Commons Sitting of 8 March 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Marriage (Scotland); Registering Births, &c. (Scotland); Poor Laws (Ireland) (Rate in Aid).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Goulburn, from the Presbytery of Arbroath, against the Parliamentary Oaths Bill.—By Mr. Hardcastle, from Colchester, and from a Number of other Places, in favour of the Abolition of church Rates.—By Mr. Locke, from the Firm of Johnston, Farquhar, and Leech, for the Production of certain Documents connected with the Great Western Railway (Ireland) Bill (1845); also those concerning the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Bill (1846), and Railway Bills (1847).—By Mr. Blakemore, from the Borough of Wells, and by Mr. Long, from Trowbridge, for the Suppression of Promiscuous Intercourse.

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SPAIN.
MR. URQUHARTrose to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of
384
State for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given notice. It was stated in the Spanish paper, the Clamor Publico, which he believed was the noble Viscount's organ in that country, that the negotiations which had been going on for some time past, with the object of reopening diplomatic relations with England, had been brought to a successful termination. He wished to know from the noble Lord in what state those negotiations really were; and whether, if they were closed, the papers and correspondence relating to them would be laid before the House? Another question he wished to put to the noble Lord was, whether there would be any objection to lay on the table the correspondence and explanation relative to the expulsion of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid, brought to this country by Count Mirasol, though not officially received by Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: With regard to the first question which had been put to him by the hon. Member, he had no communication to make to the House, except that the statements referred to were not true. As to the second, whether he was prepared to lay on the table the communications brought by Count Mirasol, his answer was, that he had them not, and, therefore, could not produce them.

THE CONVICT SYSTEM—TRANSPORTATION.
VISCOUNT MAHONrose to call the attention of the House to the instructions issued in the years 1846, 1847, and 1848, with respect to the transportation and discipline of convicts. The noble Lord commenced by observing, that it was evident, from the papers laid upon the table of the House, that the ground between him and hon. Gentlemen opposite had been much narrowed. The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies had again and again declared that transportation should be disused, and that we ought to provide for our convicts by the use of hulks, and by the construction of penitentiaries at home. That was the ground which the noble Earl in former years, as a Member of this House, had been accustomed to assume. Now he (Lord Mahon) certainly could not consider it a matter of blame against the noble Earl, that he had, in dealing with a most intricate and delicate subject, been led greatly to modify his views. But what he did complain of was this—that Earl Grey had cast aside some valuable recommendations of his predecessors,

385
and had issued instructions which seemed to be liable to the imputation that they had been decided upon with imprudence and precipitation. In the statement which he should make in support of these charges, he would show that Earl Grey had, since his accession to office—nay, in the short space of twenty months—changed his views on this subject no less than five times. He (Lord Mahon) now trusted that he would be able to elicit from Her Majesty's Government some distinct statement of their present proceedings and intentions upon this question. The main principle, compared to which other points were but matters of detail—the main principle for which he contended was—that criminals, when the term of their punishment had passed, should not be thrown again upon the scene of their former crimes. Now, the difficulties of the whole subject had been greatly increased by two orders which had been issued by the noble Lord, now the Prime Minister, when Secretary for the Colonies. He had issued one order for the sudden abolition of assignment in the Australian colonies; and another for the immediate abolition of transportation, so far as New South Wales was concerned. Both these orders took effect in 1840, and both were attended with evil consequences; at the same time, he must candidly state the circumstances under which the noble Lord had acted. The Transportation Committee had just made their report; and the evidence collected by it had not been contradicted as it now was by fuller and more correct testimony from the colonies. The noble Lord had acted in conformity with the general opinion entertained at the time; he had a state of imperfect and one-sided information to excuse him; but nevertheless the effects of his measures were most disastrous. He (Lord Mahon) would first allude to the abolition of transportation to New South Wales. What had been the immediate effect of that measure? There was, in the first place, a rapid accumulation of convicts in the hulks in this country—an accumulation which was productive of much evil, and was loudly and justly complained of at the time. At that period, namely, in the month of March, 1841, he moved a resolution in the House against any increase in the number of prisoners at the hulks; and so strong was the feeling with respect to the matter of that resolution, that, although it was strongly opposed by the Government, it was affirmed by
386
the House. A few months after that vote, it happened that the Government of that day went out, and its place was taken by the Administration in which Lord Stanley was Secretary of State for the Colonies, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) was the Home Secretary. In the ensuing year, that is, early in 1842, he (Lord Mahon) addressed a question to the right hon. Baronet as to how far he would consent to be bound by the resolution which had been moved in the previous March. Now, the right hon. Baronet had two courses open to him: if he disagreed with that resolution, he could ask the House to rescind it; but if he concurred in it, he would be bound to act upon it. The right hon. Baronet answered that he would abide by the decision of the House; and, accordingly, under that Administration, the number of convicts at the hulks was not increased. But another evil was the result—the number of convicts in Van Diemen's Land was unduly increased. Under the system which prevailed until the year 1840, not less than 3,000 or 4,000 convicts were divided between New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land every year. By the order of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), the entire number were confined to Van Diemen's Land alone. That was more than that colony could bear. In now reverting to this part of the subject, he felt bound to consider how this system had been administered in the colonies at the time. It was a subject which, he confessed, he approached with pain and dislike; but when a system was arraigned, it was necessary to inquire whether the fault was in the system or in those who administered it. Lord Stanley appointed Major Childs as Governor of Norfolk Island. In making that appointment, the noble Lord had been actuated neither by political nor private motives. Major Childs, he believed, had been a resident at Devonport, and a consistent supporter of the Members for that borough—Members who opposed the Government to which Lord Stanley belonged. No doubt, also, that Lord Stanley was furnished with sufficient testimonials of Major Childs' abilities for the post. But the results of that appointment were unfortunate, a strong case having been made out against Major Childs for his share in the government of the colony. After the outbreak which had occurred in the island, early in 1846, Mr. Stewart

387
was despatched from Van Diemen's Land to inquire into the causes of it. He found upon investigation that the system of confinement was one of the worst description; that convicts of the most hardened character were confined together in dark dormitories without partitions, and that they were confined fourteen hours out of the twenty-four, in order that the persons connected with the establishment might have their evenings to themselves. He (Lord Mahon) would not shock the feelings of the House by referring to the horrors which resulted from this system. Mr. Hampton, who was sent to the island in 1848, gave some further painful information as to the former state of the prisons, adding that the more desperate ruffians were permitted to seize the rations of the weaker ones, and that the conditions upon which those weaker prisoners were fed, were frequently that they should do the bidding of the rest. So much for Norfolk Island. As to Van Diemen's Land, the first step which Lord Stanley took was to offer the governorship of that colony to a gentleman, then and now a Member of that House, perfectly well qualified for the post, but who, however, on account of illness in his family, could not accept it. Afterwards Sir Eardley Wilmot had been appointed, from whom, on account of his long chairmanship of quarter-sessions, much had reasonably been expected. He did not wish to speak harshly of any one—far less of any one deceased; and the House was perfectly aware that most painful discussions had already taken place in that House with respect to Sir Eardley's policy. He (Lord Mahon) would only state now that those who had read the recent despatches of Sir William Denison must have been struck by his ability and aptitude for business, and must also have been struck at the great contrast they presented to those of his immediate predecessor. The failures in the colonial administration at that time were not owing mainly to the system, but were the result of errors in those who administered the system. By the rule drawn up by the present Prime Minister, all the convicts were at that time sent either to Van Diemen's Land or to Norfolk Island. When the stream of colonisation was divided, and extended also to New South Wales, it was only sufficient, as it were, to fertilise the land; but the concentration of that amount of criminals into one colony made it a loath-
388
some sink of all pestilence and infection. Van Diemen's Land, suffering from this importation, complained to this country, and asked for a remedy. The complaints of the colonists reached this country early in the spring of 1846. At that time the office of Secretary for the Colonies was filled by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and he, in conjunction with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to suspend the tide of transportation to Van Diemen's Land for two years. That transportation was accordingly checked. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford accompanied this check by another measure. Lord Stanley had, some time before, sanctioned the establishment of an additional colony in North Australia, for the reception of convicts; and the right hen. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford was prepared to carry out the plan. He (Lord Mahon) had now brought these affairs up to the time at which Earl Grey became Colonial Secretary; and, as he had said, he was prepared to show that Earl Grey, between November, 1846, and June, 1848, had announced five distinct changes in his views with respect to this branch of colonial administration. On the 15th November the noble Earl wrote to Sir Charles Fitzroy, countermanding the instructions given by Lord Stanley, and sanctioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. By one stroke of his pen he abolished the entire plan for the establishment of this additional colony. But was this the only false step which he made at that time? Earl Grey, on the 5th of February, 1847, wrote to Sir W. Denison—
"I have to inform you, that it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that transportation to Van Diemen's Land shall be resumed at the expiration of two years, for which it has been already decided it shall be discontinued."
Now, was it right, by a decision of this kind, for Earl Grey to fetter the discretion of a successor in his office? But he thought he could show that the noble Earl was himself bound and fettered in the present change of his views by the determination which he had expressed to Sir Charles Fitzroy. On March 5, 1847, he found Earl Grey stating in the House of Lords, that—
"The change intended was of no less extent than a virtual abolition of the system of transportation which had for so many years prevailed under

389
different regulations and modifications as to the mode of punishment."
A little further on, in the same speech, he found the noble Earl adding—
"I have already said, that the change which Government has considered ought to be introduced extends to no less than a virtual abolition of transportation; because, when I speak of transportation, I do not include the punishment of offenders at Gibraltar or Bermuda."
Now, let it be remembered, those were words which were not addressed to the House of Lords alone. They were read in the colonies, they were read in Van Diemen's Land, and were interpreted into a pledge and promise that the system should be discontinued. That view of the case was further confirmed by a Minute, dated January 20, 1847, from which it appeared that the convicts were not to be sent out on any account collectively, but individually—that in such individual cases facilities to emigrate to other countries besides the late penal settlements were to be afforded. The intention then was to refrain hereafter from sending them out in one mass to the Australian colonies; and this project accorded well with what Earl Grey had so imprudently promised previously in his despatch to Sir William Denison. Now, that was the first phase of Earl Grey's opinions on the subject. On the 3rd of June, 1847, they arrived at the second phase. Then suddenly, in the midst of a debate in this House, it was announced by the Home Secretary that a most important change had taken place in their intentions, that the removals from this country would not be collective, but individual, and that such colonisation would be not to any other countries, but, as before, to the Australian colonies. Now, how did that decision accord with the previous instructions given to Sir William Denison? The third phase in the noble Earl's opinions would be seen in a despatch sent to Sir W. Denison, dated April 27, 1848, in which his Lordship announced to Sir W. Denison, that the Government considered it necessary that the additions to the population of Van Diemen's Land should not entirely, or even principally, consist of those tainted with crime, and that he was persuaded a pecuniary mulct was due on account of the number of convicts we sent to the colony. The noble Earl spoke of the desire of the Government to aid in the importation of free emigrants—to neutralise the effect of the influx of convicts; and he added that
390
Parliament would be asked for funds for the purpose of assisting free emigrants to Van Diemen's Land. Here was the third phase. On reading this despatch, which was laid before Parliament, he (Lord Mahon) publicly asked the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Hawes), what amount of money Earl Grey intended to propose for these emigrants? He said 10,000 l. Now came the fourth phase in the noble Earl's opinions, which would be found the most surprising of all. About a month afterwards, Earl Grey departed from his own principle of compensation, stating that he had come to the conclusion that only a portion of the 10,000 l. should go to Van Diemen's Land, and that the remainder should go towards assisting in emigration to other colonies; such colonies, having received no convicts, and not being entitled to compensation. This alteration in the views of Earl Grey, appeared from a speech of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, in a debate upon a Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley). It was on the 6th of June, 1848. That noble Lord (Lord Ashley), speaking, as usual, with great pathos and power, and with the most benevolent views, had asked that public money should be devoted to the purposes of juvenile emigration; and the hon. Under Secretary said that a portion of the Van Diemen's Land fund would be so devoted. At the time while he (Lord Mahon) was speaking on that Motion, the hon. Under Secretary had got up and said across the table that he had not spoken of emigration "to the Australian colonies, but chiefly to the Australian colonies;" and the same hon. Gentleman, afterwards rising "to explain," declared that upon a former occasion he had not meant to confine his answer to Van Diemen's Land, but that the Government meant to apply the 10,000 l. for the purposes of emigration to other colonies also, and not Van Diemen's Land alone. Why, the ink of the despatch of the 27th of April was then scarcely dry. A fifth phase in the noble Earl's opinions now broke upon the view. Not long after the statement of his Under Secretary, Earl Grey found fault with his own last decision, and reverted to his first; he repented him of his repentance; and declared that the 10,000 l. would not be devoted to the purposes of emigration to Australia generally, but only to van Diemen's Land. Thus did the noble Earl happily accomplish the fifth phase, or

391
change, in his opinions. Now, in making these references, he (Lord Mahon) desired to be understood that it was not in the way of taunt; but he was of opinion that it was most impolitic and perilous thus to make pledges to the colonists which were not fulfilled. From the last collection of papers laid upon the table of the House, it would subsequently also appear that great changes had been wrought in the opinions of Earl Grey on these subjects. Take the case of Norfolk Island, with respect to which Earl Grey's opinions had gone round to all the points of the compass. At first the noble Earl was of opinion that Norfolk Island was the most proper place that could be selected for a penal colony. His first expressed opinion was, with respect to punishment of convicts abroad—expressed so far back as 1838 while Secretary at War—"I think that Norfolk Island is the best situation yet suggested;" afterwards he declared that, owing to its distance, 1,000 miles from the nearest land, it was a most unfit place; that no place was so bad, and that all its establishments should be instantly abandoned. But the noble Earl appeared to hold now an intermediate opinion on the subject, and to be prepared to retain the settlement with a reduced number of convicts, adopting the recommendation of Sir W. Denison, that, now the number of convicts was limited, it was on many accounts a desirable and useful penal settlement. But who had urged the introduction of a larger number of convicts in that island? Earl Grey himself, who had said in 1838 that "immediate orders ought to be sent to Norfolk Island to prepare for an increased number of convicts." Now, he could not recognise in the transactions to which he had alluded, any symptoms of an uniform and consistent plan of action for reformation in our penal system, or for any improvement in the condition of the convicts. He felt difficulty in alluding to the present state of the question, because the intentions of the Government were by no means clearly set forth in the papers laid before Parliament. The hon. Member for Montrose, and others, had truly stated that the policy of the Government was not intelligible; and one of his (Lord Mahon's) motives in bringing forward the present Motion was to elicit from the Government their intentions with respect to these important affairs. With respect to the principle which he thought should govern Par-
392
liament in legislating on this subject, he was decidedly of opinion that it was unwise to allow the convict, after the expiration of his term of punishment, to return to the scene of his former crimes. Agree on the principle in this respect, and all the rest was mere matter of detail. The ill effects of convicts returning to the scene of their crimes were not greater to the mother country than to themselves. The governor of Millbank Penitentiary, a few years ago, had given very important testimony on this point, showing that a person who had once been tainted with crime, and who had suffered the penalty of that crime, was, however sincerely reformed in heart, yet a ruined man in the town or district in which the offence was committed. Such were the obstacles to a man's retrieving himself in the country in which he committed his crimes—so great was the difficulty of obtaining honest employment and of shunning the evil associations of earlier days—that it was not an unusual occurrence for a man to return again to the governor of the prison, and implore him for the love of God to take him back again to the walls of the dungeon where he had previously been confined, rather than let him go free and he driven once more into sin and shame; but the governor, however willing he might be, had no power to comply with any request of that kind. This was the evil with regard to the convict himself. With regard to the evils inflicted on the country, could it need many words to prove that the results must be most injurious to England herself, if large masses of persons from her penitentiaries and penal establishments were thrown back upon her soil? His own opinions on this subject had derived fresh strength from considering what had passed in France last year. There were now persons in this country, with some of whom he believed the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department was well acquainted, who, watching closely the events which had occurred in France in February, 1848, had stated to him (Lord Mahon) that they deemed one of the foremost causes of the late events in Paris to be the accumulation of convicts from the bagnes at Toulon and Brest. Those men, debarred from honest industry, and resting under a brand, were of course in the van of disaffection in France. The gentlemen to whom he referred had expressed in the strongest terms their conviction that England owed much of her security to the fact that re-

