Lords Sitting of 12 May 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.2–2a Dublin Police. Reported.—Bribery at Elections.
3a and passed:—Exchequer Bills; Victoria Park; Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings.
Private.—1a; Warwick and Leamington Union Railway; Warkworth Harbour.
2a Gair's Naturalization; Sir F. Bathurst's Estates.
Reported.—Saundersfoot Railway (specially); Equitable Gas; Bristol Floating Dock; Ellesmere and Chester Canal.
3a; and passed:—Kingselere Inclosure.
PETITIONS PRESENTED From Owners and Occupiers of land, and Tradesmen in Blandford, against the proposed Reduction of the Import Duty on Com, Cattle, and other Provisions.—From the Guardians of the Maidstone Union, for Alteration of the New Poor-law—From Hop Planters in Goudhurst, against the Alteration of the Hop Duty From the Congregation of the New Chapel at Todmorden, for the Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—From Catholics of Ashton-under-Lyne, Clavtonle-Moors, Hyde, Newton, Godley, Wigan, Boston, Great Yarmouth, and other places, for better Religious Instruction to the Catholics in the Army and Navy.—From Ardrahan, Drumcrce, Killereran, and Abbey Knockmoy, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society of Ireland.

HOP DUTIES.
The Earl of Winchil sea presented a petition from Goudhurst, Kent, against the reduction in the duty on foreign hops. The petitioners stated, that the reduction contemplated by the Government of 21. per ton would ruin their trade.
Earl Fitzwilliamwould remind his noble kinsman (the Earl of Winchilsea), that if the culture of hops were destroyed, the land would remain and be capable of being converted to other purposes. His object in rising, however, was to direct the attention of the House and of his noble Friend to another point. The other night a conversation arose respecting the employment of persons in mines. His noble Friend then expressed great anxiety concerning the morals of that part of the population, which, he said, was seriously injured by the employment of females and children in mines. Now, as his noble Friend was so exceedingly desirous of protecting the morals of the inhabitants in the manufacturing districts, he would recommend him to look a little more to the morals of the persons in the districts with which he was himself more immediately connected. He would turn his noble Friend's attention to what occurred in the hop grounds during the time of hop-picking. If he would look to the morals of the females who laboured in the field, it might be more useful than turning his attention to those who delved in the bowels of the earth. [The Lord Chancellor: They go from London.] Yes,
456
they might go from London; but the example of their conduct was calculated to corrupt the morals of the districts with which the noble Earl was connected. Now, surely the noble Earl ought to endeavour to prevail upon the Government to which he gave his support to put an import duty upon the articles which were brought down from London into those rural places, lest they should corrupt the morals of the females, and it might perchance be of the males, in the very pure districts of Kent and Sussex.
The Earl of Winichilseasaid, and as his noble relative remarked, was true, that hop-grounds might be converted to other purposes of cultivation than that of the production of hops; but the mischief to be apprehended from the admission of foreign hops at a low rate of duty was not limited to the hop-grounds and hop-growers; it extended to woodlands, and to that class of persons who had invested large sums of money in the growth of ash, willow, and chesnut poles for the use of hop-grounds. Throw the hop-gardens out of cultivation, and these woodlands, which were of great extent, would immediately become valueless. The land hitherto devoted to the growth of hops might be easily convertible to other purposes, but the woodlands could not be brought into a state fit for cultivation except at an expense equal to the fee-simple of the land itself. The injury, therefore, resulting from a comparatively free importation of foreign hops, would extend much further than his noble Friend appeared to contemplate. The noble Earl had recommended him to look to the morals of the population in his own immediate neighbourhood. He begged to state that there was no district in that neighbourhood in which schools were not established capable of affording education to the whole of the population. All he asked was, that the hop-grower should have a fair protection, such as was given to other classes.
Earl Fitzwilliam:Then it appears that we are to protect hops, not for the sake of hops, but for the sake of woods— surely his noble Friend—
The Earl of Wicklow:I rise to order. If irregular discussions of this nature are constantly allowed to take place, it will be quite impossible that the business of the House can proceed.
