HC Deb 22 May 1834 vol 23 cc1193-222
Mr. Edward Lytton Bulwer

said, that the great pressure of business in the last Session, and a variety of those incidents which so often and so unexpectedly started up in the way of any independent Member bringing forward a Motion in that House, had obliged him to defer the question now before them from time to time until this evening; he was at length enabled to fulfil a pledge which he gave to the country, and a duty which he owed to himself; he was not sorry for the delay—truth never lost by delay. The question was not now what it was when he first introduced it to that House—a new question, coldly agitated without, supported only by the inquiring and speculative few, and screened from the eyes of the people by a variety of other objects, more clamorous and more exciting; since then it had been taken up throughout the country; it had been made a test of principle at the general election; and if hon. Members remembered that evening the wishes of their constituents and their own pledges, he should not fear the result of the decision to which they were about to come. Let them consider, then, the small amount of the tax; listen patiently to the statements and the facts he should adduce as to the substitute he proposed; remember the importance attached to the subject in the last election; count the number of petitions that had been presented to the House from every large town throughout the kingdom; and then, as an additional argument in favour of the Motion, recollect, that it had obtained favour and support throughout the country without any encouragement from the newspapers (the greater part of which naturally inclined to a tax which conferred the monopoly and the market upon themselves), without the excitement of tumultuous meetings or inflammatory harangues. It was from the quiet and deep heart of the people themselves that had come forth the prayer that he now supported, for the free circulation of opinion—for the enlarged and the untaxed diffusion of knowledge, not of politics alone, but of the debates of that Assembly—of the proceedings of the Courts of Law—of the affairs of foreign states, and of that vast miscellany of information connected with a thousand branches of utility and morals which newspapers furnished to the world. And when the people themselves came forward, even amidst the pressure of financial distress, with this generous and hearty desire for their own intellectual improvement, he knew of no popular request which was more worthy the character of a great nation—which ought to be more gladly welcomed by a Representative Assembly, or more frankly acceded to by an enlightened Government. When the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, brought forward his budget last year, be was surprised to hear no less a person than the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, observe, in excuse for the noble Lord in repealing the Stamp-duty upon newspapers, that he believed the newspapers were not loudly complaining of the burthen they endured—that they seemed tolerably contented with the imposition, and would probably be acquiescent in its continuance; the right hon. Baronet was cheered in that remark, and, therefore, there must be hon. Members in that House who supposed, what he could scarcely believe the right hon. Baronet unaffectedly supposed, that the Stamp-duty was a tax of which only the existing newspapers had a right to complain. Why, did any one ever hear of any monopolists complaining of a monopoly? When the House opened the trade of India, was it the East-India Company that insisted upon a repeal of their charter? This tax was a charter to the existing newspapers—it was not they who suffered from it—it was the public—it was the Government—it was order—it was society that suffered! Just let the House consider—the Stamp and Paper-duties, with the price of printing and the news-agency, amounted to 5½d. for every 7d. copy of a newspaper. The consequence of this heavy taxation was this, the capital required to set up a newspaper (what with the expense of reporting, of acquiring foreign intelligence, &c.) was so enormous as to be estimated for a morning paper at from 30,000l. to 40,000l.; this extravagant demand frightened away new competitors, and thus the papers already established enjoyed a monopoly. They were quite contented to pay a heavy tax which secured to themselves the public market, and naturally eager to resist a repeal of the burthen which would immediately surround them with a crowd of rivals. The existing papers, therefore, did not suffer by the tax, but he would tell them who did—the people suffered, and that to an extent which few men had sufficiently considered. In the first place, the high price of the legal papers prevented, in a great measure, their reaching the poor—he meant the operative and the mechanic. What was the consequence? why this, it was an axiom in our excise legislation, that whenever a commodity was taxed above fifteen per cent, smuggling necessarily ensued; but you tax the newspaper more than 100 per cent; and the result was, the enormous circulation of all manner of contraband publications; the writers in these papers could scarcely be well affected to the law, for they broke the law; they could scarcely be reasonable advisers, for they saw before them the penalty and the prison, and wrote under the angry sense of injustice; they could scarcely be safe teachers, for they were excited by their own passions, and it was to the passions of a half-educated and distressed population that they appealed; in fact, he had seen many of these publications—nothing could be more inflammatory or dangerous. One paper took a particular fancy to the estates of the Duke of Bedford—another paper had been remarkably anxious for the assassination of the Duke of Wellington. [a laugh.] Gentlemen might laugh at these notions; they were contemptible enough to them, but it was not to them that they were addressed; they were addressed, week after week, to men who had not received any education, and whom poverty naturally attached to the prospect of any violent change. These notions might be easily controverted; they might be scattered to the wind, for the English operative would listen to reason, or he would not ask you to repeal this tax; but the Legislature would not allow them to be controverted—would not allow them a reply—they never were replied to—the legal newspapers (addressing a higher class of readers) did not condescend to notice them; even if they did, the cheap newspaper was read where the dear one did not penetrate. You either forbid to the poor by this tax, in a great measure, all political knowledge, or else you give to them, unanswered and unpurified, doctrines the most dangerous—you put the medicine under lock and key, and you leave the poison on the shelf; you do not create one monopoly only, you create two monopolies—one monopoly of dear newspapers, and another monopoly of smuggled newspapers; you create two publics; to the one public of educated men, in the upper and middle ranks, whom no newspaper could, on moral points, very dangerously mislead, you give the safe and rational papers; to the other public, the public of men far more easily influenced—poor, ignorant, distressed—men from whom all the convulsions and disorders of society arise, (for the crimes of the poor are the punishment of the rich,)—to the other public, whom you ought to be most careful to soothe, to guide, and to enlighten, you give the heated invectives of demagogues and fanatics. He might stop here and say, that he had made out his case. What more need be said, to prove, that this was a tax that ought to be repealed? What greater curse could a Government bring upon itself than that which it must experience if it permitted the circulation of the most dangerous opinions and suppressed the reply to them? Of what greater crime could a Government be guilty than that of allowing the minds of the poor to be poisoned?—than that of pandering to their demoralization?—and, if demoralization led to guilt, and guilt to punishment, of encouraging the wanton sacrifice of human life itself? When it was said, that if we opened the market to cheap papers, all kinds of trash would be poured in, those who said it were not aware of the trash that now existed, that was now circulated in defiance of laws, of fines, and of gaols. During the present Administration, from 300 to 400 persons had been imprisoned for merely selling unstamped publications in the streets—had been punished with the utmost rigour—sent to herd with felons and the basest outcasts of society; and what had been the consequence? Had they put down the publications themselves? No! They had only raised their authors into importance among that part of the population they addressed; and, instead of silencing fanaticism, they had exalted the fanatic into the martyr. If there was one true axiom in the world, it was this—that opinion only can put down opinion; and if bad doctrines were afloat, they could only refute them by the propagation of good doctrines, and, therefore, it was wisely said the other day by a noble Lord, (the Secretary of State for the Home Department) in answer to Lord Winchilsea, who urged him to prosecute the unstamped publications, "that prosecution might only give them a double publicity." But in what a condition, then, were the Government placed? They left a law on their Statute-book to which they dared not apply—a law which, when dormant, gave a monopoly to the disaffected; and when exerted, only fed still more the disaffection. If they did not use it, they were injured; if they did use it, they were injured doubly. They were like a man who kept a bull-dog so fierce that it was good for nothing; it worried both friend and foe; when chained, the robber escaped; when let loose, it turned upon its master. And a worthy task it was for the Minister of England to be waging this petty war with bill-stickers and hawkers! To let the paper itself go free, to pounce upon the man who sold it—to level the thunders of the law upon some ragged itinerant, some pedlar of the Press, and