Commons Sitting of 10 March 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—On the Motion of Mr. HARDY, Bribery at Elections; Seamen's Fund.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. WILSON, JONES, and LEADER, from Bridgewater and Denbigh, in favour of Mr. BUCKINGHAM'S Claims.—By Sir EDWARD KNATCH-BULL, Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Captain PECHELL, Mr. H. HUGHES, and several other HON. MEMBERS, from a Number of Places,—against the Additional Duty on Spirit Licences.

TIMBER DUTIES.—ALTERING EVIDENCE.
Mr. George F. Youngrose to make his promised Motion upon the subject of evidence given by the hon. Member for Bridport before a Select Committee, upon the subject of the Timber Duties. He assured the House that he had never before risen in his place to address that House under circumstances of such difficulty or with greater reluctance, although, he was happy to say, that his conscience acquitted him of all personal or party motive in making this necessary allusion to an hon. Member's evidence, for whom he entertained much respect. He should obtain, he believed, credit with the hon. Member and with the House for an anxiety on his part to-night to abstain from any observation or expressions of an irritating character on this subject, although it was a matter of direct personal reference to himself. It was not necessary he should now insist upon the importance to this country, in a commercial and political point of view, of the exercise of a due vigilance over the interests of the timber trade. in pursuance of that object a Committee had been granted during the existence of a former Government, with power to examine evidence upon this subject. Constituted as that Committee was, he should have opposed it. The expectations of the well-wishers of the trade had, with him, been disappointed in the persons selected to perform the duties of

139
the Committee so appointed. Instead of their being all persons, as they ought to be, unprejudiced and unpledged to any opinions on the subject of this trade, he must complain that there were nine Members for sea-port towns who had expressed their opinions beforehand to their constituents upon the subject of the trade, and ten Members of it, Members for inland places, similarly pledged, with one individual—
Mr. Ewartrose to order. The selection of such a Committee was not a proper subject for the consideration of the House upon this occasion.
The Speakerthought the hon. Member should proceed.
Mr. Youngsaid, that he thought he was quite justified, whilst stating that an allegation of unfairness in the decision of the Committee had been publicly made, to attempt to trace its cause to the constitution of the Committee itself. Out of the thirty-two Members who were appointed on that Committee, twenty were pledged by their speeches or avowed opinions to a particular opinion, four were neutral.— He could have wished to have seen more impartiality and fairness on the part of the Committee, as far as the numerical strength of the witnesses examined on both sides of the question was concerned, for there were only twelve persons called before them to speak on behalf of the colonies, whilst no less than eighteen were allowed to give evidence on behalf of the Baltic and Norway timber trade. Many important witnesses, who attended on behalf of the colonial interests, were altogether refused attention by the Committee; and one gentleman, who had come from Ireland, and who was the deputed representative of a large body of timber-merchants in that country, was compelled to return without having undergone examination. After these witnesses had been examined, the hon. Member for Bridport rose up in the Committee and demanded to be heard by them. Now, considering that although each hon. Member who composed the Committee had a right to support the particular views and opinions which he might entertain upon this subject, yet as the hon. Member for Bridport had distinguished himself very much in advocating his own side of the question, and had taken a very active part, as well as shown very strong partialities on behalf of his own views, he had certainly felt himself called upon in
140
fairness to oppose the admission of the hon. Member's evidence. His opposition, however, was overruled, and, in consequence, the examination of the hon. Member was proceeded with, and upon the evidence which was given by him was grounded the motion about to be submitted to the House. The inquiry itself had, as was well known, excited great interest amongst the public, and the publication of the evidence was looked forward to with equal interest on the part of the public, in order that it might be ascertained, by its examination, upon what grounds the Committee had come to their unexpected, and he might almost say, hasty resolutions.— Those resolutions were reported to the House in the month of August; at the close of the Session the evidence was still unprinted. In the month of October he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, expressing the anxious desire which his constituents felt to have the evidence laid before them, and requesting to know when it might be expected to be ready. The right hon. Gentleman had very courteously replied to him, informing him that he was ignorant of the cause of the delay which had occurred, and promising to hasten the publication of the evidence as much as was in his power. In the month of December he again wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, who, in his reply, dated December 17, stated that the delay was occasioned by some intricate calculations and tables to be furnished by the hon. Member for Bridport, but that these being completed, the evidence would be published in a few days. It was not, however, completed in a short time, for it was not until the month of February, in fact, until the meeting of the House, that they got the evidence taken before that Committee, which had furnished its report to the House in the month of August. Thus the opportunity of investigating that evidence, upon which it was most probable the House would, during the present Session, proceed to deal with the timber duty question, was lost to those on the other side of the Atlantic, who were most interested in the matter, and who, being deprived of it, lost thereby the opportunity of expressing their opinions upon it. This consideration brought him at once to the case, which it was now his duty to lay before the House. On looking over the evidence printed under the name of the hon. Member for

141
Bridport, his mind misgave him, and he said to himself—"Surely this cannot be the evidence given by the hon. Member at the Table of the Committee." He accordingly went to the Journal-office, and procured a transcript of the short-hand writer's notes, as corrected by the hon. Member for Bridport. On examining these notes, and comparing them with the hon. Member's evidence, as printed, he found the most extraordinary discrepancies between the two; but before he took any public steps in the matter, he went to the hon. Member, and asked him if he could afford any explanation of those discrepancies. The hon. Member replied, that they were mere verbal alterations, and that he might take what steps he pleased with respect to the matter; which answer, of course, left him no alternative but that of laying the facts before the House. In a case like the present, it was difficult to define, or to draw a line of demarcation as to the extent to which witnesses ought to be restrained in correcting their evidence. He was disposed to give them a great latitude in this respect, and he should not ask the House to look narrowly at verbal alterations, or at any alterations in minor points. That such was not the case in this instance, he was prepared to prove, and he might state, that two of the witnesses who supported the views of the hon. Member for Bridport had been allowed to correct their evidence, but not to alter or add to it. Let him now proceed to show the House, whether the same observation could be applied to the evidence of the hon. Member for Bridport. If the House would examine the two documents—namely, the short-hand writer's notes, and the evidence as printed, the difference between them it would at once be seen was enormous. He had gone through the first sixty-one pages of the short-hand writer's notes, which consisted of 129 pages altogether, and he believed that these sixty-one pages might be taken as a fair average of the whole, as he did not suppose they contained more alterations than the remainder of the evidence. Well, these sixty-one pages contained 5,000 words altogether; of these 3,332 words had been struck out by the pen of the hon. Member for Bridport, leaving 1,668 words in the printed evidence as originally spoken by him before the Committee. Now, how had the hon. Member corrected his evidence? He had intro-
142
duced no less than 6,940 words in lieu of the 3,332 struck out by him—making in the whole 8,608 words, of which nearly 7,000 were not uttered by him before the Committee. He submitted the fact in this form to the House, as it was the most convenient, and afforded the best opportunity for them to judge of the extent to which the hon. Member had carried his alterations; and he certainly looked upon the question to be one of very great importance to the subject of inquiry before the Committee, as it involved very serious interests; nor did he despair of showing that the alterations were of moment. The first question to which he was disposed to call the attention of the House was, whether it was allowable in any person to alter the mode in which his evidence was given, so as to make it assume an argumentative form, which it did not originally possess before the Committee; for this would naturally lead people to believe that such evidence had been of much more weight and importance than it really was. The hon. Member then proceeded to give specimens of the alterations to which he had referred, and observed that he did not complain of the statements themselves; but only of the fact that they had not been made before the Committee, but. had been interpolated upon the actual evidence of the hon. Member for Bridport. The next point upon which he had to complain was, that by the alterations thus made, the arguments adduced by the hon. Member in support of his views on the. Timber Duties had been considerably strengthened; and in order to enable the House lo judge of this fact, he should end by moving, that the short-hand writer's notes be printed. The third point to which he must draw their attention was the circumstance that the hon. Member, who certainly must be looked upon as one of the most important witnesses on his side of the question, had, by the course which he thus adopted, altogether escaped that cross-examination to which he would have been subjected, had he made the same statements before the Committee as were now contained in the printed evidence, and he would have very probably been met and contradicted in some of his most material statements; he more particularly referred to what the evidence contained as having been stated by the hon. Member upon the subject of the tariff on Baltic and Norway deals, which, had he stated

143
at the table of the Committee, would most assuredly have been questioned. He would, however, not weary the House by going any further into the details of these alterations, it was sufficient that they could be proved to have been made, and he would now further explain that his allegations did not refer to the corrections made in the papers and tables handed in by the hon. Member at the Committee, and which he then expressly observed were not correct, owing to the haste in which they were prepared. The observations which he had made, referred to the text of the printed evidence, and to that only; and if he had succeeded in showing that alterations of that magnitude had been made, let him ask in what manner it became the House to act on the occasion? He would not assert, that the present was an unprecedented occurrence; but he had searched the Records of that House, and had found no traces of any precedent, and most certainly the present was the first time that any question relating to such alterations had been brought before the House. The interest which he took in the whole question of the Timber Duties rendered him very desirous of seeing the evidence actually given before the Committee by the hon. Member for Bridport, printed in juxta-position with that contained in the volume laid before the House. He could have desired, as no doubt other Members of that House did, that the evidence had not been altered. But as the hon. Member, who had been examined at the eleventh hour, had altered his statements, he asked, in justice to his own views and opinions, that the House should be put in possession of the short-hand writer's notes, and thus be enabled to judge of what the hon. Member really did say. The next consideration which he had to submit to the House was, the degree of value which, by their declining to notice the present case, would in future attach, either within those walls or in the public at large, to the printed minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committees. Why should the farce of taking and printing evidence be gone through, if such circumstances as the present were permitted to pass unnoticed? Why not rather suffer each person to send in a treatise on the subject for examination? If a case like this were to pass, and no definite regulation were laid down as to the correction or alteration of evidence,
144
what value, might he ask, would in future attach either to Reports from Select Committees or printed minutes of evidence? The case was, however, now in the hands of the House; he had been actuated by no personal motives in bringing it forward, and he should rest contented with the decision of the House, whatever that might be. He begged, therefore, to move that the evidence given by Henry Warburton, esq., a Member of the House, before the Select Committee, on the Timber Duties, be printed verbatim from the short-hand writer's notes, with the same evidence from the published Report of the Select Committee placed in parallel columns opposite each question and answer.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that during the ten years he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament, he had abstained from occupying its attention with anything personal to himself, because he considered the public business of so much more importance than anything that affected him; but after the motion which had been made by the hon. Member for Tynemouth, he could not forbear from stating to the House what his conduct had been on the subject. He did not know that the hon. Member had acted quite fairly in attempting to couple his name with the constitution of the Timber Duties Committee and its appointment by the Government, and by striving to create a prejudice against him in the minds of those Members who were opposed to that Government, by endeavouring to connect his conduct with the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers. He did think that the hon. Gentleman, considering how personal this motion must be, ought religiously to have abstained from creating any prejudice of this kind in the minds of those who had to entertain this question. This was the second attempt the hon. Member had made, to use a vulgar phrase, to burk his evidence. The first attempt was in the Committee. At an early period of the inquiry, he (Mr. Warburton) had informed the Chairman, that he was ready to give evidence before the Committee, and he left the Chairman to fix the time and opportunity for giving it. At the close of the inquiry, it was proposed that he should be examined. To this the hon. Member and his friends objected, contending that the witnesses ought to be examined first, one on one side and then one

