Commons Sitting of 22 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Stage Carriages; Poor Rates Collection.—Read a second time:—Militia Ballots Suspension; Postage Duties.—Read a third time:—Inland Warehousing; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. T. Attwood, from the Coach Proprietors of Birmingham, against the Duties oppressing them.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Gloucestershire, to the same effect.—By Sir W. Somerville, from one place, against the Bank of Ireland Charter.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Alverstoke, and Liverpool, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. O'Connell, from the Paper Makers of Dublin, against the Penny Postage measure.—By Mr. Macauley, from Edinburgh, for further Church Extension in Scotland.—By Mr. Bannerman, from one place, and by Mr. Hume, from a number of places, in favour of a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Colonel T. Wood, from Poplar, against the Collection of Rates Bill.

INCREASE OF THE ARMY. NEW POLICE.
Lord John Russellwished to state to the House, the propositions which would be made by Government relative to the present state of the country in certain districts. It was the intention, then, of the Government to lay on the Table of that House immediately an additional estimate, to allow of an increase of our infantry regiments from 739 to 800 men. This estimate would provide for an increase of the numerical force of our army to the extent of about 5,000 men. The sum which would be required for the maintenance of this additional force up to April next would

621
not exceed 75,000 l. The constant call for military aid from various parts of the country, especially from the north of England, and the impossibility, at all events the extreme danger, of diminishing our military force in the colonies, especially in Canada, made it, in the opinion of Government, a duty incumbent on them to ask for this additional force before Parliament separated. He had also to state, that he had received a representation from the mayor of Birmingham, addressed particularly to him (Lord J. Russell), but of a public nature, and stating that in the opinion of all the magistrates of Birmingham there was nothing which would conduce so much to the permanent peace of that town as the establishment of a local police force. The communication further stated, that in the present state of things, owing to the circumstances which had occurred with respect to the corporation, and to the disturbed state of the town, they did not think that they could proceed to the levy of a rate so immediately as would be necessary to carry this object into effect. He therefore proposed to move a resolution which would enable him to bring in a bill to provide that the Treasury might have power to advance a sum not exceeding 10,000 l. for the establishment of a police force in Birmingham, such sum to be repaid by a rate to be levied on that town. It was likewise his intention on Wednesday next to ask leave to bring in a bill to enable county magistrates to establish a constabulary force in counties, or districts of counties, for the better promotion of the peace and tranquillity of such counties and districts. Magistrates had at present the power of swearing in special constables, when any apprehension was entertained of a breach of the peace. They had not, however, the means of defraying the expenses of any such increased force; and the bill would provide these means. He bad thought it convenient to announce these intentions on the part of the Government to the House; and when the bills were before them he would explain himself more at large.

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
Sir E. Wilmothad seen it stated in the public papers, that the highest judicial authority in this kingdom had declared it to be his opinion that county magistrates have no concurrent jurisdiction in any borough. Did the
622
noble Lord recollect that the 111th section of the Municipal Corporation Act in its first part gave this concurrent jurisdiction to county magistrates in all boroughs which had no Quarter Sessions? The last portion of the clause exempted those boroughs which possessed Quarter Sessions. He wished to know whether Birmingham, which had no Court of Quarter Sessions, could therefore be considered as exempt from the concurrent jurisdiction of the county magistrates?
Lord J. Russellexpressed his regret that his hon. Friend the Attorney General was not in the House to answer this question, with the authority which belonged to his position and to his knowledge of the subject. He could state with confidence, however, that the opinion of that hon. and learned individual, as well as of his hon. and learned Friend near him, the Solicitor General, was, that the corporate magistrates and recorders of boroughs, where a Court of Quarter Sessions was held, were alone entitled to exclusive jurisdiction in the case where the Court of Quarter Sessions had existed previously to the passing of the Act; and that in the case of boroughs to which a grant of Quarter Sessions had since been made, and still more where no Court of Quarter Sessions existed in the borough, the county magistrates retained their jurisdiction concurrently with the local magistrates.
Sir E. Wilmotexpressed himself much satisfied with this answer, which was so distinctly opposed to the opinion given in another place.

ANGLO-SPANISH LEGION.
Captain Bolderostated, that on the 26th of June, 1838, with the unanimous assent of the House, it was agreed that "a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct her Minister at the Court of Madrid to use his best endeavours to procure an early settlement of the claims of the Anglo-Spanish Legion." He wished to be informed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign affairs what further steps he proposed to take in this matter?
Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the first step was obviously the examination of accounts, with a view to obtaining a return of the actual sums due to each claimant. The commission which had recently been sitting in London had examined into all these claims, and reported

623
upon each. The parties had been all furnished with certificates; but every one knew the state of penury to which the Spanish government was reduced. Under these circumstances, it was not easy to obtain payment of these sums. He regretted to find that a great number of persons had disposed of their certificates for little better than a nominal value; for he felt assured that they would ultimately be of a real value. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no efforts would be omitted by her Majesty's Government to induce the government of the queen of Spain to make these payments as speedily as possible.

TRADE WITH SPAIN.
Viscount Sandonwished to ask the noble Viscount whether any progress had been made in forming a commercial treaty with Spain.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that great efforts had been made by her Majesty's Government to induce the government of Spain to enter into a commercial treaty which would be obviously to the advantage of the Spanish government. Almost all the principal articles of foreign produce prohibited by the Spanish government were invariably obtained by the process of smuggling, by which means the government of Spain lost all the benefit in the shape of taxation which would arise from their regular importation. But there were old interests invested in the maintenance of this system of abuse, interests which it was extremely difficult to overcome. There were also persons in Spain who imagined that Catalonia produced excellent manufactures, the fact being that these so-called domestic manufactures were imported from England and sold for the productions of Spain. The prejudices which subsisted in many parts of Spain were so strong, that he feared, until the civil war came to a close, he could hold out little hope of their concluding this commercial treaty.

POSTAGE DUTIES BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the second reading of the Postage Duties Bill.
Mr. Goulburndid not intend to engage in a discussion, or to call upon the House to vote against the second reading of this bill, which he had only had in his hand that morning; but he must be allowed to say, that he never saw a better specimen of a summary mode of disposing, not only
624
of the question of postage, but of a great many other public questions. The bill gave the Treasury the absolute power of reducing the duty, or of raising it, exactly as they might think proper, without any limitation whatever. He never saw a bill which gave such large discretionary powers, and if it were carried, there was no reason why those two great branches of the revenue, the Customs and the Excise, should not be regulated by the same compendious contrivance, that of giving unlimited power and discretion to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, on a former occasion, that the Treasury already possessed the power of reducing the rate of postage. Now, he wished to call the attention of the House to the way in which that power had been conferred, because it would bring to their notice the manner in which the support of the House was obtained, to measures, the operation of which, at the time, was by no means foreseen. The right hon. Gentleman acted wisely in not relying entirely upon the powers which he already possessed, when he proceeded to reduce the rate of postage, for he (Mr. Goulburn) was sure that such a course would have caused a great outcry on the part of every man acquainted with the way in which the power in question had been obtained. The act of the 7th William 4th, and 1st Victoria, cap. 34, proceeded upon the old and true constitutional principle of laying down the rate of postage, payable upon every letter according to the distance. The act gave no power to the Treasury to remit any part of the charge, but stated specifically what the charge should be in every case, a whole page of the act being devoted to these details. That act passed on the 12th of July, 1837. The date was important. On some day in July, it was stated to be expedient to regulate the postage of letters to the East-Indies, and a resolution was proposed in consequence, respecting the rates of postage of letters to the East-Indies, and particularly with reference to those carried by way of Suez. But it was not understood that the resolution was intended to relate to the postage upon any other letters than those directed to the East Indies, and no observation was made to that effect, either on the resolution being agreed to, or the report being received. A bill was brought in to carry into effect the resolution, and no one could imagine

