Sitting of 2 July 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. RONAYNE, a Copy of Instructions sent by Mr. Kemmiss to Mr. Gun relative to his Proceedings for the Collection of Tithes in the County of Tipperary.—On the Motion of Mr. ROBERT WALLACE, the Names and Designations of the Persons forming the Commission of Inquiry into the State of the Laws and Judicatories in Scotland, with the Instructions given to them, and the Amount of Remuneration they are to receive.—On the Motion of Mr. PEASE, the Names of Commissioners appointed, and now officiating for the issue of Exchequer-bills for Public Works in England: Accounts of the yearly Expenses of the said Commissioners, for each year, since 1831, and of the Amount of Exchequer-bills issued by them.—On the Motion of Mr. E. RUTHVEN, an Account of all Persons on the Sheriffs Paper as Jurors in the County of Kildare, who were Fined within the last Twelve Months.
Bill. Read a third time:—Drainage Rates Recovery.
Petitions presented. By Sir ROBERT INGLIS, from the Medical Practitioners of York, against the Apothecaries Bill,—By Mr. WYNDHAM, from several Places, against the Tithes Commutation Bill.—By Lord PALMERSTON, from a Congregation of Independents at Lymington, against Slavery.—By the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex from the City of London, for the Repeal of the Septennial Act.—By Mr. Hume, from a Number against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord
2
SANDON, from the Medical Practitioners of Liverpool, and Mr. RONAYNE, from an Individual, against the Apothecaries Act.—By Mr. BOWES, from Barnard Castle, against the proposed Alteration in the Bank Charter.—By Mr. HARDY, from the Chairman of a Meeting of Over-lookers of Mills and Factories of Bradford (York); and by Mr. HODGSON, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne,—in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill,—By Mr. AYSH-FORD SANFORD, from several Places, against the Tithes Commutation Bill.—By Major KEPPEL, from Henstead, Norfolk, for the Repeal of the Tax on Carts.—By Mr. GROTE, from London, Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, and Mr. HODGSON, from Sunderland, against the Notaries Public Bill.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from a Number of Places, in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill-By Mr. HAWKINS, from Newport, Isle of Wight, for the Repeal of the Septennial Act—By Mr. HYETT, from Stroud, against the Rating of Tenements Bill.—By Mr. ABERCROMBIE, from Edinburgh, in favour of the Royal Burgh (Scotland) Bill; from the Royal College of Physicians of that Town, against the Apothecaries Bill; from the Magistrates and Town Council of the same, for an additional Duty on Spirits; from the Chamber of Commerce of the same, for the Abolition of the Duty on Stamped Receipts; from a Wesleyan Congregation, for the Abolition of Slavery; from Stranraer, for an Alteration in the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill.

OPORTO TRADE.
Mr. Grotepresented a Petition from the Merchants of London, trading with Oporto, complaining of the great loss which they had already sustained, and the injury to which they were continually exposed in consequence of the continued struggle existing for the last ten months in Portugal. The complainants stated, that they and other English merchants were in the habit of making large purchases of wine, which were deposited in Villa Nova, on the south side of the Douro, and consequently ex-

3
posed to the chances of war from the batteries on each side of the river, and the other operations between the contending parties. The House was, perhaps, not aware that English property, to the amount of 1,000,000 l. sterling, was exposed in that manner. The solvency, if not the very existence, of the petitioners depended on some decided steps being taken by the Government. Their property to a great extent was injured by the cannon-balls, and the bursting of shells among their wine magazines. They had been anxious to get their wines shipped to this country, but from difficulties and delay interposed by the government of Don Miguel, it had been found impracticable; and they now intreated the sympathy and support of the House, for the purpose of making some vigorous efforts to rescue their property from its present hazardous and ruinous state. They did not in any degree complain of the conduct of his Majesty's Government, but this injury and this distress still impelled them to seek their assistance in the immediate liberation of their property. The petitioners had done everything they could, to effect the removal of the difficulties which had opposed the exportation of the wines; they had even offered the payment of double duties to the contending parties, but they were defeated in their efforts. He begged to recommend the prayer of the petition to the serious consideration and sympathy of his Majesty's Government.
Mr. Robinsonsupported the prayer of the petition. The Newfoundland trade would be seriously affected inconsequence of the shutting up of the port of Oporto. The very existence of the parties concerned in that trade depended upon the ports of Portugal being accessible to their produce. He made no charge against the Government; on the contrary, he believed that all persons connected with the trade of Portugal were perfectly satisfied with the steps the Government had taken, and that it had been anxious to do justice.
Viscount Palmerstoncould assure the House that this petition should not escape the attention of the Government, and he was much obliged to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for doing justice to the anxiety the Government had felt to do justice to the petitioners, but there was some little difficulty in interfering in this matter, without appearing to depart from that line of neutrality which the Government
4
had determined to pursue; at the same time, occasions might arise in which it would be imperative on the Government to interfere in defending British subjects. It was true, that by the treaties between the two countries, even in case of war between England and Portugal, the subjects of this realm would have a right to remove their persons and their property without molestation; and, therefore, it did appear to him they were doubly entitled to that facility in the time of peace. It was not on the part of the merchants that any difficulty arose, the existing difficulties arose on the part of the government of Don Miguel. They were still in communication with that government, and, therefore, he was anxious that an arrangement should be made which would be satisfactory to all parties. He could not help declaring his opinion that the manner in which that warfare had been carried on by the army of Don Miguel against Oporto was unprecedented in the history of civilized countries. He could only say, Government had declared to the authorities of Don Miguel that they would hold Portugal responsible for all damage done to British property in consequence of Don Miguel's refusal to let it be withdrawn from Oporto.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REDEMPTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that in drawing the attention of the House to the subject of his Motion, he was fully aware of the disadvantages under which he laboured, in having to address so small a number of Members (there being about 100 only present), more especially as expectations had been raised that another subject—that of triennial Parliaments, would have been presented to them; and their disappointment at its necessary postponement, might, in some degree, indispose them to hear any other topic with equal readiness or attention. Notwithstanding this, he hoped that before he resumed his seat, he should be able to convince them that there was no subject of greater importance to the whole community, than that to which he would immediately address himself: and that there was no time more favourable than the present for entering on its consideration. He asked only their patient attention for a reasonable portion of time; and he would evince his sense of its value, by

5
not wasting a single moment of it on idle declamation or rhetorical display; but proceed at once to the object in view. His Motion embraced two distinct propositions, which he should have preferred treating separately, had there been time; but having been obliged, from the impossibility of commanding two separate occasions on which to effect this, to treat them together, he would keep them as distinct from each other as he could, showing, however, at the same time, the connection which, notwithstanding, existed between them. His first proposition was, to diminish progressively, and ultimately extinguish altogether the burthen of the National Debt: and the next was, to raise a tax upon property or income, or both, to form a surplus fund, which should enable the Parliament progressively to repeal those imposts that bear most heavily at present on the various interests of the country, and more especially on the laborious and industrious poor. He would begin, then, by drawing the attention of the House to the singular position in which Great Britain stood at the present moment. She had achieved extensive conquests in either hemisphere, and spread her extended dominions over every quarter of the globe; yet all her conquests and her acquisitions had proved to be only sources of difficulty and embarrassment on every side. Our empire in the East had been so ruinous, that while it impoverished those over whom our sway was exercised, it encumbered with debt those by whom the ruling power was enjoyed. Our possessions in the West had been so unproductive of benefit, that declining cultivation, diminished population, and decaying fortunes, were their characteristics: and we were now on the point of passing judgment on both, by an entire change of system for their management. Our position was, indeed, one of marked contrasts. We were the strongest of nations in our long established reputation; we were among the weakest, in actual power, and strength: so much so, indeed, that though we once gave the law to Europe, and dictated treaties to her crowned heads, we were now unable to assist the most oppressed among other nations, or even to maintain the dignity of our own, from the utter helplessness to which our embarrassments had reduced us. We were overwhelmed, it was said, by some, with increased and increasing wealth, to such an
6
extent, as that capital was represented as lying idle for want of employment. We were at the same time witnessing around us, a daily increase of misery and suffering, arising from the abject poverty into which thousands were plunged. There was a superabundance of the means of enjoyment in the hands of the wealthier classes, and a deficiency of the means of subsistence among the poorer, and unhappily, the larger, section of the community. These were the painful and the fatal extremes which generally preceded the decline of nations; and he could not but feel alarmed at this melancholy precursor of that social dissolution which was fast hastening on to its consummation in England, and which nothing but some prompt and timely remedy could avert. He would contend, then, that this remedy lay, in a more general diffusion of the existing wealth of the country, which he believed to be fully adequate to the supply of all our wants. Independently of the pleasure which every good and wise Legislator must feel in increasing the happiness of those subject to his rule, as a mere matter of state policy, it was desirable to promote such diffusion; for, undoubtedly, the competent enjoyments of the necessaries and comforts of life, had been always found to be the best security for order and peace; while, on the other hand, want and misery were the certain incitements to lawless outrage and reckless violence: and so long as self-preservation should be held to be the first law of nature, so long would hunger, thirst, and nakedness, drive men to acts of desperation, to obtain by force what they could not command by other and more peaceable means. Among the causes that had been assigned for the distress which almost all parties now admitted to exist, the one most generally admitted was that of surplus production—and the other, which followed immediately in its train, was surplus population. He believed it was neither; but that a far more intelligible cause might be found in unequal distribution. The production was not greater than the existing population could consume, if they could but get it into their possession. The population was not greater than could be fed, clothed, or lodged, most fully and comfortably, if they had but the means of purchase. For, what was the fact? If any human being suffered hunger, was it because there was an actual deficiency of food in the coun-

7
try? Was any man destitute of raiment, because there was a deficiency of clothing? Or, was any family without a home or a shelter, because there were no unoccupied dwellings for their use? Was it not notorious, that while the people of Ireland were feeding on sea-weed, the golden harvests of her fertile fields, and the fattened cattle of her richest pastures, were sending away from that country, to be sold for the benefit of the already over-gorged and luxurious landlord? And was it not a fact equally well established, that while the warehouses of Leeds and Manchester were piled up with the materials of clothing for export to other countries, and while in every town and village, innumerable dwellings were without occupants, there were thousands of industrious and virtuous men, women, and children, without a sufficiency of food, raiment, or shelter? He conceived, then, that though there might be more goods produced than men could buy, it was not a superabundance of produce, but a deficiency of the means of purchase, that should be corrected; and though there might be more people than could find employment, it was not a superabundance of population, but a deficiency of the means, which a better distribution of the existing wealth of the country would give to them, that required to be remedied. How, then, it might be asked, did he propose to effect this object? He should answer—By a complete revision of our system of Finance; first, by diminishing the burthen of the debt—next, by reducing every other burthen of the State within the narrowest limits—and, above all, by raising the amount of the revenue, which might be deemed indispensable for the fulfilment of our engagements, and the maintenance of our institutions, in the way that should occasion the least injustice in its proportionate pressure, and be the least wasteful in its collection and its expenditure. To show that, next to a reduction in the actual amount of the public burthens, the mode by which that indispensable amount should be raised, was of the highest importance, he would read for the information of the House, an extract from the speech of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, the member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson), whom he was sorry he did not see in his place, delivered on the 25th of March, 1830, in this House. [The hon. Member read a passage; for
8
which see Hansard (new series) xxiii. p. 863–864]. Now, the chief argument that had been brought forward in the House of Commons, when any extensive reduction had been proposed, was this:—" It may seem very easy to reduce the amount of our charges, and to retrench something from an expenditure of fifty millions; but, in reality, the amount on which we have to effect reductions of any kind is so small, as not to admit of very extensive operations. The interest of the national debt alone is thirty millions, or more than half the gross revenue. The dead weight of half-pay, and pensions, the Civil List, and other fixed charges, cut largely into the remaining portion; and neither of these can be touched without a breach of faith, and violation of the public honour; and the fourteen or fifteen millions that remain, is the only portion of the whole annual expenditure that we can by possibility even touch in the way of reduction." This was, indeed, a melancholy picture. For what was the certain consequence? It was this, that while our superiority over other nations consisted almost entirely in our greater manufacturing skill, which alone enabled us to bear up against the pressure of this debt, those other nations were making daily nearer and nearer approaches to us, in that which constituted our superiority, while they, happily for themselves, made no advances towards our state of debt; so that when they became our equals in the one respect, (as soon they would) they would be greatly our superiors in the other; and the same exemption from the burthens that bear us down, which enabled them to overtake us in the race, would also enable them to pass by us, with an accelerated rapidity of career, that would leave us far and far behind: our relative conditions being, that while we were laden with burthens that altogether impeded our progress, they, having no such burthens, would soon leave us at an immeasurable distance behind; and this advanced position being once attained by them, we could never hope again to overtake them in their career. The reduction of the public burthens was the only real cure for the evils that threatened us; and, as the interest of the National Debt was by far the largest item in our expenditure, that should undoubtedly be first placed in the way of a speedy and effectual reduction. And lest the parties interested in maintaining the permanency