145
on the other; and they were for having them marshalled like the black and white men on a chess-board, as if witnesses were not to be valued by their weight but by their number; and, therefore, his (Mr. Warburton's) evidence was to be excluded. He informed the Committee, that he was not anxious to deliver his opinion on the subject; but being in possession of historical details for the last eighty years, collected from authentic documents, the owners of which were connected with the timber trade, he wished to lay them before the Committee. The hon. Gentleman, however, and his friends, brought forward a motion, that his (Mr. Warburton's) evidence should not be received. The hon. Gentleman was, however, unsuccessful in his endeavours to procure abortion, and now he tried to strangle the babe in its cradle. He would now come to the changes he had made in giving his evidence. Having stated to the Committee that he had matters of fact and history to lay before them, he adhered to his purpose of communicating them only; but some hon. Members of the Committee, who sometimes showed more zeal than discretion, knowing his opinion to be opposed to theirs, when they thought they had some fact which favoured their theory, endeavoured to break a lance with him; and, therefore, the House would find that sometimes, when he was driven into a corner, he had been obliged, when questions were asked on some matters of opinion, to answer them. For instance, the hon. Member for Worcester bad a favourite theory, that the continuance of a trade was no proof that the trade was not a losing one. He had some questions put to him on this point, which he answered; and he mentioned this to show, that he was obliged sometimes to give evidence on matters of opinion. The House would, however, find that the points on which his evidence on matters of opinion was given were limited to very few. With reference to those, be had said, that it was impossible for him to fill up the details at that time. One of these points was, that whilst there was war on the continent, and the ports were open, prices were not lowered; another, that freight was the most varying of all the elements constituting price. It so happened that he was then asked by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, and the noble Lord the Member for West-
146
moreland, to supply the prices of the whole market for the last eighty-one years; he had undertaken the task, being also requested by the Chairman of the Committee; and, to complete it, it had taken up three months and a-half of his time, at twelve hours a-day. Having undertaken, then, to supply the details, he had thrown a few flowers over the barren path along which he travelled; and, because he had done so, were the hon. Members opposite to treat him like a school-boy, and to say, "You are tied to your lesson, and if you deviate from it you shall be flogged?" He read part of his evidence from tables which were then incomplete, and which he was then engaged in making. Allowing that there was very great delay in publishing the Report; still, if he could not complete what he had undertaken to do without the sacrifice of a great part of the long vacation, surely it was too much for the hon. Member to say, "You are the guilty cause, and it is attributable to you that persons on the other side of the Atlantic have not had an opportunity of reading the evidence." He did claim the liberty of making remarks on that table, which had cost him so much labour and so much time. All that he had done was, he had supplied all the details on the points which he had raised in the Committee himself, and he claimed to himself a degree of forbearance in not raising any questions of opinion on those details which were not raised in the Committee. He had ventured to strike out some words in questions, because they did not seem to him to be connected with the subject which was under the consideration of the Committee. For instance, he was asked, "Is not timber an article which, like wine or other things, improved by keeping?" Now, it appeared to him, that the words "other things" were not strictly connected with the subject; and, therefore, he took the liberty of striking them out. He had now stated the whole of his defence. He had told the Committee, that he could not supply all the details then; he had undertaken, at their request, to prepare them; and if he had sinned, let the Committee bear together with him that sin. No new points of opinion were raised by him in the published Report which were not raised by him in the course of his evidence before the Committee, and the 7,000 interpolated words which were laid at his door by the hon. Member were

147
the consequences of his undertaking the completion of the Table. Upon the whole, he really ought to be much obliged to the hon. Member for unintentionally conferring a favour on him, for though the hon. Member wished to throw discredit on his evidence; yet, just as libels were spread by their authors being prosecuted, he had no doubt that, thanks to this Motion, where he should have had but one reader, he should now have one hundred.
Mr. Robinsondid not know what effect the speech of the hon. Member for Bridport might have had upon the House, but it appeared to him that he had not answered in the slightest degree the allegations of his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. The hon. Member might have been content to meet the charges which had been brought against himself instead of going out of his way to attack others. The hon. Member had said, that a great labour had been imposed upon him by the Committee, and then he asked the House whether he could help delaying the Report. Now, he (Mr. Robinson) denied that either the House or the Committee imposed on him any such labour at all. The hon. Member told the right hon. President of the Board of Trade that he had evidence to give before the Committee; but that evidence was proposed to be given when many of the members of the Committee had left town, and when those who were opposed to the hon. Gentleman's views were not able to produce evidence in controversial of the evidence given by the hon. Member. When they found that a majority was against them in favour of hearing the hon. Member's evidence, they proposed that some one else should be heard on their side; but the Committee would not allow it. The hon. Member for Tynemouth said, that he had no objection to the tables being completed; but what the hon. Member had complained of, and what he (Mr. Robinson) complained of, and what the House had to deal with, was, that alterations had been made in the substance of the evidence. This question might be treated as a party question, but let them, if such alterations were to be made with impunity, look to the effects which they would produce in impugning the integrity of the Report of the Committee. If the House was willing that gentlemen should write treatises and send them for the consideration of the House,
148
let all parties stand on an equal footing; but he maintained that at present the public had no security whatever for a correct report of the evidence given before Committees of that House. He contended that the right hon. President of the Board of Trade ought to have intimated to the hon. Member that he might make his tables at his leisure, but he should not have delayed the publication of the evidence. The motion of his hon. Friend, to which the hon. Member for Bridport did not object, was, that the evidence in the report, and the evidence as taken by the short-hand-writer, should be placed in juxtaposition, and till that was done he thought hon. Members ought to suspend their opinions on the subject. He would remark, that other witnesses were told by the Chairman that they were not at liberty to do more than correct any verbal inaccuracies in the short-hand-writer's report, and the question was whether a witness, because he was a Member of that House, should be allowed to make alterations in his evidence, and keep the report in his hands three months and a-half? He had even done more than alter his own evidence, he had absolutely altered some of the questions. He acquitted the hon. Member of every thing except irregularity; but he knew how great an advocate he was for free trade, and how much his zeal might influence him.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that having been referred to by the hon. Member for Bridport, he would state the facts of the case as far as they were known to him, for before the evidence closed he had left London. He could state, if any statement of his was necessary in confirmation of what had been said by the hon. Member for Bridport, whose honour had been un-impeached during the ten years he had known him a Member of that House, what took place with regard to that portion of the suggestion made by him with respect to the tables. The hon. Member for Bridport having made known to the Committee that he was in possession of details, resting on authentic documents, of the state of the timber trade for the last eighty years, he was asked to communicate them, but he said that they would be comparatively useless except in a tabular form, and to prepare tables at that period of the session was impossible. It was then suggested by himself and the noble Lord the Member for Westmoreland, that as the

149
hon. Member was to be examined, he should be at liberty to complete his tables afterwards. The question then narrowed itself into one of irregularity; the hon. Member for Worcester put it no higher. He did think it important that published evidence should be strictly authenticated and printed as it was given; that, be believed, was the rule, as far as he knew. If any alteration was shown to the Chairman which did not touch the substance of the evidence, he might permit it to stand, but if it touched the substance, the Committee alone could permit it. Allowing it to be an irregularity, it arose from the permission given by the Committee under the peculiar circumstances of the case, in order that the tables might be filled up. This was a departure from the general rule, and was not he was bound to admit, strictly regular. He could not altogether exculpate his hon. Friend for having altered any of the questions which were put; it was only a matter of discretion, but it was a pity to do so, although every one would acquit him of having done so from sinister motives. But then the question was, whether this motion was to be pressed. He thought that sufficient had been done in bringing it forward, and that it would be of use in keeping the reports accurate in future, and no one could say that the irregularity affected the accuracy of the report or the hon. Member's honour.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwould tell the House, so far as he was acquainted with the subject, what had occurred. In vindication of himself, particularly after the sort of charge which had been brought against him by the hon. Member for Worcester, with respect to his conduct as Chairman, he must say, that till the hon. Member for Tynemouth mentioned the subject, and he saw the hon. Member's notice on Tuesday, he was utterly ignorant of any alteration being made, and his attention, as Chairman, was never called to it, nor did he ever hear a syllable on the subject. He could most completely confirm every part of the statement made by the hon. Member for Bridport. His hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, when he appeared before the Committee, brought with him papers from which he read certain portions of his evidence, and he referred to other documents, which the hon. Member informed the Committee were not in a state of preparation fit to be laid before them, and that it was necessary
150
that he should have the documents before he completed his evidence. So for as his (Mr. Poulett Thomson's) recollection carried him back, it. was most distinct that the hon. Member for Bridport did on this point state that he must be permitted to fill up all the chasms which might occur in his evidence, and that, so far from the case being such as had been stated by the hon. Member for Worcester, his (Mr. Poulett Thomson's) recollection was, that the hon. Member for Bridport was not only permitted, but authorized by the Committee to do so. There was another point referred to by the hon. Member for Worcester in respect to which his (Mr. Poulett Thomson's) recollection did not agree. The hon. Member for Worcester had stated, that the hon. Member for Bridport had not been authorized to correct his evidence, inasmuch as it was considered wholly satisfactory to the Committee. Now, he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) remembered that a considerable difference of opinion prevailed in the Committee as to the propriety of the hon. Member for Bridport at all giving evidence, as it might involve matter of opinions to which he had arrived; but he also remembered, that after his evidence had been given, there was in the Committee an expression of opinion that the evidence of the hon. Member for Bridport referred to facts, and not to mere matters of opinion. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for Worcester, that he, and those who entertained similar views with himself on the subject of the Timber-duties, had not been afforded an opportunity of answering the evidence of the hon. Member for Bridport, he could only say, that such an opportunity was given them, but they did not think proper to call another witness. Now, to what after all did this charge amount? He (Mr. Poulett Thomson) contended, that there could be no charge of impropriety on the part of the hon. Member for Bridport, because whatever he did was authorized, not by him as Chairman, but by the Committee itself, all its members being present at the time. It was true it was not communicated to the hon. Member in an authentic form by him, as Chairman, but it was communicated to the hon. Member publicly before the Committee. If the evidence of the hon. Member were valuable, it could only be so when correct; and if it were capable of disproof, the hon. Member would have an opportu-

