Commons Sitting of 15 March 1836

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. T. DUNCOMBE from several Metropolitan Parishes, for an Alteration of the Reform of Parliament Act.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, Colonel THOMPSON, Sir R. FERGUSON, Major BEAUCLERK, and Messrs. ROEBUCK, BOWRING, GROTE, BAINES, MARK PHILIPS, C. WOOD, BARNARD, P. H.HOWARD, KEMP, SCHOLEFIELD, HUME, AGLIONBY, EWART, POULETT THOMSON, and WAKLEY, from a very great Number of Places,—against the Stamp Duty on Newspapers.—By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Ayr and Irvine, against the Stamp Duty on Attornies Certificates.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Sir John Hobhousebrought up the Report of the Committee for Inquiry into the Plans for building new Houses of Parliament, which was read as follows:—" Your Committee, after considering the Report of the Commissioners which has been referred to them by the House, and after personal communication with the Commissioners, as to the grounds on which their selection of certain plans was made, are of opinion that the plan of Mr. Barry, numbered 64, ought to be so far adopted as to be made the basis of immediate further inquiries in respect to the cost of the plan above mentioned, and to the best mode of carrying it into execution."
Sir John Hobhousedid not know whether it was necessary for him to preface his Motion by the statement of any details, or of the reasons which had induced the Committee to adopt the resolution now upon the table. He should however propose, in consequence of it, that a humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to direct inquiries to be made in conformity with the Report, and in such manner as his Majesty should deem most advisable. Me was ready to give any explanation that might be required, but it would be seen that the Report pledged the House to nothing, and merely declared that the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners had been adopted by the Committee. Should the House agree to the Report, the effect would merely be that proceedings would be taken to procure from Mr. Barry some statements of expense, without at all deciding that it ought to be incurred. The Report went no further, and the House would probably be of opinion, that under all the circumstances, due caution had been used in an important and somewhat delicate investigation. The
328
Committee had judged it best to leave all inquiry into the details in the hands of Government; and, of course, the department to be selected for such a duty would be the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. They would obtain the best assistance that could be procured, and would proceed without any delay. He had reason to believe that if his Motion were adopted, an estimate would be presented to the House in a comparatively short time, upon which a final conclusion might be formed. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to have an inquiry made as to the best mode of proceeding in conformity with the Report of the Commissioners in such manner as to his Majesty may seem most advisable."
Mr. Hawesthought the Motion so important that it ought to have been preceded by a notice; and he was somewhat astonished, after what had passed on a former occasion, that the House should thus have been taken by surprise upon the subject. It appeared that one plan had been finally agreed upon, and although the Committee had been sitting for some time, and had taken evidence, the Report was unaccompanied by evidence, and this circumstance seemed to indicate that it had been prepared too hastily. He did not say that he would take the sense of the House on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet, but he apprehended that before it was adopted the evidence ought to have been produced. According to his understanding of the Report, it amounted to a final selection of a particular plan, and he wished to know whether the other plans approved by the Commissioners would be exhibited. The public had been long looking for them, and he thought that they were entitled to see them.
Sir John Hobhousefelt bound to give an answer to his hon. Friend. Undoubtedly evidence had been taken, and the terms of the Report would show that the commissioners had been examined on the subject of the recommendation they had laid before his Majesty. As to the notice of the present Motion having been given, he could only say that it was not meant to take the House at all by surprise, and in fact the Report did not recommend any important or definitive step. All that had been decided was, that before any ultimate

329
decision were come to upon plan No. 64, it was expedient that an estimate should be formed of the probable expense of carrying it into execution. If it were the general opinion of the House that it would be better to see the evidence, the Committee could have no possible objection that it should be produced. At present it had been considered that such a step would be rather premature, and that the evidence ought to be reserved for the final decision.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the course proposed to be pursued seemed to him calculated to lay before the House, at the earliest period, the information by which it was to be guided in its decision. The Motion of the right hon. Baronet was in conformity with the plan proposed in the Committee; and, as he had supported it there, he should give it his cordial support here. The House of Commons, naturally distrusting its own judgment on a matter of this kind, had recommended the Crown to select Commissioners to review the whole of the plans. They undertook the duty, of course, gratuitously, and had devoted a great portion of time and attention to the consideration of about eighty or ninety plans; they had weighed the merits of each, in conformity with the instructions they had received, and given the preference to four out of the whole number. That of Mr. Barry had received their chief approbation, both for exterior form and interior convenience. When the Committee came to discuss the subject, the members of it had not thought themselves justified in recommending the House to adopt the plan of Mr. Barry, which they preferred, without first taking some steps to ascertain the expense; and it appeared to them that under the Crown, the responsible executive department was infinitely better calculated to collect all the essential materials for a final determination, than a Committee of that House. If the House should be of the same opinion, it would amount to a prima facie case in favour of Mr. Barry's plan; and surely the Committee was entitled to select it, not as the plan finally to be adopted, but as the basis of further inquiry. Then came the question, by whom that inquiry was to be made? and it would extend not merely to the cost of the buildings, but to the comparative expense of erecting them of different materials, and their durability as affected by London smoke
330
and London atmosphere. The Committee thought that this inquiry could be better conducted by the Ministers of the Crown; and he was decidedly in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Baronet, which was only to induce the House to call upon the Crown to make the inquiry. He could not think that the House had been taken at all by surprise, since the object only was to obtain all necessary information, before a single stone was laid. No pledge was given; and if the hon. Member for Lambeth chose to divide the House, he (Sir R. Peel) hoped that the Motion would be carried by a large majority.
Mr. Hallthought that all the plans were to be publicly exhibited before a final decision was formed. Mr. Barry's plan would not, he was afraid, be practicable on account of the expense.
Sir Robert Peel: If it should appear that Mr. Barry's plan—beautiful in its exterior, and convenient in its arrangement as it was—could only be carried into effect under an enormous and unjustifiable outlay, which would require too great a sacrifice of economy, the motion of the right hon. Baronet implied no pledge that it should be adopted by the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaw no difficulty, as far as the Government was concerned, in making the inquiry, and obtaining the information. The object certainly was, that the plan, whichever might be selected, should be executed with all due regard to economy. With regard to the exhibition of the rival plans, he had been informed that if it were done immediately, and the drawings thereby taken out of the hands of Mr. Barry, it might be attended with great inconvenience; but there would be no difficulty in giving the public the opportunity of seeing Mr. Barry's plan with the others, before the House of Commons came to any final determination. On a former occasion a question had been put to him either by the hon. Member for Middlesex or Southwark, to which he was not then prepared to give a distinct answer. The hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that there had been some previous communication of Mr. Barry's plan to the Commissioners; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was now able, in the most distinct and precise manner, to assert, that up to the moment when the seals were broken, not one of the Commissioners was aware which was Mr. Barry's plan.
Mr. Humetrusted that at all events the evidence taken by the Committee would be laid before the House before they were called upon to consent to the expenditure of any portion of the public money.
The motion was agreed to.

THE UNSTAMPED PRESS.
Mr. Wakleywished to know from his Majesty's Attorney-General, under what Act of Parliament a man named Cleave had been convicted for selling unstamped newspapers; and under what Act of Parliament the officers were justified in seizing those papers which were in his possession: and, lastly, how were the magistrates justified in sentencing him, in addition to imprisonment, to the punishment of the silent system?
The Attorney-Generalhad inquired into the circumstances since the same question had been put to him before, and had ascertained that the man had been convicted under the 16th of Geo. 2nd, which provided, that any person carrying unstamped papers might be arrested, brought before a magistrate, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. On the 4th day of the present month he had been found in a cab with thirty-three quires of The Police Gazette, an unstamped newspaper; was arrested, brought before a magistrate, and under the Act to which he had referred, sentenced to three months' imprisonment. With respect to the treatment he had experienced in confinement, it had been very indulgent indeed; and so far from his being condemned to the punishment of the silent system, he had been appointed teacher of the boys in the prison. It only remained to answer the hon. Member's question as it regarded the seizure of the papers on his person. His (the Attorney-General's) notion was, that the law could never mean that these papers should be restored to the party upon whose person they might have been found, to be redistributed in direct opposition to the law. The law, he presumed, would recognise no property in these papers; and if the hon. Member thought it would, he might bring his action of trover for the recovery of the property, and thus take the decision of a jury and the opinion of a Court or the question.
Mr. Wakleyhad never advocated a violation of the laws, but 400 persons had been arrested for the sale of a newspaper, which the Court of Exchequer had decided not to be a newspaper.
Mr. Roebuckwished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman another question relating to another transaction of the same nature. It appeared that a man named Reeve had been stopped by some police constables, with a bundle in his possession. He was asked what it contained, but refused to answer. It was then taken from him, and was found to contain legally stamped papers. He was brought before a magistrate, fined, and not paying the fine, was sent to confinement, stripped of his clothes, and the flannel next his skin taken off, to the very serious detriment of his health. Now he wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether this was in accordance with the feelings of the people at large, or consistent with the spirit of the English laws?
The Attorney-Generalwould not trouble the House with his opinion as to whether this conviction was in accordance with the feelings of the people at large; but as to its being consistent with the spirit of the English law, he should leave the House to judge from the facts of the case. From the information which he (the Attorney-General) had received, it appeared that the individual in question had been met by a constable, and asked what a bundle which was in his possession contained; his reply was, to knock the constable down. Such was the information he had received, and he believed it was correct. Under the 27th section of the 9th Geo. 4th he was brought before a magistrate, who fined him, as the Act authorised the magistrate, five pounds, and the fine not being paid, he was committed, according to the provisions of the Act, "either to the common gaol, or the house of correction;" in the present case, to the latter. Having been asked his opinion, he did not hesitate to say, that Reeve having been, under the Act, committed to the House of Correction, was subject to the discipline of the House of Correction. There was therefore, he apprehended, no ground for complaint, so far, at least, as the question of the hon. Member referred to a deviation from the law, in the course which had been adopted in this case.

SPAIN AND HER LATE COLONIES.
Lord Mahon, seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in his place, wished to ask him a question relative to negotiations which had been some time

333
since set on foot respecting the dispute between Spain and her South American colonies. It would be in the recollection of the House, that two Commissioners (Generals Soublette and O'Leary) had arrived in London on their way to Madrid, and had been most kindly received, and assisted with advice, by the Duke of Wellington, and had received every encouragement to effect the object of their mission. The last advices received in reference to this subject represented the negotiations as entirely broken off. This was a subject, he need hardly observe to the House, of the utmost importance to even our trade and commerce, and he had hoped that the noble Lord's assistance would have sufficed to have brought the negotiation to a satisfactory termination, He wished to ask the noble Lord if he had received any official information upon this subject, and if there was any prospect of a favourable result?
Viscount Palmerstoncould assure the noble Lord, that his Majesty's present advisers were quite as anxious that the negotiation referred to should be brought to a satisfactory termination as were the Government of which the noble Lord had been a Member. It was quite obvious that the termination of disputes between Spain and her colonies was most desirable for many reasons, besides that which affected the commerce carried on by and with these countries. It was quite true, as the noble Lord had stated, that Generals Soublette and O'Leary had arrived in London, and proceeded to Madrid, on the subject of the negotiation which had been referred to. General Santa-Maria had also arrived in London, and had gone to Madrid, to take part, on behalf of Mexico, in the negotiation; and as far as a Minister of Great Britain could take part in it, by the interposition of his friendly offices, Mr. Villiers had interfered; and in so doing, only acted in perfect conformity with the instruction of the Government he represented. The part he had taken, however, was necessarily unofficial—the interference of a friend of both parties. He had at present no reason to believe that the negotiation was broken off. It was in some degree connected with a communication made by the Government to the Cortes; for the Government, instead of concluding a treaty on the part of the Crown, preferred making this communication to the Cortes. The
334
dissolution of that body had interrupted the progress of the negotiation; but he had good reason to hope that, when they re-assembled, it would be brought to a satisfactory termination.

CIVIL WAR IN SPAIN.
Sir Robert Peelhad seen in the public papers an account that either the wife or mother of Cabrera—an officer in the service of Don Carlos—had been shot by order of an officer in the pay and commission of the Spanish Government. He wished to ask the noble Lord opposite if he had any reason to know that this account was correct?
Viscount Palmerstonwas much afraid that the account was correct. He had no official information on the subject; but from an account contained in a private letter he had received, he feared there was too much reason to apprehend the account was correct. The account he had received of this diabolical atrocity represented it (so we understood the noble Lord) as a reprisal for Cabrera's having shot the wives of four officers of the Government army.
Lord F. Egertonwished to know if the noble Lord had received any information of this atrocity having been committed at the instigation of Mina?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that such was the rumour; which, however, might be quite false.