9
of that debt should begin to be alarmed at any invasion of their interests by the step proposed, he (Mr. Buckingham) would briefly state to them the dangers which now endangered the security of their property, should not steps be taken to remove them. There was now spreading, far and wide, a continually increasing objection to the payment of the debt in full, and grounded on the following reasons:— 1. That it was originally contracted by an irresponsible Legislature—the loans being authorised by a House of Commons filled by the nominees of the Aristocracy, and neither representing the interests nor feelings, nor responsible to the judgment or opinions, of the people of England.—2. That these loans, when so raised, were unjustly squandered in foreign wars, waged against the spread of free and liberal opinions, and in support of the despotic powers of the Continent.—3. That what was not then squandered abroad, was expended at home in the promotion of the private benefits of aristocratical families, to the aggrandisement of favoured individuals, and to the people's wrong.—4. That the debt was contracted in a currency so much inferior in value to the present, that we were now called upon to pay at least one-third more in amount than was actually due.—5. That in the large interest and other advantages received, this debt has been already in great part, if not wholly repaid.—6. That while property of every other kind had been subject to grievous imposts, the public funds had been exempted from their fair share of the public burthens.—7. That the labour of the industrious poor, and that of children yet unborn, had been unjustly pledged, or assumed to be pledged, and, therefore, assessed for the payment of its interest. From all these objections, into the soundness or unsoundness of which he would not enter, there was a continually increasing indisposition to acknowledge the liability of the public to repay this debt in full; and it was, consequently, exposed to the risk of being entirely annihilated by the first great political convulsion, or a large portion of its nominal amount can celled, by the decision of public opinion. As to a repayment of the principal, the most sanguine person now living never dreamt to see that accomplished; indeed, it might safely be pronounced to be hopeless; and even the discharge of its interest might become impossible whenever the revenue should greatly decline; as the noble Lord,
10
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would undoubtedly admit, that the first appropriation of the revenue should be to the support of the necessary establishments of the country; and the surplus, over and above this, should be applied to the payment of the interest as far as it would go: but if taxation should have been found to be carried to its utmost limits, and the public establishments be reduced as low as was consistent with national safety, and still the surplus was insufficient to pay the interest of the debt, the holders must equitably divide among them whatever remained, to the extent of its amount, in proportion to their respective shares, and with that they must be content, as no more could be had. He would ask, then, whether, under all these circumstances, it would not be wise to adopt some plan by which these risks might be avoided: and to seize the present moment of a profound peace, and when the interest of money, from its very abundance, was extremely low, to secure its gradual reduction and final extinction, within a period not too near to create embarrassment, nor too remote to produce no benefit. The plan that he would propose for this purpose would be as follows: It was well known, that the existing stocks, of which the public funds were composed, were so varied in their nature and denominations, as to puzzle all but those initiated in their mysteries.—There were the 3 per cent. Consols, and the 3 percent. Reduced—the New 3½ per cents., and the Reduced 3½ per cents.—the 4 per cents. of 1826—and the New 5 per cents.—There were the Long Annuities—South Sea Stock—Exchequer Bills—and such a variety of denominations of principal, and different rates of interest, as to be quite confounding. The origin of this, undoubtedly, was, to promote the deceitful juggles which were continually practised in the funds, by former Chancellors of the Exchequer, whose great aim it seemed to be to make every thing as mysterious and unintelligible as possible to all parties but themselves, and thus keep the people in ignorance of the real state of the finances of the country. He remembered indeed to have once heard a reason assigned for Mr. Pitt being called "the heaven-born Minister"—which was, that no "earthly-born" person could by any possibility unravel the mysteries in which his budgets were always enveloped. He would propose, then, that all these various

11
denominations of stock should be converted into one, by a transfer of the amount held by different parties in each of the old stocks, to be taken at the fair marketable value, from thence into the new. This new stock to be called "The National Annuity Fund," and to bear interest at five per cent. per annum, at the commencement, to admit of its gradual diminution. The interest of this stock would thus be 100 shillings per cent. in the first year; and he would propose, that it should then diminish regularly by one shilling per cent. only, for 100 years in succession, when principal and interest would both become extinct together. The practical operation would then be this: that for every 100 l. of the new stock so held, the possessor would receive an interest of 5l. in the first year, 4l. 19 s. in the second, 4l. 18 s. in the third, and so diminishing a shilling per cent. every year. In the year 1843, he would still be receiving 4l. 10 s. per cent.; in the year 1853, he would be receiving 4l. per cent.; and it would not be until the year 1873, or forty years hence, that his interest would be reduced to three per cent. which might then be considered perhaps about the par of the day. The advantage of such a gradual and almost imperceptible diminution of interest as this, would be, that no party now living, could be injured to any extent by its operation. The fluctuation would not be nearly so great as that which actually took place in the value of money, and the consequent rise or fall of interest in the market, every year: while, the possessors of the stock constantly varying; and the stock perpetually changing hands, the trifling reductions from year to year would be spread over a wide surface of the whole community, and, consequently, not be felt by any class severely. Supposing the present interest of money to be four per cent., and the new stock to be opened at five—it was clear, that for the next twenty years, all the holders of that stock would be receiving an interest above par; and this circumstance alone would make the change more advantageous than the existing rate to all those to whom the gains of the next twenty years were of more consequence than the eighty years that were to follow—and that would probably embrace the largest portion of those by whom the stock would be held: as, at present, the holders were chiefly persons of small fortunes, and tolerably advanced age, to whom an increase
12
of immediate income would be of more value than any remote or contingent benefit to their successors. For the first twenty years, then, all the parties consenting to such transfer would be benefitted, by receiving an interest above par: for the next twenty years, they or their children would be still receiving what might be Considered the fair market-rate of interest at that time—from four to three, or averaging three and a-half per cent.—and it would be only the generation yet unborn upon whom the latter portion of the loss would fall; and even they would have a large countervailing benefit, arising from this very diminution, by their coming into existence in a nation, which, having thus freed itself from the incumbrance of its 800,000,000 l. of debt, would be relieved of its greatest burthen, and be able to run an equal race with every other country in the World. In this proposition, let it be remarked, there was no confiscation—no spoliation—the national honour and the public faith would be as essentially maintained, as if the whole of the 800,000,000 l. were to be repaid in full: as the principle of sinking a fixed sum in capital, to receive an annuity for a prescribed term, or the conversion of a perpetual into a life annuity, was recognized as perfectly honest and honourable, and acted upon in every country of Europe, as well as in America, every day. It would be a bargain made by two consenting parties, each interested in its success:—and affording, as it would, an annual diminution of the amount of interest, and an annual extinction of a portion of the principal, it would render the Debt, thus gradually diminishing in its amount and pressure, far less liable to those objections, or to those risks, already enumerated, by the cheerfulness with which all men consent to bear a reasonable and decreasing burthen, when they see a clear prospect of relief from it before them. The next consideration then was, what would be the increased amount of interest necessary to be paid for the conversion, and from what sources of taxation ought the fund for such increased payment to be drawn. It would of course be a matter of consideration for the Committee which he asked to be appointed, and for the accountants whom they might find it necessary to consult, to settle the exact rates at which certain sums held in existing stocks should be transferred to the new. But the object being a commutation

13
or compromise between the holders of stock and the nation, he would take the proposed rate of interest to be paid by the Government as the highest, and the actual rate of interest for which money could now be had as the lowest, and thus strike the average between three-and-a-half and five, which would be four-and-a-quarter per cent. It would be fair to make the transfer at such a rate, as that whatever principal sum would yield 4l. 5s. of interest, in either of the existing stocks, should be transferred into the new annuity fund as 100 l. of principal, bearing interest at five per cent. and diminishing one shilling per cent for 100 years, as before described. This then would require an addition of about 5,000,000 l. of increased interest, calculated upon this data, that the present amount of interest paid is 28,000,000 l.; and that on every 4l. 5s. of interest now paid, an addition would have to be made of 15 s., to make it up to 5l. the interest of the 100 l. principal in the new national annuity fund. For the payment of this additional 5,000,000 l. of interest, he considered that the property of the kingdom should be assessed. Indeed, there were many who held an opinion, and he confessed he was one of this number, that the property of the country, and that alone, should be made to pay the entire interest of the debt: for it was said, and said truly, that it was to protect the property then in existence, that the debt was contracted, and those whose property had thereby been saved, ought undoubtedly to bear the burthen. He thought he could illustrate the justice of this position by a familiar comparison. Let it be supposed, for instance, that a large factory in Manchester was either attacked or threatened by a mob from without, and the presence of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Phillips, of Manchester) who was seated immediately behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had suggested to him the idea of this illustration, which was the passing thought of the moment; suppose for instance such a factory attacked, the owner is desirous of protecting it from the violence of its assailers; but his existing means being exhausted, he borrows money to pay the protecting force that he employs for its defence: and he pledges or mortgages the property itself, thus saved from destruction, for the perpetual payment of the interest. Now that this property, so protected, should be made to pay the cost
14
of its own protection, into whose hands soever it might fall, would be perfectly just. But what would be said of the master who should tax all the labour of every man, woman, and child, who hereafter might work in that factory, for the payment of such interest, for the protection of a property in which they had no share, and which possibly was thus burthened with debt, before they were brought into existence. And yet this was precisely the case of England,—her debt, its mortgaged securities, and the payers of its interest. It was to protect the property then existing that the debt was contracted,—the property alone should bear the charge of its interest: and it was most unjust to tax, as was now done, the industry and the labour of the people then unborn, for the payment of a debt contracted to protect a property in which they had no share, and in which they were denied all participation. He conceived, therefore, that nothing could be more just than that this additional interest of 5,000,000 l., to be paid as the price of the proposed conversion of the fixed debt into terminable annuities, should be raised by a tax on the property of the kingdom; and out of the annual saving occasioned by the gradual diminution of that amount, which would be the one-hundredth part of the whole sum of 33,000,000 l., (the conjoint amount of the present 28,000,000 l., and the future 5,000,000 l. to be added) or 330,000 l. per annum, the taxes bearing-most heavily on the agricultural, commercial, and shipping interests of the country might be progressively abolished, so as to relieve each in their turn, and all ultimately, from one common source. He would not, however, disguise the fact, that over and above the immediate benefit, which he believed would result from the conversion proposed, he wished to show that a Property or Income-tax was the fairest as well as the easiest levied of all taxes, and having once proved its superiority to every other, by its adoption for this specific purpose of lightening the burthen of the debt, he should hope that it would be ultimately adopted, as the only tax, from which to raise the entire revenue, to the gradual abolition and ultimate extinction of every other tax, duty, impost, or burthen whatever. He was quite aware that this would be conceived an ultra doctrine of finance, by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exche-

15
quer, and by many of those, who in this, as well as in other matters, could only venture on a "bit-by-bit reform." But he had not taken up this subject hastily; he had given to it deep thought, and severe investigation; and was more and more convinced, by every reflection made upon the subject, that it was not by taking off a little of the pressure here, and putting on a little there, that the weight of the burthen was to be alleviated. The only effectual remedy, was a total change and an entire revision of the whole system of taxation, on principles the very opposite of those that were now acted on. He was aware that this was a bold assertion, but if the House would still indulge him with their patient attention, he thought he could prove this to their entire satisfaction, by laying before them the series of considerations which had progressively established him in the convictions that he now entertained. He would begin then, by stating what he considered to be the leading principles of just and equitable taxation. They were these,—1. That the smallest amount possible should be taken from the people: because, whatever is left in their possession may contribute to their enjoyment, or be made the nucleus of future increase.—2. That the nature of the tax should be simple and intelligible: because, a cheerful assent to the justice of an impost is essential to its ready payment: and this cannot be given unless it is clearly understood.—3. That it should be economical in its collection: because all waste in that operation is equally lost, both to payer and receiver.—4. That it should be favorable to consumption: because, labour is the only source of wealth which the great mass of every community possesses: and the more consumption is increased, the more that labour is called into demand, and the higher are its rewards. 5. That it should bear a strict relation to the means of individuals to pay it: because, by this alone can content or justice, be maintained.—6. That it should be difficult of avoidance: because, all shrinking from a common duty is fraudulent and cowardly: and because all should be compelled to bear their fair share of the burthens of the state. Now, if these principles were sound,—and from the token of assent by which they were hailed, he was encouraged to hope that their accuracy was not disputed,—then he should be prepared to show that nothing could be
16
more unsound than the existing system of taxation, in England, which violated every one of these principles in succession: as would be seen by comparing the results with the principles, according to their numerical order.—1. Much more was taken from the people by the existing system than was either necessary or useful; their comforts were abridged, and their means of accumulation stinted, from mere excess of taxation alone.—2. The existing taxes were now so multifarious and unintelligible, that not only were they not to be understood or remembered by ordinary men, from whom the payment was exacted: but he thought it might be true to say that even the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Treasury, (Mr. Spring Rice) who, he was sorry to see, had just left his place, that even he, whose especial business it was to understand thoroughly the whole of the taxes, might be asked what was the existing duty per ton, or hundred, or foot, or pound, on a variety of articles that might be named to him, and he would be utterly unable to answer, without reference to voluminous tables and schedules, or a conference with some clerk of the department in which such information might be found.—3. Its expense of collection was enormous: and he had never been more forcibly struck with this, than when recently looking over some papers connected with his researches into the evils of impressment, he had found that the collection of the merchant seamen's tribute of 6d. per month per man, for the support of the Greenwich Hospital, cost twenty-and-a-half percent, and it was thought to be a great reform to reduce it down to eighteen. What, then, with all costly machinery of Customs and Excise, blockade services, revenue vessels, surveyors and clerks, the expense was altogether most extravagant, and under a simple system of taxation would be wholly unnecessary.—4. The existing taxes impeded consumption in every class of life: for the duties being placed on commodities, every increase to their price must lessen their use, and consequently labour being thereby less in demand for the preparation of the smaller quantity thus consumed, every man whose labour was his only wealth, was injured to a great extent, by the market for his labour being narrowed, by the imposts lessening the sale of the article on which his labour is employed.—5. Instead of its being in proportion

