Lords Sitting of 12 May 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Alteration of Oaths; Burial Grounds.
2a Exchequer Bills; County Elections Polls (Scotland); Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act Amendment.

FOREIGN SEAMEN.
LORD ELLENBOROUGH presented a petition from the seamen of Sunderland against the admission of foreign seamen to the coasting trade. Having recently at some length called the attention of their Lordships to the subject, on presenting a similar petition from the seamen of Hartlepool, he would not again advert to it; but he would take the opportunity of calling the attention of their Lordships, but especially the attention of the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, to an important return delivered yesterday of the number of British ships and men employed in the trade of the United Kingdom. That return gave an extraordinary result—so extraordinary that he thought it would be necessary to make some inquiries with respect to it. He had not the smallest doubt that the facts stated in the return were perfectly correct. He had the greatest confidence in the accuracy of Lieutenant Brown, by whom the return was prepared, knowing him to be an officer of great zeal and ability, who discharged his duty in a most exemplary manner; but the facts, if correct, required inquiry and explanation. It appeared by the return that in the home trade—that was the coasting trade—there had been in the last year a diminution of 1,113 seamen in sailing vessels, and a diminution of 266 seamen in steam vessels, whilst there had been an increase of 16,000 tons in sailing vessels, and a diminution of 12,000 tons in the steam vessels, Under the second head there appeared an account of the partly home and foreign trade. The aspect of that trade was particularly unsatisfactory. It appeared that there had been a falling off of 94,000 tons in the sailing tonnage, and an increase of rather more than 10,000 tons in the steam ton-

195
nage; so that there was a total falling off in that trade of 84,000 tons, and a diminution of 1,033 in the number of men; therefore the total diminution of men in the two trades was 2,412. But that to which he particularly wished to draw attention, was the increase in the number of seamen apparently employed in the foreign trade. The increase in tonnage in the foreign trade was 78,000 tons—not a very material increase, amounting to only 3½ per cent on the total tonnage engaged in that trade; but the increase in the number of seamen in sailing vessels was 17,817, or 18¾ per cent on the total number of seamen. In steam tonnage the increase of the number of tons was a little above 22,000, and the increase in the number of men was 2,821, so that while the steam tonnage had increased the enormous amount of 35 per cent, the number of men had increased at the rate of 65 per cent. He had not the slightest doubt all the men stated in this return to have been employed in those vessels were so employed; but it was entirely contrary to reason to suppose they were seamen. His impression was, they were landsmen, working their passage to Australia and other colonies; men who had left this country for the most part never to return, and were not to be calculated upon in estimating the maritime force of the country. It was on this subject that he wished the noble Lord to make inquiry. He apprehended the return was the return of the number of men who left the country in those specified vessels; but it was most desirable to see the number of men who returned in those vessels, because on those alone could the country depend in case of emergency. He had already stated he did not at all impugn the correctness of the return, but he believed, when explained, it would appear in reality there had Leon no material addition in the force of men; but on the contrary, that these persons, who appeared as seamen, were passengers, emigrants in fact, who worked their passage out, never to return.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, there appeared to be some discrepancy in the number of men and the increase of tonnage, and it was highly probable the interpretation suggested by the noble Earl was correct. He would take care inquiries should be made, if possible, to ascertain the number of men going and returning. At the same time, he thought the return highly satisfactory, and that the diminution of tonnage in the home trade was
196
to be explained by the supposition that coasting vessels now made longer voyages.