393
leased criminals were not let loose upon the mother country. He was not now adverting to the case of special pardons; but, speaking generally, he thought that nothing could be more dangerous than to suffer prisoners, after the expiration of their term of imprisonment, to return to the sphere of their former crimes. With respect to the comparative advantages of imprisonment at home previous to the transportation, or imprisonment in the colony after the transportation, he admitted that imprisonment at home was under better superintendence; that the country had the benefit of convict labour in the home prisons; and that by keeping convicts at home, until after they had gone through a reformatory process and course of moral discipline, you did not expose them so early or so unprepared to the contaminating influences of the passage out. But there were those features in the question which hardly allowed the House to consider this question of imprisonment whether to be at home or abroad as an abstract proposition. He alluded to the vast accumulation of prisoners in the prisons in England and Ireland, and the evils which resulted from that accumulation. No doubt the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had received many representations on this subject. The hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. H. Herbert) had the other evening made some significant remarks on the subject; and it was only yesterday that a magistrate of Yorkshire, a gentleman distinguished in the commission of the peace, had informed him (Lord Mahon) that some of the gaols in that part of the country were so choked and filled that magistrates were prevented from committing persons to prison who deserved that punishment. He wished the House to recollect that improvement in prison discipline could not under present circumstances be effected; for the moment they filled the gaols beyond what they were capable of accommodating, that moment they were compelled to suspend all their reformatory projects, and they were obliged to revert to the state in which they had been before. On the whole of this question, then—treating this point concerning the English prisons more briefly than he could have wished—he would say that the preliminary punishment must, in the present state of the law, be left to the descretion and judgment of Her Majesty's Government, but that they were bound not to lose sight of the considerations he had mentioned, and
394
that they were also bound to provide by some means or other that accumulations should not take place in prisons in such a manner and to such an extent as should destroy the ends of justice, and neutralise those reformatory plans of discipline which had been so justly approved and applauded throughout the country. He would now come to some practical suggestions connected with this subject. The first that occurred to his mind were those that had been mentioned in several recent publications by Captain Maconochie, who had zealously devoted his time and abilities to the subject of the reformation of convicts. Although Captain Maconochie had brought forward several suggestions of great practical utility and value, and although he had a desire to speak with every possible respect of that gentleman, still he did not think he deserved that unlimited and indiscriminate confidence which he received from many persons who pressed forward his recommendations as of paramount value. Nobody in this House surely could, for instance, concur in the disproportionate importance which Captain Maconochie attached to teaching the convicts music, which Captain Maconochie said he believed to be eminently social, exercising an elevating and ennobling influence over the prisoners, and keeping up a kindly sentiment amongst them. In pursuance of these views, and at the urgent request, as it was stated, of Captain Maconochie, Sir George Gipps, in a despatch which he had sent home in the year 1840, stated that he had been induced to expend double the amount of money which he expended upon books of instruction for the convicts in the purchase of musical instruments for them. Now, he (Lord Mahon) was prepared to find many varieties of opinion as to convict discipline; but he certainly should be surprised if he were to see any single Member of that House stand up and say that he thought it desirable in the management of criminals to spend twice as much on harps and fiddles as on books. Then, as to the suggestions which he himself had to offer, the first related to the colony of North Australia, which had been sanctioned by Lord Stanley, but which was now abandoned, after the expenditure—as appeared from the returns he had moved for last year—of no less a sum than 15,402 l., incurred in its settlement. Now, he would venture to submit for the consideration of the Colonial Office, whether, late though it was, great

395
advantage would not result from resuming Lord Stanley's plan, and from constituting the convicts the pioneers of free emigration in that region. In the petition from Van Diemen's Land, last year, among the grievances enumerated, the abandonment of the project which Lord Stanley had formed, and which Mr. Secretary Gladstone was preparing to carry into effect, constituted one of the grounds of complaint. With regard to New South Wales, when the noble Lord the present Prime Minister abolished the system of transportation there, the colonists of New South Wales petitioned against such a step. This petition was agreed upon at a public meeting, and was presented to this House on the 4th of May, 1840, by the late Mr. Charles Buller, who was certainty no mean authority upon those questions. The petition stated—
"That in the opinion of the petitioners transportation had proved an admirable means of punishment, as well as for the moral reformation of the convicts; and further, that whilst the transportation of prisoners relieved the pressure of competition in the labour market of the mother country, aggravated as it was by the labour of the convicts in the Penitentiary competing with the industry of the poor but honest classes in England, it was at the same time a great advantage to the colony, and added to the demand for labour at home by increased consumption of English manufactures, the raw materials for which were also raised in the colony almost entirely by convict labour."
It was, however, imagined by the Home authorities, that, so far as the New South Wales colonies were concerned, the want of labourers would soon be remedied by free emigration. The report of Mr. Merewether, dated May 14, 1842, stated, that in the year preceding, no less than 19,523 free emigrants had arrived, at the expense to the colony of 327,106; and it appeared that in a subsequent year the number amounted to 23,200. No wonder Lord Stanley, in a despatch dated February 8, 1842, said—
"He was strongly inclined to believe that the supply of labour furnished will have been at least equal to the demand, or, at all events, to such a demand as would realise the fair expectations of the emigrants."
Yet the cry arose, that the supply was insufficient. In a report of the Committee of Immigration at Sydney, dated August 25, 1842, and signed by the Bishop of Australia, as Chairman, it was stated, that—
"During the last twelve months, immigration has been carried on to an unprecedented extent. Nevertheless, those now arrivals, with exceptions
396
too few to affect the main position, have rapidly found engagements, at wages which, though somewhat reduced, are still sufficiently liberal to satisfy any reasonable expectations. But it appears most obvious, that there exists a continued necessity for the introduction of immigrants."
The Committee proceeded to say, they were—
"most strongly persuaded, that unless measures be taken for the resumption of emigration not later than the spring and summer of next year, the want of labour will be felt as injuriously here as ever, and wages will rise to their former exorbitant rate."
At the present time the necessity of more hands for labour is represented on high authority as more urgent than ever. The Rev. Bragley Naylor wrote as follows to the Legislative Council of New South Wales in June, 1847:—
"We want labour for other reasons. The present insufficient supply is tending to produce a total disruption of society. The capitalist and the employer are the insulted drudges of the persons they are, nevertheless, forced at any rate to employ; whilst the exorbitant wages paid lead to idleness and dissipation; and there is no present help for it. A settler must give 30 l. or 36 l. a year for a shepherd, or his flocks will be destroyed. He must make his election between the waste of his wheat, or submit to pay 20 s. an acre for reaping it. I know that magnificent crops have rotted on the ground during the present season for want of timely assistance, or because the owners were unable or unwilling to pay the absurd amount demanded for getting them in."
Now, he (Lord Mahon) would not say, that with regard to the transportation of convicts, the supply of labour which it would afford to the colonies was anything like the first consideration that ought to weigh with a Minister. But he did say, that if the reformation of the convict could be steadily wrought out in the colonies, then the relief of colonies, as regards the supply of labour, although but a subordinate consideration, was still one that ought not to be altogether forgotten. And he thought the documents he had read, showed that the expectation that free emigration would supply the place of convict labour, to the benefit of the colony, had not been realised, and that great distress was suffered in the colony from the want of labour. Under these circumstances. Earl Grey had commenced a negotiation for the restoration of the system to the colony. He (Lord Mahon) entirely approved of that step being attempted, provided it were carried on with a duo regard to the wishes and views of the Council in the colony; but he had this practical suggestion to offer upon this point—that it was of the highest importance, in order to secure the successful

397
termination of that negotiation, that facilities should be afforded, and even, if necessary, a vote should be asked from Parliament, to promote free emigration. This was a point which the Colonial Office should press forward by every means in its power. To return to the pledge, most imprudently given by Earl Grey, that transportation should not be renewed to Van Diemen's Land; what had been the consequence of that step? In the papers last laid on the table, the colonists complained of the breach of faith committed by the Colonial Office, in not keeping its pledge. That there had been a breach of faith was shown from the words of their own officer. It was shown by Sir William Denison's despatch of the 20th of August, 1847. In this despatch Sir William acknowledged the receipt of a despatch of the 5th February, 1847, in which, as he says—
"I was informed, that it is not the intention of the Government that transportation to Van Diemen's Land shall be renewed at the expiration of two years."
In this same despatch, Sir William Denison stated, that before he bad received the despatch of 5th February, 1847, he had sent home suggestions as to the mode of working out a system of transportation, had it been intended to continue it, most advantageously, both for the benefit of the mother country and of the South Australian colonies; but as the Government had now determined that transportation to that colony should cease, of course these suggestions would now fall to the ground. What possible defence could be offered for such a proceeding? Earl Grey had a perfect right to act as he thought best as a Colonial Minister; but he (Lord Mahon) had yet to learn what right a Minister had to give a pledge for a future time, involving a free discretion, which he ought to leave to his successor in office, and which it even appeared in his (Earl Grey's) own opinion it would be a most desirable and important discretion to be possessed by himself. Now, such being the state of things in Van Diemen's Land, he had one practical suggestion to offer with respect to the hasty manner in which the noble Lord now the Prime Minister had put an end to the system of convict assignments, He (Lord Mahon) did not believe that system had stood in need of total abolition so much as it did of reform; and it might be reintroduced with advantage, if it underwent amendment first. He would not express a positive opinion him-
398
self, however, upon that subject; but he would quote the testimony of that excellent and estimable prelate the Bishop of Tasmania, with whom he had had several conferences upon this very subject, during his stay in England, a few years ago. On parting from him, that most estimable prelate summed up his opinion in words which it was impossible to repeat exactly, but of which the substance was—
"As a Christian prelate, my first wish would he, that the flock committed to my charge should be preserved as far as possible from any admixture of crime, or any chance of contamination by those who have been convicted. But if I am to look to transportation, and to the influx of convicts as a settled point, if I am told it is to remain as a part of the imperial policy of England, I should then say, that of all systems for Van Diemen's Land with which I have become acquainted from information or from reflection, the most promising, most effective, and most capable of being worked out, is an improvement of the system of assignment."
Mr. Gibbon Wakefield, in that truly able and valuable work which he had lately published on colonisation, bore a striking testimony in favour of assignment. He said that there were farms in Van Diemen's Land, or, as he rather preferred to call it, Tasmania, the farming of which was not inferior to that of Norfolk and the Lothians. One of these farms he minutely described. He went over the gardens and orchards, the house, and house-buildings, the fences, and the live stock; all, he said, most excellent of their kind.
"On this single establishment (he added) by one master seventy labourers have been employed at the same time. They were nearly all convicts. By convict labour, and that alone, this fine establishment was founded and maintained. Nothing of the sort could have existed in the island if convicts had not been transmitted thither, and assigned upon their landing."
This was Mr. Wakefield's testimony. Now his (Lord Mahon's) practical suggestion with regard to Van Diemen's Land, and also New South Wales, was merely this: If the negotiation respecting the convicts in New South Wales should be successful, to both those colonies conditional orders might be sent empowering the Governors of both, if no objections stood in the way, to make a trial of the system of assignment of convicts. With the conditions and specifications of these orders, he would not now trouble the House, further than to say that the experiment should be carried out first only upon a small scale; and afterwards, should it prove successful, the system might be extended. If, however, the experiment upon a small

399
scale failed, it might, if expedient, again be abolished. He thought these conditional orders would tend to facilitate the negotiations with New South Wales, so far as the admission of convicts was concerned. There might have been other branches of the subject upon which he would have desired to speak—such as the important points of prison discipline, reformatory processes, and the dangerous accumulation of convicts in prison; but he could not longer trespass upon the indulgence and kindness of the House. He would conclude with a Motion for returns, to which, as he understood, no objection would be made. It might be asked why he did not bring forward a specific Motion, calling upon the House to affirm his views upon the matter. His answer was, that, in the first place, he must complain of the obscurity in the printed papers as to what the present intentions of the Government may be; and until those intentions were better developed, as he trusted they would be in the course of the discussion, it did not appear to him advisable to call upon the House to come to a vote upon any particular suggestion of his. He had no desire whatever to give a party tone to the debate; but if at any time he considered the explanations of the Government unsatisfactory, he, for one, would not shrink from the responsibility, so far as submitting any proposition to the House that would give effect to his opinions was concerned. The mistake into which all Colonial Ministers seemed to fall, was in aiming at a perfect system of convict management. Every system of convicts must be fraught with difficulties and objections; of the very best that could be desired, it could only in truth be said, Optimus ille est, qui minimis urgetur. Whilst they continued to have so vast an accumulation of criminals to deal with, it was impossible but that there should exist much evil to repress, and much suffering to endure. Still, in almost every neighbouring country, improvement was manifesting itself. France, which had so lately tolerated the semi-barbarous penal systems at Toulon and Brest, was now gladly supporting the enlightened reformatory establishment of Mettray. Let them hope that the work of improvement would steadily advance in our own country and elsewhere; but believing, as he did, that in this case, as in almost every other, the best security for continued improvement was to be found in the vigilant superin-
400
tendence and control of Parliament, he should continue, so long as he had a seat in that House, to give his most earnest attention to this important question. And he would indulge the hope that, if even his suggestions should be nothing worth, they would yet, by the attention they would call to the subject, be the means of drawing from others suggestions—he would not say bettor intended—but more judiciously formed than his own. He would conclude by moving—
"An Address for Copies or Extracts of any Communications received by the Secretary of State from the Governors of Ceylon and the Cape, respecting the Transportation of Convicts to those Colonies."
MR. H. A. HERBERTseconded the Motion. He would confine himself to the state of the Irish prisons, and begged the attention of the House and the Government to the subject. They had been accustomed to bear of violence, famine, and disease from Ireland, but he wished to direct their notice to the condition of the Irish gaols. It appeared, from the report of the Inspector General of Prisons in Ireland, that in 1847 there were 12,883 persons crowded into gaols designed to contain no more than 5,655. He regretted to say that of late years there had been, in that country, an increase of crime as well as of distress. In 1845, the number of convictions in Ireland was 7,105; of committals, 16,696. In 1846, convictions, 8,693; commitments, 18,492. In 1847, convictions, 15,233; committals, 31,209. So that between 1845 and 1847, the commitments and convictions had nearly doubled. But there was still a more awful part of the subject. The deaths in gaols were truly frightful. In 1835, they were only 81; in 1836, they were 132; but in 1847, they reached the alarming amount of 1,315. It might be said, perhaps, that those deaths had arisen from the want of due care and attention on the part of those officers who were bound to look after these matters; but it was not so, as would appear from the following extract of the report of the Inspector General of Prisons in Ireland, which he would read to the House:—
"No task can well be more discouraging and, indeed, melancholy than that of attempting to detail the history of the Irish prisons for the year 1847. Years of untiring assiduity had overcome many of the evils under which they formerly laboured. Our predecessors as inspectors, and the various boards of superintendence, local inspectors, and governors had, under circumstances of great difficulty, brought the country gaols, as a general rule, to a state of which any country

401
might be proud; and we had looked forward to the comparatively easy task of eradicating the few real blots which existed in their discipline and order, and exciting the very few boards and grand juries who had not earnestly commenced the work of improvement, to imitate the example shown them by the great majority, when the terrible catastrophe, which has disorganised the whole framework of society in Ireland, fell, with its full force, upon the establishments under our charge; and, instead of having a pleasing statement of improved discipline, enlarged prison accommodation, and advanced instruction, we can only describe industrial works given up, classification destroyed, separation unattempted, and disease and death increasing to a degree that could never have been contemplated by those acquainted with the usual orderly and healthy state of our gaols. The accumulated misfortunes and evil coincidences of the last year have been such as to produce a state of things for which, although the inspectors general, in a great measure, foresaw their results, it was utterly impossible for them to adopt any effective preventive measures, and their utmost efforts have merely tended to produce a palliative effect."
He would also mention the case of Kerry gaol, built to accommodate 86 persons, but which now contained no less than 582 prisoners, being six times the number it was designed to hold. Amongst that number were 15 male and 16 female lunatics. Could anything be more shocking than the idea of the sane, the insane, the guilty, the innocent, the debtor, and the convict under sentence of transportation, being all huddled up in the same cells? The evil had been much aggravated by the circumstance that persons who had been sentenced to transportation were not removed when sentenced: 36 were there now under sentence of transportation, and 15 of them were sentenced more than six months ago. The inspectors had suggested a remedy, but it had not been attended to. They said in their report—
"To provide for this latter body (convicts), we see no other mode practicable, at the present moment, except by procuring hulks, to be stationed either in Kingston or Cork harbour, or making arrangements for sending still greater numbers abroad, should it be found possible to resume the system of transportation. We may further observe that the prisons at this moment most crowded, are, by a singular chance, almost all seaport towns—namely, Cork, Tralee, Galway, and Castlebar; and it might be worth the consideration of Government, whether they should not supply, or empower boards of superintendence to hire, tonnage in the various harbours, for the purpose of confining prisoners, as a temporary measure for meeting the present emergency. Such a scheme as this, of course, could only be contemplated under the extreme circumstances of misery, distress, and disease at present existing in those prisons. For the gaols more inland, such as Roscommon, Carrick-on-Shannon, Armagh, Omagh, &c., we feel that there exist no remedies except
402
those indicated above—namely, firstly, if possible, refraining from committing vagrants and beggars, and discharging those already committed for slight offences and short periods; secondly, directing a different course to be pursued with regard to the workhouse offences, or giving powers to magistrates to punish such in the workhouses themselves; thirdly, modifying the dietary of prisons to meet the case of juvenile offenders; and, fourthly, at once adopting some plan for clearing the prisons of the pauper debtors. We are aware that all these measures are in themselves more or less objectionable; but we feel that unless some effectual course be adopted, the prison system in Ireland will, we may say, break up, in consequence of the enormous crowd of prisoners, and the impossibility of levying or otherwise procuring funds to meet the increased expenditure; besides which, numbers of lives must inevitably fall a sacrifice to the continuance of the present state of affairs."
He would not quote more than one other extract, which was from the same report:—
"In fact, we have little doubt, that had matters progressed, as we had every reason to hope they would, that the very greatest benefits, both to the criminal population and the rest of the community, would have resulted from the very general effort which was making in almost all the prisons to improve their discipline, introduce a system of constant employment, and gradually to carry out the principle of separate confinement. It is lamentable to reflect that this prospect is entirely overcast, and that it is impossible to say, in the present melancholy state of things, resulting from the distress of the lower orders, and the financial difficulties of the different counties, when it will be practicable to resume the onward course from which we expected so much advantage. At the present moment, we grieve to say, that the efforts of the boards of superintendence and the inspector general will avail little, except to palliate in a degree the almost inevitable evils with which they have had, and for some time must have, to contend."
The hon. Gentleman concluded by calling on the Government to lose no time in remedying this frightful state of things; and doing so without imposing any burden upon the county rates, for they were unable to bear more than they at present endured.
SIR G. GREYsaid, there could be no objection to the Motion of the noble Viscount the Member for Hertford. He had understood the noble Lord to have stated on the previous day, in reply to a question he had put to him, that it was not his intention to ask for any opinion from that House on the subject which he had brought under their consideration, and that his principal object was to elicit from him (Sir G. Grey) a statement of the means at present adopted by the Government for carrying into effect the sentence of transportation. He thanked the noble Lord for giving him the opportunity of making such a state-

