Commons Sitting of 5 May 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° County Courts Further Extension.
2° Appointments to Offices, &c.

PROPERTY TAX BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
Clause 1.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Bernal, before we proceed with the progress of the Bill with regard to the property and income tax, I think the Committee will prefer that either my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or myself should state the course we propose to pursue with regard to this measure and the financial measures of the Session; and, as it is a matter that regards the Government in general, I have thought it better that I should take upon myself the task of stating that course. The Committee on Friday night, by a majority of 14, came to a decision that one year instead of three should be the period for which the property and income tax should last. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), who made the Motion to that effect, stated as his ground for doing so that it was desirable that an inquiry should take place with regard to this tax, with a view of making it more just and equal, and that he wished, such alterations and modifications having been introduced, that the tax should be continued, and, indeed, that it should be made permanent. I could not agree, nor do I now come to the conlusion, that it was desirable to abridge the duration of the tax for this purpose. But the Committee having decided otherwise, it was for us to consider what course we should take, so as to maintain public credit and the financial system of the country. Now, although in my opinion it is very inexpedient so far to place such a tax in jeopardy as to make it last only for a year, yet I cannot suppose that the majority of the Committee which agreed to that Motion had any view, any intention, of placing in jeopardy the public credit of the country. I could not so suppose, because the House since its first assembling after the general election has shown itself most careful in preserving public credit, and in providing for the necessary establishments of the country. I could not so suppose, because among the Members who voted for that Motion were many who are distinguished for showing, both by their acts and their speeches, their determination to maintain that credit, and to provide what is necessary for the public service. Therefore, Sir, concluding that such would be the intention of the House, we have to consider whether or no we can adopt the Resolution of the Committee, and proceed with the Bill in its present shape. Now, many Gentlemen who in private have argued this question
512
with me have said that there is a general impression in the country that the income tax, which is at present unequal, might be made more just and equal: and when I have answered that Mr. Pitt and Sir Robert Peel, and others who have been in office, and had to carry on the financial arrangements of the country, have always come to a different conclusion, it has been replied to me that, if the conclusion to which those eminent men came should be supported by an inquiry, the country would feel satisfied by the result of that inquiry. If, on the other hand, it should be shown that the tax by modification could be made more fair and equal, in that case such alterations might be adopted. So that in either way the maintenance of the tax might be secured. I have no doubt that those who have expressed this opinion in private, acted on that view when they gave their support to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume). Seeing, then, that contrary to our opinion the Committee has come to that Resolution, we think it desirable, in the present state of affairs, that there should be inquiry upon this subject. I think, such having been the decision of the Committee, that it would neither be fair nor wise to attempt to refuse or evade that inquiry; but that there ought to be a fair inquiry, and one conducted by the men who in this House are generally the leaders upon financial subjects, and to whom the House is disposed to pay deference. I should therefore say that the Government is prepared to agree that there shall be a fair and full inquiry upon the subject. But a further question naturally arises—whether, taking this income tax only for a year, we can agree to any other modification of the tax, and whether we can proceed with those measures relative to the financial system of the year which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already brought before the House. Now, upon that subject, we have to consider that the Committee has, by its previous votes, agreed to the continuance of the income tax for a limited period, and rejected the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries), that the financial arrangement of the year should consist in taking off, without modification or alteration, a part of the income tax equivalent to the surplus which the House might be disposed to apply to remission of taxation. The House likewise concurred with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Ex-

513
chequer in the proposal to repeal the window tax, and to supply part of the deficit which would be occasioned by the loss of that tax by a tax on a more equitable principle upon house property. The House likewise agreed, without any division, I believe, to the Resolutions which were proposed on the timber and coffee duties, which Resolutions formed the main part of the proposed financial arrangement of the year. Now, we should be extremely reluctant to forego the repeal of the window duty, which my right hon. Friend has proposed. We look upon the window tax not so much as a great financial burden as a great social evil. I consider, therefore, that it would be a great misfortune if we should be obliged to maintain that tax, which the House has already resolved to give up. But, at the same time, we must consider that, in order to carry those Resolutions into effect, we ought to be enabled to have it made clear to us that, during the pendency of that inquiry, there will be no further alterations of the income tax, diminishing the produce of that tax during the year; and, in the next place, that there will be no further breaking in upon the finances of the country, so as to deprive my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the means of supporting public credit, and defraying the cost of those establishments which the House has already agreed to maintain. I think I am making no unreasonable requirement of the House when I ask these things; and I think it will certainly be our duty, while we propose to go on with the income tax, limited as my hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) proposes, to expect that that income tax shall pass without further modification, and likewise that the whole of the revenue which we hope to obtain will be secured, so as to enable us to repeal the window tax, and to carry into effect by Bill the Resolutions respecting the timber and coffee duties. I might, perhaps, ask the Committee to allow me, further, to correct a misconception which seemed to prevail on Friday night, and to prevail in the mind of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hume). He seemed to think that I was reproaching him with asking the aid of a party with which he does not agree in general political principles; and, supposing that to be the case, he said fairly enough that such had often been my own situation. I meant no reproach to my hon. Friend upon that subject. When parties happen to agree on the immediate question before the House,
514
it is evidently natural that they should agree in the vote at which they arrive. But the observation I made to my hon. Friend was, that I did not think they were agreed in the ultimate object at which they aimed. For instance, when I have had the support of Gentlemen on the other side of the House—say upon the question of military and naval establishments—they have voted with me because they saw the same danger that I did in reducing them; and when they voted with me against the proposal of my hon. Friend himself with regard to reform, it was because they saw the same injury to the public welfare that I saw in that measure. But the question of Friday night was totally different, because my hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) had in view the maintenance of the property and income tax, which he would have modified with the view of maintaining it; and those who voted with him (I believe upwards of 200) had generally expressed by their votes their wish to diminish the property and income tax without modification, and to do away with it altogether. I only pointed it out to my hon. Friend as a reason why he should not expect these Gentlemen to go with him in the further propositions which he might make. But, as I have already stated, these questions will be submitted to a fair inquiry, and I trust that the country will be satisfied, either, with the Government, that this tax cannot be made more equal, without either damaging its amount, or else making it ten times more inquisitoral than it is; or that, if they are not satisfied in that respect, and there should appear to the Committee and to the country to be a modification of that tax possible, which should make it more just and equal, then my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose will have had a great success in carrying his Motion—a success the credit of which I do not wish to deprive him of, because I think it will be fairly due to him for having made a proposition which will make this species of taxation more tolerable to the country than it now appears to be. Such is the course which the Government proposes to take. I wish to state it fairly to the Committee, and I can assure my hon. Friend that, the opinion of the Committee having been declared, the last thing I should think of doing would be to evade the inquiry.
Mr. HUMEbegged to give his concurrence in the view of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that, after the determination to which the Committee had come on Fri-

515
day night, no further alterations should he made in the taxes during the present year. It might turn out that the difficulties were so great that no improvement could be made in this tax; but if that should be the case, the country would be satisfied that every effort had been made to remove what had hitherto been a reproach on what was, in his opinion, a tolerable, and indeed a preferable, mode of raising taxation. He hoped that the gallant officer the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), who had given notice of a Motion for an alteration in the mode of levying the tax upon the incomes of tenant-farmers, would not press his Motion, but would allow the Bill to go through Committee without alteration. He thought that the noble Lord bad done well not to interfere with the repeal of the window tax; but he could not agree with the noble Lord that the Committee should be precluded from interfering with parts of the expenditure of the country, though he had no objection not to interfere with the taxation. No one had, for a long period, endeavoured more strenuously to support public credit than he (Mr. Hume) had done; and he therefore hoped that the noble Lord would acquit him of any intention, by that Motion, to interfere with the public credit. He should he satisfied, whatever might be the result, with doing his best, as one of the Committee, to place matters on a proper footing. A direct tax, to be a just, should be a general tax; and he hoped that the inquiries of the Committee would be directed to that point. He hoped that the Committee would be appointed without any long delay.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I think that the vote to which the Committee came on Friday night was a very fair one, and after the notification received to-day from Her Majesty's Ministers, that a Committe will he appointed to inquire into the subject, it does certainly appear to be desirable that, after so shortening the lease of this tax, there should be no criticism in detail on any particular schedule. There certainly, however, is one Motion to be brought before the Committee by my gallant Friend the Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp), in reference to a part of the Act, which I think is entitled to the special consideration of the Committee. And although, perhaps, my gallant Friend might not think, after all that has occurred, that it would be altogether desirable for him to take exactly the course which he had anticipated pursuing, I still hope that, if that
516
be the case, Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of adopting the principle suggested from more than one quarter—that the tenant-farmers of England should be rated to this tax in the same manner and upon the same principles as all other classes. I think that such an alteration on the part of Government would be quite consistent with not encouraging any further criticism on the Bill before the House. I hope that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer will express the cheerful readiness of Her Majesty's Government to comply with that request. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) made some observations which well became an individual in his eminent and responsible position with respect to the maintenance of public credit, justly giving credit to Gentlemen on this side of the House—and also, with equal justice, to those on the other—for being extremely anxious to fulfil that paramount duty. So anxious am I myself, and I am sure every Gentleman here, to maintain public credit, that, after the vote which the Committee came to on Friday night with respect to the term of the income tax, I shall feel it my duty—at least I shall consider it quite open to us—to consider the other financial propositions of the Government with reference to the new position which they now occupy. I do not consider, now the Committee has determined that the income tax shall only last one year, that we are bound to anything that has passed previously with respect to the other financial propositions of the Government, which passed under the impression that the income tax would last a much longer period. I reserve to myself the right of considering those propositions as new propositions—as propositions made under circumstances so different from those under which they previously came under the consideration of the Committee, that I think that, with reference to the great point on which the noble Lord has dwelt, with reference to the maintenance of the credit of the country, we must consider those propositions anew. The noble Lord has also made some remarks upon the imputed contrariety of purpose between Gentlemen on this side of the House and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and upon the causes which led them to come to a common conclusion on Friday night; but still I consider that, though the noble Lord has had the advantage of reconsidering his previous remarks, he is still labouring under very falla-

517
cious views of our conduct, and of the circumstances of the case. I think that the object was fairly and fully a common object between ourselves and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. It may be true that he wishes the principle of the income tax to be a permanent principle in our finance, and certainly it is true that that is not a dogma which we should support. But I beg to remind the noble Lord that neither myself nor any Gentleman on this side of the House with whom I have had the pleasure of acting, has attempted to lay down the principle that we should oppose the reimposition of the income tax under the present circumstances. If we felt that we should at once terminate the income tax, that is the course we should have taken. But after well considering the subject, all that we counselled was that we should gradually terminate the tax; but the very circumstance that we felt that the tax should only be terminated by a very gradual procedure, proved that we did not consider that there was any mode of a very speedy termination. I cannot myself, and I should think that very few Gentlemen can, anticipate that, when the year is passed, we shall be able to carry on the affairs of the country without some reimposition of this tax. Well, then, the question arises, when the tax assumes a character of such permanence—at least, of such continuity—is it not our duty to make it more equitable if we can? That was the object that I had in view. I believe it was mainly that of the Gentlemen on this side of the House; and therefore I cannot agree that there was no fair common Parliamentary object in the course which we pursued. I think that the conclusion arrived at by the Committee on Friday night was a salutary one. I look back to it with satisfaction, and I have no doubt that it will lead the country to the opinion that the House of Commons is worthy of its confidence.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I do not wish to say anything with regard to the latter part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), but will leave it in the way in which he has already stated it. But with regard to an observation which the hon. Member made at the commencement of his speech, that he thought the Government must agree to place the tenant-farmers in Schedule D, to be assessed in the same manner as persons in trades and professions, I think the Committee, upon consideration, must feel that it is desirable
518
not to make any such alteration at the present time. When the proposition that has been adopted was originally made, it was supposed to be rather an advantage to the tenant-farmers: it is now said that it would be an advantage to them to be assessed in a different manner; but that, I believe, is a matter upon which there is considerable diversity of opinion, and therefore, I think, it is one of the questions that will very properly come under the consideration of the Committee, and that the Committee should not prejudge it by altering for this one year the mode of assessment which has been always adopted while the income tax has lasted.
Question put, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had been delighted with the decision of the Committee of Friday, and had thought, now the ice was broken, he should have a better chance of success for his proposition respecting the tenant-farmers. The decision gave the Government a shake, and, above all, a severe shake to his right hon. Relative the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) evidently smarted under the lashing he had had from his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He (Colonel Sibthorp) did not shrink from the discharge of his duty; but at the same time he should be prepared to defer to the wishes of those with whom he had the honour of acting. He was willing to postpone the Amendment of which he had given notice, but hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not take advantage of the indulgence now extended to him, and leave the supporters of that proposition in the lurch.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not understand what the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln wished him to say, beyond what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell). The Committee had voted the renewal of the tax for a year only, and that the possibility of modifying it should be inquired into before a Select Committee; so that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) would have an opportunity, if he wished, of examining, before the Committee, into the question which he proposed to submit to it. He hoped that the Committtee would assent to the opinion of the hon. Members for Buckinghamshire and Montrose, that as the Bill was to be renewed for a twelve-

