Commons Sitting of 7 July 1851

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Knaresborough, v. the Hon. William Sebright Lascelles, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Militia Ballots Suspension; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Patent Law Amendment.
2° Stock in Trade; Loan Societies; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clause 1.
MR. EWARTmoved to insert at the end of Clause 1 the following words:—
"And be it enacted, That stories of buildings (as in the case of model lodging-houses, or of flats, as in Scotland), or parts thereof, occupied as separate dwellings, and assessed separately to the poor-rate, shall be held to be inhabited dwelling-houses under this Act, and shall be subject to the same liabilities and exemptions as are, with regard to inhabited dwelling-houses, in this Act, and the schedule thereto annexed, provided."
It was unjust to make a distinction, as was done by this Bill, between those apartments of the poor which were built horizontally, and those that were built vertically. If a society for improving the dwellings of the working classes should lay out their money upon houses for the poor that were of less value than 20 l. per annum, they would be exempt from the house tax; but if they built them apartments in which stories rose above stories, although the rent of each set of apartments was under 20 l. per annum, they would be liable. About 2,000 persons were lodged in the houses of the societies for improving the dwellings of the labouring classes in London, and he was glad to hear that model lodging houses were about to be built at Ramsgate and Brighton. At Birkenhead 350 persons were lodged in this manner, and these houses would come under the operation of the duty, which would operate very prejudicially to those establishments.
MR. HUMEthought the principle of the house tax much preferable to that of the window tax, which was greatly objectionable on account of its many exemptions. The exemption, however, of houses under 20 l. rent from the proposed operation of the Inhabited House Duty Bill, was in his opinion most unjust, and would open the way to every species of evasion. He had a notice on the paper to extend the tax over all houses down to 40 s. rent, but he found he could not submit that proposition in the Committee on the Bill, but must ask the House, at some other time, to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to consider the proposal. He hoped that the Government would have learnt enough to adopt his principle. The house tax was a tax upon property, and should be made as general as possible, no exemptions being allowed. It was a tax which they could raise or lower without altering the machinery of collection, which was a great advantage. He thought the time was coming when taxation and representation ought to be joined together more closely than they had been. He could not divine what improvement in the franchise was to take place next year, unless it were an extension to a considerable degree, founded on some basis of taxation such as they set an example of in the Bill of last year for Ireland.
MR. SLANEYsaid, that the plan for carrying out the project of better houses for the humbler people in the great towns in these realms, was only just in its infancy, but they had every reason to hope it would go on increasing. The difficulty hitherto had been that no man could subscribe to or take shares in these undertakings without being liable to his last shilling for the expense. The ground upon which there should be exemptions in respect of the dwellings of the humbler classes was, that a man with 50 l. a year paid more towards the taxation of the country in proportion than a man of 250 l.; and so a man with 250 l. a year more than one with 500 l.; and he therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would, if possible, relieve from the burden of this tax that class of dwellings to which the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart) had referred, and which he trusted would very much increase in number in a few years.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEhad taken the trouble to ascertain the effect of the measure upon the city with which
288
he was connected, and he found in Glasgow alone that there were upwards of 3,000 persons who did not contribute to the window tax, but who would have to pay the Inhabited House Duty. He was quite satisfied that in every other borough in Scotland a similar state of things would be found to exist; and so far from the measure affording relief to that country, it would materially increase the taxation of many districts within it. If the tax were made a universal one, that would be a different matter; but he hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to maintain it on the footing proposed, he would accede to the Motion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not go into the much larger question alluded to by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He quite agreed with him that exemptions of any kind invariably led to great frauds and evasions; and if he had been imposing a house tax for the first time, and not as a commutation for the window tax, he should have felt disposed to adhere to the principle which the hon. Gentleman had laid down. With reference to the extension of the franchise, he would also state that, without committing any body else, his opinion was very much the same as animated the hon. Gentleman, namely, that the payment of this tax was the best mode of regulating it that could be applied. He considered that it was advisable to resist exemptions now, because if they were once granted, it would be impossible to repeal them; while, on the other hand, if the exemptions were found to he necessary, they might afterwards he introduced, and the propriety of introducing them might be considered in another year. His hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) must be aware that if the flats were different properties, they were exempt; but they were liable if they belonged to one proprietor. Applying his hon. Friend's argument about horizontal and vertical divisions of a house, it was obvious that the latter had as much right to be excused as the former; and so if a person rented two or three times one above the other, they too must be exempted. If they once gave up the principle that a house was a house, they would soon find few in which some portion would not let as lodgings, and so they would escape the tax altogether. If the clause as it stood on the paper was objectionable, that

289
actually proposed was much more so, for it exempted all portions of houses that claimed to be rated; and if that were agreed to, he might just as well bid good-bye to his tax at once. The plan he had adopted was, he was convinced, a sound one, namely, to take a low rate of duty, and allow no exemptions whatever; and he hoped that if the House maintained the tax as it was, it would lead to no very serious frauds. For the information of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. Hastie), who did not think that Scotland would derive much benefit from the alteration, he could state in conclusion that the amount which the window duty in Scotland yielded was about 130,000 l., whereas the estimated produce of the house duty was 50,000 l., showing a saving to Scotland of 80,000 l.
MR. DUNCANsaid, that there would be a great inequality in the operation of the tax in Scotland, owing to peculiar circumstances connected with property in that country, which it was difficult to explain to hon. Gentlemen unacquainted with Scotland.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLagreed with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), with respect to the non-exemption of any class of houses, for the sooner every householder had to pay the tax, the sooner would a good agitation be got up against it. He was opposed to the tax every way, and although he was not one of the metropolitan Members, who had been charged with threatening to stop the supplies, his constituents were no less interested in the total and unqualified repeal of the window tax; and, therefore, as he had undertaken to represent them, he could do no other than express his opinion decidedly against any impost whatever in lieu of that tax. The hon. Member for Montrose had recommended measures that would render unnecessary not only the house duty, but many other taxes. He begged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer how the valuation was to be made, whether upon that for the poor-rate, or on that for the income tax?
MR. W. WILLIAMShoped that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his concurrence in the views of the hon. Member for Montrose, and had promised to reconsider the subject next year, he would abandon this tax altogether for the present Session; for he (Mr. W. Williams) was convinced that, from the present state of the revenue, the right hon. Gentleman would find it unnecessary.
MR. PACKEregretted that the forms of the House would not allow him to bring forward his Motion for extending the operation of the tax to houses of 10 l. instead of 20 l. rental; however, when the hon. Member for Montrose moved his Amendment at the bringing up of the Report, he would then introduce it.
MR. HEYWORTHsaid, he must urge the importance of doing justice to the poor; for, though the course of legislation for the last few years had been to reduce the amount of indirect taxation which they paid, they were still more heavily taxed than the rest of the community.
MR. DISRAELIwould wish to offer a few remarks, if the important declaration which the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) said was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer had really been made—that the right hon. Baronet had really engaged to examine into the whole question of the house duty next year, and to reopen the whole matter.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS: I said, that the right hon. Gentleman had assented to the principle that the tax should be made general, and had intimated his intention to consider the subject next year.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: These are the hon. Gentleman's words, not my own.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was sorry he had not succeeded in eliciting a definite declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, as the country could not console itself in the present financial position in which it found itself, with the communication that had been announced by the hon. Member for Lambeth. If the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had made that declaration, he (Mr. Disraeli) should not have troubled the House then or on a former evening. He considered the Bill before the House to be extremely injudicious and impolitic; and he regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Packe) was prevented from bringing forward his Amendment, because the effect of that Amendment would have secured a revenue from the house duty at least equal to what they gave up for the window duty; and that was the right principle on which they ought to act. The great object he wished to attain in asking the House to assent to the Resolutions he moved on Friday, was to effect those alterations in the present taxation that were considered politic, at the same time that there should be no material loss