403
ment, because he agreed with him that it was very desirable that Parliament should have a full and accurate knowledge of the course pursued with reference to this subject. He should, however, first say a few words with respect to the charge of inconsistency which the noble Lord had brought against the Government in regard to the measures they had adopted. He entirely agreed with the noble Lord in his observations as to the difficulties which surrounded the question, and as to the cause of the failure which was to be attributed to every successive Government in its attempts to deal with those difficulties. He believed that failure was owing to the fact that successive Governments had attempted more than it was possible to accomplish when they aimed at a perfect system; for experience showed that all that could be done in the matter was to carry into effect the sentence of transportation, or any other secondary punishment, not in a way which would be free from objection, but in the way which would be least liable to objection, and which would attain as far as possible the two great objects of deterring criminals from crime, and of reforming convicted offenders. Now, he should observe that any charge which the noble Lord could bring forward against his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office for the course that had been pursued on that subject, would press equally on him (Sir G. Grey), for he shared the responsibility of every stop that had been taken in the matter. He confessed, however, that he did not feel particularly desirous of exonerating himself from that charge of inconsistency which had been preferred by the noble Lord. He believed that, in carrying out the details of such a system as that of transportation, consistency would have been a fault rather than a merit. Surely a Minister ought not undeviatingly to conform to certain rules or principles, in opposition to the convictions forced on his mind by experience, by additional information, or by the valuable suggestions he might receive from persons whose opinions were entitled to weight and consideration. Two years ago he had travelled over much of the ground which the noble Lord had gone over that evening; and he would not, therefore, at that moment enter at any length into subjects on which he had at that former period fully expressed his opinions. He had stated on that occasion that the system adopted was a testative system. The Government had laid down
404
certain rules, which would require great care, vigilance, and circumspection in carrying them into effect; but they were ready to modify those rules as experience might prove to them was advisable. It appeared to him that the noble Lord had hardly done justice to one part of the case—he meant the position in which that question had stood when the present Government had been called upon to deal with it. The frightful and appalling evils which had resulted from the system in operation in Van Diemen's Land had forced themselves on the attention of the prceding Government; and when the present Ministers had succeeded to office they had found it necessary to devise some new means of carrying out the punishment of criminals sentenced to transportation, the great objections to which the system previously adopted had been liable having rendered a change indispensable. The noble Lord would remember the letter which had been written in the month of May, 1846, by direction of the right hen. Gentleman who was then Secretary for the Colonies (Mr. Gladstone) to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham). In that letter the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out very forcibly the great evils arising from the presence of gangs of hardened and desperate criminals in Van Diemen's Land. He stated, that there had been for a length of time unanimous accordance in the unofficial accounts which had reached his departmant. He said—
"They have described the system as lifeless and inert for the purposes of good, the redundance of moral evil as overflowing upon the colony at large, in increase of crime, and sensibly affecting the general security; the probation parties, intended to be the scone of reformatory influences, as nothing else than schools of advanced depravity, in which the only effective instruction to be acquired, was instruction in the way of effacing every remaining trace of virtuous sentiment or habit."
He added, that—
"While much exaggeration may possibly prevail, yet certainly such a state of things subsists among the convict population of Van Diemen's Land, and particularly in the probation parties which form the basis of the whole system, as to make it the imperative duty of Her Majesty's Government to use immediate and vigorous efforts for its effectual reform."
The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had felt that it was absolutely necessary to arrest the stream of transportation to Van Diemen's Land, and to adopt some vigorous measures to alter the system

405
based on the "probation gangs;" and in the opinion entertained by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, he (Sir G. Grey) entirely concurred. From the position which he occupied, he was bound to give the most careful consideration to the subject. He would not enter into the details contained in papers laid before Parliament of the evils arising from that system. He should merely observe that those accounts were of the most appalling character, and that they were sufficient to convince any one that we should be committing, he would not say merely a fault, but a crime of the greatest magnitude, if we were to perpetuate a system which was productive of such great moral and social evils. Under these circumstances he at once pleaded guilty to the charge of having expressed himself in terms perhaps rather too strong and unguarded against the resumption of transportation—meaning, however, transportation as it was then carried on. The main feature of the scheme proposed by the Government in 1847, and which they had since steadily acted on with some modifications, was, that the strictly penal part of the system—that portion which consisted of the personal restraint of the convicts and their forced labour prior to the period when, under the regulations then existing in the colony of Van Diemen's Land, they would have become entitled to tickets of leave—should be passed, not in a distant colony, where it could only he passed subject to the evil of congregating together large masses of hardened criminals, who had gone through no process which could possibly be reformatory, and who were thus rendered only more incorrigible, but that it should be passed cither in this country or within reach of this country, where a vigilant moral superintendence could be exercised over them. The plan they had proposed was to divide the sentence into three portions, in the cases of ordinary convicts—subject, of course, to exceptional cases: the first portion to be passed in this country in separate imprisonment—not the silent system—the maximum duration to be eighteen months, but ranging from six to twelve mouths. It had been stated by Mr. Latrobe, who had been acting Governor of Van Diemen's Land, that it was impossible to exercise in that colony the vigilant superintendence which would be indispensable for the proper working of the system of "probation gangs." It appeared that officers in whom confi-
406
dence could be placed could not be got to superintend the gangs, and that convicts had to be placed over convicts. The consequence was that the system had necessarily failed, and that it was impossible so to administer it that it would be free from the most serious objections. With respect to the system of separate confinement, he wished to take that opportunity of observing that a most erroneous impression prevailed that the Government had come to the conclusion that that system had failed, and that they were at present destroying the separate cells. Now nothing could be more mistaken than that impression. Each succeeding year had added to his conviction that that system, subject to great vigilance in the administration of it, was the most valuable one that could be adopted both for the punishment and the reformation of offenders; and he had come to that opinion not merely from his own observation, but also from the information which had been afforded to him by gentlemen practically conversant with the system—he did not mean Government officers, but visiting justices and chaplains of gaols. The Pentonville Commissioners, stated in their 5th Report, that—
"The result of our entire experience is the conclusion that the separation of one prisoner from another is the only sound basis on which a reformatory discipline can he established with any reasonable hope of success. In carrying out any system of separate confinement, we are of opinion that it is quite indispensable to secure a constant and vigilant medical superintendence, and those mitigations of absolute solitude, which we believe to have operated so beneficially for the bodily and mental health of the prisoners at Pentonville. We mean chiefly a regular and frequent visitation by the superior officers; moral and religious instruction judiciously imparted; employment that will interest the mind as well as occupy the time of the prisoners; and regular exercise out of doors. If these precautions be duly attended to, we have no doubt that great public advantage would result from the general application of this modified system of separate confinement. For whilst we believe that it is open to no objections which are not applicable to every other mode of imprisonment for long periods, we are confident that it affords moral advantages which no other can secure."
Many other gentlemen of great knowledge and experience had taken the same view of the subject, and were impressed with the belief that a modified system of separate confinement was a most valuable one, and possessed most important advantages over every other. He wished to call the attention of the House to an extract from a pamphlet lately published, entitled. The Precise Present Character of Transpor-

407
tation, as that extract expresses an opinion upon this subject with which he entirely concurred. That pamphlet, he should promise, was published anonymously, but he had reason to conclude from internal evidence that it was the production of a chaplain in one of the prisons in which the separate system was adopted. The writer said—
"This sort of confinement has of late years been extravagantly commended by some, and as loudly reprobated by others. The truth seems to lie between the two extreme opinions. We are led, by our own observation, to value it but little as an active agency for reforming criminals, but to allow it a high place as auxiliary, in general, to that which is reformatory in the highest degree—Christian instruction in the hands of Christian men. The separate system is free, certainly, from many things which impede the reformation of criminals; from the perpetual distrust and perpetual punishment which are necessary to enforce silence in association; and from the grosser vices of the older style of persons, mutual contamination and hardening in villany. It allows a return to feelings of self-respect. It removes all possibility of combination for evil purposes, and prevents the exertion of that fascinating influence which the practised villain exerts so destructively over the novice in crime. It protects the penitent in his first desires and efforts to return to God. It is something, also, as regards others less hopeful, even for a time, effectually to break the chain of their evil habits, and to compel the mind, however reluctant, to turn inwards and reflect, until the dormant powers of conscience be aroused. Beyond this it does not seem to go in producing amendment; and we are persuaded, that if the benign and saving influence of our Divine religion were withdrawn from a prison on the separate plan, not a single inmate would ever leave its walls a whit more reformed than from any other. If it be thought, from what has been written of late years on the subject, that a greater efficacy should be attributed to separate confinement, let it be borne in mind, that contemporaneously with its adoption in any prison, there has been very much greater care taken than ever used to be in the selection of officers to superintend the discipline, and to convey moral and religious instruction to the prisoners."
So much as to the reformatory effect. In a subsequent passage, he says, with reference to its deterring effect—
"But, whatever may be thought of the influence of separate confinement as a means of reformation, there should be no doubt about its utility as a punishment, if not carried to an extreme. It is a most severe one, certainly; but this is not without great advantages, even in an economical point of view, for, in proportion as it is severer, the sentence may be abridged, and its heaviest pressure is upon those who deserve it most. Criminals, of all men, can least boar to be alone. A thoroughly bad man, by himself, is the greatest coward, and, without his accustomed stimulants, the most wretched of beings; we have no hesitation, therefore, in stating, that such a man would prefer even the scanty food, the vermin, and the
408
sloth of such a place as Newgate, where he might gamble for his supper, learn new tricks, or instruct the novice, sing, play, and quarrel by turns in the night-room, than the very best treatment and the most abundant diet of a prison on the new plan. The reformatory character of such a gaol is, to such persons, an object of real terror."
The only other passage he would cite from this pamphlet was the following, as it referred to the opinion formed by the Committee of the House of Lords which took much evidence on the question:—
"The decision of Lord Brougham's Committee on the point, it is important to observe, is, 'that the separate system seems exactly to supply what was needed in gaol discipline, but should be administered with great care.' "
He (Sir G. Grey) was strongly impressed with the advantages of the separate system; but he wished to add, that its principal value must depend on the moral and religious instruction of the prisoners, and on the zeal and character of the officers employed in carrying it into effect. A picture had been drawn of these places of imprisonment both in the newspapers and at public meetings, which represented them as warmed by artificial means, and supplied with every comfort; and, in short, as most attractive places, which could only serve to hold out inducements to the commission of crime. He utterly disbelieved the truth of such statements. His own experience, and the numerous applications for a remission of sentence by those undergoing the punishment of solitary confinement, convinced him that no more effectual punishment could be inflicted. He was, however, inclined to think that twelve months was generally as long as it could be usefully and properly continued. He would not venture to predict that perfect success would attend the best attempts which could be made for the reformation of criminals; but the experience which they had had of the efforts already made led to the inference that a great change had been effected; and the result, on the whole, was extremely satisfactory. He knew that the hon. Member for Montrose, and some others, considered any attempt at the reformation of criminals was hopeless. The experience of the colonies led to the inference that a great moral change had been made in a very large number, and the result was, on the whole, satisfactory, subject of course to some exceptions. The Pentonville Commissioners, after referring; to various reports on the conduct of men who had passed through that prison, said—
"We conclude these general observations by a

409
remark suggested by the joint consideration of the favourable and unfavourable circumstances in those reports. These appear to us to demonstrate that, whilst the discipline and instruction at Pentonville have not in all cases prevented the exiles from relapsing into crime when exposed to severe trials and demoralising associations, by far the greater part of them have become useful and valuable servants, superior, as we are told, to the average of free emigrants. We regard this view of the subject as highly encouraging, for it seems to prove that, if this system were generally introduced, a large proportion of our convicts would be qualified, on their discharge, to occupy an honest position in their own, or any other, country; and, if so, we believe that, under ordinary circumstances, there would seldom be wanting motives of self-interest and benevolence to afford them that employment which would enable them to become useful and exemplary members of society."
The number of cells at the disposal of the Government, for the purpose of carrying out the system, including Pentonville, Wakefield, and other prisons, was nearly 1,200, exclusive of about 800 in Millbank; and as, in his opinion, the period of separate imprisonment was capable of abridgment, this accommodation might be made available for a larger number. The next stage of the punishment was that of penal labour employed on public works. On that subject he did not understand the noble Lord as expressing any decided opinion as to whether this should be carried on here or in the colonies. He seemed to think there were advantages on both sides, but on which side the balance of advantage lay he expressed no opinion. For his (Sir G. Grey's) own part, for the reasons which he had before stated, he thought it of great advantage that this second stage of punishment should be passed, not at such a distance from this country as Van Diemen's Land or New South Wales, but at home, or at places such as Gibraltar or Bermuda, which were within a reasonable distance, where the regulations laid down by the Government would be strictly enforced by men of a stamp and character different from those who could be found willing to undertake these duties in the Australian colonies. With respect to the hulks, he did not know that he differed very widely in opinion from the noble Lord, for he believed that of all prisons a floating prison was one of the worst; the means of classification and separation there were most imperfect; and it was to be regarded as a temporary expedient, gradually giving way, he hoped, to better places of confinement on shore. A new establishment had been recently formed at Portland, which would not be subject to the objections attaching
410
to the hulks. The credit of this was chiefly due to Colonel Jebb, under whose directions it had been formed. He did not mean to say that the establishment there was altogether free from objection; but the arrangements made there, by providing sleeping apartments completely separate, and using means to stimulate industry and promote good conduct, were such that, without being over sanguine, he thought that more grounds for hope existed with regard to that establishment than in the case of former places of confinement for similar purposes. At Bermuda arrangements of a similar character were in progress, a prison being in course of construction on land; and he believed the discipline at Gibraltar was greatly improved with the assistance of the excellent chaplain at that station. From all that he could learn, nothing could be more striking than the contrast in the effects produced by the arrangements in these several establishments, and the results of the probation gangs in Van Diemen's Land, where the worst characters were crowded together without any means of separation. The noble Lord had asked on a former occasion what period was assigned to the second stage? The rule which existed in Van Diemen's Land, when the whole period of punishment was passed there, was, that a convict should be entitled to receive his ticket of leave at the expiration of half his sentence. The same rule had been adopted at Portland, Bermuda, and Gibraltar, subject to this modification, that the present system addressed itself to other motives than those of mere fear, and adopted other means beside those of mere coercion. It was proposed to enable convicts, by their good conduct, to reduce within certain limits the term of years during which they must be employed in the second stage of punishment; and in the same way it was proposed, to extend the term in cases of misconduct. A scale had been drawn up recently with this view, which would be placed in each of the separate cells, so that the prisoners might know the prospects which awaited them. The noble Lord had referred to the value of penal labour in various places. In Bermuda and Gibraltar the works on which the convicts were employed were of national importance, and the Governor of Bermuda estimated the value of the labour of ablebodied convicts at 30 l. a year, while the cost of their maintenance did not exceed 20 l. a year, leaving a clear gain of

411
10 l. He could only add, on this part of the subject, that inconvenience having resulted from different authorities having the superintendence of different penal establishments, arrangements had now been made by which all convicts undergoing punishment in this country should be placed under one general controlling authority subject to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, by which greater uniformity might be secured, and he hoped also a reduction of expense effectual. He came now to the third stage of punishment, which consisted of the removal of prisoners from this country with tickets of leave to some of the distant colonies, with a prospect of a conditional pardon in case the governors of the colony should recommend them to the Home Government for this purpose. The noble Lord laid great stress on the sentence really being carried into effect by the actual removal of the prisoners. The system adopted by the Government secured that object, with reference to the great body of convicts, far more effectually than it had ever been secured before. At one period, convicts sentenced to seven years' transportation were never removed from the country, but were sent to the hulks; and in the case of all convicts sent to the hulks previously to 1847 he found an understanding had grown up that, after serving half their time in the hulks, they were to be liberated, or, in the case of Bermuda and Gibraltar, sent home at the public expense, with money in their pockets to begin life again in this country. This had now been put an end to. There appeared to be some misapprehension as to the effect of tickets of leave, as compared with a conditional pardon. The holder of a conditional pardon was to all intents and purposes a free man, except that he could not return to the country from which he had been transported, though if one colony offered a better reward for his labour than another, he was at liberty to go there. The ticket-of-leave man, on the other hand, continued a convict; he could not quit the colony, but must be prepared to show himself to the magistrates at any time which might be appointed. He was also expected to repay a certain sum to the Government towards the cost of his introduction into the colony. The object of the Government was to establish a system which—although, perhaps, it might fall short of their original hopes and intentions—yet would afford the means of car-
412
rying into effect sentences of transportation by actual removal to a colony, which was in itself a severe punishment, involving, as it did, the prisoner's separation from his friends and connexions, while it avoided the evils incident to congregating them in large masses, and afforded the means of dispersing them over distant districts where they might maintain themselves by honest industry. The success of this part of the system depended on the facilities afforded for dispersion; and the measures of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department were intended to prevent too great an influx of convicts at this stage of their punishment into any one place. In the last papers presented to the House, the information given by Sir W. Denison, with regard to the state of the labour market in Van Diemen's Land, afforded reason to hope that ample means existed in the colony for convicts of this class finding occupation immediately on their removal, and becoming useful. The noble Lord had passed some severe strictures on his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies in reference to Norfolk Island. He could not find any evidence in the papers before Parliament that his noble Friend had ever directed that the number of convicts in Norfolk Island should be increased. Since he had directed that it should be given up, the number of convicts had been reduced from 1,200 to 500; and Lord Grey had assented to the suggestion of Sir W. Denison that Norfolk Island should be maintained as a convict establishment for those who were guilty of a second offence in the colonies. He thought it, however, necessary to leave much to the discretion of Sir W. Denison, whose opinion was justly entitled to much weight, and under whose government a most important change had taken place. With regard to female convicts, it was thought better that they should undergo a short period of probation in this country, and that they should then at once go to Van Diemen's Land, the probationary establishment for female convicts in the colony not having answered its purpose. The failure of that establishment, however, was not to be attributed to any want of care or qualification on the part either of Dr. Bowden or of his widow. The noble Lord had complained of the crowded state of the prisons at home in consequence of the diminution in the number of convicts sent abroad. He was aware that some inconvenience had arisen from this cause—

