Commons Sitting of 7 August 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3° Patent Law Amendment.

THE EXHIBITION OF 1851.
COLONEL SIBTHORPthen said, that he wished to ask the President of the

1937
Board of Trade, whether certain individuals had not been admitted into the Crystal Palace on the Sabbath-day? And whether some of them had not availed themselves of that opportunity to copy certain articles therein deposited?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that since the hon. and gallant Officer gave notice of this question, he had made some inquiries with a view to ascertain what it was that could have given rise to the statement which he had just made. He found that the general rule had been to prevent all working or admission into the Crystal Palace, except for necessary purposes, on the Sabbath. The Executive Committee had, however, thought it extremely useful and desirable to preserve a record of the articles exhibited, so far as they were allowed by the exhibitors; and for that purpose certain gentlemen had been admitted into the building, with a view to try some experiments, with respect to the best mode of taking photographs of some of the principal objects, especially works of art—for it appeared that it was necessary that these experiments should be tried when the building was almost empty, and also that the light was unfavourable for that purpose, except during the hours when the public was admitted, from ten o'clock in the morning to seven o'clock in the evening. Under these circumstances the Executive Committee felt themselves justified in allowing a gentleman, who was very skilful in this branch of art, to have admission on two occasions, for the purpose of trying the requisite experiments.
COLONEL SIBTHORPasked whether it was true, that a work of art which had been purchased by Mr. Tudor, had been so much damaged from being photographed on Sunday, that he was compelled to decline it?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he regretted to say, that in trying these experiments, one work of art was partially damaged, in altering its position, with a view to the better application of the photographic process. That was the only instance in which any work exhibited had received any damage, and communications were now going on with the owner with a view of giving him ample compensation.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for considering the Amendments to the Patent Law Amendment Bill read.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that one of the points upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham) had objected to this Bill was, that, while the amount which would be realised by the fees to be taken under it was uncertain, it proposed to authorise the Lords of the Treasury to make a fixed charge upon the Consolidated Fund, for the payment of compensation to persons whose offices and emoluments had been abolished under the Act. He was fully prepared to admit that there was considerable weight in that objection; but at the same time he was not prepared to accede to the suggestion which was made on the previous day, that a fee fund should be created, and that the whole frame of the Bill should be altered, so as to allow of this change. The Government were not prepared to alter the Bill to the extent which would in that case be requisite; and he might mention that the recent course of legislation had not been in favour of the creation of separate fee funds; and he need only refer to the case of the fee fund in the Court of Chancery, which had lately come under their consideration, to show that the sense of that House was not in favour of creating a fee fund for the first time. The scheme of this Bill seemed, on the whole, to be simple and effectual, and to provide an easy mode of accounting for the receipts and of meeting the disbursements, under the control of that House, with the single exception of the clause relative to compensation; and he hoped that the alteration which he proposed in Clause 49 would meet the objections which were urged against it on the previous day. Instead of giving the Treasury the power of awarding compensation, and of making a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, he proposed, while retaining for the Treasury the power of awarding compensation to the officers, to enact that its amount should be provided out of such money as might be provided by Parliament for that purpose. The amount of compensation would thus be put on the same footing as the salaries; and no compensation could be paid to any officer without a vote of that House. He apprehended that security would thus be afforded against unnecessary expense. With regard to the patent offices, the holders of which would be entitled to compensation, he found that there were three in the Signet Office; but as two out of the three holders were dead, there would only be one person entitled to compensation,

1939
Then there was one patent office under the Privy Seal; and another (the clerk of the Hanaper Office) under the Great Seal, the latter being held by a clergyman named Thurlow, to whom it was granted by Lord Chancellor Thurlow; and there was also the clerk of patents, appointed by the Attorney General.