Earl Fitzwilliam:I move, then, that

457
this House do now adjourn, and my reason for making that motion is, that it appears to me that the noble Earl opposite has called me to order in a way, I will not say perfectly irregular and disorderly, but in a way not perfectly consistent with the grave impartiality which should influence every one of your Lordships when you rise to enforce the rules of the House. If the noble Earl, the Lord-lieutenant of Wicklow, can show to me that he never remembers any instance of the sort of conversation taking place between noble Lords which has now transpired between my noble Friend and myself, I will bow to his authority, and cease to make any further remarks; but if he cannot do so, then previous to moving that the House do now adjourn I shall make a few observations upon what has fallen from my noble Friend (the Earl of Winchilsea) relative to the woods of which he tells us. It appeared from his noble Friend's statement, (the noble Earl continued), that the Legislature was to throw an obstacle in the way of the importation of foreign hops, not for the sake of the hop growers of this country, but for the sake of the owners of woods. But his noble Friend must very well know that where woods became less valuable, it was customary to destroy them, and he had no doubt (he noble Earl had himself been a great destroyer of woods; so in the case of woods cultivated for the sake of hops, if they became less valuable they might be destroyed, and that should be the case instead of protecting the hops for the sake of the woods. He would beg to direct the attention of the House to the alteration about to be made in the duties on foreign timber, which he apprehended would have more effect in deteriorating the value of woods —and he did not regret it, because he thought timber ought to be cheap—than any alteration in the hop duties would have in diminishing the value of wood grown in the counties of Kent and Sussex. In conclusion, the noble Earl moved that the House do now adjourn.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that if his noble Friend had any practical experience upon the subject, he would know that to bring wood lands into cultivation would be to expend a sum equal to the fee simple of the land upon which the wood grew. When the noble Earl directed his attention to the immoralities of hop-grounds, he would beg to point the noble
458
Earl's attention to the statements made in the report lately laid before them relative to the immorality practised in the mining districts with which the noble Earl was connected. He should be anxious at some future time to give the noble Earl an opportunity of denying that such immorality existed in any of the mines in which he had an interest.
Earl Fitzwilliam:I deny them now, and am glad that the noble Earl has given me the opportunity of doing so. I know of no single instance of the employment of females in any collieries of my own; and I believe that none are employed by any of my lessees. I own that I do not run into any of what I think the extravagant opinions that are entertained upon this report. To persons not accustomed to these employments it may seem very horrible that females should go under ground in the manner described in the report; but, whether the fact of their so going under ground contributed to the ruinous demoralization of their character is, in my mind, matter of considerable doubt. But, as far as my own property in collieries is concerned, I can positively deny that any females are employed in it. I take no credit for this. It arises from the nature of the seams of coal wrought in my collieries. Perhaps it might be desirable to interfere to prohibit the employment of children and females in collieries, but I should have some delicacy in making such a proposition, because the truth is, that the mischief from employing very young children in collieries arises from the seams of coals in certain collieries being exceedingly thin; and. any noble Lord who read the report, with a knowledge of mining, would find that the employment of children incolleries was confined to the western districts of Yorkshire, where the seams of coal were of that description.
The Earl of Wicklowrose to explain. He should be exceedingly sorry for the noble Earl to suppose that he meant any discourtesy towards him. [Earl Fitzwilliam: Not towards me personally.] But the noble Earl insinuated that he was not strictly impartial in enforcing the rule of order; and then the noble Earl went on to ask whether he had never witnessed such irregularities before. He had certainly witnessed them frequently, but never so often as in the noble Earl himself. Take the House collectively, and he would venture to say, that no three

459
Members of it had ever been guilty of the I irregularity of introducing matter foreign to the business of the House, to the same extent as the noble Earl. That was his reason for calling the noble Earl to order. Only the other night the noble Earl made no less than five speeches upon presenting one petition. If this were to be the practice of the House, and no noble Lord were allowed to rise to order, it appeared to him that it would be quite impossible to carry on the business of the House.
Lord Redesdaleremarked that in the discussion which took place on a previous evening upon the point of order, the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam) was the person who got up and expressed a hope that some new rule would be established to render the proceedings of the House more orderly. [Earl Fitzwilliam: Make a rule.] A new rule was not necessary. The rules which already existed were for all general purposes sufficiently stringent. It was not the practice to enforce them rigidly, but it might be necessary to do so, if the customary relaxation were subject to abuse. No one could doubt that the making of five or six speeches upon the presentation of a single petition, as was too frequently the habit of the noble Earl, was a serious impediment to the regular fixed business of the House, and could be attended with no advantage whatever. He thought that when a noble Lord was called to order, he should bow to the call, and not put himself in order, by moving an adjournment, thus evading the rule of the House, and causing great inconvenience.