then skulk behind the Stamp-office Commissioners, and say, "They did the deed—it is not we who prosecute—it is our agents at the Stamp-office." Miserable subterfuge! pitiful excuse! The Ministers had the law in their own hands; and they were answerable for every prosecution instituted in the name of the law; but how much worse was it, how much more indefensible, if they who attacked cheap knowledge were themselves the members of a society for the diffusion of cheap knowledge! If it was with a penny magazine in one hand that they attempted to strike down the penny newspapers with the other, it was carrying into the State the jealousies of trade; it was saying, "We will give you information; but whoever else gives it to you, him we will punish and destroy; we will tell you about animals and insects, and give you pictures of ruins and churches, with all such infantine trumpery—the hobbyhorse and rattle of education; but whoever unfolds to you the secrets of your laws, the machinery of your State, the mighty events that inspire the age and animate the world, him we have the Stamp Commissioners to prosecute, and the laws of our Reformed Parliament to condemn." But then came an important question—if newspapers were allowed to be cheap, would they have good doctrines propagated in answer to the bad? He had every authority for saying they would. [Here the hon. Member quoted a speech of Dr. Birkbeck, in which he mentioned that Dr. Arnold of Rugby, Dr. Whately of Oxford, and other men of high eminence, were willing to instruct the poor on matters of trade and political economy, &c., if the Stamp-duty were removed.] In fact, they might peceive by the sale of the Penny Magazine, and of Chambers's excellent Edinburgh Journal, that the poor had a disposition to instruct, themselves, if the instruction were only placed within their reach. Nay, what to others seemed most dry was often to them most interesting, for the poor lived by labour and by trade, and all that enlightened them as to the direction of labour and of trade had a charm, and even an amusement, which the Gentlemen of that House were scarcely able to comprehend. In looking to France, where newspapers were so cheap in comparison to ours, and yet where a much smaller proportion of the poor were educated, they could not but observe, 1st, that a much larger number of the eminent men of that country were engaged in instructing the people through the medium of the Press; and, 2nd, the difference in the number of journals in the two countries devoted to solid instruction upon useful points. Besides its political papers, Paris had ten journals devoted to advertisements, judicial notices, and commercial announcements; twenty journals devoted to jurisprudence, eight to education, twenty-one to science, and twenty-two to medicine. Who could doubt, that these were of the most eminent advantage to the people? Who could assert, that this country, embracing a much larger reading public, would not have, at least, an equal number, if newspapers were equally cheap, and it were permitted, by the intermixture of news, to attract the poor to the graver portions of the journal? But the advantage of cheap newspapers was not only in giving to the poor such instruction as the newspapers might contain; but it was even greater in habituating the minds of the poor to read and to apply themselves to information generally. It was a remarkable fact, that nearly all the popular reading societies in the kingdom were first formed by the desire to read the newspapers. In a part of the evidence on the late Poor-law Commission, one very intelligent witness being asked, if he did not think the Penny Magazine had been useful in giving an intellectual bias to the poor, answered, "Undoubtedly; but I think cheap newspapers would do much more good, in training their minds to the desire of reading, and paving the way for general information." Thus, then, the advantages of cheap legal newspapers were, first, that to every bad opinion a good opinion (the natural effect of competition) was opposed—that the poor obtained all the instruction that newspapers contained—that they were thereby stimulated to seek other information of a more solid cast; and he might add, that by newspapers alone, they learned the nature of the laws, and the punishments of crime. This, then, was a tax operating in favour of bad opinion and against good opinion—operating against information, not of politics only, but of laws; not against knowledge, but virtue; it gave perquisites to the gaoler, and fees to the hangman; sowing the seed in ignorance, that they might reap the harvest in crime! The noble Lord allowed it to be a bad tax, yet he did nothing to repeal it! Shame on the Reformed Parliament, if it sanctioned these laws any longer! When he looked round that House, and observed the apathy with which they listened to this subject, he could not withstand drawing this parallel. In the worst times of modern France, with a Bourbon on the throne, with a Villèle in the administration, when it was proposed by a despotic Government to a servile Chamber to tax the press in France as it was now taxed in England, in order to prevent the circulation of knowledge, and to put down by the tax-gatherer the enlightenment they dared not assail by the soldier, the whole Chamber, subservient as it was, rose against the proposal! They would not war upon knowledge! Were Englishmen less free or less enlightened, that they should support, with patience, that which in the French Chamber had been rejected with indignation and scorn? In the remarks he addressed to the House in the Session before last, he had proved, he thought, to the satisfaction of the noble Lord, that, both by the evidence in this country, and that through Europe generally, they found, that ignorance and crime universally went together; and that, on examining the education of felons committed to gaol and sentenced to transportation or death, the vast majority of criminals possessed not even the elementary knowledge of reading or writing. This fact had been universally borne out by the evidence on secondary punishments—on the Poor-laws Commission—on the Sabbath Committee; and if this, then, were true, he told the noble Lord, that it was not enough to improve the laws, to amend the representation, if he continued taxes, which he himself acknowledged were a premium to ignorance, and through ignorance the avenue to death. It was said, that the schoolmaster was abroad; he saw his rod, but not his books. They seemed to reverse the old story of Dionysius; the tyrant had not become a schoolmaster, but the schoolmaster had become a tyrant. When Louis 16th was condemned to the scaffold, his defenders besought the judges to recollect by how small a majority that unfortunate monarch was condemned. "True," replied the judges, "but it is by a small majority, that the most important decrees are enacted." "Yes," said one solitary voice in that assembly; "but decrees, if unjust, can be repealed; but the life of a man can never be restored." So he said to the noble Lord: if, in his high capacity of Minister of State, he committed some error in mere legislation, the error could be retrieved; but if, after being duly warned, he suffered one peasant's mind to be misled, and one peasant's life lost, by the darkness and demoralization of these laws, he committed a fault which could not be atoned—a bad law might be repealed, but the life of a man could never be restored. He would say no more of this tax itself, but would come at once to the substitute he proposed for it; he proposed to repeal the Stamp-duty on newspapers altogether; and, in the first place, he suggested the propriety of laying a cheap postage, not upon newspapers only, but upon all tracts, periodicals, and works of every description under a certain weight: he proposed, that this postage should be equal, whatever might be the distance, so that the remote parts of the country should possess the same advantage in obtaining knowledge, as those immediately in the vicinity of the metropolis; and, therefore, requiring information less. He did not know, that on this point, he could add much to the calculations that he had the honour to submit to the House in the Session before last. He begged leave to say, that those calculations had never been to his knowledge contradicted or impugned. The debate was very widely published, several thousand copies were circulated; it was submitted to many practical men; despite this publicity, despite the notice it received generally from the Press, no contradiction was given to the facts he urged. He had, therefore, a right to assume, until such contradiction was made and proved, that his calculations were correct. In America, owing to the absence of that tax, newspapers were so numerous, that there was one weekly paper to every fourth person. He would only take half that proportion for this country. He would suppose, that if they abolished this tax, there would be a weekly newspaper only to every eighth person. The result would be, for the population of Great Britain and Ireland, 150,000,000 sheets of weekly newspapers throughout the year. Now, two-thirds of the London papers (it appeared by the Returns) were sent at present through the post. Suppose, for one moment, that this ratio continued with the increased numbers, what would be the amount at 1d. postage? Why, the amount would stand thus:—Postage of weekly papers 416,666l. But this was for weekly papers only. Now, calculate the daily papers, those published two or three times a-week; calculate also the tracts, the prospectuses, the pamphlets, sent through the post, and only at as much again; be 833,332l.