STAMP DUTIES—NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Harveyhad a Petition to present on the subject of the Abolition of the Newspaper Stamp Duties, but could not consign it to that ignominious bourne from which no petition returns, without adverting to a rumour which had reached him that all these petitions, which were for a "total repeal" of the stamp duty, were to be thrown away. He had been told, for he had not attended the Downing-street Parliament, that the Government had resolved upon disregarding these petitions, by reducing, and not abolishing, the stamp duties. Such a conclusion, he apprehended, could only have been arrived at in the absence of all knowledge of public opinion upon this subject, and he, therefore, trusted, that after such a manifestation as had just been made, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to defer the consideration of this subject until he could bestow upon these petitions the attention to which they were entitled.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that in moving that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Stamp Bill, he should take the opportunity of expressing his perfect concurrence in what had fallen from his hon. Friend, and his hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, upon a little deliberation, be induced to do justice to the public, and consent not to take off a portion, but to abolish the entire of the stamp duty. Should the right hon. Gentleman, however, not do so, he should feel it his duty to press the House to a division. He would then move, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Stamp Acts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested that it might be the most convenient course if the hon. Member for Finsbury would consent to allow him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to state what were the intentions of the Government, and then take the discussion on his own motion when the subject of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers was regularly brought forward in the financial statement of the year. This he thought, would be a much more convenient course than that proposed by the hon. Member.
Mr. Wakleywould consent to adopt this course.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid he would proceed to explain his views. He wished, however, the Committee to understand, that, although the proposition he was about to bring forward embraced the subject of the stamp-duties on newspapers, yet it was by no means confined to that one object. His proposition was of a much more enlarged kind, and, without wishing to undervalue the question as connected with the public press and with newspapers, he thought his proposition would be found to be deserving of the consideration of Parliament, even if there had not been any stamp-duties on newspapers at all. During the period which had elapsed since the close of the war, there had been very few proceedings of that House which had been more satisfactory than the steps which under various Governments had been taken for the simplification and consolidation of the laws, and there was a duty incumbent on the House, and which in times of peace and tranquillity it behoved the House to perform—it was, to make the laws clear and
336
intelligible, and the more especially when those laws involved questions of interference with trade and commerce, restrictions on property, and penalties on the commission and omission of certain acts. The criminal law had already been consolidated to a very great extent. This most useful task had been undertaken by the right hon. Baronet, (not then in his place) the Member for Tamworth, and his example had since been zealously followed by others. He thought, that when he described to the House the state and condition in which the Stamp Acts stood, the House would agree with him, that they ought not to be allowed to remain without alteration and improvement. The laws relating to stamps existing on the Statute Book were 150 in number, some of them related only to England, others only to Scotland, some only to Ireland, and others to Great Britain, or to the empire at large. They were dispersed through the Statute Book, forming a complete farrago of legislation, and such contradictory provisions, that even the most subtle lawyers found themselves entangled in coming to decisions on them, and individuals became the victims subjected to penalties never intended to be inflicted on them. From the earliest statutes imposing Stamp Duties, passed in the reign of Charles 2nd to the present time, the legislation in respect to each had been such as greatly to add to the confusion he had adverted to, for it was necessary now to look not only to Acts professedly applying to Stamp Duties, but to others of a different class, but which contained enactments concerning this branch of revenue; and accordingly, he had found in the third Clause of an Enclosure Act a provision subjecting parties to penalties for an offence against the Stamp Acts. Indeed, one of the earliest of those statutes, the 10th of Queen Anne, was strangely characteristic of the style of legislation in those days. It imposed Stamp Duties and duties on coffee and candles, it afforded relief to a certain lady of the name of Barnwell, and regulated the duty on cocoa nuts brought from America. It would require some ingenuity now to account for the connexion. But there were at least 120 other statutes equally anomalous in their provisions. It was, therefore, his intention to propose, in the room of these existing statutes, one single statute, which should contain the whole of the Stamp Laws of

337
the country, with two slight exceptions (for reasons he would hereafter state), namely, the laws relating to stage coaches, which had been consolidated within the last few years, and the law relating to hawkers and pedlars' licences, which had also been consolidated. With these two exceptions, he should repeal all the other Stamp Acts, and propose in their stead the Bill which the Government were inclined to recommend. The Bill he sought to introduce would, he was sorry to say, be very long, comprising no less than 330 sections, but those sections would be found in connexion one with the other, and with no contradiction amongst them. He must state at once that the reason he did not propose to interfere at present, with the existing law as to post-horse duties was at the request of the very respectable class of persons, the innkeepers engaged in the trade, and, moreover, he had it in contemplation this Session to put an end to the system of farming post-horse duties, that remnant of barbarism in legislation. The Stamp Duties formed a very difficult subject for consolidation, as the duties were in themselves extremely complicated, as hon. Members knew, and was indeed evident from the revenue they produced. The gross Stamp revenues for the year 1833 were 7,414,000 l., and in 1834, 7,461,000 l.; and when hon. Members looked, under the present scale of duty, at the variety of matters from which this revenue arose,—from letters of administration, probates of wills, admission of attornies, and to offices, advertisements, affidavits, agreements, appraisements, apprenticeships, bankers' notes, bills of exchange, bills of lading, bonds, commission, gold and silver plate, licences to newspapers, protests, and the remainder of the list, they must see that the task of consolidation in this case, imposed on any individual, was one of great perplexity and difficulty. Many hon. Members had already shown, either by their votes or speeches, that upon a number of those duties there existed a difference of opinion, and all that he would ask was, that the progress in the work of consolidation should not be impeded by the discussion of those separate questions. He did not ask hon. Members to abandon their opinions, but only to suspend them until the whole laws were brought into one statute; because it was evident, that in an Act of Parliament, which would contain 330 sec-
338
tions, and would embrace all the subjects to which he had just now adverted, it would be impossible to proceed if the House should be called on to discuss every one of the points; the work of consolidation would be rendered impracticable, and no Minister could bring the matter to a satisfactory result. He therefore trusted he should not be thought unreasonable in expecting that some degree of assistance should so far be given to him by hon. Members. He should not, however, conclude hon. Members on subjects which he admitted to be important, and must be considered to have extensive relations. He would instance a matter frequently mentioned in the House by the hon. Member for Middlesex—the exemption from duties of landed property passing by will. That was a subject for discussion hereafter, and ought not to be taken as incidental to the work of consolidation. It would be competent for the hon. Member for Middlesex to bring forward that preposition in a distinct form, and he should feel that he acted most disingenuously if he held the hon. Member, by his assent to the principle of the consolidation of the law, to be precluded in any degree from having the full advantage of introducing it as a subject for separate consideration. With respect to the Stamp Duty on newspapers, he stood in a different position, because the hon. Member for Finsbury had, for the present, abandoned the motion of which he had given notice to-night that he might have an opportunity of stating his intentions on this point; and because the Petitions laid on the Table of the House to-night, proved that the subject must be discussed in the course of the present Session. He was, therefore, not at all disposed to debar the consideration of that question; but, with regard to further notices on other heads, he prayed hon. Gentlemen to forbear, pending the consolidation of the laws; because if they did not, a great public object, he was afraid, might be defeated or impeded. He could not approach the discussion of this subject without calling to mind debates which had taken place upon former occasions in this House, and he should necessarily be obliged to allude to them, because if he did not, it might be supposed that he was acting inconsistently in reference to some arguments which he had formerly advanced in reply to the arguments of the late Mr. Cobbett. That Gentleman

339
had brought forward the question of the Stamp Duties with the great ingenuity he always possessed, but with that exaggeration also in which he was prone to indulge. On that occasion, it had fallen to his (Mr. Rice's) lot to reply to the hon. Gentleman, but he was so far from advocating the law as it then existed, that he had pledged himself, on the part of the then Chancellor of the' Exchequer, to bring in a bill for the remedy of the defects complained of. Such a measure would have been introduced shortly afterwards, but for the press of public business at that period. He was now prepared to redeem the pledge then given, not by meeting the exaggerated case stated on that occasion by the hon. Member for Oldham, but by meeting the case of real grievance, the existence of which must be proved to every man without any argument whatever, but by the slightest consideration of the Stamp Acts. He should avoid, in the statement he was now about to make taking an exaggerated view of the evils of the present Stamp Laws, by looking to the extreme points of the scale, but he would only consider the mean amount of duty payable, and the mean amount of the sums upon which it was payable. This was where the great difference lay between his own statements and those of the hon. Member for Oldham. This constituted the chief distinction between the lines of reasoning followed by them on that occasion. If he could show that in the present state of the law, as concerned the payment of duties leviable, there was a gross and crying injustice and inconsistency, he would ask hon. Gentlemen to go with him in applying an immediate and efficient remedy. He trusted that the House was aware, that according to the principle on which the Stamp Laws in force at the present moment were framed, a certain amount of duty was payable upon bills, mortgages, or bonds of any description from 50 l. to 100 l. value; another on those from 100 l. to 200 l.; another on those from 500 l. to 1,000 l., and so on by a fixed scale; thus applying the scale of duties to the scale of mean payments, and working out the computation accurately, it would be found that a lower amount of duty was charged upon bills for large sums than was payable on those of small value—that the smaller the bill the larger was the amount of per centage. On a mortgage there was a
340
larger amount of duty payable when the sum was small than when it was great; and thus, in this proportion, though not to the extent stated by the hon. Member for Oldham, a larger tax was imposed upon transactions comparatively small in value, and consequently upon the poorer classes, than upon large transactions, which in most cases affected the wealthier classes. He would take the case of conveyances. In cases where the purchase or consideration money did not amount to 20 l. the mean amount of duty payable at present was 5l. per cent.; where it was from 20 l. to 50 l. the mean amount of duty would be 2l.. 17 s. 1d. per cent. But as the scale ascended anomalies still more striking presented themselves. For instance, upon a conveyance the consideration of which was from 4,000 l. to 5,000 l., the same proportion of duty was payable as upon one the value of which varied from 40,000 l. to 60,000 l. The same duty was levied upon all conveyances from 60,000 l. to 80,000 l., so that the identical duty was payable upon one of the value of 60,000 l. as was charged on one where the consideration was 79,900 l. The duties levied upon bonds were not less oppressive and unequal. The duty payable upon one of 250 l. was 14s.percent; upon one of 2,500 l. 5s. 10 d. per cent., and upon one of 12,500 l. only 2s. 4d. per cent. The scale stopped at 20,000 l. and a bond for 40,000 l. was subject to no more duty than one for 20,000 l. This was irreconcileable with the real principles by which taxation should be regulated, and nothing, he thought, could lead the House to continue the system he had described, except an impossibility to remedy it. The practical result was, that upon bonds of 40,000 l. value there was a duty of 1s. 3d. per cent.; upon those of 4,000 l. there was a duty of 4s. 2d. per cent., and upon those of 100 l. there was a duty of 1l. 10 s. per cent. He need scarcely enter into any further details to exemplify the principle of the present laws, because those who had attended to the subject of debate on a former occasion would see that these statements were perfectly in accordance with the whole of the arguments he had then brought forward, and because these results were derived, not from extreme views, but from a consideration of the mean amount of payments, which was the true way of viewing the subject. He would give an

341
example of what he should propose as a remedy for this in the case of conveyances. He had shown that the duties varied upon similar sums, rising sometimes as high as 2l.. 13 s. per cent., and falling to 1l. 10 s., while between 1,000 l. and 2,000 l. they fell to 16 s., but the general average was 1l. He had taken the opinions of professional men on this subject, and he believed that the plan he should submit to the House would effectually remedy this inequality. He proposed one uniform scale of duties, that a tax of one per cent. should in all cases be imposed. In very few and trifling instances would this plan give the slightest additional increase to taxation. It would leave the revenue very much in the same condition as at present, while extensive relief would at once be afforded in all cases where similar conveyances were taxed unequally. An application of the ad valorem principle would run through great part of the Bill he should introduce, and hon. Members would perceive how very convenient this would practically be to men of business. There would no longer be room for doubt on any point. There could be no conflicting opinions, every one would instantly know how the case really stood, and could carry in his hand a simple formula, that would enable him at once to solve any question that could arise. This would apply also to the question of probates. He would call the attention of the House to the very great alteration he meant to propose in this part of the law. By the law as it stood, in cases of property passing by descent, the duty was calculated upon the gross value of that property. This subjected individuals to very considerable hardship and inconvenience, because the law was, that although they were charged upon the gross amount of the property, they were afterwards entitled to reclaim from Government a proportion of the duties they paid. This was a very complicated process, and a very unjust one on the part of the state, unless it were actually necessary to secure that which was the right of the state—the duty upon the net proceeds. The administrator or executor was required to advance the duty, as if the estate was altogether clear of incumbrance. Individuals, rather than go through the necessary forms and technicalities requisite to claim the whole amount of duty they would be entitled to from the Stamp-
342
office, desisted from making their claim, and the consequence was, that the revenue received much to which it was not entitled. He would propose an alteration in the law in this respect, which, after communication with individuals most competent to give him advice on the subject, he believed he might say would afford considerable relief. Individuals would be required to pay the duty, not on the gross, but on the net amount of the estate. No one subject had been brought forward more prominently than this in all the discussions both at the Stamp-office and the Treasury. His right hon. Friend opposite, whom he saw taking notes, knew that no subject had given rise to more application than this, and that no part of the law bore harder upon the public generally. The tendency of it was to bring into the Exchequer a mass of property which the state was not entitled to receive, and he was bound to make an alteration in this state of things, if the evil could be remedied without introducing inconveniences still more formidable. With respect to another important branch of the law, he proposed to make a considerable change—he meant the duties upon bill stamps. The duties upon bills as they now existed might be divided into two classes—the duties on what might be termed foreign bills, and those on home or domestic bills. In the duty on foreign bills he would make no change. With regard to the duty generally on home bills, it appeared to him to bear with great injustice on bills drawn for small sums. He did not think it would be desirable to give undue encouragement to bills drawn for smaller sums as compared with those of a larger amount, but neither was it just that they should reverse the ordinary principles of fiscal regulation, and subject them to double and treble duty. All that he should propose would be, to adjust the bill scale as fairly as he could in reference to the amount, and to carry out the ad valorem principle as far as possible. Of late years there had existed a practice which, however reluctantly, he could not but characterize as an evasion of the duty upon bills. A custom had arisen of drawing, in place of bills, letters of credit, which were passed from hand to hand, and sometimes even negotiated by endorsement, though others, more prudent, refused to endorse such documents. The letters of credit, even