Motion for the adjournment negatived.

INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION OF FOREIGNERS.)
The Marquess of Lansdownerose, in pursuance of the notice he had given a few evenings previous, to move for certain returns relating to the exemptions granted to foreigners, under the acts commonly called the Income-tax and the Property-tax Acts. In doing so, it certainly was not his wish to hurry the House (which could not be otherwise than exceedingly inconvenient) into any premature discussion as regarded the merits of the general question. He should confine himself strictly to the particular point to which the returns for which he was about to move related. He did not apprehend that her Majesty's Ministers would raise any objection to the making of those returns, but as the subject to which they re-
460
lated was one of considerable importance, he hoped to receive their Lordships' indulgence whilst he offered a few observations in respect to it. He was the more induced to ask for this indulgence because he found not only that his own authority, but the authority of other men much more eminent than himself, and with whose opinions he had had opportunities in earlier life of becoming intimately acquainted, had been referred to in connection with this subject in another place. The reason why he felt it necessary to call their Lordships' attention to the subject, at this particular moment was this—that unquesionably this was the first time that the income enjoyed by foreigners in other parts of the world, arising from property vested in this country, had been made the subject of taxation under any act of the description of that now under the consideration of Parliament. There were, he believed, soon after the Revolution, certain imperfect and obscure attempts made to impose a tax upon income; but these attempts were not carried into effect; and as the history of them was but very imperfectly known, it was difficult to find out either why they were made or why they did not succeed. But early in the course of the first French war Mr. Pitt introduced an Income-tax upon all income enjoyed by his Majesty's subjects in England. It never occurred to Mr. Pitt at that time, at least there was no trace, no record of its ever having occurred to Mr. Pitt, that it was just, equitable, or expedient to include foreigners in the operation of that tax. Shortly afterwards the tax terminated with the war. In the next French war, Mr. Addington, being then the Minister in the House of Commons, proposed what was called the property-tax, which, though differing in name, was in almost all respects similar to the previous tax introduced by Mr. Pitt. The tax so proposed by Mr. Addington did not extend to foreigners. Two years afterwards it fell to his lot, in a very early period of his public life—too early, perhaps, to be employed in a situation so high and important as that which he had then the honour of filling—to propose a considerable alteration and modification of the property-tax which had been introduced by Mr. Addington—he would not say that it never occurred to him, because in speaking upon the present occasion, he wished to lay aside his own authority altogether

461
—but it never occurred to those under whom he acted-—above all, it never occurred to Mr. Fox that it would be expedient or just, to extend the operation of the act to foreigners possessed of property in this country. And here he would state the ground upon which he felt himself' particularly called upon to direct their Lordships' attention to the subject. At the time of which he was speaking, a very material and a very beneficial change took place—a change which he was humbly instrumental in carrying into effect; and which, without altering the principle of the act, did so far alter its form and appearance with respect to its application to the funds, as to suggest, for the first time, the principle of taxing foreigners. It had been found that a great deal of inconvenience had been experienced in consequence of the tax not being levied at the Bank of England, where the income derived from the funds was paid. To remedy this inconvenience, it was arranged by the consent of all parties, that the Bank Directors should be enabled to act as commissioners, and to receive at the Bank that portion of the funds which was subject to the tax. The tax so received by the Bank directors in the character of commissioners was not a tax upon the funds, but a tax upon income derived from the funds. This was carefully provided for in the clauses of the act constituting the Bank directors commissioners. The tax was not levied upon the funds as funds, but upon income as income, and the Bank directors were made commissioners of the tax for the purpose of collecting it with the least amount of inconvenience to all parties. However, the appearance of the tax being deducted from the funds, was such as to suggest, for the first time, to two or three able and ingenious persons in the House of Commons that it would be expedient to include foreigners resident in other countries, and not being subjects of his Majesty, in the tax. A proposition to that effect was accordingly brought forward in the House of Commons, and in the course of what passed upon that occasion, the strongest opinions were expressed that it would be both unjust and inexpedient to subject foreigners to the tax. He adverted particularly to that fact, because he had heard that it had been stated in another place, that Mr. Fox had objected to the subjecting of foreigners to the tax as a matter of expediency only, and not of justice. In con-
462
sequence of this assertion, he had been induced to refer to the record of the opinions expressed by Mr. Fox; and with their Lordships' permission, he would read the words employed by Mr. Fox, and then leave their Lordships to judge whether it could be fairly stated that Mr. Fox's objection was one of expediency only.