291
to the revenue. It was on that ground that he had entertained, and still entertained, the opinion that, in adjusting the house duty, they ought to have obtained, not a partial, but complete compensation for the window duty; and he thought that of greater importance, as they would not then have been tampering with their resources, and wasting the window tax. His hon. Friend, however, was precluded by the rules of the House from bringing forward his Motion at the present time, and therefore he did not see much chance of the House taking that more salutary course which he hoped would have been adopted. But, if direct taxation was doomed to be a more important feature of their financial system than it had hitherto been, he hoped it would be understood by the country—as he believed it would be before another year—that the principle of direct taxation must be the same as the principle of indirect taxation, and that it must be general.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 2.
Clause 3.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEmoved an Amendment to exempt certain public buildings, respecting which disputes arose in consequence of a person residing in the premises for the purpose of taking care of them.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 3, line 3, after the word 'That,' to insert the words 'no Church, Chapel, or place used for public worship, that no College, Museum, School House, Lecture Room, Public Library, or place set apart for educational or scientific purposes, and that no Court House, Police Office, Prison, City or County Offices."
MR. WILLYAMSsaid, he had an Amendment on the paper, after the word "that" to insert these words—
"No person shall be assessed, or liable to be assessed, to the said duties in respect of any lands, houses, or buildings, or parts of houses or buildings, belonging to any society instituted for purposes of science, literature, or the fine arts exclusively, either as tenant or owner, and occupied by it for the transaction of its business."
He was willing, however, to lot his Amendment share the fate of the hon. Member's (Mr. Hastie's) proposition.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. Buildings not inhabited would not be liable to the duty, and if the buildings were inhabited they should be charged.
Question put, "That these words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 164: Majority 124.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthen moved that after the word "that," the words "all houses not liable to be assessed to pay duty on windows shall not be assessed or liable to be assessed to the said duties." The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that his object was to afford relief from the window tax. Now it happened that in all the large towns (and this was the case in the borough which he represented to a considerable extent) a great number of houses would become chargeable to the new house duty which had not paid to the window tax. This seemed to be contrary to the principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. COWANsaid, that in Edinburgh no fewer than 2,000 houses, principally inhabited by artisans and clerks, which had been free from window tax, would be liable to the house tax. He knew it might be said that this showed the unjust mode in which the former tax had been imposed; but, nevertheless, the proposal of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was felt by these persons to be a strange kind of relief. He thought that no sacrifice of principle would be involved if the right hon. Gentleman yielded on this point.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYthought that it scarcely fell within the scope of a measure whose professed object was a commutation of taxation, to levy an impost upon a class who had, up to the present time, been totally exempt from taxation. The Bill would assuredly have this operation with respect to a very great number of tenements in the borough which he had the honour to represent.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this Amendment was utterly unsupported by any principle. He had been found fault with for exempting houses paying less rent than 20 l. a year; but this proposal was that houses above 20 l. should be exempt, for no other reason than that because they had not hitherto paid duty. Now, he thought, however, that it would be very unjust to exempt a house that paid 30 l. a year rent, and to tax one which only paid 20 l. The hon. Member for the city of Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) had brought under his notice a paper in favour of the proposed exemption, which contained, in reality, the strongest and most convincing arguments in favour of the substitution of a house tax for a window tax. It was stated that a row of

293
houses, paying rents from 30 l. to 40 l. per annum, had been built without a single window in the bed-rooms, in order to avoid the window tax. He could see no reason whatever why such houses should not pay the house tax.
MR. WAWNsaid, that he wondered why those who supported this Amendment did not also propose to exempt from taxation all houses hereafter to be built. Their principle, if it was sound, would go so far.
VISCOUNT DUNCANappealed to the hon. Member (Mr. W. Williams) not to press his Motion to a division. One of his (Viscount Duncan's) principal arguments when he brought forward the question of the repeal of the window tax year after year was, that architects built houses hardly fit for people to live in, because they desired to put in as few windows as possible in order to avoid the tax. Now no houses would be so much benefited by the repeal of this tax as these very houses, for he believed that in a few weeks after the Bill before the House became law, the adequate number of windows would be put into them.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining Clauses.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to move, as an Amendment, at the end of line 5 of the Schedule, after the word "person," to insert "for professional or educational purposes, or by any person." It was made a complaint against the schedule by many persons in the metropolis that they had taken houses for professional or educational purposes which were much larger than they required for their private occupation; but yet that they were rated at 9d. in the pound. They contended that their establishments ought to be placed in the same category as shops, and that they should be rated at 6d. His Amendment would include medical men with surgeries attached to their dwellings, solicitors with their offices, schoolmasters, and persons of that class.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this question had been already raised and negatived. If the exemption in this direction were to be carried further than it went at present, it might become almost universal. Medical men, for example, often received their patients in their dining room; was that to exempt the whole house from the 9d. duty? It might perhaps be argued also, that a house
294
was used for professional purposes if an old lady were to knit stockings in the drawing room.
Amendment negatived. Schedule agreed to.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he had now to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice. Before doing so, however, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state whether he intended to agree to it; because, if so, he need not trouble the Committee with any observations. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No!] No, of course not. Then the right hon. Gentleman ought to be ashamed of himself. The right hon. Gentleman called himself a reformer; but he put it to the Committee whether a more homoeopathic dose of reform than this had ever been administered? He wished to make the Government act consistently with their former pretensions about reform. He had taken this clause verbatim from the Income Tax Act, into which it had been introduced by the late Sir Robert Peel at his suggestion. He knew he should be told that this Bill was a mere commutation of the window duty, and that all that belonged to that duty should be transferred to this proposed substitute of a house tax. But if that were so, the law ought to apply in all cases. They proposed to exempt the occupiers of houses under 20 l. from the operation of this tax, and such parties would, consequently, not be required to pay this assessed tax as a qualification for voting. He should be very glad to hear from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer some reason why a man living in a house at 19 l. was not to pay this tax as a qualification for voting, while all those occupying houses from 20 l. upwards would be obliged to do so. The Government were worse reformers now than they were eleven years ago. In 1840, a Bill was brought into that House by Lord Melbourne, intituled, "A Bill for the Registration of Parliamentary Electors." Clauses 24 and 26 of that Bill exempted electors from paying taxes as a condition of their registration. That measure gained the Whigs much and that they plumed themselves not a little upon it was plain, from the fact of the names of five leading Members of the Government at that time being on the back of the Bill; namely, Lord John Russell, Viscount Palmerston, Sir John Hobhouse, the Attorney General (now Lord Campbell), and the Solicitor General (now Lord Truro)

