Commons Sitting of 8 August 1851

THE BALLOT FOR PRECEDENCE.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that he just observed the Prime Minister place his paper in the glass for balloting. Now he thought it was not right that the First Minister of the Crown should be placed in that position. The noble Lord should either accompany Mr. Speaker, or follow immediately after him. He hoped that that would be the general understanding of the House.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he hoped that would be the general understanding. He should have been perfectly ready to have acquiesced in the proposal which the noble Lord submitted to the Committee, that Mr. Speaker should select four Members to accompany him; the right hon. Gentleman would then have selected the four principal Members in the House, including the leaders on each side, which would have been perfectly satisfactory.
[When, at a subsequent hour, the names were drawn, Lord John Russell's was the 42nd, Mr. Hawes the 114th, Lord Palmerston the 127th.]

IONIAN ISLANDS.
MR. URQUHARTwished to know whether the Government contemplated, during the recess, making any alteration in the

1961
state of things that now existed in the Ionian Islands?
MR. HAWESsaid, he hardly knew how to answer the hon. Gentlemen, his question had been put in so vague a manner. Her Majesty's Government were quite prepared to consider any grievances that might be complained of, and to redress them.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, there was another question on which he thought he was entitled to a positive answer. In the absence of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he had to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether there was any truth in that report, which appeared to be something more than a rumour, of an intention on the part of the Government to cede these islands to Greece? He expected the noble Lord to contradict that rumour. A speech had recently been made by Sir Henry Ward which gave rise to the rumour. He asked the noble Lord for specific information on this subject, and hoped that the Government did not recognise the statement made by Sir Henry Ward as to the intended surrender of these islands.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL,in reply, said, it was enough to say that there was no truth whatever in the rumour as to the surrender of the Ionian Islands to Greece.
Subject dropped.

INCOME AND PROPERTY TAX COMMITTEE.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that the division which had taken place on the preceding evening upon the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) for printing the evidence taken before the Income Tax Committee, had ended in so unexpected and unsatisfactory a manner, that he felt himself called upon to renew the Motion. He should therefore move, that the evidence taken by the Income Tax Committee be laid upon the table of the House and printed. He thought it his duty to take the sense of the House upon this Motion, because he understood that evidence of great importance had been laid before the Committee, and he was quite sure that the additional evidence which would be adduced when the Committee met next Session would make a blue book of such enormous size that no one would be able to digest it (whatever their appetite) in time for legislation during the Session.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that though he was not a Member of the
1962
Income and Property Tax Committee, yet he was informed that the Committee had decided by a majority of seven to four against the publishing of the evidence in an incomplete manner, that evidence bearing upon two different questions, neither of which was closed by the Committee. He hoped, therefore, that the subject would be allowed to stand over until the next Session of Parliament.
MR. HUMEconsidered there was no one question of so much interest to the people as the manner in which taxes were raised. The taxes in this country were most unequally distributed. The poor were heavily oppressed, whilst the rich were permitted to escape. Those who prevented the evidence being printed, were those who were opposed to the principle of direct taxation; and they were aided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who maintained that no amendment could be made in the present mode of collecting the Income Tax. He could not understand upon what ground the noble Lord at the head of the Government was opposed to the printing of the evidence that had been already taken.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the Committee had been unable to proceed, in consequence of the illness of the chairman (Mr. Hume) in the midst of the first branch of the inquiry.
MR. HENLEYhoped that, as a Member of the Committee, the House would be disposed to listen to him, especially as he had given no vote on the occasion when the Committee decided against printing the evidence. Owing to the temporary illness of their chairman (Mr. Hume), the honour had been conferred upon him of placing him in the chair. There were two branches of inquiry before the Committee—one was as to the mode of collecting the tax; and there were several valuable witnesses on that point, summoned from Birmingham and Manchester; but these gentlemen were unable readily to get such information as would render them capable of answering the questions which the Committee desired to put to them. They had not arrived in town when the Committee determined upon closing their labours for the Session. That was one reason that induced the Committee to decide against publishing the evidence. Another reason that led the Committee to the same conclusion was, that some hon. Members of the Committee requested that some gentlemen who were here from the United

1963
States, who had come to visit the Exhibition, and who were competent to give evidence as to the mode of taxing property in the United States, should be examined. The Committee, to suit the convenience of these gentlemen, went out of its way, and heard their evidence. There were, he thought, two gentlemen examined. This was a new branch of inquiry, and consequently opened a new branch of the subject. It was the consideration of these circumstances that led the Committee to decide against the publication of the evidence; and for that decision he would have given his vote if he had had the opportunity of doing so, because he felt it would be only throwing dust in the eyes of the public if the evidence were given in the imperfect form in which it had been collected.
MR. J. L. RICARDOsaid, that the public were as well able to judge upon the matter of evidence as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley). The public, he believed, would attach much more value to the evidence if it were now withheld from them, than it possibly might deserve. He did not think that evidence of any great importance in its present imperfect condition; but they might be sure that the public would conclude that there was something in it which the Government did not wish to publish, and in that case the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find, in proposing his Budget next year, a greater difficulty in obtaining the Income Tax. He hoped the Government would reconsider this matter, as no evil could follow from publishing the evidence, and much evil might be the consequence of withholding it.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee be laid before this House."
The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 62: Majority 12.