The ATTORNEY GENERALhaving proposed some other Amendments of minor importance,
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that he regarded this as an ad interim arrangement, as it had been opened by the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney General; and as it was no doubt difficult to calculate the amount of fees beforehand, it might not therefore have been fair to fix the compensation exclusively on the fund to be so received. He should, however, have been very sorry to make a permanent charge upon the Consolidated Fund for compensation under an interim arrangement. He thought that the arrangement proposed by the hon. Secretary for the Treasury was perfectly unobjectionable, because it brought both the payments on account of salary and of compensation under the cognisance of Parliament in an annual vote, and was, therefore, quite different from a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Amendments agreed to.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the House would allow the Bill to be then read a third time. He admitted that his proposition could only be justified by the period of the Session, and the necessity there was for the Bill being sent up to the House of Lords immediately.
Clause added.
Bill read 3°, and passed with Amendments.

ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF PEERS.
On the Motion of LORD JOHN RUSSELL,
Resolved—"That it is expedient to insure regularity in the order of proceeding from this House to the House of Lords on occasions of Opening or Proroguing Parliament;"
MR. LABOUCHEREthen moved, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee—
"That every Member desirous of attending Mr. Speaker do communicate his intention in writing to the Clerk of the House, in case the House be not sitting, before the hour of Five in the after-
1940
nood on the day preceding; and if the House be sitting, between the hour of Three in the afternoon and the rising of the House on the day preceding,"
MR. VERNON SMITHcomplained that the attendance in the House the day previously should be made a condition to accompanying the Speaker to the House of Lords. The rule was that there should be unlimited access to the House of Lords on the occasion of Her Majesty's visit; but it was found necessary from the confusion which had arisen on a former occasion to make some regulation on the subject. Such a Resolution as that proposed might be necessary on the occasion of the first meeting of Parliament; but he did not think it necessary when large numbers of Members had left town. He thought the plan proposed, that Members who were desirous of attending the Speaker to the House of Lords should communicate their intention in writing to the clerk of the House, would be very inconvenient to hon. Gentlemen. In his opinion the most convenient rule they could adopt would be that all Members who were present in the House within five or ten minutes after the Speaker took the chair on any occasion when they were to be called to attend Her Majesty in the House of Peers, should put down their names in order that they might be drawn to determine their precedence. He thought it would be advisable to follow the plan adopted at coronations, when hon. Gentlemen drew for the choice of places. There seemed no reason why the arrangement should be made over night; the morning would be time enough. As to the second Resolution, that the Cabinet Ministers present should immediately follow the Speaker, he (Mr. V. Smith) had no desire to indulge in constitutional pedantry; but he saw a great objection to Cabinet Ministers being selected in this way. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) seemed to presume that Her Majesty would prefer seeing Her Cabinet Ministers round the Speaker; surely She would desire to see him surrounded by the representives of the people. The House knew no official rank upon that occasion. He (Mr. V. Smith) would take the sense of the House npon that Resolution, which appeared to involve an unnecessarily unconstitutional proceeding.
SIR DENHAM NORREYShad a great objection to the restriction imposed by the first Resolution, that no Member be allowed to attend Her Majesty's summons

1941
unless he had gone through a certain form the day before; Members were not bound to communicate with the clerk previous to the meeting of Parliament; many Members arriving just before could not comply with this rule. The case would be much simplified if the House of Lords would give the House of Commons room to obey the Queen's summons, and not fill up part of the space that ought to be kept clear for them. He (Sir D. Norreys) would propose to omit the first Resolution, and let the third run—"That on the day of meeting, or prorogation, and before other business, the names of Members then present be put into a glass and arranged according to the order in which they shall be drawn forth therefrom." Members coming in subseqently might draw numbers as they entered the House. Between every 10 or 20 Members a messenger might go, in order to prevent pressure.