625
that a bill to regulate the postage of letters to the East-Indies, would contain a provision, enabling the Treasury to reduce the rate of inland postage in this country. However, the bill was brought in, and its title expressed, that it was a bill "to impose rates of packet postage on East-India letters, and to amend certain acts relating to the Post-office." Now, the resolution on which that bill was founded related to the East-Indies alone, and not a word was said, in any stage of the measure, about inland letters. Must it not then be said, that this power was obtained, in the first instance, by deceiving the House? It was in this act, and this act only, that was contained the power to the postmasters to reduce the rate of postage on colonial and inland letters, and any other British postage, to such extent as the Lords of the the Treasury should direct. He agreed that it was very prudent of the right hon. Gentleman, not to rely exclusively upon that power. Then with regard to the present bill, he had only to say, that in an arrangement of that complicated nature, there never had been a bill of this nature submitted to Parliament before. They were about to risk a revenue of 1,500,000 l., and to trust entirely to the superior judgment of the Treasury to devise the means by which the plan was to be effected. They were giving to the Treasury enormous powers—the power of augmenting the rate of postage without limit, the power of interfering with the right of franking, either wholly or partly; so that an order of the Treasury might declare, that the House of Lords should alone be deprived of the right of franking, or that county Members should be excluded from it, or that Members for boroughs might enjoy it exclusively, or, in fact, impose any other restriction it pleased. It was to have the whole discretion as to the covers being on stamped paper, or a stamp being placed upon letters, while the bill contained, as far as he was aware, no penal provision to prevent forgery. The whole matter was to be left in the hands of the Treasury. By this bill, therefore, they were about to confide to the Treasury powers which might be fatal to the best interests of the country, and which, under any view, could not be had without considerable danger.
Sir R. H. Inglisshared in the opinion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge that it was
626
not fit or prudent to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretray of the Treasury the power contained in this bill. He contended that the power of altering the rates of postage, however objectionable those rates might be, was a power which constitutionally ought not to be given to any individual. There was nothing in the bill to prohibit the Treasury, not only from taking the privilege of franking from the House of Lords, and continuing it to the House of Commons, but of continuing it only to one class of Members in the House of Commons. He did not accuse her Majesty's Ministers of entertaining such a project, but of bringing forward a bill liable to that interpretation. He was sure there was not one person in the House who believed that this bill had received the cordial support of her Majesty's Government. He would ask, if it were not absolutely forced upon some Members of the Government? He would ask, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state whether he did not bring forward this measure in opposition to the Postmaster-general, and all those officers, whether past or present, who had been, or were connected with the fiscal arrangements of the Post-office? If the bill could be defended upon the ground of its giving to the poorer classes the advantages to be gained from it by the wealthy classes, he believed it would receive a more general sympathy on his side of the House. But it did no such thing. It was a plan in itself for the benefit of the great traders. It was a plan which had been brought forward to obtain public favour. He certainly did think that it had been introduced partly on political grounds, and partly, but mainly, for the purpose of benefiting great mercantile houses. Look to the number of mercantile men that had been examined before the committee; look to the number of the petitions in favour of the proposed plan, which they did not conceal would be highly advantageous to them. Before the franking privilege was limited, they had heard that it was worth, to a mercantile house, from 300 l. to 800 l. a-year. At present it could not be worth less than 300 l. The great advantage, therefore, which this plan held out to mercantile houses was the cause of the numerous petitions which had emanated from them, and of the meeting at the Mansion-house two or three weeks ago. He would, therefore, resist this bill. He must advert to a minor point, namely, the privilege of franking. He did not understand why this was to be abolished; or

627
why, because a tax was to taken off others, a tax was to be imposed on Members. It would be, to those who had much correspondence, at least 15 l. a-year, at the reduced rate of a penny for every letter sent. To the revenue the saving to be obtained was so small, that he hoped the House would not consent to rescind that privilege. He had said, that this bill was proposed on political grounds. He would go so far as to say, that he believed no persons had been more disappointed with the division that had taken place upon this question than her Majesty's Government. He fully believed that her Majesty's Government would rest perfectly satisfied with the glory of having made the concession, that they would very willingly dispense with the triumph of a vote in their favour; and he ventured to hope that, in a future stage of the measure, the vote now for its support, would be changed into one against it. This he the more earnestly and confidently hoped, from a conviction that the affairs of the country were in a state which did not permit a relinquishment of any part of the revenue, especially a portion of the revenue so large in amount, and so easy of collection. The real question before the House was not, whether the Government could send the letters of the community from London to Edinburgh for one-twelfth of a penny each, and, therefore, ought not to charge a shilling, but what it would cost each individual to forward his own letters, if no such thing as a post-office existed. It had been observed, in support of the measure, that Parliament, so far from interfering with the interchange of ideas, ought to do everything in their power to promote that object. He submitted that, in the present state of society in this country, it was too late to make use of any argument of that kind. Why, he would ask, had they not acted under the influence of that consideration in the reign of Charles 2nd; Why not in the reign of William 3rd? Why not at different times since then? In the present state of the revenue, he thought it would be most unsafe to incur the hazard of losing so large a sum as it was stated in the evidence they were likely to lose by the proposed change. On these several grounds he did not hesitate to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. F. Baringregretted, that the right hon. Gentleman should have alluded to what had taken place on a former occasion without better informing himself upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was
628
quite under a mistake as to what had taken place upon the introduction of the clause in the bill of 1837 to which he referred. He recollected perfectly well what had taken place upon that occasion. He had himself proposed that clause, but not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in an indirect way. He had at the time, in answer to a question as to the nature of the clause, explained its object. He had stated, that it was advisable to give to various parts of the country the advantage of the railroad communication, which while it in many cases increased the distance, would create a saving in point of time; that by the law, as it then existed the charge of the postage upon letters was made according to the actual number of miles gone over, and that it was, therefore, necessary to introduce the clause he had brought forward to prevent the increase in the rate of postage which must otherwise have taken place where the railroad communication was increased in point of distance. The clause had been acted upon in the sense in which it had been introduced. It had been introduced for the purpose not of creating such great reductions as were proposed by this bill, but of getting rid of small grievances, and reducing the postage in small cases. The right hon. Gentleman stated, and stated fairly, that this bill conferred great powers; but it was not intended that they should be pushed to their fullest extent. The greater the readiness with which the House placed confidence in a certain department of the Government, the more incumbent was it upon that department not to abuse that confidence by exceeding the necessary exercise of the powers confided to them. He begged to remind the House that the bill contained a fair degree of restriction; and if any further check should be deemed advisable, he was ready to allow its introduction, provided it would not get rid of the power necessary for carrying the plan into operation. The bill conferred the power upon the Treasury of adopting the plan of payment by stamped covers, or in such other way as they should think fit, and also of carrying the bill into effect at what time and in what manner they should think advisable. Those powers, which did not extend beyond that, must be given to some part of the Government. Let them propose what plan they pleased, he considered it not only advisable, but absolutely necessary, to

