Sitting of 12 June 1835

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Bribery at Elections; Durham Court of Pleas; Western Australia; Civil Bill Courts (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Annual Indemnity.

SLAVES IN THE MAURITIUS.
Mr. Fowel Buxlontook the opportunity of asking the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether any measures had been taken to prevent the payment of compensation for slaves illegally imported into the Island of Mauritius?
Sir George Greysupposed the question of the hon. Member to refer to importations between the years 1810 and 1820. Since 1820 there was no evidence to show that any illegal importations had been made. He apprehended that the greatest difficulty had been, and would be found in distinguishing the individual slaves improperly introduced into the island; and no measures of the kind alluded to had been taken, simply because they would not be effectual. Under the existing laws, slaves illegally imported previous to the Emancipation Act became subject to apprenticeship. Since the Emancipation Act the whole mass of slaves in the Mauritius had become subject to apprenticeship, which was only to last for a very limited period. As to the illegality of the importations, and the claims of the owners, the Commissioners were themselves sworn, and had the power of taking evidence upon oath; and to them, he apprehended, it must be left.
Mr. Fowel Buxtonsaid, that the answer was so unsatisfactory that, on the part of an hon. Friend, he gave notice of his intention to bring the subject again under the consideration of the House.
Subject dropped.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Mr. Sinclairbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, if the Government had received any accounts of a famine in the western parts of Ireland?
Lord Morpethsaid, that it was very true that Government had received very distressing accounts of the state of the population on the south-west coast of Ireland; and he could assure the hon. Member that the subject occupied the earnest and anxious attention of his Majesty's Government. Such steps had already been taken as were supposed best calculated to alleviate the distress. He hoped that the hon. Member would not press him into giving further particulars, as it might raise hopes among the sufferers which he was afraid might be disappointed.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it was by no means desirable that the idea should go forth that it was the intention of Government to come forward, as it would prevent the gentry of the country from exerting themselves.
Mr. Fitzstephen Frenchsaid, that if any money were advanced by the Government, it ought ultimately to be levied upon the landlords, for if the Government advanced it without some provision of that kind, the landlords would contribute nothing.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. — IPSWICH ELECTION.
The Speaker called upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to state if any of the parties were in custody against whom warrants had been issued?
The Serjeant-at-Arms replied, that John Bury Dasent, Esq. was in custody
The Speaker gave orders to have him brought to the Bar; but on Mr. Gisborne saying he had a Petition to present on behalf of Mr. Dasent,
The Speaker directed him to withdraw.
Mr. Gisborneproceeded to say, that he had a petition to present to that House on behalf of the individual who had been at the Bar. The petitioner candidly stated what his conduct had been, and the motives for it. In the petition it was observed, that he stood charged with avoiding to give evidence before that hon. House. To this charge the petitioner submitted an account of his proceedings, and which, he hoped would show that if there had been a breach of privilege, and a violation of the authority of Parliament—a privilege and authority
728
for which he entertained the highest respect, such breach of privilege was not intentional. He stated, that having been present after the last Ipswich election, and understanding that a petition would be presented against the return of Mr. Dundas and Mr. F. Kelly, and, being unwilling to be examined as a witness, and wishing to give the sitting Members the advantage of examining him, when the time would be suitable, he deemed it to be the most fitting for their interests to remain away, which he did of his own accord, and without receiving the suggestion of any person to do so. He did remain so absent until the petitioners had closed their case; but when he did understand from Mr. Kelly (one of the late sitting Members) that the petition had taken such a turn—that without his being present it was not likely that justice should be done, he (the petitioner) voluntarily and of his own accord, and influenced by no compulsion, but actuated solely by the dictates of his own honour, did return to his home. The petitioner appeared as a witness long before the Committee had decided upon the merits of the late election; and he was fully examined before them. Certain Resolutions had been passed by the Committee referring to bribery practised at the late election; but those Resolutions had been rescinded upon hearing Mr. Pilgrim's evidence, in which, he believed, no allusion had been made to him; yet, in the Resolutions passed by the Committee, the name of the petitioner was inserted, without drawing any distinction between his conduct and that of Mr. Pilgrim, he having come voluntarily forward; that an unfounded prejudice had been raised thereby against him, and, in consequence of it, the petitioner then stood at the bar. The petitioner hoped that these statements of facts, coupled with his entire ignorance of being guilty of a breach of privilege, and deep contrition for having fallen under their displeasure, would entitle him to their consideration. The petitioner also expressed a hope that the Members of the Committee would declare their impression of his conduct. He added, that immediately on the conclusion of the debate he appeared to submit himself to the pleasure of the House. The petition was signed "John Bury Dasent." He (Mr. Gisborne) should be glad to have found any excuse for the conduct of the petitioner; but he certainly had the merit of submitting to them a very candid statement. It appeared that he had volun