17
to men's means of payment, it was just the reverse: for it had been proved, by careful investigation, that while the very wealthiest, who could spare the largest share, were not taxed at a rate of more than five per cent on their gross incomes, the very poorest classes were taxed at a rate of more than twenty-five per cent on the amount of their scanty earnings.—6. The avoidance of the existing taxes was easy, common, and scarcely deemed objectionable; and between smugglers, who directly cheated the revenue, in open defiance of the laws,—and absentees, who by spending their fortunes abroad, contributed nothing to the revenue at all,—and misers, who, while hoarding their gold, are withholding their fair share of contributions to the duties on commodities which they abstained from consuming, the state was defrauded, and the honest portion of the tax-paying public surcharged to a great extent every year. In addition to all this, there was the great injustice, and he might even add, immorality, of many of the existing taxes, of which he would mention but a few, for the catalogue was too long and too melancholy to be given in full. 1. There were taxes on justice, in the shape of stamps and fines, in almost every stage of legal proceedings.—2. Taxes on knowledge, by the imposts on newspapers, and the duty on paper used for written correspondence and printed books.—3. Taxes on distress, by licences and other duties on all sales by auction of estates, houses, furniture, and goods,—whether seized by a Sheriff in execution, or a landlord for rent.—4. Taxes on prudence, in the duties on insurance by land and by sea.—5. Taxes on inventions, discoveries, and announcements, by the fees for patents, duties on advertisements and other similar imposts. 6. and lastly, taxes even on improvements, so ingeniously contrived, as to impede the very progress in those arts and manufactures by which we maintained our superiority over all other countries, and by which alone we could hope to continue that pre-eminence which we now enjoyed. This was really as absurd, as if an individual, perceiving that his great superiority over his fellow-men consisted in his muscular power, his vigorous activity, and commanding strength—should bind his limbs with cords and ligatures, on purpose to deprive himself of that very superiority which constituted his chief excellence and his honest pride. To
18
show that he was not overstating this self-injury and self-injustice, he would read a passage from a deservedly high authority on all matters of taxation and finance, both in that House and elsewhere—he meant the right hon. Baronet, the member for Dundee, Sir Henry Parnell. In his excellent work on "Financial Reform," when speaking of the injurious operation of the Excise-laws on our processes of manufacture, he said:—'By prescribing the processes of fabrication, the manufacturer is not allowed to manage his trade in the way his skill and experience point out as the best; but he is compelled to conform to such methods of pursuing his art as he finds taught in Acts of Parliament. Thus the unseen injury arising from excise taxation, by its interference with the free course of manufacture, is much greater than is suspected by the public. The consequence of the activity and invention of the manufacturer being repressed is, that the consumers of their goods pay increased prices not only for the duties imposed on them, but for the additional expense incurred by absurd and vexatious regulations; and, in addition to this, goods are generally very inferior to what they would be if no duties existed.' The consequences, then, of this state of taxation, were those of unmixed evil. By its varied operations on the various classes of society, it continually arrayed one class or interest against another; and accordingly, whether a new tax was to be imposed, or an old one taken off, some party or another was sure to be dissatisfied. He appealed, indeed, to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, whether he had ever yet conferred a boon, as it was called, on any one class, by lightening their burthens, without having at the same time dissatisfied four or five other classes, because the preference had not been shown to each of them before the other. In short, it was some thing like the exercise of patronage, where, though one person was sure to be pleased with receiving the appointment, half-a-dozen at least would be dissatisfied at their not having received the fortunate distinction; a consideration which would induce him, if he should ever be made Governor General of India, an event of all others in the world the least likely to happen, to depute the dispensation of the patronage to any one, rather than exercise it himself; as, in proportion to its extent,

19
and to the rigid justice with which it should be exercised, would be sure to be the number of the dissatisfied who were excluded from its benefits. By this fatal system of taxation in duties, bounties, drawbacks, prohibitions, and all their endless machinery of vexation, every interest was arrayed against all other interests. When the agriculturist clamoured for relief, the manufacturer insisted on its being first due to him, and next to the land-proprietor; while the ship-owner came in between, and declared himself entitled to the preference over both: and all this ended in neither being relieved. In addition to the conflicts between contending parties at home, the system excluded foreigners almost wholly from our markets, and gave such a degree of uncertainty to all our commercial speculations, that it was never safe to undertake a speculation extending over a very long period of time, lest, in the interval between its commencement and its close, some legislative changes should take place, which might entirely change the issue of the whole affair. What then, it would be asked, was his remedy for all this evil? He would state it, and state it frankly and without disguise. He remembered well that when the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson) moved for a Committee to consider the proposition of a Property-tax, as a substitute for a portion of the duties drawn from other sources, he was met by an observation, that he had no specific plan, and that it was not fair to complain of an evil without being ready to propose a remedy at the same time. For his own part, he (Mr. Buckingham) wholly dissented from this view. As well might it be said, that no patient should complain of suffering, unless he could at the same time suggest a cure; but surely that was the business of the physician. So, in our own case, it was our duty who suffered, to describe the symptoms—and, to use a common but expressive phrase, to "say where the shoe pinched." But it was the business of the Government to prescribe the remedy. The Ministers of the Crown were selected for their office on the ground of their superior fitness for their duties; they were handsomely paid for their labours; and it was their especial business to apply their whole time and attention to the correction of the abuses and evils of the State. But he would not shrink from offering the
20
remedy, as well as complaining of the disease; and he contended, that this was to be found, in a just and equitable Property and Income-tax, graduated according to the respective fortunes of those on whom it should be imposed. He said a Property and Income-tax, for they were in reality inseparable; and although, when speaking of this subject in private, he had not conjured not to let the words "Income-tax" escape from his lips in Parliament, as it would terrify a large majority from even listening to him afterwards, he had always answered, that it was useless to disguise unpalatable truths in honeyed words, and that his only consideration ought to be, whether the principle of an Income-tax was sound, and whether the graduations of its scale were just. If so, he should avow it, though every Member in the House should vote against it; if not, no earthly consideration should induce him to bring it forward. He would now, then, say that, in his opinion, to tax the fixed or realized property of those who had been prudent enough to accumulate, and not to tax the incomes of those who spent what they earned as fast as they acquired it, would be to give a premium to extravagance, inflict a penalty on carefulness, and commit a grievous and intolerable wrong. He conceived it to be perfectly just that incomes derived from fixed and permanent sources should bear a heavier rate of impost than incomes derived from fluctuating or precarious sources; and this upon the ground of the certainty, which gave a higher value to the former—and the uncertainty, which diminished the full value of the latter; but further than that, he thought no exemption of either should be permitted, except, indeed, that a minimum might be fixed, below which all incomes, from whatever source derived, should be left free. It must be clear, however, that it should be income and not property, that should be the test of assessment; as the value of the property itself was entirely dependent on the income it produced. A thousand acres of granite mountain, or barren heath in Scotland, was surely not of the same value as a thousand acres of rich arable land in Oxfordshire: they were of the same extent of surface; but it was the income yielded by each that would alone form a fair test of assessment; and if the rates of such assessment were varied at long intervals, and graduated on a just and

21
equitable ascending scale, there could not, he thought, be any sound objection raised to its adoption. He held in his hand a tabular schedule, a copy of which he should be most happy to furnish to the noble Lord; and he had brought it with him in manuscript, chiefly to show that he had bestowed great attention to this subject before he ventured to propose it to the House, in which the lowest amount of income proposed to be taxed was 100 l. a year, which he would propose to have assessed at 1l. per cent. On incomes derived from precarious sources, such as professions or trades; at one-third more, or 1l. 6s. 8d. per cent. if derived from annuities terminable only with life; and at one-third more, or 1l. 13 s. 4d., if derived from perpetuities, such as rents of freehold houses or land, interest of money in the funds, or other property, transferable to heirs or successors after death. Pursuing out this schedule, it would be found that the rates of assessment per cent went up, from 1l. percent on incomes of 1007. a-year, by even hundreds and thousands, to 15 l. per cent on incomes of 300,000 l. a-year; and few persons he thought would deny, that, when the tradesman of 100 l. a-year had 99 l. remaining in his pocket after all his taxes were paid, and the nobleman of 300,000 l. a-year, had 256,035 l. left when all his taxes were paid, (and that would be the result of this scale) neither party would have reason to consider themselves aggrieved or oppressed by the operation. There were two main objections, and several minorones, which were urged to an Income-tax; the first was, that it never would produce the amount of revenue required; and the next, that it was unjust in principle, and most strongly repudiated by those who had most experience of its operation when formerly enforced: besides which there were the lesser objections to its inquisitorialness, & He would advert to each of them in their order. First, then, as to the impossibility of raising the requisite amount of revenue from this tax. It must be clear, he thought, to all parties, that whatever amount of revenue was now raised from the people, by the duties on the various articles they used or consumed, could be paid by the same people, in a direct, as easily as in an indirect form, independently of the great saving in the cost of collection. The sugar and the coffee, the indigo and the tea, imported
22
into England, did not bring with them the money to pay their own duties: the money existed in the country, and was paid by the importer in addition to the purchase-money for the articles themselves, in order to enable him to land and distribute his commodities. Surely, then, this same amount of money could be paid as easily in one sum at the end of the year, as a tax on the whole income of the person paying it, as well as in many fractional sums, on the articles in which he dealt, and from his profits, on the sale of which his income was derived. The power to pay would, in each case, be the same; and all that was wanted was, laws equitable enough to be calculated to present a strong motive for voluntary payment, as an act of justice for protection received—and powerful enough to be able to compel such payments, if not voluntarily made. The objection to the amount not being as easily raised by the one mode as by the other, was, therefore, perfectly groundless. He would quote, however, a passage from a very high authority, to show, that taxes on expenditure, from which the revenue was now raised, were far more unjust, and more objectionable than taxes on income, which it was proposed to substitute in their stead. The authority was, that of Mr. Benjamin Sayer, a gentleman well known to the financial world, who had for years been employed in the collection of the taxes—who was himself personally engaged in the management of the Income-tax of former years—who now held a distinguished place in the Tax-office—and who had recently published an admirable work, the result of all his long official experience, under the title of "An attempt to show the justice and expediency of substituting an Income or Property-tax for the existing taxes, &"—of which it was impossible to speak too highly. [The hon. Member read a passage from page 6, of that work, describing taxes on expenditure and, consumption, as unequal, because the payment depended on the will of the consumers and the rich, as in the case of absentees escaped taxation. The hon. Member also quoted Sir Henry Parnell's work to show that if taxes on Expenditure are injurious and unjust, a tax upon Income is that which the concurring opinions of the most eminent men of all parties approve and commend.] The great advantage of such a tax, he continued, would be that no one interest

23
could complain of its increase or decrease affecting them with peculiar hardship, and leaving others to go free; and if it had but this one recommendation alone, it would be sufficient to recommend its adoption. [The hon. Member again quoted Mr. Sayer's work, page 107, to show the justice of a Property and Income-tax.] The greatest stress, however, the hon. Member continued, had been laid on the alleged injustice of a graduated Income-tax. Persons who were prepared to admit, that an Income-tax of an equal per centage on all incomes would be just in principle, though not reducible to practice, objected most stoutly to a graduated scale. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had objected to it on the ground that it had a tendency to level all men's incomes down to some prescribed standard, and to give to the State the power of saying, that no man should enjoy more than a certain amount of income for his use. This was, certainly, a most extraordinary view of the case. If the plan proposed was, that all men who had more than 500 l. a-year should give up all the surplus for the use of the State, then it might be said, that the effect of such a law would be to bring all fortunes above 500 l. a-year down to that common level, though it would still cease to elevate those below it to the same standard. But, if, as by the plan at present proposed, a man of 100 l. a-year, at one per cent. should pay 1l.; a man of 300,000 l. a-year, at fifteen per cent. should pay 43,965 l. (which would be the amount,) how could any number of years or centuries contribute to bring down the remaining 266,035 l., which the man of 300,000 l. a-year, would have annually left untouched, when all his taxes were paid—to the 99 l. per annum, which the man of 100 l. a-year would have left when his taxes were discharged? The idea was altogether fallacious, and the more it should be examined, the more would persons of reflection wonder that it could ever have been entertained. The right hon. member for Tamworth objected to the graduated scale on another ground; namely, that it would take away from those subject to it, the desire for accumulation: which, he considered, to be quite as fallacious, though its error was certainly not so capable of demonstration as the former. The one was a matter of figures, the other a matter of opinion;
24
but for himself, he (Mr. Buckingham) must say, that all his experience confirmed him in the opinion, that wherever a larger portion than the half of his gains was left to the acquirer to enjoy, the love of accumulation was scarcely at all abated; and that in a scale like this, where fifteen per cent was proposed to be the highest rate of assessment, and where more than five-sixths of every man's income, assessed even at that rate, would be left in his possession, it was quite a gratuitous assertion to anticipate the cessation of the love of accumulation. The last objection urged in that House against the graduated scale, was by the hon. member for Oldham, (Mr. Cobbett) who said it was neither more nor less than "confiscation," an expression which he had more than once repeated, but for which, he must say, there was not the shadow of a foundation; and against which, therefore, it would be really a waste of time to argue. Now, although the right hon. Baronet, (Sir Robert Peel) had said the other night, in reply to an observation of the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton), who had quoted the authority of the celebrated French mathematician Laplace, as having shown, in his "Theory of Probabilities," that a graduated Income-tax was the only just tax that could be imposed—though the right hon. Baronet had said, that with every disposition to defer to so high an authority, on a question of mathematics, he did not conceive him to be infallible on a question of Finance; yet, perhaps, the right hon. Baronet would attach some importance to the authority of one of the brightest ornament of the English Church, the reverend Dr. Paley. [The hon. Member quoted the opinion of that divine to show, that a tax should be levied by what men can spare,—to be found under the article "Taxation," ch. xi. book vi. of his" Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy."] Now, it unfortunately happened, the hon. Member again went on, that this principle of graduation was recognized and acted upon in our present system, but the scale was in an inverse ratio to the means of the parties to pay. It was capable of the strictest proof—that while the largest incomes of the country, say the few of 300,000 l. per annum, did not contribute five per cent on their gross amount to the revenues of the State—the smallest incomes of the country, those below 100 l.