—that was to say, the produce would be just double the amount of the tax he now asked them to repeal, and this calculation was formed upon the supposition, that the newspapers in this country, if as cheap as those in America, would yet be only, in proportion to the population, one-half of the number of the American papers; and this must be allowed to be a moderate calculation, when it was considered that capital was greater in this country, that printers' labour was cheaper, and that everywhere the appetite for knowledge, even among the poorest part of the people, was on the daily increase. But the noble Lord made, on a former occasion, one objection to this plan: he argued, that since the newspapers would be sold without the charge of postage in London, the effect of the plan would be to tax the provinces for the benefit of the metropolis. With all due submission to him, he thought he had here suffered himself to be led away by a common-place fallacy. In the first place, a postage was not a tax upon newspapers, it was the price of carriage; it was the necessary result of living at a distance from town, that the carriage of anything must be paid for, not newspapers only, but books, luggage, parcels of all descriptions. This was the unavoidable consequence of situation; and you might just as well call it a tax to charge a man for the carriage of coals from Newcastle to London, as to call it a tax to charge a man for the carriage of a newspaper from London to Newcastle, In the second place, if they thought it a hardship to pay a penny for a newspaper in the shape of postage, how much greater was the hardship to pay 4d. in the shape of duty! If they disliked to tax the provinces a penny, ought they not to dislike much more to tax them 4d.? or did they fancy, that when the cost was one-fourth part of what it was at present, that the people would acquire an additional right to complain? Besides, it would, in effect, weigh pretty evenly on both the metropolis and the large provincial towns, for, at present, not one large manufacturing town could afford a daily paper. Take away the tax, and every large town would have its paper—that, at all events, the town would enjoy without the burthen of postage; and in the large towns, many papers would be devoted to particular branches of commerce or trade, which would be important to those who lived in the metropolis, so that if many papers were sent from London, many also would be sent to it. Thus, then, by the postage alone, and according to a moderate calculation, he had attempted to prove, that they would receive double the amount of that trumpery tax; he had endeavoured to prove also, that the only objection against it was fallacious. But that he might not seem wedded to any particular plan, he would now, if the noble Lord wished it, concede to him all he could desire; he would suppose that the postage of newspapers would not bring in what was expected; he would suppose that it brought in nothing, but merely covered its expenses—nay, he would throw the whole scheme aside altogether. Well, he should be on equally strong ground, for by the mere removal of this tax, three other sources of revenue suddenly arose; the first, indeed, depended also upon the plan of postage—he meant the profits arising from the postage, not of newspapers, but of all light works under a certain weight, all tracts, circulars, &c. He did not think the noble Lord was aware of what an immense source of revenue this might become. In the first place, look at all the religious tracts that would be circulated if they might be sent to every part of the country at one-penny each! Look at the number of societies of every description, scientific, trading, moral, religious, that would correspond by such circulars! observe at public sales alone the expenses sustained in advertising! Every auctioneer, every Robins of the rostrum, would send forth circulars announcing the treasure he was about to dispose of. Take the prospectuses of booksellers alone. In a very able Letter which had been addressed to the noble Lord by Mr. Whiting, head of a respectable printing establishment, in the support of postage for light works, he calculated that of publishers' prospectuses (if they came within the weight admissible) 2,000 postages would be created daily. Another source of revenue by simply repealing that tax, would arise from the great increase of advertisements. Most of the newspapers set up would obtain some advertisements, more or less—some of them would probably be devoted to peculiar trades and callings, and into such papers a vast increase of advertisements connected with those trades and callings would be poured. At present the reduction of the advertisement duty was not so profitable to the public as it ought to be, because the monopoly of the London papers enabled them to keep up a disproportionably high price on advertisements; the effect of a vast competition would be, to lower the proprietor's profit on advertisements, to make advertisements considerably cheaper, considerably more plentiful, and, therefore, while most advantageous to the public, most profitable also to the revenue. But the principal source of profit that would arise to the Exchequer from the mere repeal of this tax was in the increase of the paper duty alone, and this, he was persuaded, would be so enormous, as of itself to do more than compensate to the revenue. Just let them compute what the increase of the paper duty would be. He supposed, that they abolished the tax, and made papers as cheap as they were in the United States; they would have—should he say—as many?—newspapers in proportion to the population. No, only half as many as there were in the United States. But there, to every 10,000 in habitants, there was a daily paper, selling at least, 2,000 copies. He supposed, that in Great Britain and Ireland, there was a daily paper to every 20,000 inhabitants, selling at the same proportion. What would be the result? Why, for a population of 24,000,000 you would have 720,000,000 sheets of paper published yearly. Now, then, papers pay a duty of 22s. per 1,000 copies—let him say 20s.—that was 1,000l. for every 1,000,000 papers; the produce, then, would be 720,000l. for the paper duty of the 720,000,000 papers; but at present there were only 30,000,000 papers published throughout the year—that was, the profit they yielded to the paper duty was only 30,000l.; deduct that 30,000l. from 720,000l., and there remained for the extra paper duty, for the new profit to the revenue, 690,000l., or about 150,000l. more than the whole profit of the tax he asked them to repeal. So that he could now say to the noble Lord, "Throw aside, if you please, the plan of the postage; believe, if you like it, that not a paper would be sent to the post; believe, that not a pamphlet, a tract, or a circular, but what would be sent by the coach at the charge of 1s., rather than by the post at the charge of 1d. Suppose, too, that not a single advertisement would be obtained by any of the newspapers, and that the advertisement duty remained the same, and yet, by the increase of the paper duty alone, you would gain 150,000l. more than the present tax, which you allow to be a barrier to knowledge and a premium to immorality." Had he made out his case?—was it necessary to say anything further? One or two observations alone remained; in the first place, he should propose his resolutions in the most moderate and general terms possible; he should merely propose to repeal the stamp duty on newspapers at the earliest possible opportunity; he should say nothing about the postage (he had merely thrown that out as a suggestion); the certain substitute to the revenue was the repeal of the tax itself in the increased amount of paper duty, and he was unwilling that any man objecting to a postage should pretend thereby to excuse himself from voting against the tax upon knowledge itself. If the resolution were carried, the noble Lord would not be put to any immediate inconvenience; it would only establish the principle, which the next Session would suffice to carry into effect. When the hon. member for Bath last Session brought forward his Motion for National Education, what was the reply made by the noble Lord to his hon. friend? "I doubt," said he, "if a Government should establish education; its duty ought to be not to enforce knowledge, but to give every facility to knowledge." He now called upon the noble Lord to discharge that duty upon the principle which the noble Lord himself had then laid down,—he called upon the noble Lord to give every facility to knowledge,—he called upon the noble Lord to remove the tax; because it was the great national obstacle to knowledge. He was no alarmist, he did not behold a storm in every cloud, or a revolution in every change. A great nation was not easily made, and a great people were not easily undone. But oppressed as they were with financial difficulties—old and new principles at war—the elements of their legislative constitution almost at open discord with each other—it was above all things necessary that whatever changes might be forced by the multitude upon their rulers, should emanate from their enlightenment and not from their passion or their blindness. If there were a spectacle which all true patriots, all statesmen of large views, beheld with exultation or delight, it was the gradual rise of a great people into power by the necessary and safe consequence of knowledge alone. But if, on the other hand, there was one prospect from which all honest men recoiled with dread, it was in times of difficulty and trouble, the advance of the giant force of a democracy from whom the opportunities of knowledge had been carefully excluded; who, therefore, had only the stimulus of want, without the perception of relief, and who were exactly calculated to frustrate the objects of liberty, because they were impatient of restraint. He called upon the noble Lord to preserve them from that danger—he called upon the noble Lord to fulfil the pledge which his public character, for nearly thirty years, had given to the country in favour of his attachment to the diffusion of knowledge—he called upon the noble Lord to be alive to the high ambition worthy his principles and his name—to open the prison-house of the mind—to remove the fiscal chains that now fettered and cramped opinion—and finding knowledge the monopoly of the rich, to leave it the inheritance of the poor. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That it is expedient to repeal the Stamp-duty on newspapers at the earliest possible period."