729
tarily come forward. Probably some Members of the Committee would, declare the impression entertained by the Committee of the petitioner's conduct. If this course should not be considered satisfactory, probably the matter might be brought on again on Monday.
Mr. Patrick Stewartsaid, that he had not heard what had fallen from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but he supposed he had submitted a Motion that Mr. Dasent should be brought up and discharged from custody. For his own part, he would recommend the House to act with as much leniency as was consistent with its sense of duty, because it certainly was the opinion of every Member of the Committee, that his case was apart from those of the other persons against whom the Speaker had issued his warrant, although it was necessary to include him in the Report. He was the only one of the persons who had absconded, who voluntarily came forward to give evidence, and the manner in which he gave his testimony made a favourable impression on the Committee. If, under these circumstances, the House should think it consistent with its dignity to have Mr. Dasent recalled, reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged, that would be gratifying to the feelings of every Member of the Committee.
Sir Hugh Campbellstated, that the impression upon the minds of the Committee was, that the petitioner acted under the influence of another—it was at the suggestion of that person it was believed that the gentleman had left the country and returned to it.
Mr. Aglionbyremarked, that the conduct of the petitioner was, on his own showing, a gross violation of the rights and privilege of Parliament—as long as his presence might prejudice the sitting Members he remained away, and when he thought it might be favourable to them he appeared. He could see nothing in the petitioner's conduct which manifested sorrow for the offence of which he had been guilty,
Mr. Montague Chapmanthought the witness was entitled to considerable indulgence and favour. He did not, like the other witnesses, keep away till he was brought back by force, but freely returned from a high sense of honour, to disconnect himself from the sitting Members. Then he freely appeared when the other witnesses refused; and undoubtedly his case should be separated from that of the others, who persevered to the last in refusing to give evidence.
Lord John Russellobserved, that besides the other offences with which the petitioner stood charged, was that of being guilty of bribery; and yet it was declared that he came forward from a sense of honour towards the sitting Members, to acquit them of being connected with those transactions. They ought to put out of the question whether the petitioner had been guilty of bribery; but the fact which the petitioner made the ground of his merits was, that he felt more of honour and regard for the sitting Members, than he felt for the dignity of that House. Thus it was his regard for the sitting Members which made him abscond; but when he was informed that his presence could be useful to them, he came forward as a witness. Personally his conduct might be exceedingly honourable as between him and the sitting Members; but as regarded that House, his conduct had been such, that there could be no sort of justification for calling him to the Bar and dismissing him. He did not wish to see any severe punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. He should be glad if he was brought to the Bar upon Monday, and in the mean time they might determine what course it would be proper to pursue, and what line of conduct they ought to adopt consistently with a regard to their own dignity and the maintenance of their own privileges. He could only say that if they did adopt a lenient course towards the petitioner, one consideration at least ought to influence them in doing so, and that was the petitioner's extreme ignorance of the law.
Lord Stanleywas glad to find himself anticipated in the observations he had intended to make on this case by his noble Friend. He did think, that if a case of this kind were lightly passed over, it would be so far, in his opinion, an abandonment of those privileges which it was their duty to support, and of that purity of election which they should be so desirous to maintain. He was, however, afraid that the present proceedings were characterized by too much haste. When it was considered that they had ordered persons into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and yet when the first person was brought to their Bar, they were about to reverse their proceedings, and without further inquiry to discharge him, he submitted they were setting a precedent which must be most mischievous, and likely to be attended with the worst effects. The proceedings of that day proved the impolicy