THE BANKRUPTCY BILLS.
LORD ST. LEONARDSpresented the Minutes of Evidence taken up to this time before the Select Committee to whom was referred the consideration of the Bankruptcy Bill, and the District Courts of Bankruptcy Abolition Bill. With regard to these Bills, as he understood the Government intended to institute an inquiry into the whole subject of the law and judicature of bankruptcy and insolvency, he would postpone the further consideration of the Bills for the present. He moved that the evidence be printed.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was perfectly true that he had had his attention directed to the provisions of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, and also of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend near the table (Lord Brougham), and he had thought it expedient, or, he might say, absolutely necessary, to have the subject more thoroughly investigated than it had been at present. It so happened, from what cause he knew not, that the amount of business done in the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts had so much diminished, that instead of being, as heretofore, self-maintaining courts, unless some great alteration took place there would be no funds for conducting them. He knew that it was the opinion of his noble and learned Friend near the table that the business of these Courts might be safely transferred to the County Courts, and the Bankruptcy and Insolvent Courts might be altogether got rid of; while his noble and learned Friend who had just addressed their Lordships was of a contrary opinion. Perhaps he (the Lord Chancellor) ought to have formed a more decided opinion, but he had not formed any very decided opinion. He wished to have full and complete information; and, with the view of obtaining that information, he should direct the most searching inquiries to be made.
In reply to Lord ST. LEONARDS,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would rather not state the manner in which the inquiry would be conducted. He ought to have stated that there were three matters to be inquired into, namely, Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and the state of the County Courts, so far as to ascertain whether those Courts could or could not be usefully made ancillary to the Bankruptcy Courts.
LORD BROUGHAMapprehended that this was one of the most important subjects which could occupy the attention of their Lordships. He entirely concurred in the propriety of the course then taken by his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) in postponing these Bills. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack having stated it was the intention of the Government to institute inquiries into these matters, nothing, in his opinion, could be more inconvenient or preposterous than to make changes in a certain portion of the law at the time when a most extensive inquiry was pending, not only with respect to the law, but with respect to the tribunals to which the administration of the law should be intrusted. He, therefore, thought his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had adopted the only rational course in postponing for the present any further proceedings with the two important measures that noble Lord had introduced. He was glad to find that the whole subject would at length be fully and satisfactorily settled by the investigations of a Commission.
LORD ST. LEONARDS: It is not so stated.
LORD BROUGHAMwas convinced nothing could be more satisfactory than inquiry by Commission, and nothing more unsatisfactory than inquiry by Committee. Another Parliamentary Committee could do nothing; but from the labours of a Commission they might expect the greatest possible benefit.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I may state at once I have no doubt the inquiry will be by Commission.
Minutes of Evidence ordered to be laid upon the table of the House, and to be printed.

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION PETITION.
Conference had at the Desire of the Commons upon the Subject Matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, under the Provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict., cap. 57; and Report made, That the Commons had agreed to an Address [which was offered], to be presented to Her Majesty, to which they desire the Concurrence of their Lordships.
Afterwards, Message to the Commons, for Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Barnstaple Election Petition; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, 1853.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS REGULATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURY The EARL of SHAFTESBURY moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
The EARL of CLANCARTYobjected to the extention of the Bill to Ireland. There were continual evasions of the Act already in force, because it was found impossible to cleanse chimneys with machines in that country, from the nature of the soot of peat fires being different from the soot of coal fires, and from the inconvenient construction of the chimneys themselves in the great majority of houses. He submitted that it would be better to lay down rules for the construction of dwellings in future, and to give time for alterations in the construction of present flues, so that the law might practically be brought into operation.
The EARL of WICKLOWthought what was good for one country was good for another, and could not conceive anything more absurd than to pass a Bill for one part of the Empire, and not extend it to the other. He objected, however, to the Bill, because it interfered unnecessarily. He did not see why children of any age might not act as servants, and be introduced into any trade; and the Act of Parliament already in existence took especial care that they should not go up chimneys, which was the only objection to their being employed in this trade. Nothing was more objectionable than useless legislation, and he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day Three Months.")
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, the object of this Bill was to prevent many of those evasions which were continually being practised against the Act of Parliament which had been already passed. If he had been at all aware of any opposition, he should have come down fortified with papers and statements to show the absolute necessity of legislation. He did not think it possible that objections could be raised. He was unprepared with documents which would have carried conviction to the minds of their Lordships; but he did not believe that all the records of all the atrocities committed in this country or in any other, could equal the records of cruelty, hardship, vice, and suffering, which, under the sanction of the law, had been inflicted upon this helpless and miserable race. An appeal was made some short time ago on