629
give to the Executive department the power of carrying the reduction of postage into effect at such time and in such manner as they might think fit. Gentlemen who thought, that by Act of Parliament on a specific day a particular arrangement should take place all over the country could not possibly be aware of the difficulties which were opposed to such a course. Where there would be a great increase of business there would consequently be an increase of errors; and if they were suddenly to throw open the flood-gates of the establishment, they might not only inconvenience the public service, to the ruin perhaps of many individuals, but they might endanger the stability of the establishment itself. A Gentleman had recently told him, that he had lost 3,000 l. by the delay in the delivery of one letter. The system, must therefore, be introduced most carefully. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, in reference to the privilege of franking, that under the bill the Treasury had the power of taking it from the House of Lords, and continuing it to the House of Commons, or any portion of its Members. Perhaps the bill did confer that power as it was worded. He would only say, that the word "partly," in reference to the privilege of franking referred not to Parliamentary but to official franking, and he would readily consent to any alteration to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman likewise said, that the Treasury had the power of inflicting penalties by a simple warrant; but if he would look at the bill, he would find, that it only alluded to the penalties imposed by the acts now in force relating to the stamp duties.
Lord Seymourdiffered in opinion with the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. So far from thinking, that this bill would not be beneficial to the lower classes, he thought, on the contrary, that it would confer great benefit upon them. He believed, that one of the great disadvantages which the poor at present had to suffer, was the want of easy and cheap communication with their friends. Now, with respect to the privilege of franking, he and another hon. Member of the House had gone to the Post-office to make inquiries on that point, and he was there told by the secretary, that some Members of the House were in the habit of using their privilege, to evade a payment, by franking more than the allowed
630
number of letters, and that one of the Members who was particularly remarkable in this respect was the hon. Member himself.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that when the noble Lord presumed to connect his name with a practice which amounted to nothing less than attempts to cheat the revenue, he felt bound to call the noble Lord to order, and he felt assured that he did not ask too much of the House, when he begged permission to state his invariable practice: that practice was, to keep not merely a regular account of the number of letters which he franked, but to enter the names of the individuals to whom they were addressed. If other gentlemen could state as much, it would afford him pleasure. The statement made to the House by the noble Lord was not one for which he had the least warrant in any evidence on the table of the House; and moreover, the statement to which he referred had not been, as far as he knew, made in any quarter in the terms in which it had been delivered to the House by the noble Lord. He had understood that the Secretary to the Post Office had stated that three members of that House were watched, and that he was one of those Members. He should not state who the other Members were; all he should say was, that he had been one of the number: he should state also, that two hon. Friends of his who lately went to the Post-Office, made inquiries on the subject, and the result was, that upon one occasion, and upon one only, had he been found to exceed his privilege. He certainly was accustomed to equal his number of franks, but very rarely to exceed them, and never intentionally; most rarely, indeed, had he ever exceeded the privilege; he had done so once, but if he had done so ten times, during the period that he had a seat in that House, it would not perhaps have been extraordinary. He felt ashamed to state to them as a gentleman, that he had never exceeded his privilege intentionally. When it had been imputed to him that he had been guilty of attempts to cheat the public revenue, he was sure the Speaker, if the noble Lord rose again, would call on him to state what he meant by the observations which fell from him on the subject of the privilege of franking having been exceeded.
Lord Seymoursaid, he should be ashamed of himself if he had said anything personally offensive to the hon. Baronet, and he begged, therefore, to apologise for the expression he had used.

631
What he meant to state was, what he had heard in the committee and from the Post-office, that the hon. Baronet was one of those who valued his privilege of franking so much, that he frequently exceeded his number. He had only said what had been stated to him and other Members of the committee. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet was satisfied. He did not undervalue cheap communication throughout the country. He believed that for some time the plan that was proposed would occasion a defalcation in the revenue; but he was sure that if power were not given fairly and fully to carry this plan into effect, they would not only lose the advantage of revenue, but also the advantage of giving to the people cheap communication.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that he had gone to the Post-office with other members of the committee, and he had been shown, among other things, the table were franks were taken which were above the proper number. Whether as a matter of joke be did not know, but it had been stated, in reply to a question, whether an accurate watch was kept over the franks, that it was impossible to do that, but that a few Members at a time were always watched, that that process was going on at that time, and amongst the number was the name of the hon. Baronet; his own name and the name of a third person whom he did not recollect. As a matter of joke, as soon as he saw the hon. Baronet, he told the hon. Baronet that they were both in the same list, when the hon. Baronet convinced him it was almost impossible, for he pulled out a list in which not only the franks were entered, but also the names of the individuals to whom they were sent. He was, therefore, quite sure that the hon. Baronet only claimed what was partly his due when he said that he kept as accurate an account as any other Member. For his own part he would offer no apology. With regard to the privilege of franking he was perfectly ready to give it up for the sake of the general benefit which he thought this bill would confer on the people at large. With regard to the powers proposed to be given to the Treasury, he certainly thought, considering that those powers would cease on the 1st of October in the ensuing year, they would be in safe keeping in the hands of the Treasury. He was convinced that this bill, if it wore passed into a law, would give
632
to the poorer classes of this country one of the greatest boons that could possibly be conferred on them, whilst it would be hailed also by the higher classes as a very great benefit. If it should happen that a falling off of the revenue was caused by adopting this measure, he was sure that the representatives of the people would be ready and willing make up the deficiency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould have been disposed to have left this bill on the explanation of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, had it not been for the declared intention of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) to take the sense of the House against the second reading; and if the hon. Baronet had not also in the course of his observations thrown out certain suggestions respecting the conduct of Government which required an answer. He was quite sure that the explanation of his noble Friend was calculated to remove any unpleasant impression that might for a moment have arisen in the mind of the hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly, his noble Friend had never intended to apply to the hon. Baronet any intention of evading the payment of postage. Whether the hon. Baronet, or any other Member, had ever exceeded the number of franks permitted, such a thing might be attributed to any Member without inferring any moral reflection whatever. To those most conversant with the accurate habits of the hon. Baronet he had given a new proof of his love for accuracy, for he had not only chronicled the number of his franks, but every person to whom they were sent. No one, however, required to be told this, either as a proof of the hon. Baronet's accuracy, or of the fact of his being incapable of violating any law, or making any improper use of the privilege conferred upon hint. He could not pass this question of official franking without suggesting that the hon. Baronet must have been sadly at a loss for an objection when he suggested the possibility of this, or any other government, using the powers given by this bill for the purpose of conferring the privilege of franking on one branch of the Legislature and withholding it from another, or of conferring it on one side of the House to the exclusion of the other. When the hon. Baronet was obliged to have recourse to such an imaginary danger as this, he thought he had a right to conclude that there was a singular deficiency of real argument against this