295
He conceived that the Government could not consistently oppose this Amendment.
Clause—
"Provided always, and be it Enacted, That no neglect or omission to pay within any limited period, the Duties assessed under the authority of this Act, in respect of any House or other Building, shall prevent any person from being admitted or retained on the Register or List of persons entitled to vote in the Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for any city or borough, or from voting at any such Election."
Brought up, and read the First Time.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think that his opposition to the proposition of his hon. Friend would render him liable to any charge of inconsistency. He was not aware that he had ever expressed an opinion different from that which he was about to express. He thought that if people claimed the right of exercising the privilege of voting, the country had a right to call upon them to contribute directly to the expenses of the State before they were permitted to exercise that privilege. His hon. Friend proposed that no payment should he requisite in order to be entitled to he registered. To this he objected. There was no hardship in compelling the payment of a tax in respect of which a man had a right to the franchise. It was a clear principle of joint taxation and representation, that taxes must be paid previously to the enjoyment of the right of voting, under certain reasonable guards. If the right of voting depended on a taxable vote, he could see no reason why the tax should not be paid.
MR. HUMEwanted to see household suffrage extended, because the possession of a house was to a certain extent a test of respectability, but he could see no reason why the payment of an assessed tax should form an element in the exercise of the franchise. He thought his hon. Friend was quite warranted in the course he took, by the declarations of the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEthought the noble Lord at the head of the Government ought to explain the reason why the Government now opposed the alteration he suggested. The reasons the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer gave, were the old reasons of the Tory Government, when he (Mr. T. Duncombe) proposed the repeal of the whole of the ratepaying clauses. The public required the repeal of the window tax, entirely and without alloy. He wished for none of the right hon. Gentleman's
296
system of chicory taxation in this matter; and one of their main reasons for the unconstitutional repeal was, that this obnoxious test would thus he removed, and would no longer be a restriction upon the exercise of the franchise.
MR. BROTHERTONthought the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury a perfectly reasonable one, and, if he divided the Committee, he would support him.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause he read a Second Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 119: Majority 59.
SIR DE LACY EVANSthen moved the following Clause:—
"That in the case of any premises occupied with a dwelling-house, and heretofore exempt from the rate or duty in respect of the windows or lights therein, and which premises shall be assessed to the rate or duty hereby imposed, it shall be lawful for the occupier of such premises to require that the dwelling-house occupied with such premises shall be assessed at the before-mentioned rate or duty of 9d., and thereupon the said premises shall not be liable to any rate or duty."
This clause would exempt manufacturers with large premises, who had been hitherto exempted from the window duty, from the operation of this tax. He thought it but fair and reasonable that such warehouses as coachbuilders, upholsterers, carpet-makers, and others of this class, should be free from the enormously heavy tax which this Bill now proposed to impose on them.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought it only just to place the proprietors of those warehouses in the same condition in which they were under the window duty.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas of opinion that if they made any such alteration as was now proposed, they would be opening the door to much difficulty and abuse. There were already decisions of the courts of law upon this point, which was raised under the former house duty, and it would be well to avoid doing anything that would have the effect of disturbing these decisions. If these warehouses were part and parcel of a dwelling-house, he did not see how any distinction could be made in respect of them; and if they were separate, they would be exempt by the Act itself.
SIR DE LACY EVANSwould not press his proposition to a division.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Preamble agreed to; House resumed; Bill reported.

WOODS, FORESTS, &c, BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clause 5, which provides that the Treasury may assign separate duties to each Commissioner.
MR. HUMEwished to know what it was understood the Commissioners were to do as a Board? It was very extraordinary, if there was to be a Board, that each Commissioner was to be responsible for his own acts.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, the Commissioners of Woods had been in the habit of transacting their business without the aid of a Secretary. He should like to know if it was intended in future that they should sit as a Board, without a Secretary?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, the department of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would be arranged by the Treasury. He really could not say what that arrangement might be until it had been settled by the Treasury.
MR. HUMEwould, therefore, submit that the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) ought not to press this Clause until he could say who were the parties whom the Commissioners might employ, what were their duties, and what their accountability.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, perhaps the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) proposed by this clause that the Treasury might assign certain duties to the Commissioners. If that were so, he (Viscount Duncan) was in favour of the proposition. He only wanted to know if it was intended that those gentlemen should act as a Board. He might add that he entertained a strong objection to Boards acting without Secretaries.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, the clause gave power to the Treasury to assign separate duties to each of the Commissioners, and to make each individual Commissioner responsible for his own acts. The Commissioners would not sit as a Board, but they would as accountants; and they would be jointly liable for their accounts, though in other respects each would be responsible for his own acts.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive.
Clause 11.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsuggested that after what had occurred on the last night the Committee sat, it would be better to strike out Clauses 11, 12, and 13.
MR. VERNON SMITHobjected to the striking out of Clause 11. The time might come when it would be thought best to get rid of the Commissioners, and to have the business done by the Surveyor General. He wished to leave the Government the option in the matter. His opinion was in favour of what the late Mr. Bentham used to call "single seatedness in office." He regretted on that account that the superintendence of his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) was taken away, who, he thought, ought to have the responsibility of the work as well as of the revenue.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he had a doubt in his own mind as to which course was the best—whether to act through the Commissioners, or through the Surveyor General, and in that respect he should be willing to follow the course which the Government deemed most advisable. It was because he understood the Government preferred the former course that he voted for it on the last night. He objected, however, to leave it in the power of Government to supersede that arrangement without coming to Parliament.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. V. Smith) in his remarks with respect to individual responsibility, and with his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham) as to not leaving the option in the hands of the Executive Government.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that it became the Committee to pay attention to what they were about to do. By this 11th clause it was optional for the Government to place the management of the Woods and Forests under the management of a Surveyor General. But they should recollect that they had at present two Commissioners of the Board of Woods. If they appointed a Surveyor General, the services of these gentlemen would be no longer necessary, and they might at once proceed to give them a retiring allowance, which would entail an additional expense upon the public. As he, however, stood alone, he would not oppose his individual opinion against the wishes of the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERconsidered it was a very different thing to leave it optional with the Government to appoint a Surveyor General, and to say that the Commissioners of the Board of Woods should be dismissed coute qui coute. It was very desirable that the Government should have the power specified in the clause, which needed not to be en-

299
forced unless the public service specially demanded it. The adoption of the clause by no means necessitated an additional charge upon the revenue.
Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 12 to 21 inclusive.
Clause 22, which regulates the duties of the Commissioners in relation to the Royal Parks,
VISCOUNT DUNCANinquired whether there would be annual estimates of the expenses of the different lodges in the parks?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that there were two classes of lodges—one allotted to the gatekeepers, and the other held by grace and favour. The expense of the former was inserted in the annual estimates; but that of the latter, which was only for keeping them wind and water tight, was defrayed out of the land revenues of the Crown. The occupants of these lodges were obliged to defray all internal and other expenses.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he believed that the lodges referred to were splendid mansions. Rumour said that they were furnished at the expense of the public. Parliament ought to have the items of their expenditure in the annual estimates.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, a very considerable revenue could be derived from leasing these lodges, many of which would fetch large sums. If this money were added to the revenue, the public would have the advantage of it.
MR. SLANEYconsidered such a proceeding would be a direct violation of the understanding which had been made with the Crown when the House undertook to defray the expenses of the Civil List. The right to bestow these gifts for distinguished services was retained and vested in the Crown.
LORD SEYMOURconcurred in the opinion which had been expressed by his hon. Friend.
VISCOUNT DUNCANdid not wish by any means to interfere with the grace and favour of the Sovereign. What he objected to was simply this, that the expenses of the park-keepers' lodges should be provided for by an annual estimate, while those of the other class should be defrayed out of the landed revenues of the Crown. He did not see the reason for a distinction.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 35 inclusive were also agreed to.
Clause 36.
LORD SEYMOURproposed that this Clause should be struck out, in order to substitute for it certain other Clauses that would give a sufficient audit of accounts, according to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby).
VISCOUNT DUNCANwished to know what was the nature of the new clauses.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his noble Friend need not give himself much trouble about these new clauses, as they had been proposed by the Commissioners of Audit.
VISCOUNT DUNCANwas glad to hear that, which he had not before understood, but still he would like to see the clauses.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought they ought not to trust any Commissioners, but to examine the clauses for themselves.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to know whether all the receipts and expenditure in reference to the land revenue, putting aside that for works, would be embodied in the accounts as referred to the Audit Board? Whether all the accounts were to be examined and certified, whether they were to have access to all documents and vouchers, and if any errors were found, they would have the power to refer the accounts back to the department, that they might be remedied, and whether they were to have access to all documents and vouchers, and to transmit the accounts to the Treasury when audited, with such remarks and suggestions as they might think proper to make, to be afterwards laid before Parliament?
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that in his department of Works there would be no difficulty, as the expenditure was there voted by Parliament; but with regard to the Commission of Woods it was different. He apprehended in that case, however, that all the accounts would be laid before the auditors, and if they were not satisfied and should require further information, they would call for it and it would be supplied; and as soon after the audit as the House met in each year the accounts, as audited, would be laid upon the table of the House.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that when the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer asked him to place implicit confidence in the Commissioners of Audit, he could not help informing the Committee of an answer which had been made to him by Messrs. Wells and Dowton, who repre-