Mr. Roebuck

seconded the Motion. He did not think this proposition could be resisted by those who, for the last twenty years, and before they had attained office, advocated the principle contained in it. He did not intend to rake up the carcasses of buried speeches; it was sufficiently known without such quotations, that Ministers had maintained the principle. They were the advocates of every plan for the diffusion of knowledge, and it was for them, not for him, to reconcile to themselves and to that House, their settled and determined hostility to the measure now proposed to facilitate the diffusion of intelligence. They would not say, as in other instances, in which they turned their backs upon the principles which they formerly countenanced, that the measure of Reform had done away with the necessity for that now proposed. Reform made no difference; and if Ministers were really inclined to advance the progress of knowledge, and aid the circulation of intelligence amongst the people, they would, at least, agree to the removal of the Stamp-duties from newspapers. They had exhibited much eloquence upon this subject when they sat on the Opposition side of the House; but what would be thought, if, when now in place, they retired from the field, and said, they could not do that, which, before they so earnestly urged on others,—if, seated warmly on the Ministerial Benches, they denied the validity of their former arguments and exertions? If any words in the language were adequate to express, or rather, if the fitting and appropriate language would come at his call, none would be sufficient to express the deep indignation he felt at the conduct of that class of men who could use the subterfuge of such expressions to creep into power, and then, when in place, did not dare to go on with the measures of which they had previously been such ardent advocates. The times were now more favourable to the proposed measure, than at the period when the speeches were made. There was not now the same spirit abroad as in 1819, the existence of which was urged as an apology for the Laws then passed against the liberty of the Press; and those who could advocate the principle of the proposed measure then, could not, surely, shrink from its maintenance now. The population at present, were tranquil and knowledge-seeking, and if, in their search after knowledge, the food furnished them was bad and deleterious, the cause of the evil was to be found in the Stamp-duties. They talked of Cobbett's Two-penny-trash, but what was it compared to those? [Here the hon. Member produced some copies of the unstamped weekly papers which at present so abound.] Did hon. Members know, that 130,000 of these circulated every week?—and what was the doctrine inculcated by them?—inculcated, too, without any opportunity of reply being afforded, and in a manner in which no efforts of the Stamp-office could succeed in putting them down. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from one of the unstamped publications, the object of which was, to show that the people were stronger than the authorities, and, if driven to the necessity, possessed a power of resistance with which the latter could not cope. The writer called the soldiery "man-butchers," denominated the capitalists and men of property the "cannibalocracy," and the upper classes the "scoundrelocracy." The articles went on to controvert the position, that the discipline of the police and the money at the disposal of the authorities would render them too powerful for the people, and, in reply, urged the advantage of position which the narrow streets would afford to the latter—that with huge paving-stones they could from the house-tops completely pulverize a couple of military ruffians at a single blow—that they could with cabs, stage-coaches, and gentlemen's carriages, in a very short period erect such barricades as would astonish the sharers in the feat of the memorable July; and if fire-arms were necessary, there were plenty lying in the hands of the gun-makers which could be easily procured. Such was the nature of the publications which were disseminated in such numbers. Such was the poison, the administration of any antidote to which was prevented by these duties—for who, having a good object in view, would venture to begin by breaking the law? It should be remembered, that to put down the present unstamped newspapers was impossible; and that they would still continue to circulate, in spite of any law. What then was to be done? His answer was, circulate cheap knowledge of a better description, and depend on the inherent good sense of the people to receive what was good and reject what was bad. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to the ignorance of the laws which prevailed, and to the recent case of the Dorsetshire labourers, a case, which, if good and cheap publications had existed, would, probably never have occurred, Cheap newspapers would be made the means of promulgating the law, and prevent those daily violations which too often took place through sheer ignorance. This question was one which more particularly demanded attention at the present juncture. There was arising a new and singular feeling amongst the people; a feeling which affected not the forms of government, but the very frame of society; a feeling which made it a question, not between aristocracy or democracy, but between labour and capital. What were the Trades' Unions?—what the constant cries about the minimum of wages, but manifestations of this spirit? These doctrines had gone forth—the people had considered them—and if they went wrong, it would not be their fault, but the fault of those, who, having the power, refused to give them instruction. The best mode of giving them instruction was—by cheap newspapers. The class of persons whom it was desirable to enlighten, were not those who would seek pure literature or pure instruction. It must come to them with the ordinary incidents of the day. To instruct them, it was first necessary to interest them, otherwise, the best intended efforts would fail. The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, though composed of most enlightened and benevolent men, and sending forth to the world most useful publications, had not succeeded in putting their works into the hands of the mass of the people. They were prevented from touching upon such subjects as would at once interest and instruct the poor man, by the Act which forbade them to treat of matters on Church and State, without first obtaining a stamp. They had indeed, shaved pretty close to the law. The poor man would not trouble himself about what interested the rich. He did not care for literary pleasures. His life was at stake—his life depended on his wages, and this was the subject he was anxious to be instructed on. If the duty were repealed, then he might be instructed on what wages depended—he might be taught, that strikes and Unions availed nothing—he might be taught how gradually and steadily he might succeed in procuring a just reward for his labour. What had been the object of these Trades' Unions, and the publications connected with them? He knew, that one thing they attempted was, to effect a simultaneous suspension of work all over the king- dom for three weeks. If that had been accomplished, the evils of those three weeks might have taken more than three years to remedy. But if they thought that these Unions were evil, they should remember that instruction, and not the strong arm of the law, was the only effectual instrument to put them down. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by calling on his Majesty's Government not to be inconsistent with their professions when out of office, and no longer to maintain these pernicious duties.