151
nity of so dealing with it when the subject of the Timber-duties came regularly before the House. He thought the House would do wrong if it consented to publish the evidence in the manner suggested by the present motion, for it could answer no good purpose, while it would cast a slur and reproach upon his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport. But the hon. Member for Tynemouth had also attacked both the nomination and the conduct of the Committee. If the hon. Member had really any charge to make as to the nomination of the Committee or its conduct, why had he not brought it forward at the time the Committee was sitting, or, at all events, during the last Session—why had he allowed the Committee to terminate its labours without bringing forward his complaints? With regard to the nomination of the Committee, the hon. Member had given notice of a motion for the appointment of additional members; and after bringing that motion forward last session, he came to a compromise and withdrew it, so that in this respect he ought not to complain. On what ground of either fairness or justice, then, could the hon. Member, after ten months had elapsed, come down and complain of that Committee? In respect, however, to the charge brought against the Committee, and against him, as Chairman, he would appeal to the hon. members of the Committee, and especially to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandon), whether the conduct of the Committee had not been correct and proper, and whether there had been anything like partiality in his conduct in the chair? It was true he had a difficult task to pursue, on a subject with respect to which parties were strong in one opinion, while others were equally warm in another and a different view; but the best proof of the proceedings being impartial towards both, was afforded in the fact that at the close of its labours he had been told by many hon. Members that they had got through a most difficult task with great good humour and with greater success than they had anticipated at the outset. The hon. Member for Tynemouth had said, that he was bound to see the evidence printed as delivered, and had also urged as a charge against him the delay which had taken place in supplying the report of the evidence. Now, he had inquired into the cause of the delay, and had received for answer that the Tables ordered by the
152
Committee to be put into the evidence had not reached the printer's hands. He had then applied to his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, who fairly told him that the labour was so great that he had not yet finished all he had to do, but that he would lose no time. He had again sent to his hon. Friend on his return to town; and when he was informed by that hon. Gentleman of the extent of labour that he had undergone, his answer to his hon. Friend was, that he wished the Committee had known that the business would have been so laborious, because, if so, he would not himself, and he was sure the Committee would not, have taken upon themselves to impose on any hon. Gentleman such a task. Was, then, this onerous task now to be made a charge against the hon. Member, and was his conduct to be inculpated, as if it was something criminal? The hon. Member for Tynemouth had chosen to state, as an instance of unfairness in his (Mr. Poulett Thomson's) conduct as Chairman, that he had prevented other witnesses from altering the evidence they had given, whilst he had permitted the hon. Member for Bridport to do so. Now he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had stated to every witness that he might look over his evidence, but was not to make material alterations. But he contended, that there was a vast difference between those witnesses and the hon. Member for Bridport, who had been expressly required by the Committee—authorized, nay, ordered by them—to append the documents in question. If there was an objection to this course, why had the hon. Member not raised it at the time? Did the hon. Member think that the hon. Member for Bridport would have undertaken a three months and a-half labour if he had not been desired by the Committee? He thought the hon. Member for Bridport stood most completely exculpated, and he could not consent to a motion which, while it answered no good purpose, cast a slur and a stigma, as it were, upon his hon. Friend.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that he had been a Member of the Committee, and thought that in carrying the alterations to the extent which had been done a great irregularity had been committed. He thought it was establishing a bad precedent to recognize such a practice, and therefore the House was much indebted to the hon. Member for Tynemouth for drawing' its attention to the matter. It had

153
been admitted to be an irregularity, and this notice of it would doubtless be sufficient to prevent the recurrence of such a transaction. He trusted, therefore, that the motion would not be pressed to a division, especially when every hon. Member who had spoken had disclaimed attributing any dishonourable motive to the hon. Member for Bridport. He trusted that the explanation which had been afforded would be thought sufficient, and that his hon. Friend would not divide the House on a subject of so personal a nature.
Mr. Humethought it ought to be generally understood that no alterations of evidence, as delivered, would be permitted by the House. This was necessary to give the effect they ought to have to the reports submitted to the House from select Committees. If the present case stood without excuse, he should have joined in censuring the proceeding as an irregularity which ought not to be permitted, but his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had only done that which had been requested of him by the Committee. That was admitted, and after licence and authority thus given, and more especially after the explanation afforded to the House by his hon. Friend, it would be very hard that anything like a censure should be passed upon him for executing with so much ability, and after extensive labours, a duty imposed upon him,—labours for which he, for one, thanked his hon. Friend. He hoped the hon. Member for Tynemouth would consent to withdraw his motion.
Sir Matthew White Ridleyconcurred in thinking it desirable the motion should be withdrawn. If, however, it went to a division, he must vote for it, because, if a material alteration had (as was stated by a member of the Committee) been made, it was only just and right that the evidence should be printed in the manner proposed, in order to come to a fair conclusion as to how far it could be answered or varied by cross-examination. If, however, he thought the motion conveyed the slightest censure on the hon. Member for Bridport for having improperly altered his evidence, he would not support it. The hon. Member for Tynemouth had himself acquitted the hon. Member for Bridport of any such intention, and the object of the motion was merely to prove the correctness of the evidence as now printed, and thereby to guide the House on the discussion of the existing timber duties. The
154
motion attached no imputation on the character of the hon. Member for Bridport, which was above suspicion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreminded the House that the hon. Member for Bridport had not acted in the proceeding on his own motion, but upon the request and authority of the Committee. As a matter of principle, he was of opinion that evidence ought to be printed as given before a Committee; but when a Committee of its own accord gave instructions to a witness to complete his evidence, which, as in this case, could not be done pending its sitting, then he must say, that animadversion upon such a course was more applicable to the Committee directing it than to any other party. Believing, as he did to the fullest, the statement which had been made by the hon. Member for Bridport, supported (if it needed support) by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham), he thought the hon. Member for Bridport had cause to thank the hon. Member for Tynemouth for bringing the matter forward, because otherwise the important labours of the hon. Member would have been unknown. He must further say, that he never knew such an instance of labour and exertion devoted to the public service of the country. Nothing could be more important than the history of the timber trade for the last eighty years, which these labours and exertions had afforded to the House. As to the motion, if carried, it would convey a censure not intended either by the hon. Member for Tynemouth or those who supported him, and he therefore trusted he would take the advice thrown out, and not press the question to a division. If the hon. Member pressed the question he should most cheerfully, and from his heart, vote against it, affirming thereby the proceedings of the Committee, and affirming what was still more valuable and important—namely, that there was not a shadow of imputation against the hon. Member for Bridport; but that, on the contrary, the House had every reason to feel grateful to his hon. Friend for the pains and labour he had devoted to the subject.
Mr. Hardyconceived that the question was not merely a matter between the hon. Member for Tynemouth and the hon. Member for Bridport, but one in which the public was interested and deeply con-

155
cerned, and by the adoption of the motion they ought, in reference to a great and important question, to have an opportunity of seeing on what part of the evidence reliance was to be placed.
Mr. George F. Youngwas at all times ready to bow to the feelings expressed by a majority of the House, but he must complain that he had been placed in a most unfair position, inasmuch as during the conversation which had taken place all the eulogy had been passed upon the hon. Member for Bridport, and all the blame had been attached to him. He had attended the Committee daily, and he repeated that he had never heard a syllable of such instructions to the hon. Member for Bridport as had been to-night stated, except that the hon. Member having said that he had not had time to prepare the tables, was desired to furnish them and attach them to his evidence. This statement had not been refuted, nor could it be. He maintained, that if the evidence were printed as he suggested, it would appear that alterations had been made both as to facts and opinions. He stood aloof from party, and therefore could not look to party for support, but he never would shrink from defending with independence any conclusion to which, after the exercise of his best judgment, he arrived. It was not his intention to prefer any charge against the hon. Member for Bridport, and he should not be indisposed to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

CHURCH REFORM—REPORT OF THE CHURCH COMMISSIONERS.
Lord John Russellappeared at the Bar with the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. On its being brought up, the noble Lord, in moving that it be printed, stated that, in presenting the second Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the slate of the Church, he thought it proper, in conformity with the course which his noble Friend at the head of the Administration had adopted in the other House, to state shortly the general subject and nature of the Report. It would be in the recollection of the House, that the Commission was appointed, and the Commissioners were named, when the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was at the head of the Administration. The persons appointed were certain of the Archbishops and Bishops, and other per-
156
sons more immediately connected with the Church, and three or four persons holding high situations in the Government. When the right hon. Baronet went out of office, he, and all those in office with him, withdrew from the Commission, and, with the acquiescence of the heads of the Church, a new Commission was issued, which included the name of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and other persons holding similar situations under this Administration, to those which were held by the members of the former Administration, forming part of the Commission, and vacated their seats. Although, therefore, the persons in the Commission were changed, the objects of it were not altered; and he believed that he was entitled to say, that the discussions at the Board of Commissioners had always since then been carried on in the most amicable and friendly spirit, with the view of preparing measures for the benefit of the Church and the advantage of the country. The Commissioners had been able unanimously to agree to a Report, involving some of the remaining important points not touched upon in the former Report. The subject of inquiry, as originally proposed, was divided into three heads. The first was respecting the territorial division and revenue of the bishoprics. The second respected the revenues of the cathedrals and collegiate churches, with the view of making their revenues more conducive to the services of the establishment; and the last subject of consideration had reference to the residence of the clergy, and to promote the due performance of their proper functions. Now, as regarded the first branch of the inquiry, the first Report had proposed, in the first place, a different territorial distribution of the dioceses, in order to make them more equal; then a suppression of two sees, and the erection of two others. Thus far as regarded the duties. As regarded the revenues, the Report proposed that the greater part of them should be brought within a scale not exceeding 5,500 l., and not less than 4,500 l.; and that none but the two archbishoprics of Canterbury and York, and the bishoprics of London, Durham, and Winchester, should be made exceptions to the rule. The only material alteration in this plan proposed to be made by the present Report was that, as regarded the territorial distribution of the sees, that portion of the diocese of Bristol which it

157
had been proposed to make part of the see of Llandaff, should now be united, as far as regarded the city of Bristol, with the diocese of Bath and Wells; and, as far as regarded the other portions of it, that it should be united to the see of Gloucester. It was also proposed to unite the see of Sodor and Man to that of Carlisle. Then, with respect to the revenues of the several bishoprics, the present Report proposed certain diminutions. Taking the returns as presented to the Commissioners — which, however, might not be quite accurate, but they were the only ones of which the Commissioners had been able to avail themselves—it would appear that the present Report proposed these changes:—

Sees.

Present Income.

Reduced to

Surplus.

Canterbury

£17,000

£15,000

£2,000

London

12,200

10,000

2,200

Durham

17,800

8,000

9,800

Winchester

10,700

7,000

3,700

Ely

11,000

5,500

5,500

Worcester

6,500

5,000

1,500

To be united.