301
sented the Audit Commisssioners on a Committee over which he had had the honour to preside. He asked if there was a want of strength in the audit department? The answer was, "Undoubtedly, but not so much in numbers as in persons of businesslike habits and experience." There were 145 persons and six Commissioners in the Audit Office endeavouring to do that which 246 persons and eighteen Commissioners had failed to do. The consequence was, that great arrears had accumulated. He did not think it was asking too much to desire to have an opportunity to look at these Clauses when they had been printed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no objection to the clauses being seen before they were agreed to, and with that view he would suggest that the clauses should now be received, and the Bill reprinted, when they could be considered on bringing up the report. With regard to the arrears in the Audit Office, he could assure the noble Lord that they had been much reduced since the time to which he referred.
MR. HUMEwanted to know whether the same rule did not apply to clerks in the Audit Office as to all the other public offices—that they should have a year's trial before they were engaged?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the rule was the same as in all the other offices, and he believed there was not a more efficient board in the public service.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, he would not oppose the reception of the Clauses now, but he wished to observe that the annual statement of the Commissioners of Lands, which ought to be laid on the table by the 30th of June, had not yet appeared, and he gave his noble Friend (Lord Seymour) fair notice, that on bringing up the report he would move that that statement should be made never later than the 30th April.
Clause struck out.
Clause 37, for saving the rights of parties.
MR. HENLEYwished to know what rights there were to be saved.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was one valuable and important piece of patronage that would be preserved to him—the right of appointing a steward of the Chiltern Hundreds.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed. Bill reported.

SUPPLY—THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR DENHAM NORREYSrose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice. He said, the fact was quite evident that the Commissioners and the architect of the Houses of Parliament were now at issue as to the mode in which the building should be completed; he, therefore, wished the House itself to step in and decide the manner in which the interior decorations should be finished. It was known that Mr. Barry was said to have gone beyond the instructions he had received from the Commissioners in respect of the decorations of the New House of Commons. He (Sir D. Norreys) might state as a fact, that it was said to be the impression of the Commissioners, and also of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the whole interior of the new House of Commons was to be quite free from colour or gilding; but that Mr. Barry, by some misunderstanding, or possibly by thinking that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Commissioners knew less on the subject than he did himself, had taken advantage of their absence, or of their being asleep, and had commenced decorating the House as he, being the architect, thought it ought to be decorated and completed. But unfortunately he was detected by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who stopped him in the middle of his operations; and then Mr. Barry, like a child detected in a fault, pleaded that he had not intended going any further with his decorations than he had done. Still, what had been done, was done in spite of the Commissioners. He (Sir D. Norreys) believed that Mr. Barry was right, and that the Commissioners were wrong, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer also was wrong. His wish was, that Mr. Barry, whom, as their architect, they had allowed to expend 2,000,000 l. of money, should at least be permitted to lay on the table a statement of the manner in which he would professionally recommend that the decorations should be completed. He did not ask the House to adopt his (Sir D. Norreys') opinion, or the opinion of Mr. Barry, or of the Commissioners. What he desired was, that Mr. Barry should have an opportunity of making such a statement as he had mentioned. If the House, on receiving it,

303
did not agree with Mr. Barry, then it was quite competent for them to pass a resolution that that gentleman should cease carrying out his own views on the subject. But at present, circumstances were in a very unsatisfactory state. On the 14th of April, the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) brought forward a Motion on the subject; but after a long discussion, the question was left in a most unsatisfactory position. But what was the statement of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) on that occasion? The hon. Member, being one of the Commissioners, said—
"The Commissioners had to determine upon the decorations, furniture, and fittings, subject to the approval of the Treasury with regard to the cost. He did not wish it to be understood that he said there was an understanding with Mr. Barry as to the ornaments, but that the Commissioners conferred with him on the subject. He thought Mr. Barry did understand; but he was ready to believe that that gentleman was not at all aware what were the wishes of the Commissioners."—[3 Hansard, cxvi. 199.]
How was it possible that any gentleman should proceed satisfactorily with his work when, after having had a consultation with the Commissioners from whom he was to receive his instructions as to the ornaments and decorations of the building, those very Commissioners declared that they did not know whether Mr. Barry understood what were their wishes or not on the subject? He (Sir D. Norreys) supposed the conference was similar to a conference between the Lords and Commons, in which certain written statements were exchanged, with mutual bowings, for he was certain no words could have passed between the Commissioners and the architect. The House of Commons had expressed a wish that the new building should be finished in the plainest style possible. But to build a palace in the style of architecture of a particular period, and then, after having proceeded with the decorations of the building in a manner suitable to that style and period, suddenly to stop, was perfectly absurd. It would seem that it was the wish of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. Greene) and of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that while the New Houses of Parliament, in their style of architecture should bear the characteristics of the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, yet the interior decorations of the building should represent a legislative assembly of the 19th century. If that were the feeling of the House, all he could say was, that
304
nothing was more absurd or more wasteful than the expense incurred for the elaborate work bestowed upon that building. With regard to the course which the House ought to pursue, he was of opinion that it was a matter of mere common sense to take the business out of the hands of the Commissioners, who were, no doubt, admirably qualified for every position except that in which they were placed. Between Mr. Barry and the Commissioners so many blunders had been committed, that when he accompanied strangers through the New Houses, he felt inclined rather to apologise than to commend. He did not recommend the appointment of any Committee, because the proceedings of the Committee of last year were so unsatisfactory, that he trusted they would remain unpublished. All he asked the House to do was, to call upon Mr. Barry to state how he would recommend the building to be completed, and it was then for the House to determine whether that gentleman should be allowed to finish it according to his own conceptions; or whether he should still be fettered and controlled by Gentlemen who were so little competent to the duty assigned to them that they could not convey to the architect what their wishes and intentions were with respect to the completion of the work. If he were to enter fully into the subject, he would suggest that a report should also be obtained from Dr. Reid, stating what portion of the new building had been taken from him, and what was the extent of his responsibility for the ventilation of the House; but he had not courage enough to approach that part of the subject.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the Architect of the New Palace at Westminster, be requested to lay before the House forthwith, a Report in detail on the manner in which he would recommend that the interior decorations of the New House of Commons, and of the Halls and Rooms connected with it, should be completed; and that he be directed to prepare his plans with due attention to the style of decoration usually adopted at the period to which the general architectural character of the New Palace is referable,' instead thereof."
MR. MOWATTseconded the Motion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not feel called upon to defend himself, for the work was none of his. He did not know whether the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) would feel it his duty to answer the hon. Baronet. At the same time he