519
month, and that as an inquiry into all these questions should form part of the duties of the Committee, no alteration of the financial arrangements for the year should take place.
VISCOUNT JOCELYNwished to explain the reasons why he had proposed to move, and why he had resolved to withdraw the Amendment of which he had given notice, to the effect, "that in place of the arbitrary assessment in Schedule B of the farmer's profit, there shall be substituted some fairer mode, similar or analogous to that for computing the duty on trade and manufactures." It was because he thought that would be doing only a simple act of justice to a very important interest. When the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), at a very early period of the Session, brought forward a Motion with reference to the distress of the agricultural interest, he (Viscount Jocelyn) and many of those who had acted together with the noble Lord at the head of the Government upon matters relating to the removal of restrictions on imports, supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; but he had done so because he believed that he was only doing an act of justice; and in the same spirit he had desired to bring forward his Amendment. The object of it was simply to ask for the farmer a power to appeal from a surcharge. But when he came to consider what took place on Friday; when he considered that it had been agreed to limit the duration of the tax to one year; when he considered what had been stated by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that they were prepared to grant an inquiry; when he considered the difficulty with which the subject was surrounded—he came to the conclusion not to bring forward his Amendment, believing that the question was one to which the Committee about to be appointed would turn its attention.
MR. W. WILLIAMShad no expectation that any good would arise from a Committee upon this subject, as no good had been derived from the Committees which had sat the last three years upon the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, and also upon Official Salaries. The injustice of the tax, as at present levied, was generally admitted, both in that House and in the country; and he should have preferred the imposition of the tax for three years, with the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Freshfield), by which profits in trade were to be charged
520
only one-half the rate charged upon realised property, to its imposition unaltered for a single year, if the choice lay between these two alternatives.
MR. BOOKERsaid, that representing a county from which he had presented many petitions complaining of the distress of the occupants of land, he could have wished the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had given up part, if not the whole, of the paltry sum which his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) wanted, and which amounted to only about 300,000 l. However, thinking that his hon. and gallant Friend could go before the Committee with a case which it would be impossible to resist, he thought he should be best consulting the wishes of his constituents, if he asked him to postpone his Motion, and reserve the question for the consideration of the Committee.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he had an Amendment on the Paper, which he supposed, under the new circumstances that had arisen, he must also withdraw. But he could assure the Committee that the farmers could not bear this tax any longer, and he was afraid that before the Committee made its report three-fourths of the farmers of Hampshire and Wiltshire would be swept off the face of the land. He thought that the small modicum of justice which he sought for might be given without the least fear of disturbing public credit. It was said that farmers, like manufacturers, should redouble their exertions, and they would then find relief. The two cases were not parallel. The manufacturer, having capital, could regulate supply and demand. The farmer could not do so; he had only a small capital, and was obliged to go on with the seasons, and under fresh circumstances—when he had done sowing and reaping he got nothing for his labour. It was remarkable that in the present year hardly any flour had been conveyed to the metropolis from the district with which he was especially connected. The millers in Hampshire contemplated the destruction of their business, not being able to compete with foreigners. In the present state of things the English miller naturally got less from the farmer. They were told that the millers' distress was owing to the superior grinding and dressing in France. If that wore so, he could not blame any one; but he believed it arose chiefly from the fact, that the poor of France consumed a much worse quality of food than was consumed

521
in England. [Cheers.] There was a much larger demand for the inferior descriptions of flour in France than here; and the result was that the better quality of French flour was forced into competition with ours, and consequently scarcely any flour had, during the present year, found its way from Hampshire to London. If the agriculturalists were treated justly and generously, they would display the same energy as other portions of the community.
MR. SPOONERagreed with the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), that having allowed the property tax to continue only for one year, it would be desirable to make as few alterations as possible in the measure itself. He thought that the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Sib thorp) had done well in postponing his Amendment, but he hoped that he would not withdraw it altogether, if the result of their discussion were to tax the farmers so unjustly as it was proposed for the next twelve months. He hoped that the Committee would enable the tenants to appeal if they thought they could show that they had not received those profits upon which they were taxed. It was a well-known fact that many of them, so far from making any profit now, were wholly unable to pay their landlords their rents. In such case, deductions ought to be made in the property tax, in order that these persons might be relieved from the injustice to which they were at present exposed. It was a common case now for the man who was perhaps worth 4,000 l. or 5,000 l. in 1844 and 1845, to have lost half of his capital, from the change which had taken place in the corn laws. Was he, then, to have no deductions allowed him now? Under Clause 70, if a tenant goes away without paying a farthing of his rent, and without paying any portion of the property tax either for his landlord or himself, the produce of the next tenant was immediately seized upon by the Government for the former tenant's arrear. Would they suffer such an evil to exist for another twelve months, when the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer might easily remedy it by the introduction of a simple clause? He was as anxious as any person to preserve public credit. But if they wanted to shake public credit, they would make the farmers believe that they were dealing with them unjustly, and imposing upon them a burden which in common justice they ought to avoid doing. He would consent to allow the Bill to go
522
on without further opposition, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would but say that he would take that single question into consideration, and would give the tenants an opportunity of proving that they did not make the profits upon which they were to be assessed. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman refused to consider this point, then he hoped that his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) would renew his Motion.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDconcurred in what appeared to him to be the general feeling of the Committee, that if the Government were going to consider upon what large principles the income and property tax could be permanently maintained, then the best course would be to let the Bill pass through Committee as speedily as possible. At the same time, it was admitted on all hands that the farmers were in a different position from any other class. It had been acknowledged that they were the only exception to the general prosperity; and the legislation of that House was stated as partly the cause of their being an exception. At the time this taxation was arranged, it was not contemplated that they would be deprived of protection. He hoped the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) would press the Amendments of which he had given notice, to make allowance and deduction from duties under Schedule A for repairs and rent irrecoverably lost; for repeal of the power of distress on lands in the occupation of a person who was not in the occupation thereof at the time the duties became due; and to give the power of appeal to persons assessed under Schedule B, either as owners of land in their own occupation, or as tenants in respect of losses.
MR. ALCOCKdid not wish to exempt the farmer from his liability of paying his fair proportion of the tax, but he claimed for the farmer exemption from the payment of a sum arbitrarily fixed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and altogether irrespective of profits. There were 70,000 farmers who paid on an average 4l. 10 s. a year for income tax. That was 300,000 l., or 3 per cent on 10,000,000 l. The Act of Parliament and the Government said, that that amount had been made by the farmers. He denied that it had been made; and the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right to charge the farmers with 3 per cent, when he knew they had

523
not realised 1 per cent. He would suggest to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer the propriety of dealing with the farmers precisely as he did with every other class of persons in the country whose income he had no certain means of ascertaining. Any person claiming exemption from the tax on the ground that he had not 150 l. a year, had the privilege of proving that before the Commissioners, and thus getting rid of the impost. Why not allow the tenant-farmer the privilege? It was not altogether the amount of the tax that made it so objectionable, as the galling injustice that the farmer was obliged to pay a per centage on supposed profits, when, in reality, he was at a loss. What added to the sense of injustice was the fact that the Irish farmer paid no income tax at all, and the Scotch farmer only a mere trifle. If the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer did not concede this privilege to the farmers, he (Mr. Alcock) hoped the Committee would compel him to do so.
MR. BANKESsaid, it might be thought very reasonable to say that as the tax was only imposed for a single year, the tenant-farmer might very well wait until that short period had lapsed. But, let it he recollected, that this was the year in which Her Majesty was advised by Her Ministers to state that the tenant-farmers were in a state of great and peculiar distress, and that this also was the year in which the same Ministers refused to do anything to alleviate the distress of that suffering class. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had stated, that at the time when the income tax was proposed, the arrangement then made was considered a good one for the tenant-farmers. It might have been a good arrangement for them at that time, for then the tenant-farmers had protection and fair prices for their grain; but now they were in great distress, and therefore it was but right to concede to them the small favour which they sought with respect to the income tax. He had heard with much pleasure a portion of the speech of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Chaplin), and regretted that that speech was not heard by a fuller house. The interruption which occurred in the course of its delivery did not come from that (the Protectionist) side of the House, but from the free-traders, who did not much admire the hon. Member's statement. He had stated that the labourers of France were maintained upon a much cheaper and infe-
524
rior kind of food than that which our labourers would or ought to accept, and that the consequence was, that our farmers were unable to compete with foreigners. Another important point which the hon. Gentleman had noticed was, that the flour of Hampshire did not now come up to the London market. He (Mr. Bankes) hoped the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his assent to this very small proposition on behalf of the tenant-farmer—a proposition which, if the right hon. Gentleman resisted, would assuredly be forced upon him by the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought what had fallen from his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Alcock) showed how difficult it was to deal with this question without going into the whole question of the mode of assessment. His hon. Friend said it was very objectionable to the English farmer that the Irish farmer should be exempted, and that the Scotch farmer should pay less in proportion than himself. They were really getting into a discussion on the whole principle of the mode in which the assessment under Schedule B was made. The truth was, that all the questions were so linked together that it was almost impossible to deal with any one of them fairly, and to give it the consideration which was, necessary, and which it deserved, without going into the whole matter. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House would remember that last year the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (the Marquess of Granby) observed that, at the time when the income tax was proposed, he thought the assessment under Schedule B favourable to the farmers. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) opinion was to the same effect. He believed that the farmers of England paid far less in proportion, in ordinary times, than the tradesman paid under Schedule D. His belief, moreover, was that the present state of things would be far more favourable to the farmer than that which was proposed, for if a reduction of the assessment was hereafter to be made at all, it would be more advantageous to have it made upon the amount of their rents than upon the proportion of profits which they might realise. On general grounds, therefore, he thought the present arrangement was far more preferable for the farmer than that which was proposed by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Hon. Gentlemen must see that it was hardly possible to

525
deal with one portion of the subject without entering into the whole. Moreover, if the anticipations of hon. Gentlemen opposite were correct, the present state of things would prove still more favourable to the farmers than it had been contemplated it would do. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that the circumstances of one particular year ought to induce an alteration. He thought they could not draw just conclusions from the circumstances of any one year; and he repeated that they could not make any change without taking the whole schedule into consideration. The present mode of assessment, he considered, would be the best on the whole for the farmer; and, as a landlord, he thought the wisest course would be to renew the tax as it stood for a year, and to go into the various questions as a whole in Committee. He quite agreed that the farmers had an equitable claim to be put on Schedule D; but, granting that, logically, he was still of opinion that it would be a bad thing for the farmers themselves.
SIR THOMAS ACLAND: Would the right hon. Gentleman not grant at least the right of appeal to the tenant-farmers?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Would his hon. Friend allow him to overcharge tenants between 150 l. and 300 l. a year who made any profit at all? On the whole, the assessment was a good bargain for the farmers as it stood. If he were to surrender on the one side, he surely ought to be allowed to surcharge on the other. He was prepared, however, to stand by the arrangement as it stood.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that after the discussion that had taken place, he thought the best course would be to withdraw his Motion, reserving to himself the power of discussing the principle on a future occasion. He hoped, however, there would be a suspension of financial arrangement until the Committee was appointed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas of opinion that the hon. and gallant Member had been unfairly treated, in consequence of so much irrelevant discussion having been raised on his Motion. However, he did not see much of practical use in the suggestion of suspending all financial arrangements until the Committee was appointed. He thought it was obvious that no time should be lost in the appointment of the Select Committee, in order that,
526
if he had the honour to occupy his present position next Session, he might be able to direct his attention to their recommendations. He appealed to the Committee, however, whether the best mode of dealing with the subject now was simply to renew the Bill as it stood, and leave the matter for investigation before the Select Committee. As it had been his duty to look minutely into the measure, he could assure hon. Gentlemen that the questions involved in it were much more interwoven and intermingled with each other than many Members seemed to have any notion of.
MR. HENLEYthought the case of the farmers generally rested upon very special grounds. The assessment now expiring was a triennial assessment, on which the tenant paid 3½d. in the pound; and if the assessment were continued, he knew no means by which they could get relief from one halfpenny of that 3d. in the pound. That being so, he did not think any one would have the hardihood to get up in that House, and say that in 1849 and 1850 the tenant-farmers had made anything like the amount of profit at which they were assessed. During that time many a tenant-farmer's capital had been diminished at least 25 per cent. All that was now asked by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) was, that the Committee should give a power of appeal by those parties who had made no profits, not only during the last year, but during the year for which they were about to be assessed. He (Mr. Henley) thought that was not an unreasonable proposition. He very sincerely regretted that, though the suffering of the tenant-farmers was admitted, they were to have no hope held out to them of any amendment of their condition in the present year.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had not yet told the House how far he intended to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Official Salaries; and now he had a proposition for a Committee on the Income Tax, which was no doubt a very convenient mode of getting over that question; but he trusted the noble Lord would be compelled to bring the fate of the tax to an issue during the present Session of Parliament. This course of proceeding was highly unsatisfactory to hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House; and unless they had something more satisfactory held out to them on the point under discussion, he, in common

