Sitting of 26 March 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WARBURTON, a Return from the British Diplomatic and Consular Agents in the United States of North America, of the quantities of Gold raised at the Minus situate in the states of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and other States adjoining, from the latest period at which such a Return can be obtained.
Bills. Read a first time:—The Marine Mutiny; Entails (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. FREDERICK SHAW, from Clonakilty, against Slavery.—By the same, from a Number of Places in Ireland; by Sir ROBERT PEEL., from Dysart and Tamworth; and by Sir HARRY VERNEY, from Buckingham,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath By the Sheriffs of London, from that City, for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—By Sir HARRY VERNEY, from Steeple-Claydon, for some Amendments in the Labourers' Employment Bill.—By Mr. WILKS, from the Protestant Dissenters assembling at Oxford Street Chapel, Birmingham, for a Removal of the Disabilities under which they labour.

REFUSAL TO GIVE EVIDENCE.
Mr. Bannerman,the Chairman of the Liverpool Election Committee, moved the Order of the Day, that Elizabeth Robin-
1068
son, a witness who refused to answer certain questions put to her by that Committee, be ordered to attend at the Bar of the House.
The witness brought in, and questioned.
By the Speaker: What is your name?—Elizabeth Robinson. You were summoned as a witness to give evidence before the Liverpool Election Committee?—Yes. You were asked by that Committee questions which you refused to answer?—Yes. What were your reasons for declining to answer these questions?—I was afraid of my life. You were in apprehension of incurring personal risk?—I was: I feared for my life. Should you have still the same feelings of alarm, if you were called upon now to answer these questions?—I dare not answer that.
By Mr. Robinson.Have you been threatened by anybody, and what reason have you to suppose that you run personal risk in answering these questions?—I have been threatened by one person. Will you state to the House the name of that person?—I dare not mention his name.
The witness ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Benettmoved that the Order be discharged.
The Motion having been seconded,
Mr. Humeopposed the Motion. He said, that the present inquiry, instituted by the Committee, related to bribery, and that the public were deeply interested in the matter. This witness declined answering questions which might lead to the discovery of those persons who had practised bribery. She also refused giving the name of the person who had threatened her; who, if he were not guilty, would have no reason to make use of intimidation. If the witness were discharged, and the matter allowed to drop, the object for which the Committee sat would be defeated.
Mr. Benettthought, that the witness did not object to answering other questions in furtherance of the views of the Committee.
Mr. Nicholl: The questions she had already refused to answer were most material—to find out how certain sums had been disposed of. Particularly a sum of about 50 l., and a smaller one of 3l. 16 s. which it was supposed she had some knowledge of. If she knew the names of the parties bribing, and refused to

1069
mention them, then it would be impossible to get at the truth.
Sir Robert Batesoncontended, that the witness ought not to be discharged, as it was of the greatest consequence that the Committee should be made acquainted with every circumstance that tended to a discovery of the truth. The only question was, whether the laws were sufficient to protect her or not, if she spoke the truth. If they were, she ought not to be discharged.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the real question at issue was, whether that House was, under any circumstances, to be stopped in investigating any matter it might think fit to make inquiry into; and whether the bare assertion of one intimidated party was sufficient to prevent investigation? He thought that if the House acquiesced in such a denial, it would be departing from the general principles by which it was directed in its proceedings. Were the questions put to this witness by the Committee material and necessary ones? If they were, and it seemed by having the witness called before that House that they were, the House would not be discharging its duty either for the present or for the future, if the witness was allowed to be discharged. By doing so the House would be encouraging every timid or unwilling witness, and frequently witnesses for corrupt purposes would decline giving the evidence required of them. If the House acquiesced in the discharge of the present witness, it would do what no Court of Justice in the land would consent to. The House could not allow the matter to rest as it was, without declaring itself utterly unfit for its high avocations, and might, in such cases, as well at once abdicate all its acknowledged principles.
Sir Robert Peelagreed with the right, hon. Gentleman. The Committee had pursued the only course that was left open to it; and he, therefore, thought that the House had no other alternative, if the witness still persisted, but the exercise of its power as an ultimate resource.
Mr. Bannerman,as Chairman of the Committee, bogged to state, that the Committee had offered the witness every protection within its power.
Mr. Hume,after stating his regret that any female should be so situated as the present witness was, submitted that it was
1070
most necessary to have the truth upon the present occasion. She should be brought back to the Bar, and advised as to the way she should proceed.
Lord Althorpalso thought it proper that the witness should be fully informed of the protection that the House could extend to her; and then that the necessary answers should be insisted upon.
Mr. Harveysaid, that he was satisfied that the witness spoke the truth when she said that she had been intimidated; but this was not a sufficient reason for declining to answer the questions of the Committee. Those who intimidated her did so that she should become a cloak for crime; and, though innocent herself, she was to be considered as an instrument in the hands of criminal persons. She should be ordered to appear before the Committee to-morrow, and answer all questions that might be put to her.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, that the House could not effectually grant its protection to the witness, unless, as soon as she mentioned the name of the person who menaced her, it issued an order for his immediate arrest.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that when the House armed with its own powers the Committee, it might exact obedience to that Committee, in the same manner that it would exact obedience from persons called upon to give evidence at the Bar of the House. The House had always enforced answers to its questions, except in the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King, whose testimony was not considered of any great moment. The question arose out of a riot at Dublin, and it was contended that on account of the trifling nature of the circumstance it was not sufficient to justify the interference of the House. There was also the case of a medical man who was questioned as to something which had been stated to him confidentially in his practice, and he objected from motives of honour to answer, and was exonerated. No one could doubt the power of the House, to enforce answers, but there might be some question as to the propriety of exercising the power. If the members of the Committee, in the present instance, did not think the evidence of this witness material, they need not press to have their questions answered; but, having thought the evidence important, and having caused the witness to be brought before the House, the House had no other option

1071
but to enforce its authority by every means in its power. It would perhaps be sufficient if the witness were called in and assured of the protection of the House by the Speaker, and warned of the consequences of not answering.
The Speakerconsidered that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a correct view of this question. The House had heard the statements of the witness, and there was not sufficient reason assigned in them for her refusing to answer the proposed questions, when she had been assured that she might do so with safety. As for the motion to have the Order of the Day discharged, there was no Order to discharge, since the only one—that the witness attend the House—was already complied with. He would ask whether it was the pleasure of the House that the witness be recalled?
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the witness should be cautioned as to the probable consequences of persisting in her refusal.
The witness recalled.
The Speakerthen addressed the witness to the following effect:—The House has listened to you with attention, and has not seen in your statements any sufficient reason why you should refuse to answer the questions put to you by the Committee before which you were summoned as a witness. The House expects that you will not persist in your refusal, but that you will henceforth answer the questions put to you by the Committee. Whilst the House expects this from you, it assures you at the same time that you may confidently depend on its justice, and on its entire protection. For the present, the House is satisfied with admonishing you, as you are labouring under a mistake. But you must learn, that if you continue to refuse answering the questions of the Committee, it will be at your own risk and peril, as you must in that case be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, as one guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. On the one hand, the House points out to you the danger of non-compliance with its orders; and, on the other, it declares to you that you may safely rely on its protection, and it enjoins you therefore to act as an honest and upright witness, in answering fully all the questions that the Committee may think fit to ask of you.
The witness withdrew.

COMMUTATION OF TAXES.
Mr. Robinsonrose to move, that a Select Committee be appointed to revise the existing Taxation, with a view to a Repeal of those burthens which press most heavily on productive industry, and the substitution of a tax upon property in lieu thereof. He was so sensible of his own inability to do justice to the very important subject which he had undertaken to bring before the House, and of the disadvantages under which he laboured in belonging to no party, and in being supported by none but those who were sensible of the rectitude of his intentions, that he should have shrunk from the task, if he did not consider it a duty he owed to his country to bring the subject fairly before the House. Hon. Members were to be found in the House of all diversity of opinions. There was hardly a shade of opinion which did not find its Representative; and there were few subjects on which they all could concur. On one subject, however, they did agree—namely, that in order to afford relief to the people, it was necessary to diminish taxation. Government had accordingly been assailed on all sides to remit taxes. The Government met the complaints, by saying—and he admitted with great truth—that it was necessary to maintain the national faith, and to support the establishments of the country, which could not be done if those taxes were abolished. The consequence had been, that taxes had been raised, in many instances, in order to meet the exigencies of the Government, or at all events had been but in very few instances remitted. For the three years during which he had had the honour of sitting in that House, he had paid considerable attention to the subject of taxation, and the conclusion at which he had arrived was, that as no great amount of taxation could be remitted, the only way in which relief could be communicated to the labouring classes, was by a commutation of the taxes. He was aware that unless he could make out a strong case for the adoption of his opinion, he could not expect his Majesty's Government to make so extensive a change in the whole system of taxation. He could assure the noble Lord, that, in bringing forward the suggestion, he was satisfied of its expediency, and he pledged himself to prove to the noble Lord, and to the House, that an absolute necessity did exist for making the change which he

1073
advocated. He did not make the suggestion as the result of his own opinion alone; he was supported in it by some of the ablest statesmen who had ever sat in that House; and he believed he should be able to show that the noble Lord—the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself had, at one time, concurred in the propriety of the adoption of some such measure as that which he advocated. He would not detain the House to dilate upon the distress at present existing in the country. They had heard those distresses most ably stated on a former evening, when the hon. member for Birmingham brought forward his Motion on the State of the Nation; and they were such as were well calculated to harrow up the feelings of those who heard them. He could not, however, help admitting freely, that the statement made by the hon. Member was greatly overcharged, and that his eloquent descriptions were not borne out by the facts which he had adduced. Yet enough appeared then, to convince every body (and this was known to all who considered the situation of the country) that such was the wretched condition of the labouring classes, that it became the imperative duty of the House to take the subject into its most attentive consideration, in order that, by their collective wisdom, they might endeavour to devise some remedy for an evil which threatened destruction and ruin to the whole nation. The noble Lord had been assailed by every class for the repeal of the taxes which pressed peculiarly upon itself. He had, within the last week, been waited on by several deputations of mercantile men, who prayed for the repeal of the House and Window-taxes, and the other Assessed-taxes. And, in the same manner, he had at other times been assailed by those interested in agriculture, for the repeal of the Malt and Hop-duties. He (Mr. Robinson) thought that the noble Lord had acted prudently in abstaining from making any promises of a remission of taxation, and, indeed, in having declined to give any information as to his financial schemes, till after the Easter recess, when he should be able to state fully the plan which the finances of the country would enable him to adopt. It might then be asked, why he should bring forward such a Motion—why not leave it to Government to propose it, if the Government thought that it was fitting it should be adopted. His answer was, that it was
1074
not to be expected that Government should propose such a commutation of taxes as he meant to propose. Were the Government to propose the adoption of a Property-tax in lieu of their present taxes, it would be an avowal on their part of the inability of the country to support its institutions according to the present system, and that, in fact, the whole system was rotten to the core. He therefore did not blame Ministers that they did not originate such a Motion—he should not even blame them if they opposed it until such time as it should appear by a Resolution of the majority of the House, or even by the expressed opinions of a respectable numerical minority, that such a measure was necessary. If such an opinion were once expressed, no Government could withstand that and the strong feelings known to be entertained on the subject throughout the country. And the result would then be, that the noble Lord would be forced to change the whole financial system of the kingdom. He had stated, on a former occasion, that great distress existed in the country, and he had then, as now, to complain that such complaints were coldly received by the House, and a refusal given to all inquiry, on account of the exaggerated statements in which hon. Members indulged. It was to be regretted, that on account of such statements the House should refuse to inquire into the real distresses which were known to exist, and that the country should not obtain, because its evils were exaggerated, that redress which it required and expected. The people said—"Will you grant an inquiry to ascertain the real amount of our distress, and propose a remedy?" He hoped that the House would grant an inquiry. At all events, he trusted that they would endeavour to trace the evil to its source. It was idle to say, that there was no remedy. It only required firmness and promptitude on the part of the Government, and patriotism on the part of the Members of that House, to discover it. The people did not complain of the taxes themselves, so much as they complained of the injustice with which they were levied. They complained of the inequality of the system, which pressed upon the industrious classes with undue severity, and bowed down those who contributed most to the support of the country. He thought that there was an easy remedy to be found for that evil. He thought that a commuta-

1075
tion of the taxes, and the substitution of a Property-tax in lieu of the taxes which pressed on industry, would, in a great measure, effect that remedy. And if it were adopted, it would prevent the country being ruined by a system of taxation, which, if persisted in, would lead it into difficulties from which the Government could never expect to extricate it. He would read an extract from the speech of a late eminent statesman, whose opinions had always, as they deserved, met with every consideration from the House—he meant that of Mr. Huskisson, as it showed what his opinions on the subject then before them were. When a motion was brought forward on the 18th of March, 1830, for an Inquiry into the State of the Nation, Mr. Huskisson, after expressing a wish for a great reduction of taxation, and an opinion that the reduction could not be carried much further, went on to re-commend, in these terms, a general revision of taxation:—'The more general considerations to which I now claim the attention of the House are these:—first, that no other country in Europe has so large a proportion of its taxation bearing directly upon the income of labour and productive capital:—secondly, that in no other country, of the same extent, I think I might say in none of five times the extent of this kingdom, is there so I large a mass of income belonging to those classes who do not directly employ it in bringing forth the produce of labour:—thirdly, that no other country has so large a proportion of its taxation mortgaged; in proportion to the amount of that mortgage are we interested in any measure which, without injustice to the mortgagee, would tend to lessen the absolute burthen of the mortgage:—fourthly, that from no other country in the world does so large a proportion of the class not engaged in production (including many of the wealthy), spend their incomes in foreign parts. I know I may be told that, by taxing that income, you run the risk of driving them to withdraw their capital altogether. My answer is, first, that ninety-nine out of every 100 of these absentees have no such command over the source of their income; secondly, that the danger is now of another and more alarming description—that of the productive capitals of this country being transferred to other countries, where they
1076
would be more secure of a more profitable return. The relief of industry is the remedy against the danger. One of the objections made to any direct tax upon income, even limited as I have described, to capital not directly employed in the pursuits of industry, is, that it may be very Ht as a war measure, but that it is not suited to a state of peace. My answer is, that this proposition is too general. What may be very well adapted to a state of peace or war, under given circumstances, may become inexpedient when the bearing of those circumstances is altogether changed. In war, the wages of labour and the profits of capital may be high; in peace they may be greatly depressed. In the former supposition, taxes bearing upon industry will be more lightly felt; in the latter, their pressure will be very severe; and, if not alleviated, will daily become more so, by exhausting the very springs of that industry from which they are derived. Let gentlemen seriously weigh in their own minds whether this be not the risk against which it is most earnest to provide. I have already shown, upon higher authority than my own—that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the amount remitted by a change in our taxation would be a very inadequate measure of the real saving and contingent relief to industry; whilst, on the other hand, the produce of the tax to be substituted would be commensurate with what it might subtract from the incomes of the classes by which It would be paid. The landlord, the fundholder, the mortgagee, the annuitant of every description, would moreover be directly benefited to the extent of his consumption of the articles upon which the present taxes might be reduced or abolished. Each would be indirectly benefited, by the stimulus and additional ease which would be given to the industrious classes. Take, for instance, the land-owner. Can any man doubt that in proportion to the relief afforded, would be the means and desire of the industrious classes to consume more of all the productions of the soil which constitute their habitual comforts and luxuries—more meat, more malt, more cheese, more butter, and more of all the other articles which cannot be said to be of absolute and primary necessity? Can any man doubt that the consumption of these articles is now check-,