413
but increased accommodation would be provided at Portland in a few weeks; and he trusted that in a very short time, a removal would take place that would enable him to relieve the gaols from the temporary pressure which at present existed. With regard to the Irish gaols, he admitted that the case was wholly different. He believed the hon. Member for Kerry had not overstated their condition. But that condition did not arise from the suppression of transportation, or the diminution of the number of convicts usually sent from Ireland. A great many additional offences had been committed arising from the peculiar state of the country—from the failures of the potato crop, and the consequent distress that had driven the people to crime. There had, therefore, been a great—indeed, an enormous—increase, in the number of convictions and the number of sentences of transportation; and no doubt that had led to very considerable embarrassment from the overcrowding of the prisons. The attention of the Lord Lieutenant had been much directed to this subject, and he had endeavoured to adopt every practicable measure for relieving that pressure. The means, however, were not in the hands of the Government, of affording complete relief, as the great mass of prisoners were those not under sentence of transportation, and for whom the counties were bound to provide sufficient prison room. Previously to 1846 the average annual number of persons sentenced in Ireland to transportation was about 600. But in 1847 and 1848 the number was nearly bordering upon 2,000. So that, in addition to their other difficulties with regard to Ireland, they had that enormous increase of prisoners. He would state, however, that means were being taken to increase the accommodation at the depôt at Spike Island, which would eventually hold about 1,400; besides which, arrangements had been made in other depôts, which would enable them to find room for between 500 and 600 more. With regard to the actual removal of Irish convicts from the country, the House was aware that an Act had been recently passed to authorise their being sent to Bermuda and Gibraltar; and the number of Irish convicts sent abroad in the last year was not less than 859, being between 300 and 400 more than the usual average number of the previous six or seven years. The noble Lord would see, therefore, that it was not owing to the suspension of transportation
414
that the difficulty had arisen, but to the unprecedented number of prisoners under sentence. He might add, that even with regard to some of those convicts who had been sent to Bermuda, the Governor had written to say that they were unfit to be retained there, many of them being mere youths, unable to perform the work usually required of convicts, and of a class which ought not to be associated with the ordinary description of convicts. Now, without impugning the motives of the courts before whom these persons were tried, he feared that the sentence of transportation was resorted to in some cases where it might have been avoided, and thus difficulties and responsibilities were thrown upon the Government which they were wholly unable to meet. The hon. Member for Kerry had stated that the prison of that county contained accommodation for only eighty-six prisoners; that, he confessed, had convinced him of the truth of what he had beard that the accommodation provided was greatly insufficient even for the ordinary number of prisoners. He could only say that any assistance the Government could give to remedy that deficiency of accommodation, without calling upon Parliament for funds, which the counties were bound to provide, they would be most ready to give. The number of prisoners sentenced to transportation in Ireland at the last quarter-sessions, amounted to 596, being equal to the whole annual average for several years prior to 1846; and if that number continued to increase, it would be impossible for the Government to hold out any hope that they would be able to find either colonies or depôts in which to place them. He came now to the exceptional cases, which were men advanced in life, or in a state of health which rendered them unable to undergo the physical toil imposed upon them in the penal settlements. Upon that subject Sir W. Denison, in one of the despatches before Parliament, had pointed out the evils of sending persons utterly unable to maintain themselves by labour in the colony owing to age or infirmity. In the instructions given to the surgeons of convict ships, they were required to object to receive on board prisoners who were unable to bear the voyage to Australia, or to maintain themselves after their arrival. The sentences of such persons must be commuted to various terms of imprisonment. He would now very shortly allude to the recommendations of the noble Lord; and he confessed

415
that he had been in hopes that some valuable suggestions would have been thrown out by him, which he need not say the Government would have been most happy to receive; but he regretted to say that he had been disappointed. The noble Lord had made these suggestions. First, that we should recur to the proposed penal settlement of North Australia, which had been abandoned after a sum of 15,000 l. had been expended on it. He doubted whether the noble Lord had read the papers that had been published with regard to that settlement, which showed the impolicy of adopting any such course. The result of such a step would have been to create a colony exclusively of criminals, with scarcely any hopes of future amelioration or improvement. Exiles from Pentonville prison were first to be sent there. The success of the system which had been formerly adopted of sending exiles from Pentonville depended on their immediate dispersion, by which means they would be blended with the population generally, and thus be ultimately lost as a distinct class. Now the plan of North Australia was, that it should be peopled by exiles and emancipists from Van Diemen's Land; who were to be induced to keep together by grants of land being given to them. All he could say was, that he saw nothing but doubt and hesitation in the despatches of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) upon the subject of this colony; and subsequent consideration had only convinced him that the prosecution of that scheme of colonisation would have involved enormous expense, and that the evils of an unmixed criminal population to be produced by it would be equal to any that existed under the previous system. The noble Lord's second suggestion was the resumption of transportation to New South Wales, and that a number of free emigrants should be sent there. This suggestion had already been acted on, and it had been stipulated that the convicts sent with tickets of leave should be required to repay from their labour a portion of the cost of their passage, to be applied in free emigration. The third suggestion of the noble Lord appeared to have been given with considerable hesitation—it was, not that the system of assignment should be resumed, but that there should be a discretionary power vested in the Governor to assign a certain number of convicts to certain settlers. He feared that that would occasion the revival of the interminable complaints
416
and remonstrances of partiality and favouritism that formerly existed; and he did not think that it possessed any advantage over the ticket-of-leave system which would compensate for its inconveniences. Assignment was in fact a system of slavery which was incompatible with free labour in the colony. In conclusion, he wished to state that he thought transportation was a valuable and important punishment. There wore, he thought, great advantages derived from maintaining that punishment; and he trusted that it would be possible, subject to the modifications which had been recently introduced, to maintain it effectively. They were bound, however, to keep in view, not only the interests of this country, but also that of the colonies; and the object of the Government had been to combine both. This, however, could not be done if the punishment was indiscriminately inflicted, nor unless the numbers transported were limited. He thanked the noble Lord for bringing the question before the House, as he felt the importance of full information being afforded with regard to it. At the same time he could not but feel that the very discussion of the question might raise unfounded apprehensions in the colonies, and create additional embarrassment, and he was anxious that the system should be judged of rather by its results than by anticipation. Above all, he thought it would be advisable to leave to the Government a large discretion in carrying out the details of the system.
VISCOUNT MAHON, in explanation, said he referred to a recommendation of Viscount Howick, when Secretary at War, respecting Norfolk Island, and not to any recent despatches.
MR. HUMEsaid, much that had fallen from the right hen. Home Secretary, would have been better understood by the House and the public if the rule existed of bringing before the House a detail of the measures that had been adopted during the last year. Many statements had been made by the right hon. Baronet which were perfectly new. The right hon. Baronet had read extracts from a great many papers and documents, but it was impossible for any one to carry them all in his mind. [Sir G. GREY: I did not read a single despatch that has not been already laid before the House.] He was not aware of it. Two things had come out in the course of the discussion—namely, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs had made very hasty and

417
very rash alterations in the system of transportation, and after inflicting immense evils on the colonies and this country he had thought fit to modify and reconstruct the system. He (Mr. Hume) differed from the right hon. Baronet in believing that they would effect the reformation which it was said they would by this system. They had established a model prison at Pentonville, at an enormous expense, and they sent there the selected and most healthy convicts, who cost the country throe times the expense of those of any other prison. He thought sufficient time had elapsed for them to decide whether the separate or silent system should be adopted. He did not think the Government were paying due attention to the interests of the country. They were keeping at home vast numbers of those prisoners, who ought to be removed as speedily as possible. He complained of the frivolous labour of mat-making, and other trifling matters, at which the prisoners were kept employed. He had lately visited the prison at Westminster, and had been assured by the governor, who had been in his situation twelve years, that he had never known a reformed convict, and that he would go forty miles to see one who had been reformed. He believed the best course to take would be, to appoint some minister of justice to superintend the convict system, and to see that the errors which the right hon. Baronet pointed out were avoided. The right hon. Baronet considered that the system of tickets of leave, under certain circumstances, had been attended with good results. The right hon. Baronet, however, seemed not to be aware that all the towns in the colonies were now so crowded with that class of people as to create a common nuisance to the society which they came in contact. The plan of assignment appeared to him to obviate all the inconveniences complained of. It was true they were told that this plan was a species of slavery. Well, then, so it ought to be. It was, after all, but a mawkish kind of humanity to say that a person, however serious his crime might be, should not be coerced to labour. He thought that the punishment of transportation should never have been discontinued. It ought rather to have been extended. He would not, however, advocate the system of sending individuals out to the colonies beyond the number, or of a different description, than what the colonists themselves indicated. He objected to the discretionary power which had been formerly
418
given to governors, in consequence of which many criminals of a deep dye were permitted to pass with a very slight punishment. He hoped that as few individuals as possible who were sentenced to transportation would be allowed to remain long in this country. He had no objection that some convicts should be employed in public works in the Isle of Portland, or at Bermuda, or elsewhere; but, looking at the state of our prisons, he did not think that the present system of confining so many here at home was the best course, as not one in twenty of those confined, could, if liberated to-morrow, find employment; the consequence being, that, when lot out of prison, they returned to their old practices again. He had no confidence in the reformatory system that had been adopted. If it were good to carry it through in one case, it should be carried through in all. He gave the right hon. Baronet credit for a sincere desire to improve the system; but be thought he took too sanguine a view of the separate system. The right hon. Baronet had taken no notice of the heavy expense incurred by the repeated trials of the same parties, under the idea that a reformation would take place. He believed that all that was requisite in this country might be obtained by the silent system. No convicts under sentence of transportation ought to be kept here except the aged, and those who were incapable of being removed. He thought that they must return to the old sytem of assignment, which was a much better way of disposing of their convicts than that of keeping them here at an enormous and ruinous expense to the country.
SIR J. PAKINGTONthought it had been the feeling of the House and of the country for some time past, that the state of this question was most unsatisfactory, and he therefore thanked the noble Lord for calling attention to it. In a debate which took place two years ago, he had himself expressed an opinion to the effect that, provided there was sufficient gaol accommodation, it might be desirable that the earlier period of the convict's punishment should be passed in this country. But the change was made prematurely, and he was afraid that without increased prison room most serious evils would arise. Whatever course the Government might think proper to pursue hereafter, with regard to it, he hoped that it would be such as to relieve the overcrowded gaols of this country. The magistrates of Yorkshire felt

419
the greatest difficulty in dealing with the criminals brought before them, because the present state of the prisons almost debarred the possibility of making further committals. The right hon. Baronet might, perhaps, recollect, that he (Sir J. Pakington) had, but a short time ago, been obliged to write to the Home Office on the crowded state of the prisons in the county where he was a magistrate. He was afraid that, unless the Government increased the prison accommodation of the country, in proportion to the increase of crime and of the population, they would find that serious inconvenience would be the consequence. He stated that he saw by the papers laid before Parliament, that the convicts on arriving at the colonies were readily engaged, some as shepherds and some as general servants, some at wages to the amount of 5s. 6d. a day, and also 1l. 16 s. a week, and that the general servants received from 15 l. to 25 l. a year. The same papers also reported favourably of the conduct of those thus engaged, which, except in some few instances, had been remarkably good. He wished to know whether or not it was the intention of the Government to carry out in those gaols the system adopted in the colonies. Mr. Naylor had observed that it was a fundamental error of all former systems, that no adequate motive for caution was supplied to the prisoners; and he went on to say that, as a remedy for this evil, he proposed that the period of punishment should be gradually reduced in proportion to their own industry and good conduct; adding, that from the moment that that was done, the convict would become the arbiter of his own fate. It would be advantageous also to know whether it was the intention of the Government, in the matter of prison discipline, to adopt the general principle of the system recommended by Captain Maconochie. After much attention to the subject, he had arrived at the opinion that the separate system, of all others, was the best. But, again, when they recollected the vast variety of constitutions and temperaments which were exposed to its influence, they would agree with him that it ought to be regarded with the greatest jealousy and caution. If the Government could engraft on that system the advantageous features of other systems—if they could add to it the incitement to exertion and the advantages of industry—he felt that they would confer a great benefit on the convicts themselves, and the country generally.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was anxious to say a few words on the subject before the House, and chiefly on the portion of it in regard to which justice had scarcely been done to many distinguished persons who were in office at the time; he meant the probation system which was pursued in Van Diemen's Land with the convicts carried from this country in the year 1846. He believed it was entered upon by the noble Lord now at the head of Her Majesty's Government; that it was developed by his noble Friend Lord Stanley; and when he (Mr. Gladstone) afterwards took the Colonial Office, he began to check that system, and to impress his Colleagues in office with a growing suspicion of it, after it had existed for eighteen months or two years. It was unfortunately true that that system had been productive of the greatest horrors and iniquities. But it was only fair justice to those who adopted that system, and also to those who developed and applied it, to state that those horrors and iniquities were not to be charged on the main principles of the system itself. The House would agree with him that much necessarily depended on the working out of any system whatsoever; but the instrumentality by which this system was carried out was strikingly defective; the rules were narrow, and the management so glaringly bad, that it would require the exertion of the greatest ingenuity more effectually to defeat the end proposed. He was now speaking of the system and its rules and discipline, as applied to the convicts; and he was obliged to say that during the period when the greatest evils existed, and when official information was of the greatest importance. Government were kept in utter darkness; and that when they struck the blow at the system, they did so on the strength of private information, and not on information derived from official sources. It was duo to Lord Stanley to keep in mind that when this system was in full operation, it had never been, up to that period, fairly carried out in Van Diemen's Land; and the best proof of that was, that the system was at the present moment still in operation. There were 30,000 convicts still subject to that system in Van Diemen's Land. [Sir G. GREY disputed this observation.] He repeated it, that the system was still in force, and there were several thousands of individuals in probation parties. The question then was, what were those improvements? Sir W. Denison, in June

421
last year, writing to Earl Grey, stated that he had great pleasure in calling his Lordship's attention to the improvement that had taken place in the probation system by the change that had been effected, the more efficient mode adopted in working out the details, and the zeal and energy that were brought to hear by the Comptroller General. Sir W. Denison then proceeded to give the report of the Comptroller General, by which it appeared that those probation parties, from which such horrors and iniquities had formerly arisen—which had excited so much shame and disgust—had, as he believed, altogether ceased. The system, somewhat modified, was good, if more efficiently carried out. [Sir G. GREY: It was overdone.] No doubt it was overdone. Like others in the House who had already spoken, he felt indebted to the noble Lord for calling attention to the subject—for the course he had taken to bring it before them—and for the statements which had been elicited from the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. Those statements necessarily bore upon many of the details of the subject. It was not possible, however, for him to form and prove every particular of a plan which his Colleagues were engaged in working out. This was a question of great difficulty, involving details which required experience in dealing with it. He could not avoid saying, however, that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) was justified in the various steps he took with regard to that system in its various details, in dealing with which, circumspection marked all his course. He must say, on the other hand, he found great precipitancy in the conduct of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Grey)—great precipitancy in breaking up the establishment on Norfolk Island, and carrying the convicts to Van Diemen's Land; and again in carrying the convicts from the establishment in New South Wales to Van Diemen's Land, notwithstanding the promise which had been given to the contrary. [Sir G. GREY: A discretion was left with Sir W. Denison.] The right hon. Baronet says that a discretion was given to Sir W. Denison on the subject; but it appeared from the papers that on the 16th of February, 1847, the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies instructed Sir W. Denison to take measures to break up, with the least possible delay, the establishment at Norfolk Island, and withdraw the whole of the convicts to the settlement at Tasman's
422
Peninsula. Sir W. Denison, indeed, with great judgment, took upon himself the responsibility of disobeying those instructions; and his disobedience was approved, as appeared from the papers, by the noble Earl himself. The same thing occurred with regard to New South Wales. He was unwilling to refer at all to the subject, and he did it, not for the purpose merely of bringing up matters which were gone by, but he thought some notice ought to be taken of these things in Parliament, that they might have some security against the recurrence of such precipitancy. He would now leave that subject; nor would he refer to it further than to express his satisfaction for the authentic information which had been brought out on the system from the Government. He must say that the noble Earl would do well always to keep in view the immense importance of extending as far as possible the area in which transportation took place. In fact, he was sorry to say that in this one department, as in many others in our colonial policy, it must be admitted that they had degenerated from the wisdom of their ancestors. They understood the principles on which transportation could be advantageously conducted better than those of the present day. The States of the American Union received convicts, but in numbers so small that they were easily absorbed in the rest of the population, and the evils which might arise to the community were reduced within the smallest possible limits. On the other hand, those of the present day, having proceeded with less caution, had occasioned difficulties with regard to the political constitution of the colony, and had brought the very name of transportation into bad odour with the colonies. It was mainly from the difficulties which had thus been created that he felt strongly inclined to direct their attention to the colony of North Australia. He felt the difficulties which now surrounded the subject—difficulties, as he had said, occasioned by the evil of compressing the convicts within small space, and by the ill odour into which transportation had fallen with the Australian colonists; but he hoped, with the opening of a new door, that transportation was not to be discontinued. It was his hope that that colony was not to be made a penal colony, and that one or two cargoes of exiles from Pentonville would be sent thither, and not to Van Diemen's Land; for in the colony of Van Diemen's Land so plentiful was labour

423
as compared with the demand, and so great the number of emancipated convicts which it supported, that they had been obliged to relieve that colony by transferring them to North Australia. He admitted the whole question was surrounded by great difficulties; but he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would always take for their cardinal principle the importance of having as extensive an area for the location of the convicts as possible; for if they were to continue the practice of sending them by thousands to one penal colony till it was drenched with iniquity, the very worst consequences would certainly be the result.
MR. EWARTagreed that it was by dispersion rather than compression that any good was to be hoped for from transportation; but he rose to ask two questions—first, how far the principle of dispersion was carried out at the present moment; and, secondly, whether Van Diemen's Land was to be continued as the principal colony to which transports were to be sent in future?
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that while discussing the horrors of transportation they had overlooked those of the gaols in this country, which he considered equally great. [A laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, but from the gaol of Newgate one-sixth of all the convicts in the kingdom were furnished. Within the metropolis there were no fewer than four or five different systems of imprisonment, and as to the separate system preventing crime, it was a well-ascertained fact that crime was never more prevalent than at the present time. It was the complaint of all the magistrates in the neighbourhood of the metropolis that the present diversified system paralysed all their efforts. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would direct its attention to the subject, and devise a uniform and well-arranged plan of prison discipline for all the gaols in the kingdom.
MR. POULETT SCROPEbegged to ask who were the parties responsible for the frightful overcrowding of the gaols of Kerry mentioned by the hon. Member for that county?
SIR G. GREYreplied to the hon. Member for Droitwich, that character and conduct would be considered in determining whether there should be any abatement in the sentence of prisoners; but that the maximum period of separate imprisonment should be eighteen months. In answer to
424
the hon. Member for Dumfries, he would state, that convicts would be sent to three colonies. Van Diemen's Land, New South Wales, and the Cape of Good Hope, and that tickets of leave would still be granted in particular cases. In reply to the hon. Alderman, he had only to say, that he had approved of the plans for a new prison for the city of London; and that it was not his fault if they had not better accommodation. He referred the hon. Member for Stroud to the report of the Inspector of Prisons for an answer to his question; at the same time he would add, that the condition of Irish prisons arose in the most part from peculiar circumstances, and that generally there was sufficient gaol accommodation.
The subject then dropped.