527
with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), would ask the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) to persevere in his Motion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLmust say that the hon. Baronet who had just spoken had not put the question very fairly. The hon. Baronet spoke of the proposal of a Committee as being entirely the proposal of the Government, and as if they had used every argument they could to persuade the House to adopt it; and then the hon. Baronet came forward and said this was no doubt a very convenient course for the Government to take in order to get rid of the question. Now, he thought the Committee was not likely to be of the opinion of the hon. Baronet. There had been two courses before them on Friday next, either of which the House might have fairly taken. One was, that with the view of having a Committee appointed, the duration of the income tax should be limited to one year; the other was to discuss all the modifications and proposals that might be made in a Committee of the whole House, and either reject or adopt those modifications, renewing the tax for three years. Either of these courses might have been taken; but a majority of the House thought it most convenient, and the hon. Baronet voted along with them, that the first proposal should be adopted, and all the various matters sent before a Committee of Inquiry. But they were told, that before this was done, they must have a special clause to meet the case of the tenant-farmers. If the Committee were to agree to such a clause, which however would be a most injurious precedent, and lead to inextricable confusion, what would be more reasonable than that those connected with trade and manufactures should put forward a claim for similar indulgences? It would be said, that in 1847–48 many traders and manufacturers were losers in their business, and yet they were obliged to pay on the three years for which they had made their returns, though for two years out of the three they had been losers. It would be most unfair to have a special clause for one portion of the community, and not for another; and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would not take such a course, but allow the Government—though not for their convenience, as the hon. Baronet had alleged—to renew the income tax for one year, and appoint a Committee of Inquiry. As to the Official Salaries Committee, he had stated some time ago
528
that on going into the first Committee of Supply, he would point out the course which he wished to take with reference to the Report of that Committee. He held in his hand that Report, and he proposed, in the course of the evening, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, to state what course he intended to take regarding it.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEbegged to explain that his vote on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) was given to substitute one year for three. He (Sir John Trollope) had nothing to do with proposing a Committee, nor did he or hon. Members with whom he acted assent to such a proposition in any way whatever. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had on a previous occasion taunted hon. Members on his (Sir John Trollope's) side of the House with not marching in time, and with firing off their muskets without orders; but he thought the noble Lord would be convinced by that time, that on the occasion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose they had marched in pretty fair time, and that their muskets had something more in them than blank cartridge.
MR. DISRAELIconsidered the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) was under a misconception when he supposed that those on his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the House had voted for the Motion of referring the income tax to a Committee. He understood the proposition for a Committee to inquire into the property tax as wholly a Government proposition; and if it was not so, he was labouring under a complete mistake. He knew of no Motion that was ever made in the House for a Committee; and if it had been made, he should probably have taken a different part from what he did. He had received no intimation of the Government Motion for a Committee until he heard it proposed by the noble Lord that night; and he must say, he was himself very incredulous of the fact when it was first mentioned. He said the Government was not likely to propose a Committee. There was the Kaffir Committee; and he thought there would be some difficulty in manning a Committee on the Property Tax. With regard to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), it was virtually embodied in the proposition of the hon. and gallant Colonel (Colonel Sibthorp), and he thought it would perhaps be the better course to withdraw it in

529
favour of that of the gallant Colonel. Then he would suggest to the noble Lord, that inasmuch as he had come down to make an unusual proposition, which had not been very favourably received, he should move that the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again, so as to enable his (Mr. Disraeli's) hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sibthorp) to bring forward his proposition; and then, too, the noble Lord could inform them as to what further business he proposed to proceed with that night.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had taken pains to assure the Committee more than once that he (Lord John Russell) was entirely mistaken in the supposition that the hon. Gentleman had taken a different view from the hon. Member for Montrose upon his Motion; and that he was in error in supposing that the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose was inconsistent with the view in which it was held by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. Now, it was in the recollection of the Committee if what he stated was not the case; and it was a point which they could ascertain not only from the lips of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), but also from his recorded Motion. The hon. Member (Mr. Disraeli) said this was a Government proposition. Now, the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose was—though of course he could not make the whole Motion in Committee—the terms of the Motion were, "to limit the duration of the tax to one year, with a view to institute an inquiry by a Select Committee into the mode of assessing and collecting the tax." The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) having repeatedly declared that he took the same view as the hon. Member for Montrose, he (Lord John Russell) could only suppose that the hon. Member likewise wished to support the Motion for inquiry by a Committee. He put it to the Committee whether the Motion put by the hon. Member for Montrose, and as explained by that hon. Member, was not the one assented to by the House? And when the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire asked him, on the ground that the appointment of the Committee was a Government proposition, to move that the Chairman report progress, he could not assent to that proposal. Having acceded to the wishes of the House—a course which he had not adopted without very great consideration and deliberation with his Colleagues, he
530
was not prepared to assent to any step—which would be a deviation from the line which the House had pointed out.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that so far was the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose from being put to the House in the terms stated by the noble Lord, that he found this Motion was in the business paper for that very evening:—
"Mr. Hume.—To move to limit the duration of the tax to one year, with the view of instituting an inquiry by a Select Committee into the mode of assessing and collecting the tax; and whether the injustice of levying the same rate of charge upon terminable as upon perpetual annuities, and upon fluctuating and varying incomes from trades and professions, as upon fixed incomes from real property, cannot be greatly modified or altogether removed."
This showed the Motion was not yet made. And what was more, the hon. Member for Montrose had never read a Resolution, and had never referred to it. But he excused the noble Lord, as no doubt after what had occurred the noble Lord was under excited feelings. But what he rose for was, for the purpose of saying that the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) was a fair proposition; and he would suggest to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) not to press his Motion for the present, so that on bringing up the report the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln might bring forward what he had to submit to the House as a substantive Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, as a witness in this case, he hoped he might be allowed to repeat what he distinctly stated when he brought forward his Motion. He said, let no hon. Member vote with him on any other supposition than this—that if he carried his Motion for limiting the duration of the tax to one year, he would then move for the appointment of a Committee. Those were his words; and he would ask if it was fair to misrepresent his intention, as he had stated it very clearly on bringing forward his Motion? It was quite true he did not in terms move the appointment of a Committee, but he came down that night with the intention of doing so.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must confess that he had understood the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose as the hon. Gentleman had stated it. He (Mr. Newdegate) rose, however, to call the attention of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the circumstance which constituted the case of the tenant-farmers a perfect exception to every other. The right

531
hon. Gentleman in his first Budget proposed a specific mode of relief for the sufferings of that class, namely, the remission of some 30,000 l. a year on seeds, and the transfer of some 150,000 l. from the local rates to the Consolidated Fund. But the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn that proposal. On the ground, therefore, that there was an admission on the part of the Government of the propriety of giving a specific relief from taxation to the agriculturists in the first Budget, and also on the ground of their being deprived of the power of appeal, he (Mr. Newdegate) thought hon. Members on his side of the House ought at once to demand, on behalf of the tenant-farmers, relief from a pressure which, under their present circumstances, was exceedingly grievous to them.
MR. SPOONERsaid, in deference to his Friends he would not press his proposition at that time, as he thought it would he dealt with in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp).
CAPTAIN HARRISprotested against the proposed reference of so important a question to a Select Committee. He believed that a large portion of the Members on both sides of the House had no idea of such a step being likely to follow the vote which they gave on Friday, in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose. He (Capt. Harris) looked upon the appointment of a Select Committee on this question as a step towards making the tax perpetual. Nothing could be more mischievous than the reference to Select Committees of such important questions as these. Whenever the Government desired to get rid of a heavy responsibility on important matters, they moved, whenever possible, the appointment of a Select Committee. That was the course taken with reference to the Kaffir war, and, above all, to our colonial dependencies—a step that, in the latter case especially, the House ought not to have permitted to have been taken. He held that such a tax as this was wholly unjustifiable in time of peace.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, in deference to the advice of hon. Members on his side of the House, he should reserve his Motion until the bringing up of the Report of the Committee.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, the hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches should recollect that although some hon. Members might have voted with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) with
532
the views entertained by the hon. Member for Buckingham shire (Mr. Disraeli), yet they must recollect the majority of hon. Members on the Government side of the House, who voted with the hon. Member for Montrose, voted in favour of his Amendment, for the purpose of obtaining the appointment of a Select Committee. Complaint was made by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the sufferings of tenant-farmers; but were there no tenant tradesmen, if he might so speak, who were suffering as well as they? He should determinedly resist any attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to dictate to the Select Committee about to be appointed what particular class of sufferers they should most particularly take under their protection.
MR. GEORGE SANDARSsaid: I beg to differ from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Capt. Harris), for I distinctly understood that in voting for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, I was voting for the income tax for one year, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee to examine into its inequalities and injustice, and to report to the House the best way of modifying them, that if it is to be made a permanent tax, that it may be placed upon a fair and solid basis, and made as palatable as a tax of this kind can in its nature be. On its present principle it is impossible it can remain a permanent tax. All classes are dissatisfied. Schedule A are charged on the gross rental, when one-third is deducted on houses and warehouses, &c., for insurance, local taxes, and repairs. Schedule B complain they are made to pay for profits, when of late years they have had nothing but losses. Schedule D complain that they pay the same rate oil uncertain incomes from trade or profession, as those who have real property. I presented the other day a petition from my constituents, signed by, I believe, every lawyer and every medical man in the borough (and I assure the House they are not a few), complaining of the injustice of taxing them at the same rate as those possessing real property, and praying for a modification of the tax. By supporting the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, I feel that I am taking the surest method of having those inequalities remedied; that is, if they admit of a remedy, and if not, the country will he better satisfied after it has been sifted and reported upon to the House; and I think, Sir, it should now be sent,

533
with all its faults upon its head, without any partial attempts to modify it, to a Select Committee of the House.
MR. FRESHFIELDcould answer in the affirmative the query of the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir Benjamin Hall) as to the tenant tradesmen. Many of that class were certainly suffering—and from what cause?—why, from the effects of free trade. But there was this difference between the case of the tenant-farmer and the tradesman—the latter paid income tax only on the actual amount of his income; whereas the tenant-farmer was obliged to pay the tax in proportion to the rent he paid, whether high or low, and no matter what might be the amount of his profits—no matter, indeed, whether he sustained an actual loss. He felt bound to support any proposition of relief to the farmers, whose case at present was almost hopeless.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer if it would be in the province of the Select Committee to inquire whether it was expedient to extend the tax to Ireland? A few nights ago he (Mr. W. Williams) called the attention of the House to the fact that the salaries of the public officers in Ireland, from the Lord Lieutenant to the humblest official, were not liable to the income tax, which he thought inequitable.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, the question just put to him by the hon. Member for Lambeth, was one entirely for the decision of that House, and not of a Select Committee. He apprehended that the object of the Select Committee to be appointed, with reference to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) would be to consider what modifications ought to be made, and the mode of collecting the tax.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he was constantly asked by Irish Members when he intended to bring on his Motion with reference to the extension of the income tax to Ireland. Now, that would depend entirely on the day when the Committee of Ways and Means would be moved for. He should be happy to bring on his Motion on any day that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might name.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERshould certainly resist the Motion of the hon. Baronet whenever he might
534
bring it forward. As the income tax was, by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose, to last but for one year, he thought it would be a mere waste of time to discuss the question whether, during so limited a period, its operation ought to be extended to Ireland.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, if his right hon. Friend would give him an assurance that the income tax would continue for no longer than the present year, he should very willingly abandon all idea of bringing forward his Motion. But as nothing of that nature had been suggested, he should certainly take an opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon his Motion. He, therefore, wished to ask his right hon. Friend whether he would be good enough to name a day on which it would best suit him to take the Motion into consideration?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must decline to undertake a Committee of Ways and Means, merely for the sake of giving the hon. Baronet an opportunity of bringing forward such a Motion.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2.
MR. CHAPLIN MR. CHAPLIN moved a proviso to the effect that, with a view to a just relief of the occupiers of farms chargeable to the duties under Schedule B, the same privileges of exemption from duty be granted to all persons chargeable under that schedule as are by the 133d and following sections of the present Property Tax Act secured to the persons made liable to duties by Schedule D of the same Act in respect of the profits of trade, &c, in the events set forth in the beforementioned section, 133.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that the proviso would be rendered unnecessary if the Amendments intended to be proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln (Colonel Sibthorp) should be adopted; and as that hon. and gallant Member had postponed his Motion to the bringing up of the Report, he would suggest to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Chaplin) that he also should do the same.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLconcurred in the propriety of the course suggested by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. If the question in a larger shape was to be brought forward on the bringing up of the Report, it would be very unwise to press it now.
MR. HENLEYtrusted that the hon. Gentleman would not press the proviso at

535
the present time. It would be impossible to carry it, and it would be much better to bring the matter in a more special way before the House. If the hon. Gentleman persevered, it would be a breach of faith, after the understanding which had been come to with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner).
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, if the Motion was then pressed to a division, it was clear the sense of the Committee would not be expressed, as a great many Members on that side (the Protectionist) had gone out.
MR. BANKESsaid, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Chaplin) would damage the cause he meant to promote by pressing his Motion then to a division.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, he had had the notice on the paper for a week; and on Friday he had waited from five till half-past twelve, in expectation of being able to bring it forward. On the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), he had got his solicitor to draw the clause, and should now propose it. He would not be a party to postponing it. If hon. Members chose to leave the House, he was not to blame.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he should, therefore, move as an Amendment that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there seemed to be a most extraordinary misapprehension on the part of hon. Members opposite. They seemed very much embarrassed with the victory they had gotten, and did not know what to make of the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). As the Government had agreed to the inquiry, he should object to any alteration in the provisions of the Income Tax Act, either then or on the bringing up of the Report. He had done all he could to induce the hon. Member for Salisbury not to press his Motion; it was not his (Lord John Russell's) fault if he did so.
MR. BUCKsaid, the hon. Member for Salisbury must know that he had not a chance of carrying his Motion in the then state of the Committee.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, it was not the practice of hon. Members on that side the House, to place their principles and their conscience in the hands of their party. He was satisfied from long experience of the inconvenience and danger of what were called "understandings" between indivi-
536
dual Members; they generally implicated other parties, whom they could not bind. But it was a clear understanding of the House, on Friday night, that the carrying the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose should put an end to all further questions, as far as the House was concerned, the same being referred to the Select Committee. He held himself bound by this understanding, and would have no exception made to the extent of the Committee's inquiries. By opposing the discussion of these Amendments now, he he would not be understood to express an opinion against the Amendments themselves. Should they now discuss the question, a great many points must be considered. Were hon. Gentlemen opposite prepared to place the farming interest on the same footing, in every respect, as the interests embraced in other schedules!—["Hear, hear!" and "Yes!"]—what, to tax them, for instance, at 7d. in the pound instead of 3d., as at present? If so, let them go before the Committee and raise all these points. He maintained that, they were bound by the understanding of Friday evening.
MR. CHRISTOPHERdenied that there had been any such understanding. As the vote of Friday night had altered the whole complexion of the question, it would be better if the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Chaplin) would defer his Motion until the subject could be maturely considered, and bring it forward on the Report. The result of pressing the Motion now would only be to give them, two discussions instead of one, and impede the public business.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, as far as his opinion went, he was desirous that the proviso should be withdrawn.
MR. CHAPLINsaid, under these circumstances he would consent to this course, and withdraw the proviso.
Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to;—as were Clauses 3 and 4.
MR. J. B. SMITH MR. J. B. SMITH moved the addition of the following clauses:—"That all appointments to any offices authorised to be made by Local Commissioners of Property Tax shall be subject to revision by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. That no appointment to any office under the provisions of this Act shall be made of persons under twenty-one years of age." He had understood that on application to the Treasury in a certain case, the answer had been that they had

537
no power over the local commissioners. In answer to an application from the town council of Dunfermline, where a boy of fifteen years had been appointed by the local commissioners, the Lords of the Treasury stated that they had no power in the matter; and the Board of Trade stated that they had made inquiry, and found that the duties of the office in question were well performed. He was certain, however, that the public would not be satisfied with such appointments.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the clauses had better not he pressed, as the whole of these questions would doubtless come before the Select Committee. No doubt the House of Commons had been exceedingly jealous of these appointments, so much so that the Treasury had been prevented from having anything to do with the making of them. Whether it was desirable to change that system was a question for the decision of the Committee, in whose hands it ought to be left. He quite agreed that the appointment of boys to responsible offices was highly objectionable; but in the case alluded to it so happened that the boy had nothing particular to do but to deliver some papers, and any boy of his age could do that.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if the Select Committee were granted, he would take care that this case should be thoroughly investigated, for it was most important that public duties should be placed in the hands of responsible parties.
Clauses, by leave, withdrawn.
Other clauses agreed to;—House resumed:—Committee reported, as amended to be considered To-morrow.