1077
ed, if not actually diminished, by the straitened circumstances of our labouring population? Should their condition become still harder—and, in order to maintain our competition in the foreign market, I fear that, without the relief which I have suggested, it must—is it not obvious that the consumption of these articles, and, with the consumption, the price, must decline?'* * * * 'If I have dwelt upon these subjects at greater length than I had intended, I have done so because I have thought it my duty, as an unconnected Member of Parliament, not to shrink from stating my views respecting them. The position of a Minister in this House is very different from that of an individual. I know how difficult a thing it might be for Government, even if they concurred in my views, to carry them into effect; and I am fully aware of all the inconvenience which would arise from their at all hinting at their concurrence unless they were prepared to act upon it. All I can say is, that ours is a choice of difficulties, and that the course which I have suggested would, I sincerely believe, be most beneficial to the country. If these views are not entertained by others in this House, or sanctioned by public opinion out of doors, it would be vain to expect that they should lead, at present, to any practical result. But if, at any future day, a sense of the public interest should induce his Majesty's Government to act upon them, I shall be prepared to give my most cordial assistance and support towards overcoming the various difficulties which I am fully sensible most arise in carrying these views into effect, and towards conciliating the feelings of all who might continue adverse to their adoption.'*
He had thus shown that the opinion of that great man had led him to the same conclusion to which he had arrived—namely, that, from the decreasing capital of the country, and the diminishing wages of the working classes, it was impossible that the present system of taxation could stand; and that right hon. Gentleman concluded by expressing his willingness to support the Government in any future period, should they, entertaining the same views which he held, endeavour to establish a Property-tax even in peace. Now,
* Hansard (new series) xxiii. p. 604,607.
1078
he would ask, what had happened since 1830, to show that there was less ground for such a measure at present than there was in 1830? Had the state of the country not got worse? Had the state of the working classes not deteriorated? Had the distress not increased? Had the national burthens, had the expense of the Navy and Army—(including the dead weight) not increased—and were not the people less able to pay those additional burthens now than they were then? He said, that they were. That was the real state of the case, and it was useless to evade or conceal it. They ought, therefore, at once seriously to inquire into the causes, and devise remedies for such evils. The inquiry ought not to be delayed. Time was pressing; and the longer the delay, the greater the difficulty in which they would find themselves involved. He did not mean to say, that the country could not stand, or could not pay the necessary expenses for its Government and defence. Far from it. He merely said, that a change of system was necessary to enable it to do so. He would not go into long details on the subject; but he would cite one or two individual cases, which would show the House the deplorable state to which the poor were reduced, and the necessity there was for some relief being extended to them. He found that the Poor-rates in England and Wales amounted, for the year ending on the 25th of March, 1831, to 8,339,087 l.; and for the year ending on the 25th of March, 1832, to 8,683,461 l. increase, 344,374 l.—being an average of four per cent. He would ask if that was not a most important fact, and if it did not show that the condition of the country was becoming progressively worse? He begged them to remember, that this increase took place after a most abundant harvest, and when the necessaries of life were at unusually low prices. The only three English counties where there had been a decrease in the Poor's-rates, were Bedford, Cornwall, and Westmoreland. The greatest increase was in the counties of Somerset, Southampton, Surrey, and Sussex, where they had increased from seven to eight per cent. In Wales, there had been, in Carnarvonshire, a decrease of two percent only. In Anglesea and Cardiganshire the increase had been nine per cent, and in Glamorganshire eleven per cent. He found, too, that since

1079
1825 there had been a gradual increase in crime in the country, and there could be no doubt that the increase of crime was the effect of misery and privation. The number of criminal prosecutions in England and Wales in 1825, was 14,437; in 1826, 16,164; in 1827, 17,904; in 1828, 16,564; in 1829, 18,675; in 1830, 18,107; in 1831, 19,647; and in 1832, 20,829—so that there was a gradual increase of more than fifty per cent, in seven years. He found, too, from a parliamentary paper, that the amounts paid into the savings' banks in England and Wales, from the 28th of January 1832, to 9th February 1833, was 761,368 l., and the amount paid out 1,264,118 l. That was an excellent criterion of the real state of the country, and an undoubted proof that the distress was great, and was increasing and he thought that Government could not avoid inquiring into the causes, and devising a remedy for it. He admitted that it undoubtedly was the duty of Government not to take too gloomy a view of the state of the country, or to alarm the people unnecessarily, but it was likewise its duty not to conceal truth, or, when distress did really exist to evade all inquiries into it with a view to giving relief. He trusted if the Ministers should unfortunately be so disposed, that the House would not endeavour either to evade or postpone the consideration of it. He begged of them not to think that, by postponing or evading the consideration of the national distress the country would come round, or that the distress being merely temporary, would cure itself. He admitted that, during the spring, there might be rather more work than usual; but he hoped hon. Members would not deceive themselves by thinking that such temporary employment betokened any permanent improvement. He was sure that, as soon as the spring work was over, the country would fall back into its former sluggish state, and that if they did not take means to relieve the labouring classes from the burden of taxation they would find the same distress would prevail as formerly. It was impossible, that the people whether they belonged to the trading, manufacturing, shipping, farming, or colonial classes—it was impossible, he said, for them to endure the weight of the taxes. He would, therefore, ask the Government what they intended to do towards their relief? He believed that the Government
1080
was disposed to give every relief in their power, he admitted the difficulties with which they had to labour in affording that relief, and he had no desire to enhance them. He had supported the motion of the hon. member for Birmingham on a former evening, but he was not disposed to blame the Ministers for the motives which induced them to oppose the Motion. The opinions of the hon. member for Birmingham were so well known on the subject of the currency and those opinions were so mixed up with his motion which was otherwise vague, and pointed to a remedy which the Government could not sanction, and being unable to support the one without, in some degree, recognizing the others, he must therefore admit that Ministers were justified in having opposed the whole motion. He hardly expected the support of the Government in favour of his Motion but whether they decided on supporting or opposing it, he was determined to divide the House upon it. It could not be said of his Motion that it was vague or unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Vice-President of the Board of Trade) had, in March, 1830, submitted a motion to the House, which was in substance the same with that which he (Mr. R.) now proposed. That right hon. Gentleman moved—'That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of making a revision of the taxes, so that the means of paying the sums voted by the House, and all other charges for the public service, may be provided for with as little injury as practicable to the industry and improvement of the country.'* The right hon. Gentleman proposed a revision of the taxes. He (Mr. Robinson) now proposed a commutation of them. The noble Lord said—"I cannot give up taxes—I must meet the necessities of the country." He would not ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to give up a single tax without supplying its place. He stood in a position different from those who submitted motions for the repeal of millions of taxes without providing any to supply their place; all of which motions he took to be merely ad captandum vulgus; he merely wished that the same amount of taxes should be raised from a different source and class of the people. The right hon. Vice-President, when he brought
* Hansard, (new series), xxiii p. 896

1081
forward his motion, which he did in a most able speech, was supported by the noble Lord and by most of the members of the present Administration, with the exception of the First Lord of the Admiralty and though he expected that the noble Lord would act on the present occasion in the teeth of the opinion which he had formerly stated, still he (Mr. Robinson) did not mean to say, that he would do so from inconsistency, but merely from a change of the circumstances in which he then stood. He hoped, however, that the noble Lord would excuse him if he quoted his opinion upon that occasion—not for the purpose of pointing out any inconsistency, but merely because he considered the opinion of the noble Lord as the leader of a powerful party while out of office, and of a still stronger party now that he was in, as deserving of great attention. The noble Lord then said that 'He had no hesitation in saying that to grant relief to the productive population by a reduction of taxes and to impose a Property tax to meet the deficiency thus occasioned would be a very good measure. He was perfectly convinced that it was the ill arranged state of the taxes, which, more than the amount of the taxes, pressed heavily upon the country.'* And the noble Lord for these reasons then supported the Committee. He could not desire a more able or useful ally than the noble Lord; and he would again beg to ask what had happened since 1830 to induce the noble Lord to oppose a motion to the very same effect at the present time as the one the noble Lord then supported. He lamented—and had reason to lament—that because he brought forward a motion in which the Government did not coincide, it should be said, that he did so in opposition to Government; or that if they should be left in a minority upon it, they should be obliged to quit office. That latter doctrine was one against which he protested. So far from wishing that the Ministers should resign should the House decide upon adopting the motion which he was about to make, he hoped that they would confirm the decision of the House by acting upon it. He hoped that the Government would believe that he did not bring the Motion forward in order to embarrass them, on the contrary, his only wish was to take steps which would lead
* Hansard, (new series) xxiii pp. 908, 909.
1082
to an investigation of the causes of the distress, and to a commutation of the taxes, as the best means for relieving the people from that distress. Indeed, the appointment of such a Committee would be an advantage to the noble Lord, as it would afford him a ready answer to those who sought for the repeal of particular taxes—to wait until the labours of the Select Committee should be brought to a close. At all events the appointment of a Committee would be of public advantage, as it would show the people that the Reformed Parliament were determined to investigate into the causes of their distress and to adopt means to rid them of their burdens. When the proposition already alluded to was made by the right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in 1830, it was opposed by the Government of that day on the ground that such a motion was an invasion of the duties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But in his opinion it was the right of every Member to make such a proposition. If they allowed the foundations of the prosperity of the country to be sapped, they would bring it into such a situation that the question would at length be, not whether property should pay its proportion toward the expenses of the State, but whether property should remain in the hands of its proper owners? Dr. Smith in his "Wealth of Nations" had advocated the adoption of a Property tax. He said that "The best tax which can be imposed is one which takes least from the pockets of the people and brings most into the Exchequer." The disadvantage of indirect taxes was, that the people paid more than the Government got. Every shop-keeper was converted into a tax-gatherer and upon all the articles taxed the consumer had to pay in the shape of additional profit to the shop-keeper more than the amount of the tax. He therefore said, that they ought to be relieved from indirect taxes, and that a Property tax should be laid on. He hoped that, with these testimonies in favour of the adoption of that measure they would not object to the appointment of the Committee. He anticipated great good from it in many ways, but more especially on account of the moral effect which it would have upon the people, who would then, he repeated, see that the Reformed House of Commons were determined to relieve the distresses of the people, and instead of doing nothing but

1083
speaking, they had at last determined to take the burdens of the State off those who had so long borne them, and to place them on the shoulders of those who ought to bear them. The hon. member for Oldham had, on a former occasion, made out a strong case of the unequal and unjust pressure of taxes, in the instance of the Stamp-duties. He (Mr. Robinson) would only add, that the whole of the present system of taxation tended to break down and disable those who ought to be the greatest support and stay of the Government. One of the greatest difficulties which it might be anticipated this measure would meet with, would be on the part of Gentlemen connected with the landed interest, who, he believed, entertained an idea that their property would not admit of the additional burthen of a Property-tax. This idea he considered altogether fallacious. He believed that the landed interest would be in reality benefited by a Property-tax; and he would explain his reasons for this belief, but first he would read to the House the opinions expressed in favour of a Property-tax, by a gentleman whom the House would at once acknowledge to be a very first-rate authority; this gentleman was Mr. Bankes, who on the motion, similar to the present, brought forward by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade said, 'The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that a commutation of taxes had at one time been under the consideration of his Majesty's Government. He was sorry as such had been the case that some commutation had not been effected. He thought there was no better way of relieving the distresses of the country than by commuting the taxes which pressed on the lower, for taxes which affected the richer, classes of society.'* This was the opinion expressed by Mr. Bankes, and he did not doubt but it would have its due effect on the House. For his own part he had never been the advocate or the opponent of any particular class. He could hardly call himself a large landed proprietor, but he possessed land as well as other property, and therefore his personal interest was not concerned in his Motion. He had been obliged to reduce his rents twenty or thirty per cent in consequence of the pressure of the times, but trade and commerce were in a still worse condition than
* Hansard, (new series) xxiii p. 904
1084
land. He should be far from saying that any particular class of property should be fixed upon as the point for the proposed tax, but he should propose a tax upon realized property of every description. He wanted a substitute for the present unequal taxation, and he should feel great curiosity to hear what arguments the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) would make use of against this proposition, when he called to mind in what strong language that right hon. Gentleman when not in office supported a motion much the same as the present, His Motion was, indeed, negatived by a majority of eighty-nine; but he found among the minority the following Gentlemen;—Mr. C. Grant, Mr. R. Grant, Lord Howick, Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, Mr. Spring Rice, Mr. Stanley. The Tellers were Lord Althorp and Mr. C. P. Thomson. He confessed that he was extremely curious to hear what the right hon. Gentlemen would now adduce against the principle of a measure which they so strongly advocated in 1830. He would next proceed to state, that the taxes which he proposed should be repealed or reduced were—the whole of the Assessed Taxes, the taxes on Bricks, Tiles, Glass, Hops, Malt, Paper, Soap, Starch, and Stone Bottles; one half of the Sugar-duties, and one half of the Duties on Tea; the duties on Cotton Wool, and the Taxes on Newspapers and Advertisements. All these were taxes bearing most heavily on the labouring and middle classes. There was also that most grievous tax, on the most necessary of all necessary articles of consumption—bread; for he considered the Corn-laws to be in reality a tax on bread; but he was not going to enter into this latter question at present, except to observe how imperative it was upon the House to take it into their most serious consideration; for, by the operation of the Corn-laws, as was stated, in Sir Henry Parnell's most excellent work on Financial Reform, a tax of not less than twelve millions and a half was levied upon the people. These were all taxes upon the necessaries of life. It would, in his opinion be not only useless, but dangerous, for Parliament to agree to a commutation of taxes unless they proceeded to a very great extent. And then came the difficulty, how was the deficit in the revenue to be supplied? He would answer, by a tax on property. But when

1085
he proposed such a course, he would not do so without relieving those upon whom the Property-tax would fall from other taxes which they now paid, as well as from the troublesome and vexatious means by which they were collected, He was sure that the money necessary for collecting a Property-tax would be considerably less than what was required under the present system. Sir Henry Parnell, a very competent authority on the subject, stated that the collection of the revenue cost 3,500,000 l. annually. Now, a very considerable portion of that sum would be saved by doing away with the Excise-laws and the assessed taxes, and adopting a properly tax alone. The inequality of taxation was a ground of general complaint. Ireland paid less in proportion than England and Scotland; but there the lower classes were so miserably destitute as to be unable to pay their taxes, even so well as the people of the same class in this country. Surely this dreadful state of things ought to be remedied. The great landed proprietors of Ireland ought to be taxed for the support of that country, and not be allowed to squander the money derived from their lands there in other; countries. Having made these preliminary statements, he should now proceed to lay his plan before the House. No Gentleman, be it observed, who might support his Motion, would be bound to adopt his plan. It would be the duty of the Committee, if granted, to examine into the propriety of a commutation of taxes, and in lieu of such as their wisdom led them to commute, they might substitute some species of Property-tax. He knew that there was much difficulty in deciding on that point, which undoubtedly was a very nice one. He should commence a property tax on a small scale, so that it might be further extended should a case of necessity for such a proceeding be afterwards made out. He would, however, go to the root of the evil, and take 12,000,000 l. or 14,000,000 l. of taxes from the shoulders of the labouring and industrious classes. This sum he would supply by a Property-tax, but not in addition to the taxes which property at present paid. The persons who would be affected by this tax would experience a considerable reduction of taxation in other respects. He would abolish the whole of the Assessed taxes, because they were the most odious of all taxes. The House and Window-
1086
tax was so unequal and unjust in its operation, that there would not be the least difficulty in establishing a strong case for its abolition. The noble Lord knew what an immense number of petitions were laid before the House on this subject, and what a multitude of meetings had been held all through the country to denounce the tax. But then it might be asked: "Do you not retain the taxes on servants, carriages, dogs, &c., which fall on none but the wealthy?" In answer he would say, that the amount derived from them was so inconsiderable it was not worth while to retain those taxes, since it would be necessary to keep up an expensive machinery for their collection. The inequality of assessment with reference to the House and Window-tax was most glaring. It fell heavily upon populous towns, but scarcely touched the agricultural districts at all. Stowe, the splendid seat of the Duke of Buckingham, was rated at 300 l. a-year, Belvoir Castle the seat of the Duke of Rutland, 200 l. a-year. The Marquess of Exeter and other possessors of stately mansions were rated in a similar way. In Dorsetshire, a county with which he was well acquainted, he found that there were only four houses rated above 100 l. Bedfordshire, the same. Durham, three; Worcester, nine; Carnarvonshire, seven, above 40 l,; Radnorshire, eight at 20 l., and none higher. He would therefore, repeal the House and Window-tax, together with the whole body of assessed taxes, to the amount of 4,000,000 l. He would remove the duties from bricks, tiles, glass, hops, malt, paper, soap, and starch. These taxes he would remove, because they interfered with the industry of the country, and contributed to add to the misery of the labouring poor. Besides, they prevented those articles from becoming objects of foreign commerce. As to malt and hops, every landed gentleman would agree with him on the propriety of repealing the duties levied on them. It was the more advisable that this should be done after the introduction of the Beer Bill, because it would enable individuals to drink beer in their own houses, and they would thus get rid of the complaints which they hourly heard of the evils created by the new beer-shops. This reduction would be about 3,000,000 l.; making, with the 4,000,000 l. already mentioned 7,000,000 l. He would take off half of the Sugar-duties, which would relieve the colonies, and en-