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISthought, that though Cabinet Ministers, as such, might not be allowed precedence on the occasions in question, the House would probably be disposed to recognise a distinction between Privy Councillors and other Members of the House. He conceived that there would be a disposition to allow the Cabinet Ministers precedence, if they would be content to share it with the rest of the Members of the Privy Council; and, subject to that, it seemed advisable to adopt the precedent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith). This would be but an experiment, however, and a different arrangement could be adopted hereafter, if thought more convenient. It was very desirable to adopt some plan to secure order, although the avenue connecting the two Houses was now broader than the passage from the old House of Commons, where Members had really sustained personal injury, and one—almost the father of the House—was thrown down.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsupported the objection of the hon. Baronet. The scandalous arrangements of the other House rendered unavoidable that confusion which took place on such occasions. A House with 656 Members was summoned to attend in a body where there was not room for 120. He did not care whose fault it was—whether of the House of Lords, or of Mr. Barry, who, he dared to say, had made as good a job in building that House as he was now making of the House of Commons; but it was not the fault of the latter, and the remedy ought
1942
to be provided elsewhere. He objected to the third Resolution, which would give a power to the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove Members from the lobby and passages. He supposed the next suggestion would be to give the Serjeant-at-Arms power to remove Members from the floor of that House. If the Resolution were adopted, it would be illegal, unless it had the concurrence of the Crown and the other House of Parliament, for nothing but an Act of Parliament could deprive him of his rights as a Member of the House of Commons and as a British subject. He had visited the library that morning, and had searched for precedents in the Journals of the House; and nowhere, from the period of the Tudors to the present time, could he find any reference whatever to the office of Cabinet Councillor. The Cabinet Council was an invention of comparatively modern and corrupt times, for the purpose of screening Ministers from their responsibility to the Privy Council and to Parliament. Mr. Hallam, the eminent historian, said that the Cabinet Council was not recognised by the constitution or the law, but was a private arrangement of Ministers between themselves, and that any Minister who chose the secrecy of a Cabinet Council might obtain absolute impunity for any crime; whilst Mr. Justice Coleridge said that no indictment could be brought against a Cabinet Minister in that capacity. The question was, therefore, should this House lightly set the example of recognising by name, and, so far as that recognition went, of sanctioning the existence of a conspiracy so illegal and so dangerous? Should they say that the Cabinet Councillors, as they were called, who had seats in that House, ought to usurp the privilege of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair? There was but one superior recognised in that House, and that was the right hon. Gentleman who now so worthily filled the chair; he was primus inter pares; but if this Resolution were adopted, it would be the Cabinet Councillors—not the right hon. Gentleman—who would he at the head of the Commons of England. For these reasons he (Mr. Anstey) should vote against the Resolution, and all the succeeding Resolutions; and also against proceeding in any manner with the question during the present Session of Parliament.
MR. T. GREENEwas understood to say that he did not think the Report and the Resolutions called for the strong lan-

1943
guage which had just been indulged in by the hon. Member for Youghal. He (Mr. Greene) had often witnessed the confusion which prevailed when the House had been summoned to the House of Lords, and had seen the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, as well as his immediate predecessors, pressed upon in a most unseemly manner on such occasions. It was not upon the Motion of a Cabinet Minister that this subject had been first brought forward. Originally it was proposed that the Privy Councillors in that House should have precedence; but they being too numerous, it was thought to be only a matter of courtesy to give the Cabinet Ministers precedence.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLobjected to the Resolution, on the ground that inconvenience would arise if Members were obliged to write previously, expressing their wish to attend. He proposed the following Amendment:—
"That every Member desirous of attending Mr. Speaker shall put his name in a glass when the House is summoned to attend Her Majesty; and that the Members' names shall be drawn by the clerk from the glass, and in such order as they may be drawn they shall proceed to the House of Lords."
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, the proposition had been already made, with this exception, that the hon. Baronet's Amendment involved this difficulty, that after the Black Rod should have summoned the House to the bar of the other House, they would proceed to the ballot. Nothing could be more incongruous or improper than that proceeding. The question should be put in an intelligible form, by allowing the arrangement to be made before Black Rod came to summon them.