305
confessed he did, rather for the sake of the House, deprecate any further interference with respect to the new House of Commons. Last year a Committee was appointed, and he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Sir D. Norreys) that the proceedings of that Committee were so unsatisfactory as he had represented them to be. That Committee recommended certain alterations in the building, and the House would see that some very considerable improvements had been made in the arrangements of the House for the facility of divisions and the convenience of hon. Members. He had spoken with Mr. Barry and with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. T. Greene) a short time since, and he hoped in the course of a fortnight to have one or two morning sittings in the new House, to give hon. Members an opportunity of testing the convenience of those arrangements. He thought it far better to have a practical supervision of the House than to call for an architectural report. Several recommendations were made by the Committee last year, many of which had been undertaken to be carried out by the Commissioners. Some of them had already been fully adopted; he, therefore, thought it better to leave the matter in the hands of the Commissioners, than to begin again, by ripping the whole thing open, and confiding in the discretion of the architect as to what further alterations should be made. Were such a course to be adopted, it would inevitably lead to further expense, and also to the postponement of the completion of the new House of Commons. He hoped, therefore, instead of affirming the Resolution of the hon. Baronet, the House would resolve itself at once into a Committee of Supply.
MR. HUMEthought they ought to have a report from the Commissioners of what they had done up to the present time, of which he confessed he was ignorant. Rooms had been erected, he knew, which did not suit the object for which they were built, and when one roof did not answer, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Try another." That was the way they were going on; and he was sorry the House had not agreed to take the matter out of the hands of Mr. Barry, because it was his (Mr. Hume's) belief he did not know his own mind. He (Mr. Hume) was perfectly satisfied that Mr. Barry ought to be called upon to report what he intended to do to complete the building, and how he intended to complete
306
it; and, if the plan was approved of by the Commissioners, to complete it by that plan. Who could say now when the building would be finished? There never was a building proceeded with in the manner in which this building had been proceeded with; and when the whole of the money had been spent, it would be totally unsuited to the objects for which it was built. Let Mr. Barry have his own will, but let him tell them what he intended to do, in order that they might know when it would be finished. It was his (Mr. Hume's) opinion that he should never see it finished.
Sir DE LACY EVANScould not agree with the Motion, because it would be giving a sanction to some of the absurdities of which the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) had spoken. He doubted whether there should be a statement from the architect at all. Commissioners having been appointed, it was impossible the House could recognise any other party. He hoped the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) would be able to make some statement as to the present position in which this matter stood. If they went on as they had, from year to year voting large sums annually, there would be no end to the expense, the alterations, the cuttings down, the buildings up. It would be far better to vote a sum at once, and have two or three years fixed for the completion of the building. They would save, in the first place, 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a year for temporary buildings; and they might depend on it, the longer the works were carried on, the more uncontrolled would be the architect.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, the House would have the opportunity, before the close of the Session, of seeing whether the alterations directed by the Committee which sat last year had been satisfactorily carried out; and he hoped sincerely that they would find that they had been so carried out. It was of importance that the House should be satisfied, because it would enable the Commissioners to order the removal of the House in which they were now sitting, of the temporary offices, and of the buildings connected with the House of Lords and Westminster Hall, the latter of which were not only unsightly but dangerous to the edifice. Within a very short time the offices of the House of Lords and the groundwork would be completed. He quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Member (Sir De Lacy Evans), that if a larger sum was voted for carrying on the works, it

307
would be better, because they could then be carried on with greater expedition; but the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was the best judge of what could be spared, and the works had been carried on in accordance with the Votes agreed to by that House. He (Mr. T. Greene) did trust that, by the time the House assembled next year, they would be able to enter into the full occupation of the new House of Commons, including the approaches, the refreshment room, and the library; and that all those offices, which now completely defaced and obscured the appearance of the building, would be removed, and the whole completed in a manner satisfactory to the House.
MR. CLAY, having had as many foreigners consigned to him as any one, was bound, in justice to Mr. Barry, to say, that upon taking them over the new Houses of Parliament, he had never had to make any apology to them, and they were impressed with general feelings of admiration.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 32,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the Motion. There was nothing in the state of our foreign relations, or in the condition of our Colonies, that would justify such a large expenditure. He looked upon the expenditure of this money to be very possibly spent at elections. That, at all events, was the public impression. He should move, as an Amendment, that the Vote be reduced to 20,000 l.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 20,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISdenied that this was an extraordinarily large sum. In the year 1822 the Secret Service money voted by that House was 44,500 l. In 1826, it rose to 60,500 l. In subsequent years the Vote was reduced. In 1849 it was 39,000 l.;
308
in 1850 it was again reduced to 35,000 l; and this year it was proposed to take a Vote only of 32,000 l., which, should the House agree to it, would be the lowest sum for secret service ever granted in this country since 1822. This was a very moderate amount, in reference to the vast affairs of the Government. Hon. Members might be perfectly satisfied that no portion of the secret service ever went to the purposes of corruption at elections.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhad, in pursuance of his duty as an honest man, always voted against this Secret Service money. He attached no weight whatever to the attempted defence of the Vote offered by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Governments, in these matters, always stick up for each other; and, of course, the hon. Gentleman was not likely to cry, "stinking fish." There was something to him sufficiently suspicious in the very adjective "secret." The money was wanted for a good purpose, or it was not. If for a good purpose, let that purpose be openly explained. If for a bad purpose, let it be not voted at all. To him it was perfectly obvious that the Government was ashamed to state what it really did with these annual Votes. Would the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to stand up and deny that the money was devoted to entertainments in Downing-street? Perhaps Cardinal Wiseman had been entertainer! there. It would not surprise him to find that Ministers had bribed the Cardinal to come to this country some time ago, and to leave it again conveniently at the present time. Every thing in the British House of Commons should be fair and aboveboard; and, for his part, he would not tolerate low secret acts in a Minister of the Crown any more than in a private person. Who would assert that it did not go to the disgraceful purpose of paying spies? Such a Vote was most improper and most unworthy of that House; and he called upon the hon. Member for Lambeth to divide the Committee on the Vote.
MR. HUMEthought that the time had fully come when they ought to resolve to dispense with this Secret Service money. It was true that the amount had of late years been reduced; but, then, they had to consider that besides this Vote, they granted 10,000 l. in the Civil List to be devoted entirely to secret service, and that therefore they were really asked to grant 42,000 l. this year. In times past the

309
English Government had needed Secret Service money for the payment of traitors in foreign countries; but nothing like this could now be considered necessary, and such a vote ought no longer to be found in the Estimates. One Secretary of State did not know what the other Secretary of State was doing with this money; each spent what he liked in his own department, and not even the Cabinet, he (Mr. Hume) believed, ever got any account of the items of this expenditure. If in peculiar circumstances secret services were required, the Government had ample means available out of the 10,000 l. voted for this purpose in the Civil List. He should therefore vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lambeth.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONcould not conveniently tell his hon. Friend how this money was expended, but he could fairly enough show how it was not expended. He could assure his hon. Friend that no part of it was ever expended in bribery at elections. On this point his hon. Friend might be quite at ease. The amount of Secret Service money, as had been stated, had of late years been greatly reduced, and was in gradual progress of being still further reduced; but at no time would it be possible for a Government to avoid spending certain occasional amounts which it might be essential for the public service to keep secret. Information of an important character was from time to time required, which could not possibly be procured if the names of the persons by whom that information was afforded were to be made public.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that having for fourteen years given a silent vote in favour of this item, against which so much of odium and indignation had been directed, he wished to give a reason why he should repeat it on the present occasion. They had heard a remarkable charge made that night by an hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams) who represented an important metropolitan constituency, and who always spoke on all subjects with statistical accuracy. The hon. Member for Lambeth had announced that there was nothing in the state of our foreign relations, or in the condition of our colonies, that could justify any large or extraordinary expenditure. He (Mr. Disraeli) had received that announcement with considerable satisfaction, because he had not been aware that the state of Europe or of the colonies was such that we might congratulate ourselves
310
with a hope of their perpetual tranquillity, or that the general condition of our affairs was of such a kind as demanded no considerable expenditure. The hon. Member had also announced to the House, almost authoritatively, that there was a general opinion abroad that the sum demanded by the Government of the country for secret service money was really spent in influencing elections. Now, that was rather a startling announcement in this year of the Crystal Palace to be made in that House, where distinguished foreigners, by some mysterious agency, were sometimes present and conscious of their debates. He thought that, after agreeing to this Vote for a period of fourteen years, he might protest that in giving his support to it he was not voting for money that was to be spent for purposes of influencing the elections of this country. He did not see that elections were conducted on such a miserable and meagre scale that 32,000 l. could possibly produce the slightest influence on them. There was a blue book upstairs which showed that the election of one Member of Parliament, returned for the liberal constituency of Norwich, cost as much as 32,000 l.; and he did not wish that foreigners should go back and convey the impression that a vote of 32,000 l. was necessary to maintain the Government in office, and sufficient to influence the constituencies of this free country. That was an intolerable stain, which we ought all to rise and protest against. There were few persons who had a greater respect for the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sibthorp) than he himself had, and there was no one who would more readily defer to that hon. and gallant Gentleman's opinion; but he could not believe that this sum had been expended by the Government in encouraging the movements of Cardinal Wiseman. And, as a Member of the Opposition, influenced, however, by those feelings which influenced all men, he felt bound to state that he did not think that the Government had been guilty of any extraordinary hospitality in Downing-street. But, seriously speaking, he thought it would become the Government more frankly to explain this vote that they were in the habit of doing. It was not for him to penetrate the mysteries of Downing-street; but he knew that there were a number of persons in Europe who, in the course of the last great struggle in which we were engaged, had received pensions from this country, and