St. Asaph

5,200

5,200

3,800

Bangor

3,800

Leaving a total surplus of

£28,500

Now, it was proposed that this excess should be divided among thirteen other sees, so as to increase their revenues to between 3,000 l. and 4,000 l. per annum. With respect to the sees of Bath and Wells, Norwich and Salisbury, no alteration was proposed. The effect of the new distribution would be in conformity with the suggestions in the first Report, that there would no longer be the great disproportion, so much complained of, between the amount of the revenues enjoyed by the respective bishops, and the duties performed by them; with the additional benefit, that the evils of uniting benefices in commendam to the bishoprics, and of translation from the poorer sees to the richer, would be got rid of. The Report staled, that the whole of the episcopal revenues would suffice to provide for the whole number of bishoprics now proposed, but it also suggested that there should be some measures taken in order to change the mode of granting leases for lives and terms of years; but that was a subject which the Commissioners had found to be attended with much difficulty, and they had not made any distinct proposition upon it. With regard to the next branch of the inquiry entered into by the Commissioners—the amount and present distribution of the revenues of cathedral and collegiate chapters—the Report entered into some statements, The chapters
158
were, at present, divided into two orders— those of the old foundation and those of the new foundation. Those of the old foundation were those which were founded before the reign of King Henry 8th, and they had this peculiarity, that they had not only separate estates affixed to each prebend, but that there were also in each a number—in some a larger, in others a smaller — of prebendaries and persons attached to the cathedral, but with no obligation of residence, and with smaller or larger incomes, and no duties to perform. Those of the new foundation were somewhat more systematic. They generally had an estate belonging to the dean and chapter, giving a yearly income, the surplus of which, after deducting expenses, such as for repairs of cathedrals, was divided generally into two portions, one portion for the dean, and the other for the other members of the chapter. The manner in which the Commissioners proposed to deal with these establishments was, in the first place, that all those prebendaries to which the condition of residence did not attach, and all other similar offices, should be altogether suppressed, their incomes being merged into some fund for the benefit of the clergy, and for the extension of the instruction afforded by the Church. And, with respect to the collegiate chapters in general, it was proposed by the Commissioners not to abolish them altogether, but to leave in each cathedral a sufficient number of dignitaries duly to perform the services of the cathedral, adding something to the incomes of the more distinguished. It was proposed that there should be a dean and four canons to each cathedral, and that all above that number should be suspended. The consequence of these proposed measures would be that, as regarded the chapters on the old foundation, there would be three hundred and sixty-eight prebendaries abolished, and that, as regarded those on the new foundation, the duties would be better regulated, and the service of the cathedrals better provided for. From these different measures there would result a surplus revenue of 130,000 l. per annum, including the abolition of seventy sinecure rectories, thirty of which were in the gift of the Crown. With respect to the canonries and stalls remaining, it was considered that one of them might, in most cases, be made useful in maintaining an office of

159
great importance—one of which was particularly conducive to the performance and due inspection of the affairs of the Church, but which was at present very ill remunerated—he referred to the office of archdeacon. It was proposed (he spoke generally, without adverting to particular cases) that one of the stalls should be attached to the office of the archdeacon. In some cases it might be advisable to attach a stall to the living of some adjoining populous parish the revenues of which were small. This had already been done in the case of Westminster, where one of the stalls which fell vacant during the Administration of the right hon. Baronet was given to the incumbent of a populous parish in the neighbourhood of the House. There was also another of the stalls in Westminster Abbey which it was now proposed to attach to the parish of St. John's, Westminster. These were particular instances. As regarded others which had fallen vacant in other chapters, it had also been thought adviseable to propose that they should be affixed to the cures of large and populous parishes. He now came to the last and most important branch of the inquiry—the provision for due residence on the part of the parochial clergy. With respect to this, it was proposed that the number of clergymen to be exempted from continual residence should be very much reduced— that these exemptions should be confined to the chaplains immediately in attendance on the Bishops, and on the Royal Family, the Heads of Universities, and the principal masters of Westminster and Eton schools, besides some others, which he need not now name. With respect to the time of residence, it was not proposed that any very material alteration should be made, except that deans should be obliged to reside nine months, and that a canon holding a benefice should not be allowed to be absent from it more than four months, including the three months during which he would be in attendance at the cathedral. With respect to pluralities, some considerable changes were proposed to be introduced into the law regulating these. It was proposed that no person should hold more than one living, together with a dignity, and that no one should hold two livings, the distance between which was greater than ten miles, or when one should yield more than 500 l. per annum. This rule, it was proposed, should be absolute as regarded the dis-
160
tance of ten miles; but, with respect to the annual income of 500 l., it was proposed to extend it to meet the case of a clergyman holding rather a rich benefice and willing to hold another contiguous to it, the population of which might be very considerable in proportion to its income, in which case it was further proposed that the Bishop of the diocese should have power to grant a provisional licence, of which an immediate report should be made to the Archbishop, by whom the case would be laid before the King in Council, who would have the alternative of disapproving of the proposed licence. Having now stated the proposals of the Commissioners for the better arrangement and distribution of the duties of the various livings, it became necessary to say in what way it was proposed to dispose of the surplus funds which the new provisions would create, and which would come into the hands of the Commissioners, or, more probably, of some permanent Board to be appointed for the purpose. The object would be to dispose of this amount in such a manner as to make it beneficial to the church. Now, it would be evident to the House, that when such restrictions in the holding of a plurality of livings were imposed, it would be exceedingly difficult for clergymen, not holding more than one of the smaller livings, to live in that independent style that was desirable for a minister of the Church. It appeared that the relative values of the livings were as follows:—Of benefices under 150 l. perannum there were 3,528, and of those under 100 l. there were 1,926; of these the population of thirteen was above 10,000—of 51 above 5,000—of 251 above 2,000, and in 1,125 the population was between 500 and 2,000 persons; making 1,440 benefices having more than 500 inhabitants, with less than 150 l. per year. Without troubling the House with the calculations which brought him to the result, he (Lord John Russell) would state, that if the stipends of the smaller livings were raised to 100 l. per annum, and if the stipends of those of which the population was more than 500 were raised from 100 l. to 150 l. more than 160,000 l. would be required to effect the arrangement; but at the same time it must be borne in mind that the sum to be derived from the suppressions which he had before stated to the House as forming part of the propositions of the Commissioners, would afford ample scope for its being carried

161
into effect. On the other hand, there were also other evident means of applying any surplus which might afterwards remain, because, if the disproportion of church accommodation to the numbers of the population in the several parishes were taken into account, there would be found to be an ample field for an advantageous expenditure of the amount. Taking London alone, there were four parishes, containing 166,000 inhabitants, in which there was church room for only 8,200, less than one-twentieth. There were 184 parishes, containing 1,137,000 inhabitants, in which there was church accommodation for only 125,000, about one-tenth of the whole. In certain parishes of Lancashire, there was a population of 816,000, and only church accommodation for 97,700, or about one-eighth of the whole. There were also various other instances stated in the Report, showing, that while the population had very much increased, the churches and church room had not increased in proportion. He trusted that when the Commissioners came to consider this part of the subject, respecting which they had not as yet made their Report, a measure satisfactory to all parties would be suggested for the appropriation of this surplus, and that it would be directed to supply religious instruction to those places which were in absolute want of it. In many districts the Dissenters had supplied part of the deficiency by their chapels, but there were others in which the want of the means of religious worship was still very great. It was undoubtedly much to be regretted that such a want should exist, but he thought that Parliament would be convinced, when it was known that the highest dignitaries of the Clergy, the Bishops, and other elevated members of the Church, as well as the Crown, were ready to place at the disposal of Parliament a great portion of patronage and revenues which belonged to them. When these two parties gave up privileges which they had enjoyed from time immemorial— when they acted in this praiseworthy way, by surrendering up not only their patronage, but their revenues for the public good, he was convinced, he said, that Parliament would be unanimous in thinking that no better application could be made of the national funds than providing, where necessary, additional religious instruction for the people. He should not enter further into the details of the Report; but when it was
162
laid before the House, hon. Gentlemen would have an ample opportunity of considering those details and the several alterations which the Commissioners proposed to make. He need hardly observe that the members of the Commission were unanimous in recommending this Report, and he therefore trusted and hoped that the subject to which it referred would be discussed in the same amicable spirit by Parliament that it had been by the Commissioners.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that, however much he respected and admired some of the members of the Commission, the Report of which the noble Lord had just brought up—however highly he esteemed the right rev. Prelates who had signed that Report—he could not conceal from the House the deep regret which he felt at hearing such a plan proposed for adoption as that which the noble Lord just announced. For his part, he was bound to say, that he would not be a party to the reception of a Report, the tendency of which he believed in his conscience would be fatal to the best interests of the Church of which he was a member. He certainly should not differ from the noble Lord with respect to the appropriation of the surplus which this Report proposed; but he must deny the right—taking that word in its largest sense, but without questioning the legal power—of Parliament to deprive one class of the Clergy of any portion of their revenues for the purpose of distributing it among another. At all events, he should be no party to any such arrangement. If he understood the noble Lord rightly, it was intended that the incomes of the present occupants of existing sees, livings, and prebends, should not be disturbed; and, before he proceeded further, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he was correct—whether this plan meant to protect the rights of the existing sees, livings, and prebends? [Lord John Russell answered in the affirmative.] Then he was to understand that no person in possession of a see, living, stall, or prebend, was to be affected in their income by the plan recommended by this report? [Lord John Russell: Unless with their own consent.] Unless with their own consent. His opinion was, that no such Commission ought ever to have been appointed; nor was his view of the matter at all changed because the members of it consisted of a number of eminent Prelates as well as of laymen. He

163
did not think that the property of the Church was a subject which ought to be dealt with in this way; and, considering the peculiar constitution of that House— considering that a great portion of the Members of it did not belong to the Established Religion—he must protest against having so important a question referred to such a tribunal. He should not now enter into any discussion of the details of the plan, because he knew that this was not the proper occasion for the purpose; but he could not, at the same time, help slating that, however he might approve of the object to which the surplus was proposed to be applied, he doubted the justice of the measure itself, as much as he differed from many of the details of the plan.
Mr. Humethought, that the Commissioners had done not only themselves but the Church great credit by the manner in which they had executed the inquiry intrusted to them. That inquiry, however, should have been undertaken by the Church itself long ago. The only part of the plan on which he had any observation to make was that which related to pluralities; and no man, he thought, whose object really was to support the Church, could deny that such things should be done away with as speedily as possible. He was anxious they should consider how far retaining heads of colleges and schools with livings was advisable. He thought that it was not, and, as there was a surplus, it would be better, in his opinion, to attach incomes to such offices than to allow the parties to be paid for duties which they did not perform. This, he felt persuaded, would remove half the evils consequent upon the system of pluralities.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that they would do little justice to this most important subject if they were to enter into any discussion of it on that occasion. It was a subject far too important as regarded the highest interests of the country, and the Protestant religion, to be dealt with until they had the whole of the details of the plan before them, and could consider in what way they could best work out the great object of the Commission, which had in view the extension of religious instruction, either entirely or partially, throughout every district of the country. With this feeling he should have avoided addressing the House at the present moment, if it had not been that he was one of those who had advised the issuing of this Commission, and that
164
it might therefore appear, if he remained silent, that he had departed from the principles which had influenced him while in office to concur in a measure for the adoption of a plan for extending religious instruction. The plan now proposed had been prepared by those who were best calculated to form a right judgment on such a subject—by the members of the Church itself, aided in the progress of their inquiries by those who, next to the right rev. Prelates, were most bound in duty to uphold the religion of the country—he meant the responsible advisers of the Crown. He had viewed the appointment of the Commission as absolutely essential to the welfare of the increased population of the country, because he knew the difficulty of obtaining proper religious instruction in many parts to be very great. In all directions the demand for religious instruction was very pressing, and the object of appointing a Commission was to ascertain how that instruction could be most efficiently imparted. This could only be done by a general revision of the state of the Church, beginning with the highest dignitaries and ending with the parochial Clergy, and adapting their incomes to the altered circumstances of the country. He should, therefore, he was ready to confess, go into the consideration of the various provisions of the plan to be founded on this Report with a sincere desire to give it the effect which he should think best calculated to produce the result which they all so much desired; and he doubted not that if the matter were pursued with that which should be the wish of all parties—a determination to promote the interests of the Protestant Religion—the result to which they must come, founded, of course, on this Report, would not only give general satisfaction, but conduce to the best interests of the Church itself.
Doctor Lushingtonexpressed the satisfaction which he felt at hearing such a plan as that which these Commissioners had recommended. So far from taking any exceptions to that plan, he was bound to say, that it exceeded any expectation which he had formed on the subject, and all he hoped was, that the scruples of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, should not disturb the unanimity which prevailed respecting the reform in the Church now proposed. Of the leading principles of this plan they must all approve, because every sixpence of the ecclesiastical reve-