OFFICIAL SALARIES.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I mentioned a few evenings ago that previous to the House going into Committee of Supply, I would state the view which the Government have taken of the report of the Committee on Official Salaries. I may name one advantage which was gained by the appointment of the Committee, and that was, that an opportunity was afforded for placing on record the opinions of many persons of official experience of various kinds—political, judicial, legal, and diplomatic—with regard to the salaries and emoluments belonging to the officials under consideration. Above all, we had an opportunity of learning the opinion of the
538
late Sir Robert Peel—with his long experience and comprehensive mind—upon the subject of salaries to official persons. There is this, on the other hand, to be stated, that this Committee did, I think—I will not say fall into the error—but they pursued a practice which unluckily is too often pursued by the Select Committees of this House, namely, the practice of employing a great part of the Session in taking evidence; and then they come to pass Resolutions at a time when a considerable proportion of the Members have left town, and, worn out by the public business they have been engaged in, are not able to attend; so that it often happens, out of the fifteen Members who have been appointed on the Committee, and who ought to be present, the final Resolutions are in several cases voted by eight or nine Members—sometimes five or six forming a majority of those present, though evidently a minority of the whole Committee. This is the course which Select Committees generally follow. I wish it could be otherwise—either by the Committee taking care that the evidence shall not run into too great a length, or, provided that the evidence is continued to the end of the Session, that then they should postpone the consideration of their Report till their reappointment in another Session. Having noticed these two circumstances with regard to the Committee on Official Salaries, I shall now state the opinion which the Government entertain with regard to their recommendations. It was the desire of the Government to defer as much as possible to the expressed wishes of the Committee; and, therefore, they had agreed to some proposed reductions, which, nevertheless, did not seem to them to be conducive to public advantage, though, on the other hand, they would not be attended with any great public detriment. The first recommendation of the Committee, after stating that they did not propose any alteration in the salaries of the First Lord of the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the three Secretaries of State, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, go on to recommend that the Junior Lords of the Treasury should have 1,000 l. instead of 1,200 l. a year, that the two Secretaries of the Treasury should have 2,000 l. instead of 2,500 l. a year. With these recommendations the Government agree, and they have made the reductions accordingly. With regard to the office of the President of the Council, the Com-

539
mittee remark, that that office has recently had annexed to it duties of very great importance belonging to the President of the Committee of Council on the subject of Education, and therefore they do not think that the salary of 2,000 l. to a person holding that high office should be reduced. The Committee recommend that the railway system of the country being now so near completion, the duties may again be annexed to the Board of Trade; and they recommend that, in order to save the salary of the Railway Commissioner, stops should be taken to consolidate the railway department of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend the President of that Board, looking to the business now before the Railway Commission, has come to the conclusion that the business may be done in the manner the Committee has recommended; and therefore the Railway Commission will no longer he a separate paid office belonging to that department. The Committee then proceeded to recommend that the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade should be united with that of Paymaster of the Forces, and that instead of the present salary of 2,000 l. for each office, the salary for the joint-office should be 1,500 l. The Committee likewise recommended that the office of Lord Privy Seal should be joined with some other office, and that no salary should be attached to the office of Lord Privy Seal. Another recommendation of the Committee was that the Mastership of the Mint should no longer be a political office. Now, in considering these questions, we have endeavoured to go as far as we think the requisitions of the public service would permit in compliance with the recommendation of the Committee. But I think there was an important consideration which was laid before the Committee and Sir Robert Peel, and other persons who had great experience in public affairs, and to which the Committee do not seem to have paid any attention in their recommendation. It appears to me to be of advantage, as a general proposition, that there should be some Members of the Government whose offices are not of so laborious a nature as to unfit them for the discharge of duties which do not come immediately within their department. It must be obvious to every man of experience in public affairs, that from day to clay questions arise which do not strictly belong to any department in the Government, and which, if they are not attended to by some per
540
sons who are not overloaded with duties in their own department, have little chance of being properly attended to at all. If this be true as a general proposition, and with regard to former periods of our history, it is peculiarly true at the present time, when we find that the offices of Secretary of State, of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of First Lord of the Admiralty, as well as the office which I have the honour to hold, are so much more loaded with business than they have been in former times. The quantity of writing and of correspondence, as well as the increase of business of various kinds, is such that it is difficult for persons holding these offices to discharge their duties, if there were not officers of other departments ready to attend to business which did not come immediately before them. Ministers have frequently to consider and decide upon important questions, which do not belong particularly to any department, such as the preparation of the Reform Bill; and with regard to the regulation of marriages and baptisms among Dissenters, which came under my consideration while I was Paymaster of the Forces—I say, if there were not some officer of the Government to attend to these things, it would hardly be possible for them to receive sufficient attention. But the preparation of these affairs being referred to an officer who has leisure to bestow attention upon them, they are then brought under the consideration of the Cabinet; and the Members of the Cabinet, the Secretaries of State, and others, when they are so prepared, are qualified to give a mature and decided opinion upon them. Such are some of the reasons for not entirely abolishing these offices, which are important in themselves, though they may have little labour attached to them. Another reason for continuing these offices is, that very frequently when a Government is formed, and perhaps while it has continued in office, there may be persons who have paid great attention to public affairs—who have served important offices in other circumstances—who are willing to come into office, but who have arrived at a time of life, or are in a state of health which must preclude them, if they are prudent, from accepting an office which is of much labour. At the same time, their opinions may be of the greatest weight—their services of the utmost value to the country. It may be said that we can secure the assistance of persons of this class,

541
by giving them a nominal office, such as that of the Lord Privy Seal, without any salary. Now this might very well he the case with regard to persons of considerable fortune, who have an establishment in London, and pass several months of every year in London—such a person might accept an office of rank without receiving any salary. But I think it would be a bad principle, to establish in the public service of the country. It has, I know, the authority of the late Earl of Durham, who stated that, though the duties of his office as Lord Privy Seal engaged him for seven or eight hours a day, still he was of opinion that the duties of the office might be performed by the holder without a salary. The tendency of such a change, if agreed to, and the tendency of any change which would reduce the salaries of the offices of the country without abolishing them, would be to make the holding of office only attainable by, and compatible with, the possession of a considerable fortune. I hold that that would be a great evil. If you say that persons of a moderate fortune are not able to hold offices in the State, but that they are to be given only to men who have a considerable private fortune, you thereby throw impediments in the way of talent—you throw impediments in the way of men of the highest ability—men, perhaps, of the greatest power either in this or in the other House of Parliament, but who cannot afford to hold office without a salary. I think, therefore, it would be extremely mischievous to the public service to give such advantages to fortune as would be given by throwing these impediments in the way of men of talent and ability. There is another consideration which I think is of considerable weight, though I do not know that it has been before adverted to. Let a man look at the course of official life in this country —-he will perceive that offices in the Cabinet have been held by men of other pursuits, who have entered into political life from a natural wish to take part in the service of their country, but who generally live in the country, and enjoy their property there, in the pursuit of other sources of amusement and enjoyment than politics. Among men of this kind, I may mention one who first held the office of Lord Privy Seal, and afterwards that of President of the Council, in the Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel—I mean the Duke of Buccleuch, a man of great fortune, and of ability that would enable him to hold any
542
public office, but who could hardly be expected to leave entirely his duties and enjoyments in the country, to devote his time unremittingly to some laborious office in the State. I think it is of great advantage to invite to official life men not strictly of official habits, and that if we were to have, as they have on the Continent, a class of men who are devoted to office, and to office alone, who are termed bureaucrats —who do not follow those pursuits which induce them to mingle with other classes of their fellow-citizens—it would be an alteration for the worse in the management of the business of this country. I remember the observation of a French writer, a gentleman of considerable eminence in the legal department of France—he was struck on going to the Gloucester Assizes, when he saw the Marquess of Worcester (the present Duke of Beaufort) acting as foreman of the grand jury—when he saw gentlemen of property, and rank, and influence, forming the members of the grand jury—when he found the farmers and yeomen of the country sitting on the petty jury—and a person of great professional eminence in the law as Judge presiding in the court—he was struck with the manner in which the administration of the affairs of this country bring together men of different stations and employments, all serving in one public end. The public end in this case was the administration of justice; and so in the administration of political affairs there ought to be, as far as possible, a representation of different ranks, a mixture of men who do not devote themselves solely to the writing and folding of despatches, but who engage in other occupations. Therefore, on these various considerations, we so far agree with the Committee, that I propose to separate, what has not been done for a long time, the Mastership of the Mint altogether from public life; and I have received Her Majesty's permission to offer-that office to Sir John Hersehell, as I thought it would be agreeable to him to fill an office that was in some way connected with science, and which had once been filled by the honoured name of Newton. Therefore this office will no longer be, as it has been of late days, either a separate office, as it was held by Mr. Tierncy and others, or in combination with that of the President or the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, as it has lately been held by Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Labouchere, and others. The office of Paymaster

543
of the Forces, though it has been united to the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade for the last two years, yet when it was a separate office it was an office of great emolument, as well as of considerable importance, and was held by Lord Chatham and the first Lord Holland. I propose to continue the office of Paymaster of the Forces in conjunction with the office of Vice-President of the Board of Trade; but I do not think, if the two are to be combined, that it would be expedient to adopt the suggestion of the Committee, and to make a diminution of 500 l. in the salary. The office is one of political importance, especially as the convenient course is, if the President of the Board of Trade sits in this House, that the Vice-President should sit in the other House of Parliament, and thus not only be able to perform his official duties, but that in the House of Lords he should take charge of all questions connected with the important subject of trade. Therefore we propose to continue the present salary of 2,000 l. to this office. After what I have said, the House will doubtless be prepared to hear that we do not propose to abolish the office of Lord Privy Seal. The office is one of considerable importance, and the Government are of opinion that it ought to continue. I come next to the office of Secretary at War, with regard to which no proposition has been made by the Committee, and therefore I need not allude to it further. The Committee recommend that the salary of the Judge Advocate should be 1,500 l. instead of 2,000 l., which they propose to take effect the next time the office is vacant, and therefore we do not think it necessary to decide upon the question till the next appointment to that office. The Committee next recommend that the salaries of the Junior Lords of the Admiralty should be 1,000 l. instead of 1,200 l., and that those Lords who have 1,000 l. with a residence should be deprived of their residence. We are of opinion that it is a great convenience to the Admiralty department that certain of the Lords should have a residence in the Admiralty; and therefore, while we propose to reduce the salaries of those who have no residence to 1,000 l., we would continue the residences to those who have them. With regard to the Secretary for Ireland, his present salary is 5,500 l., which the Committee recommend should be reduced to 3,000 l. on the next vacancy, or at the close of the present Session of Parliament. That
544
question is closely connected with the abolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. If it be abolished, there will of course be a totally different distribution of offices, and therefore it is not necessary to go into the question now, though I may say that, if the office of Lord Lieutenant is to be maintained, it is right that some reduction should be made in the present salary. With regard to the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, the Committee recommend that the duties should be performed for 1,000 l., instead of for 1,500 l. The one Secretary who is not Parliamentary would not come properly under the consideration of the Committee; and the Government are of opinion with regard to that office, that as it is desirable to have in a permanent office a person who will devote all his time and all his labour to the duties of the Poor Law Board, it is not desirable to reduce his salary. But with regard to the Parliamentary Secretary, who holds his office during pleasure, we have reduced his salary to 1,000 l. With regard to judicial salaries, there are other considerations of very great weight, to which I think the House will pay attention. We consider that persons who are placed in the highest judicial offices should be, as they have hitherto been, persons of great legal reputation, and who stand foremost at the bar. I speak now of the offices of Lord Chancellor, of the Chief Justices, of the Master of the Rolls, and of offices of that description. It was argued in the Committee—and you will find, from the evidence, that many questions were put having that object in view—that there might be persons of sound judgment and of competent learning who are as fit to be placed in the highest offices as those who stand foremost at the Bar. No doubt there may certainly be scores of men of that description. But I do not think it desirable that, as a rule, the ancient practice of promoting to high offices men of eminent standing should be departed from. If you say that the Government of the day are to choose such men, that would be giving them a wide discretion, and there would be much more room for unfit appointments than when they are taken from amongst men whom everybody allows to be fit—men who have run the race, the arduous race, of legal competition, and who have been successful in the struggle. It is evident that those must be men of considerable talent who, in a profession where competition abounds in every department, have been universally acknow-