1087
able the labouring classes to possess themselves of that necessary commodity at a cheap rate. By the reduction of duty on this article, the amount taken from the revenue would be 2,100,000 l. He also considered it essential to repeal one-half the duty on tea, which was also a necessary of life. Under this head the revenue would be a loser to the amount of 1,600,000 l. The repeal of this article would become doubly necessary in the event of the anticipated opening of the trade to China; otherwise the smuggling, &c. would be carried on to a dreadful extent; but a repeal of the duty would obviate every fear of this. He should also propose the repeal of the duty on cotton wool. When the noble Lord repealed the duty on calicoes, he said that he could not give it up unless he laid a duty on the raw material. The noble Lord observed at the time that it was against his own feeling, and contrary to the principles of political economy. It ought, therefore, to be removed. Such a blot as a tax on the raw material should not be suffered to remain on the statute-book. The deficiency in the revenue by this would be 360,000 l. He also proposed to repeal all duties on newspapers and advertisements, on principles which had been repeatedly laid down in that House. Newspapers were the organs for disseminating that knowledge amongst the people which was indispensable to their welfare, and ought not to be taxed; and he considered that the poor were the chief sufferers by the advertisement duties. In this article the loss to the Revenue would be 650,000 l. Altogether, the loss to the Revenue by the repeal of the taxes which he proposed would appear to amount to 15,710,000 l. But from this amount he calculated that the House might subtract a large sum, on the principle that the diminution of taxation on articles would promote an increased sale of those articles. If the tax were taken off any particular article, the poor man would of course not only be able to purchase a larger portion of that particular article, but would be also in a condition to buy some other necessary, which, by reason of the tax, he had before been incapacitated from doing. He had taken some pains in making a calculation of the probable addition to the revenue by the alterations he contemplated. The gross apparent amount of the loss to the revenue, by the proposed repeal in taxes,
1088
was 15,700,000 l. From this, however, they must deduct the sum of 500,000 l., which, by his calculation, might be reduced in the collection of taxes. Another sum of 500,000 l. he calculated would result from the increased consumption of sugar, and the sum of 400,000 l. from the increased consumption of tea, and a fourth sum of 310,000 l. which would arise from the increased consumption of other articles. Adding these four sums together, there would be produced the sum of 1,710,000 l., which, deducted from the supposed total loss to the revenue of 15,710,000 l., would leave the amount of 14,000,000 l.; and this amount he proposed to raise by the tax on property. He should leave the matter in the hands of the House; but he hoped, whatever the fate of his Motion might be, that throughout the country it would have the effect of producing an inquiry into the merits of the present system—namely, whether they could go on as they had hitherto done, calling on Ministers for a remission of taxation, which was incompatible with the public service, because no mode was pointed out to make good the deficiency which such a remission must cause. Was it not more manly—was it not more wise—to look the evil boldly in the face, and to endeavour to overcome it? He asserted that there was, at the present moment, a feeling of insecurity in the mind of almost every man with respect to the stability of property and the safety of our institutions. He did not participate in these gloomy feelings; but he thought that the existing state of things was sufficient to induce that House to inquire into the best mode of relieving that branch of the community which formed the strength of the nation. If they did that, and did it honestly, they would restore general confidence, and they would find that there were resources in the country sufficient to meet every difficulty. Such a proceeding would invigorate the industrious classes, and would give them confidence in the integrity of the House. This would be much better than expending night after night in useless debate, without entering into any inquiry on the subject. He should now make a few observations on the subject of a Property-tax. He was sorry that he could not, consistently with his duty, postpone his Motion, as he had been requested to do; but he wished to obtain the opinion of the House on this question before the Budget was

1089
brought forward. With respect to the introduction of a Property-tax, he believed the difficulty of effecting that object arose from the want of firmness in the Government to bring forward such a start-ling proposition, and want of willingness ling people of property to pay such a tax. They said: "Can we afford to pay this, ill addition to many other taxes?" Now, he would only ask those gentlemen, if they contributed a greater proportion to the exigences of the State than they now did, whether they would derive no compensation from the plan which he proposed? They would be relieved from the whole of the assessed taxes, and from the duties on malt and hops, &c. Would it be no compensation for the wealthy classes to see the condition of the labouring and industrious classes improved? Would it be no compensation to them to find peace and tranquillity pervading the whole community, and that life, and vigour, and activity, springing up, which were now paralyzed by excessive taxation? Would not such considerations as these induce them to make some sacrifice? But, as an act of justice, he would contend that property was the fit object of taxation, and that labour and industry ought not to be taxed. It was a monstrous anomaly to tax the poor so highly. He had made a calculation of what a working man with a wife and family paid to the State, and he found that it amounted to one-third of his earnings. He would, then, ask gentlemen of property, if they contributed in proportion to the poor man? He would ask those who lived in lodgings, who frequented clubs, and kept no establishment, although they possessed large funded property, and were in the receipt of great incomes—he would ask them what they contributed to the public burthens? And why should they not contribute? Taxes were actually imposed in consequence of this locking up of property. Then, again, great expense was incurred to preserve the peace, and keep down, by the means of civil and military power, those disorders that were engendered by the poverty of the people. He was most anxious, by attending to the calls of the people, to restore that confidence between the poor and the rich which had formerly existed, and which he was sorry to say, was no longer apparent. In consequence of the system that had latterly been pursued, the poor were taught to look on the rich rather as
1090
their oppressors than their protectors; while the rich viewed the poor as intruders, who annoyed them with their claims for succour and support. Gentlemen would be astonished at the number of letters which he had received on the subject of a Property-tax. A much more uniform opinion prevailed as to the propriety of laying on such a tax than as to the mode in which it should be effected. Some were of opinion that it ought to be levied on the amount of property funded, and all other property, after it had been valued, subject, of course, to investigation, as to the correctness of the amount; others thought it ought to be levied on the income derived from property; while others were of opinion that it ought to be levied on realized property—property derived from commercial or trading transactions. What the minimum this tax ought to be, he would not venture to say, but he felt that if it were not very low they would not be able to raise the necessary amount of revenue. Another question was, whether there should be a fixed per-centage on every amount of property, or a graduated Property-tax—a tax on all income realized by trade, commerce, or professional pursuits? It was his opinion, that the tax should be a graduated one, because he would not take from a man who had only 200 l. a-year, so large a per-centage as he would from him who had 20,000 l. per annum. That there was a necessity for some such measure as this was evident. The interest of the public debt was 28,000,000 l.; the dead weight was 7,000,000 l.; so that there was only 14,000,000 l for them to operate on in a Committee of Supply, with all their ingenuity. It was clear, therefore, that they could not effect much by a reduction of their establishments. With respect to their manufacturing industry, foreign nations were gradually approaching this country, in spite of all our manufacturers could do. They were rapidly improving, and they were greatly assisted by mechanics whom distress had driven out of this country. Foreigners were gradually competing with Great Britain in some of her best manufactures. It was only, then, by cheapness that they could hope to secure the foreign market. From the excess of taxation all these evils had arisen. Hence competition had become excessive, and hence lowness of profits, and lowness of wages, and hence all the evils of the factory system, and of that pauperism

1091
which had overspread the land. It was be coming the Legislature, therefore, to look fairly and manfully into the stale of the country. They ought without procrastination, and without evasion, such as had heretofore been used, to look at the distress of the country with a view to giving relief. The noble Lord, the other evening, admitted the existence of distress, and he certainly was afraid, if the Session passed away without inquiry, that they would disappoint the expectations of the people and produce consequences the most fatal to the interests of the country. He admitted that the noble Lord desired to do what he could, to improve the condition of the people, and he could not think with the hon. member for Bridport, that if any motion of this kind were carried against the Government, that the Government must retire. He had no reluctance therefore, to make such a Motion, and trusted that if it were carried, means might be found to ease the burthens of the country and lighten the present great pressure of taxation. The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and revise our existing taxation, with a view to the repeal of those burthens which press most heavily on productive industry, and the substitution of an equitable tax on property in lieu thereof."
Mr. Warburtonrose to second the Motion. After the remarks which the hon. member for Worcester had made on him, the hon. Member could hardly expect that he would rise to second his Motion; but he was desirous of doing that. He could assure the House that there was no concert between the hon. Member and him. He had no objection to support a Motion for a specific inquiry; but he had opposed the Motion the other evening, because it was of so wide and vague and comprehensive a nature, that, had it been carried, all the petitions complaining of grievances, presented in the whole Session, ought necessarily to have been referred to that Committee. He objected to that Motion more particularly, because there was one subject of the inquiry which went to rescind all the contracts of the country. He objected to the extensive nature of the Motion the other evening, but he approved of the principle of this Motion. He considered it specific enough to engage the attention of a Committee, and there-
1092
fore he seconded it. He had formerly been taunted, when he introduced a Bill for regulating the single subject of tobacco, with taking upon himself the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but if his Motion were liable to that objection, how much more was the Motion liable to it which had just been made, and which he seconded. It should, however, be well considered, that our system of taxation was most complicated; and though it undoubtedly required modification, there was great difficulty in meddling with it. The system had so extended itself into all branches of business, that it could scarcely be touched in any branch, without creating, on the part of some of the people, a demand for compensation, or a cause of complaint. Thus, to allude only to the Auction duties—which the hon. member for Oldham, had on a former evening, brought under notice—if they were taken off, would not all the shopkeepers who paid heavy House and Window Taxes immediately complain? Would they not say, that they were subject to heavy taxes for everything they sold in their shops, while those who sold by auction, and kept up no establishments, were exempt from such duties? He stated that as an example to show that it was not so easy, however important it was, to give facility to the transfer of property—to make changes, as to propose them. This was only a sample of the complicated system which had extended itself over the whole country. The hon. member for Oldham had complained of the inequality of the taxes: but it belonged to this complicated system—it was a necessary part of it—that the taxes should press unequally. It was not necessary to specify the unequal pressure of particular taxes, for that was a vice which belonged to the system. It was the nature of taxation so complicated as ours that it was not easily altered, while that system was liable in every part to serious objection. The hon. member for Worcester proposed to tax property, though he did not know whether the hon. Member meant to tax property only, or property and income. He would say, that if the tax on property were to be permanent—if it were not merely a war tax—it would not be doing any injustice to tax income as well as property. If such a tax were permanent, it ought to fall on annuitants as well as others, for it would only touch them as

1093
long as they received the annuity. The objections chiefly made to a Property tax formerly were, that it was very unequal and unjust to tax property and income at the same ratio; but make the system permanent, and not temporary, let it not be merely a war tax, and that objection would disappear. Without entering into any question as to the propriety of taxing-small incomes, though perhaps small incomes should be exempt, he saw no injustice in taxing income derived from funded as well as other property. A tax of ten per cent, falling for one year on an annuitant would take ten per cent away from his income; but at twenty years' purchase the proportion of the annuity taken by such a tax would not be near so large. It had been proposed by a very eminent man—to mention whom was to praise him—Mr. Ricardo, that efforts should be made by a general taxation on all the property of the country to pay off the National Debt. His plan was, to lay a tax on every species of property, land, capital, and income, for the redemption of the debt. The leading objection to that plan was, that it was impracticable. The land-owners could never have been brought to consent to renew and change all their mortgages to attain such an object. A new modification of Mr. Ricardo's plan had lately been proposed by a gentleman who had been employed in collecting the Income Tax. That gentleman's name was Saver, and he would recommend his book to the perusal of hon. Members. His plan differed from Mr. Ricardo's, by his proposing to leave it optional with every capitalist and landlord to pay off his share of the National Debt. If the person was unable or unwilling to redeem his share, why it was to remain, and be collected as before, but if he chose to wash his hands of this tax, why it was to be at his option to redeem it. If the subject should ever be fairly taken into consideration, this plan of giving landlords the option of redemption would relieve it of its impracticability, and make the scheme be desirable. The Land Tax might be taken as an illustration, the redemption of which had been allowed on a similar principle. It had been objected to a Property Tax—that it was one which any Government could easily extend. In his opinion it was much more difficult for a Government to increase such a tax than indirect taxes.
1094
The indirect taxes were mixed up with the prices of the articles, and the taxpayer never knew either when he was paying a tax, or how much he was paying. But the tax collected on property, brought the tax-collector immediately into contact with the citizens; and in the collection of no tax did so much friction interfere between the citizen and the payment, to stop the Government from running too fast as in a Property Tax. In his opinion, the plan proposed by the hon. member for Worcester was not comprehensive enough. If a Property Tax were established at ail, it ought to supersede ail other taxes, otherwise the change was scarcely desirable. If they raised the same amount of taxes, it was not of much importance whether it were raised by one method or another; for the ability of the people to pay fifty millions of taxes would not be much increased or diminished by the method of collecting it. The hon. Member's plan left three millions behind for collection. It left all the evils and expenses of indirect taxation—all the expense of boards and collectors—which ought to be got rid of as far as possible. Should the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, consider it proper to recommend a Property Tax, he hoped the noble Lord would make so extensive, so sweeping a change, that he would remove the whole mass of indirect taxation. The plan of an Income tax, redeemable at option, would not be liable to any objections of being a breach of faith, such as was implied, he believed, in the Motion of the hon. member for Birmingham. It would leave all existing contracts untouched—it would remove taxes from the industry of the country, and it would place these taxes where they could be best borne—on the large capitalists, and on the large landed proprietors, and on those who ought to bear the heaviest taxation. Against any Motions made with a view to break faith with the public creditor, or to commit a breach of contract, he should come armed with this suggestion of Mr. Ricardo, and say, that it would be far better to impose an Income and Property Tax, than consent to any such Motion. To any Motion implying a breach of faith, he should always give his opposition; and that was one reason why he opposed the Motion already alluded to on a former evening.
Question put.
Lord Althorpdid not accuse the hon. Member who brought forward the Motion of any intention to embarrass the Government. On the contrary, he thought it was a fair Motion, and the hon. Gentleman had brought it forward only, he believed, with a view of stating his own opinions to the House. He did not object to the Motion, because it was his duty, as a Member of his Majesty's Government, to bring forward, if necessary, such Motions; for if the hon. Member chose to save him the trouble of making a financial statement to the House, he should not make any serious objection. He must first allude to what the hon. Gentleman said of the duties of his situation. He admitted that the duty of his situation was to state the truth concerning the affairs of the country. He had always endeavoured to do that. Nothing was so absurd or so injurious as for a statesman to boast of a prosperity which did not exist. At the same time it was his duty not to overlook any advantages, and he was not bound to make the public distress greater than it really was. It was his duty at all times, and on every topic, to state to the House fully and fairly, exactly what he thought on the subject. With respect to what the hon. Gentleman said of his having given his assent to a similar Motion in 1830, when made by his right hon. friend (Mr. Poulett Thomson), it should, however, be remembered that the Motion then made was for the revision of taxation, and it did not apply to a Property tax. At the same time, he would fairly admit, that he had on that occasion used expressions such as those the hon Member alluded to, and had expressed himself favourable to a Property tax. He knew that he had stated, that, though he was opposed to a Property tax in 1816, yet subsequent experience taught him that it might be adopted. He stated then in 1830, that this change of opinion had been brought about by longer experience. But since 1830, he had had a great deal more experience, and experience of a kind calculated to take more effect on his mind than any experience he had had before. His opinion in 1830 certainly was, that a change might be made in the taxation of the country; but, if he had then seen the many difficulties which had since been thrown in the way of making such an experiment, he should probably not have been of that opinion. What was the first
1096
financial statement he made to the House? Was it not for a commutation of taxes? Certainly it was, and the experience he then acquired, showed him that such a proposition was not so easily carried into effect as he had before supposed. What did he find then? Every facility was given him by the House to take off taxes; but there was an extreme difficulty to impose taxes in lieu of those removed. He recollected the objections then made by the hon. member for Whitehaven; the hon. Member said, it was "half peace—half war." He was ready to admit, that a commutation of taxes sounded well—a commutation that was to make a more equal distribution—to take off the taxes which pressed on industry, and lay them on more equally; but in practice that was not found so easy or so desirable. The destruction of capital which it produced, the disturbance of trade, the imposing of a new tax on one, and taking it off another class, made the commutation of taxes interfere with many interests. It was not so good in practice as it was perfect in theory. With respect to the principles of taxation laid down by the hon. Gentleman, he agreed in them. The taxes should certainly be removed from the labouring classes, and laid on property. But the difficult question was, to know what taxes pressed most on labour. The hon. Gentleman said, that taxes should not be laid on articles of the labourers' consumption; but, in his opinion, taxes which interfered with the employment of labour, pressed more severely on the labourer, than taxes on articles of his consumption. Therefore he thought, that in taking off taxes, they ought rather to consider whether the taxes to be removed interfered with the employment of labour, than whether they fell on what the labourer consumed. Another point to be considered was, whether a tax was popular or not; for, certainly, one object should be so to regulate taxation, that it should be paid in such a manner as to give satisfaction to the people. It was not necessary for him then to go into the question of the inequality of taxation; he acknowledged that it existed, but that he believed was a necessary part of the system. It was impossible, he believed, to regulate taxation so as to fall only upon the rich. The great mass of taxation must necessarily fall on the middle classes, and, at least, a small part on the labouring