311
they were guaranteed to them for what were considered by the Government of the day as most important services. Of course these pensions were gradually diminishing, and that he believed to be the reason why the vote was diminishing in amount. If that were the fact—and he spoke on good authority—he thought it would be just as well if the noble Secretary of State would frankly appeal to the Committee and tell them what was the fact, that a considerable item of the secret service money was apportioned to the payment of these annuities and pensions, which were every year diminishing. The vote at present was for 32,000 l.; and was there any Gentleman in that House, looking to the magnitude of the transactions of this country, who could suppose that that was a sum too large to place at the discretion of the Secretaries of State for carrying on the affairs of the country under peculiar circumstances? He should support the grant; but he could not give his vote in silence without noticing the exaggeration, and he would say the irrationality, which pervaded the speech of the hon. Member for Lambeth.
MR. COBDENsaw, in the nature of the remarks which had been made upon this Vote, the best possible argument against the proposal of such a Vote. The first hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Williams) who had spoken on the matter, ventured a surmise that the Government spent the money in influencing elections. The hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, who next spoke, gave freer rein to his imagination, and suggested that the money went in convivial entertainments. [Colonel SIBTHORP: Hear, hear!] The hon. and gallant Gentleman had gone still further, and had talked, of the Government being in the habit of employing spies. [Colonel SIBTHORP: Hear, hear!] Then came the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who confessed a suspicion that the English Government did not hesitate to hire traitors in foreign countries. Was it extraordinary, when such a vote was proposed, that such explanations should be ventured on? Could the Government assign honourable reasons? Was it honourable and aboveboard, and straightforward and honest, to propose such a Vote at all? If the purposes to which the money was devoted were honourable, let the Vote, like the other Votes, be detailed and explained. The interpretations put upon the Vote in that House, were precisely the interpretations which the public would put upon it. Let the House, on
312
the other hand, examine the replies made to the opponents of the Vote. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Lewis) who had spoken first, had attempted to show that there had been a diminution of late years in this Vote. But the hon. Gentleman could not deny, that since 1822 we had expended 1,000,000 l. in "secret service." The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) who followed, denied the imputation that the money went to the influencing of elections; and no doubt the money allotted to the noble Lord's department did not go in that way. But the noble Lord, nevertheless, admitted enough to justify what had been said by the hon. Member for Montrose, and the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sibthorp). The noble Lord acknowledged that the Foreign Office sometimes had to pay for secret "information." What did this mean but paying spies and traitors? It could not be legitimate information that was paid for, or it would come through the legitimate channels. He (Mr. Cobden) had great doubts about this secret information. In nine cases out of ten, these secrets were lies. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who came last, insinuated that the money went to the colonies. [Mr. DISRAELI denied that he had said so.] The hon. Gentleman certainly indirectly suggested that the colonies and the Continent were not in a state to enable the Government to dispense with this money. This was far from being complimentary or conciliatory to the colonies. It would have been a safer argument to admit that the money went to the corruption of electors at home. The whole course of the discussion, he (Mr. Cobden) contended, clearly showed how impolitic a proposal this was. If the hon. Member for Lambeth divided the Committee, he would vote with the hon. Member—his great object was to get rid of the Vote altogether—but, in the meantime, he was ready to cut it down to 20,000 l.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, that in the year 1845 a sum of 100,000 l. had been subscribed by the Anti-Corn-Law League, and that that sum had been placed entirely at the disposal of the Committee of the League. The hon. Gentleman had himself been a leading member of that Committee, and he (Mr. Newdegate) remembered to have read a speech in which the hon. Gentleman had expressed his grati-

313
tude for the confidence which had been placed in him and his associates by the subscribers to the fund. That was a somewhat curious circumstance in the history of an hon. Gentleman who was so vehemently opposed to the allowance of a sum of 32,000 l. to the Government for carrying on the less public business of this great empire.
MR. COBDENsaid, if the hon. Gentleman had been himself a subscriber to the Anti-Corn-Law League, he would have been better acquainted with the facts relating to it. The Anti-Corn-Law League published its accounts. It had no secret service; all was aboveboard, and, if it had not been, it would not have resulted as it did.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he must deny that he had intimated that any portion of this money was expended on the colonies. He had no intention of imputing anything of the kind. All he said was, that he was not aware that the colonies were so tranquil. He did not wish to enlarge upon the necessity of Governments having the power to apply secret service money. There were numerous instances in which the employment of secret service money had prevented misfortune, had secured peace, had prevented fortified cities being taken, and, in more than one instance, had prevented battles. It would be a waste of time to urge these things on the hon. Member for the West Riding, inasmuch as the hon. Member despised history and defied experience.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the accounts of the Anti-Corn-Law League had never been rendered until after the League had been dissolved. During the period the League had been in active operation it had never made its accounts public.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he was not in the habit of supporting the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams); but if he supported him on this occasion it would be in consequence of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was not surprised at the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire supporting this Vote, for he had never known a Gentleman in that House who had either been in office, or who looked forward to office, who had not been a supporter of this vote. When the hon. Gentleman found his way into Downing-street, and had the disposal of this money, he had no doubt he would spend it ration-
314
ally, and he was quite sure he would not spend it in entertainments. Various opinions had been expressed as to the application of this money. He had stated that there was a prevalent impression in the public mind, that a portion of it was spent in corrupting voters at elections. If the Government would consent to refer the Vote to a Select Committee, fairly chosen, he would withdraw his opposition to it. The Chamber of Deputies in France appointed a Committee to inquire into every item of expenditure for Secret Service Money in that country; and why should they not do the same in this country? If Government would not do this, he must trouble the Committee to divide.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 140: Majority 99.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) 226,566 l. Printing and Stationery.
MR. HUMEsaid, there was an item of 6,000 l. for the London Gazette. The Gazette was published, in his opinion, in a very injurious manner. The Government raised by it upwards of 15,000 l. It would be much better, in his opinion, to reduce the price, and give it a more general circulation. Government ought not to be traders in newspapers. There was also a sum of 300 l. for the Exhibition. That was a paltry sum, and he should have wished that the Exhibition had not owed anything to the public. He would also observe that the present system of allowing a monopoly of printing Acts of Parliament was bad.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, originally the London Gazette was voted for as a separate establishment. The objection was made—and he was not sure whether it was not by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) himself—that the whole receipts should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the whole expenditure should be voted by Parliament. In accordance with that principle, an alteration was made last year that the receipts for the Gazette should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the whole of the outlay should be brought into the Estimates. That was the reason why the Estimates appeared in this form. With respect to the price being too high, he had only to say it was not the object of the Government to publish a newspaper. If they were to do so, an objection would be made that they were interfering with the trade of newspapers. And the Gazette could hardly be considered in that light. It was merely for the purpose of publishing