633
measure. The hon. Baronet had stated that undoubtedly there was a very strong feeling on the part of our great mercantile interest in favour of the present measure. So far from that being an objection, it was rather with him a very strong recommendation of the measure. Undoubtedly, a great portion of the evidence rested on mercantile grounds, and if it rested simply on that, he would say it was in itself a recommendation of the bill. Was it to be said, that this measure alone, of all financial measures, was not to be attended to, because the trading, the manufacturing, the commercial, and the banking interests were concerned in it? He knew that those parties would be greatly benefitted; but he confessed, that it was from those parties that he looked for a considerable proportion of revenue to remunerate the Treasury for the loss occasioned by the benefits which the people generally would receive. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had spoken of the extraordinary powers given to the Treasury by this bill, upon which he had been partly answered by his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury. It was hardly possible, in adopting so extensive a measure as the present, to be able to legislate for all the details and circumstances which might be expected to arise, and therefore it was necessary that in the meantime powers of a large and comprehensive nature should be given to the Treasury. But whatever these powers might be, it should be borne in mind, that not one of them would survive the next Session of Parliament. No doubt, the new system would involve the necessity of increasing the Post-office establishments to a very considerable extent, and in his opinion, it would neither have been wise nor just to increase them to such an extent without previously obtaining the sanction of Parliament. Believing, also, that the system would involve a considerable loss to the public revenue, he did not think it wise or constitutional to encounter that loss without further obtaining a pledge from Parliament, that that deficiency should be supplied: that pledge had been given by the House, and had been most fairly and handsomely repeated by the hon. Member who presided as chairman of the committee on the subject of the Post-office. He would not now enter into the financial details by which this pledge might hereafter have to be carried into effect; that would be a sub-
634
ject for future legislation, and all he could now say was, that he had proposed it in perfect good faith, and that he believed it had been given in an equal spirit of good faith by the House. He relied entirely upon the good sense and good feeling of the House of Commons, to keep up the public credit of the country, and to make up any deficiency which might occur in the public revenue of the country by the adoption of this measure. With respect to the Parliamentary privilege of franking, which the hon. Member for the University of Oxford still supported, and, he hoped, stood alone in supporting, it was true, that the sacrifice of that privilege might be small in amount; but at the same time, be it small of great, he thought, that there would be not one feature in the new system which would be more palateable to the public that this practical evidence of the willingness of the Members of this House to sacrifice everything personal to themselves to the advantage of the public revenue. It was true, that the privilege of franking had been used to a great extent by the heads of public departments; but that was a power which had been a great deal abused, and in future it would be better, in order to avoid that abuse, that every department should pay its own postage. Every department had a direct interest in keeping down its expenditure; but there was no one which felt much interest in keeping down the number of franks. At the same time, he thought, there might be cases in respect to public documents in which it might be necessary to retain the privilege to a certain extent; but upon this point he would one day become the subject for Parliamentary interference. He would certainly preserve the right of communicating to the public in the country the Parliamentary papers; but, at the same time, he thought, that there should be some restriction on the privilege of forwarding the very heavy volumes of reports which were published by the House; or, rather, that there should be some new regulations adopted, by which the public might derive all the benefit of this privilege without throwing an obstruction in the way of the prompt transmission of other communications of more immediate importance. Now, also, that they had made their vote-office an office for the sale of their papers, he thought it would be hard that a book-

635
seller, who might purchase 300 copies of any particular document, should be able to call upon the Post-office to transmit this heavy load of volumes by the quickest mode of conveyance, to the obvious obstruction of other and more pressing calls for the public service. With respect to bills, he thought, that as they affected the future legislation, they could not be too promptly conveyed to the hand of the public. Having on a recent occasion so fully stated his sentiments upon this subject, having more particularly stated the only objection which he entertained to this scheme, namely, on the score of revenue; and, having obtained from this House, by a large majority, a pledge that any deficiency which might occur to the revenue should be made up, he would not now trespass further upon the attention of the House than, in conclusion, to move the second reading of this bill.
Sir R. Peel:I will in the first instance refer to two or three minor points which have been alluded to on the assumption that this bill will ultimately pass into a law. Assuming that to be the case, I do not concur with my hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, that it would be desirable, that the Members of this House should retain their Parliamentary privilege of franking. I think, if it were to be continued after this bill came into operation, that there would be a degree of odium attached to it which would greatly diminish its value. The reason for keeping it up will, in a great degree, expire with the passing of this bill, for when Members of Parliament can receive their communications for a penny each, it will not be necessary to preserve the privilege of franking. With respect to official franking, whether the bill pass into a law or not, some alteration would be advisable. So far as the measure is an experiment I concur with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that new regulations ought to be adopted. I think it would be advisable to require, that each department should specially pay the postage incurred in the public service of the department. If every office be called on to pay its own postage, we shall introduce a useful principle into the public service. There is no habit connected with a public office so inveterate or so difficult to be laid down as the privilege of official franking. But the benefit of adopting a new principle will be this, that the man who, acting on an uni-
636
form practice, and who, from the force of an established habit, would not refuse to frank a packet of letters for a friend, would refuse to take eight or nine shillings out of the public coffers by conferring a similar obligation under the new system. Of late years a very great extension has taken place in the practice of official franking Indeed, within the last two Sessions a great increase has taken place in the number of persons admitted to frank, and this bill convinces me, that it would be advisable to take this privilege under some new regulation. With respect to the privilege enjoyed by Members of the House of transmitting without restriction voluminous documents at the public expense, I certainly think, that this is a privilege liable to very great abuse. It is monstrous, that a Member of Parliament may send 150 volumes of Parliamentary papers of the present Session, and two hundred volumes of a former Session, through the post-office without any restriction or any charge. I apprehend, that the advantage of this privilege is very much over-rated, and I am sure that it acts very unequally. I am sure, that there are many Members of the House who would object to send packages in this way through the post-office. I am sure that there are many Members of the House who would shrink from the exercise of such a privilege. With respect to the particular regulations to be adopted, I will not now offer any opinion, but some regulations are undoubtedly desirable. I am convinced, that if the 658 Members of the House were to send the whole of the blue books received during the Session through the post-office, it would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to that department, and I shall concur in any regulation that may appear calculated to control that privilege within proper limits. There might still be the permission to purchase the papers at the public office in the usual way; but if every person can procure these books at a very cheap rate, I see no reason why the public should be called upon to pay the charge of sending them through the post-office. I stated on a former night, that, having deliberately protested against this measure, I should not think it necessary to meet its further progress with any vexatious opposition. I am not surprised, that my resistance to this measure has been ineffectual. I know very well, that whenever the

637
Chancellor of the Exchequer declares himself in favour of the remission of any tax all resistance to such remission becomes vain. I know very well, that if the Secretary of the Home Department were to declare, that the disturbers of the public peace were to be kept free from any control or interference, we could expect nothing but to have the country overwhelmed with confusion and disturbance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has the control with respect to taxation, and when be declares his intention to remove a tax, all resistance must prove unavailing. I stated that, in the present circumstances of the public revenue, I objected to increase the risk, and I think, that the right hon. Gentleman has given me a very ample vindication of the course I have pursued. The right hon. Gentleman says, that he wishes that more time had been given for consideration, and that he might have full means of estimating the loss of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman admits, that he ought not to have brought forward the subject without the calmest consideration. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had asked time for that, and had asked the House to consent to a postponement till next Session, and that notwithstanding he had been overborne by the sense of Parliament, in that case, the responsibility would rest upon the House, but at present the responsibility rests with the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman will succeed in carrying his measure, for it cannot be effectually opposed. I think, however, that in opposing this proposition I have done right, and I am desirous that the public opinion shall be pronounced on my conduct, not now or in two months after the passing of this bill, but on the day when Parliament must either abandon its pledge or be called on to make good the deficiency. The whole pledge amounts to this (and it is contained in the preamble), that Parliament will make good any deficiency that may occur. That is the whole amount of the pledge. There is no enactment, no recital in the preamble of its nature, or the extent to which it is to go. Now what passed the other night? My objection was, that no one could fix the time at which Parliament would be called on to redeem the pledge. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged that there would be a considerable deficit, a thing always to be
638
deprecated in a great commercial country, and stated that in the next Session we shall be called on to redeem our pledge, and to fix a new tax to supply the deficiency. That was the only distinct intimation we have had of the time when the redemption of the pledge will be required. When the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that his present conviction is that Parliament will redeem the pledge, he should bear in mind the reservation with which many hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House accompanied it. The hon. Member for Greenock says, that he will cheerfully bear his part in supplying the deficiency; but I do not understand him to construe his promise as the Chancellor of the Exchequer construes it. I understand him to say, that if eventually there shall appear a great deficiency he will then consider the means of replacing it. Then the hon. Member for Bridport means to redeem his pledge, not by taxation, but after the reduction of postage shall have had what he considers to be a sufficient time for fair trial, he will consent, not to reduce taxation, but to endeavour, by some new arrangement of the revenue, to give such a stimulus to commercial industry as will, after another lapse of time, make up the deficiency. Sir, I have before expressed my apprehension that, without reference to the Post-office, there must be a continued and increasing deficit in the revenue, and this apprehension has been confirmed by what I have heard this evening. I have heard that Government, feeling themselves bound by an imperative sense of duty, propose to make an addition to our regular force of 5,000 men, which will incur an expense of at least 150,000 l. a-year. We also hear of measures for the establishment of a rural police throughout the country. There may be necessity for both these measures—I say not one word as to their policy. The circumstances must be grave indeed which call on Government to submit them to the House, but what will be the effect of those measures on the revenue of the country? Shall we be able to meet this increase without reference to the Post-office? I fear, on the contrary, that the deficit now existing will be increased, and that next year it will be much greater than at present. But I will not over-rate these difficulties. I do not deny that great social and commercial advantages will arise from