165
nues was to be appropriated to the use of the Church, and the sole alteration proposed to be made was in the distribution of those revenues. A greater advantage could not be bestowed on the Church Establishment. Whatever the sentiments were which he entertained respecting the Church of another country, he had always held, and continued to hold, that the Established Church of England had not a sixpence of revenue more than was adequate to the furtherance of the objects which that Church had in view. Now, if he understood the statement of his noble Friend, the surplus of the incomes of the Bishops, which were considered extravagant, was to be applied in the augmentation of smaller sees, the emoluments of which were utterly inadequate to sustain those Prelates by whom the duties of them were discharged. No one could doubt that the incomes of the Bishop of Llandaff and the Bishop of Oxford were insufficient to maintain the dignity of their stations, or to enable those light rev. Prelates to diffuse that charity which never appeared brighter than when proceeding from such hands. He was glad, however, that they meant to uphold the three great Sees as objects of ecclesiastical ambition, and to render the emoluments of the others adequate to the duties to be performed; but he must, at the same time, express his deep regret, that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, should believe that any tribunal, not even Parliament, had a right to deal with Church property. The next part of the plan to which he should advert was that which related to Deans and Chapters. He did not wish to say, that Deans and Chapters had produced no good—that they had not contributed to the advantage of religion, or promoted the literature and erudition of the country; but he did mean to say, that the benefits which had been derived from them, were by no means commensurate with the extent of the revenue which they received. He rejoiced to find, that the Commissioners did not propose to desecrate cathedrals and abolish sees, but that both were to be maintained in their integrity, although under somewhat different circumstances. It was impossible not to perceive the advantage of this arrangement. From the first hour of his being an Ecclesiastical Commissioner—from the first moment he entered upon the consideration of the state of the Church—he urged on the Arch-
166
bishops and Bishops with whom he was connected, the absolute necessity of upholding the office of Archdeacon, and giving to the clergyman holding that preferment a revenue sufficient to enable him to perform the great and important duties attached to the office. The House must be aware the Archdeacon was frequently called upon to make a circuit or tour among the parochial clergy. The whole emoluments of the Archdeacon of Lincoln he knew to be no more than 180 1. a-year; and as they must all admit, that such an amount was wholly inadequate to the duties to be performed, he for one should be glad to see a portion of the surplus applied to the augmentation of the incomes of the clergymen who tilled this station. The office of Archdeacon was a highly important one; and, therefore, it was right, that the party occupying it should have no excuse for not discharging the duties of it properly. The last point to which he would advert was that which related to residence and pluralities. No one, he believed, who had considered the subject could, for a moment, doubt that it was most desirable, as far as practicable, to enforce residence, and do away with pluralities. The abolition of pluralities, however, formed a question of some difficulty, and could only be considered with reference to the existing state of the revenues of the Church. When he said this, he hoped it would not be supposed that he was not the advocate for the abolition of pluralities; on the contrary, he was anxious to see them done away with as speedily as possible, but not before proper inquiries on the subject had been made, and effectual means taken for insuring the adequate cure of souls in every case, without the necessity of annexing to livings the incomes of which were small other benefices, in order that qualified persons might be induced to hold them. He knew of several instances in which such livings had been rejected; and it was, therefore, important that some plan should be devised to obviate the difficulty before they proceeded to abolish pluralities. He could not conclude his observations without congratulating the House and the country on the prospect they had of seeing the abuses of the Church satisfactorily remedied. The measure was in its nature so remedial that it would finally lead to the abolition of pluralities; and so convinced was he that the plan announced by his noble

167
Friend would tend to the safely and protection of the Church—would secure it against the attacks to which otherwise it was likely to be exposed—that it should have his best support, because; if carried into execution, he fully believed it would not only ensure the prosperity of the Church, but establish it on a basis the most permanent and enduring.
Mr. Granville Vernonobserved, that the subject of pluralities was one respecting which very great error existed, as the evil was by no means so extensive as was generally supposed. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, and the hon. Member for Middlesex seemed to attribute to the Church a power which did not belong to it. The Church had no power whatever to interfere in the distribution of its revenues, and this he had reason to know from a proposition which a venerable relative of his had made on the subject to the head of a former Government. He, however, was prepared to give his candid attention to the plan recommended by the Commissioners, and to carry out their views as far as he thought they ought to be carried out.
The Report was agreed to, and ordered to be printed.

SPIRIT LICENCES.
Mr. Divettthen rose, pursuant to the notice which he had given, to move for a Committee of the whole House on so much of the Act of 4th and 5th William 4th, cap. 75, as imposed an additional duty of fifty per cent, on Retail Spirit Licences. This Act, as the House would recollect, was introduced by Lord Althorp during the period he filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nothing could possibly have been more oppressive than this increase of taxation had proved. The House would recollect that the Bill was brought forward at the close of the Session, when the attendance was not very numerous; but still, had hon. Members been in the least degree aware of the injustice which it would inflict on the licensed victuallers they never would have consented to its passing. When he brought forward this subject last year, his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave him a promise, that he would afford some relief to those classes. There was a feeling in the country, that upon this point his right hon. Friend had not kept faith with him. However, perhaps
168
owing to the state of the revenue at that time, and to the pressure of other interests, his right hon. Friend had not been able to give more relief than he had done. He understood that his motion was to be opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, upon the ground of relief having been afforded last year, and also that the Government could not afford to grant the amount of relief demanded. He (Mr. Divett), however, felt it to be his duty to appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that House, and to ask them to take the condition of this distressed body of men into their consideration, and restore them to that state in which they were before the passing of Lord Althorp's Bill. The hon. Member went into some details with a view of showing that the relief granted to the licensed victuallers was very insufficient, and that it was so apportioned that the most oppressed portion received the least amount of relief. With respect to the 4th and 5th of William 4th, there was a clause in that Act which provided, that where a dispute arose as to the value of a house the person dissatisfied with the valuation, and with the amount of rate charged, should be at liberty to obtain a new valuation in such way as should be pointed out by the Commissioners of Excise, and that the duty should be charged in proportion to the newly-ascertained value. He contended that this Act gave the Commissioners of Excise a most inquisitorial power with respect to this class of traders. He believed that the great support which the Bill of Lord Althorp received was from a feeling that it would tend to the promotion of morality amongst the lower classes, by checking the sale of ardent spirits. This tax, however, fell upon the licensed victualler who sold small quantities of spirits for the advantage of his customers, and who was already oppressed with taxation. Instead of checking the sale of ardent spirits, the effect of the Act to which he referred was quite the contrary. It held out a direct temptation to smuggling, for in giving relief to houses consuming fifty gallons, the effect was this: the retailer produced the forty gallons in the regular way, and saved himself the expense of an additional licence duty by smuggling all that he consumed over that quantity. In spite of the activity of a well-appointed coast-guard, he understood that, owing to the heavy

169
Duly, there was a great quantity of spirits smuggled into this country during the winter months, and a great quantity found its way into the possession of persons circumstanced in the way that he had just mentioned. With respect to the subject of his motion, great anxiety was felt throughout the country. In the course of the last Session there were no less than 200 petitions presented on this subject, and the present Session had scarcely commenced when similar petitions began to pour in upon them from all quarters. He hoped, then, that his motion would not be met by any declaration that it was not in the power of the Government to spare this reduction. But even were that the case, it would be much better to substitute an additional fractional duty on spirits than to continue the system of which he complained. After some further observations, the hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a Committee of the whole House, to take into their immediate consideration so much of the 4th and 5th of William 4th, cap. 75, as imposes an additional duty of fifty per cent on retail spirit licences.
Mr. Ewartconsidered the additional duty imposed on spirit licences as a tax bad in principle and bad in character. He had a petition signed by many thousands of his constituents in Liverpool. This petition was signed by many of the most respectable inhabitants, not at all connected with the licensed victuallers; and the petitioners stated very strongly their opinion of the injustice of the additional tax, and he could assure the House their feeling was every day increasing. If his Majesty's Government did not abolish this impost they would have to encounter great hostility. It was only an Act of common justice to a deserving and industrious class if the House agreed to the motion of his hon. Friend, The additional tax on spirit licences was an aggravation of evil on a class already too much oppressed—and he was convinced it could not consistently with sound principles be advocated. Drinking of ardent spirits had not been increased by it. The only means of accomplishing such an object would be to promote education and do all that was possible to improve the morals of the people. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not come forward during the present Session to relieve those who now complained, he would have a much more arduous task to perform next Session.
170
If the motion did not succeed on the present occasion, it must eventually.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the task of opposing this proposition was painful to him, and he begged to add that he believed the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett) was actuated by no unkind feeling towards the Government in bringing the motion forward. But he entreated the House, before they came to a vote on this subject, that they would do him the favour to listen to the few observations which he had to offer—that they would not come to a decision on the question without listening to the facts. He rejoiced that the country was financially in the position which disabled him from affirming that it would be injurious to public credit to acquiesce in the proposition; he believed, and he derived the greatest pleasure from having it in his power to state the fact, that the revenue would be able to bear this reduction. He, therefore, did not oppose the proposition on financial grounds; but he begged to call the attention of the House to the actual position in which this matter stood, and to the circumstances under which the proposition was brought under the consideration of the House. He had already said, that at the earliest possible period after the close of the financial year in April next, he would bring before the House the actual state of the income and expenditure of the country, and he trusted its condition would be flourishing enough to enable him to propose such modifications and alterations of some of the branches of taxation as appeared to himself and his colleagues, and as would appear also to the House, the best calculated to afford practical relief. The present proposition did not involve the question of a loss to the revenue of 120,000 l. a-year—he did not ask the House to consider that; but in apportioning that amount of relief, he would ask the House not to decide on a mere review of the question of spirit licences, but to weigh one proposition against another, and then inquire of themselves, inquire of their constituents, and inquire of the country, whether, if they decided in favour of this one item of relief, they would give general satisfaction? He begged the House to bear in mind, that the duty on spirit licences was paid by the consumers of the spirits. That was an obvious fact, and he thought the proposition so clear that he did not at all expect