LOCAL TAXATION—BURDENS ON LAND.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I rise with the hope that I may induce the House of Commons to adopt a great measure of justice, of conciliation, and of policy. It is not my intention, on this occasion, to enter into any details demonstrative of the great distress which exists among the agricultural classes of this country. Whether that distress exist or not, is unnecessary for the argument which I mean to recommend to the attention of the House in the resolutions which I have placed on the table. It is still less necessary to enter into these details, because there is a great authority that this distress does exist. It is only a few nights since an hon. Gentleman, a member of this House, came forward and offered his voluntary evidence, if it were necessary, to establish the fact—a witness not to be suspected of any morbid sympathy for the agricultural class—I mean the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright). He told us the other night that he could not conceal from himself, that the distress amongst the agricultural class was severe and terrible. I am willing to allow this state of affairs to rest on the testimony of that hon. Member. Nor am I going to enter into any inquiry as to the cause of this distress. That is not essential or necessary to the argument which I mean to offer in support of the resolutions which I have placed on the table. But if I wanted to know what was the cause of that distress, I would also appeal to another witness on the benches opposite, one that will be admitted by all as a great and unimpeachable authority—I mean the hon. Member for the West Riding

425
(Mr. Cobden). That hon. Gentleman, on a recent memorable occasion, when he communicated to his assembled fellow-countrymen the programme of his future policy, spoke of the farmers of England with much sympathy, lamented their condition, and acknowledged—which was creditable to his candour and frankness—that in recent changes they had not been fairly dealt with. Nor, in the third place, is it my intention to-night to enter into any controversy as to those changes. It is not, I say, my intention to-night to enter into any controversy as to the policy or impolicy of those changes in the law, to which the hon. Member referred; I am satisfied with allowing, with the hon. Member for the West Riding, that the agricultural classes have not been fairly treated in them. I hold the opinions on those measures such as I have frequently intimated, and sometimes attempted to develop, to the House. I still believe that our new commercial system is founded on erroneous principles. I still believe that in constructing this new system you have mistaken the rules which regulate an advantageous interchange of commodities between nations; that in attempting to obviate the injury and inconvenience of hostile tariffs, by opening our ports, we have adopted a course which tends to the depression of British industry; that under your new system the native labourer must give more of his produce for foreign produce than he heretofore gave; that inasmuch as the precious metals are foreign products, he must consequently receive less of the precious metals for his labour, and have less command over them than he did before; that his labour is tributary to foreign countries in the precise proportion in which it has become less efficient in its command over foreign products; and that you have thus embarked in a course which tends to the degradation of native industry, and which may end in financial convulsion. I still believe that there is but one way to extricate the country from the calamities which it now experiences, and those which are impending—and that is by the frank adoption of the principle of reciprocity as the fundamental principle of your commercial code; and that the only means to be pursued against hostile tariffs are countervailing duties. I have expressed these opinions on this and on other legitimate occasions, because I wish these principles to be pondered over by the country, with the hope, and even the belief,
426
they will ultimately adopt them. Perilous and injurious as I hold the late changes in our commercial system, I do not wish suddenly to subvert them, by appealing to the passions of any suffering classes, or by any party combinations; I wish the change when effected to be permanent, and it can only be permanent by its being called for by the common sense of the country. I look, therefore, for this change to be effected by legitimate means, by public discussion, by private investigation, by the failure of economic prophecies, and by the fruit of sharp experience. On the present occasion, I wish to avoid any angry controversy; but I am unwilling that any one should suppose that I shrink from opinions which I have formerly expressed in this House: on the contrary, the observation of every day and of every hour only confirms me in my convictions. After the change of 1846, which so greatly affected the agricultural interest, I think they are entitled at least to this—that our system of taxation should not press unjustly on them. That is the first proposition which I wish to lay down. The second is, that the unjust taxation of which they complain should be revised, and that there should be a redistribution of these burdens, according to just principles—a redistribution, which I believe will afford them, though by no means complete, yet considerable, relief from the sufferings which they are now enduring. The question which I have to place before the House requires, fortunately, very little statistical detail. Although great controversy has taken place between different interests, as to which had to bear the heaviest burdens, I feel that the question which I have to bring forward is in itself extremely simple, and, like other first principles, is clear and easy of apprehension. It seems, by returns now in the possession of all of us, that the amount of poor and other rates for the year ending Lady-day, 1848, was a sum of not less than 10,000,000 l. sterling, and that this was levied by direct taxation on the real property of England. This amount was made up by the poor-rate, and its collateral minor rates, and by the county rate, the highway rate, and the church rate, all of which were levied on real property. I ask you, whether the time has not at last come for inquiring whether it is just that a sum of not less than 10,000,000 l. annually should be thus levied, and only levied on the real property of the country?

427
But, independently of this sum of 10,000,000 l., there are other direct taxes, levied on real property, which, strictly speaking, are local taxes. For instance, the land tax is assessed and levied by local authorities, and each locality is fixed with the payment of a certain quota, so that I may assert that the real property of this country pays 12,000,000 l. of taxes a year, to which no other species of property is subject. To place this question before us in a manner which must carry conviction, let us first ascertain the amount of property upon which this 12,000,000 l. is levied, and then compare that amount with the probable annual amount of the whole income of the country. We have the materials for this calculation. Every Gentleman knows that this 10,000,000 l.—I might say, generally speaking, 12,000,000 l.—is raised on a rental contributed by real property to the amount of 67,000,000 l. per annum. This 10,000,000 l., then, I repeat, is assessed on a rental of 67,000,000 l. There is no difficulty in ascertaining what is the total income of England at this moment. We have a Parliamentary paper—moved for by an hon. Gentleman opposite—numbered 747; it gives the sum of the income tax levied, and the description and amount of the property on which it was levied in England and Wales for the year 1846. This return was laid on the table in 1847, and, by a reference to it, any one can easily calculate what is the total national income liable to this tax. According to this paper, the total income for 1846, as contained in the five schedules, and chargeable with the income tax, was 186,888,958 l. But the 67,000,000 l., on which the local taxation is assessed, is not entirely contained in this greater sum, for that is confined to property above 150 l. per annum, and even cottages are assessed to the poor-rates. In order, therefore, to ascertain the entire income of the country, including that portion which is exempted from the property and income tax—I shall adopt the rule laid down by a high and prudent authority, the Member for Tam-worth, when he introduced his scheme for a property tax in 1842. The right hon. Baronet then took the amount of income under 150 l. a year, at a quarter of the whole income of the country, so that to the amount of 186,888,958 l. chargeable with the property tax, the sum of 62,296,319 l. must be added as the amount of income not chargeable with that tax. These sums make together 249,185,277 l. sterling as
428
the total income of the country. Now, the question which I wish to ask the House is, why should this ten or twelve millions sterling of direct taxation be levied only upon a portion of the whole income of the country, a portion little more than a fourth of the whole amount? This is a simple question, one, however, which the country is deeply interested in, and which a great portion of the inhabitants of this country are daily asking. It is requisite that this should be kept clear of all statistical mystification. The income of the country is upwards of 249,000,000 l., and yet, for the purposes to which I refer, the assessment is only upon one-fourth of the income of the country. Now, upon what principle of justice do you defend this? What are the objects of these local taxes? The maintenance of the poor of the country—the maintenance of our means of internal communication—the administration of justice, and the support of the sacred edifices of the country. Are not these matters in which all the property of the country is equally interested? Upon what plea can you vindicate the principle which makes only one-fourth of the income of the country liable to these great charges? This question has been incidentally asked the House before; treated cursorily, I might even observe without offence to any one, superficially. Attempts have often been made to raise idle and odious controversies as to the classes which contributed most to the poor-rate, and as to which ought to contribute most to that rate. There have been endless controversies of this kind. It has been on the one side said that the agricultural interest bore the most of the burden, and then it was assorted that the house property in towns contributed equally to it. I do not mean to enter into any discussion on these points. I have no wish to shut my eyes to the fact, that during the last half century, great changes have taken place in the relations borne to each other by the different descriptions of real property, Far from it; I rejoice in the circumstance as a proof of the progress and prosperity of the country, and that a great amount of fixed capital has been thus invested in the land of the country. I agree that the dwellers in towns are assessed to the relief of the poor in an amount that it is not at all surprising to me they are clamorous. I admit that they contribute not only in an ample but an excessive manner, and that they may well consider it to be a grievance. I

429
quite sympathise with the owners of real property in towns as to their grievous and heavy assessment. The measure, however, which it is my intention to propose, if the House will go into Committee to-night, will relieve the suffering towns from this burden. It will put an end to those complaints of which we have heard so much from Manchester, Bradford, and other great seats of manufacturing industry. I sympathise with their sufferings, I acknowledge their grievance; and I say it is a vital question to the owners of real property in towns, whether only one-fourth of the property of the country should have the whole burden of local taxation thrown upon it. So it is with other descriptions of real property, the owners of which loudly complain of their rating to the maintenance of the poor. Nothing, for instance, can be more monstrous than the amount of rating on railways for the poor. I quite agree in the justice of their complaints, but I am scarcely prepared to adopt the remedy which has been suggested, namely, the placing the whole burden on the agricultural interest. I acknowledge the grievance as regards railways having to pay so much on their property, while this charge is made to fall upon only one-fourth of the property of the country. If that interest supports the great measure of justice which I hope to introduce to the House, and if it should be adopted, it would relieve them from this great ground of complaint. It is the same with other great trading companies, such as those which supply us with water and light, and who are perpetually wrangling on the subject of poor-rates. I think their complaints perfectly just. Some of my friends think it very well arranged if they can visit a considerable part of these burdens on some of these great companies. On the contrary, I feel for the proscribed interests of real property in every form. I think it most unjust that these water and gas companies should be visited with the portion of taxation which they have to bear, when they are only a section of the one-fourth part of the property of the country. The injustice upon them is most gross, and they will have the opportunity of obtaining redress by supporting the measures I am now anxious to introduce—measures founded in justice, and which, therefore, I believe, will succeed. If we calmly consider this matter in the abstract—if, for example, we were not in England, but travelling in some foreign
430
country, and for the first time became acquainted with a system of finance so remarkable—if we were in a strange land, and learned for the first time that, independently of bearing their share of the whole taxation of the country, there was a private and separate revenue to an enormous amount assessed upon only a fourth part of the property of the realm—what would be the conclusion we should draw? We should say, "This must be that part of the nation that probably is the remnant of some conquered race—this must be some proscribed and oppressed section of the country. Vœ victis! Here is the fruit of a vassalage, which even our civilisation and our political economy have not terminated." Such might perhaps be our conclusion. But who could suppose that this was the peculiar privilege of the rapacious aristocracy—of the persons who have made all the laws—of the persons who, according to the doctrines of the most enlightened of those who now instruct us, have always made those laws for their own advantage? But the most curious thing—the most anomalous part of this almost unparalleled state of affairs—is, that this is not the law of the country. The law of England, which has always been the law of common sense, never for a moment anticipated a conclusion so monstrous and so oppressive. I need not now, considering that those whom I address are familiar with all these details, remind them that the old statutes never enforced, or for a moment anticipated, such a monstrous injustice. That benign and sagacious law, the 43rd of Elizabeth, enacted, that all the inhabitants of England, according to their means, should contribute henceforth to the relief and support of the poor. We all know very well, that in comparatively modern times—in the time of William and Mary—when the land tax was first legally established, that tax was called only in common parlance a land tax, but that it was in fact a tax upon property of all kinds. This is not a question of controversy. To this day the land tax is levied on certain offices under the Crown; offices existing in the time of William and Mary pay their 4s. in the pound to the present day. I believe the Judges of the land pay this tax—a tax, however, I am glad to believe, assessed upon their allowance as settled in the reign of William and Mary, and not of our present gracious Sovereign. Hon. Gentlemen well know

431
that the courts of law have repeatedly in modern times, even in our own times, decided that in this country property of all kinds is liable to those imposts which real property only has continued to bear. And I may remind hon. Gentlemen that stock in trade only escapes the imposition every year by an annual Bill—an annual Bill passed by that same rapacious aristocracy who thus exempt stock in trade from poor-rate, and inflict the whole of it upon that kind of property in which they are peculiarly interested. In the first place, then, I ask hon. Gentlemen what reason can be advanced why, for the objects for which these rates are raised, and these taxes levied, the whole property of a district—I ask no more in the first instance—should not be liable? Whether a man's property be in broad acres, or whether he receive his means from any other sources, surely in either case it is equally liable to the maintenance of the poor; surely he equally in the district vises the roads; surely he equally in the district is interested in the administration of justice; and surely he equally—at least, for the sake of his soul, I hope so—goes to church; as a matter of justice, it seems that no argument can be adduced against the plea. An adverse expediency, indeed, may be suggested. You may say that the system has gone on for a long time, and that it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves from it. You may say, for example, that nothing is more difficult than to tax personal property in a locality—that it is not only invidious and inquisitorial, but perhaps even impossible. These are arguments, if you choose to call them arguments, which may be used; but no one can say that they meet the principle of justice which is involved in this question—no one can lay down or sustain for a moment the proposition that it is just that all other property, except real property, should be exempt from these rates. It may be convenient, but no one can maintain that it is just. I will admit, fully, frankly, and freely, that the inconvenience, perhaps impossibility, of rating personal property in a locality in a satisfactory manner, is indubitable; but I am of opinion, if we pursue this important inquiry in a less superficial spirit than it has hitherto, from various circumstances, commanded in this House, that we may, perhaps, find that the difficulties will disappear, and that some solution may be found for the problem. In the first place, it ap-
432
pears to me that a great deal of this difficulty arises from a confusion of terms—from the world persisting in associating with the phrase local taxation, as a necessary consequence, that the purposes for which local taxation is inflicted are really of a local nature. I doubt whether it can be shown that the purposes for which this taxation is locally levied are of a local nature. On the contrary, I think they are for purposes of a much wider and more comprehensive character. I will take, for example, the first and most important tax thus directly levied—that for the maintenance of the poor. I know of no reason, à priori, why the maintenance of the poor should be the duty of a locality. The maintenance of the poor is either a matter of police, or a social duty. In looking over the ancient statutes, it may probably appear that our predecessors viewed the matter in the more limited light of police; that it was considered if the people were allowed to perish of famine, mendicity and violence would be necessary consequences; and, certainly, the most convenient to defend the person from assault, and property from rapine, is a poor-law. But I do not understand how, even in this limited view of the question, it is just that a contribution for the purpose should be drawn from one or even from two classes. I believe, however, that the question is to be regarded in a far higher point of view. We recognise throughout this country—and I venture to say it is recognised, without exception, in this House—the principle that the maintenance of the poor is a social duty—a duty justified by high State policy, and consecrated by the sanction of religion. But if the maintenance of the poor be a social duty, it is the duty of every one, according to his means; and in a country like England—an ancient country—of complicated civilisation, it is totally impossible you can lay down as a principle that a particular district should support its own poor, unless you can prove, at the same time, that that district produced those poor—nay, unless you can go further than that—unless you can ensure that district against the consequences of metropolitan or imperial legislation, that these shall not interfere with the employment of the labour of those poor. Why, the very transition from war to peace throws a whole district out of employment; yet that district—that parish—had not undertaken war or declared peace, and, therefore, is not responsible for the maintenance of