343
quite unendorsed, bad been often made to supply the place of bills. Unquestionably this practice was an evasion of the law, but he believed that one cause of it was the high rate of duty charged on bill stamps. Hon. Gentlemen would observe that these letters of credit could never be employed for the purposes of bills of a long date, or of great amount. They could not be used to any great extent as a means of postponing payment of a sum, or of obtaining an advance of capital. It was his intention now to introduce a scale of duties on bills drawn at a period not exceeding seven days from the date, calculated not to admit postponement of payment, nor to allow the raising of money upon them. On this class of bills he meant to propose a very slight duty—scarcely more than a nominal rate. He could not but regard the negotiation of letters of credit as a practice of very questionable legality, and it would be rendered still more so by the proposition he should make. In point of fact, the convenience of a bill of exchange payable to order, valid in point of law, would be of the greatest possible advantage to the commercial interests and the public generally, and would be used largely as a substitute for the present system of letters of credit. He had had much intercourse with parties who were well acquainted with that system, and their opinion was that his proposition would give great facility in mercantile transactions. He knew how very dull and uninteresting these details were, but he trusted that the House would bear with him if he ventured still further to solicit its attention; and they might be regarded as less necessary, as the House was not now to be called on to agree to these measures; but he should not have done justice to the Government nor to himself, if he had caused the schedules to be printed without offering some explanations to the House. There were several other alterations which he intended to propose, and among these one very much called for by the humbler classes of the community—the reduction of the tax leviable upon apprentices' indentures. He meant to propose a large reduction in this tax. At present, where there was no premium, or where it was under 10 l., a duty was imposed of 20 s. He was not called on then to discuss the policy of the laws relating to apprenticeship, but as long as they remained on the statute book
344
it was unjust by fiscal regulations to deprive parties of the means of executing contracts into which they were willing to enter. He proposed to reduce this tax from 20 s. to 10 s. upon the lowest class of indentures. The tax on bills of lading he proposed to reduce from 3s. to 6d., and to reduce that on charter parties from 35 s. to 5s. With regard to leases, he meant to propose a great alteration, which he hoped would be felt as a very considerable relief by the agricultural interest in the northern and western parts of England, in which chiefly the leasing system existed. The present rate of duty upon leases was felt to be extremely oppressive. Where the rent was 20 l. or under, the duty was now 20 s. He would propose that this should be reduced to 2s. 6d.. Where the rent was 300 l., and the duty now levied 3l., he should propose a reduction to 1l. Where the rent was 600 l. he should propose a reduction of duty from 4l. to 3l. He anticipated that the loss of revenue from this reduction would be amply compensated by putting an end to the exemptions from the duty at present existing, in favour of leases for the term of three lives and ecclesiastical leases. These cases would come under the general provisions of the law, subject to the reductions he should propose, and the ad valorem principle would come into operation as regarded them. In several additional instances, he proposed to carry reduction still further. On administration-bonds under 1,000 l., the duty was 20 s.—he should propose to lower it to 5s., and he did not think, the revenue would lose anything by the change. He wished to call the attention of the House to this fact. The large amount of the Stamp-duty charged upon these transactions had the effect, not of bringing in revenue, but of prohibiting those transactions which would augment it; and when he came to think, that on the legal execution of the contract requiring a stamp, might depend property to a great amount, he was unwilling, by fiscal regulations, to deprive any individual of that which was justly his due, or to prevent him from asserting his rights. He believed, that by these reductions no very material loss to the revenue would be incurred. He expected, also, to obtain some saving to the public by remitting the amount of discounts allowed. In particular cases, as in the case of administration-bonds, discounts were allowed, which generally

345
went into the pockets of professional persons, and by putting an end to allowances of this kind, he calculated on a saving of 10,000 l. or 12,000 l. a-year. He intended, also, to follow out the principle which had been applied by Lord Althorpe, when Chancellor of the Exchequer. That noble Lord had lowered the Stamp-duty on insurance for farming-stock, and he meant to carry this reduction further, and apply it to farming buildings. Frequent applications had been made to him on this subject, and he saw no reason to continue the duty. He knew that, with respect to this and other trifling matters, before the reduction was carried into effect, they were the subject of great vituperation; but the very moment the concession was made, the tables were generally turned against the parties who had so freely censured it. These changes were made in good faith, and were meant to give relief to particular classes of persons; and he hoped those now proposed would not be attributed to any wish to give rise to false expectations, or excite any delusion in the minds of the people. He noticed this, because he always stood in terror of being taunted with the relief they had once given to taxed-carts and shepherds' dogs. There was no subject on which they had been more taunted than on that. The right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had called the attention of Government to the tile duty, and had told them that this was a tax bearing in a manner practically injurious upon labour. Well, no sooner had they taken off that duty, than they were assailed with vituperation. The budget, in which these reductions were announced, was called the taxed-cart budget, the shepherd's-dog budget, and the tile budget; and a change which was effected in a good spirit and with the best intentions, was made the matter of much obloquy and reproach. But, in spite of this vituperation and ridicule, Ministers were always happy when they had an opportunity of making any reduction, however small; and if he could find out any other matters of the same kind, where an alteration would be beneficial, he would rather give the relief, and bear the censure that might follow, than suffer the hardship to continue. In the propositions he was about to make, the House need not be very much alarmed at the introduction of any new subject of taxation,
346
When they looked through the schedule, they would not find any probability of an increased taxation arising on any one head, except in so far as the arrangements of the plan now proposed would be likely to insure an increase of revenue, by the relief which they would give to many interests now labouring under depression from the weight of the duties. For instance, if the reduction of duty on leases increased the amount of revenue derived from them, he thought that neither the House nor the public had any right to quarrel with such an augmentation. The operation of the ad valorem principle might, indeed, create a temporary pressure at some parts of the scale, but the application of the principle, in a plain and intelligible manner, would be more than a compensation for the increase of charge which might thus result, while the pressure at one end would be counterbalanced by the relief at the other, where it was most wanted. He would proceed next to the question which he had touched on in the early part of his remarks—that of the Stamp-duty on Newspapers. But, before he entered on that subject, he wished to state distinctly the course he intended to pursue on the present occasion. He meant to report the schedule, with the consent of the House, to obtain leave to introduce a Bill embracing the topics which he had enumerated, to circulate that Bill, along with the schedule, among hon. Members, till a day to be fixed after Easter, and then finally to take the opinion of the House as to his proposition. Undoubtedly, this course would be open to objection, if there were in the House any hon. Gentleman disposed to move an increase of those duties; because, though it was competent for any one to move a diminution in the Committee on the Bill, he could not move an increase of the duty without recommitting the schedule. He did not imagine there would be many Gentlemen in the House anxious to move an increase; but if any hon. Member should happen to be so extremely desirous to signalize himself in this way, he was ready to enter into a compact with him, and to recommit the schedule for his special convenience. He remembered the ground he had formerly taken with reference to the motion of the hon. Member for Exeter, and from the opinion he then expressed, he was not now disposed to depart. He then said, it was just and right that the whole ques-

347
tion of the finances of this country should be considered, not bit by bit, but as a connected whole. The claims of the respective parties should be compared, and relief should not be voted to one class, whether licensed victuallers on the one hand, or gentlemen representing the great soap and tallow interests on the other, without due consideration. The House should not be called on to vote in matters of taxation in detail; but the state of the whole finances should be considered at once, and if there were a disposable surplus, then Parliament should consider how that was to be applied. He should not have introduced the subject of the Stamps upon the present occasion, but involving, as it did, the great interests of commerce and law, and all the obligations which passed under the name of contract, he felt that he should not be warranted in introducing a Bill for the consolidation of the Stamp-duties, if not only the metropolis, not only England, but Scotland and Ireland, were not to be made acquainted, in good time, with the alterations he proposed to effect. But, consistent with the principles he had followed on a former occasion, and with those arguments that had satisfied a majority of the House that his hon. Friend, the Member for Exeter, was premature in bringing forward his motion at the period he had selected, he should not ask the House to pledge itself to any principle till that time when he brought forward the budget. Upon the subject of Newspaper Stamps, therefore, it was not his intention to ask the House to pledge itself, but he thought it but fair, frank, and just, to those who advocated the opinions advanced in the petitions presented to-night to the House, and but fair to those who opposed them, candidly to state what he should propose to do in April on this subject. He did not mean to argue the question; that he should be prepared to do when he took the sense of the House upon it. He wished merely to communicate the fact, that Gentlemen might have a full opportunity of carefully weighing the project before they made up their minds. He could not hold out to the hon. Member for Finsbury, notwithstanding that respect which he bore to the petitions of the people—a respect as deep as that hon. Member's could be—any disposition or intention of moving the total repeal of these duties. He could not make such a proposition to the House,
348
and he did not think that, if he were to make it, the House would acquiesce in it. Certainly, that would be no reason why he should refrain from submitting it to the House, if it were in conformity with his own opinions. If he were bound to submit it to the House by his sense of public duty, make it he would, and let the House decide on it. But he did not think it would be just on financial grounds. The House was aware that the duty now amounted to 4d. minus the discount; in return for this, the State undertook the duty of conveying the newspaper by post; and thus a certain proportion of this duty was rather to be regarded in the light of a payment for a service performed, than in the light of a tax for which no service whatever was rendered. Indeed, this part of the subject had impressed itself so deeply on the attention of some Gentlemen, that many were disposed to recommend the substitution of a postage duty of 1d. instead of the present tax. He believed, after the fullest consideration he had been able to give the proposal, that it had one slight objection, that of being totally and entirely impracticable. He believed, that if the burden of levying the whole of this duty as a postage were to be thrown on the Post-office, there would be great difficulty in carrying on the ordinary duties of the office, and the general correspondence of the empire. He viewed the duty partly as a payment to the state for services, and partly as a tax. The postage scheme would operate most unjustly. Why should they adopt a principle in itself so unequal? They wished to diffuse knowledge in the remote parts of the empire; but the imposition of a postage would make the possession of it much dearer to the population of those counties, than to that of the metropolis and the adjacent country. The proposition which he should be disposed to make to the House hereafter, would be the substitution of a tax of 1d. for the tax now levied. He should be prepared to argue this question—to argue it financially, politically, and in all its bearings, both against those who wished that nothing should be done in the matter, and those who wished that a great deal more should be done. He should make the best case he could against these extreme views of the subject, and he trusted the House would go with him in applying a practical remedy to that which he admitted to be a considerable grievance.