199
their behalf, and a law was passed which this Bill was intended to strengthen, to the extent of carrying out the spirit of that law. One of the principal provisions of the Act was, that no child under the ago of sixteen could be apprenticed to the trade of chimney sweeping, whereupon master chimney sweepers had taken to employing children, not apprentices. Their ostensible duty was to carry the brushes, bag, and tools; and so they accompanied the master into houses, when, the moment they were inside, the doors were locked, and the children were coerced and forced to ascend the chimneys. The object was to prevent this abuse; that non-apprentices should be put in the same condition as apprentices, and that they should not be allowed to carry bags of tools further than the door of the house, where the chimney sweeping was to take place. A more simple regulation could not be conceived. But, as he understood, the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) required time, in order that alterations might be made in houses in Ireland. Could the noble Earl be aware that the Bill made reference to an Act passed in the third and fourth years of the present reign? There had, therefore, been twelve or fourteen years' notice; and if in fourteen years the noble Earl had not been able to alter his house, he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) did not know what further time he could possibly expect in order to effect the necessary alterations. But why should not a measure be passed which would put the whole country upon the same footing as the metropolis? At the present moment climbing boys did not exist in the metropolis. Their employment prevailed only in the provinces, where hundreds and thousands of children were so engaged. The Bill was framed to meet this great abuse. There could be no difficulty whatever in attaching the necessary flues to houses and mills, so as to enable them to be swept by machines. Their Lordships could form no notion of the physical and moral evils inflicted upon numerous helpless children by the present system. It was impossible to bring this wretched class to habits of ordinary decency, or to impress upon them the precepts of religion, so long as they were allowed to be oppressed in this diabolical way, for so long they were deprived of those rights, physical and spiritual, to which, by the laws of God, and he wished by the laws of man, they were fully entitled.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that where
200
there was a climbing and descending of chimneys, the law would punish on proof of the fact; but as they had allowed boys of sixteen to be apprenticed, the way the existing Act was evaded in the provinces was this—the master got the boys at an earlier age, and said he was entitled to use them to carry the tools; but when he had got them into a house, ostensibly for that purpose, they were surreptitiously employed in climbing. What his noble Friend proposed was, that their Lordships should simply say that no person under the age of sixteen should assist in any way in carrying on the trade of a chimney sweeper. This, he thought, was a very proper object to accomplish; and as to the objection of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty), he really could not see how it bore upon the subject. The Act of Parliament passed in 1840 was left by the present measure precisely where it was found. The new Act merely said, that certain persons under a certain age should not be allowed to carry on the business.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion, Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 2a accordingly.

POOR LAWS.
The EARL of MALMESBURY,pursuant to notice, presented a petition from the Board of Guardians of the Christchurch Union, for the Amendment of the Law of Settlement and of Assessment for the Poor; but that the present system of Local Management should be retained, subject to the supervision of the Poor Law Board. He should not have said a word upon the subject at the present time but for the occurrence which took place on a former night, when his noble Friend (Lord Berners) brought in a Bill in relation to it. On that occasion he (the Earl of Malmesbury) was free to say that he did not think Her Majesty's Government had treated the House or his noble Friend with the ordinary respect due to either, in throwing over that measure, as they had done, without discussion. It was not his intention to detain their Lordships many minutes; but he felt bound to recall to their attention the very great importance of the subject—a subject of such importance that any other which had been debated of late years did not probably surpass it, more especially as the object was one in which all statesmen were occupied—namely, the laudable endeavour to make the taxation of the coun-

201
try press as equally as possible. In illustration of his proposition he would take the case of the single parish from which he presented the petition. That parish did not contain any great estates, though it was a very large parish; but it contained about 260 properties, all real estates. In that parish persons possessing land and houses of that nature, were taxed by what he would call—for he liked to call things by their right name—an income tax on their property, because they paid a poundage on the rental they obtained, or were supposed to obtain, from their property. That income tax, which was common to all parts of the country also, varied from 10 to 15 per cent in this parish; but in other parishes real property was taxed to the amount of 80 per cent for the same purpose. It was impossible—considering that real property already, and for a long period, contributed upwards of 5,000,000 l. a year to the poor in England, in a manner so unequal, in some places paying 80 per cent, as he had already stated, in others only 1 per cent—it was impossible, while millionaires and the proprietors of personal estate paid nothing, and a man with a mere farm paid from 10 to 80 per cent, that public opinion should not be called to the subject on every possible occasion. The subject had, indeed, been discussed in both Houses of Parliament with great avidity, and in 1850 a Committee of their Lordships' House, moved for by Lord Portman, was appointed to investigate the question in all its bearings. Many of their Lordships attended that Committee; he (the Earl of Malmesbury) attended it also, and took part in its proceedings. He did not deny that he attended it with those feelings natural to a man interested in the revision of the law under consideration, as the possessor of real property. A great number of their Lordships, no doubt, were in the same predicament, and feeling in the same manner could well comprehend his course on that occasion. He took a considerable part in the investigations of that Committee, proposing what he believed to be the most effectual means of solving the question; and he was met by a noble Baron on the other side (Lord Overstone), also on the Committee, who constituted himself the defender of the rights of personal in contradistinction to real property. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) might say that on the occasion in question, the noble Lord opposite acted as the representative of the auriferous
202
interest. The Committee, as their Lordships were aware, went thoroughly into the subject, and, finally, made a report to the House of a most important character; and, as three years and a half had passed since then, considering the importance of that document, he hoped he would be excused for troubling their Lordships with its conclusion. They said it was their impression that "the relief of the poor was a national object, towards which every description of property ought justly to be called upon to contribute; the Act 43 Elizabeth contemplated such contributions according to the ability of the party." On the strength of that opinion or axiom, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) proposed that an income tax should be extended over the whole of the property of the country, of every kind whatever, for the support of the poor. That proposition, however, did not find favour in the eyes of the Committee, and one of the arguments used against it by the noble Baron opposite was to the effect that the income tax then raised for the general purposes of the State would be imperilled and placed in danger by any attempt to levy a second income tax for the purposes of the poor-law. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) would not go into that question upon the present occasion, though a great deal might be said on the subject; but most certainly, if things were called by their right names—and he was a plain-speaking man, who desired to do so on all occasions—real property was actually subject to two income taxes at this moment—namely, one, which had been levied since the 43 Elizabeth, for the support of the poor; the other, which was more lately raised, for the general purposes of the State. His argument on the points had, however, no weight with the Committee; but the question now was the justice or injustice of the tax; and if real estate were to be condemned to pay this double impost, he, for one, could not see why all other descriptions of property should not be compelled to contribute also to the same object. From 1850 until very lately the question had dropped out of their Lordships' notice, but last month it was renewed by the noble. Baron near him (Lord Berners). On that occasion the noble Lord brought forward a Bill, on which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) would then offer no opinion, but which he might say, without fear of contradiction, was calculated to lead to considerable discussion. As soon, however, as his noble Friend moved the second reading of that