315
official announcements, and complying with the requirements of various Acts of Parliaments, that certain announcements should appear in the Gazette. With respect to the promulgation of the Acts, the distribution, he believed, was under the superintendence of the officers of the House, and he was not aware that any diminution could be effected. On the entire Vote, however, there had been a diminution. In 1849 it was 277,000 l.; in 1850,260,000 l. and in the present year it was 226,000 l., showing a diminution of 51,000 l. since 1849.
MR. REYNOLDScomplained that out of the whole sum of 226,000 l., Ireland received only 14,886 l., while last year she received 19,940 l. He complained, moreover, that printing and binding were done in England for the use of the Government offices in Ireland, whereas there was not only a Treasury order requiring that it should be done in Ireland, but it could be done there equally well, and 30 per cent cheaper. Besides this, he found an item of 20,000 l. for similar charges in the office of Inland Revenue of England, but not a penny for the same department in Ireland. Did that arise from the books, &c. being sent over from England?
COLONEL SIBTHORPalso objected to the 300 l. for the printing and stationery of the Commission for the Exhibition. He understood that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had been many times at that Exhibition. He was happy to say he had never been once. The whole affair, instead of being any advantage to the country, was a curse; and he every day was told by those connected with it that it had turned out to be a disappointment and a humbug. Considering that it had been the means of extracting, by some trick, fraud, or conjuration, 300,000 l. out of the pockets of the people, he thought it was shameful to call on the Committee to vote for it this paltry item of 300 l.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought, for the credit of the Exhibition, that the sum ought not to be charged.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Government thought it right that the House should defray the expenses incident to the issue of the Royal Commission. The Exhibition was maintained by private contribution; but he did not think the expenses of a Royal Commission ought to be defrayed in that manner.
MR. COBDENsaid, he understood an arrangement had been come to that the publications of the House should be issued
316
in an octavo form, by which one-third of the expense of printing would be saved.
VISCOUNT MAHON, as a Member of the Committee, said, the subject had received their attentive consideration; but it did not appear there could be any great saving of expense. The Committee had decided on trying the experiment, to enable hon. Members to judge of the comparative merits of the two sizes.
MR. HENLEYconsidered the octavo form the most convenient as to portability, but not so easy to read.
Vote agreed to.
The following Votes were also agreed to:—
(3.) 13,000 l., Law Charges, England.
(4.) 8,670 l., Mint Prosecutions relating to Coin.
(5.) 17,700 l., Sheriffs' Expenses, Officers of the Court of Exchequer, &c.
(6.) 9,080 l., Insolvent Debtors Court.
(7.) 87,840 l., Law Expenses, Scotland.
(8.) 60,000 l., Law Expenses, Ireland.
(9.) 35,500 l., Police of Dublin.
(10.) 200,000 l., Charges formerly paid out of County Rates.
(11.) 15,472 l., Inspection and General Superintendence of Prisons.
(12.) 251,269 l., Government Prisons, &c.
(13.) 117,190 l., Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, &c.
(14.) Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 98,860 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray Expenses connected with the Transportation of Convicts, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. HUMEsaid, that he could not think they were warranted in spending money in sending out convicts to Van Diemen's Land, in the face of the universal disapprobation expressed there. He thought that the Vote should at least be suspended until the state of matters there was better understood, and until we had some assurance that our sending convicts there would not be attended with very lamentable consequences. The last packet brought information that the inhabitants had formed a union for the purpose of preventing the landing or employment of convicts; and he thought if the Colonial Office could not grow wise by experience, but still persisted in sending convicts to the colony, that House should interfere and refuse the means of carrying out such a policy. He should take the sense of the Committee upon the Vote, unless Government would postpone it until after the

317
arrival of the next despatches from the colony.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, he saw no good to result from postponing this Vote for a few days. At the same time he could assure his hon. Friend that the Government were doing all in their power to diminish transportation. An examination of the estimates would show this. He thought that the Committee would agree to the Vote when they took into consideration the circumstances of the case. The expense of the Government prisons and convict establishments at home would be, for the present year, 251,000 l. against 237,000 l. in the previous year, being an increase of 14,000 l.; an increase which was mainly owing to the greater proportion of prisoners who were suffering punishment at home, as compared with those who were sent to the colonies. The expenses of the transportation of convicts was, last year, 119,000 l., the vote proposed for the present year being only 98,000 l., being a diminution of 21,000 l.; the cost of the convict establishments in the colonies was, last year, 200,000 l., while the vote for the present year was only 183,000 l., showing a further decrease of 17,000 l. It appeared, therefore, from these items, that the cost of prisoners in this country was increasing, while that of the prisoners suffering transportation in the colonies was diminishing; showing thereby that the Government were at present decreasing rather than increasing the proportion of prisoners suffering transportation in the colonies. The same inference was borne out by a reference to the number of prisoners under punishment in this country, which was last year 9,828, this year 10,876. He thought, therefore, that as the system of transportation must be maintained to some, and probably to a considerable extent, and as Government were diminishing rather than increasing it, there could be ne reason for withholding the Vote.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he did not complain of the amount of money involved in the Vote, but of our throwing our criminals upon the shores of Van Diemen's Land, not merely in opposition to the protests of the inhabitants, but contrary to the pledge given by Earl Grey in one of his despatches, that no more convicts should be sent there. This was a direct breach of public fath, and on that ground he objected to the present Vote.
MR. ALDERMAN COPELANDsaid, that
318
12,000 of the best inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land had emigrated, or had given notice of emigration, from thence in consequence of the number of criminals sent there. He hoped that this Vote would be postponed, at all events, for a few days.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was perfectly impossible for Government to stop transportation at once; all that the Government could do was to diminish its extent. Now not merely was a less sum of money expended, but the diminished vote showed the intention of Government to send out a smaller number of convicts. They were not sending convicts to Van Diemen's Land alone; arrangements had been made for despatching a large number of convict3 to Western Australia and to the northern part of New South Wales, the inhabitants of which were anxious to have them.
MR. G. HAMILTONsaid, he had heard of sentences being commuted, and convicts set at liberty without any recommendation to mercy. Against such a system he protested.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he felt certain that the system of transportation must always be resorted to; but there were many colonies in which the convicts would he gladly received, and they need not he forced upon others.
MR. HENLEYregretted to remark that a larger proportion of our criminals were being retained in this country. However, it might be hoped that some of these convicts could he reformed. He looked with apprehension on the retention of great numbers of criminals in this country, where they could hardly be so likely to find employment on their liberation as in a distant country.
MR. DUNCANsaid, merchants were actually leaving Van Diemen's Land on account of the continuance of the convict system. A detail of the results of the system would astonish the House.
MR. VERNON SMITHcould confirm that which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had observed, that the vote was not restricted to Van Diemen's Land, but partly applied to other colonies where the convicts would be willingly received. He certainly thought it would he undesirable to force them on colonies which did not desire to have them.
CAPTAIN HARRISthought that the country had a right to look to our colonies to receive our convicts without complaint.