Lord Althorp

said, the hon. Member who opened the debate complained of the apathy with which the House had listened to him, and the hon. and learned Gentleman who followed him did all he could to produce excitement by making a personal attack on him. If such, however, had been the hon. and learned Member's object, his attempt must be considered a failure. He would give a further proof that it was, by passing over every observation directed against himself. He thought that the opinion of the majority of that House was decidedly against the Motion then before them, and the apathy of which the hon. Member complained was one of his strongest reasons for opposing the Motion. The House would recollect, that last year he admitted, that it was his intention to take into consideration the propriety of repealing this tax; but, upon further consideration he had resolved not to do so. That announcement was received with approbation by the House, and one great reason why he would not consent to the Motion was the manner in which his former intimation was received. He believed, that many persons in that House and in the country generally were inclined to go further than himself in reduction of taxation. To this he did not object; but he believed that, in the present state of the demands of the country for repeal of taxation, he should not do wisely in selecting this impost as one to be abolished. It had indeed been contended that, by the plans proposed, not only the whole amount of the present tax would be made up, but that a great increase even might be fairly anticipated. This conclusion, however, appeared to him to be founded on erroneous calculations; for if a postage were charged upon newspapers, it was quite clear, that a large amount of newspapers would no longer be sent by the post, as they could be sent in quantities cheaper by many other modes of conveyance. He did not therefore, think he could calculate on a very great increase in the postage revenue. With regard to the supposed increase of newspapers themselves, and the consequent increase in the consumption of paper, he was convinced, that both the hon. Gentlemen had miscalculated, and had greatly exaggerated, the probable amount. There would be an increase no doubt; but not to such an amount as to make any sensible increase in the receipts on the duty on paper. In fact, he doubted not, if the duty on newspapers were taken off, that there would be a considerable reduction in the revenue, though probably not to the full extent of the tax. During the last Session it would be remembered, that the duty on advertisements was considerably diminished; and what had been the effect of that diminution on the number of advertisements? Had it increased them to any great amount? No, it had not. An increase certainly had taken place, but it was a slight one. He was aware, however, that this fact was by no means conclusive, for so long as the private charges on newspapers continued to be high, so long they could not fairly expect any great increase. But still it could not be said on consideration of this circumstance, that the argument by analogy arising from a comparison of the number of advertisements in America, with England was fairly applicable. He had hitherto argued this as a fiscal point only. The other point on which the hon. member for Bath had laid great stress—viz., that the operation of the tax on newspapers was to give a monopoly of circulation amongst the poorer classes to cheap publications of an evil tendency, and to prevent the counteraction of those pernicious doctrines—was one of much greater force, and one which he admitted had always great weight in his mind. But he thought the very statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown, that as the law at present stood, the mischief alluded to might be obviated to a much greater extent than the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to imagine. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that the labouring classes did not care for disquisitions about pictures, insects, and literature; what they desired was the discussion of questions relative to their wages. Now, he did not see what there was in the law as it at present stood to prevent any explanations in the most popular form from being given on this head. This argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and his assertion, that the labouring classes would read no disquisitions which were not combined with the news of the day, seemed somewhat contradictory, and was also contradicted by the fact that a very large number of cheap publications not having this intelligence were sold weekly. He was indeed aware, from private communication with the hon. member for Bath, and from other sources, that the amount of pernicious and mischievous publications was great indeed; but he was not quite so sure that the effect of repealing the Stamp-duties would tend very materially to diminish such publications. He was not quite so sure, that well intentioned would supersede the sale of bad-intentioned publications. Had not the claims for reduction of taxation been so great, he might perhaps have taken a different view of the question. But when there were so many different claims, especially from the labouring classes, who as the hon. and learned Gentleman truly said, looked more to substantial relief from physical evils than to the pleasures of reading or the improvement of their minds, he felt that so long as such claims continued to be made on the Government he should have extreme difficulty in bringing forward a proposition to reduce so large an amount of revenue, and which proposition, moreover, did not appear likely to give any great satisfaction either to the House or to the country. If, indeed, the House were inclined and anxious to make the experiment, he would not object. No doubt it might, under such circumstances, be an experiment worth trying; but he was not yet satisfied that the effect would be such as both the hon. Gentlemen seemed to anticipate. At present therefore, he could not venture to propose to the House such a reduction. Then came the question, whether he should agree to pledge the House by the Resolution proposed? He did not think it desirable to pledge the House by the Resolution as to the course they would adopt in a future Session, especially in a matter of revenue. For these reasons, without wishing to deny the force of many of the arguments which had been brought forward, but feeling great doubts as to some of the conclu- sions to which the hon. Gentleman had come, he was sorry to say, that he felt it his duty in the situation in which he was placed, to oppose the Motion. He had been accused by the hon. and learned member for Bath of inconsistency with respect to this question. He felt that he was frequently liable to be attacked on the score of inconsistency; at any rate, he frequently was attacked, much more frequently than he thought he deserved. He had, however, felt it his duty to state the grounds on which, at the present time, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion. He did not think on this question he could be fairly accused of inconsistency; for he was not aware that he ever had advocated in that House the Repeal of the duty on newspapers; though it was certainly known that his private opinion was in favour of its Repeal, if it could be made consistent with his public duty, in regard to the revenue of the country. As a public man, however, he had not, he believed, expressed any opinion on the subject. Under present circumstances he must vote against the Resolution.