MR. T. HOBHOUSEhad no wish to attach undue importance to the subject, but thought that when they were about to establish a principle they should take care that it was a just one, and not sacrifice any constitutional principle, as they would do by passing the Resolutions. As representatives of the people, they ought to bear in mind that they were equal among themselves. If there was to be any precedence, let it be that which was observed elsewhere; let a baronet bave precedence of an esquire, and a Privy Councillor of a baronet. Cabinet Ministers had no real status in this country; the Cabinet Council was an unconstitutional body, which originated in the reign of Charles the Second. There was one point to which
1944
he particularly wished to call attention—a point which deserved the notice of the Lords themselves. In that House every facility was given to the Lords for attendance; seats, and every accommodation, were provided; but the House of Lords did not grant similar accommodation to the House of Commons. Even of the small space allotted to the Members of that House, half was filled by strangers before the Members could enter it. He should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall), and the House might rely upon it if they established the proposed precedent, a reformed House of Commons would upset it within five years.
MR. M'GREGORobserved, that Members were now going to the country, and they would find the people considered that their representatives were frequently placed in a very invidious position. He thought some regulations ought to be adopted to prevent disorder on these occasions; and he conceived that the ballot might be adopted without a formal vote. He should readily grant precedence by courtesy to past and present Cabinet Ministers; but a Resolution to that effect would be unconstitutional.
SIR DE LACY EVANShoped that the House would not, by attaching too much importance to the question, expose themselves to ridicule out of doors.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL, with a view to remove the objection taken to the Amendment by the hon. Member for Mallow, would propose another Amendment with an alteration in the words.
Another Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'do' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'put his name in a glass; and half an hour after the meeting of the House the Members' Names shall be drawn from the glass, and in such order as they may be drawn the Members shall proceed to the House of Lords, in ranks of four,' instead thereof."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLobserved, that he had moved the appointment of a Committee on the subject, because he understood that a desire existed to render the proceedings more orderly on the occasions to which the Resolutions had reference. He was responsible for having moved the appointment of that Committee. When the Committee met, he certainly proposed that a precedence should be established, which was not the precedence contained in

1945
these Resolutions. The precedence he proposed was, that the Speaker should name four Members to accompany him, thinking it desirable that the Members who moved and seconded the Address, for instance, should, on the proper occasions, attend the Speaker before other Members. However, that proposal was unanimously negatived by the Committee, and the proposal now before the House adopted in preference. That was to him entirely a matter of indifference. All he was anxious for was that the House should agree, if possible, without a division, because it was not a question on which it was desirable to proceed to a division: and if the Resolution, as amended by the hon. Member for Marylebone, met the approval of the House, he hoped it would be adopted without a division, in accordance with his suggestions.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived;—Words added.
Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
Resolved—"That every Member desirous of attending Mr. Speaker, do put his name in a glass; and half an hour after the meeting of the House the Members' Names shall be drawn from the glass, and in such order as they may be drawn the Members shall proceed to the House of Lords, in ranks of four."
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That after this House has been summoned to attend Her Majesty, no Member of this House do remain in, or cross, or pass through, any of the Lobbies or Passages leading from the Door of this House to the Door of the House of Lords; and that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do keep the said Passages clear of Members."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYwished to know whether Members were to be prevented following the Speaker to the House of Lords until the absent and the stray Members had been found to accompany him thither? He had certainly understood that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet (Sir B. Hall) was to be substituted for the whole of the Resolutions proposed on the part of the Government; and finding that was not so, he (Mr. Anstey) would insist on dividing the House. There was no proper place reserved at the bar of the House of Lords for the accommodation of the Members of the House of Commons. The place understood to be set apart there for the accommodation of Members was full
1946