731
of their having taken the steps they had done, without a full and entire investigation. He was always willing to place confidence in a Special Committee's Report of specific facts; but he would not go the extent of leaving to their discretion to say, what the impression produced upon them was by the conduct of witnesses. There were not twenty Members in that House knew what was the evidence which affected the petitioner, and what the distinction between him and the other five persons against whom warrants had been issued. He wished to look at the evidence before he decided. He therefore joined in the recommendation of the Secretary for the Home Department, that the petitioner should be remanded into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. He hoped it would be possible, although he thought it hardly possible, to have the evidence by Monday. It would be much more desirable that they should take some time to consider, than that they should commit themselves for a third time by any hasty step. The noble Lord concluded by stating, he was in favour of the proposition for adjourning the further consideration of this subject to Monday next.
Mr. Gisbornedid not well understand the noble Lord. He seemed to think that many unnecessary steps were taken in this business; yet really only one step was taken, that of ordering the parties to be taken into custody. If no steps were taken till the evidence were laid on the Table, the ends of justice would be likely to be defeated, as the evidence would not, in all probability, be before the House for a month. Much of the general evidence tendered before the Committee was inapplicable to the present inquiry, that which referred to the scrutiny of the votes, for instance. Why, then, require the production of this mass of evidence, much of which was irrelevant, before coming to a conclusion? Would it not be better if the authority of the Committee were thrown overboard, and that the evidence was required as the ground-work of decision, that the part which referred to the conduct of the parties impeached, should be presented? In conclusion, he would say, in answer to the noble Lord's taunts, that he had not made any Motion that night, but merely threw out a suggestion to have the prisoner discharged, if it were agreeable to the House.
Mr. Patrick Stewartthought there was no occasion for the evidence. The confes-
732
sion of the prisoner, made before the House, that he evaded the warrant, was quite sufficient to enable them to come to a conclusion as to the extent of his guilt or innocence. There was punishment,—that of being taken into custody—already inflicted on the prisoner. What good purpose could the additional punishment of his being kept in custody till Monday serve? He could see none. He really thought the dignity of the House, and the ends of justice, would be sufficiently consulted by having him reprimanded.
Mr. Christopher Fitzsimonsaid, all the other persons mentioned in the resolutions of the Committee were evidently engaged in a conspiracy to set the House at defiance, and foil the ends of justice; but the prisoner at the Bar was undoubtedly an exception, for he freely came forward, and declared all he knew.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he could not agree in the view taken of the prisoner's mitigated offence. The House should not sacrifice justice to this mock clemency. They could not dismiss him from the Bar without his atoning for his first absence, by his dis. closing all the cases of bribery he was guilty of, and his telling the House all the parties he corrupted, and all the money he paid away. But if he were a person who took advantage of the privilege and impunity the law gave him, and the law gave too much scope to such characters, by suppresssing important facts, lest he might criminate himself, and mar the objects of his friends or employers, the sitting Members, then his conduct was not such as the House should wink at. The prisoner was a lawyer, the tendency and bias of whose profession led him to support particular parties. He knew lawyers had these leanings. He himself was a lawyer, yet he would say, that he never leant to any party. This was a question that should be sifted. If it were not sifted, and that deliberately and rigidly, there could be no hope that the purity of election would be preserved. The prisoner was guilty of a grave offence, and to prevent the recurrence of such misdeeds, and inflict condign punishment on the parties implicated in the present transaction, it was positively necessary for the dignity of the House, and the defence of the freedom of election, that there should be a complete sifting of the case.
Mr. Hardysaid, as the party at the Bar was guilty of an offence that would subject him to a criminal prosecution in a Court of Law, at the suit of Mr. Wason or the