Mr. Hill

was happy to find, that the noble Lord regarded this question merely as a fiscal one, and had given the House to understand, that if it could be shown that the revenue would not suffer by the repeal of the duty on newspapers, his objections to that measure would be greatly removed. Now, he was confident, if the duty were repealed, that the revenue derived from newspapers would be as large as before, if not larger: for the natural consequence of reducing the price of an article greatly in demand was to increase its sale. He was convinced by the calculation of Mr. Maclaren, on which he could place reliance, that the consumption of newspapers in America as compared with their consumption in England, was as five to one; the population of the two countries being taken into account; and it was calculated, that supposing the population of both countries equally dense, the consumption in America compared with that in England, would be as much as ten to one. Comparing New York and England together, it would be found that, in point of fact, the consumption of newspapers in the first-mentioned place was in the proportion of eight to one. Coming nearer home, he ascertained that in the islands of Jersey and Guernsey, where no newspaper duty existed, there were thirteen different newspapers, two of which appeared twice a-week, making in the whole fifteen publications in the week for the small population of those two islands; yet from the inquiries which he had made, he understood that in this country it took on the average 60,000 persons to support a weekly publication. If the duty on newspapers were repealed, he might safely say, that their circulation would be increased in the proportion of six to one; and he believed also, that the number of advertisements would be increased, for at present the newspaper duty operated as a bar against the reduction of the price of advertisements. In America the rate of charge for advertisements was 1½d. per line; in Jersey and Guernsey 1d. per line, while in this country it was as high as 9d. per line, after deducting the duty. The number of newspaper advertisements in America was twenty to one as compared with the number in England; and if the newspaper duty was repealed, the increase of advertisements consequent thereon might be calculated at three times their present amount. Another source of revenue had been already suggested—he alluded to the postage on newspapers. In the year 1830, 13,000,000 of newspapers passed through the London Post-office, and if 7,000,000 more were added, as the number carried by post in the country, it would appear that 20,000,000 newspapers, or two-thirds of the whole number published, had passed through the different post-offices in that year. Now, supposing that 1d. be paid for every paper sent by post that would yield a considerable sum; and, to put an end to any objections that might be made as to the difficulty of collecting the money, he would adopt the suggestion of a person well qualified to give an opinion on the subject—he alluded to Mr. Knight, the publisher. That gentleman recommended that a stamped wrapper should be prepared for such newspapers as it was desired to send by post, and that each wrapper should be sold at the rate of 1d. by the distributors of stamps, in the same way as receipt-stamps. He had already stated, that he expected from the repeal of the Stamp-duty an increase in the sale of the newspapers in the proportion of six to one, and he really believed that, taking into account the increased amount, of paper duty, of the advertisement duty, and the money raised by the proposed charge for postage, the revenue derivable from 600 unstamped newspapers would be equal to what was at present drawn from 100 newspapers. The following was an account of the money now received by the Exchequer on account of 100 newspapers:—Stamp-duty 1l. 6s. 8d.; duty on paper, 2s.; duty on advertisements, 8s., making 1l. 16s. 8d. Now supposing that by the repeal of the Stamp-duty the sale of newspapers increased six-fold, but that the number sent by post, which in 1830 was equal to two-thirds of the whole number published, remained as before, it followed that the number transmitted by post would only be one-ninth of the increased number of newspapers. Then, out of 600 papers, sixty-six only would pass through the Post-office, and the amount of revenue derived from the sale of stamped wrappers for them would, after making an allowance of twenty per cent, be 4s. 5d., the duty on paper would be six times what it was before, or 12s., and the duty on the increased number of advertisements would amount to 1l. Thus, while at present the Exchequer received 1l. 16s. 8d. from 100 newspapers, it would, under the plan he proposed, receive as much as 1l. 16s. 5d. from 600 newspapers. But it was not merely on fiscal grounds that he was disposed to argue this question. Did the noble Lord recollect how important it was to a commercial community to encourage the diffusion of intelligence through the medium of advertisements and news in the daily papers? He for one should be glad to see the duty on paper and on advertisements repealed, for it did appear a practical absurdity for the noble Lord to be granting money for the support of schools and colleges with one hand, and with the other laying a tax on those who were willing to purchase education for themselves. In disseminating public education, much of the seed would doubtless take root, while some fell upon the rock, and some were lost by the wayside; but the education which a man procured, and paid for himself, would stick to him and be valued by him, and would be exercised as well for his individual advantages as for the benefit of the State. Let it be recollected, too, that the existing law was too impotent to put down the unstamped publications, and that consequently it gave a bounty to the contraband trader. From information which he had received, he was induced to believe that the unstamped newspapers had increased to a frightful extent. He did not blame Ministers for not having put down this evil; but he thought that their attempts to do it by individual punishments was only inflicting private pain without producing any public benefit. Let the House recollect the effect which the use of one of these unstamped publications had upon the poor man—they taught him to violate the law. A poor man, in taking in any one of these publications, felt that he was setting the law at defiance. And let them look at the awful results which attended these incipient violations of the law. The offences which took place in agricultural districts gave melancholy proof of the effect of thus teaching men that the law could be set at defiance. And who were those who wrote in these illegal publications? Persons of desperate fortunes, reckless of what might happen to them, and ready at all times to go to gaol or suffer persecution. Could such individuals be safely intrusted with the teaching of the people in this country? Were their honest opinions likely to be in favour of order, of the institutions on which the particular form of Government in this country was founded, or of the institutions on which society itself depended? Yet the existing law gave a bounty to this class of writers, whilst it imposed a tax on the publications of men of respectability, station, and education, whose honest opinions were likely to be in favour of the institutions of the country. An hon. Member had alluded to certain cheap publications, and among the number to the Penny Magazine, which he characterized as trumpery. He should be sorry to think that the Penny Magazine was a trumpery publication; but if it were, he could not hold himself free from blame, for that publication was a project of his own. He wished that he could admit that the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge had penetrated deeply into the masses of the people. It had not, nor would the exertions of that or of any other society be able to do so, unless their works carried with them the stimulants of news and politics. He, however, thought that