171
to find it contradicted. Not imagining that he should require much authority in support of his views, he had not troubled himself to seek any but in the soundest, authorities which could be consulted on such subjects, and he had found at hand the following observation:—"Such duties as those on licences to retail ale, wine, and spirituous liquors, though intended to fall on the retailers, are paid by the consumers." The authority from which he quoted was admitted to be a good one on such questions, being no less eminent an individual than the author of the "Wealth of Nations." He wished to bring before the attention of the House the circumstances under which the additional duty to which his hon. Friend had alluded was imposed by his noble Friend Earl Spencer. And here he must remark that the hon. Member for Exeter went no farther buck for his facts than to that period. Why did he not go to an earlier period? If he had, he would have discovered that there was a time, not very distant, when the licensed victuallers received considerable relief. If the hon. Gentleman, instead of confining his view to the period just before1834, had extended it to the time prior to 1825, he would have found that the smaller classes then paid for their licences upwards of 7l.; which sum was reduced by Lord Althorp to 3l. 3s.; and all who sold not more than fifty gallons of spirits in the course of the year, had had their licences reduced to 2l. 2s. When hon. Gentlemen considered the claims of the other classes of industry in this country, when they considered how that industry was borne down perhaps both by Excise regulations and financial impositions, he felt assured that they would pause before they granted relief to one single class. He had always thought, and had always said, that spirits were a fair article for taxation; indeed, it had always been his conviction, that a more fair article for taxation could not be found; and the limit was the fullest extent to which you could impose duty without creating smuggling. Lord Althorp, when he gave relief to the country from taxation to the amount of 1,200,000 l., considered it safer to impose an additional duty on spirit licences rather than on spirits. In1835, objections were made in various petitions which were presented to the House against the licence duty. No great objections, however, were made to the increased duty when it was proposed by his noble
172
Friend. At that time the been of getting rid of the House-tax was considered so great, that he should like to see the Gentleman in this House, when he saw the necessity which existed of obtaining some indemnity—he should like to see the Gentleman who would have resisted the proposition; on the contrary, the question was raised in this House, and in other quarters, whether a greater duty should not be imposed on the retailers of spirits. He knew how distasteful to the House these details were, but the question appeared to him to be of so much importance as to make it his duty to submit this statement to their consideration. Last year, in order to meet the objections which had been made, he proposed that in cases where the consumption of spirits did not exceed fifty gallons, the additional duty on the licences should be altogether remitted. Some hon. Gentlemen then said, that the relief proffered would be next to nothing; in reply to which he stated, that the principle of his measure was to give relief to the smaller victualler. In the first place, the number of licensed victuallers throughout England was 47,340. The Act 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 79, gave relief in 17,423 cases, being 36½ per cent. on the whole number of parties who were licensed victuallers. But let him call attention to the mode in which that relief was given to the smaller classes. The right hon. Gentleman accordingly quoted a passage from the
"Return of the number of retail spirit dealers in England, who have received relief under the Act 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 39; stating the total amount of such relief, and the number of those relieved under each rate of duty. At 2l. 2s. instead of 3l. 3s., 9,804: number in 1832–3, 14,491, relief 67½ percent; at 4l. 4s. instead of 6l. 6s., 6,454; in 1832–3, 18,349, relief 33 per cent; at 6l. 6s. instead of 9l. 9s, 584, number in 1832–3, 3,005, relief 19 per cent; at 7l. 7s. instead of 11 l. 0s. 6d., 197, number in 1832–3, 1729, relief 11 percent; at 8l. 8s. instead of 12 l. 12s., 207; number in 1832–3, 3,369, relief 6 per cent, at 9l. 9s., instead of 14 1. 3s. 6d. 71, number in 1832–3, 2,229, relief 3 per cent; at 10 l. 10 s. instead of 15 1. 15 s., 106, number in 1832–3, 4,168, relief 2½ per cent; total number relieved, 17,423, ditto in 1832–3, 47,340, relief 36½ per cent; total amount of relief 28,172 1. 10 s."
The above details showed that the Act had given relief to all the smaller dealers, and be it observed, to those connected with the agricultural parts of the country

173
—the very classes for whom his hon. Friend claimed relief. The relief which would be given by his hon. Friend's proposition, would be given just where the House would think it ought not to be given. As evidence of the extent to which the country and agricultural districts had been benefitted by his plan, the right hon. Gentleman quoted the following Return of the number of retail spirit dealers who have received relief under the Act 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 39, and also the total amount of such relief:—

Number relieved.

Amount of relief.

England

Country

17,382

£.27,972

5

0

London

41

200

11

0

Total

17,423

28,172

16

0

Scotland

1,596

1,983

15

6

Ireland

2,616

3,161

0

6

United Kingdom

21,635

£33,187

12

0

Excise Office, March 10th, 1836.

If this proposition were carried, you would give relief to 21,091 dealers in London, comprehending the whole of the gin-shops in this metropolis. Now, he would say, that if they had a surplus to give away, it was Dot in that quarter that he would give it. He was prepared to show them, if his hon. Friend would only afford him the opportunity, the advantages of repealing one tax as compared with another, and he would then ask the House to judge between them, which of the two propositions was best. He did not hesitate to say that he felt confident the House would agree with him, and would not apply a surplus of 120,000 l. to increase the sale of gin. The noble Lord, the Member for South Lancashire, presented a petition but a few days ago on the subject of the paper duties, and stated, as a part of his case, the extreme hardship to which the paperstainers were now subject. The noble Lord spoke of the benefit which it would be to industry—of the ornament which it would add to our houses; he spoke of the cleanliness and neatness which it would impart to the humble cottage; and he spoke of the improvement it would occasion in the revenue itself if the duty were reduced. Now the whole of the duty on stained paper might be repealed for less than the sum which the hon. Member proposed to waste for the relief of the licensed victualler and gin-drinkers. For the sake of the people—for the sake of the industry of the land, he would say they must negative the proposition; let them, at least, suspend their judgment till they had the opportunity of comparing the bon.
174
Member's plan with his, and adopting the one which they preferred. Were there no honourable Gentlemen who had claims to put in for other branches of manufacture? Did hon. Members recollect what had been done with respect to the glass trade? Did they recollect the relief which was afforded to the glass trade last year; the whole amount of the duties on which did not exceed the amount they were called on now to sacrifice? Did Gentlemen bear in mind the extent to which that relief had put machinery in motion? Did they recollect how it had raised wages—how it had improved the character of the manufacture —aud the promise which it gave of being an increasing source of wealth to the country? There was another proposition about to be discussed—a proposition which came before the House in the shape of petitions. The hon. Member for Liverpool had heard lately from his constituents on the subject of raw cottons. Had the hon. Member for Exeter heard nothing of the daily applications made to the Treasury to carry into effect various reductions of taxation of real importance, many of them recommended by the Commission of Excise Inquiry, many of them which, if they could be effected, would really benefit the community? Give him a free stage and no favour, to discuss this question, and he was not afraid of the result. But his hon. Friend let out a small matter, and to that he wished particularly to call the attention of the House. His hon. Friend told them that there had been a general election, and he said that the publicans at that election had put forward as a permanent grievance the amount of this tax. He knew it—the complaint was addressed to him also, and he met it. He met it, too, under a more arduous responsibility than the hon. Member for Exeter, because he was connected with the Government who imposed the tax, and he could assure his hon. Friend that it was not, under the circumstances, a very agreeable subject of conversation between him and the victualler. Which course, however, was it his duty to take here on a question of taxation? Not that which he thought most palatable to them, but that rather which he knew to be most conducive to the welfare of the public. He explained and they were satisfied; he heard no complaints, though he told them that it was the intention of the Government to renew this tax. He asked the hon. Gentleman for permission to put the question fairly.

175
Let there be a division to decide whether the relief proposed by him to be given to the consumers of gin was or was not better than the relief which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) proposed to give. If they crippled the industry of the country by adopting such courses as that recommended —if they had not the courage to stand out, they were unfit to sit in that House, or to exercise the functions of a Legislature.— Honourable Gentlemen should recollect, that there was the question of marine insurances to be considered. There was also a proposition of his own, which was in a few days to be submitted to them: it was, that they should take into consideration the Stamp Duties. He proposed, in the Bill of which he had given notice, to make considerable reductions in all of them. It was important that these matters should be considered, when they were giving substantial relief. But would his hon. Friend anticipate him by a premature discussion, and deprive the House of an examination of the propositions he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had to make, and of pronouncing upon them its fair, just, and deliberate judgment? His hon. Friend could not be more anxious to repeal taxes than he was; nor could his hon. Friend be more desirous of giving relief. It was his opinion that hon. Gentlemen would not act wisely in making their first proposition for a relief from taxation, to select ardent spirits as the most suitable matter upon which to afford relief. He meant to make his financial statement in a month, and should then submit his propositions to the House. He trusted his hon. Friend would postpone his motion till that period. If, however, after this appeal, the hon. Gentleman should persevere and would not allow him to submit his financial propositions to the House, then he trusted, that hon. Gentlemen would feel it to be their duty to support him in resisting the motion.
Mr. Heathcotewas opposed to the reduction of the duty on licences granted to the proprietors of large spirit establishments; but there were other classes—he meant those who kept inns on the road side, and in rural districts, where relief was required. He was most happy to hear the hopes expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of being able to propose a reduction of taxation, and afford relief in some quarters. He was an advocate for keeping an additional duty on large
176
dealers, but it ought to be removed in some cases where it was now enforced.— Under the circumstances of the case, however, he would advise the hon. Member for Exeter to postpone his motion for a month, as suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Viscount Sandoncould not view the additional duty on spirit licences as a tax on the consumers, but as a direct tax on the dealer. If the tax was on ardent spirits, he would not oppose its continuance; but as he did not think it was, he should support the motion.
Mr. Gillonwas of opinion that the parties should have no licences to pay for a fair, honest, and respectable calling. He could not understand, but he saw it with regret, why there was such a willingness to lay duty on spirits, the luxury of the poor man. As to intemperance, it was only the spread of knowledge that could put it down. There should be a reduction of these duties. However, under the circumstances, he was one who thought it would be wise to postpone the motion for the present.
Mr. Charles Barclaythought the present an unfavourable opportunity for pressing the question. It should be brought under the consideration of the Government at a more convenient time than the present.
Mr. Humewas glad that these claims had been brought before the House. He was one who had not thrown objections in the way of imposing of the tax, because the then Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he had to reduce the House-tax of 1,200,000 l. to which he was pledged, but that he (the Chancellor) found, that after the reduction he should not have the requisite financial surplus, and he hoped that, under the circumstances, the House would enable him to have that surplus, by allowing him to impose certain taxes, of which the present tax was one, and he (Mr. Hume) believed that the new licence tax would be taken off as soon as the surplus was naturally restored. Under these circumstances, and considering also that the people upon whom this tax had fallen so heavily were not, as was intended, the people who sold a large amount of spirits, but who dealt in a small way in the country, he was extremely glad, seeing these things, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Divett) should have brought before the House the claims of the parties. He thought, however, that when the Chan-