733
Attorney-General, it would then be rather severe to send him to judgment with the brand of condemnation fixed on him by that House. He trusted the House would not act severely towards him, so as to raise a prejudice against him in any ulterior proceedings.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, the question was one of vast importance to the House, as affecting its privileges, and to the country, as affecting the right of the people to choose, without restraint or fear, their own Representatives. If it were a good that the purity of election should be preserved, then it was a good that any invasion on it should be punished. An invasion, then, was clearly proved to be committed in the present case, and the House, in its duty to the public, should not overlook it. Before the passing of the Reform Bill, bribery was so common and undisguised, that it might be thought, and was thought, an act of injustice to visit a few with the penalties of the delinquencies of the many. What was publicly practised was considered no crime, and the universality of the practice gave a shelter and impunity to the few who were detected. But this kind of screening of guilt should be put a stop to. It appeared to him that the question of the prisoner's guilt should be put a stop to. It appeared to him, that the question of the prisoner's guilt was not treated by some hon. Members with sufficient severity. Their leniency of conduct was unfair to the people of England, who looked to fair representation, and the rigid discharge of duty from their representatives. Was it because the prisoner was cognizant of his guilt, and anxious to screen himself from the consequences of it, that the House should now extend to him its indulgence, and so strike a blow at the existence of its own privileges? He (Dr. Lushington) was never so surprised as he was at hearing it maintained that, after a man was called to the Bar for a breach of the privileges of the House, he should be discharged, with no other punishment than a reprimand, and that after he had been avowedly guilty of a serious offence. Such a proceeding was a mockery of justice. The eyes of the people were now open— and if ample justice were not dealt out to those who violated the freedom and purity of election it would cause general offence and dissatisfaction throughout the country.
Case adjourned.

SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.
Mr. Henry Baringrose to ask a question of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He was anxious to learn what progress had been made in the negotiations carrying on between Spain and the late Spanish Colonies in South America, respecting the declaration of the independence of the latter. This was a matter of very great interest to many persons in this country who had embarked their fortunes in property in the South American States. Without offering any opinion on the subject, he would only further observe, that he was sure that his Majesty's Government must take as great interest in the subject as their predecessors in office.
Viscount Palmerstonassured the hon. Gentleman, that not only his Majesty's present Government, but also the Government that was in office previous to the late Administration, which came into power in December last, felt a deep interest in the subject. The British Government had long been most anxious that the Government of Spain should acknowledge the provinces of South America as independent States, and had been long anxious, through its mediation, to assist in any manner to promote an amicable arrangement between the mother country and those States. The hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that the negotiations now going on in Madrid had been carried on in any manner through the mediation of the British Government; at the same time it would not have hesitated, if requested by the two parties, to have endeavoured to promote an amicable arrangement between them. The Spanish Government had chosen to treat directly with the several governments of South America, and had therefore invited a person from South America, and the negotiations had been carried on between General Soublette and the Spanish Government. The hon. Member must therefore see that it was impossible for him to give any information respecting negotiations in which the British Government took no part; but from all that had come to his knowledge, he had no doubt the two parties would come to an amicable arrangement.
Lord Mahonwas happy to hear that the Spanish government were pursuing the course stated by the noble Lord, and was glad that the negotiations were being carried on in a manner likely to lead to a satisfactory result. It was the duty of his Majesty's Government to give every facility to promote the negotiations. He trusted

735
that the time had come when the Spanish Government would enter into their negotiations in a different spirit from that which it had hitherto manifested, and when the prejudices of the mother country would yield to the force of truth and reason.