203
Bill, his other noble Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Alderley) rose and suggested that, as Her Majesty's Government were preparing to make, in the other House, a statement on the general subject, it would be more convenient that the discussion should be postponed to a future day, inasmuch as it was desirable that nothing should be said until a statement of so much importance had been delivered. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was one of those who then advised his noble Friend near him to comply with the request of his noble Friend opposite, which his noble Friend unhesitatingly did. He had no doubt whatever in his own mind, considering the immense importance of the question at issue, and the great amount of public attention that had lately been directed in this country to subjects of finance, that the Bill would be entered upon and considered as a plan possessing far greater advantages than that proposed by the Government. It was not preposterous for him and his noble Friend near him to suppose that the Government would not have shrunk from meeting the question; that they would not leave it unnoticed; that they would not have cut, but untied, the Gordian knot opposed to their skill. In this, however, they had been disappointed. A few nights since, when the noble Lord moved the Bill again, he asked when the House might expect the statement in question? In the meanwhile the Budget had been introduced into the other House and explained before the country, and it contained nothing in common with the object of the measure. His noble Friend opposite replied to that inquiry, that such important subjects had been brought before Parliament in the other House, that the noble Lord, the leader of that House, no longer intended to make the statement to which he had alluded. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) could only understand from this that Her Majesty's Government shrank from fairly meeting the subject. But what were these important subjects, and what were the statements as connected with the Bill of the noble Lord? They could only be connected with the Budget, which had already occupied the other House for several weeks; and what was the principal subject of the Budget? It was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward a new tax, or rather to extend an old tax from the succession to personal to the succession to real property. Real property, therefore, which
204
had for so long a period exclusively borne the weight of the poor-law, was consequently told that 2,000,000 l. more were to be added to its load of 5,000,000 l. already paid for the support of the poor, and that personal property was still to be exempted from any obligation to the poor-law. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) and his friends complained that this taxation was most unequal, as well as most onerous; but they were met by the old argument, that it was impossible to make taxation quite equal, and that as real property did not pay legacy duty, it was just to deduct 1,300,000 l. from the burden. If that, however, was placed in the scale and added to the 2,000,000 l., real property would be found to have the worst of the bargain by 5,700,000 l. To say nothing of the sort of trick played by his noble Friend opposite, on the part of the Government, in preventing his noble Friend near him from proceeding with his Bill, he was bound to say that Her Majesty's Government seemed to him to have lost all power of calculating weights in the scale of taxation, when they proposed to burden real property with 2,000,000 l. more, over and above the 5,000,000 l. which it already paid. Having made these observations with respect to the conduct of the Government towards his noble Friend on the debate the other day, he would ask the noble Earl opposite, the Prime Minister, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward any measure to reform the poor-law, and the law for the removal of the poor, in the present Session of Parliament? And further, he would ask him, in case the real property succession duty became law, whether it was the intention of the Government to relieve real estate from any portion of the burden at present levied upon such property exclusively for the support of the poor?
The EARL of ABERDEEN: I shall not think it necessary to enter into any notice of the preliminary observations of the noble Earl. In answer to the first of his questions, I have to state that the business before the other House of Parliament is such that it will not be possible to bring forward any measure on such an important subject with any reasonable hope of carrying it this Session. It is undoubtedly our opinion that without such reasonable hope, such a measure would be attended with very mischievous effects upon the country, if it were introduced and laid upon the table without such a prospect. As to the