639
the change, independent of financial considerations. Even if the scheme had not been proposed, I think the evidence which has been laid before the committee would warrant a considerable reduction in postage. I think we should have made the experiment of a partial reduction. It has been said that the principal advantage of this measure will be felt by the commercial interests. If so, it will only be a greater recommendation to me, for wherever commercial intercourse is facilitated, the result must be the general benefit of the country. The change must also in its extent contribute to the improvement of the lower classes, although I think that the probable benefit has been greatly overrated. I think that at least we should have had an opportunity of getting at something like the exact extent by which the correspondence of those classes would be increased before we proceeded to legislation. We might, for instance, ascertain what is the extent of the correspondence of soldiers and sailors, who, at present, have the advantage of a penny postage. It would be a matter of great importance, in fact a material element in the consideration of this question, to ascertain to what extent those parties have availed themselves of these advantages. You should recollect also that the abolition of the Parliamentary privilege of franking will in itself limit the correspondence of the poorer classes, because that privilege is often at present used for the benefit of those who cannot afford even a single penny. Thus, there is an advantage of sending a letter without any charge, for which even the general reduction to one penny will not compensate. I do not state this as an objection to the measure; I merely state it as a reason for thinking that you have rather over estimated the advantage which the poorer classes will derive from the change. Well, Sir, supposing there is a great defalcation in the revenue, by what new tax would you propose to redeem your pledge? You remit this tax on the principle that all high taxation is impolitic; for that reason you reduce the postage from 6½ to to 1d.; but on what article will you increase the taxation? I look through the long list of malt, hops, candles, coffee, &c., and I ask on which of them you expect to raise a tax of two millions a-year? Can any man deny that there will be enormous difficulty in subjecting any of these articles to a new duty? All the
640
advantage obtained for correspondence will not diminish the objections to whatever tax you may propose. I say then, that I do not deny the advantages that will result for the remission of this tax, for there is no tax the remission of which would not be of benefit to the community. There is, for instance, the tax on internal communication, the repeal of which would redress a balance of injustice, because in that part of the country in which there are no railways, and is therefore, cursed with imperfect communication, there is a charge on posting of two-pence a-mile, whereas, in those parts traversed by railways, while the people have every facility of traveling, they are free from charge. Why, no one will attempt to deny that the abolition of this tax would be a general benefit; but we are precluded from the consideration of that claim by the pressure of the postage measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not listen to any proposal for reduction of taxation until this is disposed of. For my part I do not say that in the present position of our finances, I will not vote for any reduction of taxation. I attach so much importance to the preservation of public credit, so certain am I that, at a general election, the present measure might serve as a precedent for a Government to court popularity, by proposing to reduce a tax, throwing the task of supplying the deficiency on their successors, or trusting that some future Parliament will redeem the pledge of the one now sitting, that I shall not give this measure my support. Sir, I have been taunted with making this a party question, but I came down here to-night prepared to adhere to the engagement I entered in to on a former stage of the measure—to content myself with entering my protest against the principle. However, if my hon. Friend is determined on dividing the House—although, as the sense of the House has already been so fully expressed, I think it unnecessary to press it to a division. I shall certainly vote with him. However, my own intention is not to trouble the House with any harassing opposition, but to content myself with the protest I have already entered.
Mr. Warburtonrepelled the charge that he was not inclined to maintain faith with the public creditor. On all occasions had he been prepared to maintain public credit; and on several occasions he had sup-

641
ported the right hon. Baronet, when he was attacked for doing so. He was of opinion that as the rates of postage were diminished, a great increase to the postage revenue would be made. Mr. Rowland Hill had calculated that there would be a six-fold increase; that from the number of contraband letters, there would be an increase of double the number, and that, independently of the contraband letters, the increase would be two-fold, making an increase of four-fold. The number of invoices (according to Mr. Cobden's evidence) which would be sent by post with a penny postage, instead of in parcels, would be 50 per cent. on the present number, and the additional number of letters from the working classes would be 75 per cent. Upon the whole, therefore, the estimate appeared exceedingly moderate, and he thought that the result of the experiment would fully realize, if not exceed it. It was, he owned, a bold experiment, but he had no doubt that, when the result was known, the predictions of the sanguine supporters of the plan, would be realized.
Mr. Elliotsaid, he would trouble the House with a few remarks, as he had had some experience in a post-office department. In India, it had been found that the number of soldiers' and sailors' letters had increased to such a degree as to be a matter of complaint: they were so numerous as to be sent in boxes; and this arose solely from the circumstance of their light postage. There would be a difficulty in the pre-payment of postage in this,—that when a postman had delayed a letter, he would throw it in the fire, and the party to whom it was addressed would have no knowledge of the matter, unless every free letter was registered in a book. If some check was not resorted to, he feared there would be very great complaints on the subject of pre-paid letters. There must be also some mode devised to allow of letters being sent without stamped covers, (where persons were hurried and had no stamps,) and to secure the delivery of such letters. In India, the post-office was obliged to make a rule that no such letter should be received unless a slip of paper was delivered at the office with the letter, which was stamped and re-delivered to the person who brought the letter. But the most important matter was to invent a check to secure the delivery of pre-paid letters.—Bill read a second time.

DUTY ON FIRE INSURANCE.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Colonel Sibthorpsubmitted a motion for the reduction of the duty on Fire Insurance. When the tax was first levied its amount was exceedingly small; but it had subsequently increased under the pressure of the war, until at last it became extremely burdensome from its amount as well as very unjust, unequal, and partial in its operation. Now it ought to be reduced, and he was sure that a diminution of the tax, so far from reducing the revenue, would materially increase it; for many persons who were anxious now to insure their property were deterred from doing so by the high rate of the insurance duty. He confessed he did not see why this tax should not be reduced, when he found the import duties reduced on castor oil, and human hair, on rhubarb and raisins, on anchovies and French wines, and finally on the essence of bergamot and the balsam of copaiba. The gallant Member concluded by moving a resolution that from and after the 5th of April next, the duty on fire insurance be reduced to one-half the amount now levied.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not agree to the motion. The state of the revenue was not such as would warrant him in entering upon any additional expediment beyond that in which he was now embarked with respect to the Post-office.
Motion withdrawn; on the question again being put for the House to resolve itself into a committee of supply.