1097
classes. The hon. Gentleman proposed a large, an enormous reduction of taxation. The hon. Gentleman stated it at 15,000,000 l., he should, however, say that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman would go the length of reducing taxation to the amount of 17,000,000 l. The hon. Gentleman said, that the whole sum of 15,000,000 l.; or 17,000,000 l. would not be lost to the revenue, but a part of it would be made up by increased consumption. He admitted that, and even thought, that the increased consumption would furnish a larger compensation than the hon. Gentleman supposed. The hon. Gentleman supposed that the 15,000,000 l. reduced would, in fact, only take away 14,000,000 l. from the revenue; but he should say, that it would not take away above 12,000,000 l. But in the case of a Property-tax, proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, there would be no increased power of consumption. It would remain the same. That tax would fall on the rich, and the amount they consumed would remain about the same. By removing a Property-tax, they would not increase the consumption of the rich in the same manner as they would increase the consumption of the poor, if they took off taxes which raised the price of what they consumed. His hon. friend had not adverted to the amount of taxation which he proposed to raise; he presumed, however, that the intention was to raise, by means of a Property-tax, an amount of taxation equal to the sums levied by the taxes to be reduced. He would, therefore, call the attention of the House for a few minutes to the Property-tax which was taken off in 1816. The amount raised by this tax was 14,500,000 l. if they looked to the sources whence that sum was derived, they would find that the tax was intended to bear on professional incomes, and on the profits of trade, as well as on incomes arising from realized property. From the various evasions to which this mode of taxation was liable, it became difficult to ascertain the true amount of professional incomes, or trading profits; and the consequence was, that a very disproportionate part of the whole amount was derived from fixed incomes. He would also call on the House to remember what was the value of money at the time when a Property-tax existed? If they would look to that point, it would lead them to the conclusion that an Income-tax of
1098
ten per cent would not now produce so much as the Property-tax of 1816. Now, he would ask any Gentleman of experience, whether the introduction of such a tax would not have the effect of driving capital out of the country? A Property-tax was suited to a period of war, rather than to a period of peace. During war, there were many counteracting circumstances which prevented capital from being withdrawn. But if, in a period of peace, property were to be deprived of so large a proportion of its emoluments, the natural consequence would be, the withdrawal of capital. His hon. friend, the member for Bridport, had said, that he would take off all indirect taxes, and substitute a Property-tax. But he (Lord Althorp) was assured that any attempt to raise 52,000,000 l. per annum by means of a Property-tax, would produce such an effect upon capital, as would strike a most fatal blow at the prosperity of this country. His hon. friend said, that the Property-tax which he proposed was to be a graduated one. Now, he was perfectly free to admit, that every man should pay taxes in proportion to what he enjoyed; and, if it were possible to invent any system which, without these disadvantages, could effect that object, it would be the perfection of taxation. But, in reference to a graduated Property-tax, he could not see upon what principle they were to go. It was nothing more nor less than saying what amount of income a man ought to have. When they laid a greater tax on a man possessing 20,000 l. per annum, than on a man possessing 1,000 l. a-year, what was it but saying that the man of 20,000 l. a-year had too much property? If the principle were to be carried out to that extent, it would come eventually to the equalization of all property. Nothing could be so dangerous as to hold out such a prospect. He did not, however, mean to pledge himself that, to a certain extent, he might not go along with the hon. Gentleman; but he did not think it desirable at the present time that the House should entertain the subject of the commutation of taxes with the view proposed by the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman possessed the experience which he possessed, the hon. Gentleman would know, that, by taking off taxes, great individual distress was produced. That, certainly, he admitted, was no I reason for not taking them off, though,

1099
unless the case were one which particularly called for it, he thought it desirable that the House should not encourage such commutation. He did think, however, that in one case where he commuted a tax, the commutation had proved advantageous to the country. The case he alluded to, was that of taking the duty off printed calicoes, and placing it on the raw material; although, he admitted, that to place a duty on the raw material was contrary to general principles. He could not consent to this Motion. Were he to do so, he should be throwing on a Committee of that House a duty which was properly imposed upon himself. It was his duty to inquire into and consider what taxes could be reduced most advantageously to the public, and that was one of the first objects to which he must and should always apply himself. He was anxious, perhaps too anxious, when he first entered office, to afford immediate relief to the people; but he had now gained a little more experience, and he could assure the House, that he felt it his duty to give this subject his most serious consideration.
Mr Cobbettwould vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester, not because he thought a graduated Property-tax just, but because he thought it right to get rid of the whole of the present system of taxation. A graduated Property-tax was neither more nor less than confiscation. The House must see—Ministers must see—that in all measures of taxation introduced, the poor were ground down and oppressed, while the rich were allowed to escape almost scot free. Under all the circumstances of the case, he felt bound to support the Motion which bad been so ably brought forward by the hon. member for Worcester.
Mr. Humecongratulated the hon. member for Worcester upon the change of opinions which had taken place in his mind. He agreed with those hon. Members who said that taxes ought to be reduced, and, most of all, those taxes which pressed most heavily upon the working and industrious classes of society. The taxes upon society pressed most unequally. While there was no more than one per cent imposed upon the rich man, an amount of eight, ten, twelve, or perhaps twenty per cent was imposed upon the poor man. He must here observe, that he was surprised at what had fallen from the hon. member for Oldham; namely,
1100
that the imposition of a Property-tax would be nothing short of confiscation. It certainly was true, that every tax was a confiscation to that amount; but then it was a confiscation which could not be avoided, as it was required for the purpose of carrying on the Government of the country. The only question was, how they were to raise the taxes necessary for the support of the State, so as to inflict the least possible evil on the community that paid them? And he would ask the hon. Gentleman, whether experience had not proved that a direct tax on property was levied for about one per cent; and, whether it was not a greater confiscation to levy taxes as they were now levied, indirectly, at a cost of 6l 8l., or 10 l. per cent? The principles, with regard to taxation, which he laid down, and to which he requested the concurrence of the hon. member for Oldham, were, that not one shilling more should be raised than was absolutely necessary; and, secondly, that the necessary amount should be raised at the least possible sacrifice. The only objection that he had to a graduated Property-tax was, its utter impracticability, on account of the evasion to which it was liable. He thought, however, that by taking off' the taxes on soap, paper, and other excisable articles, and laying on a Property-tax in their stead, the noble Lord would afford great relief to the working-classes. He hoped the House would not suffer itself to be led away by the observation that a Property-tax would lead to an equalization of property. The fact was, that ultimately the whole of the taxes of the country were paid by capital; and he was satisfied that the capitalist, whether agriculturalist or otherwise, would find himself much better off by paying taxes directly than indirectly. He agreed with much that had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, and also from the hon. member for Worcester; but he thought it was a subject which would be brought forward by the Treasury Bench with more advantage than if it proceeded from a Committee. Approving, as he did, of the general principles laid down by the noble Lord, he could only express a hope that he would act on them as speedily as possible.
Colonel Torrenssaid, he would vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester. Though he had paid considerable attention to the question before

1101
the House, yet, upon a subject so extensive and important, he would not venture to obtrude his opinions upon the House, were it not that they coincided with those of some of the most eminent statesmen who had guided Parliament and the country. It was well known that Mr. Huskisson, in one of his latest speeches to his constituents at Liverpool, had declared it to be his opinion that the industry of the country was so much oppressed, that it had become necessary to raise the public revenue by transmuting taxation from the active capital which gave employment to labour, to the fixed and dormant property from which merely revenue was derived. The principle of relieving the country from its oppressive burthens had also been propounded by the late Mr. Ricardo. He (Colonel Torrens) had heard with great satisfaction the encomium passed upon that eminent man by his hon. friend, the member for Bridport. The late Mr. Ricardo was a man whose memory ought not to be lightly treated in that House. It was not becoming, it was not decent, to treat his memory with disparagement or disrespect. Born without fortune, he created a princely one; self-educated, he attained the highest place in political philosophy; coming late in that House, he gradually acquired a lead and an ascendancy in it; and, be it remembered, that that ascendancy was acquired in other days than these. It was acquired when Romilly and Mackintosh—when Tierney and when Brougham sat on those seats—and when Huskisson and Canning occupied the Treasury Bench. It was not becoming—it was not decent—to treat the memory of such a man with disrespect. His moral worth was equal to his intellectual power. He had an ardent desire for esteem, and no human being ever succeeded more completely in obtaining it. To his family and friends, he was an object of affectionate admiration; and it was impossible to approach him without feeling that he was a man made to be loved. Mr. Ricardo left his place in that House not likely soon to be occupied, and a void in the hearts of his friends which never could be filled. He begged pardon for this digression. He would now direct himself to the question before the House. Throughout the country there existed amongst the industrious classes general and grievous distress. It was acknowledged, that a large portion
1102
of this distress arose from the pressure of taxation; and it was admitted that the most effectual relief which this House could afford, was by taking off the pressure of taxation. But how was this pressure to be removed? Thirty-four millions of the taxes were absorbed by the interest of the debt, and there remained only 20,000,000 l. which could be diminished by the reduction of the public establishments. Now, no possible reduction in the establishments of the country could afford any adequate relief while the people paid, out of the produce of their industry, 34,000,000 l. for the interest of the debt. Relief could be obtained only by shifting taxation from industry, and placing it upon the fixed and immovable properly which was expended without putting industry in motion. And here he must dissent from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord had just said, that if the proprietors of fixed property were taxed, their revenue would be diminished; they would consume less, and therefore the indirect taxes would become less productive. He (Colonel Torrens) dissented from this. If a landed proprietor, who received 100,000 l. a-year, paid 10,000 l. a-year as a Property-tax, this 10,000 l. a-year would still exist as revenue in the hands of those to whom the Treasury paid it; the whole unproductive income of the country, though differently distributed, would remain exactly the same in amount, and the consumption could not be diminished, nor the revenue derived from indirect taxation be reduced. The noble Lord had stated another position, from which he (Colonel Torrens) must dissent. The noble Lord had said, that were a tax upon property imposed, capital would immediately be drawn from the country, in order to evade the tax. This could not be, were taxation confined, as it ought to be, to fixed and immovable property. Such a tax, instead of driving capital out of the country, would draw capital into it. What was the great evil of taxation? The evil consisted in this—taxation, as now imposed, took so large a portion of the produce of industry from the producers, that profits and wages were reduced. But if you took off all taxes from productive and active capital giving employment to labour, and placed them upon the rent of land and upon the dividends received from the debt, neither profits nor wages would be re-

1103
duced. On the contrary, the profits derived from the employment of active Capital would immediately increase, and to obtain the increased profits capital would flow into the country, trade in all its branches would improve, and the demand for labour and the wages of the labourer would both increase. There was one objection to the transfer of taxation from industry to fixed and dormant property, which, before he sat down, he would notice. It was contended that such a transmutation of taxation would be contrary to the principle of justice. He (Colonel Torrens) contended that it would be conformable to the strictest principle of justice. In the first place, the value of fixed and dormant property was regulated by the quantity of floating and active capital employed in conjunction with it. It was the capital of the farmer which gave value to the land of the proprietor; it was the capital employed in setting productive labour which paid the rent of the houses in our manufacturing and commercial towns. When you taxed active capital, and thereby reduced profits and wages, you thereby diminished the rent of land and of houses; and when you relieved industry from taxation, and thereby increased the surplus produce created, you, at the same time, increased the only-fund from which the revenue of fixed property and of dormant capital could be derived. But there was another most important consideration connected with the principle of justice. Upon what principle of Justice could we tax the produce of the labourers yet unborn? The possessors of fixed property might dispose of that property as they pleased, and, to protect the whole, might mortgage a part. But by what right could any existing generation preserve their property by taxing the industry of future generations? It was contrary to all the principles of national justice to call upon the industrious classes of this country to pay the interest of a debt incurred for the protection of fixed property. The people must be relieved, and they could not be effectually relieved while industry paid the interest of the debt. The fixed property of the country, for the protection of which the debt was incurred, should be made to pay the debt. This was what justice demanded, and from the Reformed Parliament the people expected justice. If
1104
relief were not afforded, and if justice were not done, a spirit of discontent would arise far greater than that which the Reform Bill had allayed. On these grounds he should vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester.
Mr. Hoywas glad to hear the opinions which had been uttered by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he should certainly vote with the noble Lord. Since he had been on the Treasury Bench, the noble Lord had learnt that a transmutation of taxes was not beneficial to the country. Employment, he agreed also with the noble Lord in saying, was of more consequence to the people than the mere remission of taxation. If fifteen millions of taxes, for example, were remitted to fifteen millions of tax payers, the relief to each would not be more than three farthings a-day. It was, therefore, clear that employment was of much more importance to the labouring classes than a diminution of taxation. He agreed with the hon. member for Oldham that a graduated Property-tax would be nothing more nor less than a system of confiscation.
Mr. Waltersaid, that he should obtrude himself on the House for only a few minutes, in order to explain the grounds of his vote on this important question. The Motion brought forward by the hon. Gentleman was of a nature totally different from that made by the hon. member for Birmingham last week—was not liable to the same exceptions, and therefore ought not to undergo the same fate; though even that Motion died an honourable death, from the interesting nature of the subject to which it related—namely, the distresses of the people. But that Motion was general; and on that account was, he thought, properly rejected, as it proposed inquiry only. This Motion was specific, recommending to the consideration of the House a method of alleviating the public distress, or at least of abating the public dissatisfaction. He begged the House to consider what were the feelings of the country on the present state of taxation. No one imagined that the taxes could be wholly relinquished—that the Government of the country could be carried on without them; yet the cry against taxation was universal, and, in many respects, he thought, just. An hon. Baronet had, a few days ago, proposed the abrogation of the Malt-tax; he meant

1105
to have included the tax on hops in his proposition. The Assessed-taxes were generally and earnestly declaimed against; that portion of them which pressed unfairly on the houses and windows of the middle and industrious classes could not, he believed, be maintained much longer. The duty on fire-insurances, on soap, on stamps, on probates of wills, were all exclaimed against and execrated, as partial, oppressive, and cruel; yet if all these were repealed, where would be the revenue to carry on the Government and to pay the interest of the public debt? It followed, then, as an incontrovertible inference—as an undeniable logical conclusion—that if the people of this country acknowledged, as in common justice they must, the necessity of a revenue for the support of Government, and yet expressed their abhorrence of almost every existing tax for which revenue was raised as unjust or impolitic, that, in order to give relief and produce satisfaction, the whole system of taxation must be changed; it must be fixed upon other objects; or the burthen must be so placed, after being lightened as much as possible, as to bear, in a very different ratio from the present, on the several classes of the community. What could be the result of all this, but that a tax upon property—not upon industry, not upon ingenuity and talents, which were the most productive forms in which industry displayed itself—but that a Property-tax, fitly graduated, should supply the place of all other taxes, against which there was so just and general an outcry. In speaking of a graduated Property-tax, he meant such as should apply only in the case of smaller incomes; he thought it would be objectionable to apply the principle to the case of large fortunes. Whoever in that House was an advocate for the repeal of any of the obnoxious taxes which he had just described—the Malt-tax, the Assessed-taxes, or any of the remaining host of nameless taxes by which the middle orders of society were oppressed, and social life disturbed and harassed, must, he should conceive, vote in support of the present Motion; or, by opposing it, deny to the Government the necessary means of self-preservation. He conceived, then, upon every ground, affecting as well the popularity of the King's Government as the character of the Reformed Parliament and the feelings of the whole constituency by which it had
1106
been elected, that the present Motion ought to command the assent of his Majesty's Ministers and the House of Commons. The question was one which went home to the common sense of every order of men in the nation. It was eminently a practical subject: there was nothing speculative, nothing fanciful, nothing Utopian in it. The people from one end of the kingdom to the other were anxiously looking forward to some measure which should conduce to their solid and permanent relief; and considering to what little purpose two months of the Session had been already expended, and how small a portion of the public expectation had to that hour been satisfied, he feared their constituents, if a Motion of this nature were rejected, would ask universally: "Of what use is your boasted Reform?"
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he would vote for this inquiry. Adopting the sentiment of the last speaker, he would say it was inconsistent with common sense to refuse inquiry on the grounds which had been stated. The Motion did not pledge them to a Property-tax. All they had to do was to consider if it was proper to institute an inquiry whether the system of taxation might not be so altered as to press more upon property and less upon industry. The system of taxation at present was extremely unequal. The Assessed Taxes pressed heavier on the poorer classes than on the richer; and the small house in town was rated high, while the great house in the country was assessed at a comparatively low rate. The Stamp-duties also bore heavier on the lower classes than on the higher; and the excise in general was liable to the same objection. Nothing, indeed, was so blameable in point of principle as the excise with respect to improvements in manufactures. It seemed in fact actually to prohibit improvement, by introducing into the workshop a species of tyranny exercised by excise officers, without whom the imposts could not be enforced. It was a domestic and legal despotism which rendered changes in the process of manufacturing and of course improvements, almost impossible. The Motion did not, of necessity, involve any consideration of a Property or Income tax. It was merely a Motion for an inquiry. The House had already rejected a motion for an inquiry into the distress of the country; and since no relief hitherto had been promised, it was at least the