25
per annum, contributed at the least twenty-five per cent in taxation: a proportion so contrary to all ideas of right and justice, as to need only to be stated, to obtain the deserved denunciation of all just or benevolent minds. He might afford abundant illustrations of this position from the duties on tea, sugar, coffee, bread, beer, &c, which were paid in almost as large a proportion by the poor as by the rich, man for man, and not income for income; as it was the quantity consumed by each individual that regulated the amount of the tax: and, he could show also, that the Government itself had made this principle of graduation a merit in their Irish Church Bill, and in the House and Window Tax: but, as he was anxious to adhere to his pledge, and not to waste a single moment of the time of the House or the country, but to confine himself within the narrowest limits of rendering his subject clear and intelligible—he would pass this by, and proceed to consider the last objection raised to the imposition of an Income-tax—namely, its inquisitorial nature. [The hon. Member again quoted Mr. Sayer's work to show that no inquisition could be worse than that which was practised under the present system.] He then proceeded:—. In point of fact, however, the exact incomes of all who have their property in landed estates, in houses, or in the funds, as well as those who are employed in the public service, can be known with very little trouble or difficulty: and the honest and honourable tradesman need no more be afraid to state his actual income, within even hundreds, and at given periods, lest he should make too open a display of his circumstances—than he need be afraid to retrench or extend his expenditure for fear of being misrepresented by his neighbours. The fraudulent trader, and adventurer upon fictitious capital, would, no doubt, find it inconvenient: but if an Income-tax exposed their false position only, this would be a strong argument for its adoption. He would conclude, then, by saying, that an Income-tax, being substituted for every other, by the progressive removal of all existing imposts, and the ultimate absorption of every other tax in this single one, would be in perfect harmony with every one of the, principles that he had laid down at the commencement of his address: and if these principles Were sound, (and he invited their scrutiny
26
or refutation) then must his plan be sound also—for these principles were the basis on which it was grounded—1. An Income-tax would take from the people the smallest amount consistent with the safety of the State.—2. It would be so simple and intelligible, that every child in the kingdom would understand it.—3. It would be more economical in its collection than any tax ever imposed.—4. It would be most favourable to consumption, as it would leave all commodities untaxed, and give an increased impetus to the demand for labour,—5. It would bear a strict relation to the means of payment, as by this alone would it be regulated.—6. It would be far more difficult to be evaded, with proper regulations, than taxes now are—as men cannot be smuggled like commodities; and by a proper organisation it might be made the interest of men to disclose rather than conceal the average amount of their income, after it had been realised, and actually come into their possession. On the expense of collection, he would make one short quotation from Mr. Sayer's work. All parties were aware of the great advantage to the Government of having the duties on tea collected in one large sum from the East-India Company, almost without cost to the Exchequer: and if an Income-tax were established, he could show that its collection might be effected in almost as cheap a manner: but he would not go into its detail at the present moment: he would give, however, the opinion of Mr. Sayer, who said, p. 75: 'It is estimated, that if the whole revenue had been raised by that tax from the commencement of the late war to the present time, the amount of saving in the expense of collection, or rather of taxation (as so much less taxation would have been necessary) might have accumulated by this time to nearly 100,000,000 l., equal to about one-fifth part of the debt created within that period.' That was a consideration of sufficient weight to cast the balance in favour of an Income-tax over every other. But there was another, of scarcely less importance, and that was, the saving of time, expense, uncertainty, and litigation, which it would occasion, and of which the present system was so fruitfully productive. Not a Session passed, but there were new Acts to repeal old ones; duties taken off from one thing, and laid on another; Acts

27
passed to amend Acts; others to explain the Acts thus amended; and such an interminable array of endless legislation, that no man, for three months together, could be sure of the law not being altered with respect to duties, imposts, and burthens of various kinds, imposed for the purpose of revenue, Let the House then, hear from Mr. Sayer the testimony which he gives, as to the simplicity of legislation for an Income-tax, as a contrast to its present proceedings. [The hon. Member again quoted from that gentleman's work at pages 57 and 52, to show that the legislation required for a Property-tax would be simple, and that many frauds were committed under the present system.] He then continued: He had now, he hoped, said enough to show the principles on which he advocated the change proposed; and all that remained for him to do, was to add, to the high authorities he had already quoted, and to the names of Huskisson, Parnell, Paley, Laplace, and other able professors of science as well as of legislation, the authority of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Lord Althorp) himself, who, in a speech delivered by him in the House of Commons, on the 25th of March 1830, on the occasion of Mr. Poulett Thomson's motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of making a revision of the existing system of taxation, was reported to express an opinion favourable to a Property-tax. [The hon. Member quoted a passage from Hansard, (new series) XXIII p. 908.] Here then he would conclude, by conjuring the House not to deny him that inquiry, which was all he asked. The lateness of the Session might be pleaded as an excuse for the refusal of other Committees—but a fortnight or a month at most, would conclude the labours of such a one as this, as but little evidence and few details would be required. All he asked was inquiry; so that if his positions were sound, they might be confirmed by the authority of the Committee; and if unsound, it would be to him and to the country a benefit, to be set right by their refutation. He would make another quotation, and it should be the last. It was in the language of the right hon. the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and the member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson), whom he was sorry not to have seen
28
during any part of the evening in his place, and who, when moving for his Committee, on the occasion already referred to, concluded in these remarkable words. [The hon. Member again quoted Hansard (new series) XXIII p. 896.] The people of the country were at present under an impression that it was useless for any of their Representatives to propose to the House a tax upon Property or Income; as the class from which the Members were usually drawn being mostly persons of large property or incomes themselves, were unwilling to tax their own class for the benefit of their inferiors. For himself, indeed, he could not be in that class, because, he had been almost disposed to say, he had neither property nor income; but, without some portion of the latter, a man could not exist; he had, however, about as moderate an income as any man could well be content with; and beyond that, he had no property whatever; he was, perhaps, on that very account, the less open to the charge of advocating his own peculiar interest; for if he studied his own exemption only, he should have advocated a tax on fixed property alone; but though he himself had only an income derivable chiefly from the labour of his own hands, he should, nevertheless, advocate a tax upon income alone; distinguishing, as before observed, between those de-rived from permanent, and those from fluctuating sources; but taxing all in fair and just proportions. Let the House consider then, whether it would give countenance to the impression, that they were too selfish to admit of any system which should fix heavier burthens on themselves, and relieve the suffering poor. At the present moment, the feelings of the humbler classes were estranged from their superiors, because of this belief; but let the rich do them but common justice, and they would be only too happy to evince their gratitude. Every act of kindness done by them would have its full measure of reward; and every concession would be rated at far more than the standard of its real worth. He implored the House, therefore, not to disappoint their hopes; but to grant the Committee for which he asked, in the full assurance that no evil could by possibility ensue from its appointment, while great good might be its ultimate result. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Resolution:—"That a Select Committee be ap-

29
pointed to consider the practicability of progressively reducing the National Debt, by its conversion into Terminable Annuities, at gradually diminishing rates of interest, so as to lessen its burthen every year; and to determine the best mode of assessing the property and income of the kingdom, to meet the expense of such conversion; and to form, at the same time, a surplus revenue fund, which shall enable the Parliament progressively to repeal those imposts which bear most heavily on the Agricultural, Manufacturing, and Shipping interests of the country."
Lord Althorpsaid, that he felt himself called upon to make a few observations in consequence of the Motion which had just been made, and, first of all, he could not help remarking that the hon. Member himself had given a good reason why the discussion could not then take place advantageously—namely, the late period of the session. With respect to the hon. Member's Motion, as it involved principles of great importance, though dependent upon plain statements, he thought it was better fitted to be disposed of by the House than in a Select Committee. He certainly agreed in a great part of the remarks of the hon. Member with respect to the propriety of lightening, as much as possible, the burthens which press peculiarly upon the industrious classes, and the commercial interest. He concurred, too, with what the hon. Member had said about the propriety of diminishing the National Debt by converting interminable into terminable annuities, and a Bill had just been passed to enable the Government to do that with the surplus revenue. When he looked at the amazing amount of the Debt, and at the various schemes which had been devised for effecting the object in view, and when he remembered bow impossible it was to prevent the appropriation of the funds reserved for the diminution of the debt to the immediate purposes of Government, he felt convinced that it was quite useless to attempt to make any application of the principle of compound interest to effect the object which, he agreed with the hon. Member, was extremely desirable. As soon as the reserved funds had accumulated to anything considerable, experience had taught them that they were invariably diverted to different purposes from those for which the were originally intended. It was now generally admitted that the plan of paying
30
off the debt by the Government's paying interest to itself was not calculated to do any good; and to impose taxes in order to enable Government to do so, led to measures which were oppressive to the industrious classes, and were productive of no advantage whatever to the nation. He had, therefore always, been opposed to the principle of the Sinking Fund. It would be long before they could clear off a debt of 800,000,000 l. by laying by 5,000,000 l. a-year; and he was of opinion that they would promote the interest of the country much more effectually by taking off the burthens which weighed so heavily on all classes, the consequence of which would undoubtedly be to increase the wealth of the country and its power of bearing its remaining burthens. The effect of the hon. Member's plan would be to increase these burthens by 18,000,000 l.
Mr. Buckinghamexplained, that the adoption of his plan would create an additional charge of 5,000,000 l. in the first year only; and then gradually diminish every succeeding year, a charge which would be very soon redeemed by the diminished expense of collection.
Lord Althorpcontinued. Perhaps he misunderstood the hon. Member; but he (Lord Althorp) objected to increase the burthens of the country even by 5,000,000 l. a-year. He agreed, that it was exceedingly desirable to convert perpetuities into terminable annuities; but he did not think that it ought to be done by increasing the burthens which pressed so heavily on the people. The hon. Member thought of raising 40,000,000 l. by a Property-tax; but if he referred back to the time when a Property-tax was in existence, he would find that its amount had never exceeded 14,000,000 l. With respect to the question of a graduated Property-tax (although he did not impute the advocacy of that to the hon. Member), he agreed with the hon. member for Oldham, that it was something like confiscation. It was fail-debatable ground, whether some portion of the taxes of this country might not be commuted for an Income-tax, but he should be very sorry to see Parliament, sanction the principle of a graduated Property-tax. Seeing, however, the manner in which direct taxes were complained of, he thought it would be unwise to rely upon an Income-tax for a large amount of revenue. He did not think it necessary to enter further into the question, which

31
he supposed the hon. Member had brought forward, rather with the intention of explaining his own views to the House, than in the hope that it would lead to any practical result.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, it was his intention to detain the House for a few moments, in order to make some observations on two points, with respect to which his opinions had been alluded to. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buckingham) had spoken of his observations about the obligation of posterity to pay for debts contracted by their fathers. As a child in the cradle could not be considered bound to pay the debts contracted by a father who left him nothing, so he (Mr. Cobbett) did not consider the industrious classes bound to pay debts contracted before their time, and by usurping Parliaments—Parliaments which had, in fact, no right to sit in that House. He held that they were not bound in conscience or in honour, to pay such debts so contracted. As to the other point on which he had to make some remarks—the effects of a graduated Property-tax—he was still of the same opinion. He thought, that the man who had a thousand acres of laud ought to pay a thousand times as much as the man who had only one acre; but when that was once done, he thought it enough. He considered a graduated Property-tax to be a levelling measure; and its operation in thirty or forty years would be to bring down all classes nearly to the same level. Those who had had an opportunity of seeing a community in which this species of equality of property existed, would allow, that there was no reason to believe that the working-classes were better off than in other countries. The introduction of such a tax would bring on a state of society in which a house would never be built, nor a tree planted nor preserved. His understanding of a graduated Property-tax was, that every man should pay in proportion to his income, which was very far from being the case at present. He thought that the industrious classes ought to be exempt from burthens—certainly not, that they should pay more in proportion than the higher ranks. That was very much the case at present. If a man, for instance, who had raked together 51 l, and put it into the Savings' Bank, his heirs would have to pay legacy and probate duty; and if it was his widow, she would have to pay a duty upon ad-
32
ministering. In the case of a man who died in the possession of 1,000 acres of land, or even an estate worth a million of money, his widow would not have to pay a farthing. The burthens on the poor man were, in many instances, ten fold, twenty fold, fifty fold, greater than upon the rich man.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the moment the hon. member for Oldham had expressed his opinion that a graduated Property-tax was confiscation, the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer seized upon it, and had ever since put it forward in reply to any arguments which were used for imposing a tax upon property. To have recourse to that argument on the present occasion was not fair; but he had too often seen on the part of official Gentlemen, a disposition to steer clear of the point before the House, and, if possible, to cast incidentally some groundless imputation on their opponents. Hence, if any one spoke of reducing the Church Establishment, he was accused of wishing for spoliation; and if he hinted at a reform of the financial system, he was directly taunted with aiming at the confiscation of property. Nevertheless, he was not disposed to retreat from the opinion which he had expressed in favour of a graduated Property-tax. What was a graduated Property-tax? A system which would compel persons to contribute to the burthens of the State in a degree correspondent with their means—nothing more. He could not conceive how it was, that persons so glibly subsided into the opinion, that a tax of this description was confiscation. He would suppose that a graduated Property-tax were imposed upon this scale—a man with 100 l. a-year would pay 1l.; a man with 1,000 l., 100 l.; a man with 10,000 l., 1,000 l.; and another with 50,000 l., 10,000 l. Now, all these persons would still retain as much of their property as remained after the tax was deducted; for instance, the man with 100 l. a-year would retain 99 l., and the man with 50,000 l. per annum would keep 40,000 l.; and yet any one who heard the statements of the noble Lord and the hon. member for Old-ham, would suppose, that if a graduated Property-tax were established, all the property in the country would at once be thrown into the crucible of spoliation. Some persons had represented, that the Reformers were desirous of applying the sponge to the national debt, and wiping it