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION.
Mr. Gillon,after presenting petitions from stage coach proprietors, complaining of the depressed state of their trade, moved for a committee of the whole House to take into consideration the duties affecting internal communication, with a view of submitting to that Committee a series of resolutions for the reduction of the post-horse, public carriage, and mileage duties. He regretted that a question of so much public importance should be discussed at so late a period of the Session, and with such a thin attendance of Members. But he considered it his duty, nevertheless, to avail himself of the opportunity to urge the claims of the parties who had entrusted their interests to his charge, with the view of asking the House to give

643
effect to these claims for a modification of the taxes which pressed so heavily upon them, and be considered it important for the House to recollect that the weight of these taxes had been greatly increased by circumstances which had taken place since they had invested their capital in that particular branch of the trade. He hoped the House would also excuse him for mentioning that, in the year 1837, he had obtained a committee to inquire into the general question of internal communication, which recommended a speedy modification of these taxes to the House. He now brought the case of these parties forward, in consequence of the assurances which had been given by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that be would take the recommendation of the committee into consideration, and that he would not allow the present Session to elapse without applying a remedy. The parties whom he represented, and who complained of the present oppressive, unjust, and partial mode of taxation on the means of internal communication, were those connected with the old means of conveyance carried on through the medium of animal power. They had long been suffering in silence, and only now came forward when they found themselves opposed to other rivals, who were placed in a new and unexpected position of advantage. One class of those rivals were subjected to no tax at all, and the other to a tax of the most trivial amount. These facts formed, in his opinion, good grounds for the stage-coach proprietors and postmasters of this country for coming forward and stating their grievances to the impartial consideration of the Legislature. He did not complain of the existence of improved means of conveyance. He believed they had been productive of great benefit to the people. They afforded to the poorer classes the means of transporting their talents and capital to the best market at the cheapest price, and so as to make them available in the most expeditious manner. But great as was the competition which the proprietors of stage-coaches and pest-masters bad to contend with in the regard to, the use of steam-power and water carriage, it was quite inferior to the great system of railroad travelling, which was now coming into general operation, and extending itself through all parts of the country. He did nut complain of the use of that great modern improvement.
644
He objected not to it, nor to the use of steam-power in water carriage. In a public sense, he was perfectly sensible of the advantages which resulted from all of them. But what he complained of was, that they were lightly taxed, while the stage-coach proprietors were subjected to the payment of very oppressive and heavy duties. It was not the facilities afforded to internal communication that he opposed, but what the parties whose interest he represented complained of was this, that while the stage-coach proprietors paid 8s. 4d. a head of duty to the Crown, calculated on the principle that his carriage carried four passengers, for each person supposed to be conveyed form London to Edinburgh, and was charged that amount, whether his carriage conveyed such passengers or not, the owners of steam-vessels paid no such duty. The duty on railroad carriages, again, was only one-eighth of a penny per mile, while that on stage-coaches was one farthing, whether the passengers were carried or not. In a commercial country like this, Government ought to render the means of conveyance from the greatest and remotest distances accessible and cheap; but by their impolitic fiscal regulations, they had, on the contrary, aggravated the disadvantages of space. It should not be forgotten that this subject had attracted the attention of the Committee on Turnpike-trusts, who had given in their report, station its importance as regarded the interests of the creditors on these trusts. The amount of debt which had been incurred by those trusts amounted to the sum of nine millions sterling, and the Government were bound not to make themselves accessory in preventing those creditors from recovering their debts. That committee had also recommended the subject to the speedy consideration of Parliament. It was of great importance that the House should secure to the public a competition among those who were engaged in furnishing means of conveyance. Suppose, that the old means of conveyance, for want of proper encouragement, were given up—which was by no means unlikely—the public would not receive the same attention and civility, as at present, form the proprietors of railroads. He thought it by no means improbable that those persons would then increase their charges, and make the most of the monopoly which they would thus enjoy; and in that case,

645
would not the country justly reproach the House, if they should be left at the mercy of those who had embarked their money in these speculations for their own private interests, and with a view to the enriching themselves? Great as was the disparity between the duties levied on railroads and stage carriages, that disparity was still further aggravated by the system of compositions. As an instance of the working of that system, he would mention that by a contract entered into with the Government by the directors of the Greenwich Railway they had compounded on such terms as to be allowed to carry 1,200,000 persons for 400 l., which, if calculated at the amount which stagecoach proprietors would have paid for the same number of persons, would have amounted to the sum of 6,250 l. It might be said, that an end had been put to the compounding system. He must state, however, that it had not been universally extinguished, for he found in the report of the Arbroath and Forfar Railway Company for the present year an ostentatious statement that, by means of an arrangement with the Lords of the Treasury, they had effected a composition for 10 l., for the conveyance of a large number of passengers. All these remarks hitherto applied more to the grievances of stage-coach proprietors and with equal force to post-horse duties, which would be annihilated by a continuance of the existing system. He would suppose a gentleman to travel post from Birmingham to London, with four post horses in which case the postmaster pays a duty of 1l. 8s.; but if the gentleman puts his carriage into a truck on the rail-road the proprietors would have only to pay 4s. 8d. of duty, the difference being all in favour of the stronger party. The post-horse masters paid heavy assessed taxes besides: 5l. 5s. for each four wheeled carriage they kept for hire, and 3l. 5s. for two-wheeled carriages. They were falling rapidly into a state of poverty, from heavy burdens combined with decreasing business. He would give one instance. Mr. Johnstone, of Dunstable, for three months of the year 1837, paid 172 l. 16 s. 3d. duties, and in the same quarter of last year, the amount had dwindled down to 31 l. 17 s. 6d. The House would thus readily form an accurate opinion of the great depression of business which that Gentleman had suffered. But that was not all. These parties had to pay
646
window duties besides, and a heavy licence duty annually to the excise for permission to carry on their trade, while large floating hotels constantly plying up and down the rivers selling all manners of exciseable liquors did not pay a sixpence duty. The victuallers' licenses on the sale of exciseable articles should be repealed altogether. The stage coach and post horse duties were diminishing, notwithstanding the great increase of population and intercourse. Let them take the aggregate amount:—In 1836 they amounted to 514,089 l., while last year they had diminished to 494,138 l. It was true that his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given one boon to the post-horse masters by transferring the collection of the duties payable by them, from those who had farmed them, to the commissioners of excise, by which means the whole amount of duty had been brought fairly to charge in the Exchequer. But still that branch of revenue was decreasing. He would now proceed to state shortly the nature of the remedy which he would propose. It was to place all taxation as applied to railroads, post-horse duties, and stage-coaches, on a fair percentage, calculated on the gross earnings of the parties respectively; and he thought it was but right to state that that alteration was suggested by a person largely connected with railroads. The duties on railroads were unequal in operation as regarded the interests of those connected with such undertakings. On the London and Birmingham Railway the tax was about four per cent., while on the Garnkirk line, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, it was as high as fourteen per cent. Therefore, in justice to those persons, he thought the principle he had proposed would be found extremely fair and unobjectionable. He proposed also a repeal of all the assessed taxes affecting these parties: a repeal of the licence duty on stage carriages, and of the mileage duties on stage carriages, and the duties on horses let to hire; a repeal of the 5l. 5s. duty on four-wheeled carriages, and the 3l. 5s. duty on two-wheeled carriages, and in lieu thereof a licence duty on stage carriages of 7s. 6d., about one-half of the mileage duty presently leviable on stage coaches to be substituted; a reduction of the mileage from one farthing to about one-eighth of a penny per mile, thus allowing a small advantage in favour of the stage-coach