1107
duty of a Reformed House of Commons to inquire. For these reasons he should vote for the Motion.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondid not wish to protract a debate which was evidently drawing to a close. But having been pointedly alluded to by the hon. member for Worcester he must state, as concisely as possible, the opinions which he entertained upon the subject. He must first, however, congratulate the House upon the generosity which the hon. and learned member for Dublin had displayed in supporting the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester. From the terms in which the hon. and learned Member's observations were couched he could scarcely have heard the proposition, because he said that the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester was nothing more than a proposal for a Committee to inquire into the mode of distributing taxation, without having for its object the adoption or substitution of a Property-tax. It was plain that the hon. and learned Member, when he said, that, could not have heard the Motion as it was submitted by the hon. member for Worcester, because it contained not only the terms which, the hon. Member said, formed no part of it,—but the substitution of a Property-tax, for those which it was supposed bore more immediately and oppressively upon the people at large was clearly and avowedly the view taken of the subject by the hon. mover himself. One of the propositions, indeed of the hon. mover, and the argument upon which it was rested, was this—that whereas the Assessed Taxes which he proposed to remit were not at present paid by Ireland—a Property-tax if adopted, would be paid by that country. How the hon. and learned Gentleman then could suppose that in going into the proposed Committee the only consideration would be how taxation might best and most advantageously be transferred from one article of consumption to another, and not how a Property-tax might be substituted for the Assessed and many other taxes it was difficult to conceive. He gave the hon. and learned Gentleman the benefit of the view which he had taken of the question, and repeated his acknowledgment of the great generosity which he had exhibited. But he was anxious to draw the attention of the House to the specific Motion of the hon. member for Worcester, which, however it might have
1108
been overlooked by the hon. and learned member for Dublin, was that upon which he rested his defence against any charge of inconsistency that might be brought against him for offering his opposition to it. The hon. member for Worcester had done him the honour to speak in terms of praise of a motion which, two years ago, he had submitted to the House; and the hon. Member asked how, consistently with his conduct on that occasion, it would be possible for him to oppose the Motion. The whole difference rested in this; that, whereas he proposed an inquiry into the taxation of the country, with the view of repealing some few taxes which he then designated—an inquiry, in fact, into the possibility or probability of augmenting the revenue derived from the tax upon some articles, by reducing the amount of the impost upon others; the Motion which the hon. Member proposed was for a sweeping repeal of taxes, amounting to not less than 17,000,000 l., and the substitution in their stead of a tax upon property. Upon the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, it was argued that the result of his motion must be the imposition of a Property-tax; but he expressly guarded himself against such a result; and a right hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House, who was opposed to a Property-tax, agreed in the Motion, and gave it his very able support. That was, in his opinion, a sufficient ground for the opposition which he meant to give to the Motion under consideration. But there were two other grounds upon which he should oppose it. In the first place, he did not consider it advisable to refer a great question of principle, which should only be determined by the whole House, to the consideration of a Select Committee. If it were the general opinion that it was advisable to introduce a Property-tax in lieu of other taxes, let the principle be fairly discussed and debated in the House; let the arguments for and against the question be stated within those walls; and let any Gentleman who came down with such a proposition (upon which he would give no opinion whatever) let any Gentleman at least who came down with such a proposition, give the House at the same time some plan by which he would wish to have the transmutation made; and not tell the House as it had been told to-night "impose a Property-tax, or an Income-tax, which you will, or which you think best—we tell

1109
you which are the taxes we wish to have taken off, but we do not pretend to explain to you the nature of the tax which we wish to impose." The other ground upon which he should oppose the Motion was this; that, under present circumstances, the Government was not in the same condition to repeal taxes as at the time the motion alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was made. Since that period, his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had taken off nearly the whole of those taxes, the repeal of which he then advocated. Upon that occasion he stated to the House that the taxes which he was anxious to see repealed, were those upon hemp, barilla, candles, glass, paper, and printed calicoes, making a total of 2,814,000 l. Four of these six taxes had since been repealed entirely, and the repeal of a fifth, the tax upon glass, was attempted, but in consequence of difficulties which arose, his noble friend was obliged to abandon his project. He said, then, with reference to this part of the subject, that the circumstances in which the country was placed were no longer the same, since the greater number of those taxes which were specially designated by him as obnoxious, had since been removed from the statute-books of the country. Coming to the second part of the question, namely, the propriety of substituting an Income or a Property-tax in lieu of all those various taxes which the hon. Gentleman had detailed to them, he must say, that there was no part of the speech of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he more cordially and more heartily concurred, than that in which he said, that although great advantage might ultimately result from a change of taxation, its immediate effect must be to produce considerable disturbance in the various interests of the country. Unless, therefore, the strongest grounds were laid for a change in the system of taxation; and except, after long consideration and a duly weighing all the interests of the country, it would not be wise to undertake it. That a change, in some instances, might be carried into effect with advantage no man could doubt, but when they came to such an extensive and general change as that proposed by the hon. member for Worcester, the effect would be, to unhinge many of the best and most valuable interests in the country at the same time it would utterly fail of producing any of the benefits which the
1110
hon. Member seemed to expect from it. But in stating this, he must also observe, that he was far from wishing to express himself altogether unfriendly to the principle of change, and the substitution of Income or Property-taxes, for those which bore more immediately upon the necessaries or conveniences of life. He regretted, however, that no Gentleman who had spoken upon this occasion had favoured the House with any precise explanation of what he intended by a Property-tax. The hon. member for Worcester stated that of the three projects which he named he should prefer a graduated Income-tax, pressing more immediately and more heavily upon fixed or realized property, than upon incomes derived from professions. The hon. member for Bridport laid down, in his opinion, the only fair rule by which it would be possible to fix a tax of this kind; but then the hon. Member attached to it the condition that it must be permanent, making it quite evident that, in its origin, it must be unequal and unjust; because capital upon which the tax would, in the first instance, be levied, would naturally be invested for different degrees of duration. For instance, some capital was vested for ten years, to be returned in ten years, while other was vested in perpetuity. Of course, the income derived from the capital vested for ten years, only, would be greater than that derived from capital vested in perpetuity. To levy the same tax, then, upon incomes derivable from property so differently vested, would be manifestly unfair and unjust. The hon. member for Middlesex, to his utter astonishment, had that evening come forward as the advocate of a graduated Property-tax. It was with great satisfaction that he heard from the hon. member for Oldham, his entire repudiation of such a scheme; and he fully concurred in the propriety of designating it a "confiscation of property." In his opinion, that was the proper term to apply to such a tax. That the hon. member for Middlesex, who professed to be guided by the principles of political economy, should have advocated a tax which struck at the root of one of the first objects of that science—the accumulation of property—appeared to him to be utterly inconceivable. The result of his proposition would be, to fix a limit to the amount of the fortunes of every individual in the country, and to put a total and complete stop to

1111
the accumulation of properly. It was undoubtedly in the power of the House to do that; but he asked whether it could be considered just, or wise, or prudent, to adopt such a course? But the hon. member for Oldham, whilst he decried the scheme of a graduated Property-tax, asked why the House continued to impose an unequal tax upon the poor through the medium of the Stamp-duties. Into that question he would not at present enter; but it certainly appeared to him that there was this very simple reason for the inequality of which the hon. Member complained; namely that it would be unwise to ordain a tax which they could not by possibility collect. If the House were to endeavour to impose the same rate of taxation upon stamps for a large amount, as upon stamps for a small amount, no doubt could be entertained, but that means of avoiding the duty would very soon be found out, and that, in point of fact, stamps for a large amount would never be used. If, in the instance of bills of exchange, the duty were increased in proportion to the sum, the cost of the stamp for a bill drawn upon a merchant in London, at a few months' date, for 1,000 l., would be somewhere about 70 l. This might have the effect of reducing exchanges to barter, but it certainly would not operate to relieve the poor from any part of the taxes which they were compelled to pay. Throughout the whole of the discussion no definite proposition of any kind whatever had been offered as to the nature of the tax to be imposed. He wanted to know whether it was proposed to impose an Income-tax similar to the last, or a Property-tax, founded upon fixed and permanent property alone. He should be glad to see any feasible plan brought forward; but at the same time he very much doubted the possibility of introducing any measure, taxing property, and not taxing income, which it would be proper to adopt as just and fair. He would ask those who were inclined for such a tax, how they would manage to collect it upon that species of property which was constantly transferable throughout the country? But he would not enter into the discussion of that part of the question. He would merely advert to one other point which relates to the imposition of the tax, and which he considered to be of the deepest importance. If a Property-tax were imposed to the full extent suggested by the
1112
hon. member for Worcester, namely, to the extent of 15,000,000 l., what would become of the property of the country? The proposition had been advocated, because it would impose a tax upon absentees. But if such a tax were imposed, absentees would take their property away with them, and instead of reaching those who lived abroad, their property would be transferred to some other country where it would not be liable to such an impost. That the Property-tax had no such effect during the war was no argument, because the times were perfectly different. The Continent was then closed to Englishmen; but he believed, that, with the desire which now existed to obtain a larger rate of profit upon capital than could be acquired in this country, there was already too great a desire to transfer property from hence, and certainly the finishing stroke would be given to the effects of that desire, if such a tax as that now proposed were to be levied. In answer to what had been asserted of the total absence of relief from taxation, and of the little that had been done for the benefit of the working and productive classes of the kingdom, he would refer to the taxes which had been repealed since the war. As nearly as he could, he would classify them into two descriptions: first, the taxes which may be considered as pressing upon productive industry; and second, those which bear more immediately upon property. He made that distinction in obedience to the expressions used in that House, rather than in conformity to his own feelings, because he was firmly convinced that any tax which pressed upon property, must, in a great degree, impede productive industry. He did not believe in those distinctions which were drawn; because a tax was paid upon capital in the first instance, that it therefore pressed upon the rich alone,—or, because a tax was paid upon the article consumed by the poor man, that therefore it weighed upon the poor alone. He believed that with a population such as that of England, all taxes must ultimately be paid by capital, and out of the profits of the capitalist's stock. The amount of the wages of the labourers, would always depend upon the competition of capital for the employment of his skill or industry; so that any tax which at first sight appeared to press more immediately upon the wages of the poor, must ultimately be paid by capital. However,

1113
for the sake of others, and for the purposes of this discussion, he would make the distinction; and that hon. Gentlemen might not run away with the idea that nothing whatever had been done to relieve the country from the burthen of taxation, he wished very shortly to state what imposts had been taken off since the termination of the war. The total amount of the taxes which had been repealed since the war was 34,137,000 l. In that sum was included the Property-tax the amount of which was 14,600,000 l. Since the year 1819 or 1820, there had been repealed taxes on articles principally consumed by the lower classes, or which, in his opinion, was a matter of much more importance, on the raw material and other articles used in manufactures, no less a sum than 16,864,000 l. Those articles had been principally soap, coffee, tobacco, silk, windows, beer, leather, candles, printed cotton, &c. Under the present circumstances, when the revenue very little exceeded the expenditure, the utmost caution ought to be used on the subject. When it was proposed to repeal at once a tax producing 4,500,000 l. he hoped hon. Gentlemen would have some little regard for the engagements which the country had contracted; and that they would not allow themselves, in consequence of any immediate call on the part of their constituents, to do anything which might materially affect public credit; for he was persuaded that those constituents were far too honest and upright to entertain a deliberate wish to relieve themselves from taxation at such a price. It should be always remembered, that all the revenue of the country except about 14,000,000 l. was engaged in a manner to which the public faith was solemnly pledged. In disposing of that 14,000,000 l., he trusted that the Government with which he had the honour to be connected, had not shown any indisposition to economise as far as was possible.
Mr. Harveywas not at all surprised at the natural disinclination of Gentlemen, most of whom were men of large property, to hear arguments, the tendency of which was to show that property ought to be more heavily taxed than at present. That feeling of dislike would, however, be a lesson to the new Members (a larger body than had ever before appeared in Parliament). The mode in which the proposition of the hon. Member had been treated must show them, that it was very easy to
1114
divert attention from the principle of a Motion, by introducing a number of unconnected details. The speech, for example, of the right hon. the Vice President of the Board of Trade, although, as usual, one of considerable ability, had little bearing on the question before the House. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman accused the hon. member for Worcester of not sufficiently defining his notion of what the proposed Property-tax ought to be. It was not necessary that the hon. member for Worcester should do so; that was a subject to be considered in the Committee, Ministers pretended to object to the Motion, because the hon. member for Worcester had thrown out the idea of establishing a Property-tax; but every one knew, that if the hon. Member had merely proposed the repeal of 15,000,000 l. of taxes, without suggesting the means of providing a substitute, Ministers would have risen one after another, held up their hands, and exclaimed, "What a monstrous proposition to ask us to repeal 15,000,000 l. of taxes without finding a substitute!" Then, the question if taxes were to be repealed, and if a substitute must be found for them, what was that substitute to be? Ministers knew full well that the only substitute was a Property-tax, and yet, because that was suggested, they said they would negative the Motion. Ministers, and particularly the right hon. Gentleman, had upon this occasion assailed a Property-tax most vigorously, because they knew that they were addressing, on that point at least, a partial audience. Among other arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman, he had urged that it would not touch absentees. But if people went away from the country, they must leave their property behind them subject to taxation, or they must find customers for it, who would alike be subject to taxation. As to the depreciation of the funds, the 28,000,000 l. of interest on the national debt, would be taxed, and the amount of that tax would be the same, whether Consols were at sixty or at par. Equally fallacious was the notion of absentees carrying away their property, unless they could travel like snails with their houses on their backs. The hon. member for Oldham had endeavoured to throw an odium upon the proposition of the hon. member for Worcester, by the use of a single word; he had declared, that a graduated Property-tax would be a confisca-