349
He could not help adverting to what had fallen from his hon. Friend on the present state of the law, as bearing upon personal liberty. He had stated last year to the House, that so long as the law remained in its present condition, no effort of his should be neglected for its administration, and for the protection of those persons who had invested their property in this particular department. The hon. Member for Finsbury had said, that he, for one, would never support, either in the House or out of it, the violation of the law as it stood. It was his bounden duty, and it was his determination to enforce the law, and to prevent loss or detriment to any individual by transgressing it. He had already been, in consequence of that determination, exposed to frequent abuse; but he was convinced, that so long as they let the present high duty remain, the violation of the law would be continued, and that it could not be put down until the cause of it was removed. His hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln, had, last Session, brought forward the proposition he now submitted to the House. He had then urged, that in the existing state of the finances, it would not be prudent to make so large a reduction. If he could show the House, in April, that, adhering to the opinions he then held, they were now in a condition to make that reduction without any very great sacrifice, he would, under those circumstances, ask them to support him in his proposition. He would say a few words more with respect to the Stamp-duties. Having stated, generally, that no new duties would be introduced, there was one which he could not suffer to be voted, even pro formâ, in Committee, without calling the attention of the House to it. The right hon. Gentleman near him had just asked if the ad valorem principle would be applied to probates and legacies. Undoubtedly it would; but the great relief on this point, he considered, would be the payment of the duty, not on the gross, but on the net proceeds of the estate. He would revert to the subject from which the question of the right hon. Gentleman had diverted him. By the law, as it stood, an ad valorem duty was chargeable on the amount of consideration for the transfer of shares in Joint-stock Companies—such as railroad, canal, and banking shares. With this he did not mean to meddle, but he intended to superadd a small tax upon the first issue
350
of those shares. It was far from him to wish to interfere with or discourage the application of capital to great national objects, and therefore the amount proposed would be very small indeed. It would not, in the slightest degree, operate to the disadvantage of any bonâ fide undertaking, but it would check transactions of a different kind—insecure and dangerous speculations, the very worst species of gambling. It would also operate beneficially in this way, that Government would know the project in which the shares originated, and the number brought into the market. A kind of registry of them would thus be formed, as had been proposed some years since, with reference to the Joint-stock Companies then created. He wished not to fetter, but to preserve and secure capital, and he could not see why, when there was a tax on the transfer of shares, a duty on the original issue should be considered objectionable. With regard to the Stamp-duties in Ireland, he could scarcely give an explanation without going into the whole subject; but he should not be acting candidly if he did not say, that generally they were very much lower than in England. The English Stamp-duties were, in proportion, nearly double the Stamp-duties in Ireland, and he proposed in the application of the Bill to Ireland, to adhere strictly to this proportion throughout, except in the case of the Newspaper Stamps, where one uniform duty would be established. He could not close this address without thanking the House for their indulgence. He knew that the exposition made was necessarily imperfect, and he should have felt it his duty to go with more fulness and precision into the whole question, if he had not known that he should have another opportunity of recurring to it. He should forget his duty if he did not acknowledge the obligations he was under to Gentlemen opposite, who had preceded him in that department of administration confided to him, and to the memorials left in the Treasury by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He was also much indebted for the assistance rendered by the gentlemen of the Stamp-office, and especially to Mr. Tyrwhitt, for the industry and ability which he had brought to assist him. It had fallen to him to make this experiment; he was well aware of the complicated difficulties that surrounded

351
it, and of the various conflicting interests he should have to appease; but he trusted that the measure would prove satisfactory to the public, and afford, on many minor points, considerable relief. He could not sit down without expressing his gratitude to a gentleman near him (the hon. Member for Newport), a personal friend, for the efficient assistance he had rendered in completing the details of this measure when he was much engrossed with other matters, and unable to give them that they demanded. His hon. Friend had directed his attention to the subject with great credit to himself and advantage to the country. He owed it to the hon. Member for Newport to say how much he was indebted to him for the completion of the measure. He hoped the House would put him in a condition to have the Bill circulated, that the country might obtain the fullest information with respect to it. He wished that it should stand over, and the discussion taken hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the first Resolution, "That the several Stamp-duties, Allowances, and Drawbacks now in force, be repealed, and that, in lieu thereof, the several Stamp-duties hereinafter mentioned be enacted."
Mr. Goulburnconcurred with his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the advantages to be derived from pursuing that consolidation of the statutes which was begun by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Tamworth, on the subject of the Criminal Law, which was followed up by his right hon. Friend, the Member for Harwich, on the subject of the Customs and Excise, and which he had himself meditated to accomplish on this very subject of the Stamp Duties when he was in office in the year 1830. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had only done justice to his predecessors in office, when he said that a measure of the same kind with that which he had that night so clearly developed to the House had engaged their deep consideration. When he (Mr. Goulburn) was in office, in 1830, he had completed the consolidation of the laws relating to the stamp duties—which then were only 161 in number, though they now reached the larger sum which his right hon. Friend had mentioned—and had introduced into the House in the early part of the Session of that year a new schedule of duties upon various articles. That schedule was dif-
352
ferent, he admitted, in many respects from the schedule which had been introduced that evening by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon. Friend, owing to the longer continuance of peace, and to the expansion which that prolonged continuance of peace had given to all the springs of productive industry, had been fortunate enough to have larger funds at his disposal than had fallen to his (Mr. Goulburn's) lot, and had, therefore, been able to make larger reductions than he could afford to the country with a due regard to public credit. Unfortunately, when he was in office, it was necessary for him to make some increase in some of the stamp duties, in order to meet the deficiency in the revenue, which he anticipated would arise from the reduction of taxes which he had proposed on some articles of general consumption. He admitted, likewise, that his plan of consolidation differed in some respects from that of his right hon. Friend, and if he (Mr. Goulburn) preferred his own plan, he hoped that the House would believe that it was not from any foolish attachment to it because it was his own, but from a deep impression on his mind that the course which he had himself struck out would be more convenient to the public than that which was recommended by his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend proposed to consolidate all the existing Stamp Acts into one Act, containing 330 clauses. His own intention was to have consolidated them into several Acts, classifying the duties under the several articles to which they were to apply. With a view to the simplification of the law, with a view to its being more easily understood, and with a view to its future alteration and amendment, which must be expected in laws relating to the revenue more than in any other class of laws, he thought that his course would be at once more efficient and more satisfactory. It was his intention to have brought in one general law applicable to all descriptions of stamps, and to have followed it up with ten particular statutes, each applying to a particular description of stamps. The first would have related to the stamp duties on deeds and law-proceedings in England; the second, to the stamp duties on bills of exchange and on promissory notes; the third, to the stamp duties on probates of wills and on letters of administration; the fourth, to the stamp duties on news-

353
papers; the fifth, to the duties on cards and dice; the sixth, to the duties on hawkers' and pedlars' licences; the seventh, to the duties on plate; the eighth, to the duties on stage-coaches and post horses; the ninth, to the duties on the proceedings in the courts of law and equity in Ireland; and the tenth, to the duties on game certificates. He thought that it would be easier for any person to refer to any one of those ten bills for any information which he wanted, than to wade for it through one long and voluminous statute with no less than 330 clauses. He hoped that before his right hon. Friend brought in the Bill, of which he had just stated the substance to the House, he would consider whether he would not be likely to consolidate the existing statutes better by placing the different stamp duties under different heads, than by placing them all together indiscriminately in one Bill. He thought that such a consolidation as that which his right hon. Friend was now proposing would rather serve to increase than diminish, the bulk of the laws affecting the stamp duties. It would be something like an abridgement of Blackstone's Commentaries, made by a young friend of his, on commencing the study of the law. Blackstone was in four volumes, octavo, and his friend's Abridgement extended to not more than twenty volumes, folio. He would now proceed to make a few remarks on the expediency of the course adopted by his right hon. Friend, in bringing forward this new schedule of duties on the present occasion. The House would, perhaps, recollect that, on a former evening, he had expressed great pleasure in being able to support his right hon. Friend in his opposition to the repeal of the Spirit Licences, which he had rested on this principle—that, before the House pledged itself to the repeal of any tax, it ought to have before it the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financial condition of the country, on account of the surplus revenue which was at his disposal, and an explanation of the claims of the different interests in the community to relief. Concurring with his right hon. Friend in that principle, he thought that his right hon. Friend would have been acting more consistently if, before he introduced a new schedule of stamp duties, involving a reduction on one particular article, if not on more, he had followed the example set
354
by him (Mr. Goulburn) in 1830, and had laid before the House an account of the revenue, in which his consolidation must, of necessity, make some alteration. In May, 1830, he (Mr. Goulburn) had felt it to be his duty, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to detail to the House the amount of our income and expenditure, and the probable surplus of income over expenditure; and after finishing that detail, he had stated the consolidation which he called upon the House to make. He contended that that was the most expedient course to take, and called the attention of the House to the great inconvenience to which his right hon. Friend had exposed himself by acting upon a contrary principle. In spite of the principle which his right hon. Friend had asserted on a former evening, that it was not expedient for the Finance Minister to pledge himself to the repeal of a tax before he was prepared to make a statement of the financial condition of the country for the year, he had pledged himself to one particular interest connected with the newspapers, to reduce the stamp duty on newspapers from 4d. deducting the discount, to 1d. Professing to keep the question of the repeal of taxation open, his right hon. Friend, whilst the House was yet ignorant of the amount of the revenue, and the surplus of that revenue over our expenditure, and of the claims of different interests to relief, had come to an understanding with certain parties that he would deal with an income of 400,000 l. by reducing a duty of 3d. to 1d. He (Mr. Goulburn) did not mean to say what diminution in the revenue would be occasioned by this reduction of taxation; but he did mean to say this—that before his right hon. Friend acceded to that reduction he ought to have explained to the House the financial situation of the country. Supposing that the present stamp duties were a grievance to the proprietors of newspapers, were not the spirit licences also a grievance to the owners and occupiers of public-houses? And yet his right hon. Friend, who had refused to give a pledge to reduce the taxation of which they complained to one of those parties, had pledged himself on the same point to the other party. He thought that this was not acting with the candour which he had a right to expect from his right hon. Friend. He must say a word or two as to the alterations which his right hon. Friend proposed to make in the scale

355
of duties; and here he must remark that there was one singular deficiency in the speech of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend had told the House of the great alterations which he intended to make in these duties, but he had not said one word to it respecting the probable gain or loss which the revenue would sustain in consequence of those alterations. For his own part, he must confess that where the scale of duties was altogether varied, he could not make a calculation on the moment as to the amount of reduction in the revenue which the variation would produce. With respect to the alteration which his right hon. Friend proposed to make in the stamp duties affecting leases, he thought that, by reducing the amount of duty on the smaller transactions, and by increasing it on the higher, the revenue must sustain a loss. For it was the duty bearing on the greatest number of transactions which created the mass of the revenue, and not the duty falling on the higher, and, therefore, the least numerous class of transactions. If, therefore, he was not mistaken, this alteration would certainly lead to a diminution of the national income. The main alteration, however, which his right hon. Friend proposed was an equal per centage on all those duties which had hitherto been levied by a graduating scale, and that the per centage was to be a lower duty than that which was in force at present. He should like to have heard from his right hon. Friend the calculation which he had made of loss or gain from this alteration upon the data before him. With respect to the stamp duties on probates of wills and letters of administration, every person who had filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer knew the great difficulty of regulating those duties. To calculate the duty and to enforce the payment of it upon the whole amount of the personal property belonging to the deceased, and then to remit such a portion of it as covered the amount of the debts due to him, appeared at first sight a harsh measure; but the principle on which that amount of duty was levied was nothing else but the impossibility of getting the full amount of duty in any other manner. It would have been most satisfactory to him had his right, hon. Friend stated to the House the means by which he expected to obtain the knowledge of the net amount of the testator's property—that amount which was
356
now only obtained with difficulty, by means which he had condemned as unjust. Upon that part of the subject his right hon. Friend had been perfectly silent; and yet it would have been most satisfactory had he told the House how he intended to guard against the frauds which had been so often practised to evade the revenue laws on this head. His right hon. Friend, it appeared, did not intend during this Session to impose a new tax on more than one article, and that was to be imposed on the share which any individual might have in a joint-stock transaction. Now, he contended that this was introducing a new principle altogether into our system of legislation. There had always been a duty on the transfer of shares, but that duty was not imposed upon the share because it was property, but upon the deed which made it a conveyance of property, and which, therefore, rendered it liable to the duty. But his right hon. Friend now proposed to place a duty upon the share itself. If the duty were a moderate duty, and if it were intended to facilitate our knowledge of the parties who really held shares, he saw no objection on principle to the imposition of such a duty; but if the duty were carried beyond a moderate limit, it would be an obstacle to industry and a bar to enterprise. His objection would, therefore, depend on the amount of the duty, which his right hon. Friend had plainly stated that he would not declare until a future period. There was another point to which he must advert, at the risk of exposing himself again, as he had exposed himself before, to considerable obloquy, by the expression of his opinions upon it. It would, perhaps, be remembered by the House that, when in 1830, he submitted his schedule of stamp duties to Parliament, he had proposed to make an equalization of those duties throughout the empire—in other words, to make the stamp duties in Ireland the same as in England. He had made that proposition, because he saw no reason why two parts of the United Kingdom, now that they were united, should be liable to the payment of different duties. In point of fact, there could be no reason why a great landholder in Ireland should not pay the same amount of probate duty and legacy duty, and the same amount of stamp duty on his conveyances as an English landholder; and after the discussions which they had recently heard on the propriety