319
A great mistake had been made originally in establishing penal colonies; it had tended to create a kind of distinction between those colonies and others, and to produce the idea that it was a disgrace to receive convicts. It was to be regretted that the system of transportation should be prejudiced by the rashness and recklessness of the Colonial Office, which had partly cooperated in inducing an impression that transportation was objectionable, and would be discontinued. If proper measures were taken to prepare the way for the reception and employment of convicts, he believed that the system of transportation might be beneficial. In Canada, for instance, convicts were actually required to construct a railway. The impression was getting abroad that transportation was to be discontinued, and that the convicts were to serve out their punishment at home. He thought Government should speak out on this question, and not leave the country in a state of uncertainty. He believed that many portions of our colonies might be made available for the reception of convicts, and without any stigma attaching to colonies consenting to such an arrangement.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that with, respect to Van Diemen's Land there could be but one opinion—that that colony had a right to complain of a breach of faith. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of colonics willing to receive convicts. In reference to those Australian colonies of which he had any knowledge, and New Zealand, he did not believe the people were willing to risk the demoralisation of themselves and their families by the introduction of convicts. With respect to other colonies he would say nothing, because he knew nothing whatever of them. If they wanted convicts, let them have them; but he implored the Government not to take all the reports of Governors on the subject, as if they expressed the wishes of the colonies, when, in point of fact, they might only be founded on the statements of a few individuals.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the discussion which had just taken place tended to show the difficulties which the Government had to encounter in dealing with this subject. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), representing a considerable portion of the feeling of this country, said that it was a great evil that the number of convicts kept in this country should have increased, that our gaols
320
should be crowded with them, and that the same number of convicts should not be transported as formerly. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Aglionby), on the other hand, maintained that it was a great evil that any convicts should be sent either to Van Diemen's Land or New Zealand, and he objected to the continuance of transportation to our colonies. He (Lord John Russell) must say, in the first place, that although Bermuda and Gibraltar were places to which a certain number of convicts might be sent, yet no great additional number could be sent to any other place except Australia. That there was any of our colonies anxious for our convicts, was very little to be credited. There were some parts of New South Wales—Moreton Bay, for example—which were ready to receive our convicts; but, generally speaking, the agitation now going on throughout Australia was against convicts being sent to any part of the Australian colonies. They said, and there was a great deal of truth in the representation, that if convicts were sent to Van Diemen's Land, they would afterwards find their way to New South Wales and other parts of Australia; and what they desired was that there should be no more transportation to the Australian colonies. The hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), had mixed up with this subject a grave charge against the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He (Lord John Russell) believed that that charge was totally unfounded. When the present Government came into office, they found that for some years a great number of convicts had been sent to Van Diemen's Land, and that the Secretary of State for the Colonies who immediately preceded them—he meant the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)—impressed with the great evil which this over-transportation had caused, had given directions that transportation to Van Diemen's Land should be suspended for two years. A plan was afterwards contemplated by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies not to put an end to transportation, but to make the convicts undergo a certain portion of the punishment in this country, and then to send them out, not as transported felons, but as exiles, upon the condition that they should not leave the Australian colonies without permission. That plan was afterwards changed to a plan for sending them out with tickets of leave;

321
but this did not imply any promise with respect either to Van Diemen's Land or New South Wales. There was, therefore, no breach of faith in the matter. He was inclined to think that the Governor of Van Diemen's Land had misunderstood some of the despatches which he had received from the Secretary of State, and that he had unconsciously held language which had led to the expectation that transportation had ceased; but that was quite a different thing from giving a pledge that it should cease. Having said this, he (Lord John Russell) would not then enter into the great subject which was involved in the question which the hon. Member for Montrose had raised. He would only say that he thought it must be quite obvious to hon. Members that, whether they resolved to maintain transportation, to diminish it in a certain degree, or to abolish it altogether, it was impossible to make a sudden change in the system which was in operation. The hon. Member for Montrose had talked of waiting a few days for further advices from Van Diemen's Land; but the hon. Member did not seem to consider that the persons were convicted, that their trials were over, and that they occupied the prisons and hulks of this country; and that, if the House were to resolve that they should not be transported, it would be necessary to make provision for their support in this country, at the risk of great expense and great evils to this country. He would only say, further, that every means ought to be taken, and that he believed every means were taken, in order to ascertain what parts of Australia were willing to receive convicts; and that, with regard to the number of convicts sent, they would be very much guided by that consideration. He quite admitted that a great number of convicts in a particular colony was a great moral evil. He thought that the extent of transportation should be measured by the number of people in the colony to whom the convicts were sent; that if a small number of convicts were sent to a colony where there was a great demand for labour, and where the general tone of society was in a healthy state, the result would be productive of good; but that, if a large number of convicts were sent among a thin and free population, the result would be a serious evil. But these were matters to be considered from time to time, and they would be so considered by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, and by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
322
the Home Department. He begged the Committee further to consider that if they were to make a great change in the whole system, it would not be sufficient to make a change in the Vote asked for in the Committee of Supply, but that it would be necessary to make a change in the criminal law; because so long as the law said that for certain offences offenders must be punished with transportation, it was impossible that the Government could take upon themselves to declare that this law should not be carried into effect.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that some consideration ought to be given to the universal expression of disapprobation by the colonies of the present system of transportation.
LORD NAASsaid, that all the colonies, with the exception of Australia, having decidedly declared against the reception of convicts, and the people at home being equally, unwilling to retain them, he saw no alternative but to create new convict settlements in Australia.
MR. EWARTsaid, that on one occasion he went with a deputation to the late Colonial Secretary on the subject of transportation to Van Diemen's Land, and he was deeply struck with an observation which was made by one of. the deputation, which was this, that he had a wife and five children in Van Diemen's Land; but rather than they should continue exposed to the contamination of the convict system, he would see them all dead at his feet. He (Mr. Ewart) coincided with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) so far as Van Diemen's Land was concerned; but he would go further and say, that as a general principle, they ought not to concentrate the poison of transportation in any one colony. At the same time, while he was anxious for the purity of our colonies, he felt bound to consider the welfare of our own country, and he confessed he looked forward with some anxiety to the future for some means of disposing of our convicts by transportation, which he had always held was the only sound system for correcting the criminal, as well as punishing crime. The present Minister of the Interior of France, M. Léon Faucher had also expressed his opinion in favour of the system of deportation. It was only within the last two months that a Commission, appointed in France, had reported upon a similar subject—the deportation of their criminals to Algiers.
MR. HUMEsaid, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), who had appealed to him, would recollect that, when the Government

323
discontinued transportation, he (Mr. Hume) objected to it as impolitic; but yet he was of opinion that, if continued, it ought to be continued on a system that would satisfy the colonies. The system, however, as it had been conducted by the various Governors, was such that the colonies were driven to determine they would receive no more. When the noble Lord denied that Earl Grey had broken faith with the colonies, he (Mr. Hume) would say no more till he had read Earl Grey's letter, and the resolution of the colonists. Speaking of the reformation of criminals in prisons, having no faith in it himself, he had visited the prisons personally, had inquired at the governors of those places the opinion they entertained of their efficiency in that way, and he had heard the opinion of five of the oldest aldermen in London—[Laughter]—hon. Gentlemen might laugh if they pleased, but five of the oldest and most experienced of the aldermen had declared that the result of their experience was, that no reformation could be effected by prison confinement. He complained of the Government sending out 1,500 convicts and throwing them upon an infant colony who had formed a league to protect themselves against the injustice of the Colonial Office. If the Government would give a pledge not to send these convicts to Van Diemen's Land, he would not oppose the Vote; but he would not agree to the grant of a single shilling for the purpose, under present circumstances, of sending convicts to Australia.
CAPTAIN HARRISbegged to read, in support of a statement he had previously made, the following passage from a speech delivered by Earl Grey in the House of Lords, on the 5th of March, 1847:—
"There is another Bill—the Prison Bill—before us, intimately connected with it, of which I shall also move the second reading this evening, but which is not in itself of very much more importance. Its whole object is to make a change, and I believe a very necessary change, in the constitution of the governing bodies of three national prisons of Pentonville, Millbank, and Parkhurst. But though those two measures are not in themselves of any very great importance, I think it is right that, in moving the second reading of this Bill, I should call your Lordships' attention to the whole subject of secondary punishments; for this reason, that these are the only measures of a legislative kind which it is necessary for Government at present to introduce to Parliament in carrying into effect a change in the policy of the country with respect to punishments of a very important kind. That change is of no less extent than a virtual abolition of the system of transportation, which has so many years prevailed under different re-
324
gulations and modifications as a mode of punishment." [3 Hansard, xc. 898.]
From that extract it would appear that he (Captain Harris) had not exaggerated what was said by the noble Earl.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he saw a charge for religious instruction on board the convict ships, and wished to know if provision was made for all denominations of religion, or whether in a case where the majority on board were Roman Catholics, while they were adequately provided for, no provision was made for other sects?
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that when the great majority of convicts were Roman Catholics, chaplains were appointed; but where there was only a small number of persons professing a different religion on board, it was impossible to find chaplains for every different creed.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 9: Majority 89.
Vote agreed to; as was
(15.) 183,030 l. Convict Establishments.
House resumed: Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.