1115
tion. Why, all taxes were, in one sense of the expression, a confiscation. His (Mr. Harvey's) notion of a graduated Property-tax was, not a tax which would seize the whole of any property, but a tax which would apply with equal weight to properties of unequal amount. For instance, that if property of 200 l. a-year were taxed two per cent, that property of 10,000 l. a-year might be taxed five per cent, and property of 20,000 l. a-year twenty per cent. Confiscation! Could there be a more infamous system of confiscation than that which, by the present system, was carrying on against the industry of the country? The average wages of a labourer were 12 s. a-week, or 30 l. a-year. Of this sum it had been ascertained, by able calculators, that thirty-three percent was struck off for taxes paid by the labourer on the necessary articles of consumption; in other words, that 11 l. out of 30 l. were taken from him. But what was the case with a man of 30,000 l. a-year? To subject him to equal confiscation, 10,000 l. of his income ought to be taken from him. But as matters stood, he might, if he chose, live on 300 l. a-year, and invest the remaining 29,700 l. in the funds, which were protected from all taxation. He would ask the hon. member for Essex, and his colleague, if there was any subject in the district which they represented, on which so intense an interest was excited, as on this subject of a graduated Property-tax? The public mind was impressed with an idea that there was a general disposition on the part of his Majesty's Government to look at the subject of taxation with a generous wish to relieve the industrious classes of the community, and yet his Majesty's Ministers now opposed a Motion for a Committee to inquire into the subject, and to substitute for the present oppressive taxation a graduated Property-tax. Under such circumstances, what relief could the public expect? There were two classes of individuals in that House, both eager for the repeal of taxation, but rivals with respect to the mode by which that repeal was to be effected. The Representatives of the landed interest claimed the repeal of the Malt-tax; while those connected with towns and manufactures were equally pressing for the repeal of the Assessed-taxes. But how could either of these parties redeem the pledges which they had made to their constituents, if they recognized the validity of the declaration
1116
made by his Majesty's Government, that they were not prepared even to sanction the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the subject? He would advise the country Members to tell their constituents at once that they need not trouble themselves upon the subject, for that his Majesty's Ministers would not take off the tax on malt; and he would advise town Members to tell their constituents to be quiet, for that his Majesty's Ministers would not take off the tax on houses and windows, According to the doctrine maintained by the right hon. Vice-president of the Board of Trade, it was impossible to hope that any efficient relief would be afforded to the people; for that right hon. Gentleman had truly stated, that the amount of revenue on which a diminution could be effected was only fourteen millions. The most, therefore, that could be expected from that source was but a million or so, and that would go but little way—five barley loaves and a few small fishes would go but little way among so many. Nothing could be more clear to him than this, that, although they might drive the matter off for one Session, the time was rapidly approaching when they must either diminish the burthens of the people, or give them the means of sustaining those burthens. "But, (said the right hon. Gentleman), how restless you all are! Thirty-four millions of taxes have been repealed since the war." True; but did the hon. Gentleman recollect that the pressure of taxation depended, not so much upon its amount, as upon the means which the people had to support it; and that the people might be better able to pay the larger taxation in 1814 than the smaller taxation of the present day? Let the House recollect, that if they acceded to the present Motion for a Committee to inquire into the expediency of repealing taxes, and substituting a graduated Property-tax, they would do so as free agents. But would that be the case two or three years hence? Now they might substitute such a tax, then they must do so. It was always the evil of British legislation that it came too late. Its measures were always adopted in hurry and alarm; they were rarely the result of sober and dispassionate reasoning, but were hatched under difficulties and constraint. Instead of conceding with a good grace, the Legislature deferred concession, until it was wrung from it by necessity and violence.
Mr. Halcombesaid, that the object of the present Motion was not to embarrass or inconvenience Ministers, and that he should vote for it, on the general ground that it was expedient to institute an inquiry into the subject. No man would be pledged to the result of the investigation and it would afford the means of ascertaining whether any substitute could be found for 17,000,000 l. of taxes. The noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had not declared himself altogether adverse to a Property-tax; and the right hon. Vice-president of the Board of Trade had not expressed himself decidedly hostile to an Income-tax; and this very uncertainty afforded a strong reason for complying with the Motion of the hon. member for Worcester. As the Church property Bill had been mentioned he hoped to be allowed to request hon. Members to look very carefully into its provisions. As he was a new Member, he threw himself on the usual courtesy of the House, especially as he was only adverting to a topic already introduced by others. It was not to be disputed that the King was the guardian of Church property. That Bill would at once put an end to the trusteeship of the Crown as regarded Church property and he believed that many of its advocates were not aware that it would establish what was at present contrary to the law of the land.
Mr. Peasethought, that the appointment of a Committee might lead to some desirable commutation of taxes; and if the inquiry took place without delay, the result would possibly have an important effect upon the forthcoming Budget. Much of the present taxation bore with unjust and unnecessary severity upon the lower orders, and the inequality called loudly for a remedy. For example the Post-horse-duty was unjust, a man who hired a horse for fourteen days as many of the middle classes did, paid one guinea duty, but a man who hired a horse for a whole year, as many of the rich did, paid only the guinea. Again, stones dug from the quarry paid no duty, quarries were, however, generally the property of the rich, bricks were made by the labour of the poor and they paid duty. He contended that there was a clear and an important distinction between a Property-tax and an Income-tax, much in favour of the former. One great advantage of a Property-tax would be, that it could be
1118
cheaply collected; for at present of the 16,000,000 l. or 17,000,000 l. imposed, not more than perhaps 12,000,000 l. or 13,000,000 l. found its way into the Treasury.
Mr. Robinsonbriefly replied, and the House divided. Ayes 155: Noes 221—Majority 66.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Harland, W. C.

Adams, E. H.

Harvey, D. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hawes, B.

Attwood, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Baillie, J. E.

Henniker, Lord

Barnard, E. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Barnet, C. J.

Hodgson, J.

Bayntun, S. A.

Hornby, E. G.

Benett, J.

Hughes, H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hume, J.

Bewes, T.

Humphery, J.

Bolling, W.

Hutt, W.

Bowes, J.

Hyatt, W. H.

Brigstrick, W. P.

Ingham, R.

Briggs, R.

James, W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Keppel, Major G.

Brocklehurst, J.

Key, Sir J.

Brodie, W.

Langton, Col. G.

Brotherton, J.

Lennox, Lord W.

Buckingham, J. S.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Lister, C.

Bulwer, E. L.

Locke, W.

Cavendish, Lord

Lushington, Dr. S.

Cayley, Sir G.

Marshall, J.

Chaplin, T.

Marsland, T.

Chapman, A.

Nanney, J. E.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Newark, Viscount

Chichester, J. P. B.

Palmer, R.

Clay, W.

Pease, J.

Cobbett, W.

Peel, Col. J.

Collier, J.

Philips, M.

Cornish, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Curteis, H. B.

Potter, R.

Curteis, E. B.

Ricardo, D.

Dare, R. W. H.

Rider, T.

Davies, Lieut.-Col.

Roebuck, J. A.

Dawson, E.

Romilly, J.

Dick, Q.

Rotch, B.

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Russell, C.

Evans, W.

Shawe, R. N.

Ewart, W.

Spry, S. T.

Faithfull, G.

Stanley, E. J.

Fenton, J.

Stewart, J.

Feilden, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Fryer, R.

Tennyson, Rt. Hn. C.

Gaskell, D.

Thicknesse, R.

Gisborne, T.

Todd, R.

Goring, H. D.

Tooke, W.

Greene, T. G.

Torrens, Col. R.

Grote, G.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Guest, J. J.

Tynte, C.

Gully, J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Halcomb, J.

Tyrell, C.

Hall, B.

Vaughan, Sir R.

Handley, W. F.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Handley, B.

Vincent, Sir F.

Handley, H.

Waller, J.

1119

Wason, R.

Fitzsimon, C.

Watkins, I. L.

Grattan, H.

Wigney, I. N.

Lalor, Patrick

Wilks, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Williams, Col. G.

Maclaughlin, L.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Martin, I.

Windham, W. H.

O'Brien, C.

Wood, Alderman

O'Connell, D.

Young, G.

O'Connell, Maurice

SCOTLAND.

O'Connell, C.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Connell, J.

Gillon, W. D.

O'Connell, Morgan

Johnston, A.

O'Connor, Fergus

Maxwell, Sir J.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Maxwell, J.

Roche, W.

Oswald, R. A.

Roche, D.

Oswald, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Sinclair, G.

Ruthven, E.

Stewart, R.

Sheil, R. L.

Wallace, R.

Sullivan, R.

IRELAND.

Vigors, N. A.

Baldwin, Dr.

TELLERS.

Barry, G. S.

Robinson, R.

Butler, Hon. P.

Warburton, H.

Finn, W. F.

Paired off.

O'Connor, M.

Molesworth, Sir W.

SIR EDWARD CODRINGTON—CORRECTNESS OF THE REPORTED DEBATES.
Sir Robert Peelhoped that an opportunity might be conceded to him of saying a few words to explain the language respecting the proceedings connected with the affair at Navarino, which had been complained of by the gallant Admiral opposite. The House, he took for granted, would bear in mind, that for the last three years he had been without any notification from the gallant Admiral that he had any the most remote intention of bringing the subject under the consideration of Parliament. It had been, however, brought before the House; and he felt it due, not only to the House, but to the gallant Admiral and to himself, to explain how the matter really stood; he likewise felt it was due to all parties that he should postpone making that explanation until he should have had an opportunity of rendering it satisfactory by consulting all the means of information within his reach. Had he made any accusation against the gallant Admiral under the influence of error, or if, in full possession of the facts, he had stated them to the House in a spirit of hostility or unfairness towards the gallant Admiral, no lapse of time should have prevented him from doing tardy justice to a party aggrieved; but in the same proportion as he
1120
should have been anxious to repair a wrong, so should he be equally anxious and prompt to defend and vindicate his own conduct when he felt it, as he did feel it on the present occasion, to be unassailable. The gallant Admiral had told them, that he purposely postponed giving his explanation on the subject of Navarino until he should be enabled to do so in the presence of a Reformed Parliament.
Sir Edward Codringtonbegged to remind the right hon. Baronet, that he had written to Lord Melville, the then first Lord of the Admiralty, the moment he saw a report of the right hon. Baronet's speech, contradicting the right hon. Baronet's statement, with the understanding that Lord Melville would communicate his contradiction to the right hon. Baronet, his colleague. He thought that the most delicate way. After that he mentioned the circumstance to Mr. William Peel.
Sir Robert Peel: What time was that?
Sir Edward Codrington: I do not now exactly remember the exact time. My impression is, that it is not three years ago; but I cannot speak positively.
Sir Robert Peelappealed to the House, whether the impression conveyed by the gallant Officer's statement last night was not, that he had communicated with Mr. William Peel on the subject recently. At least, most certainly, that was his own impression. Well, the gallant Officer had at last brought forward his charge—confident of justice and redress from that Reformed Parliament. He could tell the gallant Officer that he did not appeal to that Reformed Parliament with more confidence than he did. He had not solicited the attendance of a single friend; if any of his friends chanced to be present, it was merely accidental. He cared not that the tribunal was a Reformed Parliament, for he knew that he was addressing an assembly of English Gentlemen who, as such, would be incapable of permitting themselves to be for a moment influenced by party or political feelings in judging of a question of a personal nature. No reformer in that House could have a more implicit reliance on its honour and equity. The question then was, not what might have appeared in some foreign newspaper, as the report of his sentiments respecting the gallant Officer's conduct, but whether he, in the exercise of his duty as a Minister of the Crown, did make a statement in his place in Parliament inconsistent with fact,

1121
and bearing hardly upon the gallant Officer's professional conduct. This was the question between them, and in discussing it he would dismiss all petty cavils respecting mere verbal expressions. The statement alluded to by the gallant Officer, was made by him on the 3rd April, 1828, very nearly five years ago. It was on the face of it not very easy for him to remember the precise words uttered by him on that occasion; and he had no other means of refreshing his recollection, except the contemporary publications of the proceedings in Parliament, He had that morning carefully examined those publications—indeed had taken more pains to ascertain what he was alleged to have said, than on any other occasion within his remembrance. Among the publications which he had consulted, he had referred to two morning papers of character and influence, and whose politics were, moreover, uniformly opposed to his own—he meant The Times and the Morning Chronicle. He particularly referred to these two journals, as well on account of their being opposed to him in politics, as that their reports could not possibly have been revised or corrected by him. He would refer also to the report published in Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, which was essentially the same as The Times report, and he would quote it the rather because, besides its agreement with The Times and Morning Chronicle report, from having the advantage of more time for revision and collation with other reports, it was the received and authentic record of the proceedings in Parliament. Well, then, the question was, did The Times and Morning Chronicle faithfully report his sentiments on the occasion alluded to? He would not shelter himself behind any verbal inaccuracies that might be discovered in those reports, but would at once avow that he was surprised at the extraordinary accuracy and ability with which they must have reported what fell from him. He would abide by these reports; they were honest and able; he would be responsible for every word which they represented him to have spoken. He would vindicate them under any circumstances and at any place. The gallant Officer had referred to another publication. He would not answer for that; if it differed from those reports, the accuracy of which he admitted, it was incorrect. The point simply was, whether he (Sir R. Peel) was or was
1122
not a correct interpreter of the sentiments of his Majesty's Government. Two other parties were more immediately concerned, the Earl of Dudley and Mr. Huskisson; from both of whom he had occasionally differed in politics, but for both of whom he had ever entertained great respect, and both were then no more. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston), who had an intimate acquaintance with what was passing at the time, would be enabled to bear testimony to the accuracy or to the error of his statements. At an early period of the Session the question was raised by the hon. member for Westminster (Sir J. Hob-house), whether the gallant Admiral was entitled to the thanks of Parliament for the battle fought by him at Navarino; and he (Sir R. Peel) was, in the discharge of his duty, obliged to oppose the Motion. But he appealed to the House whether he opposed it in a temper that indicated any indisposition on his part to do justice to the gallant Admiral? He stated on that occasion, 'that his Majesty's Government were as willing as those who might be inclined to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, to do justice to the gallantry of all who were engaged in the late affair; and, therefore, he was not without a hope, that the hon. Mover, instead of pressing the question to a division, would adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned friend, and take that course which would, under all the circumstances of the case, be most satisfactory to the feelings of the gallant Officer, most agreeable to the consistency of Parliament, and, as he believed, to the wishes of the country at large.'* He placed his opposition to the Motion on such grounds, that the right hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, declared that he felt no difficulty in withdrawing it; and he appealed to the testimony of his political opponents, in the perfect confidence that it would confirm his statement, that, in opposing the Motion, he manifested no temper, nor tone, which could warrant the belief that he was actuated by any hostile or illiberal feeling towards the gallant Admiral. But on the 3rd of April, 1828, a question was put to him by Sir Robert Wilson, his answer to which was the more immediate cause of the observations which the gallant Admiral last night applied to him. About that time a report,
* Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 420.

1123
which created a great feeling of indignation, reached this country, that the wreck of the Turco-Egyptian fleet had arrived at Alexandria, having on board a considerable number of Greek slaves, who were taken to the markets of the place and sold. He did not know the exact period when the rumour reached this country, but the first question relating to the affair was asked on the 24th of March, and that question was repeated by his gallant friend Sir Robert Wilson, on the 3rd of April, 1828. On referring to the report of what took place on that occasion (and he again declared that for that report he was in no way responsible, it having been made without reference to him, though he felt himself bound, in justice to his own character, and to those now no more, to abide by its substance), he found that the answer given by him to the question of his gallant friend was as follows:—'Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had already stated, that in 1825, and consequently long before the protocol was signed by the Duke of Wellington, at St. Petersburgh, and long before the treaty of the 6th of July, his Majesty's Ministers had received indistinct intelligence, that the commander of the Egyptian forces intended to take away the inhabitants of the Morea to serve in Egypt; and before the treaty of the 6th of July was entered into, a distinct and formal intimation was given to Ibrahim Pacha that his Majesty would never agree to such an exercise of the rights of war, or allow the inhabitants of the Morea to be converted into slaves by force.'* This must be a most correct report, because it was in exact correspondence with the facts of the case; and considering all the circumstances under which the debates in that House were reported, he was bound in justice to bear testimony to the general fairness and impartiality of those whose business it was to report the proceedings of Parliament, and he could not avoid expressing his astonishment that it was possible to make a report so correct in substance as the one he had just read. In consequence of the intimation that part of the population of the More a was to be transported to Egypt, orders were sent out from this country, in consequence of which, an officer, who was an honour to his profession, and whose loss his country, as well as his immediate connexions,
* Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 1438.
1124
must deeply deplore—he meant Captain Sir Frederick Spencer—was despatched to Ibrahim Pacha, with instructions to notify to him, that if he intended to carry on the war on such principles, England would interfere with a naval force to prevent acts so inconsistent with the usages of nations, and with common humanity. He (Sir Robert Peel) then went on to state—'that instructions had been given to the British Admiral before the battle took place, and these instructions were consequently still in force, by which the British fleet was directed to prevent any movement whatever of the Egyptian force, with this exception only, that if an attempt were made to remove the Egyptian army from the Morea, every facility should be afforded for the execution of such an attempt; but it was perfectly understood that the Egyptian forces only were to be removed, and that any attempt at removing any portion of the population of the Morea was to be resisted.'* Now let the House remark the proof he could give of the extraordinary correctness of this report. He had referred to the instructions given by Lord Dudley, on the 15th of October, 1827, before he (Sir R. Peel) was in office, and as the battle of Navarino took place on October 20th, the instructions must have been drawn up six weeks before the news of the battle reached this country. They ran thus:—'The commander of the British fleet will concert with the commanders of the Allied Powers the most effectual mode of preventing any movements by sea on the part of the Turkish or Egyptian forces.' By the same opportunity, pursuant to the protocol of the 15th of October, 1827, under which these instructions were also sent out, this instruction was sent to the commanders of the naval forces of the Three Powers in the Mediterranean;—
The admiral, to whom the task of watching the port of Navarino shall be allotted, by mutual agreement betwixt himself and his colleagues, should be instructed to hold out, in concert with him, every inducement to the Pacha of Egypt, and to his son, to withdraw the Egyptian ships and land forces altogether from Greece, and to assure them that every facility and protection will be given for their safe return to Alexandria; but he is, on no account, to enter into any stipulation for allowing the ships to return to Alexandria without the troops.
* Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 1439.