357
of assimilating the laws passed for Ireland to those passed for England, he certainly did expect to hear his right hon. Friend opposite, and all those who clamoured for justice for Ireland, join in calling for that equalization. He did expect to hear them sing out in one grand chorus—"Do not degrade Ireland, by giving her a different stamp act from that which you have yourselves. We are not so poor and so wretched as to be unable to pay the same amount of duties that you pay. Assimilate your laws in both countries, and in taxation, as well as in other matters, give us the full benefit of the British constitution." But no; his right hon. Friend, and the friends of Ireland who sat around him, forgot upon this point their own principle: they did not wish the law of Ireland to be assimilated to that of England; and they were very well content that Ireland should only pay half the amount of stamp duties collected in England. If the House should be inclined to go along with his right hon. Friend in that proposition, it would undoubtedly be granting to Ireland a large and liberal relief; but before the House granted that relief, it ought to have had a statement laid before it of the revenue and expenditure of the country, and it ought to have seen whether, with a due regard to existing obligations, it could afford to give this reduction of duty to the newspapers, and to make this reduction in the amount of Irish stamps. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would follow the example which he had set him when in office, in 1830, and would lay upon the Table a statement in two parallel columns of the rates of duties now paid, and of the rates to be substituted in lieu of them by this schedule, in all the different parts of the empire. There was another topic in the plan of his right hon. Friend to which he must also briefly advert, and that was the duty which his right hon. Friend intended to propose upon bills of exchange. No man could fill the situation of Chancellor of the Exchequer without knowing how liable to evasion the law was on bills of exchange. If the alteration which his right hon. Friend intended to introduce upon this point should have a tendency to facilitate the transactions of trade, and to guard against evasions of the law, no man would be more glad of it than he should. His right hon. Friend had told them that he intended to reduce the duty
358
on the smaller bills of exchange, but he had not told them what he intended to do with respect to promissory notes. Now, if the House did not deal with promissory notes as it was now recommended to deal with bills of exchange, the bankers would be compelled to make small bills of exchange, instead of small promissory notes, which they circulated at present, and it might be worth while to consider what effect that would produce on the circulation of the country. If, then, his right hon. Friend intended to deal with small bills of exchange, he must be prepared to deal exactly in the same way with promissory notes. His right hon. Friend had also informed the House of several small remissions of taxation which he intended to make, and which he considered as likely to be highly beneficial to the classes to which they would apply. He was not unwilling to receive even a small remission of taxation from the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; on the contrary, he received it with joy and thankfulness; and that brought him to remark that his right hon. Friend had done injustice to hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr. Goulburn's) side of the House, when he taxed them with receiving his proposal to repeal the taxes on shepherds' dogs, on tiles, and on taxed carts, not with gratitude, but with ridicule and shouts of laughter. The reason why they had indulged in that laughter was, that his right hon. Friend had promulgated the repeal of those taxes as calculated to give great relief to the agricultural interest, then in a state of great distress. The ridicule was not applied to the reduction of the tax, but to the pompous and inflated style in which that reduction was proposed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his entire concurrence in the suggestion of his right hon. Friend, that they ought not to avail themselves of their right to raise a discussion, which would be interminable, on each item in the schedule, but that they should confine themselves to the discussion of those items in which any alteration either had been made or ought to be effected.
Mr. Edward L. Bulwerhad but a few remarks to make upon the important subject under the attention of the House. He should very certainly refrain from attempting to follow the right hon. Gentleman opposite, through the details of the many wonderful things which he set forth as

359
having been within his intention to bless the nation with. Upon the right hon. Gentleman's speech he would only observe that it was quite in keeping with all the acts of his former public life, that though he had been ever opposed to the idea of giving to the Irish people an equality of British advantages, he was now most anxious to bestow upon them a full equality in British hardships. Nor was it his intention to follow the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer through the details of his admirable, eloquent, and comprehensive speech; he merely rose for the purpose of saying a few words upon a subject in which he had himself been more particularly interested. He had been much blamed out of the House, and a little in it, for not pressing the House to a division on the last occasion that he had the honour of bringing forward the subject of the stamp duties on newspapers. His decision upon that occasion had been founded upon his conviction, from the assurance then given by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that his object would be as fully satisfied without going to a division, as if it went successfully through that or several other divisions, and in all probability more speedily. As to the proposed reduction of the newspaper stamp duties to 1d. he was still distinctly of opinion that the entire abolition of them was far more desirable than any reduction however large and liberal. But at the same time, as he knew and acknowledged that every liberal measure was the result of compromise, he should not think of rejecting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which, under the circumstances, he considered to be the best compromise which could be offered. He, however, should reserve to himself the full right of speaking further upon this subject, and of voting in a division as he should think fit.
Mr. William Ordbegged to offer the hon. Gentleman who spoke last his congratulations upon the near approximation which was proposed to be made to the object which that hon. Gentleman had so eloquently advocated when in a small minority upon the point. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, his proposal of placing in parallel columns the existing stamp duties and those proposed to be substituted, it would be impossible to act upon in the present case, from the nature of the sections. As to
360
the right hon. Gentleman's joke about the abridgment of Blackstone in twenty folio volumes, it applied much more aptly to the right hon. Gentleman's own consolidation schedule than to the one now proposed. The schedule now proposed contained but 330 sections, while that of the right hon. Member extended to 456 sections, being thus more bulky by 126 sections than the present one. The right hon. Gentleman complained, that his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of Exchequer, had anticipated his budget, but the same course had been pursued on former occasions.
Mr. Thomas Duncomberose to order. He wished to ask whether this discussion was proceeding in the spirit in which it was stated by the right hon. Gentleman that it should. If the Government were to have leave to bring on the Government orders to the exclusion of motions, and long discussions were to ensue upon them, it would be impossible for Gentlemen who had motions to make ever to bring them forward. He did not say this with the least wish to press his motion on the House; he knew it would be defeated by a large majority; nevertheless he would press it to a division—but he asked the question with reference to other motions, and amongst them that of his hon. colleague, who had a motion on the paper for the total repeal of the stamp duty on newspapers. He was also favourable to the total repeal of that duty. The motion of his hon. colleague was made to give way, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make his statement, and the understanding was, that no discussion should take place. They could not prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite from discussing the question if they pleased, it was a matter of taste for their consideration, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge, had gone into the question in a manner that rendered it impossible the debate could be put a stop to now unless he could prove that the spirit in which the subject was entered into had been violated by the right hon. Gentleman, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by the hon. Gentleman who was one of the Lords of the Treasury.
Mr. Ordwould save the House the trouble of debating the question of order-by resting on the statement of his right hon. Friend to answer the objections

361
which had been urged against it. He would merely beg leave to acknowledge the compliment, which in so gratifying a manner had been paid to him by his right hon. Friend.
Mr. Humeexpressed himself satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, as far as it went; but he still entertained a hope, that, at no very distant period, a new light would break in upon the right hon. Gentleman, and that he would become favourable to the entire repeal of the newspaper tax.
Mr. Wakleywas not satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, nor would his constituents be. He should certainly take an opportunity of dividing the House on the question as to the total repeal of the newspaper stamp duty. That impost was proposed originally by the 10th of queen Anne, for the purpose of putting down publications that were obnoxious to the Government. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that the general impression out of doors was, that the stamp tax was imposed in order that the newspapers might not give political information. The people thought that the goings in this House were such that the tax was imposed to prevent the people from coming to a knowledge of them. The people required information, and why was it to be denied to them? The hon. Gentleman then referred to the case of Cleave, who was confined in Tothill-fields prison for an alleged infraction of the Stamp Act. He never saw a more revolting sight than he witnessed last Friday, when he went to visit Cleave in prison. The 16th George II. provided for the punishment of the "venders" of unstamped newspapers. Mr. Cleave, when he was seized, had the papers in his bag in a cab. He was asked what he had in his possession, and he replied, "newspapers;" he was not "vending" them. Who could say what description of paper came legally under that definition. What was news? People had no right to publish the debates of the House. Could they be called news? Lord Tenterden had decided, that it was illegal to publish police reports. Could they, then, be called news? He thought these matters were subjects to which Ministers ought to give their most serious consideration.
Resolution agreed to.

EXCISE DUTY ON SOAP.
Mr. Hand- ley, Sir, in rising to bring forward the Motion of which I have given notice. I regret that I cannot adopt the suggestions of my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Indeed, even if no other circumstances impelled me, the right hon. Gentleman had himself certainly furnished an important reason why the question of the Soap Duties should without delay be brought under the notice of the House, by pledging himself to the disposal of a large portion of the revenue in a manner which I can assure him will not meet with the approbation of those whom I have the honour to represent, and who complained, not without reason, that they have unfortunately been always excluded from the financial arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through whatever side of the House he might come. It will be in the recollection of the House that, at the opening of the present Session, his Majesty, in his speech from the Throne, called upon the House, to direct their special attention to any measure that might tend to alleviate the distress prevalent in agricultural districts. Of that character will be found the motion which I am about to introduce to the attention of the House; but it is also connected with a circumstance I think will be considered no slight recommendation. Much as I wish, and ever have sought, that the agricultural districts should receive that protection to which they are entitled, I confess, Sir, that I should not now, or on any occasions claim relief for them, at the expense of other portions of the community. And it will form therefore matter of recommendation to this motion, that, while it comprises some portion of relief to agriculture, it will benefit all classes of the community, and give encouragement to a most important and declining branch of British manufacture. It is unnecessary, Sir, to dwell upon the subject of agricultural distress; it is universally known and deplored. But I may be permitted to observe that last year it was not of a more mitigated character than at any preceding period. But as no evil is without its concomitant good, so there is some consolation, I am inclined to think, even in this state of things. I speak from many communications I have received as well as from my own experience when I say that the different classes. operatives in this country are beginning to feel sympathy for their agricultural

363
brethren in distress. I believe that the manufacturers have discovered that they are interested in our success, and that the operatives are at last convinced that even the price of the necessaries of life may be too low when accompanied with agricultural distress. Sir, tallow is entirely an article of agricultural produce; it is furnished by almost every class of agriculturists; there is scarcely a small farmer who does not keep his flock of sheep; and it is to be observed, that the grower of grain can change his produce for some article bearing a higher rate of profit, as he pleases; the farmer who produces meat; (whether beef or tallow) must necessarily produce tallow, which of all articles of agricultural produce is the most expensive and the least remunerating. From 1810 to 1820, the price of tallow was 73 s. per cwt., from 1820 to 1830, it fell from 73 s. to 42 s. per cwt. I beg the House also to remember, that the duty on Russian tallow is only 31. 4s. per ton, and I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen, and particularly my right hon. Friend, would have had too much jealousy of the Russian Chancellor of the Exchequer to have allowed that country thus to come into competition with British commercial interests. Last year, Sir, the duty on lamp-oils was reduced one-half the consumption has in; consequence, I am assured, nearly doubled. I will grant that the principle is so good that, at no very distant day, I hope to see it extended to malt but my object in mentioning it was only to remark that lamp-oils had, since the reduction of duty, come seriously into competition with tallow. But these, Sir, are after all, but mere minor complaints, compared with that which I am now about to submit to the consideration of the House. Independently of having to contend against the low duty on foreign tallow, and the competition of cheap lamp-oil, the best customer for British tallow, the soap manufacturer, has to contend against a system of excise, so odious, so anomalous, that nothing but absolute necessity can justify it. What will the House suppose when I tell them, that notwithstanding the manufacture of soap is one most dependent on science, and especially on chemistry, and notwithstanding that large sums are daily expended for gaining such information as may be advantageous to the improvement of the process; what will
364
the House think when I tell them, that the soap manufacturer is unable to avail himself of those improvements suggested from time to time by the restrictions imposed on him by the excise system, a system which confines him to the use of the same machinery, and the adoption of the same processes, to which he was restricted in the reign of Queen Anne? What has been the consequence? Why, the home produce—there being no export trade,—is unable to compete with the foreign; and smuggling has increased to an extent really alarming—particularly in Ireland, where there is no duty, so much so indeed as to have been brought under the attention of the Commissioners of seh thed I am glad I have had an opportunity of inspecting their Report before bringing on my motion; and I call the attention of the Irish Members to the "Pandora's box" which I am about to open for Ireland. At present there is no duty on soap in that country; and one of the first recommendations of the Commissioners in their Report is that the duty should be extended to Ireland, and that both the countries should be placed under the same regulations. I congratulate the Irish Members on the cheering prospect of "equal justice" about to be dealt out to Ireland. I wish the hon. and learned Member for Dublin joy of it. But let him bear in mind that if he does not vote with me his fair land will soon be trodden by the unhallowed footsteps of a phalanx of soap duty collecting excisemen. Another recommendation of the Report is, that the duty on soft soap shall be reduced to 1s. 3d. per pound. There are eleven millions of pounds manufactured of that article (of which nine or ten million are consumed in manfactures); yet such a system of fraud and collusion is the present system of draw backs that of that eleven millions of pounds, on seven only is there a drawback the remainder being returned as hard soap. Now, Sir, the Commissioners of Excise (distrusting their own judgment,) have called to their aid that great professor of the science of political ecomony, Mr. Mac Culloch. He is asked a question, whether there was any objection to repealing the duty on soap and imposing an import duty on foreign tallow? His first objection (although I believe I could prove that he held at one one time very different opinions upon the subject), his first objection was that it