the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge was entitled to credit for what it had done. It had gone deeper into the mass of the people than any other society whatever, and its publications were more generally read than any other of a similar character. But it had done this by honest means. If he thought, that the law was kept in any particular state to favour that society, he would not continue a member of it. The Society taking the law as it was, had availed itself of all the advantages it could command, to as great an extent as possible, and it was disposed to avail itself of any new state of the law by carrying out the principle on which it acted to as great an extent as the law permitted. But he would refer to the Penny Magazine for another purpose distinct from the attack of his bon. friend. It had been found that, of the unstamped publications, from which news and politics were excluded, the good outnumbered the bad in an immense proportion. For while The Penny Magazine, The Saturday Magazine, Chambers' Journal, The Mirror, and others of the same class, together with the tracts of various societies, circulated at least 500,000 copies per week; those which were tainted with obscene or irreligious matter, or had nothing but frivolity to recommend them, scarcely reached a combined sale of 30,000. That was his answer to the question, whether the people might be trusted with the power of selecting for themselves—give them a choice upon any approach to equal terms, and they would reject the bad, and adopt the good. Repeal the tax, and sound political journals would soon reduce the sale of all others to insignificance. There had been, he was aware, and he supposed that there were still, in the country, those who thought that it was not good to give increased means of knowledge to the mass of the people, and that they could be more easily governed by being kept in ignorance. The day, however, for the assertion of such a principle was now gone by. There might have been some colour of an argument for that before the passing of the Reform Act, but that Act had altered the case. The people had now political power, and would any man attempt to say, that the will of the people was not law in this country? In saying this he did not speak of the impulses of the people directing them—he said nothing about their passions being their guide; but this he would say, that henceforth it would be impossible for this House, or for any Government, to set at nought the sober, just, and considerate will of the people. Ignorance might make them the enemies of the Government, why not take such steps as would make them its friends? Let them have the means of information, of correct information and correct reasoning on all matters connected with their interests—that was, with the interests of the country. No more fit education in a knowledge on these subjects could be given than that which newspapers well conducted could afford. They contained the details of the debates in that House, which embraced a number of subjects of foreign and domestic interest, and were developed with talent and ability. Would it be said, that everything stated in this House should be thrown away? He, for one, would not pass such a censure upon this House. He would say, let every cottager in the country have the means of knowing what was said here; and he would add that, taking newspapers generally, they would afford one of the best lessons which should be given to the poor man, as at once his guide and his mentor. He should like to know if all the knowledge of Members in this House was gathered from Locke, and Paley, and Bentham? He would fearlessly say it was not. Much miscellaneous information, and that of a valuable description, was to be gleaned from the newspapers. Many hon. Members in the House knew the fact to be so, and if hon. Members had gleaned information from such a source, why should not the poor man have a similar opportunity of information? If this House felt any apathy in this case, he was persuaded it was not in reference to the question before them, but to the feebleness of the individual who was advocating it. He could assure the House that no subject more nearly touched the feelings of the thinking people of this country than that which was now under consideration; and he as firmly believed that no boon would be received with more gratitude than that which was sought for by the present Motion.

Mr. Buckingham

would detain the House only with a very few observations. The noble Lord opposite appeared to think that there was a great indifference throughout the country upon this subject, and that any excitement that existed respecting it was confined to the metropolis alone; but he could assure the noble Lord that he was mistaken in this view of the question. He had good reason to know that there was a very general feeling throughout the country against those duties, which prevented the circulation of publications of useful knowledge and instruction amongst the people. In a tour which he had made through different parts of the country, there was not a town he went to in which there was a population of 20,000 persons that had not three or four cheap publications of the description that were now in circulation, to the great injury, he was sorry to say, of the morals and good feeling of the people; but these disgraceful publications were purchased with avidity and obtained a ready sale, because the people had no opportunity of procuring better vehicles of information at a price which they could afford. For his own part he was shocked and disgusted with the violent language used in those publications, and lamented to see them circulating amongst the people; but he could not blame the people for purchasing them when they had access to no other. These infamous publications it was, that caused the wide breach and separation that at present existed between the higher and lower classes of the people of this country, the consequences of which must be most baneful. The noble Lord had dealt with this question as a financial one; but even in that view of it he would contend that the noble Lord's calculations were erroneous. A proposition had been put forth some time ago in the Edinburgh Review, which was attributed to the late Lord Advocate, which he thought had a most clear and just bearing upon this point. The proposition there submitted was, that all periodicals, of whatever description, or treating on whatever subjects, should pay an ad valorem duty of twenty-five per cent on the selling price of the publication; and it was asserted that, by the increased circulation which this would cause to publications of that nature, a much larger amount of revenue would be thus derived than was produced by the present system of Stamp-duties. He would appeal to the good feeling, and the sense and justice of the noble Lord to give his aid towards the suppression of those injurious cheap publications which were now daily sent amongst the people, and that could only be done by giving encouragement to a better and a more wholesome food for the mind of the people. The sort of publications that now found their way into the hands of the lower classes were of the most demoralizing kind. They were calculated to destroy all respect for the Go- vernment, and for all law and order, and were particularly directed to bring the higher classes of society into disrepute and disrespect amongst the lower classes; for these mischievous works attacked without mercy not only the public but the private characters of men, not by reason or arguments, but they cut and hacked away with the hatchet and the tomahawk, dealing about blows indifferently amongst friends and foes. He considered it a very imprudent thing in any Government to encourage a system like this, so injuriously calculated to separate the higher from the lower classes of the people. The way to counteract this evil would be to afford facilities for sending amongst the people works of instruction, conducted by men of education and talent, and this could only be done by a total alteration in the present system of Stamp-duties.