177
cellor of the Exchequer had made his appeal for one month's delay, until he could make his financial statement, that it would be prejudicing the interests of the parties, and diminishing their chance of success, to press the question this evening, when there was an impression upon the House that it was fair towards the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wait for the period in question.
Mr. Milessaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have held out some hope of a reduction of these duties. He was convinced that this tax did not fall upon the consumer. It was a great tax on rental at a time when there was a difficulty in paying rental. The tax in question could not be charged to the consumer, from the impracticability of an additional price being put on spirits. He was of opinion a tax upon the real consumption of spirits in the houses should be substituted, and that that tax should be in proportion to the amount of consumption. Such a tax would reach the gin palaces, that were the places of the greatest demoralization.
Colonel Sibthorpesupported the motion. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when it was they were to expect the Budget?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to the gallant Officer, said he should bring forward the Budget at the very earliest period after the close of the financial year the state of the notice-book would permit.
Dr. Bowringadvised the hon. Member for Exeter to withdraw his motion for the sake of the parties themselves. The request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was reasonable. As the hon. Member persisted in his motion, he begged leave to move as an amendment, that the subject should be postponed till the 14th of April.
Mr. Philip Howard, though he considered the claims in question deserving of the greatest consideration, should support the amendment postponing the question until they could take a general view of the finances, and they could be sure they were not relieving one party at the expense of another. He suspected the zeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and believed they wanted to embarrass the King's Government.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was far from wishing to interrupt the course of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he was not factious, but was determined to give
178
that support to the Ministry which he should himself expect were he a Member of the Government. He did not pledge himself, however, that this tax was upon the consumer. He considered this a tax on one particular class, not on consumers. The man who rented a house at a small rent could sell any quantity of spirits, without being liable to the duty, whilst the man who rented a house at a high rent, if he sold above fifty gallons a year, was subject to a considerable tax. The tax did not fall on the consumer therefore, for if the party raised the price of spirits, and charged the tax on the consumer, he would see the consumer go to that other party who could sell the spirits without the additional price. He should vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, and it was upon the ground that it was impolitic to enter into the discussion of the repeal of taxes one by one, or before they had taken a general view and could act the most for the general welfare. He was desirous of some arrangement of these duties which would make them operate impartially and equally, whilst it should not diminsh their general produce to the revenue.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, this tax fell on a particular class, who paid without it their due share of the general taxation. He should support the motion.
Lord John Russellsaid, that it was the custom to wait until the close of the financial year, and till Government could take a general view of the taxation and propose reductions suitable to the general welfare; and if the Government failed to act for the best, then the different Members might bring forward plans of their own. If every Gentleman brought forward particular propositions, and they were agreed to, the consequence would be, that they would be more likely to consult particular interests than the general interests of the country. He, therefore, thought they should wait for the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when they would be enabled to judge on a full view of the case. The time was not come when the Chancellor of the Exchequer could make up his mind as to the reductions he could propose to the House, and all he asked was that they should not come to any decision on a particular question till that time, which was not distant, should arrive. He thought it would undoubtedly be a fairer tax if, as had been proposed,

179
the duty was laid on in proportion to the sale, and those persons were relieved who sold small quantities by laying an additional duty on those whose sale was more considerable. That was a proposition on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had bestowed considerable attention, and would again take it into consideration. He therefore thought the motion should be postponed, and would himself have proposed the previous question had not the hon. Member for Kilmarnock moved the Amendment, which he should support, to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the opportunity of making his statement before the House bound itself to any particular reduction.
Sir William Folleltsaid, he perfectly agreed that it was in general more convenient not to propose a discussion on a particular tax till the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement; but he was afraid that was not the object of the postponement now proposed. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a hope that when he should make his statement he would propose to repeal the lax, then he would ask his hon. Colleague to withdraw his motion; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could give no relief. Another reason for pressing the repeal of the duty was, that they were told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1834, that this duty would not fall on the retailer; it was now found that it did fall on the retailer, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a surplus, and could give relief, he hoped his hon. Colleague would press the question to a division.
Sir James Grahamthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that he would give no relief, but that if he found he could substitute a duty on quantity he would be glad to do so. He understood him to say that he was disposed to consider the question with a view to that institution. But these were not the grounds on which his vote should be given. It was said there would be a surplus revenue, but he wished to see that authenticated by a balance sheet; and he perfectly agreed with the noble Lord opposite, that if before that statement was made the House should decide on the reduction of a particular tax, he was afraid that a majority would take off tax after tax till the whole system was broken down, He never felt it to be more his
180
duty to support Ministers than on this occasion, and he had come down to the House to give them that support.
Mr. Divettcould not but consider the motion for further delay a delusion. After the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer met the question, if it were postponed it was floored for the Session. He rejoiced to hear that there was a surplus, and that if the House agreed to his motion, it could not. cause the slightest injury to the finances of the country. One thing was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer which he thought unworthy of him. He said, that if the motion were agreed to, he would move an amendment to repeal another tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that he had no wish to embarrass the Government, but he had no hope of the tax being repealed if he agreed to postpone his motion, and thought he should not do his duty if he did not divide the House. He denied that he had brought forward the question for the sake of popularity; he had brought it forward to obtain relief for an industrious class of traders from a partial and oppressive tax.
The House divided on the Amendment—Ayes 165; Noes 155.—Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Chisholm, A. W.

Agnew, Sir Andrew

Clay, W.

Angerstein, J.

Clive, E.

Anson, G.

Conolly, E. M.

Baldwin, H.

Cowper, Hon. W. F.

Bannerman, A.

Crawford, W. S.

Baring, F.

Crompton, S.

Baring, W.

Dalmeny, Lord

Baring, T.

Denison, E.

Barron, H. W.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Barry, E. S.

Donkin, Sir Rufane

Bentinck, Lord G.

Dundas, J.

Biddulph, R.

Dundas, J.

Bolling, W.

Dunlop, T.

Bowring, J.

Ebrington, Lord

Brady, D. C.

Fellowes, Newton

Branston, T. W.

Fergusson, Cutlar

Bridgeman, H.

Finn, W. F.

Brotherton, T.

French, F.

Brudenell, Lord

Gillon, W. D.

Buller, E.

Gordon, R.

Burton, H.

Goulburn, H.

Buxton, T. F.

Graham, Sir James

Byng, G. S.

Greisley, Sir Roger

Campbell, Sir John

Grey, Sir George

Campbell, W.

Grimston, Lord

Cavendish, G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Cayley, E. S.

Grote, G.

Chalmers, P.

Gully, J.

Chichester, J.

Halse, J.

Childers

Handley, H.

181

Harland, W. C.

Phillipps, C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Potter, R.

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Poyntz, W. S.

Hay, Sir John

Price, Sir Robert

Herries, Rt. hon. J. C.

Pryme, G.

Hobhouse, Sir John

Pusey, P.

Hope, J.

Rice, Spring

Horsman

Roebuck, J. A.

Howard, P.

Rolfe, Sir Robert

Howard, R.

Rooper, J. B.

Howick, Lord

Russell, Lord John

Hume, J.

Sanford, E. A.

Hurst, R. H.

Scott, Sir Edward

Jephson, C. D. O.

Scott, J.

Jones, T.

Scourfield, W. H.

Labouchere, Rt. hon. Henry

Scrope, G. P.

Seymour, Lord

Lefevre, Shaw

Sharpe, M.

Lefroy, T.

Shaw, Rt. hon. F.

Lemon, Sir Charles

Sheldon, E. R. C.

Lennox, Lord G.

Sheppard, T.

Lennox, Lord A.

Sinclair, Sir George

Loch, J.

Smith, B.

Lynch, A. H.

Stanley, Lord

M'Leod, R.

Strutt, E.

Maher, J.

Stuart, Lord James

Mangles, J.

Stuart, Villiers

Marshall, W.

Talbot, J.

Mathew, G. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Maule, Fox

Thomson, P.

Miles, W.

Thompson, B.

Molesworth, Sir Wm.

Thompson, T. P.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Townley, R. G.

Morpeth, Lord

Trelawney, Sir Wm.

Mosley, Sir Oswald

Tulk, C. A.

Mullins, F. W.

Twiss, H.

Murray, Rt. hon. J. A.

Verney, Sir Harry

Musgrave, Sir R.

Vesey, Hon. T.

Nicholl, J.

Wall, Baring

O'Brien, W.

Wallace, R.

O'Connell. D.

Warburton, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Loghlen, M.

Williams, W.

Old, W. H.

Williams, Sir James

Ord, W.

Williamson, Sir H.

Paget, F.

Wilson, H.

Parnell, Sir Henry

Wilmington, Sir T.

Parry, L. P. J.

Wood, C.

Pattison, J.

Wyse, T.

Pease, J.

Yorke, E.

Pelham, C.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

TELLERS.

Philips, M.

Stanley, E. J.

Philips, G.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Barneby, T.

Ainsworth, P.

Beauclerk, Major A.

Archdall, M.

Beckett, Sir John

Attwood, T.

Bell, M.

Bagot, Hon. W.

Beresford, Sir John

Bailey, J.

Bernal, R.

Baillie, H. D.

Bewes, T. B.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Blackburne, J. I.

Baines, E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Balfour, T.

Blamire, W.

Barclay, C.

Boldero, Capt. H. G.

Barnard, E. G.

Borthwick, P.

182

Brocklehurst, J.

Knight, Gally

Brodie, M. B.

Knightley, Sir Chas.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Lawson, A.

Bruen, F.

Leader, J. T.

Buller, Sir John

Lees, J. F.

Bulwer, E.

Lewis, D.

Chetwynd, W. F.

Lincoln, Lord

Chichester, A.

Lister, E. C.

Clerk, Sir George

Long, W.

Codrington, C.

Lushington, S.

Colborne, Ridley

Lushington, C

Cole, A.

Lowther, J. H.

Collier, T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Compton, H. C.

Marsland, Henry

Conyngham, Lord

Marsland, Thomas

Cripps, J.

Martin, J.

Curteis, H.

Maxwell, H.

Denison, W.

Neeld, J.

D'Eyncourt, Rt. hon. C. T.

Norreys, Lord

Palmer, C.

Duffield, T.

Palmer, R.

Dugdale, W. S.

Parrott, J.

Dunbar, G.

Pechell, G. R.

Duncombe, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Dundas, T.

Praed, W.

East, J. B.

Price, Grove

Eaton, R. J.

Reid, Sir John

Egerton, W.

Richards, J.

Elley, Sir John

Rickford, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Ridley, Sir Matthew

Elwes, J. P.

Robinson, G. R.

Entwisle, J.

Ross, C.

Fector, J. M.

Russell, C.

Feilden, W.

Ryle, J.

Fielden, J.

Sandon, Lord

Fleming, J. W.

Scarlett, Hon. R. C.

Follett, Sir William

Sibthorp, Col. C. D. W.

Forbes, W.

Forester, Hon. G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Forster, C. S.

Spry, Sir Samuel

Fort, J.

Stewart, P.

Gaskell, D.

Strickland, Sir Geo.

Gaskell, J. M.

Thompson, W.

Gladstone, T.

Thornely, T.

Goring, H. D.

Tollemache, hon. A.

Greene, Thos.

Tooke, W.

Grimston, E.

Trevor, A.

Hale

Turner, W.

Hall, B.

Tyrrell, Sir John

Hardy, J.

Vere, Sir Charles

Hawes, B.

Vernon, Granville

Hawkes, T.

Villiers, C. P.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T.

Heathcote, G.

Walker, R.

Hector, C. J.

Walter, J.

Henniker, Lord

Wason, R.

Hindley, C.

Weyland, Major R.

Hodges, T.

Wigney, J. N.

Hogg, J. W.

Wilbraham, R.

Holland, E.

Wilks, J.

Hoskins, K.

Williams, Addams

Houldsworth, T.

Wilmot, Sir John E.

Hughes, Hughes

Winnington, H.

Hutt, W.

Wood, M.

Johnston, A.

TELLERS.

Jones, W.

Divett, E.

Kearsley, H. J.

Ewart, W.

Kemp, J. R.