" Mr. Secretary Fox was astonished at the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Philip Francis) on this subject. For his part, he should consider an act, such as the hon. Gentleman recommended, a shameful confiscation. The bill under the consideration of the committee was not for taxing foreigners, but British subjects. So unjust did he consider such a measure (involving in it too, as he conceived, a flagrant breach of the national faith), that if the revenue resulting from it were ever so great, he should think it his duty to reject it."
Now whether Mr. Fox were right or wrong in that opinion, it could not, with any justice be said by those who advocated the imposition of the tax upon foreigners, that the high authority of Mr. Fox could be quoted as opposing the proposition only upon grounds of expediency and not of justice. He had shown from Mr. Fox's own words that his opposition to the proposal was specifically based upon the grounds of justice. And however high the sole and unsupported authority of Mr. Fox must ever be held to be, it was to be recollected, that in this instance Mr. Fox was giving an opinion in strict conformity with the course of conduct previously pursued by his political adversaries, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Addington, and which, when Mr. Fox unhappily ceased to exist, was afterwards pursued by Mr. Percival, when the question was again brought under the consideration of Parliament. Here, then, was a mass of authority, to show the injustice and inexpediency of including foreigners in an Income-tax levied in this country. But even if there were a doubt as to the justice of adopting such a course, when the bills were first introduced to tax property and income in England, the very recurrence of the exemption through so many successive Parliaments, and so many succeding administrations, was calculated to give to foreigners the idea and expectation, that by becoming creditors of this country, they would be creditors free from any deduction in the shape of direct taxation. It had been said, that the foreigner ought to pay the tax on account of the security afforded to his property, but did

463
a mortgagor ever tax his mortgagee for repairs, or could a mortgagee deduct from the interest of the mortgage money on account of any species of improvement which added to the value and security of his property? It had also been said that if the foreigner was discontented, he could sell out. That was an argument which went to a frightful extent indeed, because it might be applicable to the English creditor also, and some day he likewise might be told if he were discontented or dissatisfied with some great deduction that "he might sell out." It seemed that this consideration had been forgotten throughout the present discussion, that if the English creditors were affected, it would be their awn faults, because they were represented in Parliament. But the foreigner was not represented in Parliament, and had no means of making his case known and heard. He had lent, or been a party to lending, his money upon the faith of this country that he should receive his dividend free from all deduction. That was the opinion he entertained of the justice, or he might rather say, the injustice of this case. But if he entertained a strong opinion as to the injustice, he also entertained a strong opinion as to the inexpediency of imposing this tax upon the foreigner; because, for the sake of adding some 18,000 l. or 20,000 l. to a tax amounting to some millions, it was not worth while to impair in the least degree that high credit and reputation for the scrupulous fulfilment of engagements which had hitherto distinguished this country in every part of the world. It was, he conceived, a part of the policy of this country to maintain that high character. A case might occur, and that at no distant period, when this country might be called upon to uphold British securities in other countries, and when we might, if we could, have to use the argument, that in the midst of all our deprivations and distresses we had carefully guarded against the slightest deduction from that interest we were bound to pay the foreign creditor. He had seen with great sorrow any attempted deviation from that course which had been adopted for so many years in this country, and which had the sanction of so many Parliaments. He had taken the opportunity of stating his opinion on this matter, in moving for these returns. He did not know whether the papers for which he moved could be produced; he knew it was
464
very likely that a great part of them had been involved in the grand auto da fe which took place when the Income-tax was abolished. If, however, they were not destroyed, they might perhaps be obtained from some returns which had been moved for in the other House. The noble Marquess concluded by moving, for an
" Account of all exemptions granted to foreigners in respect of income arising from property in the funds under the 23rd and 26th of George the Third."