205
other question asked by the noble Earl, with regard to the effect produced by the succession tax, I would recommend him when next he asks a question to understand the purport of it; because the notion of the amount of the new tax upon real property is a mere fiction of his own imagination. Perhaps one quarter of the amount he has named would be more nearly the truth; but it is impossible for me to give an answer to a question which really is not founded upon facts.
LORD OVERSTONEregretted that the noble Lord who presided with so much ability over the Committee to which the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had referred, was not present to defend their proceedings; and, as a member of that Committee who had been alluded to by the noble Earl, he was induced to make one or observations. He (Lord Overstone) had brought forward his own views in that Committee, and they certainly were entirely in opposition to those of the noble Earl on the subject. The question to which he had referred was undoubtedly one of much delicacy as well as difficulty, for it involved that greatest of all questions—an equal adjustment of the various burdens of taxation—and hitherto all attempts to settle it had been practically found to be impossible. It was with regard to that very difficulty that the noble Earl proposed a plan to the Committee, the object of which was to assess moveable property. If their Lordships were to follow out that subject, he was sure they would find abundant proof of the necessity of extreme caution and circumspection in every step they took regarding it; it was one of those subjects in which "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." It was easy to throw out suggestions on a question like this, and to propose plans, that, at first sight, seemed plausible, but which, the more closely they were investigated, the more mischievous they were frequently found to be. He was bound to say, and he hoped the noble Earl would excuse him for so doing, that he never had under his consideration a plan more open to these remarks than that which the noble Earl submitted to the Committee. The noble Earl was obliged to shape or alter it in various forms, and, after all the changes it received, it still remained in a form, that, if carried into operation, would have been productive of the greatest confusion. He could not but point their Lordships' attention to the statement of the noble Earl, that this
206
was a charge altogether on real property, whereas it had been repeatedly shown, in Parliamentary returns and other documents, that a large proportion of property, not real property, contributed to the support of the poor. The whole subject was one, as he had said, of great delicacy and difficulty, and ought to be approached with caution; but, nevertheless, it was one to which the attention of their Lordships ought to be earnestly directed, with the view of bringing about such a settlement as would do justice to all the various interests of the country. Whenever the proper time for discussion on the subject should arrive, he (Lord Overstone) would be ready to meet the noble Earl on that and on the other points involved in the question, not in the character of the representative of any one interest more than another, but as a man who had the general interests of the community at heart, and who was honestly and faithfully desirous of remedying all real grievances, and providing against any proved abuse.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I cannot but think that the noble Lord who has just sat down has misapprehended what fell from my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury), or he would not be under the impression that my noble Friend had any intention to make a personal attack upon him, and still less that my noble Friend had any intention to speak in terms of disapproval, for he spoke quite the contrary, with regard to the proceedings of the Committee of which the noble Lord opposite was a member. With regard to the noble Lord (Lord Overstone), my noble Friend undoubtedly said, that, upon that Committee, as he himself appeared in some degree as the champion of the interests of real property, so in his opinion, but with no more bias on his mind than my noble Friend had upon his, he considered that the noble Lord opposite appeared rather as the representative and defender of those who had been, as my noble Friend thought, unduly relieved from taxation, although the noble Lord opposite considered that they had been subjected to a full and fair share of taxation. With regard to the proposition of my noble Friend, which the noble Lord opposite characterised in somewhat strong terms, I must say, without expressing my opinion that the plan was so matured as to be capable of being brought into operation, still it was one which always appeared to me, whatever might be its merits intrinsically, to be a very moderate plan, and one