33
out at once. He repudiated any such intention on the part of the honest Radicals. The public creditor was entitled to every shilling of his debt; and whence was he to get it? From the property of the country. It was idle to talk of the instability of the public debt: at, the present moment, there was no description of property so well secured. The amount paid for the interest of the debt was 28,000,000 l. This was not a frightful charge, when one considered the security upon which it rested. The actual rental of houses and land in the country, to say nothing of intermediate kinds of property, amounted to between 40,000,000 l. and 50,000,000 l. a-year. This being the case, the fund-holder need never fear. The moment any one should talk of a composition to the public creditor, he would have a right to say: "Show me that your assets do not amount to 28,000,000 l. a-year, and then I will listen to you. I stand in the situation of a mortgagee. You borrowed 800,000,000 l. of me to gratify your freak of defending the glorious Constitution in Church and State; at that time your cry was perish all property, so that we can preserve the Church and Constitution;' I congratulate you now on the possession of both; to be sure, you have made a costly purchase; but you know it is of measureless value; and if you cannot now pay your debt, do as other mortgagors do—walk out, and give me possession." It was not the Radicals, but the great landed proprietors, who liked to hear people talking of the "sponge;" in the same way that the landlords in Ireland, and in England too, stirred up the people against tithes that they might derive benefit from the abolition of tithes, at the same time that they were not honest enough themselves to declare against that burthen. The rich landed proprietors would be delighted if they could sweep away the debt tomorrow, but he hoped that the Radicals of England would keep them to their engagement with the public creditor. The charge for the debt was a bonâ fide one on the property of the kingdom, and, as long as that endured, the public creditor had a right to payment out of it. Every day the newspapers furnished accounts of shiploads of industrious persons escaping from the horrors of poverty in their own country, and flying to distant lands, where they had reason to expect that they could, by their labour, earn a subsistence.
34
Let the Lords and landowners, if they pretend that they cannot pay the public creditor, emigrate also, and leave their domains, abbeys, and castles, for the Jews and mortgagees to take possession of. He, for one, protested against the ungenerous imputation which was thrown upon the Radicals, that they wished to get rid of the debt. As long as there was a single shilling's worth of property in the country, the fund holder was entitled to it. That was genuine loyalty. He was anxious for a Committee of Inquiry because he was anxious to enlighten the darkness of the community on the neglect of taxation, and because he was convinced, that it would soon be found necessary to change the present system of taxation for one less unjust to the poorer classes of the community.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that those who had incurred the debt ought to pay the charge arising from it, and that it ought not to be paid by those who had no hand in contracting it, many of whom were unborn at the time of its being contracted. The principal load of the debt ought to be borne by that property the owners of which were mainly instrumental in contracting it. He agreed with the hon. member for Oldham, that the labouring classes ought not to be burthened beyond their due proportion; but that the load should be borne in a greater degree by the landed property, for the protection of which the debt was contracted, although that property was now, comparatively speaking, exempted from taxation. From 39,000,000 l. to 40,000,000 l., out of the 50,000,000 l., were raised from the industry of the country, and paid by men who earned their bread by the sweat of their brow, while the remaining 10,000,000 l. only were paid by the higher classes. The poor man, who earned only 2s. or 3s. a-day, was taxed at the rate of fifty per cent. while the rich man with 10,000 l. paid only fifteen or twenty per cent. That was the great grievance; and if, as was admitted, it had become absolutely necessary to relieve the industry of the country, it must be done by such an entire change in the system of taxation as would relieve the poor man from its pressure, and leave the moveable capital of the country, by which employment is furnished, unburthened. They would thus put, an end to that emigration which was daily draining the country of its industry and of its best

35
blood. He was strongly opposed to the principle of perpetuities; and if the debt had been contracted, for an annuity to continue even 100 years, there would at least have been a prospect of its gradual extinction. It was well known, that money might have been obtained on annuities terminable at the end of long periods at a rate of interest very little higher than was required for perpetual annuities. If they wished to secure the prosperity of England, they must adopt some measure of terminable annuities.
Colonel Evanssaid, a great outcry was raised against a graduated Property-tax, as a measure of spoliation, because the proportion was to vary; but there was a species of tax in which a graduated scale was adopted, and which hon. Members did not appear to look upon as a measure of spoliation, he supposed, because it was graduated inversely as the property of the payers, and operated, consequently, in favour of the rich. He spoke of the Window-tax, with respect to which he had heard no cry of spoliation raised. The question of the continuance of that tax was one of great importance in London and Westminster; and since a graduated scale was considered so heinous, he hoped that consideration would operate with hon. Members in the case of the Assessed-taxes.
Mr. Maxwellexpressed his hope, that the noble Lord at the head of the Exchequer would review the opinion which he entertained of the superior eligibility of direct as compared with indirect taxation. Although he was favourable to the principle of the proposition of the hon. member for Sheffield, he could not vote for it, because he, thought it was much too late in the Session to entertain such a question; but he trusted that it would be brought forward again early in the next Session; and that in the meanwhile his Majesty's Ministers would consider the subject with all the attention which its importance demanded.
Mr. Towerwould strongly recommend a Property-tax, were it not that the agricultural interest was in such a condition as to be utterly unable to bear such an impost. There was reason to fear that it would soon be in such a state that no rents would be paid at all. He must complain of the unequal treatment of agricultural and funded property since the peace; the former had been subjected to heavy burthens from which the latter
36
was wholly free. He objected to the proposition of the hon. member for Sheffield for imposing a Property-tax, but he should like to see some plan adopted for reducing the national debt by terminable annuities.
Major Beauclerkwas convinced, that the burthens of the country could be effectually lightened only by an extensive and real reduction of taxation. If the House of Commons did not speedily compel such a reduction, instead of receiving the gratitude, they would incur the contempt, of the country. Every honest man in the House—every well-wisher to the public good—ought to exert himself at once to relieve the people from direct taxation; and he hoped the result of the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, for the Repeal of the House and Window-tax, would redeem the character of Parliament. They had now been sitting for five months; and the hon. Gentlemen who had been so lavish in their promises on the hustings, had done nothing to carry those promises into effect. He trusted, however, that, late as it was, Members would see the necessity of doing their duty.
The House divided—Ayes 38; Noes 57: Majority 19.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Beauclerk, A. W.

O'Connor, F.

Butler, Colonel

O'Connell, D.

Chichester, J. P. B.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Copeland, Alderman

Oswald, R.

Cobbett, W.

Pease, J.

Cornish, J.

Philips, M.

Davies, Colonel

Roche, W.

Evans, Colonel

Roe, J.

Fenton, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Fitzsimon, C.

Richards, J.

Fryer, R.

Romilly, J.

Fielden, J.

Torrens, Colonel

Gully, J.

Williams, Colonel

Guest, J. J.

Wood, Alderman

Hume, J.

Wilks, J.

Hughes, H.

Young, G. F.

Humphery, J.

Jervis, J.

TELLERS.

Lloyd, J. H.

Buckingham, J. S.

Maxwell, J.

Harvey, D. W.

List of the NOES.

Anson, Hon. G.

Buller, E.

Barron, H. W.

Chapman, A.

Barnard, G.

Crawley, S.

Baring, F.

Clements, Lord

Baldwin, Dr.

Clayton, Colonel

Bolling, W.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Bouverie, Captain.

Ewart, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Faithfull G.

37

Fergusson, R. C.

Rider, T.

Fitzsimon, N.

Sanford, E. A.

Gladstone, T.

Shawe, R. N.

Graham, Sir J.

Stanley, E. G.

Gronow, Captain

Stanley, E.

Goring, H. D.

Talbot, J.

James, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Johnstone, A.

Tracy, C. H.

Kerry, Lord

Trelawny, W. L. S.

Lamont, Captain

Tower, C.

Lambert, J. G.

Turner, W.

Leech, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Littleton, E. J.

Walker, R.

Martin, T. B.

Walter, J.

Marjoribanks, C.

Wedgwood, J.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Whalley, Sir S.

Ord, W. H.

Wigney, J. N.

Pendarves, E. W.

Wood, G.

Plumptre, J. P.

TELLERS.

Potter, R.

Baring, F.

Price, Sir R.

Kennedy, T. F.

ABOLITION OF TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Barronrose to submit to the House certain Resolutions respecting Tithes in Ireland His Majesty's Government had brought forward measures for the coercion of the people of Ireland, but none for their relief. A bill for the latter purpose had indeed been introduced; but it had not been carried into effect. The evils which were caused by tithes in Ireland, were not evils of the present day; they were evils which had existed for upwards of three hundred years. The tithe system had been pronounced in a Report of a Committee of that House, to have been the cause, for a long series of years, of confusion and bloodshed. He wished the House to confirm that by a declaration? The next point was, would the House continue a system which had been so characterised? Another Committee had declared, that such a change alone could be satisfactory as would involve the utter extinction of tithes in Ireland, and the substitution of such a tax on the land as might be necessary for the support of the Protestant clergy. He was convinced that the only mode of allaying the great excitement and irritation which existed in Ireland, would be, to put an end to tithes entirely. The people of Ireland would not be satisfied with any temporising measure; they would never be content until the whole system was got rid of. It was by no means his wish to propose any measure that was not perfectly practicable. The hon. Gentleman referred to the evidence of the reverend Mr. Montgomery, and of other Gentlemen, in the Reports of Committees of that
38
House, to show, that not only the Catholics, but the Protestants of Ireland, were opposed to the system of tithes. The proposition which his second Resolution involved, respecting a tax on land for the support of the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, was countenanced by the Protestant clergy of that country; in proof of which he could refer to the petitions which had been presented from the clergy of the Dioceses of Ossory, Dublin, and Ferns. This showed he was not proposing any thing likely to be offensive to the Protest-ant clergy in Ireland. Indeed, he was most anxious to act in a spirit of conciliation; and, if possible, in a manner consonant to the wishes and feelings of the Protestant Establishment. But, above all, he was anxious to do justice. His principal object was, that the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland might henceforward live in good fellowship and neighbourhood, as Christians ought to live, and not in rancorous enmity, which was at present but too frequently the case. This, however, could not be accomplished by half and half measures. It could not be accomplished by proposing one thing to-day, and giving it up to-morrow. Such weakness would only expose the Legislature to contempt and derision. With respect to the principle of his plan, it had always appeared to him that the existing incumbents ought to continue to receive the amount of their present incomes. That was due to them, on every principle of public policy and of private feeling. He was by no means, however, prepared to say, that such property ought to be irrevocable, and that it ought to go to any successors of the present incumbents. Many of the Protestant clergy in Ireland had little or nothing to do in return for their incomes. Now, it was contrary to all the principles of justice and good government, that a portion of the public property should be given to men who did nothing for the public. Those who had opposed the rotten boroughs and nominations of our political Constitution, ought to be equally opposed to the rotten boroughs and nominations of our Ecclesiastical Constitution. He called, therefore, upon those who had so fiercely and so successfully fought the battle of Parliamentary Reform, to support his Motion; and on the same principles upon which they had purified the representation of the people, to purify the Constitution of the Church. He called

39
upon them to assist him in converting to useful purposes the property with which the members of the Church Establishment had originally been invested, as trustees for the benefit of the people at large. He did not wish to cut down the reward of the working clergyman; far from it; his object was, to adjust remuneration to service, and not, as at present, by paying a clergyman who had done nothing, because, among other reasons, he had no flock. English Members could hardly be aware of the number of parishes in Ireland in which all that was known of the Established Church was through the rigorous exactions of the tithe-proctor. They, perhaps, would be surprised when he told them that there were not less than 649 parishes in Ireland in which there was no Protestant Church—no resident Protestant clergyman—in which, though the Protestant rites had never been performed, the tithes were rigidly exacted. This was out of a total of 2,400 parishes, leaving thus nearly one-third without any resident rector; and beside this, there were a vast number of parishes where the parties who took the tithes, far from residing, were never even seen by their parishioners. In Mocullagh, a parish in the county of Kilkenny, joined, although ten miles distant, with that in which he resided, there was not a single Protestant; the rector had never been in the parish; and yet, within the last ten days, writs had been served there for 3l. 10 s. The rector of this parish, for he liked to give names with facts, was Mr. Alcock, and he was one of those persons who had last year written piteous letters to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley); and his case was one of those pressed into the Report to excite the compassion of the people of England. This unhappy victim complained that these people of Mocullagh would most unaccountably pay him no tithes, whereas he (Mr. Barron) contended, that it was contrary to common sense, and to common justice, that they should be called on to pay him any thing. This he would put to any Englishman, and he had no doubt of the reply he should receive. In Scotland, religion cost one shilling and nine-pence per head; in Ireland, 1l. 13 s. Ad. to every Protestant. He did not object to a full allowance being made where there was in truth and reality a Church and Church-going people—where, in short, work was done in that case
40
he should always be ready to uphold the Establishment in respectability and comfort. But what he maintained was, that the State had a right to interfere with the property of the Church, that it had often done so, and that it was incumbent on the State to do so now, in order that the revenues might be so regulated as really to be applicable to the purposes of religion and of sound and useful education. In conclusion, he would assert, that the House, by agreeing to his Resolutions, would do great good, inasmuch as they would show a sympathy with the people of Ireland; and, after 300 years of misrule, take a positive step towards reconciling them to the Government and institutions of this country. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following Resolutions:—" That the tithe system in Ireland has been the fruitful source of misery and crime, and should be totally extinguished.—That a Land-tax ought to be substituted for the support of the Protestant Establishment and such other purposes of general utility as the Legislature may deem necessary."
Mr. Littletondid not think it necessary to enter into any lengthened reply to the observations of the hon. Gentleman; for although he would be the last person to object to any hon. Member bringing forward any measure for the removal of Irish grievances, yet he could not but express his opinion, that the present was a most inconvenient opportunity for the introduction of these Resolutions. He would beg to ask whether any one subject had occupied so much of the time of the House as this very one of Irish tithes? He thought not; for not only had it been discussed on the Coercion Bill most fully, but the other day upon the Church Temporalities Bill, when his noble friend, (Lord Althorp) had given every opportunity to hon. Members to make any proposition they thought proper, as well as given notice subsequently of a resolution relative to the application of the tithe bill to lay impropriations. There did, therefore, appear no necessity for the present motion at this period of the Session. Far was he, however, from asserting, that upon some future occasion it might not be for the benefit of the empire at large that other measures should be introduced; but he must also say, that in the next year we, should be in a better situation to come to a calm judgment upon