365
would raise the price of tallow; I believe Sir, however, that when duly considered the disadvantage would be more than counter balanced by the advantages of the proposition. He calls in aid of his opinion, a portion of the manufacturing community, who use a large quantity of tallow in the dressing of leather:—viz. the curriers; what quantity of tallow they use, I am unable to say; but this I know that in many intances they gather tallow by pressing it from the skins, which they are manufacturing into leather; and, though the greasing of machinery must consume a considerable quantity, they have now completely superseded tallow by the cheaper article of lamp-oil. Mr. Mac Culloch comes then to that which I dare say will be pressed on me to night with the greatest force—viz. that it is contrary to the principles of political economy to impose a tax upon a raw material. No rule, Sir, however, is without an exception; and, in the present instance, the exception has been justified by two of the aptest scholars of Mr. Mac Culloch, Lord Spencer, (then Lord Althorp) and Mr. P. Thomson (the present President of the Board of Trade). The first of these advocated the same principle as that for which I am contending when he proposed to reduce the duty on wax candles, and to impose a duty on foreign wax; the other, when he brought forward a proposition for repealing the tax on printed calicoes and imposing a duty on the raw material. But Mr. Mac Culloch gave it as his opinion that to impose heavier duties on foreign tallow would create dangerous dissatisfaction in Russia and probably provoke proceedings against our trade with that country. Sir, I have yet to learn what there is so congenial in Russian policy, so important in Russian interests, as to induce the Government of this country to sacrifice at its shrine the interests of British trade, or of any portion of the British population. I am of the same opinion, Sir, on this subject as the hon. Member for Middlesex, and I beg leave to refer to his authority. On another occasion he said, "To Russia we owe nothing? England takes three times the amount in value from Russia of what she takes from us; and why should this country take timber to the amount of 800,000 l. a-year from Russia, why should Russian tallow be admitted at a low duty, when she
366
has lately imposed a duty of 12½ per cent on all British imports, and excluded our refined sugars entirely from her ports? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has just bespoken a large portion of surplus revenue for a purpose which, is, I think, not very congenial with the wishes of the rural portion of the community Hear, hear], unquestionably not calculated to raise the price of wheat, or relieve, according to the recommendations of the agricultural Committee, any of the burthens pressing peculiarly upon land, peculiarly noticed in his Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, I do feel, that the interest which I have undertaken to advocate will be placed in a most disadvantageous position if the House do not enable me, by a strong recommendation, to urge the matter upon the favourable attention of the right hon. Gentleman. Sir, the plan which I propose is this: to repeal the duty on soap, amounting to 600,000 l. per annum; and raise the duty on importation of tallow to 10 l. a ton, which will raise a revenue of 320,000 l., leaving 280,000 l. to come out of that surplus, which from the liberality with which the right hon. Gentleman deals with it already, I have reason to hope will be announced to us. Yet, as the price of tallow in Russia is, I believe, far more than remunerating, we may assume that the benefit of the 320,000 l. will be principally divided by the producers and consumers at home; but as the quantity imported is but fifty tons, and the quantity produced at home is 500 tons, I have a right to calculate that the benefit to the agriculturists will not be more than about a halfpenny per lb. in the price of tallow, or 32,000 l. in the whole. Sir, it is true this may have the effect of raising the price of candles, and that is the only objection which can, with propriety, be urged against the proposition. But a penny a-pound has recently been taken off candles, and this plan will only impose a halfpenny a-pound on that article, while the consumer of candles and soap being the same, the diminution of the tax on the latter being four times the amount of the imposition on candles, the bargain will still greatly preponderate in favour of the public. They will gain the difference between the 320,000 l. to be imposed, and the 600,000 l. to be taken off. I should observe, that at no period could there be less apprehension

367
entertained by Members representing the commercial interest as to the effect of any demonstration of opinion in this House. No detriment could arise to trade from any such expressions as the shipments from Russia take place between July and August. Sir, I therefore hope, that the House will affirm the abstract principle on which my Motion is founded, and with that view I beg to move, that the "House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Excise and Customs Duties, to consider the expediency of repealing the Excise Duty on Soap, and augmenting the Customs Duties on foreign Tallow."
Mr. Halford: Sir, I rise to second this motion in the discharge of that duty which I owe to my constituents, in common with the whole agricultural body. I wish their interests had fallen into abler hands; but, Sir, after the clear elucidation of my hon. Friend, I have little more to do than to repeat the appeal he has made for protection and relief to the agricultural portion of the country. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, in my opinion, is calculated to benefit the agricultural interests, and not only their interests, but that of every other class of the community. I know very well that we should hear of the impolicy of imposing a tax upon the raw material. I think that such an argument would serve to show the injustice which would be inflicted on the agriculturists, if, under the present circumstances, we were to admit foreign articles of common necessity to the home market, while there is also a scale of duties which affords no protection to the British producers, and robs them of that fair remuneration to which they are entitled. It is my opinion, that the doctrines of free trade and political economy, however expedient they may be in other departments, are inapplicable to agriculture; an interest, the importance of which I cannot exaggerate; and which is now burthened far more than is consistent with sound policy. Unless protection is afforded to the commodity in question, it will be impossible for it to compete with foreign produce; and if we can transfer from the Russian Exchequer to the pockets of the British agriculturists, some portion of the duty now enjoyed by that country, I think we are bound so to do. I have no doubt that the small increase of duty which is now sought for on the foreign article would increase the value of land about 30 s.
368
per acre—there will be an advance in the price to that amount. But no man is more convinced than I am of the futility of any measure intended to relieve the agriculturists by depressing another portion of the community. I will say for myself that I am bound up with the manufacturing interest, and am the representative of a manufacturing as well as an agricultural district. It is clear that any injury done to the manufacturers would immediately be recoiled upon the land. In the district I represent this is felt to be the case. In Leicestershire the whole burthen of the support of the manufacturing population devolves exclusively upon the land. My meaning will be understood when I say, that in that county, which is a manufacturing county—a county in which the manufacturing exceeds the agricultural population—there 139,303 l. 6s. was levied in one year for poor and county rates, and in that the contribution paid by mills and factories, liable to the assessments, was but 783 l. The cost of the candle which gives light in the cottage of the Leicestershire weaver is to be deducted from his scanty weekly earnings. Such an individual will certainly feel the increased cost; but the proposal of my hon. Friend comprises a reduction in an article which is equally necessary; and I support that proposition, because I am convinced that the labouring population will be gainers in point of comfort and saving of expense by its success; that is an object of great importance, and I am prepared to give to the motion of my hon. Friend my warmest and most cordial support. On the financial part of the subject I have very little to say, but if I were competent to discuss this point, I would ask whether you will hesitate to choose between cheap newspapers and cheap soap? which is most conducive to the comfort of the labouring part of the community?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonstated, that it was not upon the relative merits of his hon. Friend's proposition, as compared with the repeal of the tax upon newspapers, that he should wish to argue this question; but upon the simple proposition of his hon. Friend, and to say, that if the revenue were in a condition to spare the amount which his hon. Friend proposed to reduce, this was not the mode in which he should be inclined to appropriate it; because he believed that the proposition of his hon. Friend would not be conducive either

369
to the general advantage of the country, or to the particular advantage of the class whose interests his hon. Friend advocated; and because, above all, he was satisfied that it was entirely opposed to the whole course of legislation which had been followed up for years by successive Governments, beginning with the Government, in 1820, under Lord Liverpool; by the Government of the Duke of Wellington; by the Government of Lord Grey; by the Government of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and by the Government at present existing. He did not believe that the proposition of his hon. Friend had been correctly explained to the House. His hon. Friend, so far as he understood him, proposed to transfer the duty on tallow to this extent; he wished to get rid of the excise duty, and he proposed to make up for the loss of this duty, by the imposition of a fresh custom-tax; or a duty of 10 l. per ton. His hon. Friend stated, as the result, a loss of 250,000 l. to the revenue; and, as he understood his hon. Friend, the gain to the consumer would be 300,000 l. Now, if the House would indulge him for a few minutes, he would, from his calculations, undertake to show, that the consumer would not be benefitted, that the landed proprietor would not be benefited, and that the country generally would lose a great deal. The consumption of tallow in this country was 155,000 tons; of these 55,000 tons were foreign tallow imported, and there were 100,000 tons of home produce. Take then the revenue on the plan of his hon. Friend, supposing his plan to be carried into effect, and that 55,000 tons was the quantity at present imported; suppose that so much should continue to be imported (and he should afterwards be prepared to show that such would not be the case), but supposing the same quantity should still come into the home-market, the duty upon that would be 550,000 l. From that they must deduct the amount of the duty at present imposed, 171,000 l. and there remained then the sum of 379,000 l. as the probable increase of the revenue from this source. His hon. Friend had proposed the repeal of the soap duty, which he said was about 600,000 l. That was the duty in 1834; but the net amount of the duty, deducting the drawback, was 736,000 l. His hon. Friend had added a charge for collection; but they all knew, from experience, that where the excise existed for certain pur-
370
poses, the reduction of officers would be nothing like the large amount, or equal to the difference which his hon. Friend had stated. Deducting then 379,000 l. from 736,000 l., the loss to the revenue would be 357,000 l. according to his hon. Friend's plan. But, according to that statement, his hon. Friend supposed that there would be no falling-off in the import of the article; and he was not right in-assuming that. On the contrary, the natural result of imposing, where there was already 3l. a ton duty, an additional 7l. a ton, would be to add to the price of the article 20 per cent. There was every reason for calculating, when that was done, that there would be a falling-off of 15,000 or 20,000 tons. That would reduce the revenue still further—making the loss, as stated by his hon. Friend, not 250,000 l., but 357,000 l. Indeed, he believed the loss to the revenue would be very little short of 500,000 l. But the question of loss to the revenue formed but a small portion of the subject as he should view it. He now came to another part of his hon. Friend's statement—namely the gain to consumers, which his hon. Friend stated would be 300,000 l. His hon. Friend did, indeed, admit that some disadvantage might perhaps arise from an increase of duty upon candles, and from the increased price to be paid by the consumer on tallow used in machinery. But that his hon. Friend should have passed over that part of the subject so very lightly did certainly astonish him. He had already stated that the home produce of tallow amounted to 100,000 tons; that of foreign importation to 55,000 tons. Now, how was that whole quantity distributed when it came into consumption? According to the best calculations made, it appeared that the amount of tallow consumed in soap was about 25,000 tons. It was supposed that about 115,000 tons were used for making candles. The amount used by machinery, hides, and other purposes was 15,000 tons. Thus they had 130,000 tons upon which his hon. Friend proposed to raise the duty, and 25,000 tons upon which he proposed to take it off. Now, these 130,000 tons upon which his hon. Friend proposed to increase the duty by the amount of 6l. 16 s. (which, together with the present duty of 3l. 4s., made 10 l.), according to that increase, would produce 884,000 l. He then added, of course, the proposed amount of duty on the 25,000 tons of tallow used in soap,