207
founded upon a principle of justice and equity towards different classes; and, although I have not looked at the Report of that Committee, of which I was not a member, since the time when it was made, I have a strong impression that the Committee, far from speaking of the suggestion of my noble Friend with disparagement, spoke of it as a plan involving much that was worthy of consideration; but they said that they could not pledge themselves at that moment as to the practicability of their bringing it into operation in the manner suggested by my noble Friend. Consequently, the noble Lord opposite was not justified in characterising in the manner he has done the suggestion of my noble Friend. With regard to the Committee itself, my noble Friend, so far from speaking of the Committee, or of the conclusions at which it had arrived, in disparaging terms, or in such a way as to require the defence which the noble Lord has volunteered, the very foundation of his remarks to your Lordships was, that he approved of the course taken by that Committee with respect to the burdens imposed upon real property. I am not about to enter into any discussion upon the subject; it is one which certainly ought to be approached with great consideration and delicacy, and it involves many complicated questions; but I must say I was surprised when I heard the noble Lord opposite state that a large proportion of the 5,000,000 l. raised for the relief of the poor was not levied upon real property. I think the noble Lord must have some confusion existing in his own mind between real and landed property. If it were not levied upon landed property, I certainly concur with the noble Lord in his statement; but I think the noble Lord fell into an error, which makes all the difference in the case, in saying that a large portion of the charge did not fall upon real, but upon personal property—
LORD OVERSTONE: I did not say personal property.
The EARL of DERBY: The noble Lord did not use the words "personal property," but he said there was a large proportion of the charge that did not fall upon real property. I know of no distinction except between real and personal property, and if the charge does not fall on real, it must fall on personal property.
LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he had stated that his impression was, that a large proportion of the charge was laid on property that could not be considered as real pro-
208
perty—such as houses and places of business.
The EARL of DERBY: The noble Lord forgets the circumstances out of which this discussion arose. The discussion has no reference to the distinction between landed and other property, but it has reference to the distinction to be drawn between real and personal property. It arises out of a proposition which has been submitted to Parliament, whereby a new and heavy tax will be imposed on successions; and on successions not only to real or landed property, but on that description of property which has hitherto been exempt from legacy duty, and which has been already burdened with a heavy and disproportionate amount of taxation for other purposes. It was with reference to the tax about to be imposed on real property, not exclusively on land, that my noble Friend referred to the taxes borne not by land, but by real property. My noble Friend perhaps fell into some slight error in speaking of the amount of the tax upon real property reaching the sum of 2,000,000 l.; because, undoubtedly, if I understand the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a considerable portion of the property on which the tax will fall will be not real property only, but personal property which has been inherited by succession, and upon which, being under settlements, heavy charges have been already laid. But I am, for my own part, very much inclined to think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, prudently perhaps, underrated the total amount that will, in a short time, be produced from this tax; and I imagine that the Government possesses data from which to make calculations of the amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer reckons on obtaining. But, from what I have been able to learn from private sources of information, I apprehend that the amount which will be realised in the course of two years from the tax upon successions and settlements of all descriptions of property, will largely exceed the amount stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but this is a matter of considerable importance, and when a Bill is brought before your Lordships proposing a revision of the financial arrangements of the country, although it is one which it is impossible for us to amend in this House, and there will be considerable difficulty in rejecting it, however it may affect important interests in this country, it is important to know precisely the data on which the calculations of

209
the Government are founded, and the probable effect of the imposition of the tax not only on individuals, but on the social position of great classes in this country. It is a subject on which the imposition of a tax of 1,000,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. may be of serious importance, and if it is to rise to 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l., to be derived from perpetual taxes on every succession to real property under settlements, not capable of being converted into money, I believe the effect of this measure will be, in the course of a short time—although this may not be the object of the Government—to break down immediately, and to compel the partition of, almost all the landed properties in the country; and I believe that the measure will act most oppressively and severely, not upon large landed properties, but upon properties of moderate extent, which will be completely ruined by it. This is a matter in which the effect of the measure is a question of serious importance, and in which, before such a measure is introduced, or at all events passed, it will be the duty of the House and of the Government to ascertain its probable results. As I have been led to say thus much on the subject, I should wish to ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), although I shall not press for an immediate answer to the question, which I only threw out for consideration, whether he would have any objection to appoint a Select Committee of this House, before which we may hear calculations entered into, and which Committee may report to your Lordships the probable effects of such a tax as the one that is proposed upon successions, so that we may have the benefit of the experience of those who are perfectly acquainted with the state of the landed property of the country? I think it is most important, before this measure is passed, that we should have, from practical and professional men, their opinions, founded on their own knowledge, of the effects likely to be produced by the imposition of such a tax. Perhaps the noble Earl will decline at the present moment to give an answer to my question—which is, whether, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, any objection will be raised to the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee?
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, he thought it necessary, before considering whether the charge for the support of the poor should be levied on real or personal property, to determine, in the first instance,
210
whether the poor should be maintained by a local or a national rate. That was the first question to be determined, and, in his opinion, the charge ought to be borne by the real property of the country. With regard to the succession tax, he was favourable to levying the tax on landed property; and if it was desirable that one or two millions of additional revenue should be raised, he knew no reason why it should not be by means of the produce of a tax on that description of property. It should, however, be remembered that Pitt found it necessary to abandon the idea, and he was not a man to shrink from carrying out his plan unless he had found insurmountable difficulties in the way. But a tax on successions would, in his opinion, act unequally. The various members of a family might, for instance, come to the succession so rapidly that even in the life of an ordinary man the property might pass through six or seven hands. He did not wish to diminish a tittle of the revenue to be derived from this tax; but he earnestly pressed it upon his noble Friends in the Government that they should well consider whether they had made a wise selection in adopting this method of raising the revenue from the laud. In his own mind he was convinced that they had made an injudicious selection; but though they had made an injudicious selection he should still exceedingly regret if they were not able to carry their general measure into effect. Whilst desirous of carrying that general measure into effect, therefore, he was also desirous that parts of it—and this one in particular—should be well considered before they adopted it as a final measure, upon which the continuance or destruction of the Government should depend.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwould remind the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) of a reply which he had given on a former occasion to the effect that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared to bring forward any measure on the subject of local taxation in the present Session. The matter had been under consideration, and if their hands had not been so full of other grave matters, they would not have hesitated in bringing forward such measures as they might have considered expedient. There was certainly no ground for accusing Her Majesty's Government of not having brought forward a measure on the subject, when during the whole of the last year, when the late Go-