Mr. Ewart

did not consider, that the noble Lord had been at all successful in his defence of the present system. The ground taken by the noble Lord, who, indeed, seemed to be the only opponent of the Motion on the opposite side, was, in fact, a very weak one. It was, that cheapening the newspapers would not do away the mischief of those cheap publications which were now complained of. This was assuming the whole question. When it was admitted, that the public newspapers were generally conducted with ability, and might be read with advantage by the mass of the people, was it not an injustice to put such an advantage out of their reach by the high Stamp-duties which were placed on them? It was just as if the people were in want of a copper coinage, and that, to relieve that want, there was made an issue of small promissory notes. To say, that the diffusion of useful knowledge would be a great benefit to the community, and, at the same time, to tax such knowledge, so as to put it out of the reach of those to whom it was so necessary, would be just as reasonable as the attempt to make a commercial community rich without giving them a circulating medium. As the representative of a large provincial town, he felt himself called upon to resist all restraints placed on the provincial press. It was well known, that the newspapers published in the country towns were not only the means of conveying political intelligence, but of affording also much scientific and literary instruction. He much regretted, that taxes on knowledge generally had not been long since removed by the Government. There was one publication, that it was particularly desirous should be relieved from the operation of the Stamp-duties; he alluded to the yearly-Almanacks. The Stamp-duties on these publications only produced 27,000l. annually, so that no great fiscal evil could arise from the abolition of this duty. The consequence of it, however, was, that a vast number of most erroneous and mischievous publications of a similar character were smuggled into circulation without any stamp. In the course of the last year, he believed there were as many as 200 calendars of this description published. He did not think, that this was a subject beneath the consideration of his Majesty's Government. That eminent writer, Bcccaria, who had dwelt so ably on the importance of educating the people, had asked, "How could a government think of punishing the people for the commission of crimes, if it refused to afford them instruction as the best guide to avoid those crimes? If a government did not encourage virtue, how could it punish vice?" He hoped the time was not far distant, when the present Government would pay the necessary attention to this subject. He hoped, that in the approaching Session of Parliament, the noble Lord would prove to the country, that he was not indifferent to the instruction of the people; and that some pledge would, even now, be given, that the subject should not be neglected by the Government, for of all reforms, none was more needed or useful than this.

Mr. Grote

said, that he should not detain the House long; nor should he have troubled it all had he not been intrusted with a petition praying for the repeal of the duties that were now the subject of discussion. He certainly entertained very strong feelings on the subject, for he attributed a great deal of the bad feeling that was at present abroad amongst the labouring classes, on the subject of wages, to the want of proper instruction, and correct information as to their real interests. From the absence of this useful knowledge, which could never be conveyed to the people while the present system of Stamp-duties prevailed, arose all the evils of the Unions that now disturbed that proper harmony that ought to subsist amongst the labouring classes in the relations of masters and workmen; and, he was sorry to say, that he feared those Unions were likely to increase and spread wider, rather than to subside. If there were proper channels through which the real interests of those men and the position in which they stood, could be fairly and candidly stated to them, they might very soon have their minds disabused of the erroneous notions as to wages which they now entertained and acted upon, but this could never be accomplished so long as the present Stamp-laws continued. He looked upon this as one of the most important subjects that could be brought under the consideration of the Government, not much less so than that very important measure respecting the Poor-laws which the noble Lord had introduced to the House. Nothing could be more important than instructing the people, and opening their minds to a proper view of their own and the country's interests. He should not prolong the discussion further than to observe, that he was sure, if the noble Lord would only exercise a little of that ingenuity which was supposed to belong to all Chancellors of the Exchequer—he would be able very readily to find the means of supplying any deficiency in the Revenue, arising from the repeal of the Stamp-duties, to which the present Motion applied.

Mr. Edward Lytton Bulwer

, in reply, said, that no tax pressed more directly upon the people than the one which prevented their acquiring knowledge; and it was his determination to divide the House upon his Motion.

The House divided: Ayes 58; Noes 90—Majority 32.

List of the AYES.
Abercromby, Rt. Hn. J. Fryer, R.
Aglionby, H. A. Gaskell, D.
Attwood, T. Grote, G.
Baines, E. Handley, Major
Barnard, E. G. Hawes, B.
Barry, G. S. Hill, M. D.
Beauclerk, Major James, W.
Blake, M. Jephson, O.
Bowes, J. Lister, E. C
Brocklehurst, J. Marsland, T.
Brotherton, J. Molesworth, Sir W.
Buckingham, J. S. Mullins, F. W.
Butler, Hon. Colonel O'Brien, C.
Chapman, M. L. O'Connor, F.
Ellis, W. Ord, W. H.
Ewart, W. Parrott, J.
Faithfull, G. Potter, R.
Fielden, J. Richards, J.
Finn, W. F. Robinson, G. R.
Roche, W. Wedgwood, J.
Romilly, J. Wilks, J.
Romilly, E. Whalley, Sir S.
Ruthven, E. Winnington, H. J
Scholefield, J. TELLERS.
Scrope, P. Bulwer, E. L.
Staveley, T. K. Roebuck, J. A.
Stewart, Sir M. S. PAIRED OFF.
Strutt, E. Bulwer, H. L.
Tooke, W. Clay, W.
Vigors, N. A. Hall, B.
Vincent, Sir F. Hawkins, J. H.
Wallace, T. Hutt, W.
Wallace, R. Maxwell, J.
Ward, H. G. Oswald, R. A.
Wason, R. Oswald, J.
Back to