1125
Secret instruction. Annexed C. to the protocol 15th October.
It is thought expedient, not only that the regular commerce of neutrals; that is, such as is not carried on in order to aid the belligerents, should proceed uninterrupted, but that interruption should be confined to neutrals sailing under the convoy of Turkish ships of war.
Such were the instructions given by Lord Dudley, at least a month before the account of the battle of Navarino reached this country. Now, was not the report of his speech, as far as he had read it, in exact conformity with the facts which occurred, and the instructions which were actually given? He had gone on in his speech to say: 'On the 28th of December, a fleet, consisting of forty-five sail, arrived at Alexandria. This fleet was the remnant of that which had been engaged in the action at Navarino. These vessels had on board the disabled seamen and soldiers, and also some women and children, but what the number of them was he could not tell.'* The gallant Admiral stated last night, that he (Sir R. Peel) had given countenance to the charge brought against the vigilance of the British fleet, by declaring that 16,000 or 18,000 slaves" had been allowed to be taken from the Morea. Now, how stood the facts? Sir Robert Wilson said, 'that official advice had been received—that he had heard even 7,000 persons—but certainly several thousand persons, men, women, and children, had been forcibly taken from the Morea, put on board the Egyptian fleet, and landed at Alexandria, where they had been publicly sold as slaves.'† If he (Sir Robert Peel) had been actuated by any hostile spirit towards the gallant Admiral, he certainly should not have been anxious to diminish the number of the slaves who were stated to have been thus carried away. But what were his observations on this point? He was reported to have said: the number of the persons taken away he could not tell, but that he had seen an account, which rested on tolerable authority, and that account stated that the number did not exceed 600.'‡ The fact was, that the accounts of the number of the Greeks carried away by the Turco Egyptian fleet varied from 5,000 to 600; but, he, so far from wishing to countenance
* Hansard (new series) xviii. p. 1439.
†Ibid. p. 1438.
‡Ibid. 1439.
1126
any exaggerations, mentioned the very lowest account which he had heard. Did the gallant Admiral remember the interview he had with the Pacha of Egypt, on August 6th, 1828, and the report which he made in consequence of that interview? [Sir Edward Codrington: Very well.] He had brought with him the memorandum of that Conference, and would read it to the House. It ran thus—
Memorandum of a Conference held at Alexandria, on the 6th of August, 1828, between Sir Edward Codrington and the Pacha of Egypt.
The Admiral said, that the only circumstance that might remove any objections on the part of his Government, would be an engagement by his Highness to do everything in his power towards obtaining the liberty of as many Greek slaves as possible—that his Highness was aware how loud the cry had been both in England and France on this subject, and more particularly by the deportation which took place subsequently to the battle of Navarino.
His Highness stated positively that not one slave had been made subsequent to that battle—that 1,900 Greeks were brought over; 1,200 Candiotes—greatest part wives of officers and soldiers.
The Admiral observed, that the not having prevented the return of those ships containing slaves, was a great cause of complaint against him, so that he must do everything which he could to procure their release.
Surely, the gallant Admiral would, after that, find it impossible to maintain that he countenanced the impression that thousands of slaves were received at Alexandria. He had read nearly the whole of his speech as it was found in Hansard, except the concluding paragraph, which was this: 'The subject was one to which Ministers had given their best attention. Immediately upon the arrival of the intelligence in this country, instructions had been sent out to the British Admiral, and in a very short time he had very little doubt of being able to enter into full explanations without any prejudice to the public service.'* That was the whole of the speech which he delivered on the occasion he had alluded to, and he defied any person to discover in it anything indicating an illiberal spirit towards the gallant Admiral. The gallant Officer said, that despatches were not sent to him immediately after the arrival in this country of the reports of the transportation of the Greek population to Egypt. ["Hear," from Sir Edward Codrington.] But
* Hansard (new series) xviii p. 1439.

1127
of what importance was it whether they were sent immediately or not? He had then stated in his place that he was not able to give specific information; but admitting that he did use the word "immediately," let the House see what period of lime elapsed before instructions on this point were conveyed to the gallant Admiral. It must be recollected by the House that no instructions could be sent to the gallant Admiral which were not addressed to the three commanders of the combined fleet; and before that could be done, it was necessary to hold a conference and prepare a protocol. Not having the documents at present in his possession, he did not know whether the Egyptian fleet sailed from Navarino on the 27th December, or whether that was the day on which it arrived at Alexandria, but he found that a conference was held on the 12th of March, doubtless immediately upon the receipt of the intimation of the landing of a portion of the Greek population at Alexandria. At that conference instructions were sent to the Admirals commanding the combined squadron in the Levant, expressly referring to the accounts received from Alexandria, in these words:—'In consequence of information received from Alexandria, that a great number of Greek captives, among whom are many women and children, have been lately sent from the Morea to be sold as slaves in the market of Alexandria, you will hasten to announce to Ibrahim Pacha, that you have positive orders to prevent the renewal of such outrages; and in case you should find any of their captives on board the vessels that you shall have occasion to visit, you will take the necessary steps to restore them to liberty, and to send them with safety to some point of Greece not occupied by their enemies.' Those instructions were agreed to at a Conference held March 12th. Knowing the nature of these instructions, was he not warranted in saying, on the question being asked on the 24th of the same month, that immediately on the receipt of the news that the Greek population was being carried away to Egypt, instructions were sent out to prevent a repetition of the act? He had quoted the whole of the speech made by him on the 3rd of April; but in answer to Sir Francis Burdett, who 'expressed a wish that proper steps would be taken to restore those unhappy people who had been carried away into slavery to the
1128
home from which they had been so atrociously removed,'* and to Sir J. Mackintosh, who said 'that he could not doubt that the inquiry in which the Government was engaged referred to the most convenient measures for restoring the unhappy victims to their country,'† he (Sir Robert Peel) stated, that 'he was not aware that it was possible entirely to go that length. Undoubtedly, if the instructions of Government had been strictly complied with, the transportation of those persons would have been prevented.'‡ In that observation he alluded to the orders issued before the battle of Navarino, requiring the Greek ports to be blockaded, and that the Egyptian ships should not be allowed to leave the ports of the Morea unless they carried with them the Egyptian army. He appealed to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) whether the construction which he put on these orders was not the same as had been put on them by Mr. Huskisson and other members of the Government? If those orders had been complied with, no Greek captives could have been carried away: but did he go out of his way to impute blame to the gallant Admiral? No man could read the report of his speech without acknowledging that, whilst he was desirous of vindicating the conduct of Government, he was also anxious to do the gallant Admiral strict justice. He went on to state, that 'no blame was to be attached to the conduct of our fleet, the physical powers and means of which had been cramped by the battle of Navarino; but the orders, if it had been possible to execute them fully, were to prevent any movement of the hostile fleet, unless one which should be sanctioned by the English Admiral, and of which the object should be to transport the Egyptian forces employed in the Morea back to their own country.'§ That was the whole of the statement which he had made, and thus, while vindicating the Government from blame, he also said, that he cast no censure on the gallant Admiral for not carrying into effect his instruction, because he knew the physical powers of the fleet were cramped by the battle of Navarino. The gallant Admiral last night complained that he (Sir Robert Peel) had stated that despatches were sent out to him immediately
* Hansard (new series) xviii. 1439.
† Ibid. 1440.
‡ Ibid. 1441.
§ Ibid. 1441.

1129
or within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the intelligence of the transportation of the Greek population to Egypt. In none of the reports to which he had alluded did he find any mention of that circumstance. In Hansard's Debates he was reputed to have said 'As the intelligence at present stood, the extent of the spoliation that had been committed was uncertain. Unfortunately, those slaves had been landed in Egypt, and sold in the public market. If the ships which contained them had been taken at sea, there could have been no difficulty about their disposal, but now they were probably divided, and the property of private individuals. At present he would go no further than to repeat, that within forty-eight hours after the arrival of the news, the most active inquiry had been entered upon by Government as to all the facts connected with the case. Sufficient information had not yet been received but the investigation was going on.'* The gallant Admiral had stated that he read in Galignani's paper, that he (Sir Robert Peel) stated, that within forty-eight hours after the receipt of the intelligence a despatch was sent out to him.
Sir Edward Codringtonobserved that he saw the statement in the Mirror of Parliament.
Sir Robert Peel: Certainly wherever the gallant Admiral saw the statement, it was not in any of the reports to which he had referred, and by which as they were in exact conformity with what he had said, he was ready to abide. Of this he was certain, that within three days at most after the arrival of the news in England, a despatch on the subject was sent, not to the gallant Admiral opposite, but to Mr. Barker, the British resident at Constantinople. That despatch required immediate inquiry into all the facts, and the utmost efforts to procure the release and restoration of the captives. These things he knew to be facts, and he could not doubt them. When he was asked what steps had been taken for the redemption of the Greek captives, of course he replied by referring to the communications made to Mr. Barker, by whom the steps were to be taken. What was the impression made upon the House by his statement? Did the House think that he had not acted fairly towards the gallant
* Hansard (new series) xviii. 1441.
1130
Admiral? He found in the Chronicle report that the debate concluded with the following observation of Sir Joseph Yorke:—"Sir Joseph Yorke bore testimony to the disabled state of our vessels after the battle of Navarino, and was happy to hear that, whatever might have been the causes which led to the removal of the Greek captives from the Morea, no blame or negligence whatever was imputable to our officers engaged in the gallant action, of Navarino." That was said by a man who felt the deepest interest in the professional fame of every officer in the navy; and if he (Sir Robert Peel) had done injustice to any officer employed in that expedition. Sir Joseph Yorke would have been the first to condemn him for doing so. He might make other observations on this subject, but he had mentioned all that was material. The reports which he had quoted were those of The Times, the Chronicle, and Hansard's Debates; all of which were most correct in substance, and in none of which did the expressions attributed to him by the gallant Admiral appear. He had stated the authority upon which he had made those statements, and the nature of the construction put upon the instructions by one member of that Government which sent them out; he had appealed to the recollection of those present as to the tone and temper in which those statements were made, and he now asked that House, whether the charge brought against him by the gallant Admiral was founded in fact, or had been made in a manner consistent with courtesy? He was sure the gallant Admiral would, upon consideration, confess that he (Sir Robert Peel) had shown every disposition to do him justice. The question was, whether he had put a correct construction on the instructions of Government. If any Motion was made for the production of the official documents he would be most ready to second it; and he asserted, that the letters written by the Admiralty, by Lord Dudley, and by Mr. Huskisson, would be found in precise conformity with his present statements. He was grateful to the House for the attention with which they had listened to him. If he had been conscious that he had ever made any observations which were unfair to the gallant Admiral, the lapse of time should not have prevented him from doing the gallant Admiral justice now. For the speeches which might have been attributed to him in foreign newspapers he was

1131
not responsible, but he was quite prepared to stand by the reports to which he had already alluded. There might be slight variations in those reports, but that did not impeach their general accuracy. An expression might not be heard, or might be misconstrued, and yet the general bearing of the report might be substantially accurate and correct. For instance, he had seen it stated in the papers of this morning, that the gallant Admiral had said, that he had made a communication on this subject to Lord Melbourne. Now, the gallant Admiral had done no such thing, nor did he state that he had. He said, that he had made a communication to Lord Melville. He again repeated, that the reports of the words attributed to him in 1828, in the papers to which he had before referred, were correct; and they proved that he had made no statement that was inconsistent with facts, that was inconsistent with impartiality, or with justice to the gallant Admiral.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that he felt totally unequal to make himself, by mere eloquence, be supported by any party in that House. Fortunately for him, the question turned upon simple facts; and if what the right hon. Baronet had just stated had been stated last night, this present discussion would not have occurred. If the right hon. Baronet had, at any former time, been kind enough to say as much in answer to his application for redress, as he had said I that evening, the House would never have heard any complaint from him. Situated as he was when the speeches alluded to were made—filling a station in which, if he acted contrary to orders, the deepest sensation would have been excited throughout this country and throughout Europe—he then and now thought it necessary to have the matter completely cleared up. He had never mentioned such a number as 16,000 Greek slaves—this was only the number supposed by Sir Robert Wilson; nor had he ever said, that the report in Galignani's paper was to be relied on. The reason he alluded to the report of that paper was, that it was the first that reached him—as it is the first that circulates on the Continent containing English reports; and, having seen it first, he thought it of the greatest importance to contradict the report in it, "that he had disobeyed his orders, and that full power was given him to prevent the transmission to Egypt of Greek slaves." When he first
1132
saw the report in Galignani, thinking it important that he should not be supposed to have had the power to prevent the transportation of Greek slaves to Egypt, and not to have exercised it, he wrote to the Admiralty, saying, that if it was intended that he should prevent the transportation of Greek slaves, he ought to receive orders to that effect, and that he should have great pleasure in carrying them into effect. Now, he never had received such orders during all the time that he was in the Mediterranean, though he had written expressly for them. Whilst there he had contrived to arrange a treaty with Mohammed Ali, which Colonel Cradock, after using all the influence of this Government, had not been able to effect. During the negotiation of that treaty he had used all the address in his power to get the Pacha to give up the slaves whom he had carried from Greece. He had even agreed that the Egyptians should remain in possession of the forts of the Morea, when their army evacuated that country, knowing, that it would be safer for us to leave them in the hands of the Turks than in those of the Greeks. He had, however, strenuously resisted giving up to them the fort of Navarino. "Then," said the Pacha, "there is an end of all the matter." He (Sir Edward Codrington) then said to the Pacha: "There is one thing which will justify me in the eyes of the people of England for leaving you in possession of the fort of Navarino." "What is that?" said the Pacha, with great anxiety." Give me up all the Greek slaves which you have brought into Egypt." "The thing shall be done," said the Pacha; "I'll give you up every one of them directly." Having got possession of these Greek slaves, he went to the British Consul and said to him: "Hire a vessel to transport these slaves to Greece, for I take it for granted that you have authority to do so from the Government at home." The House would be surprised at hearing the answer which he received from the Consul. The Consul said: "I have not authority from the British Government to spend a single farthing in the restoration of these Greek slaves to their country." He could not express the astonishment which overwhelmed him on receiving this intelligence. As soon as he recovered from it, he said to the Consul, "Hire a ship for them at all events, and if the Government does not pay you for it, I

1133
will." He would not continue to attribute to the right hon. Baronet words which he had once denied. He would not tie any man down to words, even if he had uttered them, when he asserted that he did not intend to utter them; but when he saw observations attributed to the right hon. Gentleman which were derogatory to his (Sir Edward Codrington's) character, he felt it his duty to notice them. It was a duty he owed to his own character to notice them, considering the situation which be then filled; for he had to retain the esteem and respect of the two squadrons, which were combined with his own; he had to keep up a moral influence over the Greeks, and he had also to exercise a moral power over the Turks—that power which at last enabled him to make with them a treaty, which all the influence of Government, previously exercised, had failed in persuading them to make. It was under this feeling that he wrote his letter of the 4th of April. He begged to state distinctly, that he had no orders to prevent the transportation of Greek slaves from the Morea to Egypt; on the contrary, he was bound by his orders to encourage the passage of ships from the Morea to Egypt, but to prevent their passage from Egypt to the Morea. If he had met at sea the Egyptian fleet steering for Egypt, he should have conveyed and assisted them to Alexandria; for such conduct would have been consistent with his orders. If he had insisted upon examining into the contents of their vessels, he should have brought about that very collision which he was so anxious to avoid. The gallant Admiral read a letter which he had written to Mr. Croker when he first saw the observations in Galignani, commenting on them, and explaining the transaction referred to; but in that letter Mr. Huskisson's name was mentioned, and not that of Sir Robert Peel. The gallant Admiral also complained that he had never received any answer to this letter. He likewise entered into a statement of the manner in which Lord Goderich had rectified in the House of Lords the erroneous impressions which had gone abroad respecting the orders which he had received on taking the command in the Mediterranean. He begged to inform the House, that in the interval between Sir Harry Neale's receiving his orders, and his (Sir Edward Codrington's) succeeding to that officer's command, not less than
1134
20,000 Greek slaves were openly sold in the Asiatic markets. If orders had been issued to prevent the transportation of the Greeks as slaves from their country, why had this taken place? And why, having taken place, was it not inquired into? He was quite sure that no transportation of Greek slaves had taken place whilst the British fleet was under his command. He must also inform the House, that upon getting no answer to his letter from Mr. Croker, he had, upon his return to England, made a point of going to Lord Melville, then First Lord of the Admiralty, and of complaining of the unjust imputations which the Government had cast upon him. Lord Melville had referred to a copy of the Parliamentary Debates which were in the Admiralty. What debates they were he could not say, but in those debates he saw expressions attributed to the right hon. Baronet which he thought that he had a right to complain of. He said so to Lord Melville, and desired Lord Melville to mention the subject to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Robert Peel: Lord Melville never spoke to me on the subject.
Sir Edward Codringtonhad not said that Lord Melville had spoken to the right hon. Gentleman; he only thought it strange that Lord Melville had not. Some time afterwards he met Mr. William Peel, and told him, that he (Sir Edward Codrington) thought, that his brother (Sir Robert Peel) had made statements in Parliament injurious to his character, and requested him to get that injurious statement set right. Still, however, nothing was done. If he had been wanting in courtesy to the right hon. Baronet yesterday in bringing this question so unexpectedly forward, he was unintentionally so, and tendered his apology for it to the House. He was desirous to preserve courtesy to all men; and if the right hon. Baronet would, as a favour, accept from him the copy of a little work which he had published on this matter, and which contained no remarks, but only public documents, he would see, from the nature of Lord Dudley's letter, which he read, that he had not, in any degree, transgressed his orders. The right hon. Baronet might think him too sore upon this point; but he trusted that the right hon. Baronet would consider the treatment which he had met with. He had been superseded from his command without a Court-martial, when the mere fact of