211
vernment was in office, and the noble Earl was himself a Member of it, no proposition of the sort was brought forward; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself stated that he was not prepared or disposed to make any alteration in the mode of levying the local taxation of the country. He thought, moreover, their Lordships would find that they could not, with any advantage or chance of success, introduce a measure into this House in the first instance.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURY,with reference to the last observation of the noble Lord who had just sat down, said the only measure which had been passed upon the subject had originated in their Lordships' House.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

CLITHEROE ELECTION.
LORD BEAUMONT,in rising to call the attention of the House to the fact that no answer had been given to the Message from the House of Commons, on the 14th April last, praying the House of Lords to agree to a joint Address to Her Majesty for a commission of inquiry respecting the Clitheroe election, said he was not influenced by any feeling towards the borough of Clitheroe, with which he had no connexion; but he hoped, by bringing this case before the House, he might be able to elicit some suggestion from some noble Lord which would enable the House to escape from the undesirable position in which it now stood towards the House of Commons in respect to this subject. He desired, therefore, to separate the merits of the Clitheroe election from that part of the question which simply referred to the position in which the House now stood. The circumstances of the case were these: An Election Committee was appointed on the 18th February, which sat for some days, and on the 28th February reported that Matthew Wilson, Esq. was not duly elected—that the election was void—that Matthew Wilson, Esq. had been by his agents guilty of bribery and treating at the last election, but it was not proved to the Committee that it had been with his knowledge or consent; the Committee further reported that extensive and systematic treating, together with other corrupt practices, had prevailed at the last election, and that the electors had been unduly influenced by intimidation. Upon the 14th of April, a Message was sent up to this House from the House of Commons, asking their Lordships to agree in a joint
212
Address to the Crown. A conference was held, and a report was made to this House that the House of Commons had agreed to an Address. The Address to which their Lordships' concurrence was desired was worded in the usual way. But, as no Motion whatever was for some time made upon the subject, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) opposite had put a question to the Government as to what were their intentions. The reply was, that the Government did not intend to take any steps on the subject. No Motion was therefore made, and they were in consequence put in this anomalous position, that a Message had come up to them from the House of Commons, to which no reply whatever was returned. Virtually this had the effect of preventing a writ from being issued, and it also indicated that their Lordships did not feel much inclined to concur in the Address. In other words, it showed that the House thought that an eletion for Clitheroe should take place, and yet had the effect of preventing any such election. The inconvenience of such a position was evident, as well as the absurd contradiction involved in it. He also thought that it was not treating the House of Commons with proper respect; some reply, at any rate, ought to be sent to the other House. The same thing might occur again and again, and the course they now adopted might be drawn into a precedent for the future. The words in which the report of the Committee was couched did not correspond with those in the Act of Parliament; and though, on a former occasion, when there was a variation in the words, they held that the Act had been virtually complied with, yet, in the present case, the difference appeared to him sufficiently wide to induce him, unless he was otherwise advised by those noble and learned Lords who could speak with more authority on the subject, to object to their Lordships agreeing to the Address of the other House. He should like to know from the Government what they intended to do with reference to the Address.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: I think it is time that the House should come to some decision upon this question. Some time ago, a noble and learned Friend of mine on the other side of the House (Lord Lyndhurst), who has now left his place, asked me what my intentions were with respect to the Address on the subject of the borough of Clitheroe. I told him, in answer, that, though I had moved that your Lordships should agree to other addresses of a similar nature, which had