647
proprietors. He proposed a reduction of almost exactly two-thirds of the post-horse duties. The probable loss of revenue by these changes, supposing no increase of travelling to take place would be; on stage-coach duty 160,844 l.; on post-horse duty 247,069 l., to which was to be added the reduction of the duty on four-wheeled carriages 36,823 l., and on coachmen and guards 3,708 l., in all 448,000 l. He contended, without fear of contradiction, that there was no branch of taxation involving greater injustice to the parties than that to which he had called the attention of the House As a justification for having brought forward the motion, at that late period of the Session, the hon. Member quoted the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 21st February last, during the discussion which then took place on this subject stating that the subject deserved the attention of Parliament, as it was his intentention to bring a bill to correct some of the evils. He quoted those words, not with any view to raise angry feelings, but merely in justification of himself for having formerly withdrawn the resolutions which he had brought forward for the relief of the parties. He had been obliged, however, in consequence of an interview with the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks since, again to intimate to those parties that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to proceed this Session with any measure for their relief. His object was, to render internal communication more cheap and easily accessible to all parties. Sooner or later his right hon. Friend would be compelled to grant, not only this reduction, but a revision of the whole system of taxation. He would be compelled to take off all those taxes which, by pressing on the necessaries of life weighed so heavily on the poorer classes, and in lieu of them to have recourse to a general property tax. He would leave the subject in the hands of the House, trusting that they would deal with it in a manner just to all parties. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the duties on the means of internal communication.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould endeavour, as shortly as possible, to state the reasons why the House ought not to accede to the motion of the hon. Member. And first, he must remark, that it would,
648
no doubt, be an extreme gratification to the inhabitants of the county of Fermanagh to find the noble Lord (Lord Cole) who represented them, seconding this motion, of which one of the objects was to introduce a new tax into Ireland, by the general equalization of duties which it proposed. It was a boon, of the value of which the people of Fermanagh would no doubt be duly sensible. As to the proposition itself, he must admit, neither on the present nor on any previous occasion, did he feel surprise that an hon. Gentleman should be found anxious to bring it under the consideration of Parliament. The progress of events had made this duty press severely, even if it were equal; but it pressed still more severely from its inequality. But this was an inevitable result of improvements which had taken place. Not a single step could be taken to advance the most undeniable improvement without pressing upon some previously existing interest. In the cases of stage-coaches and post-horses there would be evils to be endured, even if there were no tax, and those evils were, of course, aggravated by the tax. His objection was not to the principle of the proposed reduction, but to the peculiar circumstances under which it was brought forward. His hon. Friend, and those who supported him, knew that they could not approach this subject without going a great deal further. His hon. Friend's argument went to an equalization of taxation. Upon his principles, he must increase the taxes on railways, introduce the assessed taxes into Ireland, and even then, the object would not be completely attained. His hon. Friend felt that himself, and at the close of his speech, knowing where his principles would carry him, called on the House to consider the whole question of the taxation of the country, with a view of relieving the industrious and working classes from the burdens under which they now suffered, by the introduction of a property tax. He would not argue that question; but it was a serious error to suppose, that such a tax would not press on the industrious classes. It would necessarily make the investment of capital less advantageous in this country than in others, and so tend to transfer to those countries the means of productive employment. Foreign capitalists were already treading on our heels. A property tax, by giving them additional advan-

649
tages, would operate seriously to the discouragement of industry in this country. His hon. Friend, in bringing forward his proposition, was entitled to the best attention of the House, from the great pains he had taken with the subject. According to his hon. Friend's estimate, there would be a sacrifice of 440,000 l. of revenue by his proposals. Without any means of supplying the deficiency, except so far as the reduction might lead to increased communication. On any line of active communication, the reduction of the duty would not in the slightest degree increase communication. On such lines as those between London and Birmingham, or Birmingham and Liverpool, it would be utterly impossible to keep up posting or mail coach travelling. The difference of time, which was so peculiarly valuable in England, would always prevent a revival of the old mode of travelling. If, then, there was no chance of increase of communication to counterbalance the reduction of the tax, could the hon. Member, or could the House, honestly make this reduction? At an early period of the Session, on the 21st February, he had, as his hon. Friend said, declared his intention of introducing a measure on those ditties. He would beg to call the attention of the postage committee, more especially, to this part of the subject. They knew, that although the report belonged to the last Session, from circumstances of which he did not complain, it was not presented or printed until subsequent to the period at which he had made that announcement. Therefore, he was not then, and could not have been, prepared to undertake that great task and great risk which he had since undertaken, namely, the reduction of the postage on letters. He, therefore, declared his intention with respect to the posting stage and coach duties, and he had then a measure in progress which would have risked some portion of the revenue, not amounting to one-half of the loss caused by the uniform penny postages in ignorance of the report of that committee. The House of Commons, however, had a right to declare which of these reductions should be made and it had most unequivocally declared in favour of postage. He was ready to make that reduction which the House had sanctioned, but not at the same time to put in jeopardy any other portion of the revenue. He was ready to do one, but
650
not both. He had made this statement to the deputation to which his hon. Friend referred, and he did not hear form them an expression of surprise at his determination. While referring to the deputation, he would remark, that one answer which he had given had been very much misconceived. He was accused of saying that he would not propose to legislate for particular interests, and, therefore, would not undertake the consideration of the question. His argument was that the duties could not be reduced on lines where there was railroad competition without reducing them also where there was no such competition—and where, of course, there was no such title to receive relief. But to confine the reduction to particular lines would be a legislation—for particular interest to which he felt an objection. When he had proposed the reduction of postage, he was taunted by hon. Members on the other side with not having courage to resist the popular demand for it. He knew, on that occasion, that if he had resisted the reduction, he should have had the support of some of those hon. Members, but he was by no means sure that he should have had the votes of a great many who sat on the same benches. However, in opposing the reduction which was now proposed, he was making an experiment which would show how far those hon. Members would assist him in opposing the risk of a large portion of revenue without any provision for the deficiency. He knew, that in the right hon. Member for Tamworth, he should not find any disposition to fight the battle against the postage reduction by a vote on the posting duty; but he would beg to remind those who supported the postage measure, that nothing could more seriously endangers its success than the success of the present motion. He proposed to introduce a measure which, while it would not endanger the revenue, would be of some benefit to those whose interest were affected by the posting duties. But he could not, as he already said, consent to risk so large an amount of revenue as his hon. Friend's motion involved.
Sir. T. Aclandthought that the opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk stood on very different grounds form what it would have done, if the right hon. Gentleman had not already countenanced a similar inroad upon the revenue. He was not prepared to support the mo-

651
tion, which went too far; but he thought some reduction of the duty was due to an interest which was now exposed to great suffering. He believed that the small reduction of one half-penny per mile, with liberty to carry an additional passenger, whilst it would be a great relief to the coach-proprietors, would cause a loss to the revenue, not of 400,000 l., but of less than 90,000 l. After the great sacrifice of revenue that had been already made, he could not consent to a proposition that would cause an additional loss of nearly half a million. If the hon. Member for Falkirk would put his resolution in such a shape as to produce an equalization instead of a reduction of duty, he should vote with him at all hazards, as he thought it was high time to take the first step towards redressing so palpable a grievance.
Mr. Handleywas exceedingly surprised to bear what had that evening fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few months since on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman then stated, when the subject of the reduction of the post-horse duty was introduced, that it was his intention, in the course of the present year, to introduce a bill with a view to correct many of the inconveniences that had been adverted to; and the right hon. Gentleman further stated, that the present rate of taxation was unequal and unjust, and that it interfered with the fair spirit of commercial competition. What had occurred within these few months to change the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman now quoted the vote that had been come to on the penny postage question as a reason, and the sole reason, why he refused that relief which a few months ago he thought just and necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman did not reduce this tax, he ought to raise all competing modes of communication by railroads and steam-boats, to the same level. He feared they were establishing a monopoly in favour of railroads which they would one day feel, and he hoped that, at least, fair competition would be allowed to those who had been for so many years in the service of the people; and, he thought that this meritorious class of people would have just right to complain, if their claims were now put aside, contrary to the express declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on a former occasion.
Mr. H. Hindesaid, that some relief ought to be afforded to postmasters, to enable them to continue with the slightest chance of success against the railroads. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had promised to bring in a bill on this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman had shown no good reason why that intention had been abandoned. The present system was ruinous, and he should feel that he was not doing his duty to his constituents, or to the country at large, if he did not do ail in his power to produce some beneficial alteration.
Captain Pechellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had endeavoured to thwart the present proposition, by reminding the House of the sacrifice of revenue that must be made to carry out the principle of a penny postage. He supported the penny postage, because he thought it was a measure that was generally called for by the country; but that was no reason why he should not also support the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk. It was the business of that House to reduce such taxation as they thought called for, and it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the wishes of that House, and to supply any deficiency that might thereby be created.
Sir C. Knightleywould support the proposition of the hon. Member for Falkirk. He begged to call the attention of the House to the course that was taken by Government upon two questions, namely, that of the postage of letters, and the post-horse duty. It was said, that the reduction of the postage upon letters would benefit the poor. On the contrary, he thought it would only benefit merchants and rich people. The duty upon post-horses was, on the contrary, unequal and unjust, and ruined all those engaged in the posting business. Government, however, was induced to bring forward the first measure entirely from popular clamour; while the second question, which affected a class of persons few in number, and without the power of doing much good or harm, was altogether neglected.
Mr. C. P. Villierssaid, that as far as he could understand the charge of the hon. Baronet, it was a proof of the superior wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it only imputed to the right hon. Gentleman that he considered anti consulted the larger interest—that he