41
this topic, as by November next the occupying tenants would be relieved from all contact with the tithe-owners, and all future leases would exempt them immediately from the payment of tithes. Another reason for delay with respect to any more permanent arrangement was, that the Bill of his noble friend would leave the country in a state of greater tranquillity than heretofore, as, up to May next year, there would be no demand for any species of tithe made. The hon. Gentleman had indulged in many observations, with regard to clergymen claiming tithes where they had performed no duty, but those ought to have been made the other day upon the discussion of the suspension clause. Undoubtedly he was the last man who would defend the propriety of upholding an Establishment and its expenses in parishes where clergymen had no congregations, as this would in itself be one of the first grounds to be seized by its enemies for making an attack on the whole Church. But the present was not the proper occasion for discussing that question. With respect to the question of tithes, he wished to say a few words. He earnestly trusted, that the Irish gentlemen would not be indisposed to make some sacrifice on this subject; for it was only by the instrumentality of their aid that the British Parliament could effect a satisfactory arrangement of the question. If they were determined to oppose every measure, whatever its nature might be, he would not say, that in such a case he despaired of seeing any satisfactory arrangement come to, but he believed it could not be attained without much confusion, and, he feared, the spilling of blood. But, whatever form the property of tithe might assume—and he admitted that it was a fair question whether it should remain as tithe—that property must as such be maintained; for no individuals had a right to that which belonged to the Church; or, if not to the Church, belonged, as all men must admit, to the State. That property was not the property of individuals, and the law which protected it must be asserted and maintained. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the previous question.
Mr. Fergus O'Connorobserved, that they were told that the law must be enforced with respect to tithes as with respect to other property. There was one
42
difference, however, which the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to have adverted to. It was this—that the law created the property in tithes, while it only protected property of another description. It could not be denied, that tithes had been a great source of discontent in Ireland, and the people would not be satisfied till the Ministry did something really to put an end to them. It was said, that the Members who opposed the ministerial measure, did so from a feeling of self-interest. He was ready to admit, that some had an interest in this question, but he denied, that that interest affected their general conduct on this question. As for himself, he should be ready to give his assistance to the Ministers in imposing a Land-tax that would utterly get rid of the present system of collecting tithes, and altogether abolish them, for they could not be persevered in without confusion and bloodshed. When this was done, and not till then, the Protestant pre-eminence in Ireland might be maintained at a less price than at present.
Mr. O'Ferrallhoped, that it would be remembered, that the Secretary for Ire-land was opposed to keeping up an establishment where clergymen had no congregations, though he doubted the propriety of making such a declaration unless the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman were prepared to act upon it. The people of Ireland had already suffered very much by the Government making them believe that it would abolish tithes, when in fact Ministers had no such intention. When the question was first introduced, if his Majesty's Government had met it fairly and openly, and had said at once: "Tithes must be paid; we can give you no relief; and we will perpetuate the old system," the people would not have been deceived. They would have known what they were about; instead of which, they had one day one thing, and another, directly the reverse. One day a bill was proposed, which contained provisions that met with the approbation and support of a great majority of the members for Ireland, and the next day, the only valuable principle of the Bill was given up. When the Ministers laboured under any little embarrassment, and wished to increase their popularity, they expressed an opinion which could not fail to have that effect; but when the emergency had passed away, it was found no longer

43
convenient to act upon the opinion; and those who expected they would, were led astray. On the first Resolution there could be no difference of opinion, and his Majesty's Government could not oppose it, because the very terms of the Report were the same as the Resolution. With regard to the second Resolution, that a Land-tax ought to be substituted for payment of the present incumbents, and for the support of the Protestant Establishment, and for such other purposes of general utility as the Legislature may deem necessary, the Bill introduced last year was to effect a similar object. It declared, that by a compulsory commutation a Land-tax should be substituted for the former system of taking tithes in kind. It was, perhaps, necessary to inform some hon. Members, that during the last year there were two Bills passed on this subject. The first was to levy a tax to compensate his Majesty's Government for an advance of 60,000 l. for the relief of the clergy of Ireland; and the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government fully admitted, a short time since, that that Bill had signally failed. When that measure was in progress, many hon. Members—of whom he was one—stated to his Majesty's Government, that it would not succeed—that the expense would be twice the sum to be levied—that it would throw the whole country into confusion—and that the tithe-system, so far from being settled at the end of twelve months, would be in the same state as when they began to legislate upon the subject. For that they were described as factious, and English Members complained, that they were unnecessarily taking up the time of the House. A second Bill was introduced, to carry into effect the Bill for the Composition of Tithes in Ireland. When that Bill was introduced, it was left to the option of the different parishes in Ireland whether they would adopt it or not; several of them did adopt it; some of them did not; and the object of the Bill was to compel every parish in Ireland to come into the composition. By the first Bill the parish had the power of appointing one Commissioner, the clergyman had the right to nominate the other. By the late compulsory Act, if, within three months, the parishes came forward and appointed their Commissioner, they might have the option of selecting the person who should act on their behalf; but if they did not do
44
so within the three months, then the Government was authorized to appoint the Commissioner. Now, this period of three months commenced about the 16th of August, during a time of the greatest excitement that Ireland had ever known; it was just previous to the election. The consequence was, that during that time no Commissioners were appointed on be-half of the parishes; and, therefore, that part of the Bill not having been complied with, his Majesty's Government came forward and appointed the Commissioners themselves. He had two petitions in which the petitioners complained bitterly of the ignorance and injustice of these officers. Under the old law the tithe-proprietor might levy his tithes for a given time, through the farmer, who paid a stipulated sum to the tithe-owner, and, of course, sought to make a profit for himself. Under the new Bill, the tithe-proprietor had a right to levy on the parish, not only what he received from the tithe-farmer, but also the profits made by the latter. He had a right, of course, not only to what he actually received, but to all the sums stipulated to be paid. It was very well known, that in many parishes, the peasantry, rather than have the cause tried, would pass a note for a larger sum than they could pay. Under this Bill, in future, all the sums these persons had promised to pay were to be levied by the tithe-proprietor. That was giving the proprietor a property he never had before. Under the former law the tithe was a tax on the produce; by this Bill it was made a tax on the land; so whether the land be tilled or not, the landowner would be obliged to pay the tithe. It was the first charge made on the estate of every owner of land in Ireland, and the situation of the tithe-owner was better than that of any other claimant. In fact, the security of the owner of tithe-property is just double what it was before. To carry the proposition for the Land-tax into effect, and to make it satisfactory, it must be made on just and sound principles. All he asked was, that the defects of the Bill of last year should be remedied during the present Session; that the appointment of the Commissioners should not be compulsory, and that those provisions which might give rise to future discontent and ill-treatment should be abandoned. If that measure were not amended, by allowing the commutation to depend on the will of all parties concerned,

45
a ground-work would be established for greater evils and more disturbances in Ireland, than any that had hitherto existed. They stated that to the House last year; they were not believed; they now stated it again; and if their remonstrances be disregarded, the consequences must rest with the Ministers. His Majesty's Government could not be expected to bring forward the settlement of the question this Session; but they could either suspend the Bill of last year or amend it. By the Resolution of the other night, it was agreed, that money should be advanced for the settlement of the tithes of 1831, 1832, and 1833. The tithes of 1834 would not be due until the 1st of November next. And, therefore, if a Billon this subject were passed previous to Easter, there would be plenty of time for the settlement of the question; but if his Majesty's Government continued to send captains of the navy to value land, one at one price, and another at another, he did not know how they would succeed in overcoming a spirit of discontent which their measures must generate in Ireland, and under which he should think it scarcely possible for any Government to exist.
Mr. Secretary Stanleycould not object to the principle of the first Resolution, because he believed it was copied from the Report of the Tithe Committee, to which he himself had agreed; neither could he deny that tithes had been the fruitful parent of misery and ill-will in Ireland; but the question was, whether the evils which had arisen from this source, were not now about to be got rid of by the measure which the Government had introduced. In fact the hon. member for Kildare had already stated, that last year a Bill was introduced which would have the effect of converting tithes into a tax upon laud, and, therefore, of putting an end to the misery. But, before entering on that question, he must say a word or two on the often misrepresented expression of "extinction of tithes." Having done so now, he should consider it as done once for all, and never would enter on the question again. He begged the attention of the House to the occasion on which that expression was used, and the circumstances attending the use of it. The hon. member for Wicklow, who had introduced the debate on that occasion, had said, that 'The system of tithes was unjust in prin-
46
ciple, and tyrannical in operation; and that it made a difference between the rich and the poor, because the rich man, by turning his arable land into pasture, might evade the tax, which it was impossible for the poor man to do, who was compelled to live on the produce of his potatoe ground.' Why, it should be recollected in the first place, that that was the system created by the Irish Parliament, so often the subject of the praise of the hon. member for the city of Waterford—for it was they that made agistment the exception to liability to tithes, and thus created the invidious distinction between the poor and the rich.
Mr. Barronhad not eulogised the system, he had only given it as an instance of the interference of the State with tithe property.
Mr. Secretary Stanley: That might be so; but still it was true, that this sort of interference, so favourable to the rich and unjust to the poor, was the work of the Irish Parliament. In answer to the observations thus made on the evils of the system of tithes, and in answer to a question from Mr. Croker, he (Mr. Stanley) had said, that the object the Government had in view was, "the extinction of the present system of tithes." The Report of the Committee, too, said, that tithes were to be exchanged for a commutation on land, or for a charge on land. It was quite impossible that the public should have been misled by such an expression, uttered under such circumstances. The promise he then held out had been strictly fulfilled by the introduction of a measure which had got rid of the objectionable parts of the former tithe-system, and had virtually converted tithe into what the hon. member for Waterford wished to see substituted in its place—a system of Land-tax. Tithe had been converted into a charge on land—and in what respect did it differ from a Land-tax? He admitted, that the present system of tithes had been the parent of much misery in Ireland; but in what manner? It was in their mode of assessment, in the various modes in which they were collected, and in all the practical details connected with their collection; and all of these objections would be done away by their conversion into what was virtually and really a Land-tax. The difference between the present system and any other must be in the persons by whom the tithes were collected,

47
or the persons by whom they were paid. He much suspected that the objections to the Ministerial measure proceeded from those by whom the tithes must be paid. The burthen would now be taken from the shoulders of the poor and put upon those of the rich—upon those who in the Irish Parliament had had sufficient influence to get passed such a system as that which he had read and described in the sentence taken from the speech of the hon. Member, whose sentiments he had quoted. All would now pay according to the value of the land of which they were the occupiers. All the small charges that were so oppressive in their operation would be got rid of—the tithes themselves would no longer be a direct tax upon industry—they would be paid, not by the tenant, but by the landlord. And if the tenant suffered from a heavier burthen than at present, he would know to whom to impute the evil; and that to the landlord, and not to the clergyman, he must look for relief [An Hon. Member: That is unjust towards the landlords]. Unjust towards the landlords! Would the hon. Member tell the House what he meant by the expression, whether he meant by relief from tithes to get a pecuniary benefit to the landlords? He believed that they might think—intend—wish—that it should be so; but were there any hon. Members who would get up in that House and declare that such were their sentiments? Why was the altered system unjust towards the landlord? The hon. Member said, that "the land was his." So it was; but he had bought it and paid for it either subject to tithe or free from tithe. If subject to tithe, he had paid less for it than he would have been obliged to pay if it had been free from tithe. If the clergyman was to be deprived of his tithe, the landlord, then, was not the person who ought to benefit by it; and it was no injustice to make the tithe directly payable by the landlord, which he before paid indirectly, and the amount of which he extorted from his suffering tenant, whom he described as oppressed by the exactions of a greedy and grasping clergy. He contended, that no pains had been spared on the part of his Majesty's Government to carry into effect the Tithe Composition Act of last Session; and he might also add, that no pains had been spared on the other side to prevent it from producing any beneficial
48
result to the deluded people of Ireland. He thought that the Resolution of to-night was rendered totally unnecessary by the alteration which it was proposed to make in the measure introduced during the present Session by his Majesty's Ministers. He would not enter at all at present into the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Resolution, and for this reason, that the discussion on it, though repeatedly taken during the interminable debates on the subject of Irish tithes, had better be reserved to a more fitting opportunity. He contended, that the House ought not to divert the property of the Church of Ireland away from that Church until they saw that the purposes of the Church were fully answered. The object of the Irish Church Reform Bill was to produce a better and more equitable division of the revenues of that Church among the Ministers of it. The distribution of the surplus, if surplus there should be, was still left open for the consideration of Parliament. Upon that subject he had his own opinions; what those opinions were, he would not state at present, all he would say was, that the subject was still an open subject. He cordially agreed with his right hon. friend the Secretary for Ireland in saying that he should vote for the previous question, because he thought that in continuing the present discussion, they were raising not merely an irrelevant and useless debate, but also one that was absolutely mischievous and injurious to the tranquillity and all the best interests of Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he saw in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down the same unrelenting disposition towards Ireland, the same inflexible determination not to concede any thing to his unfortunate country, which had always hitherto distinguished the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, that in consequence of that speech, the Government would, in future, exclude the right hon. Gentleman from all interference in the affairs of Ireland. Ireland was not a colony or a province—it was an integral part of the empire; and he therefore, trusted that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would take his department into his own immediate keeping, and would not give it up to the management of the right hon. Secretary for the colonies. He could not help admiring the wonderful special pleading of the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary had not, he said,

49
used the term "extinction of tithes" in its ordinary signification—no, he had qualified it; he had spoken only of the "extinction of the tithe system;" and in using that language he had spoken to the Irish peasantry, whose knowledge of the English language was not so critical as to be able to discern the wide difference between the "extinction of tithes" and the "extinction of the tithe system." But all these points were foreign from the matter of debate. The real question, disguise it as they might, was nothing else but this—ought any set of Christians to be obliged to pay for the expense of supporting the pastors of another set, in whose doctrines they did not believe, and by whose admonitions they did not benefit? Every man speaking before the public should be frank and candid in his declarations, and that had always been his practice. Now, if he had understood the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies correctly, that right hon. Secretary maintained that it was right to keep up a Protestant establishment at the expense of a Catholic people. He could tell the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies, and the House, that the people of Ireland never would, indeed never ought to, be content, whilst such an establishment was kept up among them at an expense which, even if they received advantage from it, would be objectionable. The indignant cry which the Roman Catholics of Ireland were raising against that over-grown establishment would be re-echoed by the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland, and of England too, until common sense had produced its natural effects even upon the understanding of that House. He put it to the gentlemen of England whether such an anomaly as the Established Church of Ireland ought to exist any longer? Did such an anomaly exist else-where? Was there any other country in the world in which a Church Establishment to which only 1–20th part of the population belonged was supported at the expense of the remaining 19–20ths, who neither believed in its doctrines, nor received consolation from the religion which it taught? But the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was for supporting that establishment, in order to convert the Roman Catholics of Ireland into Protestants. As an additional inducement to that conversion, he supposed that the right hon. Secretary had rained down upon Ireland that shower of latitats from the Exche-
50
quer which had succeeded in some few cases in recovering 20 s. at the expense of 50 s. Yes, let the Government set up in Ireland the Colonial Secretary, with all his kindness of manner, and benignity of temper, and no doubt he would make all the people of Ireland converts to that Church to which he was so much attached, and for which he made them pay so dearly. What had the late right hon. Secretary for Ireland done for that unhappy country? Nothing, or worse than nothing. He had introduced two Bills on the subject of tithes. He was told, that his first Bill, the Bill of last Session, would increase the disturbances of Ireland; but he would not heed those who told him so; and what had been the result? Blood had been shed in various parts of the country, and no tithes could be collected except at the point of the bayonet. It appeared as if he had thrown Ireland into disturbance in order to introduce his favourite measure, the Coercion Bill. By the aid of that Bill tithe had been collected with greater rigour than before, and as the last feather broke the camel's back, so the last exertion of the power of that Bill had driven the unarmed peasantry of Ireland to resist its execution at Middleton, even when enforced by detachments of police and military. The King's Ministers too had come down to the House and obtained a unanimous vote of credit to pay off the tithes due to the clergy of the Established Church of Ireland. He hoped that they would come down on a future day and ask for a similar vote to pay off the tithes due to the lay impropriators. If they did, he was certain that no man who wished well to the settlement of Ireland would refuse to give them a similar vote of credit. The right hon. Secretary to the Colonies had held out to the people of Ireland the prospect that tithes should be extinguished altogether, when in stepped the present right hon. Secretary for Ireland and said, "Oh, no! they must be kept up to pay the present incumbents of the Church of Ireland their full salaries." Now he appealed to all who heard him, whether it was just to follow such advice, now that they had it stated on the authority of Parliamentary Returns, that, taking Ireland throughout, there was one-eighth of its, benefices in which divine service according to the Protestant ritual had not been performed for the last three years? Why should not tithes be

