amicable manner to. Portugal, they could get rid of the Methuen Treaty; but never did they dream of cutting the knot after the fashion now recommended. The necessary papers had been submitted to their legal advisers; and they undoubtedly observed that, according to the provisions of the clause in question, we might set ourselves free of the treaty, by paying the penalty in the exclusion of our woollen manufactures; but that mode, as a thing not to be contemplated between amicable parties, was at once dismissed. It had been said by hon. Members, that the amount of our woollen goods received in Portugal was very trifling-equal only to 200,000l.; but he begged the House not to view the matter in this light, but to observe the relation which Portugal, or rather, he said, the whole Peninsula, bore to the other European kingdoms, as a receptacle for our manufactures. The fact was, onesixth of the whole amount of our exported goods were taken into the Peninsula; and would any man venture to say, that the abstraction of one-sixth of our exports would not be attended with great distress to our commercial and manufacturing interests? In the year 1825, the Ministry had discovered, that to maintain the system of high duties was only to incur continual sacrifices, and the duties were therefore reduced: but in 1830, the noble Lord wanted a sum of 180,000l., and to make it up, he resorted to the expedient of increasing the duties on wine, although they had formerly been diminished with the express view of benefitting the revenue. The consequences of adopting the present proposition of the noble Lord would be, that the consumers would be charged a higher sum than before, but the revenue would not gain in the same proportion; indeed, it was likely to be diminished. He could assure the House, that he would detain them but a short time; but he must express his surprise at the impatience thus manifested upon a most important question. He maintained, that the Ministry had adopted a wrong course with respect to Portugal. The most obvious course for them to have pursued was, to have adopted an amicable course towards that country, to which we had been so long and so closely bound by commercial treaties. He thought that a little mutual concession would have been of advantage; and that, by acting on that principle, we might have obtained all we wanted. On all the reasons connected with this subject, political, commercial, and fiscal, he thought the noble Lord could not have chosen a worse course than that which he had adopted. Mr. Sadler rose to address the Committee, but the impatience of hon. Members, expressed in coughing, and loud and almost general cries of" Question," completely drowned his voice whenever he attempted to speak. Mr. Attwood rose, and moved, that the Debate be adjourned. Mr. Hume thought no one could wish to have the debate protracted through another night. The hon. Member who moved the adjournment did so, he presumed, to obtain a further hearing for the cause he advocated. A more disorderly House, certainly, he had never witnessed. He wished the hon. member for Aldborough to be heard, and if the Committee would not hear him, he would support the motion for adjourning the discussion. Mr. Alderman Thompson said, that it was a question of great importance to the commercial interests, and many Members connected with it wished to address the House, and he also would support the proposition for adjournment, if those Members who were opposed to the noble Lord's scheme were not allowed to be heard. Mr. Attwood said, that if the discussion were allowed to go on, he would not press his Motion. Mr. Sadler said, that he was desirous to address the Committee on this question, because he had pledged himself to do so at a meeting which was held in the City. He meant, however, to be very brief. He perceived that it was the determination of Ministers to persevere in the course of policy which had met with the reprobation of the last Parliament, and would meet, he hoped, with the reprobation of the present-he meant an anti-colonial policy, which, if pursued to any extent, would prove ruinous to the empire. The noble Lord proposed to take twenty-five per cent of duty off the luxurious beverage of the rich, and to place fifteen per cent duty on the wine drunk by the poor. The wine which it was proposed to tax was a cordial at the bed-side of sickness. The anti-colonial policy system was advocated in a book published by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, as he was now in the Ministry, no doubt gave all the effect he could to his own opinions. He feared that the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman had been adopted by the Ministry, from the fact, that they were now attempting to cut up the wine-growers of the Cape. They did not act upon any principle of fairness; they put an ad valorem duty of forty per cent on the wines of France; an ad valorem duty of eighty per cent on the wines of Spain and Portugal; and an ad valorem duty of 150 per cent, on the produce of our own colonies. He repeated, that this was utterly unfair. Mr. Hunt said, he should not keep the House one minute. He disclaimed, on the part of the poor, the statement made by the hon. member for Aldborough, that Cape wine was the cordial of the poor; if it was a cordial, he was sure it was a most offensive one. He never knew that they purchased this wine, or that medical men ever recommended it. If this were really a tax on the poor, he would cut off his right hand rather than vote for it; but it was not, and he should, therefore, give his willing support to the measure. Mr. Sadler, in explanation, said, that with respect to the liquor so much reprobated by the hon. Member, he would take on himself to say, that he had had it analysed by one of the best chemists in London, and that it contained a superior quantity of alcohol to any other wine, and was equal in quality to any wine imported. Mr. George Robinson said, that the ruin of the wine-growers in France, caused by the duty laid on the consumption of wine in that country, which had been adverted to, had, in his opinion, no reference whatever to the question. Mr. Goulburn said, the noble Lord who brought forward the measure, did it as one of revenue; but the right hon. Gentlemen who followed him, supported it on the grounds of general commercial policy. He did not approve of the mode of conducting the foreign policy of the country by