653
considered those who represented the great interests of the country—which he thought it wise to consider in preference to any other. The question, as it seemed to him, lay between the community at large and a particular interest. They had to choose between the postage and the post-horse duty; and the question was, which they were prepared to make a sacrifice for. It was not often, that Chancellors of the Exchequer consulted the general interests of the nation in matters of taxation. Not but that he considered the present post-horse duty unfair, but there were two modes of relieving the parties—by taking off the taxes on letting horses for hire, and repealing the taxes on the food of those horses. Some of the post-horse masters had, on deliberate calculation, found that they would be much more relieved by the repeal of the Corn-laws than by removing the tax on their business. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in proposing the penny postage, made a bold and noble experiment for the general good, and it was impossible to calculate the advantages which would result to society at large from that measure. One thing, he trusted, would never be done, viz., teeing the means of internal communication, than which he thought no measure could be more pernicious.
Mr. Darbysaid, that there was no question, whether one of education or post-horse duty, or be it what it might, which did not afford the hon. Member for Wolverhampton an opportunity to complain of the Corn-laws. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, acted fairly in disregarding the promise he had made, and throwing the postmasters, who had made a strong case, overboard for the sake of the penny-postage. At the same time, he could not vote for the motion of the hon. Member on the ground which had induced him to oppose the reduction of any tax without an adequate substitute having been provided.
Mr. Hawescould not vote for the motion of the hon. Member, in consequence of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Still, he was of opinion, that the post-horse duties might be altered, which would be a great relief to coach proprietors. The traffic on railroads was increasing, while the duties derived from post-horses and coaches were decreasing, and he had been told by the coach proprietors generally, that the next
654
time they took out their license, they must take out the lower license. He wanted, however, to know, why landed property was not made to bear its fair share of the burden, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Devonshire, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Northamptonshire, who were such advocates for the remission of the duty on post-horses, ought nut to oppose any proposition to levy a tax upon the descent of landed estate.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the hon. Member for Sussex had made a speech in favour of the reduction, but intended to give his vote against the proposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not care how many speeches were made in favour of the motion so long as he got the votes. So long as the Ministers had the money of the people at their control, they did not care a straw what hon. Gentlemen might say. The proper way was to keep the money out of their hands. He believed that the Government had adopted the postage plan with a desire to benefit the public, and he was grateful for what they had done, but considering the length and breadth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's organs of caution, he was surprised that he had gone so far. A proposition had been made for a property tax. He liked the proposition. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer feared, that the landlords would run away with their wealth to the continent. He should like to see a man pocket three or four thousand acres of land—he would find this rather a difficult thing to get to the continent with. A man might leave a million in landed property to a profligate son without paying one farthing of duty, yet if he had had a faithful servant, who had been with him for thirty years, and left hint 100 l., that man could only receive 90 l. of it, the other 10 l. being taken for duty. Until the people were faithfully represented in that House, they would never get justice. He would vote for the reduction of the tax, as he would do for the reduction of every tax. He did not like to hear any hon. Members mention the subject of a substitute—that was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to find substitutes was what he was paid for. The hon. Member for Brighton had suggested a tax on railroads [Captain Pechell: No, no], or at any rate the hon. Member suggested, that there should be an equalization of the duties of post horses and railways. This would be

655
a tax on the hon. Member's constituents, as all who travelled by the railway to Brighton would have to pay an extra charge. He was against any such tax, although he admitted, that many hundred persons had been ruined by railways, and he regretted, that there were no means of making the railroad proprietors give compensation to those persons by proceedings in a court of law. He trusted, that the House would agree to the reduction of this tux, and would levy no new tax in consequence, and above all no tax on communications, for all such taxes were most irrational and unjust.
Lord Eliotobserved, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared, that in consequence of the financial state of the country, he could only remove one of these taxes, he should prefer the removal of the duty on post-horses to the adoption of the penny postage.
Mr. Humehoped that his hon. Friend would not press the question to a division.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, that a few clays ago he had a communication on the subject of the post-horse duties with a very large coach proprietor, who told him, that a small reduction in the amount of the duty, and an equalisation of taxation, would enable the proprietors to go on, and that those charges would be attended with an increase of revenue. As it appeared, that there was likely to be a deficient revenue, he could not support the present resolution.
Mr. G. Palmersaid, that the effect of the continuance of the present system would be to take all the post-horses off the roads, and to close all the inns and the houses of accommodation scattered over the country. The result would then be, that people would be compelled to travel by railroads, and would be exposed to the grossest impositions, as the proprietors could charge what they pleased, as the railroads were perfect monopolies.
Mr. Easthopesaid, that he could not but be surprised at the extreme incorrectness that prevailed in the minds of several hon. Members as to the existing taxes on the means of communication, as if there were no taxes on conveyance by railways. There was, however, very considerable taxation on railroads, and he knew, that a very large proportion of the capital embarked in the railroads had never paid anything to the proprietors, although it
656
paid largely to the State. He did not quarrel with this, but when hon. Members made these observations, did they recollect, that in taxing railroads they would be taxing themselves and the rest of the community, for it would be nothing more nor less than a tax on conveyance. The hon. Member said, that the railroads were monopolies, and the proprietors might charge what they please. If this were the case, did not the hon. Gentleman see, that a tax on railroads would operate as a tax on the passengers? If a monopoly existed, the railway proprietors might increase the charge to passengers to the amount of the tax. The hon. Member for Essex also spoke as if persons were compelled to travel by railroad, whether they would or not, and as if the interest of the proprietors of railroads did not consist in consulting the convenience of the public. He wanted to know, whether any thing had arisen to induce persons to abandon travelling by coach other than general convenience? None, however, could be more interested that the railroad proprietors in reducing the taxation on stage coaches, as nothing could be more for their interests than low charges for travelling by coach, as they would bring passengers to the railroads. He could not help feeling, that the notion of setting up railroad travelling against travelling by coach was a very superficial view of the question. He was sure, that no railroad company that knew its own interest would wish for a tax on stagecoaches or any other means of conveyance.
Colonel Sibthorpwould be glad to see a clear statement of the property held in railroads by Members of that House, and how they voted. For his own part, he had always voted against railroads, and should continue to do so.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 109; Noes 48: Majority 61.
The House then went into a Committee of Supply on the miscellaneous estimates.
Several votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.