213
been sent up from the House of Commons, it was not my intention to make any such Motion in reference to that Address; but, I said, it was of course competent for any other noble Lord to make such a Motion, if he thought proper to do so. I therefore waited to see if any noble Lord would move that the Address be agreed to. If I recollect right—but I may be mistaken—my noble and learned Friend gave some sort of intimation that he would not. I concluded, therefore, that it was not the wish or intention of any noble Lord to propose such a Motion. Under these circumstances, I felt it incumbent upon me to suggest a course for the adoption of your Lordships upon this subject; assuming, as I do, that your Lordships are disposed to agree in not adopting the Address of the House of Commons, the first consideration is, what is the most proper and suitable course for us to pursue, both with reference to this and to other cases of the like character. There are different ways in which we may not agree to this Address. The natural course would be, I think, to move that it be taken into consideration this day six months. That course we pursue with respect to all Bills sent up from the other House which do not meet with your Lordships' concurrence, leaving it to them to discover what your Lordships have done by searching the Journals of this House. That was considered the most constitutional mode of proceeding with reference to the other House. In former times, I believe, when your Lordships disagreed from a Bill sent up from the Commons, you did not move the reading of the Bill on a particular six months; but you rejected it absolutely, and it was in consequence of considering the former the most courteous mode that you adopted it. The other way your Lordships can proceed is by conference, at which you may state the reasons which have induced you to differ from the Address of the Commons; but I humbly recommend that the first course should be adopted in the present instance, and that you should agree to the Motion that the Address be considered this day six mouths. Then comes the question, if that Motion is agreed to, as I take for granted it will, is it proper or expedient to communicate it to the House of Commons, or to leave them to discover it by an inspection of your Lordships' Journals? I confess that upon this point I have no very decided opinion. On the whole, I should rather be disposed to adopt the first course, and to make no communication to the House of
214
Commons, and to leave them to discover the mode in which your Lordships have dealt with this matter as they do when Bills are rejected by your Lordships. But, at the same time, if it be thought more respectful to the House of Commons to inform them what has taken place here, I have no objection to that being done. My opinion, however, is in the opposite direction, and I will, therefore, move a Resolution to this effect:—
"That the Address to Her Majesty, in relation to the borough of Clitheroe, agreed to by the Commons, and communicated to this House at a Conference on the 14th of April last, be taken into consideration this day six months."
To that Resolution I have nothing further to add, except to say that I will not object to its being communicated to the House of Commons if any of your Lordships should so desire.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he had felt it his duty to read over the evidence in all these cases, and in the present one he considered it was quite impossible for their Lordships to agree with the House of Commons. There was, however, such a general agreement upon that point, that it was not necessary now to enter into any discussion upon it. He confessed it struck him as more respectful to the House of Commons to communicate their decision; but he was sure their Lordships would not object to any course which would be most agreeable to that House. There was this difficulty, however, that if they had a Conference with the House of Commons on the subject, they would create a precedent which might extend to other cases. He was very much inclined, so far as his own feelings were concerned, to adopt the Motion of the noble Earl at the head of the Government.
LORD REDESDALEhad communicated with some parties on the subject, and confessed he was inclined to think that they ought to take some steps to make their decision known to the other House. They must remember that this was a matter in which the liberties of the House of Commons were concerned. They had sent up a message desiring the concurrence of their Lordships in an Address for an inquiry into the practices at elections for the borough of Clitheroe. Their Lordships did not think it expedient to concur in that Address; but it was perfectly open to the House of Commons to adopt any other course which they might be disposed or think fit to take in regard to the borough. If they came to the conclusion not to join in the Address,

215
he thought it would be desirable, in courtesy to the House of Commons, to communicate to them their determination.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, he perfectly agreed with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, as to communicating the Resolution just passed to the House of Commons. Of course, he presumed his noble Friend was the proper person to move for a communication.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, as he had already intimated, he would acquiesce in a Motion for a communication if any noble Lord desired it. He would move the following Resolution:—
"That a Message be sent to the House of Commons, That this House, having considered the report of the Select Committee appointed to try a petition, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the borough of Clitheroe, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before the said Committee, together with the Proceedings of the said Committee, do not think it expedient to Address Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to cause Inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act 15 & 16 Vict, cap. 57."
On Question, agreed to,
House adjourned till To-morrow.