433
those whose employment has been destroyed by the one or the other. This is a view of the question which, if followed up in a country like England, will throw a light upon a variety of circumstances. The alteration of a fashion occasions poverty in a district. The invention of a machine in Lancashire will have the effect of throwing a whole village in Northamptonshire out of employ. What are the facts in regard to many of those rural districts of England which have been held up to public reprobation for not employing their poor, and in which an intolerable pauperism has been declared to be one of the consequences of the system of protection? Why, that those parts of the country were once the scats of manufactures, and that a population has been left there by the obsolete manufactures, the labour of which the land has never been able to absorb. This is the cause of that misery and poverty which have prevailed in some of the western counties, and which have been adduced by some hon. Gentlemen as the consequence of protection; forgetting that in some purely agricultural counties, Lincolnshire for example, where there are no obsolete manufactures, wages are very high. So Mr. Huskisson was accustomed to explain the low wages of Sussex as occasioned by a population created by an iron manufacture that no longer flourished. How, therefore, can you call upon a particular district to maintain its own population in an ancient realm, where, from the state of society, such inequalities of condition and such fluctuations of employment must exist? Some may urge that the maintenance of the poor should properly be thrown upon their employers—upon those who have profited by their labour. But in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, the very circumstances which threw the labouring class out of employment, are the causes also of the distress of their employers. If I take the highway rates as an example, the same view of the question immediately arises. It is vary easy to make flippant observations in debate, and to say why don't the farmers pay for the roads made for their use? but, in the first place, it is not historically true that these roads were made for the farmers. If the agricultural classes had the monopoly of these roads—if no one but those classes used these roads—if they were what are called private roads—then there might be some strength in the position. But, inasmuch as everybody uses these roads, and as, until railways
434
were discovered, these roads were covered with all the travelling clerks of the manufacturing establishments in England, inasmuch as you have settled by law that a stranger, although he contribute not one farthing to the maintenance of these roads, can indict the parish if the wheel of his vehicle be injured, you must admit that the public ways are for public purposes, and for public use. Besides, I want to know what item of our expenditure can bear this analysis of local purposes and local objects. Take the case of a gentleman living in a midland county, who, in consequence of the distress which prevails, takes to looking into the estimates—a habit which, I believe, is growing upon gentlemen in many parts of the country. He finds there, for example, an item of some five or seven hundred thousand pounds for the packet service; he might say, "Why am I to be called upon to pay for this packet service? Three-fourths of the letters are carried for the merchants of London and Liverpool, and the other fourth would not be carried at all were it not for them. What have I to do with this? Let a rate for it be struck upon London and Liverpool." This would be a clear case for local taxation to one living in a midland county. Or say that the same gentleman, like the King of Bohemia, not accustomed to the sea, might observe the vote for harbours of refuge, he might object to it upon the same grounds, and say, "I have no ships—I have nothing to do with harbours. Lot a rate be struck upon the cinque ports." Or, living in a purely agricultural district, he might cavil at the vote for the inspectors of factories. But he does not take that limited view of finance which our financial reformers perhaps do. Year after year, in a wise, and generous, and national spirit, he contributes to all these sources of expense, and never cavils. But, if you pursue the inquiry to subjects of much greater extent and moment, you will find the case still more strongly telling in favour of the oppressed class liable to this particular revenue. Take this case: About six years ago the merchants of Liverpool were very much vexed, and, as they thought, oppressed by certain proceedings in a distant quarter, and they besieged Downing-street with memorials, and endless reclamations, calling upon the Government to interfere by force, and defend their property and their commercial transactions. The Minister who then presided

435
in Downing-street—a very experienced, and able, and, until that moment, considered a peculiarly cautious statesman—moved by these representations of the Liverpool merchants, was induced to interfere in the troubled waters of La Plata. And what has been the consequence? Six years have elapsed, and the country gentleman in the midland county who willingly acceded to the great expenditure, because he thought it was for the sake of the commerce of his country, now finds as the only result—the same merchants of Liverpool attacking the Government of the country on account of our extravagant armaments, and declaring that they are only kept up to support the younger children of the landed aristocracy. I say that this is a clear case for striking a rate upon Liverpool—that it is a clear case for local taxation. And we could boar this great burden of 10,000,000 l., or 12,000,000 l., if the rest of the taxation were apportioned in the same spirit. But is that so? Look at the instance of Manchester a few years back. Manchester was of opinion that the Chinese empire, possessing three hundred millions or more of human beings, were the best customers that could be obtained for our manufactures; that the home trade, or even the European trade, was nothing in comparison with that of a nation possessing such a population; that if each man only spent as much Sycee silver as a sovereign in a year, the fortunes of our manufacturers must be made. And so, by dint of pertinacity and restlessness, and commercial intrigues, they forced the Government into a war with China. Now, in this case the landed gentleman, being not quite so dull as you have sometimes been pleased to picture him, might naturally have said, "It is true I have never been in the country, but still I know something about China. I inherited a magnificent library from my father, and in some of the books there I have read, that notwithstanding the three hundred millions of inhabitants in China, they will never be able to carry on a commensurate commerce with this country, because really they have nothing to give in exchange for our goods." What the country gentleman foresaw did happen; for, never was there a greater disappointment than that manifested in Manchester at the practical results of the China trade. They acknowledged, it was true, China afforded very few commodities for exchange, but still it possessed one great article of commerce, and they said
436
we must reduce the duty on tea, and so increase the consumption. But the country gentleman might answer, "I find that England already consumes more than fifty millions of pounds of tea annually, and I have my doubts whether such an increased consumption be necessary or oven desirable. Too much tea is not good for the nerves; why not take the duty off malt, and let the people revert to that beverage which their Saxon ancestors loved, and which produced that long-lived race which I trust I shall aid in continuing?" When this China business was at an end, therefore, why not, upon this system of local taxation, call for a rate to be struck against Manchester on account of the Chinese war? The same principle holds good with regard to the county rate and the church rate. I will, for a moment, touch upon the subject of the county rate, because it is one in regard to which great mistakes have been made, and great misconceptions prevail. The county rate is a direct tax raised for the purposes of the administration of justice. About the year 1835, as is known to the House, the Government, aware of this unjust burden which pressed upon the land, principally occasioned by the expense of the execution of justice, offered to pay half the cost of criminal prosecutions. That was done without much public attention being given to the matter; but the general impression in the House, and throughout the country, was, to a great degree, I believe, that the landed interest had, as usual, taken advantage of the Minister in a weak moment, and had by some means got rid of one of the just burdens upon themselves, and thrown it upon the community at large. That was in the year 1835. I want to show you how this county rate is expended; and to clear this case from the misconceptions which are so popular in the public mind, I must call your attention to the manner in which it has been expended, at a period so recent as 1845. I take that period, because subsequently, in 1846, another change was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth in reference to the county rate. I will venture to refer to my own experience during one day at assizes, to show the nature of this county rate—how it acts upon a county, and how far and in what degree a county may be actually interested in cases of its expenditure. Take an instance. A woman comes down into the county with which I am connected to a

437
well-known place, Salthill, on the borders of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire. She comes as a stranger, takes an obscure lodging—in a public-house. A few days afterwards a man previously connected with this woman, comes down to the place by railway, visits her, and murders her. He leaves Salthill, and proceeds to town by a train. By means of the electric telegraph he is arrested the moment he arrives at the station in London, the murder having been immediately discovered. He is therefore, arrested in London; but the crime was committed in Buckinghamshire. So the man is taken back to Salthill, examined, and committed to the county gaol at Aylesbury. The case was of a kind which required the evidence of scientific men, who were summoned from various parts of England. It was a very expensive trial. The prisoner was convicted, and outraged society was vindicated by the execution of Tawell. Now, although half the expenses of criminal prosecutions is defrayed by the Government—and so defrayed, I have heard it insinuated, un-justly—the bill and the just bill of costs of the clerk of the peace for the county of Bucks in the case to which I have referred, amounted to 300 l. I ask, what had this county to do with that crime? The man was not born in Buckinghamshire, or resident there, or even arrested there. But this is one of the modes in which the county rate was expended only very recently. Take another instance on the same day—a bargeman who had committed a robbery in Rutlandshire or Northamptonshire, was arrested on one of the canals in Buckinghamshire, and on which he was navigating a cargo of coals. His trial and conviction cost the county upwards of 100 l., although he had no more to do with that county than with the House of Commons. There was, on the same day, another case, very significant, that of a draper in a flourishing town in the same county, in whose shop a burglary was committed, and property stolen to the amount of 20 l. The burglar was arrested, sent to the county gaol, tried, and the whole expense was paid out of the county rate, while the stock in trade of the very tradesman to vindicate whose rights of property the expense was incurred, was exempted from contributing to that rate. Mark this—if the vexation and oppression of counties paying only half the expense of criminal prosecutions were so grievously, so es-
438
sentially, and so palpably unjust, what must it have been before the change in 1835? Doubly unjust, doubly oppressive, doubly grievous, doubly tyrannical. Yet that change has been described as one of the methods by which the landed interest shuffle off their burdens upon others. In 1846, I admit that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth took off the other moiety of the charge upon the county rate, so that no further bills like that for the prosecution of Tawell can be charged upon them, and no further oppression, like that in the case of the bargeman, can be practised. But how was that act of tardy justice done? The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion acknowledged the justice of the case to be unimpeachable. He did not pretend that there could be a question about the justice of the public incurring these expenses that had been theretofore mot by the different counties for the vindication of public justice and the rights of society. But the right hon. Gentleman gave that relief to the landed interest upon the memorable occasion, with respect to which I intend to have no discussion now, on which he deprived them of that important protection which they had so long enjoyed. This act of taking off the charge upon the county rate for the last half of the expenses of criminal prosecutions was the important measure of compensation given on that occasion—yet in itself a claim so just, that it appears as if all required to enforce it was, that it should be properly stated to this House; and that there could be no Gentleman, whatever his political opinions or his party, but who would think it was not only unjust, but something shabby, to make a particular class pay for those expenses in which the whole nation is interested. But with great difficulty, and by the exertion only of all the influence of a powerful Minister, was this tardy justice done in a slight degree to the owners and occupiers of land. And what has been the result as far as relief from the rate is concerned? The county rates are increased in amount, notwithstanding the Government has undertaken the whole expense of criminal prosecutions. The increase in this impost is accounted for by Gentlemen, who never inquire into the subject, to our neglect in never attending to our own affairs—by the levy of this tax not being placed in the power of the community of the county. The hon. Member for Montrose has often urged that argu-

439
ment. In the first place, let me show you that after the State had relieved the counties from the burden of criminal prosecutions, the whole of the county rates of this country, with the exception of one important item relating to the public works of universal benefit—I mean bridges—are still expended, generally speaking, upon the administration of justice. I have here the last abstract of the accounts of the treasurer for the county of Bucks, and I have reason to believe that it is a fair specimen of what occurs in other counties. After a certain expenditure for bridges—heavy in a county through which the Thames passes, and on which Buckinghamshire, although not a rich county, has been obliged to disburse, for one instance recently, Marlow bridge, 27,000 l., the expenditure of the county, with that exception, is somewhere about 12,000 l. a year. The whole of this is caused by the expenses for the administration of justice, clerks of the peace, coroners, maintenance of gaols, lock-up houses, conveyance of prisoners, and so on. The allowance from Government for the prosecution and maintenance of prisoners under particular circumstances—is less than 4,000 l., and, therefore, two-thirds of the expenditure of that county and every other other, is in fact, for the administration of justice—for matters that interest all—for a cause in which all are concerned. But we are often told, as I have shown, that the county rate, notwithstanding the Government of the country has come forward for the relief of the counties, is still increasing, and it is because those who administer in the funds of the counties are unequal to their duties: that is the position of the hon. Member for Montrose. [Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!] I tell you that if you go to the finance committee of the county of Buckingham you will find your match. But you forget that, year after year, you have been passing laws in this House, forcing the counties to raise most expensive public buildings, and giving them no option whatever. The hon. Member for Montrose talks of the management of funds. Why, all that the magistrates can do is to assemble as trustees under Acts of Parliament, and declare the rate to meet the expenditure, which you in your present capacity have agreed to. I do not deny that those model prisons to which my noble Friend (Viscount Mahon), referred in his interesting Motion to-night, are of great importance; I do not deny that the advan-
440
cing philanthropy of the age does not call for those erections, and for the seclusion of this improved discipline. But what I assert is, that this is a great national object, and nothing can be more unfair than that a highly enlightened and philanthropic senate should pass laws obliging particular districts to raise most expensive public buildings, and then refuse to defray the increased cost. Well, then, I say that this local taxation is not raised for local purposes, it is raised for national purposes. I am perfectly aware of the objection that you will make. The fact is, that the revenue of this country has been raised for a long time under two systems: there is the modern system of indirect taxation, to which all are subject; and there is the old system of direct taxation, to which only landed property was subject, a system which has its coils round that property still, and mulcts it at its pleasure. It would not he difficult to show how, in the course of time, this anomalous state of affairs has come to pass, how it has happened that the real property of the country should necessarily have become subject to what is called the general taxation of the country, like other descriptions of property, and yet, at the same time, has been obliged to hear the burden of another revenue of the enormous amount of 12,000,000 l. sterling. This anomaly has been long recognised; the grievance, I am sure, has been long felt; but the difficulties of dealing with it have been considerable. I am perfectly aware of the remedy which certain Gentlemen opposite would be only too glad to offer me, and which they say is the necessary inference from my system—namely, that you should have recourse to a system of national rating. I have myself the greatest objections to that system, both of an economical and a political kind. I do not see how you can have the check which is requisite to the administration of funds in a district if the rating is national, and I am unwilling to give up the local administration, not merely because it insures economical management, or at least takes the best means of doing so, but for political reasons, connected with our happy habit of self-government, of a still graver character. But though I admit that our system of self-government and our system of local administration are very precious, I must, at the same time, ask hon. Gentlemen whether they are prepared to insure economy by practising injustice; whether, in fact, they are going to lay down,

441
as one of the principles of our social system, that in order to insure a good local administration of affairs, it is necessary that one or two particular classes in the country should be subjected to an unjust and oppressive taxation. Sir, I am well aware that in laying down the principle that real property ought no more to bear unjust taxation than other sorts of property, some hon. Gentlemen, confining their objections to a particular section of real property, will tell me that landed property is favoured otherwise by our laws. The probate and legacy duties will, I dare say, be brought forward. Now, for my own part—I am speaking only for myself, but I believe I may speak for many others on this head—I am perfectly prepared to enter into an investigation of that subject in the fairest spirit, and to join with you in any endeavour for the equitable apportionment of that taxation; but I protest against this matter being now brought under the notice of the House to divert them from the question I have raised. Propose a Committee to go into the whole subject of probate and legacy duty, and I will support you in your Motion; bring forward a measure founded upon sound information and real research, offering a just remedy, and I will give my vote in its favour; but I am bound to tell you—it would be disengenuous not to tell you—that having given as much attention as I could to the investigation of this question, it is my opinion that the result of the Committee will be very different to that which many of you expect. So much has been said upon this subject that I must take this opportunity of stating that of the legacy duty which is now paid, to the amount of 1,200,000 l. a year, 500,000 l. is paid absolutely and directly by land; that all leasehold properties, all ecclesiastical tenures, are not included in that 500,000 l.; and that they pay not only legacy duty but probate duty. As far as what is called the landed interest is concerned, there is also included in your probate and legacy duty the stock of every farmer and cultivator of land, so that you will find, if you examine this subject with that attention it deserves, and with that absence of passion which I doubt not will mark your inquiry, that it is not the land which pays the least proportion either of the probate or legacy duty. I have said nothing of the present arrangement of stamp duties, which would greatly strengthen my case. I make these observations to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) in no hostile
442
spirit; I remember my promise, and will redeem it if he gives me the opportunity; but I must protest against the hon. Gentleman, or anybody else, especially after what I have said, introducing these extraneous subjects into the simple question I am placing before you. Is it just or unjust that real property, forming one-fourth of the income of the country, should alone bear burdens imposed on account of matters in which all property is equally interested? The hon. Gentleman, if he take a fine house in Berkshire to-morrow, will, I dare say, trot over the roads in his neighbourhood; perhaps he will be a preserver of game; perhaps his keeper may be shot by a poacher; and perhaps he will prosecute the poacher at the assizes; and he will do all this without paying to the highway or county rates. Well, then, the question is, what, under these circumstances, is the best measure for setlting this long-vexed question? I am afraid I shall disappoint hon. Gentlemen who have very sedulously announced that all I was going to do was to move for a Committee, when, instead, of doing that, I express my readiness, if the House will go into Committee, to offer a plan for their adoption; and as that plan is founded on justice, and conceived in the spirit of conciliation, I hope it has every chance of success. I am perfectly aware that in attempting to settle this question nothing can be more unwise than for the possessors of real property to stickle too severely for their rights. I admit that in a country like England, where a system has existed for a considerable period, however unjust and oppressive the system may be, though the period of its duration does not alter the character of the arrangements or mitigate the nature of the oppression; yet, still I am aware that where a system has long existed, clear as may be our case, it is necessary and wise to approach the circumstances in a spirit of compromise. I do not say, as I have a right to say, "These are national purposes, and the local taxation for these national purposes is levied upon one-fourth of the income of the country; we are ready to pay our quota, but you have no right to ask us to pay more; we are ready to pay our due proportion of the 10,000,000 l, or 12,000,000 l., but you cannot allege any reason or principle that calls upon us to undertake a more extensive responsibility." It is of the greatest importance to maintain the