545
ledged to be foremost. Besides, in looking to the men who have been promoted, who have been successful Attorneys General, and who have gained eminence at the Bar —men like Lord Hardwicke, or Lord Campbell, or Lord Eldon, or Lord Mansfield, and many others that might be named —it will not be found that the country has been a loser by the practice of choosing men who were eminent in their times. But if the most eminent men of the time are chosen for these situations, we cannot expect to obtain their services unless their salaries be made somewhat commensurate with their gains at the Bar, and such as will induce them them to leave the Bar for a judicial appointment. Likewise, it is necessary we must consider with regard to such men that they are often placed in the House of Lords; and I think it would be a public misfortune if the salaries of these men and their retiring allowances only enabled them to found families whose position would rather be a reproach to this country than otherwise. Looking at the evidence which was given by the Master of the Rolls, you will find that he has made a full investigation into this subject, and the result of his inquiry was that there' are eight gentlemen who make 8,000 l. a year, and that there are about twenty-three who make 5,000 l. Taking all these considerations together, I propose that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, which is now 10,000 l. from one source, and 4,000 from another, should in future be 10,000 l. His retiring allowance I do not propose to alter. The salary of the Master of the Bolls has hitherto been 7,000 l.; the Committee propose that it should be 6,000 l. We propose to agree to that, and we accordingly intend reducing the salary of the Master of the Rolls to 6,000 l. We come now to the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and to the other two Chiefs; and it must be remembered that they,besides theirother expenses, have to go circuits—the expense of which cannot be less than 700 l. a year. I propose, therefore, that the salaries shall be the same as were contained in the Bill I introduced last year—that is to say, that the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench should receive 8,000 l. the same as Lord Denman received; that the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and the Chief Baron of the Exchequer should each have 7,000 l. The proposal of the Committee is that the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench should have only 7,000 l., that the other Chiefs should
546
have 6,000 l., and that the Puisne Judges should have 5,000 l. The Committee recommend that the Vice-Chancellor should have 5,000 l., the same as he has at present; that the Masters in Chancery should each have 2,000 l., and that the Accountant General should have 2,000 l. It strikes me that the Accountant General should be paid by a fixed salary, and not, as now, by fees. But, considering the importance of the duties of Masters in Chancery, I think there ought not to be any change at present in the amount of the salaries, which will, therefore, remain at 2,500 l. a year. At the same time, with regard to Masters in Chancery, the whole question of Chancery reform being under consideration, there may or may not be some changes, and for that reason I think there ought not to be any change in the salaries at the present time. Of course any changes that are made will not affect persons appointed before the commencement of last year, except those who accepted appointments subject to such an arrangement. The Committee recommend some changes in the salaries for Scotland and for Ireland, from which a small saving would accrue to the public; but we think it would not be at all expedient to make them. The observation which I am about to make applies to Scotland and to Ireland, but more especially to Ireland. Both in Edinburgh and Dublin, since the Union, among the chief persons at the head of society have been those of the profession of the law, and especially the Judges, and those who hold superior offices in the courts of justice. I think for that, among other reasons, it would not be desirable to detract from their means of keeping up that social rank which is expected more from them in those capitals than is expected in London, the capital of the whole country, to which persons of greater fortune resort, and where they do not fill so conspicuous a position. I state this with regard to Ireland particularly, because I know there has been a rumour, without any sort of authority, that it was the intention of the Government to change the provisions for the administration of the law in Ireland, either by reducing or transferring the courts of justice there. Such was never the intention of the Government; and I own, I consider it of the utmost importance that the courts of justice should be maintained in Ireland, and, without any excessive establishment, fully maintained for the purpose of administering justice locally in that part of the United King-

547
dom. The only other question is that of the diplomatic service, on which I would rather that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should address you. I am sure he will be ready to give any explanation that may be required. For myself, I shall only state shortly what took place in the Committee as to the most important of those offices, and what the Government propose to do in respect to them. There was a question in the Committee with regard to the maintenance of an ambassador at Paris; and, as I understood from the Chairman of the Committee (I was not present at the time), it was decided by a majority of the Committee that it was expedient to maintain an ambassador at Paris. Afterwards some Members of the Committee stated, that they thought the salary ought to be reduced. Other Members were of opinion, that if the salary were reduced, it would be impossible to maintain the dignity suitable to an embassy, and that it would be better to reduce the embassy to the rank of a mission with a salary of 5,000 l. for the envoy. In considering that matter, we were of opinion that it would be a very serious detriment to the diplomatic service, if we had no longer an ambassador at Paris. Considering our relations with that country, the daily intercourse which is necessary, the certain privileges belonging to an ambassador which do not belong to an envoy, and thereby very considerable advantages, we were of opinion that the difference of expense would be far more than counterbalanced by the importance, to the maintenance of friendly relations, of maintaining an ambassador at Paris. At the same time, we took into consideration whether some reductions might not be made, and we propose to make a reduction of 2,000 l. a year, reducing to 8,000 l. a year the salary of the ambassador. I am not certain, but that we shall find hereafter that the proper dignity of ambassador, and that hospitality which is so much expected, cannot be maintained as it has hitherto been maintained; and, looking the other day over some old letters, I found one from our ambassador at Paris in 1783, who said he could not maintain a proper and efficient position with less than. 12,000 l. a year. However, as the Committee have thought it desirable to practise economy, we shall propose that reduction, to commence from the beginning of the present financial year. Turkey is the only other Power to which we now; send an ambassa-
548
dor; and our relations with Turkey are of such a nature, that the Government think it very desirable that the rank, joined with the influence, of an ambassador should be maintained. With respect to Vienna, we have made a change from an ambassador to an envoy extraordinary, and therefore we have now only two embassies, one at Paris and the other at Constantinople. The Committee recommended various other changes. They proposed that the missions to Hanover, Munich, Stutgard, and Dresden, should be united in some central point. The Government think, that at this present moment, when every Court in Germany is agitated with different interests and different views as to the organisation and future constitution of Germany, that it is not desirable by such a change to deprive them of the means of communication which they now possess through those missions. As to the mission to Florence, they admit that it may be united to some other mission. It was suggested in the Committee that it should be united with the mission to Turin; but that being-thought objectionable, it was then suggested that it should be united with the mission, if that mission should take place, to Rome. We think it desirable, therefore, that the mission to Florence might be made the means of establishing diplomatic relations with Rome. It should be understood, that although the alterations made in the Diplomatic Relations Bill, passed three years ago, were such, that the Pope conceived offence was offered to him by that Act, and that he was placed in a different position to other Sovereigns, he said he should be ready at any time to receive a special mission from this country. Certain circumstances, to which I need not allude, have made such a special mission very undesirable; at the same time we must look to having relations in future with the Court of Rome, and the mission to Florence seems the most convenient mode of establishing those relations. I have now stated the proposals made by the Committee, and the manner in which Her Majesty's Government propose to act. We thought ourselves at full liberty to consider those recommendations, wherever they were in conformity with the interests of the public service, and to decide according to our views. Whether the House takes the proposals of the Committee, or the propositions of the Government, there will not be any large amount of saying to the public which will make

549
any great difference in the public expenditure of the country. What is really desirable is, that there shall be no further expenditure in the political, judicial, and diplomatic services than is justified by the duties performed. On the other hand, it is a very unwise economy, which, for the sake of a few thousands a year, would cramp the public service, and prevent those conducting public affairs—be they who they may—from performing that service in the most efficient manner possible. In the service of a great empire like this, it is most desirable that there shall be an efficient performance of those great duties which fall upon those who form the Administration. I can assure the House, that in the different offices of the Government there is united an amount of labour and an amount of responsibility which requires the use of all the faculties of which a person may be possessed. Whatever may be thought of the times of recreation and relaxation, there are a very few hours, and certainly not many days in the course of the year, when a person holding a high official position is not affected with anxieties with respect to that position. Many important questions come before him for consideration; not only Bills and political questions (these only form a part of his duties and anxieties); but questions affecting foreign and colonial policy, of the utmost importance, and on which much depends, claim, at the same time, his attentive consideration: for instance, decisions may have been taken in the House, perhaps without debate—as the subjects might not be ripe for public attention—but yet at the same time those questions have occupied days and weeks of anxious consideration with the Ministers. I do not know that any person holding public office has any great interest in asking for extravagant salary; but I am sure it is the interest of the House to see that public services are adequately remunerated, and that the path to the highest office is not subservient to the amount of fortune, but that the salary is adequate to the service performed for that salary, for it is not a question of salary, but a question of service, which ought to be considered.
MR. URQUHARTsaid, he recollected that upon an occasion which occurred shortly after he took his seat in that House, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) stated that when first he was introduced into public life, the duty of the Government was entirely and exclusively confined to
550
the conducting the business of the various departments, while legislation was left to that class denominated independent Members; and the noble Lord then alluded to the great increase of duties and the great additional burdens on the Members of the Government in consequence of that change. The change appeared to be very unfortunate, and he (Mr. Urquhart) thought the Government had better return to their former administrative duties, and remit the task, and trouble, and care of proposing legislative measures. On a very recent occasion the Government would not have been exposed to embarrassment, danger, and annoyance, nor the character of the noble Lord to the deterioration which it must have suffered, had that ancient rule been maintained. He was, therefore, glad that the office of Master of the Mint had been deprived of its political character. Upon the same ground, he thought it would have been better if the office of Privy Seal, in its political sense, had been dispensed with, since it was only to be retained to enable the Government to overcharge itself with duties. The whole value of the Committee on Official Salaries consisted in the latter part of their recommendations. Whilst the reductions suggested in the civil and judicial offices were not more than 6,000 l, or 7,000 l., those in the diplomatic service were somewhere between 60,000 l. and 70,000 l. The Report had dealt a great and heavy blow on the Foreign Department; and he therefore looked upon the labours of that Committee as of great importance. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had said that he could not consent to the union of the German missions. In reply to a question which he (Mr. Urquhart) had put, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had recently said we did not wish to interfere with the affairs of Germany; that the 40,000,000 people there would take care of themselves, and could not fail to obtain free and independent institutions. Since we had no business to interfere with the German States, the only reason for retaining those missions must be the obtaining information; and he imagined the public newspapers were much more ready, and really much more correct, sources of information than any that could arise from dinners, however expensive the fare or excellent the cooks. If the notion that, the peace of nations was to be preserved* because of diplomatic good will and harmony,

551
which depended on the expenditure of certain sums annually, had not been exploded by common sense, it was contradicted by the present condition of Europe, which he described as having fallen into a state of confusion and of chaos, if not of positive hostility and positive war. He deplored the conclusion to which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had come in not accepting the recommendations of the Committee for the reduction of the diplomatic establishments; but as he had a Motion on the subject which he should bring forward on a future occasion, he should content himself with asking whether it was not his intention to appoint a Committee on the Consular establishments; and if he were answered in the affirmative, having before been answered in the negative, he should take occasion to move an Instruction to that Committee that they should examine into the facts of some particular country, ascertain for a series of years the action of England, and determine whether it had been productive of good-will and harmony, and thereby worth the expense of maintaining it. With respect to Turkey, which was quoted as the country where, above all, the presence of an ambassador was requisite, he was prepared to show that no country had suffered more from our interference; in proof of which he instanced the Hungarian refugees, who were, according to the last advices, to be further detained. That instance proved the utter inutility of our diplomatic service in supporting the rights of nations; but it was not a special instance: inutility was a normal and universal characteristic of that Office, except where objects the reverse of right were to be obtained. He considered, therefore, the recommendation of the Committee as an important step to deliver the country from an incubus of expenditure, and from the shame and infamy which were consequently brought upon the British name.
MR. FREWENbegged to ask a question relating to a notice he had given. He had had a Motion on the paper since the 28th of March respecting the distress of the county which he had the honour to represent; and he wished to know if he could not on this occasion, before the House went into Committee of Supply, obtain precedence of Motions, notice of which had been given by the hon. Members for Montrose and Chippenham, specially relating to the Navy Estimates?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that both the hon. Members named would have prece-
552
dence of the hon. Member for Kent, on the ground that the Motions of which they had given notice specially referred to the Navy Estimates.
MR. DEEDEStrusted the House would permit him to occupy their time for a few minutes, while he explained the reason why his name did not appear on the Minutes of the Committee on Official Salaries, when they came to consideration of their Resolutions. He was asked, in the first instance, to form part of the Committee, but stated that he was already occupied on the County Rates Committee, but that he would be very happy to give his assistance, provided it were not required on the days on which the County Rates Committee sat. He was fortunate enough to be able to attend for some time, but subsequently found it utterly impossible in any satisfactory manner to discharge the duties of both Committees, and requested that his name might be removed from the Committee in question. This, however, was not done. He was subsequently compelled to leave town, and, on his return, was asked to attend and vote; but having been absent for some days, he felt he should not properly discharge his duty if he had voted for Resolutions without having heard the evidence on which they were founded.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to ask whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have any objection to lay on the table a return of all the items recommended for reduction by the Official Salaries Committee, specifying those with which the Government concurred, and those to which they objected. It seemed to him that the noble Lord's statement would not be satisfactory to the House or the country; and the Committee, in having nearly one-half of their recommendations rejected, were ill requited for their labours.
MR. COBDENpresumed that it was not the intention of the Government to take a discussion that night; and as he believed no Members of the Committee, with the exception of the Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond) and himself, were then present, it would, perhaps, be better to reserve all comment on the statement made by the noble Lord until some other occasion. One or two words, however, he might offer at once. He must say that he was greatly disappointed that so large a proportion of the recommendations of the Committee had been rejected. In respect especially to the diplomatic branch of the