51
abolished in those parishes at once? Why should any payment be made to those pastors who performed no duty? If they wished to procure tranquillity in Ireland, and to maintain it when procured, they must get rid of the temporalities of the Church of Ireland, which pressed upon her like an incubus.
Mr. Lefroydid not rise for the purpose of entering into a discussion of the general question involved in the proposition submitted to the consideration of the House by the hon. member for Waterford, as it seemed to be admitted on all hands that this was not the time for a consideration of the subject—but he could not permit the observations of that hon. Member, nor those which fell from the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) in reference to the alleged number of benefices in Ireland, in which it was stated there was neither a church nor a resident clergyman, to puss without a reply. The hon. member for Waterford stated, that there were 649 parishes in Ireland in which no incumbent resided, and in which there was no church. The Representation made by the hon. Member in respect of parishes was calculated to mislead the House, inasmuch as many hon. Members might be induced to believe, that all these parishes were benefices—that there was this number of benefices in Ireland in which there was no resident clergyman. He challenged the hon. Member to state the name of a benefice in which no clergyman resided. It was true that there were many parishes so circumstanced, but this arose from the fact of the revenues of many small parishes not affording a competency for the clergyman; the consequence was, that several of these small parishes were united, and the union made up an adequate benefice, amounting to between 200 l. and 300 l. a-year, and in each of these unions a Protestant rector or curate was resident. The statement, therefore, of the hon. Member could not be supported.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that in Kilsheda there was no resident clergyman, though the living was worth 1,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Lefroy: The statements of hon. Members, supposing them to be correct, fell very short of the representation made, namely, that there were 649 parishes so circumstanced. There might be so many parishes in Ireland, in which there was no church, but he would venture to say that they were either united with other parishes
52
in which there was a church, or had the accommodation of some neighbouring church. There was another observation made by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, to which he must reply. That hon. Member stated, that there was a hardship and an injustice in maintaining the Established Church in Ireland, as the great body of the people were of a different religion. He (Mr. Lefroy) begged to know, where was the injustice in making the Protestant proprietors of Ireland, paying for the maintenance of their own church? Nineteen-twentieths of the land belonged to Protestant proprietors, and it was admitted that the tithe was in effect paid by the landlords. The crying injustice, therefore, was, that the Protestant proprietors paid for the support of their own religion. As well might it be said that in some of the counties or great towns in England, where Roman Catholics resided, or dissenters formed a majority of the population, the Established Church ought not to be maintained. Now, he (Mr. Lefroy) contended that the establishment ought to be taken in reference to the whole body of Protestants in the United Kingdom, and not with reference to the local circumstances of Ireland or England. It was manifest, that the great majority of the population of the United Kingdom were Protestants; the establishment, therefore, was not for a portion, but for a great majority of the people.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he should not have troubled the House upon this occasion, had not the hon. and learned member for Dublin made upon his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Colonies, one of the most unfair and unprovoked attacks which he had ever heard in the whole course of his parliamentary experience. He could conceive no other cause for that attack than this, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had been so often engaged in contest with his right hon. friend, and had been so often worsted by him in debate, that there rankled in his mind a sense of his own inferiority, and that, therefore, an opportunity having been offered him to attack his right hon. friend, when his right hon. friend could have no opportunity to reply, he was to be attacked whether he had given cause for the attack or not. The hon. and learned Member had avowed that his object was not alteration in the Establishment of the Church of Ireland. No, his object now

53
was, that there should be no Church Establishment, or no Protestant Church Establishment, in that country. He had always been aware that there were Gentlemen who entertained that opinion. He was not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman had not avowed that opinion before out of the walls of Parliament. But of this he was sure, that never on any occasion had his Majesty's Ministers either expressed or entertained an intention to destroy the Protestant Church Establishment of Ireland. They were anxious to effect, and they had endeavoured to effect such a Reform in that Church as would be a benefit to the Establishment itself; but as to subverting or destroying it, they disclaimed the idea. All they wished to effect was, to place it in such a condition as would press the least possible on the people of Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also taunted his right hon. friend with interfering in the affairs of Ireland, now that he was removed from the Irish to the Colonial Office. Now he had yet to learn that his right hon. friend, in accepting the Secretaryship of the Colonies, had given up any of his rights as a Member of the Imperial Parliament. As a Member of the Imperial Parliament it was part of his duty to attend to the affairs of Ireland, and if he were to fail in that part of his duty, he knew no man more likely to make it matter of charge against his right hon. friend than the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman had also expressed a hope that in any future measure which Government might intend to adopt towards Ireland, they would not take the advice which his right hon. friend might be induced to give upon them. Now, to that hope he would give at once this reply—that on whatever political subject his right hon. friend should be inclined to offer him his advice, he should be most happy to take it.
Mr. Sheildid not wish to say anything which would add to the acrimony of the present debate, but he could not refrain from stating that in his opinion the observations of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin on the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies were perfectly justified. They were not unprovoked, as most of them turned upon the general principles which the right hon. Secretary had declared ought to guide them in legislating for the Established Church of Ire-
54
land. All the measures which the right hon. Secretary had introduced upon those principles for the removal of the ecclesiastical grievances of Ireland had met with a signal and disastrous failure. His Bill of last Session for the commutation of tithes had excited disturbance instead of allaying it; and as to his Bill of the present Session, could anybody say what it was? They knew what the plan of the Government was with respect to the Bank Charter, the abolition of slavery, and the renewal of the East-India Charter; but could anybody tell them—could the Cabinet itself tell them—what the Irish Tithe Bill was? As far as he knew anything of the present project of Government, it was not likely to succeed in pleasing any party, it would not conciliate the peasantry of Ireland; and, by fixing the tithe as a land-tax on the landlords of Ireland, it would place the aristocracy against them. He called upon the House to do justice to the people of Ireland. The Session, it was true, was now far advanced, but it was not too late to consider the Bank Charter, the East-India Company's Charter, and the abolition of slavery. He, therefore, hoped that it would not be considered too late to do justice to his oppressed and injured countrymen.
Mr. Shawsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that any measure for the permanent arrangement of the system of tithes in Ireland, had been announced by the Government during the present Session. On the contrary, it was upon the very ground that the Act of last year was to take effect from the 1st of November next, that the Government had proposed an adjustment of the tithes of 1831, 1832, and 1833, by means of an enactment limited to that specific object, and to that particular period. The observations of the right hon. Secretary were certainly liable to misconstruction, and perhaps calculated to do mischief by raising expectations which it was not intended to realise. As regarded any ulterior measure relative to tithes, it was plain that his Majesty's Government contemplated none. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Littleton) appeared to him to have very inconsiderately assented to a principle frequently advanced by the opponents of the Church—namely, that no tithe should be paid in a benefice where circumstances prevented the celebration of divine service.

55
That was going entirely beyond the clause in the Church Bill of his Majesty's Government, which only gave the power of suspending an incumbent where service had not been performed, but made no alteration in the payment of the tithe. The evil tendency of the clause as it stood in the Bill, wanted no aggravation from the comments of the right hon. Secretary. He (Mr. Shaw) denied the assertion of the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell) that one-eighth of the benefices in Ireland had been without service for the last three years; one-fourteenth, when the Returns were properly compared, was about the proportion; but this defect was rapidly diminishing, when the Government interfered to check the diminution. Out of 1,400 benefices there were, as he had before stated, about 700 at the time of the Union (in 1,800) where there were no churches. In 500 of these, churches had since been built, and there were about 100 other places licensed for divine worship. That left 100 still unprovided, and while thus the benefits and blessings of the Established Religion were spreading throughout the country, and six-sevenths of the previously unoccupied ground had been covered by them, his Majesty's Ministers cut a trench to interrupt the further progress of improvement, and leave the remaining seventh destitute of the means of religious instruction, according to the form of the Established Church. The simple question was, whether, admitting it to be an evil that any benefice should be without service, the mode of remedying that evil was to remove the clergyman, or to provide him with a church or other place, for the celebration of divine service? And all he could say was, that had that principle been adopted thirty years ago, six times the number of benefices that now were would have been returned as having no service in them. He was surprised that the hon. and learned Member (Mr. O'Connell) could seriously contend that tithe was a tax upon the mere occupying tenant, when he well knew that tithe free land would either let or sell for a greater sum than was paid for land subject to tithe—and that it would make no real difference to the tenant whether he paid nine-tenths to the landlord and one-tenth to the clergyman, or the whole to the landlord in the shape of rent. He allowed that it would be an improvement as to
56
future contracts that the landlord should pay the tithe and receive in one sum the whole value of the land from his tenant, for it was always desirable, that what was done virtually should also be done nominally; but he considered that principle wholly inapplicable to the tithe measure of the Government, which alone had reference to the past and present time, and affected pre-existing contracts; and, however, some such expedients might have been rendered necessary by the want of vigour and firmness in the Government, and for the relief of the suffering clergy, under the severe pressure of distress in no way occasioned by themselves, yet there could be no doubt that the proposed plan would bear most unjustly on the landed proprietors, would be a premium to insubordination and outrage—and the man who had resisted the law, in a better condition than the man who had obeyed it. He would always maintain that the opposition to tithes had been altogether excited by the Roman Catholic priesthood, and the agitators and disturbers of the public peace. The poor deluded Roman Catholic peasantry would willingly have continued a payment to which they took their land liable, had not pains been taken to pervert their understandings and encourage them in acts of violence and outrage. The old hackneyed argument of a majority of a population paying for a religion which they did not profess, was at once refuted by the simple fact that the land paid the tithe, and that at least nine-tenths of that land belonged to Protestants, who not only, as well as all proprietors, held their property subject to the charge, but cheerfully contributed to the support of an establishment for which they entertained the sincerest and warmest attachment.
Mr. Lambertdenied, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland had ever paid tithe to the Established Church with great willingness, and asserted that the various Insurrection Acts which had been passed against Whiteboys, Rightboys, Peep-o'-day-boys, Hearts of Oak, &c, had all originated in the hatred of the people to tithes. As this was only the second night on which they had given the subject of Irish tithes their consideration during the present Session, he would beg leave to call their attention to one or two facts connected with that subject which had not yet received the notice they deserved. They had heard a good deal of passive resistance in Ireland;

57
now, he would state without any reserve that he highly approved of that passive resistance—indeed, he approved of every species of resistance which did not violate the law, because he considered it as the last resource but one which the people had against an unjust and oppressive demand. The people of Scotland had been driven in former times to that last resource. He hoped that the wisdom of Government would prevent the people of Ireland from being driven to it also. He had to complain of the police system of Ireland. Nothing could be more different than it was from the police system in London. It was kept up in a state most mischievous in its effects. He could mention many instances in which some of its Orange members—even privates—had shown a contempt for the authority of the Magistrates, relying, no doubt, on the influence which had appointed them. One case was that of a man named Kennedy, who was fined for some offence. He told the Magistrates that they might fine him, but that he had friends and would get the fine remitted. The Magistrates reprimanded him for his insolence, and told him, they would represent his conduct and recommend his dismissal. He answered that they might do that too, but that he did not care for it; and the man was right enough, for so far from being-dismissed, he was in a short time promoted. He admitted that the present Government were not to blame for that, but his complaint was, that the system had not been improved since they came into office. He contended that as in Catholic times the Archbishops and Bishops swore to hold their temporalities not of the Pope but of the King, such property could be considered only as the property of the State.
Colonel Conollysaid, that when the hon. Member came before the House as the advocate of what he termed passive resistance, he only attempted to impose upon the community, when in the same breath in which he denounced tithes, he set himself up as a vindicator of the law. The hon. Member must have calculated greatly upon the credulity of the House as well as upon his own ingenuity, if he could persuade them into a belief of the latter part of his assertion. He (Colonel Conolly) could not help calling the hon. member for Wexford's recollection to speeches made by him in that House of
58
the most inflammatory nature, and as it was well known that what was said in that House more or less reached the public, the effect produced by such harangues must be most prejudicial. He (Colonel Conolly) begged to call the hon. Member's attention more particularly to the piteous narrative which he detailed to the House of the case of Mary Mulrooney; and he would assert that a more exaggerated or unfounded statement never was uttered by the lips of man than the statement made on that occasion by the hon. member for Wexford. He, therefore, thought that the hon. Member was rather unfortunate in vaunting of his own moderation, for never did he see any man split more infelicitously upon the rock of self-eulogium than had the hon. Member. These inflammatory statements were so many appeals to the passions of the ignorant, and stimulated them to acts of violence and insubordination. The House would perhaps feel amused at finding that he agreed in any statement put forth by the hon. and learned member for Dublin; but there was one proposition laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman to which he did assent. That hon. Gentleman asserted that no payment ought to be made to any man where no duty was performed. He (Colonel Conolly) should like to know, then, on what principle it was that the hon. and learned Gentleman received 12,000 l. a-year, extorted as it was from the people of Ireland without his performing any duty in return. The hon. and learned Gentleman decried the neglect of the Protestant clergy, and refused to give them any payment where no duty was performed. He (Colonel Conolly) should hope that in vindication of his own principle, and in justification of his own conduct, the hon. and learned Gentleman would see the necessity of showing what services he rendered in return for the 12,000 l. annually extorted from the starving peasantry of Ireland. He had in his possession a card which had been sent to him from Cork, bearing the names of collectors, secretary, and other officers, showing that an organised system had been adopted to extort money from the people.
Mr. Roerose to order, and trusted the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair would interfere, and not allow the discussion to degenerate into mere personal attacks.
The Speaker: No one was more sensible than he was to the impropriety of personal