443
local administration of affairs that at present exists, and therefore I shall not propose in any way to change the system of self-government that at present exists, or interfere with the present levy of rates. But I say that, considering all the circumstances of the case, considering that the laud has some slight exemptions which are really of very little import, but which may be remembered at this moment, amounting altogether, I believe, only to 140,000 l. a year—considering the great importance of maintaining the present local administration of affairs, and also that this is a moment in which every portion of the community, and every class and body, must he prepared to make great sacrifices, in a spirit of compromise and conciliation I shall propose that, the present system of local administration remaining, the present levy of rates continuing, the local districts shall be responsible for one moiety of this taxation, and that the other moiety shall be contributed by the Consolidated Fund. I would propose also that the Government should regain this moiety from the privileged properties according to their quotas; with some changes and modifications, the machinery at present existing would assist the Government in this result. Now, Sir, I take that to be a just proposal. I think terms might have been demanded, founded upon justice, to a comparatively extravagant degree; but I think the proposal I have made is one which, after due reflection, will be considered by all a fair and reasonable proposition, founded upon justice, recommended by policy, and which, if adopted in practice, will give relief to the suffering portion of real property in a legitimate manner, not by the demand of undue favour at the expense of the rest of the community, but by the simple recognition of their rights. I am at a loss to conceive whence the great opposition to this proposal can arise. I shall be surprised if any person in authority should rise in this House, and maintain that this taxation of 10,000,000 l. or 12,000,000 l. is not a burden upon real property which no other description of property shares. As far as concerns that section of real property, the distressed condition of which especially has induced mc to come forward to-night, we have the opinion of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth fully recognising its burdens, in almost the last speech on the corn laws that he made before the year 1846. That right hon. Gentleman placed his vindication of
444
the corn laws when Minister, I believe so late as the year 1845, upon the acknowledged burdens on land, and he specified that system of taxation to which the resolutions I have laid on the table refers. That right hon. Gentleman has changed his opinion on the policy of the corn laws; but that is no reason that he should have changed his opinions on these matters of fact. And, now, what may be the sentiments of the Prime Minister on this important subject? I am not going to quote Hansard. It shall not be a speech. I will refer to a document much more interesting, written on a memorable occasion, when of all others a man would be sincere, thoughtful, grave, and weigh what he did say with a feeling of deep responsibility. When the noble Lord failed in forming his Government, at the commencement of the year 1846, and communicated his failure to his Sovereign, in language befitting the occasion, he left recorded in that almost solemn document this passage:—
"Lord John Russell is deeply sensible of the embarrassment caused by the present state of public affairs. He will be ready, therefore, to do all in his power, as a Member of Parliament, to promote the settlement of that question, which, in present circumstances, is the source of so much danger, especially to the welfare and peace of Ireland. Lord John Russell would have formed his Ministry on the basis of a complete free trade in corn, to be established at once, without gradation or delay. He would have accompanied that proposal with measures of relief, to a considerable extent, of the occupiers of land from the burdens to which they are subjected."
Well, that is a great authority in favour of the views I have endeavoured to enforce. The right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord are my witnesses in answer to the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt will get up in his place and argue that real property is exempted from imposts which other property is subjected to. Is it that Her Majesty's Ministers shrink from the idea of performing this great act of justice on the score of its impracticability? That can hardly be. It was only last year that they came forward with a proposition to increase the income tax, not to do a great act of justice, not to conciliate rival classes, not to support an injured or aggrieved interest, but to do what I never could make out except it was to pay the militia. And, by the by, if the militia had boon called out, there would have been a militia rate, for which real property alone would have been liable. Let me now inquire what reception I am to calculate on from that section of the House, who are the pure

445
professors of liberal principles, the vindicators of men in every clime, whose hearts are always touched at every sound of injustice, and who are ever prompt to come forward to succour the oppressed. Arc they going to complete the fulness of their liberal professions, by maintaining that their properties shall be privileged? They can have no abstract hostility to the process I indicate; they are all of them admirers of direct taxation; we ourselves have suffered under it for many years; we wish that you, too, should taste its fruits. Looking, then, to the sanction of these views we have obtained from leading men, to the facility with which the machinery of the income tax may, to a certain degree, be adopted in this behalf by the present Government, and the abstract preference of direct taxation expressed by other hon. Gentlemen opposite, I trust that this oppressed interest of real property has at length some chance of obtaining relief. Sir, do not let the House imagine that the sufferings of that class are not considerable. Do not let them imagine that that portion of real property, which is connected with the cultivation of the land, is not, at this moment, in a state of depression as terrible as has been announced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. You see how eager they are to obtain relief, by the petition I have placed upon the table this day for the repeal of the malt tax. You see how the farmers of this country, immediately interested in the growth of barley, cry for the repeal of that tax. You find many of them not immediately interested in the growth of barley, not able perhaps to prove they can obtain any great relief from their sufferings from the repeal of the malt tax, labouring under a sense of oppression from this weight of unjust taxation—how eager they are to adopt the first remedy that is offered. Sir, I have expressed in the second resolution that I have placed upon the table of the House my sincere opinion upon the subject of the malt tax. When we remember that the landed interest, as a considerable portion of the real property of the country, is subject to the taxation I have referred to in the first resolution, it is a great aggravation when we consider that more than one-third of the revenue raised by the Excise is contributed by taxes upon the articles of their growth. The circumstances connected with those taxes have been so frequently before the House, that I will not
446
trouble, by too much detail, Gentlemen to whom they are familiar; but there are circumstances connected with propositions for relief with regard to those taxes, which must be well understood by the House before they can comprehend the feelings of the farmers upon the subject. Those suffering classes, Sir, cannot but remember that twenty years ago they made an appeal to the House of Commons for the repeal of those taxes; and what was the answer? The answer was, that the Minister could not spare the revenue. He could not spare the three millions and a half which was then raised by the malt tax. The farmers yielded to that representation of the Government; and next year, if I remember right, upwards of three millions and a half of taxation were taken off from other articles by the same Government. I do not want to go into the question whether it was a wise or an unwise act of the Government of that day; but I ask you what feelings it is calculated to engender if you treat the agricultural classes in that spirit? Are you surprised that they should remember such incidents with mortification and with lessened confidence in the leading men of this country? Well, Sir, what happened in the year 1835? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth was then the First Minister of this country—perhaps the most difficult and not the least distinguished portion of his eminent career. Upon that occasion, and in that year, there was great agricultural distress; and the great body of the agriculturists of England were of opinion that the repeal of the malt tax might give them relief. There was a considerable commotion—in modern days called agitation—upon the subject. A noble Lord (the Marquess of Chandos) who then represented the county of Buckingham, and who is still remembered by the farmers of that county with respect for his faithful and consistent conduct, had pledged himself to bring forward a Motion for the repeal of this tax; and embarrassing and painful as was his position, upon account of the formation of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman, he redeemed his pledge. How was the question then met? The right hon. Gentleman exerted all his powers to refute the statements that were offered. He administered some solemn monitions to the landed Gentlemen. The right hon. Baronet said, "Take care what you are about: you may get rid of the malt tax, but I will tell you what you will have in-

447
stead—a good comfortable property tax." Never was such an effect produced upon the agricultural mind. They fled like sheep! Some came down to this House, and rescinded their promises to their constituents. Others dreamed dreams and saw visions. But what have you got now? You have got the malt tax; you have got the "good, comfortable property tax;" and you have got all those burdens upon the land which you found so oppressive, and which the right hon. Gentleman, to his last moment, agreed were so oppressive, besides. Are you surprised, then, that the farmers of England, after such incidents as these, should be a little ill-tempered and unmanageable? For my part, I am not at all surprised that men so distressed and so burdened should fly to the first refuge for succour. When you recollect how often this question has been matured out of doors, how frequently it has been brought forward in this House with every chance of success—that once even, to complete the picture, the repeal was carried and rescinded immediately afterwards, are you surprised that the farmers should begin to feel some distrust in the conduct of public men? Now, Sir, that this tax is an injury to the farmer, I do not think any one can, for a moment, deny. That it is a tax upon the consumer, is no answer to this complaint. All our taxes are taxes upon the consumer. But that this restricts the demand for the farmer's produce, is what no one can scarcely question. Why, Sir, Mr. M'Culloch, the political economist—and though a political economist, a very sensible man—and without exception, I think, of all the economical writers, the most practical that I am acquainted with—Mr. M'Culloch, I say, in ascertaining in one of his works the amount of fixed duty which, he thought, ought to be granted to the land, upon account of, as he says, its being taxed more than other portions of the community—in the elements of his fixed duty, puts down the malt tax as giving a claim for 2s. in that duty. This demand upon the part of the farmer, therefore, is not so unreasonable as some would pretend. I do not dwell upon the domestic annoyances which this tax causes. They are known to all of us—they are felt by most of us—and they are the hourly conversation of these men at their markets. Now, Sir, having frankly expressed my opinion upon the subject as far as regards past propositions and the amount of loss and annoyance to the farmer, I will, even
448
at the risk of losing that favour which they have bestowed upon me, counsel them not to press for the repeal of the malt tax. I will give you my reasons why. I advise them not to press for the repeal of the malt tax, because I am convinced that the portion of benefit which they will receive will be very slight compared with the general inconvenience which it will occasion. That is my general reason; but my particular reason why I hope they will not press, and why I recommend them not to press, for the repeal of the malt tax is, that if they obtain it at this moment, they will obtain what may prove a fatal obstacle to measures of relief such as that which I have proposed, and others which I hope we may be enabled to propose. The measure which I
have proposed or suggested tonight will allow me to take five or six millions of taxation from the real property of the country. Its benefits will be felt in every village and in every farm-house in the kingdom. Its advantages also will be felt in every town in the empire. It is not a sectional advantage—it is not a sectarian arrangement. It will benefit every farmer a hundred times more than the repeal of the malt tax; whilst he will feel, at the same time, that the great body of his countrymen, not connected with agriculture, are equally benefited by such a measure, founded on justice, the authority of which no one can impugn. Sir, if you deny these men justice, against the flagrant and unanswerable complaint of the real property of the country, one fourth in amount of the whole, being visited by the incubus of taxation to the extent of ten or twelve millions, from which the privileged properties are exempt, we must not conceal from ourselves that we shall have appeals for the repeal of the malt tax, and for the repeal of other taxes. You must not conceal from yourselves that you may make an oppressed and aggrieved population run a-muck against your theories of trade and taxation. I have been asked. Sir, by Gentlemen from Ireland, whether I intend that the resolutions which I have placed upon the table should apply to their country? It is my intention that they should apply to Ireland. I can see no reason and no principle why that application should not be made. If I have not specially introduced the case of Ireland in debate, it has been because the analogous rates and taxes, and imposts, which are levied in that country, are levied by a different machinery; they would introduce different figures into the discussion,

449
and complicate a proposition which I wished to keep perfect in the simplicity of its justice, unclouded with details which might distract the House from its fair and due consideration. But it is my intention, if a Committee of the whole House will permit me to introduce the measure I have mentioned, to follow it up by another measure which shall apply, in the same spirit, to Ireland. I cannot comprehend what arguments can he urged against Ireland being relieved in the same spirit of justice as England. I do not offer it to Ireland as a boon which is entirely to reanimate her in her present depressed condition, but it is an arrangement which she is entitled to call upon the landed interest of this country to insure to her if they themselves receive it with the other holders of real property; and I hope it may exercise a beneficial influence upon her condition. There are other measures which, I think, might do more for Ireland even than the present; and. Sir, if I do not bring them forward now, it is because I feel that this is not the occasion to introduce them. I was taunted the other night by an hon. Gentleman representing an Irish constituency, because I opposed the proposition of the Government, and proposed nothing myself. The criticism is not just; and it is rather stale. It is neither new nor true. It is not our duty, because we do not approve of a proposition of a Minister, instantly to bring in a counter proposition. I can easily understand. Sir, why hon. Gentleman
opposite do not approve of an Opposition being in existence. But we are sensible of our duties, and we shall endeavour to fulfil them. I will, however, tell hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that there is one measure, one means of assisting them, which I am most anxious to introduce to this House. It is a great—it is a comprehensive measure. I should wish to induce Irish Gentlemen upon either side, to forget their fatal feuds, and to join with us in efforts to restore their depressed and prostrate country. Had my lamented Friend (Lord G. Bentinck) been spared to us, he would have introduced to the notice of Parliament this year a measure that I believe would have done more for Ireland than all the measures ever introduced by Ministers for the last half century—more comprehensive, more beneficial even, than that great measure which unfortunately he did not carry. But it is useless to attempt to assist Ireland unless Irish Members will throw aside their party
450
feelings, and remember their interest in the land, without which they cannot much longer stand. Nothing can be more fatal to them, nothing more injurious to the future fortunes and walfare of their country, than their not combining with the landed interest of England to maintain the interests of the mutually oppressed properties. Sir, I have endeavoured to place before the House—I trust in a fair, I am sure not in an intemperate spirit, the views and suggestions of those who complain of the grievances which I have alleged in the resolutions I have placed upon the table. The complainants are those various classes that, combined and united, form what is called in popular language, "the landed interest;" a portion of this nation which, whether we look at their property or their numbers, or the weight and influence which necessarily result from their social position and their interesting occupation, may still be accounted the most considerable order in our society. It would be disingenuous, Sir, if, in this discussion, I attempted to conceal that the landed interest do not merely complain of the grievances alleged in these resolutions; they complain, also, of a great injury which they deem they have received from the hands of this House. It is not my intention now to enter into a consideration of the policy or the impolicy of those great measures which you passed three years ago—which you passed, and which they deplore. But it is my duty to represent to you that, dull or indifferent as you sometimes may have chosen to picture them, they have not been unmindful of what has happened in this country of late years, of much that has been done, and much that has been said in this House. They have witnessed the rise and development in this country of new properties, of new species of influence; and they have witnessed them without jealousy, because it is part of their economical creed that national prosperity depends upon the union of classes. They have witnessed without any hostile feeling the right and rightful representation of those new interests and properties in this House, since its reconstruction. But though they have observed these great incidents with no other feeling than such as becomes a manly mind, it is but right you should understand that it is not without emotion they have observed that the whole course of your legislation for years has been, to invest those new properties and

451
interests with privileges, and simultaneously to deprive them of theirs. I said there was much that they had not passed unobserved and unheeded in this House—much that had been said, and much that had been done. They have not forgotten that they have been spoken of in terms of contempt by Ministers of State—ay, even by a son of one of their greatest houses, a house that always loved the land, and that the land still loves. They have not forgotten that they have been held up to public odium and reprobation by triumphant demagogues. They have not forgotten that their noble industry, which in the old days was considered the invention of gods and the occupation of heroes, has been stigmatised and denounced as an incubus upon English enterprise. They have not forgotten that even the very empire that was created by the valour and the devotion of their fathers, has been held up to public hatred, as a cumbersome and ensanguined machinery, only devised to pamper the luxury and feed the rapacity of our territorial houses. The fact is. Sir, these things are hard to digest. They are not pleasant to the humble—they are intolerable to the justly proud. These are things which change the heart and turn the blood of nations; and whether you think their feeling is founded on justice, or whether you deem it baseless, I tell you—and every Member of this House, every good and wise man must feel—that nothing is more to be deprecated, nothing more dangerous, than that considerable classes of the country should deem that they are treated unfairly by the Legislature. Sir, the spirit of the landed interest is deeply wounded. Whether they have foundation for this feeling or not, it is one which I would recommend any Minister not to treat with contempt. I fancy, Sir, it has been somewhat too long the practice to believe that you might conduct yourselves toward this interest with impunity. It was even a proverb with Sir Robert Walpole, that the landed interest might be fleeced at pleasure, and I observe at no time has that interest been more negligently treated than when demagogues are denouncing it as an oligarchical usurpation. But this may be dangerous play if you are outraging justice. You think you may trust their proverbial loyalty. Trust their loyalty, but do not abuse it. I dare say it may be said of them, as it was said 3,000 years ago, in the most precious leg-
452
acy of political science that has descended to us—I dare say it may also he said of them that the agricultural class is the least given to sedition. I doubt not that is as true of the Englishman of the plain and of the dale as it was of the Greek of the isle and of the continent; but it would be just as well if you also recollected that the fathers of these men were the founders of your liberties; and that, before this time, their ancestors have bled for justice. Rely upon it that the blood of those men who refused to pay ship-money is not to be trifled with. Their conduct to you has exhibited no hostile feeling, notwithstanding the political changes that have abounded of late years, and all apparently to a diminution of their power. They have inscribed a homely sentence on their rural banners; but it is one which, if I mistake not, is already again touching the heart and convincing the reason of England—" Live, and let live." You have adopted a different motto—you, the leading spirits on the benches which I see before me, have openly declared your opinion that if there were not an acre of land cultivated in England it would not be the worse for this country. You have all of you in open chorus announced your object to be the monopoly of the commerce of the universe, and to make this country the workshop of the world. Your system and theirs are exactly contrary. They invite union. They believe that national prosperity can only be produced by the prosperity of all classes. You prefer to remain in isolated splendour and solitary magnificence. But believe me, I speak not as your enemy when I say that it will be an exception to the principles which seem hitherto to have ruled society, if you can succeed in maintaining the success at which you aim without the possession of that permanence and stability which the territorial principle alone can afford. Although you may for a moment flourish after their destruction—although your ports may be filled with shipping, your factories smoke on every plain, and your forges flame in every city—I see no reason why you should form an exception to that which the page of history has mournfully recorded; that you, too, should not fade like the Tyrian dye, and moulder like the Venetian palaces. But, united with the land, you will obtain the best and surest foundation upon which to build your enduring welfare; you will find in that interest a counsellor in all your troubles—in danger your undaunted