371
being 250,000 l., from which he deducted the present amount of duty, 170,000 l., making a total of 1,064,000 l. Now, he took his estimate of the soap duty at 736,000 l., which being deducted from the previous sum of 1,064,000 l. produced a balance of about 330,000 l., which sum was lost to the consumer, instead of his gaining, as staled by his hon. Friend, 300,000 l. Then if the revenue were to submit to this loss of 330,000 l., the loss, as he had shown, would be to the consumer. If, to make up this difference, his hon. Friend should propose to raise the duty from 10 l. to 16 l. a-ton, even supposing the amount imported to be as it was at present, instead of any falling-off taking place, that increase would scarcely be sufficient to secure the revenue from loss; they would even be obliged to go beyond it, and raise the duty to 20 l. a-ton, in order to have any chance of preserving the revenue from loss. His hon. Friend had said, that according to their own principles, he could show that they had acted in a manner similar to what he now proposed, and gave as an instance the article of wax. His hon. Friend, with his acuteness, should have seen the difference between the two subjects. It had been said, "there is a river in Macedon and a river in Monmouth," and there was no more analogy between the two questions, than between those two points. There was but a small quantity of foreign wax imported; and when the excise duty upon candles was wholly repealed, it was not considered advisable to continue all the labour, trouble, and vexation of inspecting the import of such articles for a duty which was trifling in amount. He- came next to the article of cottons, to which his hon. Friend had alluded. The duty was calculated at 2,000,000 l. sterling; but there was received from it at the Exchequer only 500,000 l., all the rest went in drawbacks; and under all these considerations they came to this—whether for 500,000 l. they would undergo all the annoyance and trouble imposed, as well as placing impediments in the way of trade, and that for collecting the excise duty on an article calculated to bring to the Exchequer 2,000,000 l., but of which the real amount was only 500,000 l. What was then the duty of the House? It was some indication of what was likely to be the consequence of his hon. Friend's, motion, that to induce the House to agree
372
to it, his hon. Friend had expressly and distinctly stated, that it could be but temporary. The tax upon raw cotton was admitted to be a bad one. Two years afterwards it was found to be so bad, that his noble Friend and himself had the satisfaction of coming down to that House and declaring that they would get rid of the obnoxious tax—and they now felt the full advantage of its certain repeal. Such, too, would be the case with any tax they might add to the tax on foreign tallow. What benefit then for the agriculturists did his hon. Friend propose by the imposition of a duty of 10 l. upon foreign tallow for a year or two? It would only raise expectations, which could not be realised. It would be exceedingly unwise to create new hopes—inducing the agriculturists to turn their attention to other modes of cultivation; it would force produce—and the produce would be nothing but forced—because it would de-depend upon the continuance of a high duty, which the Legislature at some time or other must repeal. Nothing could be more unwise than thus forcing industry, and encouraging a manufacture by a bounty which could not last. But did his hon. Friend suppose that the manufacturers would be willing to pay the increased price upon tallow? that they would not, in their turn, at a time when chemistry was so far advanced, turn their attention to the use of oils, and the possibility of substituting them for tallow? Unless, then, his hon. Friend imposed an additional duty upon oils, his object would be defeated. An hon. Gentleman opposite said, that doctrines of political economy were not applicable to agriculture, and not applicable to the question of soap! Political economy had much to do with this question; and to impose a heavy duty upon the raw material of an article afterwards to be exported, was one of the most extraordinary propositions he ever heard. The effect of the proposition of his hon. Friend would be this—to raise the duty on exported soap to 10 l., when at present it is well known it can be scarcely exported, although only subject to a duty of 3l. Upon all these grounds,—that the proposal would cause a loss, a positive loss to the consumer, and that it would not be a relief to the agriculturists,—he should oppose the motion of his hon. Friend. He was satisfied that the permanent relief would be none, and temporary relief little. He would entreat the House not to be in-

373
duced, under the pretence of transferring the burden of one tax to another commodity, to break in upon the system which had been matured and acted upon with such good effect for a long series of years. As to the duty on soap, he would remind the House that that had already been reduced by one-half, a circumstance which, he thought, gave it the less claim to immediate consideration with a view to further reduction; and for his own part, he was inclined to believe the amount proposed to be remitted might be better applied to the relief of the agriculturists, than by a remission of this particular tax. It was on these grounds that he was prepared to resist the proposal of his hon. Friend, a course in which he trusted he should be supported by the House.
Colonel Sibthorphad not heard a single observation fall from the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade which could be called an argument against the proposal of his hon. Friend, who, he only complained, had not gone so far as he (Colonel Sibthorp) was inclined to go. He was prepared to show, by means of stubborn facts, that if this proposal were acted upon, not only would the large body of the agriculturists of the country be considerably benefited, but the revenue itself would be increased. The right hon. Gentleman had put this subject in comparison with the trumpery tax upon newspapers, but he (Colonel Sibthorp) would venture to say that the labourer would gladly throw aside his book, and his newspaper too, if he could see a good sirloin of beef on his table. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by observing that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought on his budget he should again urge the claims of the agriculturists.
Mr. Hawesrose to offer a few words in support of the motion. He believed he could show that this question presented a case of sound special exception to a very good general rule, which had been well enforced by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. At the same time, however, he must say that his right hon. Friend had betrayed a very singular want of acquaintance with the practical part of this manufacture. His right hon. Friend argued that an increased duty on raw material could not be imposed without proving injurious to the export trade in the manufactured article. But the case of soap was an exception to this principle; the fact being that the chief
374
export trade in soap was supplied from other raw material than tallow, the greater part of exported soap being made from colonial oil. Putting an increased duty upon the imported tallow, therefore, could not affect the export trade in soap. His right hon. Friend had next gone on to show that the consumer could not be benefitted by adopting the present proposal. He was not prepared to say that the consumer would in every case be benefitted. In the case of candles he admitted that an increased duty on tallow must cause an increase in price to the consumer. By reducing the duty on soap, however, he contended the advantage must be considerable to the consumer; although the total amount of duty levied on soap was 1,076,000 l., the amount which reached the treasury, after all the various expences of collection had been paid, was only about 638,000 l. He maintained, therefore, that the same argument which his right hon. Friend had used some years ago, when reducing the duty upon printed cottons, would apply to the present case, when it appeared that a very large amount of tax was levied upon the consumer, of which a very inconsiderable portion was available to the support of the state. Now, whilst this was the state of the case in regard to the revenue, the operation of the present system upon the manufacture of this very useful article of soap was equally remarkable. The trade having been almost at a stand-still for a considerable time of late years, not with standing the vast increase of population, and the increased consumption in other articles of general use, and notwithstanding the enormous fall which had taken place in the price of the raw material—notwithstanding all these circumstances, it would be found that the receipts upon the soap duties had been almost stationary since the year 1833–34. He had only one word to say with regard to smuggling, and that was, that that practice had not been diminished by the reduction of the duty upon soap. He believed it would be found on a careful inquiry, that the amount of soap actually made in England was nearly double what was charged for.
Mr. Francis Baringrose to offer a very few observations on the present question. To begin with the remark of the hon. Member for Lambeth, that soap for exportation was chiefly manufactured from colonial oil and not from tallow, that was an argument which went against himself.

375
It had been said, that the reduction of the duty on soap had been of no advantage, inasmuch as the consumption had been mostly stationary for a series of years. He trusted that no expression would ever he used by him which would manifest an indifference to the interest of that trade. He had only to refer to the reduction of the duty and the Report of the Commissioners who sat upon this subject, to prove that neither he nor his colleagues had been at all neglectful of that interest. In order to show how unfounded the assertion was, that the consumption of soap had not increased on the lowering of the duty, he would only state the opinion of a respectable witness who was examined before the Commission, and who alleged "that a much better and more economical kind of soap had of late been used, and consequently a much larger quantity of real soap consumed. This witness also stated, that half as much soap again would be consumed if there were no excise. For the purpose of clearing up all doubt upon this matter, he would just mention the average consumption of the years 1828, 1829, and 1830, compared with that of the years 1831, 1832, and 1833, was 17,000,000lbs.of hard soap, and 9,000,000lbs of soft soap; whilst, if the consumption of the year 1834 was compared with the average consumption of the years 1828, 1829, and 1830, it would be found to amount to nearly 20,000,000lbs. of hard soap, and 10,000,000lbs of soft soap. He begged of the hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland to reflect how the proposed measure would affect them. The argument addressed to the representatives of England was, that they would have an equivalent for raising the price of candles on the reduced price of soap. Now Ireland paid a duty neither on soap nor tallow; and the consequence of the change proposed would be, to impose a duty on both those articles in that country.
Mr. Warburton;Sir, this proposition involves two distinct questions; first, the remission of the excise duty on soap; and next, the imposition of an additional duty on tallow for the protection and benefit of English agriculturists. In the beginning of this Session I was marvelling what measures they were that would be proposed to the House to give relief to the agriculturists without their putting their hands into the pockets of the general consumer. Sir, I see that now the problem is solved; here is a measure
376
for imposing an additional tax upon tallow imported from a foreign country, the effect of which will be to raise the price of all tallow generally 7l. a ton, it being notorious that two thirds of the tallow consumed in this country is of home and only one third of foreign production. And thus the agriculturists will be relieved to the extent of 700,000 l., whilst the Government will receive by the imposing of the duty on foreign tallow only 380,000 l. This I own is consistent with the views expressed at the beginning of the Session as to the manner in which the agriculturists would obtain relief, as well as with my own suspicion at the time that their plan for attaining that object would be by taxing the rest of the community. So long as the policy of the corn-laws is kept up, so long as any measure is proposed for the relief of the agriculturists by taxing the rest of the community, I will not cease to hold up my voice against them. It is an act of injustice to the rest of the community; it is coming forward to raise a flimsy veil before our eyes, while you are at the same time going to put on a tax for your own relief, bolstering it up by the pretence of taking off the excise duty on soap. Let a proposition be made for changing or taking off the excise duty on soap, and I will not say that I will not vote with you. But whilst I find that question mixed with that of imposing a duty on tallow I feel bound to resist the present motion. I must vote against the two motions because they are mixed inseparably together. With regard to agricultural distress what part of the agricultural body is most in want of relief? which has suffered most during that distress? not the stock-grazier, for the price of wool and meat remains high while other articles have been depressed? It is the wheat-growers who are the most distressed class, and they are just the class who will not be relieved by the present motion? Away then with this flimsy disguise; it is nothing more nor less than this, the putting into the excise 380,000 l. a-year while you are putting into your own pockets 700,000 l. a year; so long as such measures are brought into this House so long will I raise my voice and vote against them.
Viscount Sandonhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remember the beneficial effect of the former reduction of duty, and not persist in refusing the further reduction of the soap duties, which was demanded of him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to recall the attention of the House to the facts alluded to in the beginning of the debate, the effect of which he, however unintentionally to influence the division, had not, as might be supposed from the observations of those in favour of this motion, called on the House to come to a division on the question of the stamp duty; but, on the contrary, plainly and distinctly stated, that all discussion on the question should be postponed. He, however, felt bound to express his views on such a subject, because he considered it of importance that the opinions of the Government on a measure of so peculiar a nature should be circulated throughout the country, and carefully considered by the House. These were objects which could not be attained by any other than the course which he had taken. But so anxious and so cautious was he to avoid calling on the House for any decision on the question, that in the schedule moved for in Committee to-night, the duties now in force were proposed to be continued. He had said that he was unwilling to have the opinion of the House taken on the question of stamps until the period when, on a review of the whole of the interests of the country, it could be determined what was best to be done; and if he could have abstained altogether from disclosing his opinions on the stamp duty it would have been more acceptable to himself, and more consistent with the principles which he had laid down for the fulfilment of his duty. On the same principles he was anxious that the question of the reduction of the duty on soap should be left perfectly open to be considered when the general proposition as to the manner in which the revenue of the country should be made up, was submitted. When it was said, that such and such a measure would involve no sacrifice of revenue, he said, "Wait till you hear my propositions, and see if I make out a case; and I will hear your propositions, and adopt them if I can." The questions were open, and he was ready to argue them when the proper time came. With respect to the proposition before the House, there was one circumstance which had not been adverted to, but which had considerable weight. The only possible ground on which it could be proposed (though he dissented from the proposition) was, that it was a measure of relief to the agricultural interest. But were Gentlemen anxious to anticipate the decision of the Committee now sitting on the subject? Did they wish to overturn the
378
authority of that Committee? Surely they ought to wait till they had the Report of the Committee. And with respect to agricultural distress, the growers of wheat were the parties distressed, not the raisers of tallow. The effect of the proposed measure would be, not to raise the price of foreign tallow only, but of all tallow, and to take, 2s. or 3s. out of the pockets of the people, while it would give only 1s. to the revenue. And this single interest had, a few years ago, been relieved of the whole duty on candles, and half the duty on soap. For that interest he felt respect and sympathy, but he must look to the welfare of the whole country, and he thought it was not to the advantage of that interest, in the eyes of the country, to come forward with a proposition by which they alone would be the gainers. The noble Lord had said, that the measure would act as a remission of rent to the extent of 10 per cent. to the occupiers of land. Either the occupiers of land were entitled to that abatement or not. If they were entitled to it, this would be so much in the landlord's pocket; and if not, the landlords would get it; so that the whole effect of the measure would be to add to the rental of certain landlords. He admitted the objection to the excise regulations, and when opportunities offered to remove them, he had always been ready to do that. He was desirous that this question, not of duty on foreign tallow, but of the remission of the duty on soap—should be reserved until he made his general statement, when, if a case were made out in accordance with the view of the hon. Mover, he should not hesitate to adopt it. But at present he could not consent to the adoption of a motion which would tend to a great violation of principle, and which must entail great injustice on the consumer. Not wishing then to prejudge the question of the duty on soap, and not desiring that it should be identified with another question which he felt bound to resist, he deemed it but fair, just, and reasonable, that the subject should be reserved for future consideration.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not understood the precise nature of the complaint which had been made against the course he had pursued in respect to the stamp-duty. The noble Lord had not charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having given a pledge on that subject on the part of the House. It was quite unnecessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to vindicate himself from that