means of measures of revenue moved in a Committee of the whole House. Our treaties with Portugal ought to be discussed regularly and formally, and should not thus be brought incidentally before the House. The noble Lord said, that he brought forward this measure, in order to conciliate the French, that there might not be war with the French at a future period. He would only observe, that if it answered as a measure of conciliation, it must fail as a measure of revenue; for if the French wine should be so generally consumed in this country as to supersede the wines of Portugal and Spain, the noble Lord would be deceived as to the increase of resources he expected. By giving these privileges to the French, we should lose the advantages we had long enjoyed from our connection with Portugal-advantages which were not conceded to us by any other independent nation. If we acted in that manner towards Portugal, that country would be justified in not giving us the monopoly of her markets for the sale of fish, and might properly claim the benefit of admitting others to compete VOL. IV. {Series Third 2 with us in that article. She might, for instance, not as the right hon. Gentleman said, increase the duty on fish, but admit the Norwegians into the fish market. These were commercial considerations; but those of policy were not less strong, and were, in his opinion, quite as clear against the course now proposed for adoption by the Ministry. He could not forget the relation which this country had so long had with Portugal, nor our repeated declarations that his most faithful Majesty might always rely on the assistance of England. The greatest men who had ever wielded the destinies of England, were of opinion, that we ought to cherish our alliance with Portugal. They knew the value of having the West of Europe on terms of friendship with England [" Question, question."] He had been suddenly called upon to take part in an important discussion, and he hoped that he might be allowed to express his opinions. He could not consent to cast off, in the manner proposed, one of England's most ancient and most faithful allies, cutting asunder the most ancient ties without notice, or the offer of any improved arrangement. The House had been reminded of the value and importance of the wine trade in France; let him remind the House, that almost the whole of Portugal was a wine country. He should certainly vote against the Motion, on the principle of doing no injustice to an old friend, endeared to this country by a long and close alliance, and of preserving from injury the colonies of this country, and its long-established trade. Lord Althorp in reply, said, that he did not argue the question merely as one of revenue, while his right hon. friend argued it as one of commercial policy, but both he and his right hon. friend had argued it on both these principles. In principle, he believed that the right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not differ from his Majesty's Ministers; but they objected to his Majesty's Ministers, that they acted on these principles towards an ancient ally. Much had been said of the friendship subsisting between this country and Portugal, and the obligation which rested upon us to maintain our connection with an ancient and useful ally. To his mind that argument brought no conviction, more especially when he remembered the recent conduct of that country towards this. Our communications with British residents there had been for some time, on their 2 M part, little more than a series of complaints | against the Portuguese government for infractions of that treaty; and even, within a short time, we had been under the necessity of sending a fleet to the Tagus, for the purpose of protecting the rights and properties of those residents. He, therefore, thought that the arguments of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite ought not to have that weight with the House which those who delivered them expected. It was objected by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the measure could not succeed both as a measure of revenue and as a measure of commercial policy. He thought it would succeed in both views. The consumption of Portuguese wine would, he believed, not be diminished, while that of France would be increased; and that increase would both benefit the revenue, and extend our commercial and friendly relations with France. The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said, that if the alterations now proposed were carried into effect, the Portuguese would reduce the duty on the fish of other countries, to the obvious detriment of our trade; but, surely, the right hon. Gentleman must recollect, that the present Resolution gave them no increased facility for doing that, nor did it afford any reason why they should. They might do so at the present moment if they thought proper, or at any time past. The Committee then divided, when there appeared: For the Resolution 259; Against it 157 Majority 102. House resumed. Lord Althorp moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. CASTLEPOLLARD AFFRAY.] Mr. O'Connell wished to avail himself of the opportunity which that Motion afforded, of putting a question respecting the late and intended proceedings at Castlepollard. The people would not be satisfied by prosecutions which professed to be carried on by them, but really were carried on by the Attorney General. It became the more necessary that he should now call attention to this subject, as the Assizes were approaching. He sincerely hoped that the Irish Government would pause before they resolved upon proceeding contrary to the wishes of the parties most injured. A memorial had been forwarded to the Castle, Dublin, on the part of the relatives of the deceased, praying for permission to be allowed themselves to prosecute. It was, to be sure, said, that they were to have an additional counsel to aid in the prosecutions, but that made no important difference; for a junior counsel so circumstanced, had nothing to do with the conduct of the cause-no power to call any witness-no right to be present at any consultation, and his connection with it afforded no security against the whole matter being mismanaged. Suppose a witness had been examined on a Coroner's Inquest, and gave direct evidence that murder had been committed, and it was afterwards discovered by the relatives of the party that the witness under some considerable