453
champion—and in adversity your steady customer. It is to assist in producing this result. Sir, that I am about to place these resolutions in your hands. I wish to see the agriculture, the commerce, and the manufactures of England not adversaries, but co-mates and partners—and rivals only in the ardour of their patriotism and in the activity of their public spirit.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the whole of the local taxation of the country for national purposes, falls mainly, if not exclusively, on real property, and bears with undue severity on the occupiers of land, in a manner injurious to the agricultural interests of the country, and otherwise highly impolitic and unjust:
"That the hardship of this apportionment is greatly aggravated by the fact, that more than one-third of the whole revenue derived from the Excise, is levied upon agricultural produce, exposed, by the recent changes in the law to direct competition with the untaxed produce of foreign countries; the home producer being thus subjected to a burden of taxation which, by greatly enhancing the price, limits the demand for British produce; and to restrictions, which injuriously interfere with the conduct of his trade and industry:
"That this House will resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into its serious consideration such measures as may remove the grievances of which the owners and occupiers of real property thus justly complain, and which may establish a more equitable apportionment of the public burdens."
MR. HUMEsaid, he had listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat; and he could not but express his utter astonishment at the remedies suggested by the hon. Member, and the extraordinary means by which he proposed to relieve that distress which he depicted as existing amongst the agricultural interests. He (Mr. Hume) had paid particular attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, in order to guess, if possible, by what means—by what practical means—that distress was to be removed; but he had listened in vain. The fact was, the hon. Gentleman's speech was not at all in accordance with the resolutions proposed. It was stated, that certain burdens had pressed with undue severity upon the occupiers of land. They had, however, heard nothing whatever of the occupiers of land from the hon. Gentleman, for his observations were principally directed to matters affecting the landlords. With respect to local taxation, he wished to ask those on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman had come forward that evening, how the tenant farmers could be
454
benefited by the addition of another income tax? How could they be benefited by 6,000,000 l. of new taxes? The income tax at present was 7d. in the pound, but it would require 1s. 3d. in the pound to afford relief to the proprietors of land in this country, without any reference whatever to the occupiers. With what justice could that be done? He denied altogether the position of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had asked with what justice they could call upon the landed proprietors to pay the local taxes he had enumerated? He (Mr. Hume) would say, that they were bound to pay them upon every principle of justice. The lands were obtained originally upon condition of rendering military service. That, for the convenience of all parties, had been commuted into the payment of certain taxes; the lands that had since changed hands had been bought with the burden of these taxes upon them, and under proportionate deductions for the same; and, therefore, the landowners had no right now to ask to be relieved of them. The statement of the hon. Gentleman, then, was all moonshine. It was an appeal to the charity and commiseration of the House, not to its justice. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the roads as imposing a burden on the agricultural interest; but wherever good roads had been established at the expense of a county, they had proved more than reproductive as regarded the value of the landed property. Then, with respect to police establishments and the administration of justice, were the same parties not interested in preventing robbery; and had not the property of a county always been bound to uphold those establishments and that administration? It was the ancient lords of the soil who, in the absence of the Sovereign, were the administrators of justice. Bridges were built in early times for the convenience of the locality; indeed, there were none of the taxes mentioned by the hon. Gentleman which did not come within the category of taxes raised within the district for the advantage of the district. They were bound to pay the local taxes, and it would be most unjust for their relief to saddle them upon the country at large. It was quite clear that land had always been purchased subject to such burdens as these. He would, for instance, appeal to any hon. Gentleman who had purchased laud at any time in this country. Why, doubtless, the first matter he inquired about was the amount of

455
county rates, and other similar taxes. He struck those off the value put upon the land, and after deducting those expenses, the balance was estimated as the marketable value. The purchaser had, therefore, no right to say that he should be exempted from the payment of such rates, for, in fact, he had never contributed one shilling towards them. The hon. Gentleman who moved the resolutions, had asked, with what justice could the lauded proprietors be called upon to pay such taxes? The answer was very simple. They were called upon to pay them with precisely the same amount of justice with which any man should be called upon to pay his just and honest debts. He purchased his land subject to those rates—he knew he should pay them—he was aware he purchased the land subject to them, and he should therefore he held responsible for them. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire called upon the House to relieve the proprietors of land from liability to the payment of several millions, and to saddle them upon others in the shape of taxes. If that had been done, nothing could be so clear in his (Mr. Hume's) mind, than that such a course would be an act of the utmost injustice—of complete robbery. Why should the proprietors of land be relieved from the payment of those taxes which they had been already allowed for, and which they had deducted from the estimated value of the lands they purchased? If that was the case—and he challenged a contradiction of the facts he stated—what became of the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire? In fact, the speech of that hon. Gentleman was like a call upon the public in consideration of the great distress of the landed interests. They were, however, bound in law and in equity to contribute their fair share towards the liquidation of local taxes. They had purchased their estates subject to such burthens, and it would be most unfair now to exempt them from their payment. These were all properly local taxes, and should be paid exclusively by the local interests. It would be gross injustice to propose their imposition on the people generally, and therefore he said that to propose to relieve the tenant farmers by such means was only to mislead them. If the whole twelve millions of local taxation were taken off, the landlord would still demand the same rent, and thus the tenant would be left in the same situation as before. He could not believe that the tenant farmers would
456
be so stolid and stupid as to support the present Motion; and when he looked to what some of them had said within the last forty-eight hours, he was confirmed in that opinion. One of them had said, that unless there was a great reduction of taxation, the tenant farmer need expect no relief. But what was the proposition of the hon. Member for Bucks? It was simply to add six millions to the present enormous taxation of the country. We paid sixty millions, and the hon. Member would make us pay sixty-six, as a mode of relieving the condition of the farmers. Where was it to come from? It could only be raised by another income tax, and the whole would go into the pockets of the landlords. He saw that at all the recent farmers' meetings, the general cry was for reduction of taxation, and that was his cry also. He wanted to bring fifty-nine to forty-nine, to take off ten millions, which at the present moment were pressing down all the springs of the national industry. He must complain of the manner in which the hon. Member for Bucks had thought proper to address the representatives of the manufactnring interests. The hon. Member had talked as if Manchester and Liverpool were alone interested in the national establishments, and should alone bear all the burden. Among other things he had been surprised to hear the hon. Member say that Manchester and Liverpool should bear all the expense of the packets, because they were the places principally benefited. He would ask the hon. Member what made the land of England five times as valuable as the land of Poland? The land was not better; what, then, was it that enabled it to have such rents as were now paid, and which enabled the proprietors of the soil to live in such magnificent style? It was the enhanced value given to its products by the consumption of Liverpool, and Manchester, and Birmingham; the aid given to it, in fact, by the manufactures of the country. He could tell them that, but for manufactures, the land would be worth very little. At one of the meetings to which he had alluded, it was stated that land, which, in 1792 was worth only 700 l. a year, now let for 4,000 l., and yet the hon. Member for Bucks contended that the manufacturing interest had been of so little service to the land as to make it bear all the burdens of the country. The Motion of the hon. Member was neither more nor less than an appeal ad misericordiam, "Give us six

457
millions," says the hon. Member; but he would not get any in the way he proposed. He (Mr. Hume) believed that the time was coming when justice would at last be done. The landed interest had long had the imposition of taxes in their hands, and they mainly directed the expenditure. Neither had they forgotten to appropriate a full share of the profit and patronage to themselves and their families. But they had not paid the taxes. There was hardly an impost which did not come from the people at large. On these grounds he looked upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Bucks as an entire failure. The hon. Member would not advise the farmers to look for the repeal of the malt tax. He said, "It will not relieve you at all. I can do much better for you by laying upon you an additional tax of 7d. in the pound, the produce of which is to go into the pockets of the landlords." Now, although the hon. Member did not think fit to propose a repeal of the malt tax, he (Mr. Hume) would assist the tenant farmers by proposing its repeal, and he would now state to the House what it was he meant to propose. He had constantly maintained that the malt and hop duties were two of the worst taxes that could be imposed. Twenty years before, when a proposition was brought forward for the repeal of the malt tax, he had voted in the majority; and it would have been repealed, had not the country Gentlemen come down on the following evening and rescinded their own vote. When his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding had proposed a reduction of ten millions in the expenditure, he (Mr. Hume) had supported him; and he would now state what taxes he would remit with the produce. He would now remind the House that in 1821 he proposed a reduction of four millions and a half in the taxation; and every tax that he then proposed to strike off had been remitted since. He had proposed to strike off the salt tax, 1,500,000 l., and the leather tax. Both had since been remitted. The soap tax he had also proposed to strike off, and would have succeeded had not Lord Mont-eagle been in office. One half of the tax was taken off", and the remainder promised in the following year; but, like many other promises, it was broken. However, 3,800,000 l. of his proposition was struck off, and any one who lived to see the next ten years, would see the same result follow his hon. Friend's proposition. Now for the
458
malt tax. Let it not be supposed that he proposed to take it off all in one day. Radical reformer as he was, he must work cautiously until he had got all the tenant farmers on his side. He did not think it would be long until he had them. Mr. Bennett, at one of the farmers' meetings, had said, "A few hours will test those gentlemen who call themselves the farmers' friends. Let us mark who among them will support Mr. Hume's proposition. Those who do not, need never look this way again. A general election will settle all." Indeed, so heavy was the taxation, so useless the expenditure, that if the county Members only behaved well, he had every hope of reduction. He was not afraid of the borough Members, bad as the constituencies were—and they were very bad—only the small ones. All they wanted was to have the constituencies made larger. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might gather from the speeches made at their own meetings within the last 48 hours what would be their fate at the next election if they were not prepared to support a general reduction of expenditure and of taxation. He proposed to take off ten millions from the expenditure of the country, and this was the way he would deal with it. He would repeal the malt tax, amounting to 5,225,000 l., and the hop duties, which amounted to 392,000 l. He had long felt it to be his duty to endeavour to make the food of the people cheap by making it free of taxes. That object being achieved, he would do his best to make their beer cheap by taking off the malt and hop duties. He had never heard any argument advanced in favour of those taxes except that they were for the benefit of the agricultural population. But he spoke for the agricultural population when he demanded the repeal of these taxes, which they knew pressed heavily upon them, fettering their industry and crippling their energies, and depriving the labourer of a beverage which was necessary to the maintenance of his strength. He was informed, on good authority, that, the malt tax repealed, good beer could be had for 1d. a pot. ["Oh!" and a laugh.] Yes, as good beer as was now charged 3d could then be supplied for 1d. This would increase the sale of barley, and so benefit the tenant farmer and the labourer at the same time. He did not, however, propose this change for the benefit of the agricultural labourer alone, but for that of all the working men in the

459
country; and the poorer the man, and the lower the wages, the more necessary it was that he should have at his command a wholesale nourishing drink instead of resorting to ardent spirits. The next taxes he would remove were those on light—the window tax, and the tax on soap; and hero he was sure he should have the support of all those hon. Members who were the advocates of sanitary improvements. The window tax produced 1,663,000 l.; soap, 990,000 l.; bricks (which the agricultural party joined with malt), 445,000 l.; and paper, 745,000 l. After reducing the expenditure to the standard of 1835, the taxes he would reduce were—malt, 5,225,071 l; hops, 392,381 l.; window tax, 1,663,320 l.; soap, 990,512 l; bricks, 455,845 l.; paper, 745,795 l. This would give a total of 9,472,924 l., so that he should leave a margin of half a million for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He looked upon the malt tax as one of the most important of these taxes, not only in the relief its removal would afford, but in the injurious effects of its operation. He would state what the effects of the malt tax had been, and what he further intended by repealing that tax. One great object he had in view was to abolish the Excise department altogether, which cost the country 929,000 l. a year, and had formerly cost a million—a reduction which they had to thank Mr. Wood, the chief of that department, for effecting. This department, the whole business of which, with the exception of that which related to spirits, might long since have been left to the same board that dealt with the customs and stamps, he would abolish altogether. A million a-year nearly would be saved by this arrangement. The advantages which would result from the removal of the excise restrictions on soap and paper, would not be less than 15 per cent. To-morrow he should have to present a petition from certain paper makers, in which they showed that the duty imposed upon the manufacture of paper was 66 per cent on one description of paper, and 33 per cent on another; and if the excise were removed, this country would be able to supply the world with stationary. He could show that the effect of the tax on malt was to demoralise the people, and induce them to resort to spirits as a beverage instead of beer. In 1826, when he submitted to the House the propriety of reducing the malt tax, he placed a paper on the table showing the
460
effect of the duty in the average consumption in various periods of ten years. In the ten years ending 1794, the duty being 1s. 6¾d. a bushel, the average consumption was 25,751,775 bushels. In the next year, the duty was raised to 2s. 4d., and from 1795 to 1804, the population having of course materially increased, and the prosperity of the country having increased also, the average consumption was 25,514,741 bushels. In the ten years from 1805 to 1814, a period when the consumption of all other articles increased, malt fell to an average of 23,819,475 bushels, the duty having been raised to 4s. 4d. a bushel. During the next ten years there were three different duties, 2s. 4d., 3s. 6d., and 2s. 6d.; and with the first reduction the consumption recovered to 25,846,000 bushels, being 300,000 less than the average of the ten years ending 1794. In the ten years ending 1834, the duty being 2s. 7d., the consumption was 29,000,000, and in the following ton years it rose to 33,000,000. But in 1840 an addition of 5 per cent was made to the duty, and the consumption immediately fell off; and during the last four years, 1845, 1846, 1847, and 1848, it was only 32,000,000, being an increase of only 30 per cent in sixty-three years, while the population had increased 79 to 80 per cent in the same time. Previous to the imposition of the duty, the proportionate consumption of malt was still greater. He would show how additional duties had worked in Ireland, in reference to the consumption of malt. During the five years commencing 1795, the duty being 1s. 4d., the aver-ago consumption was 4,410,410 bushels; in the five years from 1815 to 1819, the duty being 2s. 10 d., the average consumption fell to 1,891,152 bushels; and from 1831 to 1835, the whole amount which paid duty was 1,659,539. The consumption of spirits had increased as that of malt had decreased. In Scotland the results were the same. Before he sat down, he hogged to express his satisfaction at finding that from first to last of his speech, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had not proposed protection. He had proposed reciprocity, and the latter part of his speech seemed very much directed towards the re-enactment of monopoly; but he had not mentioned the word "protection." He (Mr. Hume) therefore took it for granted that the House had had something like an assurance from the hon. Member that he

461
did not want protection. But what, then, became of all the meetings of the farmers? Because they were looking for a restoration of protection, and for a monopoly. Now, he was as anxious as any man to obtain reciprocity, but he would not injure himself because another might refuse to do as he did. Let other countries do as they pleased, and drink all or anything they liked at an expense of 20 or 30 per cent higher than it was drunk in England, what did it matter to him? He would reduce the taxes in this country irrespective of what any other nation might do. He took his stand upon that great principle, and haped he would not hear from any Member the common allegation, that "why should we take off duties on our imports when other countries would not do the same?" [Cheers.] They were daily in the habit of hearing that other countries would not take off the duties on our goods, that there was no reciprocity; and now hon. Members appeared most anxious to cheer him when he stated that every country ought to take care of its own interests, although they themselves seemed most anxious to meddle with the affairs of foreign nations. He thought it altogether intolerable that we should in anywise regulate our concerns according to the rule laid down upon the Continent or elsewhere; indeed, he thought it perfect nonsense to say that we should not carry out measures connected with our well-being and prosperity, simply because other countries would not follow our example. He had twice or thrice voted for the appointment of a Committee to ascertain whether there were any taxes which unduly pressed on the agricultural interest, with a view to their removal; and even now if a Motion were made to alleviate any burdens which pressed unfairly upon that interest he would willingly second it. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the first word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'if the local taxation of the country presses unequally on real property, or bears with undue severity on the occupiers of land, such inequality and undue pressure ought to be removed; but, with the view of granting speedy relief to the agricultural and other interests of the country, without detriment to the claims of the National Creditors, it is the opinion of this House that the public expenditure, now excessive, ought to be forthwith reduced so as to enable Parliament to repeal totally the Excise Duties on Malt and Hops; and to remove, as far as practicable, other burdens which impede the progress of agriculture and of commercial industry.'"
MR. BRIGHTseconded the Amendment.
Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as the debate could not probably be brought to a close upon that night, he thought an adjournment would be desirable. He would, therefore, suggest that the debate be adjourned to Wednesday next.
Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
SIR J. PAKINGTON SIR J. PAKINGTON moved to appoint the following Members on the Select Committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill:—Sir John Hanmer, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Wrightson, Mr. Napier, Mr. Maitland, Mr. Mullins, and Mr. Sheridan.
COLONEL SIBTHORP COLONEL SIBTHORP moved to substitute Mr. Mackenzie for Sir John Hanmer.
SIR J. PAKINGTONresisted the Motion.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwould not divide the House, but thought the hon. Baronet had manifested more obstinacy than good sense in the course he pursued. The hon. and gallant Member then moved that the name of the Attorney General be substituted for that of Mr. Horsman. If it were urged as a reason for placing Sir J. Hanmer on the Committee that he knew a great deal about this sort of business, then it applied with increased force to his Motion, for the Attorney General knew a great deal more. The Treasury bench affected great purity, but the fact was, they almost stunk of bribery.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwas quite ready to serve, if such was the wish of the House; but if it was merely to gratify the hon. and gallant Member he should decline.
COLONEL SIBTHORP: The hon. and learned Gentleman is either very much conversant with bribery, or else he is very much belied.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member has no right to say so. I have already denied it. [Colonel SIBTHORP: What?] What you say I have been guilty of. I have denied in this House that I have had anything to do with bribery, and the hon. and gallant Member has no right to repeat it.
COLONEL SIBTHORPutterly denied having charged the Attorney General with having been guilty of bribery. ["Oh!"]
SIR J. PAKINGTONhoped this matter would go no further.
The Committee, as originally proposed, was then agreed to.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.