553
service of the country, he had looked for great reductions. It was generally felt by the House, that unless reductions took place in this direction, it was useless to nope for them in regard to the civil service; and he thought that the statement of the noble Lord at the head of the Government was directly in the face of the evidence taken before the Committee. The noble Lord laid down that a great advantage arose from having an ambassador, with a high salary, at Paris. Now it was usually considered that an ambassador was a person representing one Sovereign at the court of another Sovereign. To the Government of a Republic was it proper to appoint an ambassador? Another reason which did not exist when the Committee made its recommendation, was, that the President of the French Republic, by a recent vote of the Chamber, would receive, in future, a much less salary. He (Mr. Cobden) presumed the sales of studs of horses and carriages, and the greater simplicity with which the President of the French Republic now appeared in the streets, bespoke a greater simplicity and economy in the Government of France; and we ought to conform in our diplomatic relations to that improved system of government. He (Mr. Cobden) could never gather from the witnesses examined by the Committee what were the real advantages derived from the rank and expense of an ambassador, either at Paris or at Constantinople. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) expected that we would have influence at Constantinople in consequence of having an ambassador, and not a Minister, there, as our representative. Now, Russia was generally supposed to be as influential in her diplomacy as England; and Russia had no ambassador, and nothing but a simple mission, at Constantinople. There was another Power whose diplomacy had been inquired into by the Committee, namely America. The United States never employed ambassadors, and never paid her Ministers abroad more than 2,000 l. a year. He (Mr. Cobden) could not find out from the witnesses that the United States were anywhere less influential in matters where their own interests were concerned, than England, although the representative of England were paid four or five times as much as the representatives of the United States. He had asked the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) himself whether the American Minister with his 2,000 l. a year had less weight than he
554
would have with his 5,000 l. a year; and the noble Lord admitted that the fact was not so. One diplomatic gentleman examined by the Committee had given it as his opinion that the great secret of diplomacy consisted in giving expensive dinners. Now he (Mr. Cobden) could not conceive that this was a correct representation, and he did not believe that a diplomatist could be indebted to the accomplishments of a cook, however great he might be. He equally regretted that the recommendations of the Committee in regard to Germany had not been adopted by the Government. The noble Lord said, this was not the time to unite the missions to Germany. He (Mr. Cobden) thought that this was peculiarly the proper time. German politics were centred, to a degree never before known in two capitals—Berlin and Vienna; and if, just now, an ambassadorship could be done without at Vienna, surely there could be no good objection to doing away with the missions to the third and fourth rate Courts of Germany. He hoped that these matters would come before the House in a formal way; and that the House would not forego the opportunity of giving its opinion upon them. What the noble Lord said with respect to the recommendation of the Committee as to the abolition of offices to which no duties attached, involved a principle. The noble Lord argued that it was desirable to have certain Members of the Government without specific duties, in order that they might be at liberty to aid those of their colleagues who might be overworked. If the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) could assure him that the parties who were appointed to those offices were generally selected on account of their possessing the talents necessary to enable them to come if requisite to the aid of the other Members of the Government, he (Mr. Cobden) would say, there was virtue in that policy. He admitted that there might be cases where such officers might render the Government essential service; for instance, if such a case as when the noble Lord himself had been Paymaster of the Forces, he had been able to come to the aid of his colleagues in a most important matter. It could not, however, be shown that these sinecure officers had been peculiarly valuable in any department —that they had done anything except in their own departments, and in their own there had been generally nothing to do. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had

555
argued that they should have salaries connected with these offices, because they should have it in their power to call men of moderate means to fill them whose services might be of service to the Government of the country. He (Mr. Cobden) thought that those individuals who might he called in to the aid of Government, and who had not wealth to recommend them, would be such as had fought their way up to the position they occupied, and with talents which would command remuneration as well as respect. It was not such individuals who generally filled sinecure offices. The noble Lord had in this matter answered his own argument. He had instanced the case of the Duke of Buccleuch, and had said that the noble Duke being wealthy would not give his time to any of the offices with which great labour was connected, and therefore he (the noble Duke) had been put into a sinecure office. He (Mr. Cobden) admitted that the Members of the Cabinet were fully worked, and earned the money they received. Money, however, was not the only remuneration they received. If it were, he (Mr. Cobden) maintained that no money could remunerate the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for the great labour, the incessant trouble, and the constant anxiety, and tear and wear, which a Prime Minister in this country must go through. He (Mr. Cobden) maintained that the money did not constitute the remuneration of the Members of Government. It embraced also the great patronage, and the great honour, and the fame which they enjoyed; and he hoped there was some patriotism, too, which fired the ambition of statesmen, and prompted them to serve their country. He wished the Minister to consider that his office was rather one of high dignity and honour than of mere emolument—that it was an enviable distinction to be placed in such a position of dignity and confidence, where he ought to be actuated by the motive of doing service to his country—of serving it well. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell), in referring to the judicial department, had said that he did not contemplate any reduction in the salaries of the Judges. The noble Lord had spoken of the necessity of having barristers of first-rate talents and attainments to fill the office of Judges, and had remarked that the services of such were not likely to be secured unless high salaries were maintained. Now, he (Mr. Cobden) thought there was considerable exaggeration in the statements which were generally
556
made concerning the earnings of barristers in the present day. Let them ask any respectable intelligent Member of the Bar, and he would tell them that there was no profession in this country in which there was a greater tendency to a decline of earnings than the profession of the Bar. At such a time as during the prevalence of the railway mania, when large sums had been made before the Committees of that House, the earnings might have been large; but he referred to the present time. There might be a few in the receipt of largo incomes; but the general tendency was to diffuse, as it were, the income over a greater number of persons. Under these circumstances they might find barristers of first-rate talent to leave their profession and take the office of Judge for less than 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. a year, for they had to bear in mind that if, to use the expression of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), barristers had run the race, and taken the lead in their profession, they had had to go through a serious toil, trouble, and anxiety in order to attain that position. They had it in evidence that the wear and tear and the irksome labour attending the life of a barrister in a first-rate position and in successful practice could hardly be conceived. In appointing such men to judgeships, besides conferring on them a high honour, they relieved them of their irksome occupation, and gave them an independence for life and a retiring allowance. Taking into account the honour of the position, and the easy mode of attaining his income which a Judge enjoyed, he thought that much less than 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. a year would procure the very best talent in the country. Lord Abinger had been spoken of, and he (Mr. Cobden) admitted that the success of Mr. Scarlett at the Bar had been unrivalled. There had been many barristers appointed Puisne Judges who had never at their profession earned 3,000 l. a year, whilst Lord Abinger made 20,000 l. a year; and yet those men had made the best Judges. The recommendations of the Committee had been in many cases matters of compromise. Many of them he (Mr. Cobden) had thought might have been still further reduced. The subject, however, he presumed, would have to be gone into on some future evening, when he promised that he would express his sentiments on the statement of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. In the meantime he might say that they had reason to be dissatisfied with the manner in which

557
the recommendations of the Committee had been treated, and perhaps the House would have something to say on the matter. The saving which the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee would have effected was about 50,000 l. a year; and the sum by which the noble Lord proposed to reduce these official salaries was in the aggregate only about 7,000 l. a year. This was very discouraging to those who had sat on the Committee, and had bestowed their time and labour in arriving at the conclusions stated by the report. He would be constrained to follow the example of his Friend the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and decline sitting on any Committee when he found their exertions had been so abortive as they had been on the present occasion.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) rather than his precept, for he began by saying that the discussion should not be gone into this evening, and ended by discussing all the points which had been alluded to by my noble Friend at the head of the Government. I think it right to say one or two words with respect to the arrangements to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. In reference to the ambassador at Paris, I don't expect to make a convert of the hon. Member. I endeavoured to do so in Committee, and failed, and, consequently, I am not likely to do so in this House. But, at the same time, I must express my strong conviction that the public service is greatly benefited by maintaining an officer of the rank of Ambassador at Paris, as representing this country at the, I will not say Court, but Government of a great country like France. We have reduced the salary from 10,000 l. to 8,000 l.; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although he may think a republican form of government involves a diminution in the scale of expenditure, any one who knows the state of Paris at this moment will know that there is not that change in the habits of society which seems to be implied in the opinion of the hon. Member. I think it due to my noble Friend now occupying the post of Ambassador at Paris (the Marquess of Normanby) to say, that English travellers who go to Paris must not expect to receive from him, with his reduced salary, that very large extent of hospitality which hitherto has been exercised, as a right on their part, and as a duty on his. I think it fair to my
558
noble Friend to give that public warning, especially since the new arrangement of passports may induce greater numbers to visit Paris, assuming that the passports they bear would entitle them to the future attention of the Ambassador there. A similar ground applies to the embassy at Constantinople. The post of Ambassador gives a peculiar weight to our diplomatic relations there, and that is of great importance to the interests of this country. But the hon. Member says there is one Power which has no Ambassador at Constantinople, but which nevertheless exercises an influence as great or greater than ours, namely, Russia. I am perfectly ready to admit the extent of the influence of Russia; but I venture to think that, considering the extent of the Russian empire, its great military power, its proximity to Turkey, and the fact that its policy is wielded by one single will-—I think that if the Emperor had only a single attaché at Constantinople to represent him, his influence would be much the same. The influence of the Government of Russia depends not upon rank, but upon the power of the two countries, and upon the proximity of Russia to Turkey. The hon. Gentleman says we have an example in the United States. As they give only 2,000 l. a year to their Minister, I presume he implies that something like that same scale would be sufficient for us. It is true that I stated to the hon. Gentleman that when an American Envoy came into my room at the Foreign Office to transact business, I never measure the deference due to him, or the weight to be attached to what he has to say, by the amount of salary he receives. But you cannot ask any impartial American citizen whether the public service does not suffer from the small allowance of salary assigned to the Minister, who will not tell you that they are unnecessarily and inconveniently low, and that they ought to be increased. We happen now to have a most distinguished citizen of the United States, who has an ample fortune of his own, and who lives in a manner honourable to himself and the country which he represents. But there have been at former times representatives of the United States in this country, whose position has been painful to their own feelings. It has been impossible for them to return those social courtesies which every person in this country was happy to manifest towards them; and I think it would not be satisfactory to the feelings of Englishmen that

559
their representatives in foreign countries should he compelled to be different from gentlemen residing in this country. Now, Sir, we have reduced the embassy to Vienna to a mission; and when Gentlemen complain that in point of money there has been no saving, we have indeed accomplished not a great saving, because the nature of the circumstances did not admit of any large reduction, but at the same time a saving of some magnitude, as compared with the saving that would have resulted from the entire adoption of the Report of the Committee. At Paris there has been a saving of 2,000 l., by the reduction of the salary from 10,000 l. to 8,000 l.; at Vienna a saving of 4,000 l., by reducing the salary from 9,000 l. to 5,000 l.; and at Madrid a saving of 1,000 l., by reducing the salary from 6,000 l. to 5,000 l., so that there was 7,000 l. saved by the reduction of the salaries of the diplomatic officers. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) says this is a peculiar time, when you might abolish the minor missions in Germany; and he differs from my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) who thinks the time peculiarly inappropriate. It is true that the Governments at Vienna and Berlin do exercise, as they must at all times exercise, a preponderating influence upon the affairs of Germany; but if there is anything peculiar in the present state of affairs in Germany bearing upon this question, I should remind the hon. Gentleman that to all appearance the old Diet is going to be established at Frankfort; and one peculiar circumstance connected with that is, that the decisions of the Diet required unanimity, and that, therefore, the will of every one of these smaller States is likely to resume the influence it possessed previous to the year 1848. He could assure the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden) that the information obtained from these minor Courts was frequently of the greatest importance; and, although the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Urquhart) seemed to rely, and to think the Government might rely, upon the information contained in the newspapers, he must say that, however well informed the newspapers might he upon matters that were publicly known, still, if the Government had no other sources of information than the public press, they would very soon fall into great disgrace both in this country and in Europe. With respect to the other offices, my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) stated, in a manner that ought to satisfy the
560
mind of any reflecting man, that it is of great importance to Government that there should be offices to which no great degree of daily labour is attached, but which being connected with the Cabinet, may enable them to have, as members of the Administration, persons of great political knowledge, of great talents, of great public character; but who, either through age, infirmities, or any other circumstances, however able to be useful advisers to their colleagues, are yet unable to undergo the daily fatigue of a laborious office. With respect to the law, I do think that if there can be imagined an economy that would be injurious to the interests of the country, it would be an economy that led you to reduce too low the salaries of judicial officers. It may be true that you cannot predict beforehand that a man who is a distinguished advocate should, on that account, he an eminent Judge; but the presumption is in favour of his being so— that the man who has shown great ability and commanding talent in one department of the law, should also distinguish himself in the judicial capacity. But if there is one thing more than any other that would be unfortunate for this country, it would be if the Bar, instead of looking up to the Bench, should look down on it. If the Bench should not be filled by barristers of the first rank in consequence of the insufficiency of their remuneration, and if the decisions of the Judges should carry less weight and respect in consequence of the public supposing that they were men of inferior professional abilities and character to those who were pleading before them, that would be a matter of much greater importance than whether the salary should be 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. Now the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) thinks 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. sufficient for a Judge. Well, the Puisne Judges have only 5,000 l.; it is only chiefs to whom a higher salary is given. In reference to those chiefs, the salaries are reduced below what they were; but I think that, in savings of that sort, the actual pecuniary amount is quite undeserving of attention, and will not compare with the greatly more important object—that the law of the country should be administered in a manner to command the confidence and respect of the people of this country. For, depend upon it, if your courts of law were to cease to hold that position in the public esteem which I am happy to see they do now—if the people were to think the decisions were given

561
erroneously from want of capacity or want of knowledge on the part of the Judges, you would shake the confidence of the people in the constitution of the country, inflicting a wound upon the public interest which the saving of a few thousands of pounds could not make up, the evil effects of which no amount of money could counterbalance.
MR. W. WILLIAMSbegged to repeat his question to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) as to whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay on the table a statement showing the reductions recommended by the Committee, and how the Government proposed to deal with these reductions?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had no objection to produce such a statement.
Subject at an end.