The Earl of Ripondid not apprehend that there could be any objection to the motion of the noble Marquess. The subject was undoubtedly one of great importance; and the noble Marquess was perfectly justified in availing himself of the present opportunity to express his opinion upon it. He confessed, however, that, with all the respect he entertained for the authorities quoted by the noble Marquess, and for the noble Marquess himself, he had not been satisfied by the reasoning of the noble Marquess, that the proposal to subject the property of foreigners to the same impost as other property, was unjust. He did not think that there would be any violation of the principles of justice in calling upon all parties who had an interest in the maintenance of the public credit of this country to contribute to the public burdens. Mr. Pitt had, no doubt, exempted the property of foreigners from the Income-tax; but it appeared to him that in doing so, Mr. Pitt had been influenced, not so much by considerations of abstract justice, as by the considerations of policy and public expediency. At the time when Mr. Pitt's property-tax was imposed, the expenditure of this country was vast, and it was subjected to great and unusual burdens; and it was necessary to meet the additional expenditure by loans. At that time the funds were low, and it was necessary for the maintenance of the public credit that every means should be taken to increase the facility for raising the supplies that might be necessary. Under those circumstances, he could conceive it would have been unwise to allow the operation of the tax to extend to the funded property of foreigners. The same observation applied to the case of 1806, for, at that time, there existed the same considerations of expediency with regard to the position of this country and the state of the public funds, which appeared to have influenced Mr. Pitt. Upon the last

465
occasion, moreover, it was not the question of imposing a property-tax, but merely of adding to the amount of one already imposed; and foreigners having been exempted on the original imposition, it might have been unjust to take the opportunity created by raising the per centage, to include a set of persons who had previously been excluded. In that point of view, therefore, he entirely concurred with his noble Friend opposite. At the same time he could not see the application of that argument to the abstract justice or injustice of imposing a new tax. Now that it was proposed to endeavour to equalize the revenue and expenditure of the country by means of direct taxation, it was for the purpose of avoiding perpetual recurrence to the system of borrowing. That system of borrowing if persisted in would have the effect of depreciating the value of funded property. Therefore the value of that funded property appeared to be essentially connected with any plan of finance the object of which was to avoid the necessity of perpetual borrowing. If the foreigner had the same interests in the maintenance of the public credit that every other person had who possessed property in the funds, there appeared no ground for the accusation of abstract injustice in calling upon him to contribute to the general taxation upon that property. He confessed he did not feel the force of the arguments either as applied to the injustice or the inexpediency of the case.
Lord Monteaglewould trouble their Lordships with only a few words. His noble Friend who had just sat down had not made any reply to the observation of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) as to the altered state of the country since the Property-tax was first imposed. He would admit, but only for argument sake, that foreigners had been exempted on selfish grounds—that was for the purpose of keeping up the funds. Was that a reason why they should be taxed now, in time of peace? In the first renewal of the tax, the exemptions remained the same. In every subsequent renewal of the Property-tax foreigners were exempted; and by the acts of every succeeding Government they were led to form the just expectation that they would be protected against any future legislation, as they had been against any previous provisions. He felt more strongly persuaded than ever that the views of his noble
466
Friend were founded in justice and sound policy; and he was peculiarly strengthened in this when he recollected the enormous mass of British capital which was invested in foreign funds, and which was dependent altogether upon the conduct of foreign governments. To place the argument upon no higher ground than that of mere selfish expediency and prudent policy, he must say it appeared to him that nothing could be more unwise than to disregard the recommendations of his noble Friend. At anterior times anterior Parliaments and Governments had been very scrupulous as to imposing taxes upon foreigners, and he confessed that he could not understand how they should be less scrupulous now, when the matter in question was merely a miserable sum of from 20,000 l. to 30,000 l. a year; it could not amount to more. These considerations, then, induced him to say, that the more he looked at this part of the subject the more did he view it with extreme apprehension. It was quite obvious that if the arguments of the noble Earl opposite were to prevail, it would establish a principle most injurious to the British holders of all foreign securities.
Lord Broughamquite agreed with his noble Friend that it would be exceedingly unwise to impose a tax upon foreigners. From the announcement of the proposition to the present moment, he was all along of opinion that this part of the measure was not only inexpedient and unjust, but in a very high degree unwise and imprudent; and for this, amongst other reasons—that it would give foreign governments a handle for dealing in a similar manner with the funds of others. It would be but a very trifling addition to the revenue, while it would do an injury to British interests so manifest and so irreparable, that no substantial argument could" be raised in its favour. He found it hardly possible to touch upon those topics without calling the attention of the House to the fact that the sum which British subjects had invested in the foreign funds was infinitely greater than that which foreigners had in the English funds; he therefore hoped that the subject would be well and carefully considered before it was too late; he earnestly hoped that those who had the management of the bill in another place would turn their attention to the subject, for when it came up to their Lordships' House it would be too late to

467
make a change in any of its clauses. He agreed to the measure of an Income-tax with the utmost possible reluctance, but he entertained a decided objection to it accompanied by the present provision; if, then, it came to them from the other House unchanged in this particular, their Lordships would have no alternative; they must either throw out a necessary measure, or they must agree to the unwise and unjust course of taxing foreigners. He should not trouble their Lordships any further than to express an earnest hope that the considerations which had been urged upon this point would have their due weight in the proper quarter.