1135
being superseded was a severe reflection upon him. He knew that a change in the politics of the country had occasioned him to be superseded. That he could understand; but he could not understand why he should have been represented as not acting in obedience to his orders. He would fearlessly assert, that neither in spirit nor in letter had he ever disobeyed any orders which he had received as an officer. So far was he from bearing any ill-will to the right hon. Baronet, that he would conclude as he began, by declaring, that if the right hon. Baronet had at any previous time said what he had that night said, he should have been perfectly satisfied.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that as the hon. and gallant Admiral had now stated he had not had any intention of making any personal remarks upon him, he was bound to say, that nothing was further from his intention than to have said anything that was painful to the feelings of the hon. Admiral, At the same time, he must observe in his own justification, that the hon. Admiral had made use of very strong expressions, which, together with the unexpected call made on him last night for an explanation, had made him reply, perhaps, rather warmly. It appeared that there was a difference between them as to the instructions that had been sent out to the hon. Admiral, which was the only point at issue. He should now only add, that if, two days ago, the hon. Admiral had placed in his hands the book now referred to, and had asked him whether he had made a statement with any intention of casting blame upon him, the gallant Admiral surely could not doubt that he should have at once denied any intention of giving pain to the hon. Admiral. Whatever he had said was the result of the hasty attack that had been made upon him. The hon. Admiral had asked him to read a certain pamphlet; in return, he wished to be allowed to intreat the hon. Admiral to read that which, as far as it could be so, was an authentic account of what he had stated on the occasion in question. He should only add now, that he had not any recollection whatever of Lord Melville having made any communication to him on this subject.
Viscount Palmerstonwas unwilling to prolong unnecessarily a conversation which had ended in a manner so satisfactory to the House; but haying been
1136
appealed to by the right hon. Baronet, and having had the honour of being in the Cabinet at the time when the news arrived of the transportation of the Greeks as slaves to Egypt, he felt it to be due to his right hon. friend to say a few words upon this subject. He must confirm the assertion of his right hon. friend, that what he had said as the representative of the Government about a transaction which did not properly fall within his department was strictly in conformity with the unanimous opinion of the members of the Government. He thought that the explanation of his right hon. friend must have satisfied the gallant Officer that nothing which his right hon. friend had said was intended to impute blame to the gallant Admiral. He was bound to say, that when the news arrived of the transportation of 5,000 persons, according to some accounts, and of 600 according to others, as slaves from Greece, it produced a painful sensation upon every member of the Government, and especially upon himself. No time was lost in entering into an investigation of the subject. He had not looked at the documents recently, but he should have thought that the despatch sent off to Mr. Barker had been sent off even earlier than his right hon. friend had stated. Feeling anxious to know the result of that inquiry, he had, at the close of the Session, when he ceased to be a member of the Cabinet, sent a note to his right hon. friend to inform him that he should, the next day, put to him in his place in Parliament certain questions respecting it, and the consequence of that note was, that his right hon. friend communicated to him the report made by Mr. Barker. He must also corroborate his right hon. friend's statement on another point. It was true, as the right hon. Baronet had said, that a misconstruction seemed to exist as to the instructions sent to the gallant Officer, for the then Government had thought that a sound interpretation of the instructions would authorize the gallant Admiral in intercepting these slaves, if the state of his fleet had enabled him so to do. It seemed that the hon. Admiral read his instructions differently. He would not say which opinion was the correct one; he would neither affirm nor deny on that subject; but he was ready to confirm the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that, in whatever was then said, no blame was meant to be cast upon the

1137
hon. and gallant Admiral, though the impression of the Government certainly was, that if his fleet was in a state to keep the sea, he was authorised to intercept the transportation of these slaves. The instructions had been drawn out by Lord Dudley, in concert with the representatives of the other two powers. He repeated that no blame had been intended to be cast upon the hon. Admiral, and the inquiry was only instituted with a view to ascertain the real facts of the case.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that if what had been attributed to the right hon. Baronet, or what he had said, were ten times as strong, the moment he heard him deny that he had any intention to east any blame on him he was perfectly satisfied.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he would abide by the reports to which he had referred. The hon. and gallant Officer had not pointed out to him the observations of which he complained in the Mirror of Parliament.
Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, he would hand the report to him.

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Viscount MELBOURNE, Copies of the Statements of the Number of Criminal Offenders committed for Trial in England and Wales for the year 1832.
Bills. Read a second time:—Sugar Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Balingry and Canisby; against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lord KING, from Lankilleth, for a Repeal of the Malt Duty.—By the Earls of HARROWBY and RODEN, by Viscount MELBOURNE, and the Bishop of LONDON, from Numerous Places in England, Scotland, and Ireland,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of MORLEY, from Plymouth, and Stonehouse, against Slavery; and from Plymouth, for an Alteration in the Law of Debtor and Creditor.—By the Earl of RODEN, from the Dean and Chapter of Elphin, against the proposed Measure of Church Reform for Ireland; from another Place, against the Grant to Maynooth College; and from Brechin, against the Ministerial Measure of Education (Ireland).—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from the Jews of Kingston-upon-Hull, for the Emancipation of the Jews.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
The House, on the Motion of the Lord Chancellor, resolved itself into a Committee on

1061
the Administration of Justice Amendment Bill.
On the Question, that the first Clause stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, it was impossible he could assent to the clause. It recited, that great doubts had arisen in Westminster Hall as to the power of the Judges to make alterations in the practice of pleading, and then it went on to enact, that the Judges or any eight of them, of whom three must be the chiefs of the Courts, shall make, at any time within five years, such alterations in the mode and practice of pleading as might seem to them expedient. The effect of the Bill would be, to delegate to the Judges a power which Parliament ought never to relinquish—that of legislation. He could not bring himself to agree to a Bill which, in the year 1833, should enact that five years afterwards—namely, in the year 1838, the rules made by Judges should have all the force and effect of law, and be to all intents and purposes the law.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that at first view the objection of his noble and learned friend might appear to carry with it some weight, but he begged the House to observe, that the present Bill was founded upon the recommendations of the Law Commissioners, who were of opinion that the whole system of special pleading should undergo revision for the purpose of rendering it more effectual and more conducive to the ends of justice. He was sure that his noble and learned friend could never for a single moment entertain the idea that Parliament could frame a code to regulate the course of all special pleading at all times. When circumstances arose demanding alteration, much inconvenience, nay, much injustice, must arise from waiting for Acts of Parliament. They must intrust powers to the Judges, or permit abuses to continue; and he felt confirmed in his attachment to the present measure, from remembering that it was in perfect accordance with the Bill introduced by Lord Tenterden for facilitating process. He really thought there would be no hazard in intrusting that power to the Judges for the five years that he proposed. It was indeed absolutely necessary that the power of altering the rules and practice of the Courts of common law should be vested in the Judges; because there was no other way in which the object could be
1062
accomplished with safety. The consequence of proceeding legislatively, in the first instance would be, that any evils which originated from the promulgation of rules of practice or of order, must be permitted to re-occur in every case until a new Act of Parliament could be obtained. He would take upon himself to state, that the practice and jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery would not have been established, if the Court itself had not been vested with discretionary power; and those advantages which have been derived from its character as a Court of Equity, would never have existed. His noble and learned friend (the Earl of Eldon) did not state the precise words of the clause, when he said, that it gave the power to the Judges for a period of five years, to devise and determine upon the rules and orders, on the pleadings and practice of the Courts; and that, at the end of such five years, those rules and orders were to acquire the force of an Act of Parliament, the same as though they had been originated by the Legislature. As regarded the particular period of five years, the reason why it was fixed upon was this: There must be some fixed limit to which this authority should extend; and, however high the character, situation, and condition of those who might be called upon to exercise their judgments on subjects of this nature, unless some term were fixed for completing their work, the subject might, by possibility, be allowed to sleep, and be at length wholly overlooked, even in cases where the adoption of new regulations might be essential; and the powers intrusted by this Bill should be carried into effect at the earliest possible period. It was considered that a less period than five years would not be sufficient, where new rules and orders were laid down, to give them a fair trial. Their Lordships would find that, by this Bill, the Judges of the superior common law Courts were empowered, from time to time, to make such alterations in the mode of pleading, and other proceedings in actions at law, and such regulations as to the payment of costs, as to them might seem expedient; and that such rules and orders should have the same binding force and effect as if the provisions contained in them had been expressly enacted by Parliament. The operation, therefore, of these new rules and orders was strictly limited to the period of five years from the

1063
passing of the Act; and that at the end of that period, should they be found effective, then only they might be made a part and parcel of the law, by receiving the sanction of the Legislature. It was apparent, that the desirable object of establishing good rules in the Courts could not be attained without an Act of the Legislature, which should give the Judges larger powers than they possessed. His noble and learned friend had not correctly quoted the preamble of the Bill; and he would find, on reference to it, that it did not state, that in consequence of great doubts having arisen, so and so was necessary to be done; but that as "doubts" may arise "as to the power of the said Judges to make such alterations without the authority of Parliament." The object of the Bill was, therefore, not to provide a remedy for any doubts that existed; but it actually went to prevent, as far as possible, any such doubts from arising. Since the Report of the Common Law Commissioners was made, not only the Judges of the Court of King's Bench, but the Judges of all the Courts in Westminster Hall, had issued rules and orders, effecting very great and material improvements in the practice of those Courts, which had tended to render the practice and proceedings on them much more clear and distinct; and, what is most desirable of all, to diminish useless expense to the various suitors in them. The great object to be effected was, that of altering the method of pleading to this extent, that the manner and mode of it shall be clear and distinct; and it will be at the peril of a party to adopt any other mode than that which is laid down. Suitors must adopt the mode laid down by the Judges: they might, if they pleased, make a plea shorter; they might choose their own words; but if a plea consisted of more words than the order laid down by the Judges permits, it would then be said, "you did so at your peril, and you shall not have costs." This was a desirable improvement in the rules and practice of pleading in the superior Courts; much good had already been effected—he had no doubt it would continue to increase; and he felt convinced that the greatest possible benefit would result from the exercise of those powers which it was the object of this Bill to bestow on the Judges.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he hoped that, in a case like the present, the House would
1064
seek for the assistance of the Judges, who could give their Lordships a great deal of information about pleading, but he also hoped that they would retain the power of applying that information in their own hands. Their Lordships ought not to impose upon the Judges the responsibility of legislating for a period of five years. It had been said by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that the House could not all at once make provision for all the rules which a complete system of special pleading would require; but such an objection, if admitted in the present case, must be allowed to prevail with equal force in every other, and would apply to every law that might by possibility be introduced in that or the other House of Parliament. It was one thing to require that Judges should make rules respecting matters of practice, and quite another, that they should be called upon to establish the rules upon which pleading was to be conducted. He would repeat, that in considering the present measure, the assistance of the Judges would be required for every part of it. He thought the people would be benefitted if the Judges were in the first instance allowed to propose such improvements as to them might seem necessary, such as experience might suggest; and if those improvements, thus proposed, were afterwards brought before Parliament for its sanction; the two Houses, of course, reserving to themselves the right to see whether the alterations proposed were fit to be adopted.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the mode proposed by his noble and learned friend was more objectionable than that which he proposed to get rid of. If that mode was once adopted, it would be the recognition of the principle that that House should stop in its legislative course for the assistance of the Judges, and no man in either House of Parliament would ever afterwards think of proposing any change in the law lest he should be met with the objection,—"Oh, but have you the approval of the Judges, for if you have not, we cannot adopt what you propose, for it is for them alone to begin alterations." He, in common with other noble Lords, felt the greatest possible respect for the learned judges, but anything like allowing them arbitrarily to decide for Parliament whether any changes should be made—whether those changes were sufficient—whether they were neces-

1065
sary or fit to be made was—what he never would consent to. That would be nothing more nor less than a complete abdication of their own legislative functions. He knew the practice of Parliament well enough to be quite sure, that if the precedent were once set, it would ever after be acted on. To adopt the noble and learned Lord's recommendation would be to make the Judges the Lords of the Articles over them. The use of that expression reminded him of an instance which clearly showed that what he was now proposing was not only not unusual, but was the usual mode in which Parliament dealt with matters of this sort. That instance was to be found in the Statute of the 6th Geo. 4th—the Act passed to establish the Jury Trial in certain cases in Scotland—an Act passed when his noble and learned predecessor was on the Woolsack, and in which the Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court, with certain other persons therein-named, was empowered to make orders and processes—these processes being in Scotland, as his noble and learned friend well knew, the most important pleadings in a cause. There was no doubt, that if they were to wait for an Act of Parliament to amend the pleadings in causes whenever such amendments were required, that they would never be made; and it was chiefly for that reason that he wished to confer on the Judges this power of alteration.
The Earl of Eldonthought, that the speech of the noble and learned Lord rendered it an absolute duty on him to oppose this measure. The power to which the noble and learned Lord seemed to object, was most effectually given to the Judges by this clause. Instead of the old practice of the Lord Chancellor calling on the Judges to state their doubts as to the practice of their Courts, and then, if he thought proper, undertake to recommend the alterations to Parliament, it was now proposed—and that too in a Bill which stated doubts as to the power of the Judges—that they should make rules in their own Courts, which rules were to have authority for five years, and then to become the law. Why, this was legislating, and this Bill gave into the hands of the Judges the power to make laws in very important cases. The practice of the Courts was a part of the law of the land, affecting property and even personal liberty, and he protested, on the part of the subject, against
1066
giving to Judges this extensive legislative power.
The Lord Chancellorread the clause, to show that the proposed powers related chiefly to alterations in pleading. The Scotch Jury Act was a precedent for this.
The Earl of Eldondid not wish the law of Scotland to become ours, especially with regard to the powers of the Judges, whose acts of sederunt were often equivalent to legislative enactments. As to these being mere matters of pleading, the noble and learned Lord must know, that pleadings influenced the rights of the subject more than anything else.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the subject seemed to be one of considerable difficulty, and he believed the representations made by the noble and learned Lord were correct. He was averse from giving such a power to the Judges, and he would suggest, with a view of obviating the difficulty, that the Judges should draw up such rules and orders as they might think necessary, should lay them at once before Parliament, if Parliament was sitting, and, if not, should do so within five days after Parliament actually assembled, and that such rules and orders should not have any force till six weeks after they had been so laid before Parliament.
The Lord Chancellorsaw no objection, to the noble Lord's Amendment. On the whole, though it would not be without inconvenience, he thought that the suggestion of laying the rules before Parliament was an improvement; certainly in some cases, as for example, when practice had taught the Judges the imperfection of some of their rules, they must wait till Parliament assembled, and they obtained its sanction to alter them.
Lord Wynfordhad listened with great attention to all that had been said on this point by his noble and learned friends on both sides. He was still of opinion, however, that no necessity existed for Parliament to delegate its powers to the Judges in the manner proposed. His experience did not lead him to the conclusion that there was anything connected with the practice of pleading which could not be provided for by legislative enactments. All that was necessary was to bring back pleading to what it had been two centuries ago—a simple statement of facts, so that the defendant should know what he was charged with, and the Judge what he had to try. He would therefore move an

1067
Amendment to the effect, that in all cases, the Judges should state what they considered to be necessary, and that their recommendations should be proposed in Parliament, the Parliament reserving the right of receiving or rejecting the proposed alterations.
The House divided on this Amendment: Ayes 9; Noes 12—Majority 3.
Lord Ellenborough's Amendment was agreed to.
Lord Eldonexpressed his satisfaction that the arbitration clause had been withdrawn, as in his opinion it was of the most injurious and oppressive character. For fifty years, as a Barrister, a Judge, and a Chancellor, he had been acquiring experience, and that forbade him ever to consent to compel suitors to submit to an arbitration. Being on his legs, he would take that opportunity of pointing out another clause which was of an unsatisfactory character. It was that which called upon the subjects of these realms to bring their suits before the Sheriff for trial, instead of a Judge. There would be ten times as many questions of law arise for subsequent decision, as there would be if the matter were before a Judge of Assize, and for many other reasons he looked upon the clause as a most vicious one.
Bill passed through the Committee.