PROMOTION IN THE NAVY.
MR. HUMEwished to refer to a former occasion, on which, when he had made a few observations, he had afterwards been precluded from making a Motion which he had on the paper, and begged to ask Mr. Speaker if, should he offer a few remarks at present, he would be precluded from bringing on the Motion which stood on the paper?
MR. SPEAKERreplied, that when an hon. Member had spoken once on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, it was against the rules of the House that he should speak again.
MR. HUME: That I say is an interference with the liberty of speech. I am precluded by a rule you lay down from bringing on my Motion if I speak at present.
MR. SPEAKER: I have laid down no rule on the matter. It was always the rule of the House that on the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, hon. Gentlemen might speak once; and if any hon. Gentleman does speak once, he could not speak again while the same question was before the House.
MR. HUMEcould only say that in his experience he had known three, four, and five questions raised. ["Order, order!"] Hon. Gentlemen would allow him to express his opinions. He would take that opportunity of stating that he concurred in the importance of having Judges to whom they could look up. Judges ought to be selected on account of their talents and public and private worth; but he had been long enough in that House to know that such appointments were not made on
562
account of these qualifications. He could name instances where individuals had been appointed to situations whose qualifications were not so much considered as their party political bias. He thought that the time had come when the Government ought to place a lawyer with fortune in the House of Lords, and give him a peerage, and not make it the practice to pay such high public salaries. That was a crying evil in this country, and one which ought to be removed. They had had instances of men selected no doubt for their capacity, but who had not had time to make a suitable provision for their families; and, in consequence, their families had to be pensioned on the public. He did not expect that they could reduce the salaries of men who really did the work, but there was a class of men who got salaries, and who did very little work. He thought that the salaries of diplomatists ought to be reduced. He did not see what use they could be in the present state of Europe. He believed that in our diplomatic interference we meddled more in other people's affairs than our own. He did not wish to cast any reflection on the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department. He considered him to be one of the ablest men they had to manage their affairs. He differed on many points from the noble Lord, but he wished to do credit to his ability. He wished him, however, out of the Foreign Department, and he should wish to see him Chancellor of the Exchequer, or anything else except Foreign Secretary. The noble Lord had referred to the influence of Russia at Constantinople without having an ambassador there. Why, he would ask, did we keep up a large fleet in the Mediterranean, and require an ambassador also to keep up our influence? He would not go further on this, but, as he was not allowed to speak twice, he would not sit down without calling the attention of Government to the promotions in the Navy. Two years ago the cost of the Navy underwent a searching inquiry before a Committee, and amongst the recommendations which the Committee made, was one to reduce the number of admirals from 150 to 100. The Motion which he had given notice to bring before the House was that that recommendation be carried out. Hon. Members, however, would be in possession of a paper dated 29th April, from which he learned that Government proposed to reduce the number of admirals from 150 to 100; of captains from 492 to 350; of com-

563
manders from 828 to 450; and of lieutenants from 2,247 to 1,200. It was satisfactory to see that Government was directing its attention to that department, and he was only sorry that they did not do it long ago. In consequence of this proposal, the ground of his Motion was taken from under him; but they were called upon for 6,500 l. to carry this reduction into effect. He was informed by officers that the mode of reduction, however, would be productive of great injustice. By the rules of the Admiralty, no captain could succeed to the flag unless he had commanded a ship of war for a certain time since the Peace. The consequence was, that the Admiralty had placed connexions of their own in command of ships, and they had succeeded to the flag; while men who had devoted themselves to the Navy as a profession, but who were without interest, had not the opportunity of serving, and therefore got no promotion. To avoid this injustice, he put it to the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it would not be better to follow out the advice of the Committee, and have three vacancies to one promotion? As the object of his Motion was effected, he should not persevere with it. It was understood that the office of General of Marines would not be filled up. Would that go towards the 6,500 l. a year?
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, the plan proposed by the Committee was in accordance with what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had himself proposed to the Committee. He deeply regretted that there was no plan which could be proposed which would not injuriously affect some class of officers or other, but he thought the plan proposed to remove these officers was the best and fairest. The rule was that no officer could be promoted who during the past thirty years had not served six. Some of them had not served at all during the whole time they had been on the captains' list, and those officers would be removed. He would go no more into detail when the House went into Committee.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he apprehended when the House got into Committee the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty would ask for a Vote for Stores, which would occupy a great portion of the evening. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) complained that there had been great delay in the Admiralty in taking this matter in hand. It oppeared to him (Sir G. Pechell) that the Admiralty had on the 29th of
564
April taken up this matter all of a sudden. On April 29th the Lords of the Admiralty appeared to have received a confidential letter. It appeared that on that clay the subject occupied the serious consideration of the Board of Admiralty, and that they at once, with the permission of the Lords of the Treasury, proposed that the sum of 6,500 l., to be applied for the relief of the admirals' and captains' list, should be proposed to Parliament. He thought, therefore, that they owed the Lords of the Treasury some thanks for their unusually prompt attention to the matter. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman's (Sir Francis Baring's) reply to the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), they should recollect that many persons were unable to serve the required time for want of interest. Many parties applied to the Admiralty year after year stating their great anxiety to manifest their zeal in the defence of the country and of the constitution; but unless supported by Parliamentary or other influence, they had no chance of being employed. It was scarcely fair, then, to turn round upon such persons and tell them that they had not served. He could assure the House that there were many cases of that description. There was another point deserving of notice in the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose, namely, on what principle would the selection for the list be made? For instance, there was a very excellent and worthy admiral of the Blue who thought he ought to go to Plymouth; but they told him that he was deaf, and could not hear the morning and evening gun. They, therefore, appointed a junior officer. Of course the worthy admiral was dissatisfied; and the Board would have many cases of that description. Then, again, the House had had a statement with regard to the retirement of commanders and lieutenants. With respect to that subject, he (Sir G. Pechell) had endeavoured to impress on the Government, four years ago, the necessity of making a retirement for lientenants and commanders; and he had indicated the mode in which such a fund might be created, namely, by appropriating the sums paid by the public for the conveyance of specie and treasure by Her Majesty's ships. At present the greatest injustice, favouritism, and patronage, were shown in the disposal of that money; but if it were applied in the way he had pointed out, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have

565
no need to come down to the House for an increase of the half-pay, for the fund in question would be amply sufficient for the purpose. In concluding he begged to compliment the Admiralty upon the amount of general discipline and good order which they had enforced, and with respect to which they had not been surpassed by any Gentlemen who had ever sat on the Ministerial benches.
Subject dropped.

ASSISTANT SURGEONS IN THE NAVY.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROthen rose to call attention to the accommodation provided for assistant surgeons on board Her Majesty's ships of war. In consequence of a resolution passed by that House on the 8th of April last year, the Government issued orders to the commanders of vessels of war cruising on the various naval stations, directing them to afford additional accommodation to the assistant surgeons serving in their respective ships. To show what attention had been paid to that order, he might state that he had a return from the Mediterranean fleet, which comprised 12 vessels, including six line of battle ships and five war steamers. The full complement of assistant surgeons for those vessels was 24; but of that number only five had received the boon which it was the object of the House to obtain for them—namely, separate cabins. They all knew that, in order that their naval power might be efficient, it was necessary, as far as possible, to secure the health of the men; and the best way of doing that was to make the position of the assistant surgeons such that the most intelligent and best informed young men from our medical schools might be induced to enter the service. The order which had been issued on the subject by the Admiralty, some time ago, was highly objectionable, as not tending to remedy any of the evils under which the assistant surgeons suffered. It required that the assistant surgeons should spend three years in the cock-pit before being admitted to the ward-room: with this regulation the assistant surgeons were very naturally dissatisfied, as tending to cast upon them a stigma of social inferiority. He wished to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would give an assurance that he would take more efficient measures to carry the Resolution of the House into effect; and if the answer of the right hon. Baronet was not satisfactory, he (Captain Boldero) reserved to himself the power of
566
reintroducing the subject on a future occasion, and taking the sense of the House upon the question.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that as soon as the Resolution to which the hon. and gallant Member referred was passed last year, he took measures for carrying out that Resolution so far as could be done consistently with the necessary arrangement of ships-of-war, and the Government were extremely anxious to carry out the Resolution fairly and fully. The hon. and gallant Member had said that the regulations had not been carried out in the Mediterranean squadron. He (Sir Francis Baring) could only say that before twenty-four hours elapsed orders should be sent to ascertain whether the regulations had been carried out in that squadron or not; although from the well-known character of Sir William Parker he had very little doubt that they had been adopted. He certainly had received no complaints on the subject.
MR. WAKLEYcould inform the right hon. Baronet that if the Admiralty had received no complaints, he (Mr. Wakley) had received a great many. It was not very likely that the assistant surgeons would complain to the Admiralty, lest they should have a black mark put to their name and lose their chance of promotion. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that extreme dissatisfaction was felt at the manner in which the Resolution had been carried into effect; and he hoped that if it was not acted upon in its integrity, the hon. and gallant officer (Capt. Boldero) would again bring the question before the House.
Subject dropped.

THE HOP DUTY.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. FREWENthen rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He said, as the two Motions which preceded his had been disposed of, he would be under the necessity of troubling the House with that of which he had given notice, in consequence of the great pressure which fell upon the parties to whom he alluded caused chiefly by recent legislation in that House. The Hop Duty was originally imposed in the year 1711, and had been doubled in 1805; and up to the year 1819, as long as high prices prevailed, the hop-planters never complained

567
of the tax, as long as they could pay it. A change, however, then came upon the country, and the agricultural distress which prevailed in 1822 had been so great that the Earl of Liverpool, then at the head of the Government, fully acknowledged it, and abstained from enforcing payment of a moiety of the duty for that year. The hop planters of East Sussex were annually called on to pay over 100,000 l. in duty. In 1848 the amount of their duty had been 117,000 l., while in 1850 it was 116,000 l. The remainder of the duty of 1848 due last autumn had been enforced, and the hop planters had been obliged to sell their hops at a ruinous price to meet the demand. All their spare money having been appropriated to pay the duty of 1848, they had nothing left. They, therefore, thought it would be only justice to them to pursue the same course which had been pursued by Lord Liverpool and the Government in 1822. It would be impossible for the Government officers to collect that tax. Since the first notice of his intention to bring forward that Motion had appeared, he had received a great number of communications, not less than sixty, from parishes in the district which he had the honour to represent. He would refer to, one of the letters he had received, which was from the head of the Hastings Bank, who was himself an extensive planter of hops. The writer said that he never knew the hop planters in so bad a state as they were at the present time. If the duty was attempted to be collected in May, he could not see what would be the result; but it would be much more serious than the Government had any idea of. Such was the opinion of that gentleman. He had also letters from clergymen, medical men, and landed gentlemen, all to the same effect, stating the existence of great distress in the district. He could say of his own knowledge, that an immense quantity of land was thrown on the hands of the proprietors, the tenants not wishing to occupy them on account of the burden of poor-rates on one hand, and the enormous amount of the tax levied by the hop duties on the other. In one parish which he knew exceedingly well, 1,000 acres had been thrown on the hands of the proprietors. In another, a friend of his own had from 700 to 800 acres, which he could not let on any terms. The case was so, more or less, through the hop districts in that county. He did not believe, that in those districts there was a landed proprietor who
568
had received a fourth part of his rent for last year. Some had not received the rent due on Lady-day, 1850. An eminent agriculturist, who had retired from business in consequence of his advanced age, had told him (Mr. Frewen) that he had never known such an amount of distress as existed in that district at the present time. He added that he collected the rent of two farms at the present time. He had made a reduction of 20 per cent in the rent of 1849, and had received a portion of the balance; but for 1850 he had not received anything, nor did he think he should. He (Mr. Frewen) wished to know from the Government whether all that district was to be thrown out of cultivation, and reduced to the state in which it was 800 years ago? There was an enormous population in the district, the most of whom were employed in the hop grounds. It was hardly known what the amount was which was paid for labour in that cultivation. The cost per acre varied from 12 l. 10 s. to 15 l. In East Sussex there are about 10,000 acres of hops, so that from 125,000 l. to 150,000 l. are spent annually in wages on the hop grounds in that county; and if the labourers wore thrown out of employment, of course they must go into the workhouses, which would enormously increase the rates. He conceived that from the great distress which prevailed in that district they had the greatest possible claims on the consideration of Government. In conclusion, he begged to put the Motion of which he had given notice.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty most respectfully to inform Her Majesty that very great distress exists in those districts of the county of Sussex where Hops are grown, and that it will be quite out of the power of the Hop Planters in that county to pay the Excise Duty on the crop of 1850 during the present year instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. FULLERseconded the Motion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not but be aware that there was a part of the district to which the hon. Gentleman alluded in a state of distress, and it was painful therefore to him to feel it his duty to oppose a Motion the tendency of which might be supposed to be to alleviate that distress. He wished to direct to this case the atten-