59
attacks being introduced into the discussions of that House, but he was afraid that it was rather too late in the night, after what had already occurred, to complain of those attacks.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to be allowed to say one word in reply. Nothing could be more untrue than that extortion was employed in collecting the money alluded to. He would, in the strongest terms consistent with the dignity of that House, deny the charge. Nothing was ever asserted so little liable to credit as the statement of the hon. Member.
Mr. Walkersaid, that he was surprised, and that he saw with regret, that any one should jest upon and treat lightly, as had been done that evening, the atrocious murder committed by the yeomanry at Newtown Barry.
Mr. Barronreplied, that he did not know in what way he was to understand the consistency of those who, having voted on Thursday and Friday week last, for measures similar to what he advocated, should now think fit to vote against his Resolutions. The present Resolutions were moderate, and were intended for the peace of Ireland, and did not go further than the sentiments frequently expressed by Gentlemen opposite. He maintained that five-sixths of the tenants under lease in the South of Ireland would be compelled to pay this tax to Protestants by the Act of last year, and that the consequence would be a repetition of the scenes of bloodshed which had taken place in Ireland during the last century. It was that the repetition of those scenes should be avoided that he brought forward his Resolutions. He would not detain the House any longer. His plan was, to have the working clergy of Ireland paid, and to take away the sinecures enjoyed by those who had no cure of souls. However, when he called to mind the result of the division on the 147th clause the other evening, he considered it useless to divide the House on his Resolutions.
Resolutions withdrawn.

NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Mr. Humerose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice on this subject. The hon. Member began by quoting the Report of the Committee to which this subject had been referred, and which declared that no alterations could make the present House fit for the convenient accommodation
60
of the present number of Members, and that it was therefore expedient that a new House should be erected. This was the opinion, not only of the Committee, but also of a great many Members of the House. He would confidently appeal to the Members of even the least experience in that House, whether it was, in its present state, fit for the accommodation of Members, or for the convenient discharge of public business? Let any man look at the state of that bar, and say, whether in the manner in which it was crowded, night after night, it was possible to give proper attention to what was going on? It was now twelve hours since he had entered the House that clay, and it was often that he had to attend fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, and sometimes seventeen hours out of the twenty-four, and he would ask whether, in the fatigue consequent on such a long attendance, Members ought to be exposed to such an atmosphere, so little congenial to health as that which they breathed there? For the sake of health, then, they ought not to be crowded together in such a state as they were at present in that House. The suggestion of a new House did not originate in the present day. In the year 1739, nearly a century ago, and before the 100 Members for Ireland were added to the English Members, a plan of a new House was laid before the then Speaker, Mr. Onslow, and by that plan it was estimated, that the expense would not exceed 55,000 l.; but the expense of the plan recommended by the Committee would not exceed much more than half that sum. It might perhaps be objected, that even this was too great an expense. It certainly was something new to hear from some of the hon. Members near him (some of the supporters of the late Administration) anything which indicated that they had taken on themselves the office of protectors of the public purse—an office to which they had heretofore not been much accustomed; but when he found, that many of those hon. Members had voted a million of money for the repairs of Windsor Castle, and he believed not less than 600,000 l. for the building up and pulling down repairs of Buckingham-palace, he hoped that they would not object to so small an outlay as from 35,000 l. to 40,000 l. for a convenient building for the representatives of the Commons of England. He hoped, therefore, to hear no more of such objections from that quarter. It was

61
proved in evidence, on the statements of the most competent judges, that the present House would not afford convenient accommodation to more than 350 persons; how, then, could the business be performed with any ease or comfort to hon. Members, when there were 400, 500, or as it sometimes happened, 600 present? He need go no further, than to refer to what took place that evening at five o'clock, in the passage between the door and the bar, where the crowd was so great, that it was impossible to pass in or out without the greatest inconvenience. The same inconvenience was felt on every night of a full attendance; and he need only appeal to those who were present on divisions of 500 or more Members, for the fact, of the annoyance suffered by the crowded state of the House. In the year 1794, George 3rd directed that a plan of a new House of Lords, as well as of a new House of Commons, should be laid before him, and such a plan was prepared by Sir John Soane, but circumstances had prevented any further proceeding in it. The Committee was unanimous in the recommendation of a new House. The only difference that existed between the Members was as to the site. Some were of opinion, that it should be at St. James's. He admitted, that that would be attended with considerable advantages, but then there was this objection—that if the House of Commons were removed to that place, it might be necessary to remove the Lords also, which would be a considerable addition to the expense. Several architects, who were examined, were of opinion that it would be best to erect the new House a little to the south-east of the present; others, that it should be to the east. His opinion was, that the best situation for a House would be due east of the present building, which might form the lobby of the new House, and be so contrived, by means of suitable folding-doors, as to afford very considerable accommodation, by shortening and facilitating divisions. If this plan were adopted, the House might be emptied in three minutes, instead of twenty being required for that purpose, and the time spent in divisions would be shortened from thirty-five or forty minutes, the present average in a full House, to fifteen. The economy of time to be thus effected was of the greatest importance. He thought a Commission might be advantageously employed in considering the subject, and carrying the plan which might
62
be determined on into effect. The hon. Member concluded by moving two Resolutions to the effect—" First, That the present House of Commons did not afford adequate accommodation, due regard being had to the health and convenience of Members, and the despatch of public business, and that it was therefore necessary to erect a new building. Secondly, That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct a new House of Commons to be erected, Parliament being prepared to place at his Majesty's disposal, a sum of money sufficient to defray the expense of such building." If these Resolutions should be agreed to, he intended to move on the first supply day, that a sum not exceeding 35,000 l. be granted to his Majesty, for the purpose of building a new House of Commons. For his own part he should have been satisfied with 25,000 l., but named the larger sum in order to meet the wishes of others; it being understood, however, that the amount might be increased or diminished as the House should think proper.
Colonel Daviesrose to second the first Resolution for the purpose of obtaining an opportunity to state in what respect he differed from his hon. friend. No man could be more fully sensible than himself of the defects and inconveniencies of the present building. The result was most unfavourable upon the proceedings of the House. A stranger introduced to that place for the first time, and witnessing the disorder which prevailed, and the undignified conduct of Members, would naturally ask, "Is this the celebrated House of Commons? Are these the master-spirits of the age?" The appearance of the House was frequently rather that of a debating-club or a bear-garden, than of a deliberative assembly. The noise was excessive, and Members, instead of attending to the proceedings, amused themselves with talking, or laying stretched at full length asleep upon the benches. A great deal of this arose from the bad construction and want of proper accommodation of the House. He could not agree with his hon. friend in his proposed site for a new House of Commons, and thought that an entire change of situation, to St. James's Palace, for instance, would be advantageous, and infinitely more convenient to all Members who were not of the legal profession. The hon. and gallant Member referred to the

63
Report, and quoted evidence in support of this opinion. In conclusion, he stated his intention to move as an amendment on the second Resolution, that the subject be referred to a Select Committee, to take into consideration the various plans proposed, and the evidence contained in the Report.
Mr. Peterreferred to the opinion of Mr. Hanbury Tracey, for the purpose of showing that the present House could be altered so as to render it convenient to the Members, and adequate for the discharge of public business. Assuming that this could be effected, he was averse from building a new House, at the cost of the loss of all the recollections and associations connect-ed with that in which they now sat, and which, in his opinion, were such, as no conveniences or accommodations could compensate.
Sir Matthew White Ridleythought, if any alteration were decided on, that the plan proposed by his hon. friend (Mr. H. Tracey) and supported by the evidence of Mr. Hopper, must be admitted to be best. He objected to the first Resolution, because he did not feel the inconvenience in point of unwholesomeness, or inadequacy for the despatch of business, of which it complained. The present House of Commons was sufficient for all the purposes for which it was wanted, and they could not remove it from its present situation without moving the House of Lords with it, and that was quite out of the question.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he would support the first Resolution. The hon. Member who had just spoken had said, that the present House was not unfavourable to the health of the Members. Now, if the hon. Member had attended to the opinions expressed universally by hon. Members in their private conversation out of that House—if, instead of attending to what was spoken by Members in public within those walls, he had attended to their real honest opinions expressed by them in private conversation out of doors, he would have found that it was their general conviction, that the present House was unfavourable to the health of the Members. Several of his (Mr. Warburton's) friends had lost their health, and some of them their lives, in consequence of their continued attendance in that House. For himself, he would only say, that the scats were so inconvenient, that he never sat there for upwards of two or three hours, that he was not in a
64
state of bodily torture, and he frequently spent twelve hours there during the Session at one sitting. The plan of the hon. member for Tewkesbury, while, in order to its being carried into effect, it would leave scarce a stone, with the exception of the roof and the floors of the present House standing, would remove but few of the inconveniences at present complained of. He thought that the Treasury should take the matter up.
Lord Althorpsaid, that hon. Members spoke of the unhealthiness of the House, but he did not know that there was anything actually in the House that rendered the sitting there unwholesome. [Mr. Warburton here reminded the noble Lord, that he sat on the floor.] He certainly sat on the floor at present, but he had sat for years where his hon. friend opposite now sat. He apprehended that sitting to very late hours for successive nights any where would be injurious to health. He was ready to admit, that on certain occasions, when there happened to be very full Houses, inconvenience was experienced from the size of the House, but for the average number of Members that attended during the Session, the accommodation was amply sufficient. The noise and interruption that were occasionally experienced in the present House had been complained of; but he was not sure, that if the size of the House should be extended, when the House would not be so full, there would not be greater noise. He confessed, that he did not feel a strong opinion on this subject. He thought that business could be conducted perfectly to the satisfaction of the country in the present building. Still, if it should be the opinion of the majority of the House, that an alteration should take place in the present building, he would not throw any obstruction or difficulty in the way of effecting such alteration. As his hon. friend said, he would take the sense of the House on the subject, and as he (Lord Althorp) did not think that any inconvenience existed to render it necessary to make an alteration in the present building, he would vote against the Resolution.
Sir Robert Peelwould not consent to make an alteration in the present House of Commons, on such a very imperfect Report as that which had been presented on this subject. Of all the reports of Committees that he had ever read, he would say, that this was the most imperfect, and, with

65
every respect for the Chairman, the most discreditable report he had seen. The Report, in the first instance, expressed the opinion of the Committee—an opinion which the Members of the House could as well have formed without the assistance of a Committee—that the present House did not afford adequate accommodation for the Members; but when the Committee came to decide the question as to the erection of a new House of Commons, though twenty-two plans had been laid before them, they were not able to form a decisive opinion as to any one of them. It was ludicrous to hear all the faults of the House of Commons laid to the account of the building, There was, it appeared, often great talking, sometimes a considerable buzz, and, not unfrequently, much coughing; but they were the master-spirits of the age, and, of course, all those things were the fault of the present House of Commons. There was no doubt that the present House was not adequate to the accommodation of 658 Members, but the real question was, whether it was not amply sufficient for the accommodation of the average number of Members that attended in four out of the five nights in the week. If a larger house were built, it would not be as well calculated for the ordinary discharge of business, and besides, the hearing in a larger building might not be as good. The proposition to remove the house to St. James's, half a mile from its present site, was, of course, out of the question. He thought that it was a great advantage to the two Houses of Parliament, to be removed to some distance from that quarter where, as Dr. Johnson said, "the tide of human life swept along"—from Charing-cross, and its busy and bustling neighbourhood. If they were to have an alteration made in the present building, the necessity for which he questioned, he would prefer the plan proposed by the hon. member for Tewkesbury.
Mr. Humereplied. The Committee could not, according to their instructions, recommend any specific plan to the House. The right hon. Baronet, instead of acting the part of a grave senator, had gone to work in a very childish way, to criticise the conduct of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman then defended the conduct of the Committee, and declared, that he would take the sense of the House on the Resolution.
Mr. Traceydefended his own plan.
The House divided on the Resolutions
—Ayes 70; Noes 154: Majority 84.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Leech, J.

Attwood, T.

Lennox, Lord W.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Lloyd, J. H.

Baldwin, H.

Martin, J.

Barry, G. S.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Bellew, R. M.

O'Brien, C.

Bish, T.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Briggs, R.

Ord, W. H.

Brotherton, J.

Ormelie, Lord

Buckingham, J. S.

Pease, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Penleaze, J. S.

Callander, J. H.

Philips, M.

Clay, W.

Potter, R.

Clayton, Col.

Poulter, J. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Romilly, E.

Darlington, Lord

Roche, W.

Divett, E.

Ronayne, D.

Dykes, F. L. B.

Ruthven, E.

Evans, W.

Sharpe, Gen.

Ewart, W.

Staveley, T. K.

Ewing, J.

Strutt, E.

Finch, G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Galway, J. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Gaskell, D.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Gillon, W. D.

Vigors, N. A.

Gully, J.

Wallace, R.

Hall, B.

Warburton, H.

Handley, B.

Wedgwood, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hay, Sir J.

Whitmore, W. W.

Howard, Hon. F. G.

Wilks, J.

Hughes, H. W.

Wood, Alderman

Hyett, W. H.

Yelverton, Hon. W. H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Young, G. F.

Lambton, H.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, an Estimate of the Financial Results upon the Revenues and Charges of India of the Plan under Consideration for the future Government of that Country.
Petitions presented. By Lord WILLOUGHBY DE ERESRY, from the Boston Public Library, for the Repeal of the Taxes on Knowledge.—By Lord SUFFIELD, from Kings-ton-upon-Hull, for a Negotiation with France and other Powers for the Benefit of Poland.