379
charge, for it was a charge that had never been brought, and by no man of common understanding could it have been brought. Every Member must be quite aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not, on the part of that House, give any pledge whatever. But the complaint was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged the Government—that he had pledged himself and the Government, in respect to a reduction of a single class of duty, and it was considered unfair and impolitic to give any such pledge before they were in a condition to know the amount of available surplus, or whether there would be any surplus at all. It was matter of complaint that he should give a pledge to one class without considering the claims of other classes. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Don't prejudge the question; don't let us have a premature discussion." Why, what had the right hon. Gentleman done? Had he not prejudged the question? As far as it was possible the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered on a premature discussion. Not only so, but, as far as he and the Government were concerned, he had given a pledge for the reduction of the stamp-duty on newspapers; the hon. Member for Lincoln said, he was so satisfied with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that though he desired a total abolition of the duty, he was content with the promise he had received as to this one particular class of taxation, and being ready to listen to a reasonable compromise, he would not press his own view of the subject. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been pressed on the subject of the spirit duty, what had been his course? He had declined to express an opinion with reference to that duty. At any rate it was not fair that one particular class should have a pledge in favour of a reduction of taxation till the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought the whole subject of taxation before the House, and the Government should remain unpledged equally with the House, in order that it might consider impartially the claims of all. This was the nature of the charge which had been brought against the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and from that charge he was in no degree relieved. The right hon. Gentleman said it was necessary he should bring before the country his project in respect to the stamps, though in his project he had retained the whole amount of the duty; there was the old schedule without any alteration. But the
380
Chancellor of the Exchequer was just as much pledged to reduce the stamp duty as if the schedule had contained the new duty. If there had been a prima facie case in favour of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Handley), he was entitled to bring it forward. Though it was dealing in a partial manner to make engagements for reduction of taxation before it was ascertained whether there would be any surplus at all, yet if he could make out a prima facie case, he was justified in pressing for relief. But, at the same time, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself to one alteration, the principle was so open to public inconvenience, that he (sir R. Peel) could not consent to make an exception in favour of this proposition. He adhered to the example of the right hon. Gentleman on former occasions, and he condemned his departure from it; and although he thought that all the interests of the country had a fair and equal right to the consideration of the House, without any positive pledge of relief being given to any one in particular, he should not vote for the principle of this question, because he thought the whole subject should be considered comprehensively, and the hon. Member had not shown a prima facie case. He saw no sufficient peculiar case of hardship—no case so strong as to justify a departure from the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pursued on former occasions. He would not consent to increase the duty on tallow, in the present condition of this country, for many reasons. How could they expect that the portion of our manufactures which depended for success on a foreign market could thrive, if they did not permit a reciprocity of commerce; and if on the contrary we increased the duty on the raw material in which they were able to pay us? He was not able to perceive any sufficient cause which operated to warrant an exception in the case of Russian tallow to the general rule. The case of soap was a distinct one, and the arguments applying to it were altogether inapplicable to the other half of the question to which he directed the attention of the House. The relative position in which Russia stood to this country ought to receive particular attention. It came very little into competition with our commerce; it did not interfere with our manufactures in foreign markets. It sent us raw material, and took our manufactured articles in return. And unless the proposition extended to foreign

381
oil as well as tallow the expected advantages would not result to the agricultural interest, and if that article were also saddled with a protecting duty it would have a serious effect on a branch of our manufactures that could badly endure it. Candles would inevitably rise in price, and were it considered how much this would interfere with the means, and comforts, and remuneration of the handloom weavers, who worked so many hours by candle-light, they would pause before they created such an additional embarrassment to the extensive branch of manufactures carried on by its assistance. By acceding to this measure, it was obvious that we should interrupt the course of commerce which now happily existed between this country and Russia, would interfere with the market it afforded for our present manufactured produce, as well as with the raw material, which supplies an important article for our manufacture, and would also increase the expense of candle-light, so necessary for our manufacturing purposes; consequences which would not at all repay us for any possible benefit that might immediately result to the agricultural interest; and which, looking to its intimate connection with our commercial and manufacturing interest, he did not expect would ultimately be for its benefit either. On these combined considerations he could not give his vote for the measure before the House.
Mr. Charles Anderson Pelhamexpressed his regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not prepared with something for the relief of the agricultural interest. He could assure the hon. Member for Bridport, that the agriculturists were not a selfish body; and though they did not wish to take a benefit to themselves at the expense of the community, they were anxious for relief, and would seek it in every constitutional way.
Mr. Curteissaid, he should vote against the proposition of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire. The agricultural interest, to which he was attached, would not have the country with them in it, and therefore he hoped the hon. Member would not press his motion.
Mr. Hundley: The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished him to wait for the Report of the Agricultural Distress Committee. Now certainly he (Mr. Handley) should not he induced to bring forward his motion the more because they had received that report, inasmuch as he only asked his right
382
hon. Friend to do what he had already done with respect to the stamp duties, viz. to affirm the expediency of this measure: the hon. Member for Bridport and (also the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had remarked that the motion was for the relief of the agriculturists, why assuredly he would not for one moment have affected to bring forward such a motion, if it had not been with the hope of affording some relief to the agriculturists. He candidly confessed, it was with the view of giving relief to that interest to the extent of the halfpenny a lb. advance on tallow, but he considered the increase in the price of candles would be more than counterbalanced by the reduction in that of soap, and the getting rid of the excise. He considered that the agriculturists had a right to look for some relief after the speech from the throne; he considered it could be granted in no way with less expense to the public generally than in the mode proposed, and his right hon. Friend having already made one step towards the budget, he hoped the House would support him in taking one step further. He begged leave to take the sense of the House on his motion.
The House divided—Ayes 125; Noes 195,—Majority against it 70.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Cole, Hon. A; H.

Alsager, R.

Compton, H. C.

Alston, R.

Crawley, S.

Angerstein, J.

Crompton, S.

Arbuthnot, Hon. H.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Archdall, M.

Darlington, Lord

Ashley, Hon. H.

Dugdale, D. S.

Astley, Sir J.

Dunbar, G.

Attwood, T.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Bagot, Hon. W.

Eastnor, Viscount.

Bailey, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Balfour, T.

Elley, Sir J.

Barneby, J.

Ferguson, G.

Bell, M.

Finch, George

Bennett, J.

Fleming, John

Bentinck, Lord G.

Folkes, Sir W.

Blackburne, J.

Forbes, William

Blackstone, W. S.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Blamire, W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Boldero, H. G.

Gladstone, William E.

Bonham, F. R.

Gordon, Robert

Bowes, J.

Gore, Wm. Ormsby

Bramston, T. W.

Goring, Harry Dent

Brownrigg, J. S.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Bruen, F.

Hawes, Benjamin

Buller, Sir J.

Hay, Sir J., Bart.

Cayley, E. S.

Heathcote, G. J.

Chandos, Lord

Henniker, Lord

Chisholm, A.

Hope, Henry T.

Clive, Hon. R. H.

Hotham, Lord

Codrington, C. W.

Houldsworth, T.

383

Hoy, James Barlow

Pringle, A.

Jermyn, Earl of

Pusey, Philip

Inglis, Sir R. H. Bart.

Rickford, W.

Jones, Wilson

Hooper. J. Bonfoy

Irton, Samuel

Rushbrooke, R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Sandon, Lord

Lawson, Andrew

Scarlett, hon. R.

Lefroy, A.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Lefroy, Thomas

Scourfield, W. H.

Lewis, David

Shaw, Frederick

Lincoln, Earl of

Sheldon, E.

Long, Walter

Sibthorp, Colonel

Maclean, Donald

Smyth, Sir G. H. Bt.

Macleod, R.

Stanley, Edward

Manners, Lord C.

Stormont, Lord

Maunsell, T. P.

Stuart, Lord D.

Miles, William

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Miles, Philip J.

Trevor, hon. Arthur

Mosley, Sir O.

Turner, Wm.

Neeld, J.

Vere, Sir C. Bart.

Norreys, Lord

Vesey, hon. Thomas

North, Frederick

Wason, R.

O'Neill, General

Welby, G. E.

Packe, C. W.

Weyland, Richard

Palmer, Robert

Wilbraham, hon. R.

Parker, M. E.

Wilks, John

Peel, Rt. hon. W. Y.

Wilson, H.

Pelham, hon. C.

Wodehouse, E,

Perceval, Col.

Yorke, E. T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Young, Sir W. L.

Pollington, Viscount

TELLERS.

Powell, Colonel

Handley, H.

Price, S. G.

Halford, H.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Aglionby, H.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Anson, G.

Chalmers, B.

Bagshaw, J.

Chapman, A.

Baines, E.

Clay, W.

Ball, N.

Clive, Edward Bolton

Bannerman, Alex.

Collier, John

Barclay, David

Conolly, E. M.

Baring, F.

Copeland, W. T.

Barron, Henry W.

Crawford, W. S.

Barry, G. S.

Curteis, Herbert B.

Beckett, Sir J.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Berkeley, hon. C. C.

Dilwyn, L. W.

Bethell, Richard

Divett, E.

Bewes, T.

Duncombe, T. S.

Biddulph, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Blake, M. J.

Ebrington, Lord

Boiling, William

Egerton, Lord Francis

Bowring, Dr.

Elphinstone, H.

Brady, D. C.

Etwall, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Evans, G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Ewart, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Fielden, W.

Brotherton, J.

Fergus, John

Browne, Rt. hon. D.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Buckingham, J. S.

Ferguson, R. C.

Buller, Charles

Finn, F.

Buller, E.

Fitzsimon, Chris.

Burrell, Sir C. M. Bt,

Forster, Charles S.

Butler, hon. Col.

French, F.

Campbell, Sir J.

Gordon, Robert

Campbell, W. F.

Graham, Sir J.

384

Grattan, J.

Pease, J.

Greene, Thomas

Peel, Sir R.

Grote, G.

Peel, Colonel

Guest, J.

Pendarves, E. W.

Hall, B.

Philips, Mark

Hanmer, Sir J., Bart.

Philips, G. R.

Harcourt, G.

Phillipps, C. M.

Hardy, John

Pigott, Robert

Harland, W. Charles

Pinnely Wiliam,

Hawkins, J. H.

Potter, R.

Hay, Sir A.

Poyntz, W.

Hector, C. J.

Price, Sir Robert, Bt.

Hindley, Charles

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Ridley, Sir M.

Hogg, James Weir

Roche, Wm.

Holland, Edward

Rolfe, Sir Robert

Horsman,

Rundle, J.

Howard, hon. E. G.

Russell, Lord J.

Howard, P. H.

Ruthven, E.

Howick, Lord

Ryle, John

Hume, J.

Sanford, E.

Hurst, R. H.

Scholefield J.

Hutt, W.

Seymour, Lord

Jephson, C D. O.

Sheppard, T.

Johnson, Andrew

Sinclair, Sir George

Kemp, T. R.

Smith, R. V.

Kirke, Peter

Smith, B.

Knight, H. G.

Stanley, Lord

Labouchere, Henry

Stewart, Sir M.

Leader, J. T.

Stewart, P. Maxwell

Lefevre, Charles S.

Strutt, E.

Leonard, T. B.

Stuart, Lord James

Lennox, Lord A.

Stuart, W. V.

Lennox, Lord G.

Sturt, Henry Charles

Lister, E. C.

Talbot, J. H.

Loch, James

Tennent, J. E.

Lushington, Charles

Thomson, C. P.

Lynch, A. H.

Thompson, William

Mackenzie, J.

Thompson, Col. T. P.

Macnamara, Major

Thornley, T.

Maher, J.

Tooke, W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Marshall, William

Tynte, Charles K. K.

Marsland, H.

Vernon, Granville H.

Martin, T.

Villiers, C.

Maule, hon. F.

Vivian, Major

Morpeth, Lord

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Morrison, J.

Wakley, T.

Murray, Rt. Hon. J.

Wallace, R.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Walter, John

O'Brien, W.

Warburton, H.

O'Connell Daniel

Ward, H.

O'Connell, J.

Westenra, H. R.

O'Connell, M.

Wigney, Isaac N.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Connell, Morgan

Wilkins, W.

O'Ferrall, R.

Williams, W.

Oliphant, Lawrence

Williams, W. A.

O'Loghlen, M.

Williamson, Sir H.

Ord, W. H.

Wood, C.

Ord, W.

Wrightson, J.

Oswald, J.

Wyse, T.

Palmerston, Lord

Young, G. F.

Parker, J.

Younge, J.

Parnell, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Parrott, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Pattison, J.

Steuart, R.