569
tion of those hon. Gentlemen who attributed so much of the existing distress of the country to the removal of protection. Let it be observed that the hop growers had an absolute and complete monopoly of the home market. It was perfectly true, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, that the protective duty was reduced four or five years ago; but it was still so high that no quantity of foreign hops had ever yet come in which could he supposed to produce the slightest effect whatsoever on the price. The utmost quantity of foreign hops ever retained for consumption was 250,000 lbs.; whereas our own produce was 48,000,000 lbs.: it could not, therefore, be supposed that this had effected the home market to any appreciable extent. Nor had the consumption of hops been interfered with by the use of drugs, which in former times were employed by the brewers when the price of hops was high. By the arrangement made for the levy of the duty, the pressure on the producer was greatly mitigated, payment not being required until the whole of the produce had been disposed of. Thus before the growers were called upon to pay the duty due on the crop of 1848, they had received the whole price of that crop, and a considerable part of that of 1849. So far was the statement of the hon. Gentleman from being correct, that they paid the duty before disposing of the crop, when the fact was, that they never paid the first half of the duty till great part of the crop was sold, and never paid the second half till great part of the subsequent crop was sold. The hon. Gentleman would not deny this position, that when the producer had a complete monopoly, he must, in ordinary times, be able to exact of the consumer the full amount of the duty, in addition to the net price of the article: this was the case with the growers of hops. But they had done that which must necessarily lead to a fall in the price, increasing the produce of hops far beyond the demand for them. For many years up to the year before last, they had paid the duty without the slightest difficulty. In 1843, 1844, and 1845, the average produce of hops was 30,000,000 lbs.; but the production was increased so much that in the three succeeding years it amounted to nearly 47,000,000 lbs. By throwing so large a quantity of this article on the market beyond what the country required, the price had been considerably reduced. In 1849 the produce of hops was small, and the price exceedingly high;
570
but in 1850 the produce was very large, amounting to 48,000,000 lbs., by which the market was again overstocked and the price reduced. The greater part of- the hops on which the duty was now to be paid, had long been sold at the duty-paid price. If the remission of duty was to be to the dealers who had paid that price, the hon. Gentleman's constituents would derive no benefit; but if to the first parties, it was tantamount to a demand that so many thousands of pounds should be taken from the pockets of the general taxpaying community for the benefit of a small class.
MR. T. L. HODGESrose simply to confirm the statement made by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen); and he was surprised at the arguments with which they were met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Hops were very abundantly grown for our own consumption. He hoped that some relief would be given to the hop planters; their distress was indisputable. He believed that by Christmas next a greater number of farms would be untenanted than were ever known before. There would be also a greater number of persons out of employment; and the arrears of poor-rates and other taxes would be much greater than the Minister contemplated. He had intended to have moved an Amendment; but as that course would be inconvenient at present, he gave notice that he would introduce a Bill for the reduction of the duty upon hops to-morrow.
MR. BASSwas disposed to ask their consideration for another class of agriculturists, whose distress could scarcely be less than the hop growers—he meant the growers of barley, who paid a very heavy duty. He could not but think that it would be as reasonable to return the duty to this class as to the hop growers, who had already received the duty, and had put it into their pockets. He could not think that there was such evidence of the great distress of the hop growers as was represented, for it appeared that from 1850 the number of acres of hops had increased from 42,000 to 43,000. It had been observed by an hon. Member opposite, that the present duty upon hops was so insignificant, that when the foreigner had any to spare he sent them to this country. That, however, was never the case except they advanced to nearly double the average prices. The trade now asking for indulgence, had more indulgence than any other. If hon. Gentlemen would but confine themselves to

571
the subject of diminishing the duty upon hops, he for one would be disposed to support the proposition. The hop grower had in his hands the supply of the commodity required, and therefore he could take into account the average vicissitudes that the season produced. He had then the remedy in his own hands to a very considerable extent.
MR. EWARTwould oppose the Motion. He contended that the relief proposed to be given to the growers would involve an injustice to the hop dealers; that it would be, in point of fact, merely relieving one class at the expense of another.
MR. DISRAELI: I am surprised, Sir, at hearing the representatives of several bodies of distressed agriculturists address the House in the manner in which we have heard them this Session. I am astonished that the representatives of constituents so Buffering should have avoided the opportunities afforded them, in more than one instance, during the present Session, to express their opinions of those sentiments which so graciously issued from the Throne, and were responded to by the Ministers. We were told at the commencement of the Session that there was great distress and depression in the agricultural districts. We were informed of that by the Sovereign, and the Minister repeated that declaration; but when the House was called to respond to that declaration, the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. T. L. Hodges), and the hon. Member who followed him, did not assist us on those occasions. But now they come forward and tell us that they represent bodies of suffering agriculturists. We did not ask them on that occasion to give any opinion on the principles of protection or free trade, but to offer their evidence and testimony, in addition to the important and august declarations made to the House. But notwithstanding that I entirely sympathise with those two hon. Gentlemen, let me ask what is the Motion before us? It is, that we should humbly address Her Majesty to inform Her that very great distress exists in those districts in the county of Sussex whore hops are grown—that is, that we are to inform Her Majesty that there is partial distress where Her Majesty has informed us that there is general distress. I cannot understand how it is that Ministers, after having counselled their Sovereign to make that important announcement, and after having several times told the House they were still of that opinion, can refuse their sup-
572
port to this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says this is a protected interest, and therefore he cannot interfere: but when an unprotected interest is brought before the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers, he makes exactly the same observation. And, after all, what is the case before us? You have reduced, as I understand, the foreign duty to one-quarter of what it was, and you have not relatively reduced the internal duty. Well, we do not want you to protect any branch of native industry—we do not ask you to act in any way in opposition to those commercial principles which you are always vaunting; but we say that, if you are resolved to reduce the duty on foreign productions, you should, in the same proportion, reduce the duty you raised on your inland revenue. Every free-trader may support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Frewen). The hon. Gentleman who addressed us from this side of the House, has said— "Notwithstanding the alleged distress in the districts where hops are cultivated, the produce has very much increased of late years." [Mr. BASS: No, the acres.] Why, we have a Parliamentary return before us, on the table of the House moved by the hon. Member for West Kent (Mr. T. L. Hodges)—a return of the produce from 1847 to 1850, if I recollect aright, and from that return it appears that there has been in that period a reduction of not less than 10,000 acres employed in the cultivation of hops, the numbers being something like 52,000 acres in 1847, and probably 42,000 in 1849 or 1850. The hon. Gentleman has surely thrown aside that consideration which he generally gives to every subject on which he addresses the House. The document is before us which confirms the statements of the hon. Member for East Sussex, and shows us that that important and interesting branch of the native industry of the country is suffering—that there is great agricultural distress in a particular district, the Crown having told us that there is general agricultural distress throughout the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's argument that the hop growers are a protected interest, amounts to nothing unless he can show that the external tax operated as a protection. But if the internal impost not only equals but exceeds the foreign protection which he alleges, then that is a circumstance calculated to produce the distress of which we are complaining. Considering that this

573
is a state of affairs which has now gone on for a considerable period; that the Members for the hop-growing districts have frequently brought the subject before the consideration of the Government; that it is a fact notorious that thousands of acres are going out of cultivation in Kent and Sussex; that as an hon. Gentleman (I believe the hon. Member for East Sussex), in the early part of the Session, informed us, that there was one proprietor alone whose arrears of rent amounted to 7,000 l.; that these circumstances were produced, not as the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes the House to believe, by the mischievous and foolish system of protection, but on the contrary, by a fiscal system which, while it reduces protection against the foreign growers, aggravates the impost collected by the domestic tax-gatherer—I say, considering these circumstances, I do not think we can be justified in refusing to support the Motion of the hon. Member for East Sussex. Here is great distress evidently produced by an enormous system of fiscal blundering—distress proclaimed by the Sovereign, and frequently admitted by Her Majesty's Ministers during the Session; and if the hon. Member for East Sussex thinks proper to divide the House, I shall feel it my duty, consistently with all I have said and done during the Session, to give him my support.
MR. BASSwished to refer the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to the Return before the House. The House would recollect that his (Mr. Bass's) statement was, that notwithstanding the severe distress which it was alleged the hop growers suffered, the number of acres cultivated last year had been an increase on the previous year. The return showed that the number of acres under cultivation in 1849 was 42,797, and in 1850, 43,185.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Yes; but will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the numbers were in 1847? [Mr. Bass: I never mentioned 1847.] No, the hon. Gentleman did not mention 1847. He did not tell us that in that year there were 52,000 acres under cultivation. It was always said when any branch of the agricultural interest complained—"Oh, put more capital into the soil, bestir yourselves, be up and active, and everything will come right;" but the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) had stated that the hop growers had brought some thousands of acres into cultivation, and that therefore the House
574
should resist the appeal just made to them on behalf of that suffering class. If the hon. Gentleman's argument was correct, then here was proof that, if the agricultural interest took the advice of hon. Gentlemen opposite (the free-traders), and threw capital into the soil, they would be met in the same way by the Government, and their supporters; and in proportion as they expended capital to make head against adverse circumstances would there be a want of sympathy for them on the part of the Government; and the very exertions they made would be brought forward in that House as an argument against them. He appealed to the House whether the very figures of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bass) did not afford a conclusive argument in favour of the Motion?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had been not quite correct cither in his representation of the Motion that had been made, or of the state of the returns before the House. Any one might suppose, from the statement of the hon. Member that the hop growers were suffering from the great importation of foreign hops, consequent upon a reduction of the duty upon them; but though the duty had been very much reduced, it had not been to such an extent as to admit any great amount of foreign hops, except in times of high prices. Instead of being a tenth or a twentieth, or a fiftieth, it did not exceed 1–190th of the whole production. The notion, therefore, that the admission of foreign hops had occasioned the distress was an explanation that was not in accordance with the facts of the case. There had certainly been an immense increase in the produce of hops of late years, and the consequence of that, no doubt, was a very low price in the home market. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had stated this was a Motion expressive of sympathy for the distress of that class of the agricultural interest; but the Motion went beyond that, and represented to Her Majesty that these hop growers were unable to pay in the present year the duties chargeable upon them by law, of course with the inference that, being unable, they ought not to be called upon to pay what they owed. That certainly was an extraordinary proposition to ask the House to agree to, because the hops had been sold at the price which they would fetch, supposing the duty to have been charged and paid; and every purchaser of hops had given the price upon

575
that supposition. Thus, the hop grower having received that price (though it might be a low price, owing to the greatness of the production), now said that he ought not to be charged the sum which he owed. That certainly was a proposition to which the House could hardly agree, for it implied not merely an expression of sympathy with distress, but as unfair a proposition to the revenue as could well be made.
MR. FREWENsaid, that looking at the state of the House, and as he had brought forward his Motion quite unexpectedly, thinking the forms of the House would have prevented its coming on that evening, he would not trouble the House to divide on the Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee.
(1.) 843,193 l. for the defrayal of the expenses of Naval Stores, &c.
MR. HUMEsubmitted that a few minutes within midnight was not a proper time for the discussion of so important a Vote. The Committee might recollect that, on a former occasion, the important Vote for Wages was taken without proper discussion between twelve and one o'clock in the morning. He should suggest that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Baring) should give the Committee an opportunity of discussing the present Vote at five o'clock some afternoon.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he was not at all anxious to press the Vote on the present occasion. There were, however, some other Votes connected with the Navy which he thought might well be taken at once. He would suggest that Votes 14, 15, and 16 be taken.
Vote withdrawn.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it would be be very improper to press the three Votes in question at so late an hour. They amounted to no less than 1,300,000 l. He had some observations to make upon them which he could not conveniently do at that late hour.
House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again on Wednesday.

WOODS AND FORESTS.
MR. B. COCHRANE MR. B. COCHRANE moved for returns of the attendance of the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests since the noble Lord (Lord Seymour)
576
came into office. (Votts and Proceedings, 55.)
LORD SEYMOUR: If the hon. Member for Bridport has any charge against me for not having attended to my official duties, it would be only fair in him to state the reasons for moving for this return. If he has no such charge to prefer against me, I can see no reason for the granting of these returns. To some of the offices enumerated in the list, no salaries are attached. This Motion is founded on many misconceptions; for instance, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the assumption which he has made as to my connexion with the Commission of Fine Arts and the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall. I am a member of neither of these bodies. Then as to the office of Chief Justice in Eyre, that office is known to be a sinecure—hardly any duties are attached to it. Then as to asking for a return of my attendance on the Commission of Geological Survey, the hon. Gentleman might as well ask what portion of my time I devote to any other public office with which I am connected. If any business is brought before the Geological Museum, of course I attend to it. I could not furnish the return for which the hon. Gentleman has moved. If the hon. Gentleman has any charge against me of not having attended to my public duties, I am quite prepared to meet it; but I think the attempt to furnish such a return as he has moved for would be mere waste of time.
MR. B. COCHRANE: I certainly want to know how often the noble Lord has attended the sittings of the Board of Health. I believe the noble Lord has attended them but seldom. I shall divide the House upon this Motion.
MR. DISRAELIhoped that his hon. Friend would not attempt to divide the House. His hon. Friend, he hoped, would feel that he had already accomplished his object. He (Mr. Disraeli) was bound to say, that the noble Lord (Lord Seymour) was one of the most valuable Members of the Administration. He had had opportunities, when sitting with the noble Lord upon Committees, of observing with what sedulousness he attended to his public duties. He (Mr. Disraeli) did not wish to give any opinion, upon that occasion, as to the expediency of accumulating duties upon one individual, although that, no doubt, was the point to which his hon. Friend addressed himself, when making his Motion. He trusted that the House would not be called upon to divide.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I certainly shall object to the return in the shape now proposed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.