THE PROTESTANT CHURCH AT ROME AND IN SPAIN.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISwished to ask the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs several questions of which he had given him notice. He begged first to ask whether, in the event of the members of the Church of England being disposed—as it was said they were—to erect a church in Rome, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give the Consular protection to such church? Also, whether the Government had heard of any application which had been made to the Spanish
1964
Government for a Protestant burial place in Madrid; and, if so, whether the grant of such Protestant burial ground had been accompanied by such conditions as were unfit for a civilised nation to impose, and as it would be unbecoming Her Majesty's Government to accept? He wished further to ask, whether the Government were prepared to lay on the table the papers relating to the case of Captain Pakenham, who was exiled from Florence as a Protestant, and of Mr. Healey, a Protestant, who had been compelled to leave Rome?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwould first reply to the two last questions put by the hon. Baronet. There was a correspondence now going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Rome and Florence with regard to the cases of Mr. Healey and Captain Pakenham; but as that correspondence was still in progress, he should not feel it consistent with his duty to lay any part of it upon the table. With regard to the first question of the hon. Baronet relative to the Consular Act, wherever there was a Consul or Vice-Consul of this country, the Secretary of State was empowered, on the application of the British inhabitants, to extend to them the benefits of that Act, which consisted in this—that a chaplain might be appointed, whose salary should be provided for, in the first place, by the subscriptions of the resident community, the Secretary of State being empowered to give a sum equal to that subscribed from the money voted for Consular services. The British residents at Rome had had a chapel for some time—[Sir R. INGLIS: A granary]—and if they applied to be allowed to place themselves under the provisions of the Consular Act, he was not aware of any reason why their application should be refused. Of course, it must be understood that that Act did not enable Her Majesty's Government to exercise any authority with regard to such chapels other than might be consistent with the laws of the country in which they were established, With respect to the burial ground at Madrid, by the ancient treaties between this country and Spain, British subjects in Spain were entitled to construct burial grounds. A long correspondence had taken place with regard to a burial ground which for some time past the English residents had had at Madrid, but which was too near the centre of the city to be in conformity with the recent laws for extramural interments adopted by the Government of Spain.

1965
The British Government had been in correspondence with the Government of Spain on the subject of changing their burial ground for a now one, and they had at last gained the necessary permission for that purpose; but he was sorry to say, that that permission had undoubtedly been accompanied by conditions which were represented by the Spanish Government as arising out of the laws of Spain in regard to religious opinions, but which Her Majesty's Government had learned with considerable pain and regret. He had promised his hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) that he would lay on the table such part of that correspondence as he thought might be interesting to the House, and he now begged to present it.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEbegged to inquire who was now the official organ of communication at Rome for Her Majesty's Government? Was it Mr. Petre or Mr. Freeborn? Was Mr. Consul Freeborn the recognised organ of our Government?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON,in reply, said, that Mr. Petre was attached to the mission at Florence, and held a diplomatic character, which was not abated by the circumstance of the vacancy in the Florentine mission. He was therefore the diplomatic organ. Mr. Freeborn, the Consul, was organ for all matters pertaining to the
1966
Consular department; and, in the absence of Mr. Petre on leave, Mr. Freeborn would be the natural and only organ of communication.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISwished to know whether the sanction of Her Majesty's Government had been given to an ordinance of the Government of Malta, referring to the Church of Rome as the dominant reliligion in that island?
MR. HAWESwas understood to state, that the ordinance was not yet law, that it had not officially reached the Secretary of State, and that there were certain alterations of the penal code proposed, some of which Her Majesty's Government could not approve of.
Subject dropped.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
Message to attend HER MAJESTY; the House went, when the Royal Assent was given to several Bills.
After which HER MAJESTY was pleased to make a most gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament.
Then the LORD CHANCELLOR declared Her Majesty's Royal Will and Pleasure that this Parliament he prorogued to Thursday the 4th day of September next.
The House separated at twenty minutes to Three o'clock.