influence, endeavoured to procure an acquittal for the prisoner, what could the Attorney General do in such a case as this? It would not be discovered by the solicitor of the Crown until the time arrived for the trial, that the witness had disqualified himself from giving evidence. In such a case, the witness might give quite contrary evidence before the Inquest and at the Trial: such a case might occur, the Attorney General might be quite innocent and the trial might be mismanaged even without his knowledge. Why should the Crown unnecessarily interfere, when the parties interested were desirous of prosecuting? There was no danger of a compromise; they could take no unfair advantage; the prisoners would have counsel, and the Judge would see every thing was properly conducted. Under such circumstances, he did most earnestly hope, that the relatives of the deceased might be permitted to conduct the prosecution. It was of the highest importance that the people should have confidence in the Government, and in the administration of justice. The Crown possessed formidable advantage. It had six or eight of the most able counsel to examine and crossexamine witnesses, and therefore could only terrify the party to whom it was opposed. It was the general character of the Irish people to be satisfied with the administration of justice, even when opposed to their own interests. This was demonstrated by the fact, that in all the riots and disturbances, the murder of witnesses that had taken place, there had been no instance of any injury to any prosecuting counsel or Crown Solicitor, and there was no individual more popular than he was. The only discontent exhibited was on account of their not being allowed to conduct the prosecution themselves. In the present case he knew the relations to be most respectable, and he trusted, for the peace of the country, they would be allowed to prosecute. such as that, to excite political agitation in that House. He defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out a single instance in which the present Attorney General for Ireland had ever taken a part in politics. He deplored the introduction of such questions in the way in which they had that night been introduced. The prosecutions might be safely left to the present English and Irish Governments, with man proposed. And when Gentlemen talked of promoting the administration of justice, how, he wished to ask, could the discussion in Parliament of a question which was to come before a Jury promote the fair administration of justice? Lord Althorp said, that Government was placed in circumstances of considerable difficulty in respect to this question. There were three courses open to them either to prosecute on the part of the Go-out calling in the aid the learned Gentlevernment, without any assistance from the relatives of the deceased, or to leave the matter entirely in their hands, which was the course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman, or, pursuing the third course, of uniting with the parties in the business of the prosecution; and when the House remembered, that both the hon. and learned Gentlemen (the members for Kerry and for the University of Dublin) joined in censuring the conduct of Government, one for not pursuing the first course, and the other for not pursuing the second, that afforded some ground for assuming that Government had not acted unwisely in avoiding either extreme, and adopting a moderate proceeding-that of giving assistance to the people. It was a mistake to suppose, that the additional counsel would be inefficient, for it was understood that he should be made acquainted with the whole conduct of the trial, with full power to complain whenever grounds for complaint presented themselves, and with full power to call any witnesses whom heries should be made, whether it was the might think proper. He thought, therefore, the opposition of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen was rather carried to an extreme on this occasion. Mr. Lefroy complained of the conduct of Government on this matter, which went to interfere with the administration of justice in Ireland, in a manner unknown in this country. He believed, if there was any prospect at all of putting an end to the party feeling that existed, it could only be done by administering justice in Ireland as it was administered in England. He regretted much, that every riot or exhibition of public or party feeling in Ireland should be made a subject of discussion in Parliament. He had hoped that the measure passed two years since, would have put an end to party distinctions and party feelings, and he was therefore sorry to observe, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Kerry should avail himself of opportunities Mr. O'Connell had not said, that the present Attorney General for Ireland had mixed himself up with party politics since his appointment to his present office, but before that he was a political partizan. It had been said that he was pre-judging the case. He certainly had called it a slaughter; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought that too harsh, he should be obliged to him for a gentler phrase in which to express the slaying of thirteen or fourteen Irishmen. Mr. Hume thought it natural that the relations of those persons who had been killed by the police (whether that killing was to be called a slaughter or not) should desire to see justice done and nothing could be more natural than that inqui intention of Government to satisfy the feelings of the people, by allowing them to prosecute. Nothing could go further to appease party feeling in Ireland than the fair administration of justice. He thought that it was now a recognized principle, that the laws of Ireland and the administration of justice in Ireland should be assimilated to those of England. If so, why then should not the relations of those who were killed be allowed to carry on prosecutions, as in England, without the interference of the Attorney General. Mr. Goulburn said, that when he heard the hon. and learned member for Kerry tax the present Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Blackburn) with being a political partizan, and insinuated that his political bias might induce him to pervert the powers of his office in the administration of justice, he felt himself called upon to bear testimony to the honour and impartiality of that Gentleman, and to bear his |