Earl of Wicklowcontended, that as to this tax, there was no difference between British subjects and foreigners. When the latter derived profit from investing money in the British funds, there appeared to be no reason whatever why they should not assist in bearing their fair share of the public burdens. It was quite true that this impost was, generally speaking, a war tax, and it also happened that in time of war it was the practice of foreigners to invest a smaller amount of money in the British funds than in time of peace; but to him it appeared that those subjects bad nothing whatever to do with the matter—nothing, at least, that should influence the decisions of Parliament. One consideration which he was sure must be obvious to every noble Lord was this, that if foreigners were exempted a door would be opened to fraud; for Englishmen residing in other countries, or even at home, might invest money in the English funds in the names of foreigners, and pro tanto there would be a diminution of loss on all sales to foreigners. It was said, that if we laid a tax of this nature upon foreigners the governments of other countries might retaliate. That was an argument which with him had no sort of weight. If foreign governments wanted taxes they would not hesitate to lay them on, without the slightest reference to British interests. For his part, he thought the proposed arrangement an act of justice, and he thought, that as the bill had proceeded so far as it had done, it was not likely to be altered.
Lord Broughamdid not refer to the probability of foreigners following our example to the letter—they might not retort upon us by an exact imitation of what we had done, but unfortunately human nature
468
was so constituted that one act of injustice frequently led to the perpetration of another in another direction.
The Duke of Newcastlewas inclined to think that an Income-tax was not altogether necessary, but then this was not the proper time to go into that argument. He thought that our financial difficulties might be remedied without the imposition of this tax, and he should be glad if the Government could see that it was advisable to abandon it, because he was persuaded that it would be injurious to the best interests of the country. He objected also to the other measures which the Government had introduced, for they had adopted the principle of free-trade—a principle to which he had almost all his life objected. He objected to Lord Liverpool's Government, when it introduced a similar measure, because he thought it was a tax which it would be unwise to put into the hands of any Minister, whoever he might be, and because it was one the consequences of which the country could not foresee. If it could be placed in the hands of any Minister, he was of opinion it could be placed in the hands of the present Minister; but still he thought it ought not to be placed in the hands of any Minister whatever. He thought it would not have been honest, as an opportunity presented itself, if he had not expressed his opinion on the subject. Agreeing in all other things with the present Government, and sincerely wishing that it might conduct the affairs of the country with every advantage and success—but as the whole experiment in our present circumstances was so new, and in his view so fearful—he could not help expressing this warning, and imploring the Government to do something which would avoid the necessity of imposing on the country a measure which would not be conducive to its interests, though those who brought it forward most unquestionably thought it would.
Viscount Melbourne:My Lords, I do not wish to go into the general question which has just been broached by the noble Duke, and which, in a short time, must come regularly before the House. But for this motion, which has been made by my noble Friend, I cannot refrain from expressing my sincere agreement in every part of it. On the ground of justice, I must hold, that if foreigners place their capital in the British funds it is not any

469
breach of justice to exact from them a tax, in return for the advantage and protection which they receive. At the same time, they only receive advantage and protection in respect of their property; they do not receive the protection and advantage which a native of this country receives from the general Government, and, therefore, it may be doubted whether it is fair to call upon them for an equal contribution. As to the policy and expediency of imposing this duty on them, in the present state of the country, and in the present state of the world, I hold the opinion—the settled opinion—that it would be both impolitic and inexpedient. The noble Earl says, that it would be no breach of faith with foreigners, because no expectation had been held out to them. From the proceedings on former occasions—from the general concurrence in exempting foreigners from this tax—from the course that the country has hitherto favourably pursued—a general and reasonable expectation must of necessity have been produced throughout all foreign countries that the same course would be pursued in all similar circumstances. There is hardly any question on which there has been such a concurrence of authority, as on this question of an exemption of foreigners from this tax. It was formerly more than once proposed that they should be included, and that proposition was brought forward by men of considerable talent, weight, and ability in the other House of Parliament. It was objected to by every financial authority of that time—it was objected to by Mr. Rose, by Mr. Huskisson, and I have no doubt that Mr. Long, the late Lord Farnborough, coincided in their opinion. I say, my Lords, that there was a singular concurrence of opinion upon the wisdom and policy of that exemption, and I do now ask your Lordships whether, in the present state of the world, it is wise or prudent to take with respect to foreigners, a more niggardly—a harsher—course than was taken before? I wish to ask the Government whether it be good policy to do that with respect to foreigners now, which you did not do with respect to them then? Are the feelings of Europe in general so very favourable, are they so willing to be conciliated, that it is wise to do that which must necessarily have a contrary tendency? We are going
470