of lawyers' clerks, Parliamentary agents, and unsuccessful candidates for seats in the House of Commons. He wanted to know from the noble Lord whether any arrangements were to be made to-morrow for keeping open for hon. Members, not only the square part, to which they were usually confined, but the whole space below the bar of the House of Lords open?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, in a communication made to them by the Lords, the Committee received a positive assurance that the whole space below the bar, which was said to be intended for the accommodation of Members of the House of Commons, would be kept reserved for the House of Commons. The Committee were likewise informed, that there would be space provided for 300 persons below the bar—at all events, during a division in the House of Lords the other day, 146 Peers were assembled in that place. He might, therefore, assume that 150 Members of the House of Commons might be accommodated below the bar, and that was as large a number as was likely to attend. It was certainly to be desired that persons who had no right to be there should not be allowed to be present to-morrow, or on similar occasions in future, to the exclusion of Members of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Anstey) objected to the Resolution before-the House. He (Lord John Russell) had always understood that the greatest inconvenience had been experienced in going to the House of Lords on former occasions by the Members immediately following the Speaker, who were pushed and driven about by persons who crossed them as the Speaker passed into the House of Lords. He hoped such conduct as that would not be repeated in future. He trusted also that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Anstey) would not persist in dividing the House on the Resolution.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsuggested, that numbered tickets should be issued to Members, and that they should be admitted to the space below the bar of the House of Lords according to the numbers marked on the tickets.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, if he was not fortunate enough to obtain a prize in the ballot, being anxious to pay all due respect to his Sovereign, he would naturally be anxious to make the best endeavour in his power to obtain a place below the bar. In that effort he might be taken

1947
into custody, if the Resolution before the House were agreed to. Then the inquiry would arise, "Where is the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln?" [Laughter.] "Locked up," would be the answer; "possibly in the Crystal Palace." He objected to any hon. Member being prevented paying the respect which he wished to render to his Sovereign.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbegged to remind the House, that there was nothing new in the Resolution, for an exactly similar one had been passed on the occasion of Her Majesty's coronation. He merely mentioned that circumstance, as an idea seemed to prevail in the House, that in passing that Resolution they were establishing a rule for which there was no precedent.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEwished to know how long Members were to remain in the custody of the Serjeant? Was it to be till the next Session?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLobserved, that if any Member insisted upon his right of passing, he did not know that the Serjeant-at-Arms would have any right to keep him in custody at all. The arrangement was one which, after all, must be left mainly to the good taste of hon. Members themselves to carry out.
MR. HUMEwould remind the hon. Member for Bridport, that the power of the Serjeant-at-Arms ceased as soon as Parliament was prorogued.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Then the Resolution is of no use.
MR. HUMEconsidered it was necessary that some means should be adopted for keeping the passages clear during the ceremony.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SARDINIA AND NAPLES.
SIR DE LACY EVANSrose to put two questions to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and he hoped, for the sake of humanity, that the noble Lord would be able to answer them satisfactorily. It was well known, upon the most unexceptionable authority, that, in consequence of the refuge which Piedmont had given to the thousands of Italian refugees driven out from other parts of the peninsula for political causes, the Austrian Government had seen fit to interfere, and that the constitution of Piedmont was threatened with danger. He then asked, whether they might expect that the Go-
1948
vernments of France and England would unite, in order to give all the support in their power to the Government of Piedmont, with a view to maintaining its national independence, and the preservation of those institutions now established in that kingdom? The next question that he had to put was with reference to the state of Naples—a far more painful topic. They had it, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), that the present practice of the Government of Naples, with regard to persons who were real or supposed political offenders, was such as to be wholly opposed to religion, civilisation, and humanity. They had it on the same high authority, that the constitution, which was spontaneously granted to the people of Naples in 1848, had been violated in every particular; that the King of Naples had imprisoned a majority of the representatives of the people, and that—
MR. B. COCHRANErose to order. He asked, if it was permitted by the rules of the House to make attacks on foreign countries, when there was no possibility of making the attack subject of debate?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to put a question, but not to enter upon any matter that was likely to lead to a debate.