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (IRELAND).
Mr. Sharman Crawfordrose, to move for leave to bring in his Bill for the Amendment of the Law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland, The hon. Member presented Petitions from several places in favour of the proposed measure. He had other Petitions, he said, which he should present on a future day. He was at a loss to know how he should proceed in submitting this Question to the consideration of the House at that late hour. He felt he should not do justice to the cause without stating the grounds on which he demanded their assent to the measure he proposed, He felt he could not ask the sanction of the House, with propriety, to that measure, without bringing before them the condition of the Irish peasantry, which rendered such a measure necessary; but, at the same time, he did not wonder the House should be reluctant to hear any lengthened details at that late hour. He would, therefore, submit to their pleasure, whether he should proceed or not. He stood before them to call the attention of the House to a subject to which it had not before been specially directed. He pleaded the cause of the wretched and starving rack-renters of Ireland—of the occupiers and cultivators of the soil, spread over a great portion of the area of that country. He would not detain the House at that hour by a detailed description of their condition—he would merely glance at it. If those circumstances were viewed which denote the condition of any peasantry, their wretchedness would be easily demonstrated. Look to their habitations, and they would be found unfit for human beings—their lands in the most deficient state of cultivation—exhausted and unproductive, from the want of manure, which it was impossible for them to supply, their poverty not permitting them to keep live stock of any description—their clothing unfit to protect them from the inclemency of the weather—willing to work, at the same time destitute of employment, whilst in the most distressed districts, thousands of acres of land, easily reclaim-able, and of the most productive nature, were lying waste and unproductive. What was the cause of all this misery, he asked? He answered, unhesitatingly, the disorganised state of the relationship between landlord and tenant. When we look to the state of that relationship, what do we
184
find? A rack-rent was extorted from the poor tenant, who, from the necessity to have land or starve, was not a free agent in his bargain; a rent which was not only beyond the fair value of the land, but, in many cases, beyond the whole value of the produce of the land—let as it was, without any buildings or improvements made by the landlord, and the tenant having no means to provide these accommodations, except in so far as he could attain them by the sweat of his brow, and the profits of his labour. The tenant was then always in debt, was at all times liable to distresses and ejectments, and was frequently dispossessed, without the smallest compensation for the fruits of his labour, even where that had been productive in the creation of real improvements. Thus he was turned out in perfect destitution, and must either starve or subsist himself by begging or plundering, and thus outrage and violence is created, and the people desire to obtain that redress by their own power, which the laws, or the justice, or even the compassion of the landlords, or their agents deny them. In giving this description, he must be understood as speaking of the most distressed districts. He admitted that there were districts of Ireland which did not come under this description. He especially referred to the province of Ulster; but what was the cause that Ulster was more prosperous than other portions of Ireland? Because the landlords and the occupiers of the soil had a community of interests and a community of feeling. In the troubles of Ireland, the lands of Ulster were not only forfeited, but were colonised. Landlord and tenant came together, and brought with them common feelings of attachment. But in the other parts of Ireland, a new set of proprietors was set over a people whom they despised, whom they considered conquered slaves, and whom it was their object and desire to | keep in degradation of mind and body. This was the cause why Ulster preceded the other parts of Ireland in prosperity and improvement, and confirmed the proposition he started with, that the evils and miseries of the people of Ireland were chiefly attributable to the disordered relationship between the landlord and ten-ant. A reference to all the Reports which had been made at different times to the Lords and Commons would confirm those statements, He would read an Extract

185
from the Report of the Lords' Committee in 1825, which proceeded from a most impartial witness, and one whose testimony would probably make more impression than any thing he could say. It was the examination of Mr. Nimmo, and to be found at pp. 165, 779, and was as follows: —"State your opinion of the state and condition of the peasantry of Ireland?—I conceive the peasantry of Ireland to be, in general, in almost the lowest possible state of existence; their cabins are in the most miserable condition, and their food potatoes, with water, frequently without even salt; and I have frequently met persons that begged of me, on their knees, for the love of God, to give them some promise of employment, that from the credit of that, they might get means of support. To what cuases do you principally attribute this state?—It is unquestionable that the great cause of the miserable condition and disturbances is the management of the land. There is no means of employment, nor no certainty that the peasant has of existence for another year, or even for another day, but by getting possession of a portion of land, on which he can plant potatoes; and in consequence of the increase of population, the competition for land has attained an appearance of something like the competition for provisions in a besieged town, or in a ship that is out at sea; and as there is no check to the demand which may be made by those who possess the land, it has risen to prices far beyond what it is possible for the poor tenants to extract from it in the way in which they cultivate it, and the landlord has, in the eyes of the peasant, the right to take from him, in a summary way, every thing he has, if he is unable to execute those covenants which he was obliged to enter into from the dread of starvation." Mr. Nimmo stated the practice of distress as the usual expedient to enforce the demands of the landlord. He stated the nature of the term: Irish tenants being always allowed to be from half a year to a year in arrear, the landlord, therefore, could always drive; and this power was applied for all purposes. For example, he said—"I want the people to work for 8d.; they demand l0 d. I complain to the landlord, whose interest it is that the work should go on, that the wages might go to the payment of his own rent, and he forces them under the threat of distress. And in like manner I have known notices sent to prevent
186
them working for me." Being asked could he prove this, he said he had written documents that would authenticate all he stated. It occurred both in Kerry and Mayo. "Was it because the people were unwilling to work at all that compulsion was resorted to?—No, it proceeded from a desire to obtain better wages. Do you attribute the distressed state of Ireland to the power which resides in the landlords, and to its abuse? I conceive there is no check to that power; it appears to me that, under colour of law, the landlord may convert that power to any purpose he pleases; the consequence is, that when he wishes he can extract from the peasant every shilling beyond bare existence which can be produced by him from the land. The lower order of peasantry can thus never acquire anything like property; and the landlord, at the least reverse of prices, has it in his power, and does seize his cow, bed, potatoes in the ground, and everything he has, and can dispose of the property at any price." He was prepared to make various other references—to bring before the House at large the arguments in support of the measure he proposed. But, as it was unreasonable to detain the House at that very late hour, he would simply state that his object was to give the tenant some remedy—some means of obtaining compensation for the fruits of his toil and labour, in case of his being ejected from the soil on which he had expended it. He had brought in a Bill last Session with this object; it was read a first time, and printed; but, in consequence of the various important measures under discussion, he refrained from pressing it forward to a farther discussion. That Bill having been in the hands of Members, he should only at present state some alterations which he proposed. Various objections had been made, and he endeavoured, as far as possible, to meet those objections. He proposed, that with reference to all improvements to be made after the passing of this Act, a notice should be served on the landlord, specifying the nature, extent, and expense of such buildings or improvements; that this notice should be registered in a parochial registry, to be kept for the purpose; that the landlord's assent or dissent should also be registered, that compensation should not be given beyond the landlord's consent, except for improvements of a description such as were necessary, and reasonably suitable to the tenant's

187
wants—this point to be decided upon evidence. He was aware many persons differed from him on this part of the subject, but he was of opinion no landlord should be permitted to impede the tenant in improvement of this description—where an actual increase of real value was proved. In such cases, the compensation to be confined to a certain proportion of this increased value, which should not be exceeded. Under these circumstances it was impossible the original value of the fee could be encroached on. He proposed, also, that a certain number of competent valuators should be appointed in every county by the Magistrates and Cess-payers at Sessions, and that out of the persons so appointed, five valuators or arbitrators should be ballotted for in each case. That all decisions should take place before the assistant-barrister at the quarter sessions. That tenants desiring to claim compensation for improvements heretofore made on leases now in existence, and which should expire at the passing of this Act, might forthwith register the same (within a time to be limited.) No claim admissible except for building or improvements of the last-mentioned description. Claims for compensation to be made in cases of ejectment. An agreement for a new lease, or to continue in possession, to be a full acquittance of all claims. He proposed to add clauses to empower the landlord to claim compensation by the same course of proceedings for any act of the tenant which might deteriorate the value, by exhaustion of the land, improper subdivisions, &c. &c. Also to add a clause enabling owners of estates seized in fee-tail, or for life, to make improvements, and charge the amount, to a limited extent, on the estate, on the principle of the Scotch Act for the relief of the heirs of entail in that country. Also to extend the provisions of the Acts of the 21st and 22d of Geo. 3rd ch. 37th, and 25th of Geo. 3rd ch. 35, which permitted persons holding estates in fee-tail, with remainder to their issue, to grant land for building stores in certain counties in Ireland. He proposed to extend this power to lands for buildings erected on the falls of rivers containing machinery of any description. He would not longer trespass on the attention of the House, and would simply move for leave to bring in a Bill for the improvement of the law of landlord and tenant in Ireland.
Colonel Conollythought, that as this
188
Bill was thrown out last Session, he was perfectly justified even in that stage in giving it his opposition. The Bill of last year proposed an interference between landlord and tenant, which was altogether unprecedented and unjustifiable.
Lord Morpethobserved, that the gallant Officer was in error in supposing that the Bill of his hon. Friend had been thrown out last Session. His hon. Friend obtained leave to bring it in, but did not press the measure. He agreed with his hon. Friend in the principle of a measure for placing the landlord and tenant in Ireland on a more just footing; but he also agreed with the gallant Officer that there was much difficulty in the application of a remedy to the evil complained of.— However, as his hon. Friend had last year obtained leave to bring in a Bill on this subject, he was quite willing that the House should now have an opportunity both of discussing the principle of such a measure, and of considering the alterations which his hon. Friend proposed making in the provisions of the Bill of last Session.
Mr. Shawwould not, as he was conscious of the laudable industry and perseverance which the hon. Member (Mr. S. Crawford) had displayed in regard to this measure, oppose the introduction of such a Bill, however unwilling he was to promise it his support.
Colonel Percevalregarded the measure as a monstrous interference between landlord and tenant; and should it proceed to a second stage, if, for no other reason than that he might gain over to it the opposition of the representatives of those countries, would move its extension to England and Scotland. His knowledge of the condition of Ireland so fully assured him it was calculated to do much mischief, without producing any counteracting advantage, that he did not hesitate to take upon himself the unpopularity of opposing the measure in limine.
Mr. Finnfelt strongly that it would be a great blessing to Ireland to excite a better feeling and better understanding between landlord and tenant, and would willingly support any measure tending to effect that object. He owned he apprehended much difficulty attended the question under consideration, but even though he entertained a fear that the proposed measure was not calculated to meet that difficulty, he did not feel justified in opposing its production.
Mr. Lefroyfelt assured the Bill could not advance a step beyond the first stage; and with a view of saving the time of the House, he would oppose even its introduction. Should leave be given to bring it in, he confidently expected that the Attorney-General for England, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland, would feel themselves called upon to resist its farther progress.
The Attorney-Generalobserved, that when the Bill was brought in he would give it his best consideration, and should he then find it a good measure, he certainly should have no hesitation in proposing its extension to England or Scotland.
Mr. Poulett Scropethought it should be recollected that the poorer classes of Ireland were much worse used than those of England or Scotland, and that there was considerably more necessity for legislation, as regarded them, in the former than in the latter countries. If with no other view than to bring clearly before the House the relative position of landlord and tenant in Ireland, he would support the introduction of the measure.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienthought it at all events the duty of the House to receive the Bill, even though, at a subsequent stage, it might be thought necessary to reject or alter it.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.