to try a pretty large experiment with regard to our duties on importation, with a view of extending our own trade. One great benefit which we expect, is reciprocity from foreign nations. Now, my Lords, I fear that this point of reciprocity is the weakest part of our case. I am afraid that is the point on which we ought to entertain the least sanguine expectations; but I say, is it wise to do that which must necessarily produce the feeling that foreigners are to be treated worse now than they were in former times? No doubt, the reasons which induced the exemption on former occasions were correctly slated by my noble Friend. We know very well that the great convulsion which had taken place on the continent, had brought a great deal of foreign capital into this country, and that many great capitalists derived their first connection with our funds, and the pecuniary concerns of this country from that source. Though there are no convulsions of that nature at present on the Continent, is there nothing in the money markets of the world at present—in the speculations of other countries—in the insecurity of property which prevails in other parts of the world, (to which I do not more particularly advert)—which may make it in the highest degree wise not to discourage foreign countries from taking advantage of the security which I trust belongs to the financial institutions of this country? On all 'these grounds I cannot but say that I do regret the course taken by the present Government, and that I should be extremely desirous to see it reconsidered.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that there were circumstances in former times which made it inexpedient to impose this tax on foreigners, but those circumstances did not exist at present. The noble Marquess opposite said, that they ought not to tax foreigners on account of the immense amount of British capital invested in foreign funds. He must confess, however, that that argument had little weight in his mind, for if persons were to invest their money in foreign funds, they must take their chance as to the regulations which might be made by the countries with which they were dealing. With respect to the general question which had been raised by the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle), it appeared to him (Lord Wharncliffe) that this was not

471
a proper occasion to enter into that discussion.
Motion agreed to.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord Brougham,in moving that the House resolve itself into a committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill, said that, as he had more than once stated its objects and provisions, he should now be extremely short, and he should simply state, that he had great doubt whether he ought to carry his measure beyond those committees for which it was originally framed, in consequence of what had recently occurred elsewhere, and which appeared in the votes of the other House of Parliament. His first impression was, that they ought to leave the measure as it was originally framed, and that they ought to leave it to the House of Commons to make the addition which they considered necessary. He was, however, now disposed to add those words which would embrace the committees of the same nature which appeared to have been appointed by the other House of Parliament—namely, not only committees to enquire into bribery and corruption at particular elections, but committees to inquire into any corrupt compromises which had been made in relation to those elections. He should move an amendment on this point, either on the bringing up of the report, or on the third reading. He must now express his hope that the result of the measure, and of the inquiries which it would cause to be instituted, would be such as to meet the satisfaction of the country. One thing he did most earnestly desire, and that was, that in the conduct of the inquiries in both Houses of Parliament, all parties and all persons would cordially and impartially unite. They might depend on it that it was a matter in which all parties and all persons had an equal, and he might say an identical interest. It was not an equal, but the self-same interest; and he would fain hope, in conducting these inquiries— of such immense importance, and of such very great interest as he knew they could not fail to excite all over the country— anything like party feeling, or violence, or personal motives, would, on all hands, and by all parties, be most studiously kept down and avoided.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that he did not rise to object to his noble and learned Friend's motion. He wished merely to
472
suggest to him whether he thought it would be wise to carry the measure to the extent to which he now proposed, after the notice which had appeared in the votes of the other House.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the other House had only begun this subject after his bill had been read a first time and printed.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the question which he wished to put was this— whether the other House would not think that their Lordships were interfering with matters which specially belonged to the House of Commons to decide—namely, the election of Members to serve in Parliament? He merely threw out this in order that his noble and learned Friend might consider what aspect his bill might have in the other House.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his bill did not at all interfere with election matters. It was merely an interference with the law touching bribery, and the perjury which might be committed in election committees of the other House, which was decidedly a breach of the law though committed in committees of the other House. He was desirous of including the subject of corrupt compromises, because he thought it would be a convenience to the other House to do so. If the bill went down with that provision, it would enable the House of Commons at once to deal with the subject.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he did not think that the House of Commons could imagine that this bill infringed on its privileges. It only showed the anxiety of their Lordships to co-operate in putting down one of the greatest evils which now existed, and, which, in itself, was a frightful source of immorality and perjury. He thought that the House of Commons, and the constituency of the country generally, ought to feel grateful to his noble and Learned Friend for having brought forward this measure. He rose, however, principally to say, that he did not consider that the amendment which his noble and learned Friend intended to propose would be an improvement.