SIR DE LACY EVANSwould not make any further observations, but would confine himself to the question which he had put upon the paper. The question was as follows:—
"From a publication entitled to the highest consideration, it appears that there are at present above 20,000 persons confined in the prisons of Naples for alleged political offences; that these prisoners have, with extremely few exceptions, been thus immured in violation of the existing laws of the country, and without the slightest legal trial or public inquiry into their respective cases; that they include a late prime minister and a majority of the late Neapolitan Parliament, as well as a large proportion of the most respectable and intelligent classes of society; that these prisoners are chained two and two together; that these chains are never undone, day or night, for any purpose whatever, and that they are suffering refinements of barbarity and cruelty unknown in any other civilised country. It is, consequently, asked, if the British Minister at the Court of Naples has been instructed to employ his good offices in the cause of humanity, for the diminution of these lamentable severities, and with what result?"
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: With reference to the first question put by my

1949
hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have attached great importance to the independence of the kingdom of Sardinia, and have looked with great interest and anxiety to the good working of the constitution there established; but nothing has occurred to lead Her Majesty's Government to apprehend that that independence is in danger from any encroachments or assaults from any foreign Power; and the manner in which that constitution has been hitherto worked by the concurrence of the Sardinian people and the Sardinian Sovereign entitles us to entertain the most fervent hope and expectation that it will continue to be—as it at present is—a model worthy of imitation by all the nations of Europe: an example of good government which is not only highly honourable to the people and Sovereign of the country, but which is also calculated to inspire hopes of improvement in other countries where similar institutions have not yet been brought to bear. With regard to the second question, I may say that Her Majesty's Government, in common with all the leading men of this country—who, I presume, have all of them read the pamphlet to which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred—have received with pain a confirmation of those impressions that had been created by various accounts we had received from other quarters of the very unfortunate and calamitous condition of the kingdom of Naples. It has not, however, been deemed a part of the duty of the British Government to make any formal representations to the Government of Naples on a matter that relates entirely to the internal affairs of that country. At the same time, I thought it right, seeing that Mr. Gladstone—whom I may freely name, though not in his capacity of a Member of Parliament—has done himself, as I think, very great honour by the course he pursued at Naples, and by the course he has followed since; for I think that when you see an English Gentleman, who goes to pass a winter at Naples, instead of confining himself to those amusements that abound in that city, instead of diving into volcanoes, and exploring excavated cities—when we see him going to courts of justice, visiting prisons, descending into dungeons, and examining great numbers of the cases of unfortunate victims of illegality and injustice, with a view afterwards to enlist public opinion in the
1950
endeavour to remedy those abuses—I think that is a course that does honour to the person who pursues it; and, concurring in opinion with him that the influence of public opinion in Europe might have some useful effect in setting such matters right, I thought it my duty to send copies of his pamphlet to our Ministers at the various Courts of Europe, directing them to give to each Government copies of the pamphlet, in the hope that, by affording them an opportunity of reading it, they might be led to use their influence for promoting what is the object of my hon. and gallant Friend—a remedy for the evils to which he has referred.

GREECE.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to put the following question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs: Whether the Government will take into consideration the propriety of appointing a Commission to inquire into the manner in which the sum paid annually by England, France, and Russia, on behalf of the Government of Greece, has hitherto been expended; and to ascertain in what manner it would be desirable for the interests of Greece to lay out that large sum for the future? By the treaty with Greece, when that kingdom was first established, this country, in conjunction with France and Russia, guaranteed a loan to the Greek Government. There was a stipulation in the convention then come to of a very peculiar character, under which' one would suppose this country never would be called upon to pay any money. Nevertheless, by the practical working of that treaty, England had been called upon to pay annually a large sum, amounting to 40,000 l., on account of the Greek Government.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was quite true that by the treaty which was made in respect to Greece, it was thought that security had been taken against any liability being incurred by the three Powers for the payment of the interest of the loan granted to Greece. The stipulation of the treaty was, that the first produce of the Greek revenue should be applied to the payment of the interest of the debt, and then in reduction of the debt itself, and after that the surplus was to be applied to the current service of the State. He was sorry to say that from first to last that engagement had been disregarded by the

1951
Greek Government, and the consequence had been that a liability had been incurred by the three Governments. That had been made the subject of repeated representations and communications between this country and the Government of Greece, and also between the British, the French, and the Russian Governments. He regretted to say, that, hitherto, those representations and communications had not led to any definite result. He was bound to say, that it was less excusable on the part of the Greek Government, because if that Government had properly managed its financial affairs, it would have had ample means of meeting the demands upon it. The deficiency of its revenue was the excuse which the Greek Government put forward; but that arose very much from the irregular and inadequate arrangements for collecting the revenue, as well as from the reckless expenditure when that revenue was raised. He was also afraid there had been a laxity, arising in a great degree from an indisposition on the part of the Greek Government to submit to that constitutional system which was forced upon them in 1832, by the insurrection of the Greek people; and which they had endeavoured to evade, practically by means tending very greatly to diminish the financial resources of that country. It was needless for him to say that circumstances occurred last year which rendered it difficult for the English Government to seek any settlement with Greece. He should feel it his duty to communicate on this matter with the Governments of France and Russia, with a view of making some impression of a sense of right and justice on the Government of Greece.

INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX COMMITTEE.
MR. HUME, in moving that the evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Property and Income Tax be laid upon the table of the House, complained of the unfair way in which he had been treated throughout the whole of this question. When he first voted for the imposition of the income tax, it was to enable Sir Robert Peel to carry out those reforms which had been so long next his heart; and when, in 1845, a renewal of that tax was demanded, the career of the right hon. Baronet had been so successful that he was not willing to cramp his efforts. But when, in the present Session of Parlia-
1952
ment, he succeeded in limiting the duration of the tax to one year, he obtained leave to place the whole question before a Select Committee. Every obstacle had been thrown in his way. The Committee was not constituted for one month after the time he had obtained leave to have it appointed. He then told the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give him three or four Members whom he had promised to place on the Committee, and that he would leave the nomination of the rest to him. That offer was accepted, and he abided by it. The Committee sat nine times, and examined seventeen witnesses. With the exception of three, they were all public officers of the Inland Revenue Department. Not one of these persons gave evidence which it was not important should go before the public; not a particle of it was evidence which could be contradicted, or required to be put forward side by side with evidence which tended to modify it; but the Committee refused to agree to a resolution by which that evidence would be placed in the possession of the House. The fullest information ought to be given upon every subject connected with the incidence of taxation. If changes were contemplated, the public ought to know what those changes were, and whether they could be made with justice and safety. The effect of the inquiry in this instance had been to prove, that for nine years the income tax had been attended with inequality and injustice, which, he believed, might have been removed the first year it was imposed. The Committee had, by a majority of seven to four, decided against the publication of the evidence, in the absence of himself and the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). But who were the seven who objected? The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his two nominees, and the Gentlemen from the opposite side of the House, who did not want any property tax at all. He could not understand how any member of the Government, or any free-trader, could wish to conceal that evidence; but so it was, by an unnatural, inconsistent combination the evidence was to be suppressed. He said again, an "inconsistent combination," for the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not carry out free trade without a tax on property and income; and, if he was sincere in his support of that liberal policy, why did he join with the hon. Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) and the protectionists in stifling the in-

1953
quiry? There was no evidence given before the Committee which ought not to be in the hands of every individual in the country. If the House would not call for that evidence, it was in his possession, and it should go forth to the public. But, with the view of diffusing general information and general knowledge, he ventured to appeal to the House to allow of this evidence being published in a regular way.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Income and Property Tax be laid before this House."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad listened with a great deal of pleasure to the greater part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman; because it was a satisfactory proof that he had recovered from his recent illness, which, he was quite sure, was regretted and deplored by every one. But he could not say he had listened with any pleasure to the unjustifiable attack which the hon. Member had made upon himself and upon other parties. His hon. Friend had stated very truly, the question of printing the evidence was discussed in Committee at some length, and the majority came to the conclusion that as the evidence was so incomplete it was inexpedient to lay it before the House. The fact was, a great deal of the evidence taken would be contradicted by other evidence; and, to print that which was imperfect, might mislead the public. But when the hon. Member spoke of unnatural combination, he should remember how his Motion was carried, upon which the Committee had been appointed. [Mr. HUME had never asked for any combination.] When the hon. Member said he voted on the same side as the hon. Member for Bucks in the Committee, he would remind him that Mr. Disraeli and a large proportion of Members on the opposite side of the House voted with the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) to limit the tax to one year, distinctly disavowing the intention of having any inquiry at all. His hon. Friend ought not to run away with the notion, that in that combination those who voted with him agreed with him in the principles of free trade, or in the object which his hon. Friend himself had in view. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not quite aware whom his hon. Friend considered as "his nominees," unless they were the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson), and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Ellice); but they