Lord Campbellwould co-operate cordially, candidly, and zealously, with his noble and learned Friend in any attempt to put down the alarming amount of bribery which was so much and so justly deplored. At the same time, he had little expectation of any good from this bill, and he had been rather disappointed, that with his great talents in legislation, his noble

473
and learned friend had not produced something more likely to prove effectual. The bill could do no harm, and, therefore, he supported it; but that it could produce any great good, he was not sanguine enough to hope. It had been said, that it would not apply to election committees, and one of his objections to the bill was, that it would not give power to election committees to examine candidates and sitting Members, and all persons coming before them. Another objection to the bill was, that it would not operate in a compulsory manner on witnesses, nor compel them to give the evidence required of them. This omission, he understood, was intentional, on the ground that a witness might object to answer a question which if it did not positively incriminate him, might degrade his character by forcing him to confess to the commission of practices that society condemned. It might be very well not to force witnesses to give testimony that might have the effect of degrading them; but his noble and learned Friend, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, would bear him out when he said, that such was not the practice of the courts of law, where men were not only liable to be called on to answer questions that might subject them to censure, but also those that might expose them to punishment. The bill sent up last June compelled the candidate and the sitting Member to give evidence, and that was the only effectual way to prevent bribery, for by that means only could they ascertain whether a man was returned by a fair election or by improper practices. It was only by rendering bribery unavailing that they could hope to succeed in putting it down, and only by compelling a witness to answer, and indemnifying him against the consequences, would they ever be able to get at the truth. The bill sent up last June contained a provision compelling sitting Members and agents to answer questions. If a party bribed a borough, he might defeat inquiry, without such a compulsory power, indemnifying the agents: whereas, under this bill, a party might answer or not, as he pleased. The second clause in the bill was somewhat extraordinary; it gave to either House of Parliament a power of pardoning—a power quite new. A committee of either House might report in favour of a person who had not been examined, but whose name had been mentioned, but who had made no disclosure,
474
and that person might be allowed to go scot-free. This power seemed to him to be quite unconstitutional, and likely to be much better exercised by the Crown than by either House of Parliament. For these reasons he thought that the bill would be ineffectual, and he recommended his noble and learned Friend to exert his talents in framing a measure of a more extensive nature. At the same time, if his noble and learned Friend believed the bill would do any good, and was likely to be adopted by the other House, he had no wish to oppose it.
Lord Broughamsaid, if the bill had contained a provision for compelling persons to answer, it would undoubtedly have given the measure a more efficient character; but he entertained the greatest repugnance to introducing such a provision. Let their Lordships see how the present measure worked; if greater powers were wanted, Parliament might be applied to for them. He would state at once his objection to a compulsory clause. If the natural feelings of mankind ran so counter to a compulsion, that they considered that a witness, if put upon his oath, was not to accuse himself,—if a man so examined felt that it was not a fair mode of questioning him, that it was rather a tyrannical proceeding, and almost amounted to torture, compelling him to become his own accuser,—if men's minds were so imbued, depend upon it if the power of compulsion were bestowed, he would, in self-defence (glossing it over in this manner in his own mind), commit the still more grievous crime of perjury. With this view of the matter he had abstained from introducing such a power.
Bill went through a committee.
Bill reported.
Lord Broughamgave notice, that on the third reading he should move the insertion of these words, "or any corrupt compromises in the case of any elections." He also moved that the third reading should take place on the next day.
Viscount Canterburysaid, he would suggest to his noble and learned Friend, whether it would not be better to omit this amendment, as the House of Commons had already indicated its intention of taking some steps on the subject of these compromises.
Lord Broughamsaid, that his only object was to make the bill ancillary to the inquiry of the other House of Parliament.

475
He would, however, bow to his noble Friend's instinctive sense of what was likely to happen there, and would withdraw his notice.
Bill to be read a third time.
House adjourned.