1954
happened to vote in the Committee, one each way. He trusted hs hon. Friend would, in future, be more cautious in making insinuations so utterly unjustifiable in fact. With regard to the question, whether the House should interfere to order the printing of evidence which the Committee, after full information and full knowledge of the facts, thought it inexpedient to print, the House would not, he believed, entertain that question for a moment. He thought the Committee came to a wise determination. The evidence as it stood would be imperfect, and would give incorrect views to the public; and he trusted the House would not overturn the determination of the Committee not to print the evidence at this stage of the inquiry—a determination which they had come to after long discussion, and which he believed to be right.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYregretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not acceded to the Motion; but the right hon. Gentleman had spoken entirely beside the question, and had not favoured the House with a single reason; he merely said the majority of the Committee opposed the production of the evidence. But that majority was composed of seven to four, three Members being absent, as well as the Chairman himself. Whether the evidence went forth from the House, or not, it must go forth, and probably at quite as early a period as if authorised by the House. He wished it to go forth in a regular way, and that the public might have the opportunity of rebutting or confirming that evidence, bearing, as it did, on the great question of direct and indirect taxation. If it was imperfect it could be made more perfect hereafter; and he trusted the House would support the Motion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSadvocated the printing of the evidence, on the ground, that there were many precedents of evidence being printed before the inquiry to which it related was complete. The withholding the evidence would render the Committee perfectly useless, and would reflect no credit on the Government.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwould not offer any observations on the general question; but he wished to refer to the statement which had been made, that if the House determined not to have the evidence printed, still hon. Members would give the public that evidence. Such a course would be very irregular, and a contempt of the authority of the House, and a proceeding

1955
which could not he justified in any Member of the House.
MR. URQUHARTexpressed surprise at the state of the benches on which he sat. Here was a question of the greatest importance, and he was left absolutely alone, the only representative of the Opposition and of the old Tory party, who, when there was a country party in fact, and not in name, did represent the necessity of burdens being placed on those who could properly bear them. He was also surprised at the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, because the inquiry was not complete, the evidence ought not to be printed. The idea of evidence being complete on the subject of taxation, passed his conception of the extravagant and the absurd. They were only at the commencement of the end. They were only taking up the principle of direct taxation, which they dropped years ago, and which had been completely forgotten.
COLONEL THOMPSON said: I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer desires to preserve the income tax; and I desire to see him successful, because I stand here in the name of the working classes, who are made to pay at eleven times the rate of the rich by indirect taxation. The hon. Member for Montrose also declares he desires to preserve the income tax; but he took a strange way of doing it, when he united with those whose object was to put it down altogether. And further, there is a grand fallacy in the arguments of the supporters of his side of the question. When hon. Gentlemen call for a diminished tax on industrial property, they always mean on temporary incomes, though they have endeavoured of late to avoid the term. Now, it is as fair that a property held for a term of years should pay the tax for a term of years, as that a property held for ever should pay the tax for ever; there is not a farthing of inequality in the case. On the whole, therefore, he must go with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in preference to the Member for Montrose; and be was glad to have had the opportunity of stating the reason why.
MR. HUMEexplained, that, in using the word "nominees," he adopted the phraseology of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had insisted on nominating three Members of the Committee. He had done his duty in bringing the subject forward, and he left it to the House to decide upon it as they should think fit.
House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 15.
There being only thirty Members present, the House was adjourned at a quarter before Nino o'clock.