COMMUTATION OF TAXATION.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, he was fully aware how much the attention of the House had been engrossed by other important subjects, and he could assure it that if he did not feel himself impelled by an imperative sense of public duty to submit the Motion of which he had given notice relative to taxation, he should even now, shrink from the task which he had undertaken under the discouraging circumstances which attended its performance. He begged, however, to remind the House that the subject to which he was about to call its attention was not taken up by him as an isolated individual. In 1830, it was brought under the consideration of the House by one of the present Ministers, the President of the Board of Trade; and though the Administration as a body might not be disposed to view his proposition with any great degree of favour, he must be excused for reminding them that with the exception of the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs every one of the Ministers who had seats in the House supported the Motion submitted by the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, in 1830, which was in substance exactly similar to that with which he intended to conclude. It would be for those hon. Persons to account for any change which might have taken place in their opinions upon this subject. He begged further to say, lest it should be the opinion of any Members of this House that he was persevering pertinaciously in soliciting the attention of the House to this subject, that when, in 1833, he brought forward a similar Motion, it received the support of no less than 157 Members totally unconnected with him by party or other considerations; whilst, on the other hand, though opposed by the influence of the Government, only 220 Members voted against it. That circumstance, alone, was sufficient to Justify him in again calling the attention of the House to the important subject of the taxation of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, under Lord Grey's Administration, not only supported the Motion of the right hon. President of the
736
Board of Trade, but stated in the most distinct terms that the proposition for the appointment of a Committee to consider the subject of general taxation, was entitled to the most serious attention; and that a Committee engaged in considering the principles of taxation would be productive of the most beneficial results. After the time of the House, during this and the preceding Session, had been occupied with fruitless Motions for the reduction of taxation,—and after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared it to be out of his power to afford any relief to the people; was not the time arrived when it was desirable to consider whether advantage could be obtained from commutation and a revision of our whole system of taxation? He wished it, to be understood that whatever his own opinions on the subject of a commutation of taxation were, the Committee which he proposed to move for would not be bound by them. The terms of the Motion merely called for the appointment of a Committee, with the view of ascertaining whether any of the existing taxes could be repealed, or whether others, less injurious in their operation, 'could be substituted for them. The purpose of the Motion was to ascertain whether there was any tax now existing which bore with peculiar and undue severity upon any portion of the Community, and if so, whether that pressure might not be removed by a more judicious adjustment of the public burdens? Could the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, entertain any doubt upon the fact? If he entertained a doubt now, why did he support the Motion of his Colleague, the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, in 1830? (For by the mere accidental circumstance of alphabetical arrangement, the right hon. Gentleman's name was placed next to his own in the division on that question). He would say with great respect, but at the same time with equal candour, that it would require more casuistry and ingenuity than the right hon. Gentleman could command, to convince him that there was anything in the present state of this country to justify him in opposing the present Motion when he supported a corresponding one in 1830. The state of the country was such that something must be done in order to relieve the great body of the people, on whose welfare depended the future

737
prosperity of the nation. Some of those burdens which pressed them down with an almost overwhelming force must be diminished. If the House could relieve them by a reduction of those taxes which pressed upon a particular portion of the nation, in consequence of the exigency of the public service, then the only other course open was that of honestly looking into the whole question to see whether relief could* be afforded by a more judicious arrangement and distribution of the public taxes? Was it not the fact that the House complained of its inability to yield to the pressing demands for relief from the Malt-tax, the Window-duty, and other taxes? These demands could not longer be resisted without a remission of taxation; and if the public service would not allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so in any particular instance, they must look into the whole question. It had been said, that there was nothing in the condition of the great body of the people to excite alarm. He had never been disposed to depict the condition of the working classes as worse than it really was. He considered the resources of this great country to be ample enough to meet all the demands of the public service; but, unless those persons who were really in a condition to pay the taxes, exercised somewhat more forbearance, public virtue, and patriotism, and took upon themselves the payment of a larger share of the public burdens than at present, some of the other classes of society would not be long able to pay without depriving themselves and families of the means of existence; and he lamented to observe, as a sign of the times which augured no good for the country, that while party and personal questions excited so much interest in the House as to fill its benches, any subject which related to the relief of the people at large was met with so much indifference and apathy, as almost discouraged any man from raising his voice in its favour. Let it not be supposed, for one moment, that he was assuming to himself a greater degree of regard for the people than any other hon. Gentleman; but he appealed to hon. Members who had heard him before, whether Motions of this kind which had been brought forward by different hon. Gentlemen, according to the views they entertained of public policy,—at one time calling for a change in the currency, and at another for
738
the repeal of the Malt-tax,—whether these Motions had not been successively resisted and evaded; and whether, when he was about to make an appeal which was at least entitled to some attention, the appearance of the House, and the indifference of the Members, did not afford a proof that this great subject, as he must call it, however unworthy he might be to advocate it, had not received that attention to which it was so fully entitled. It was the opinion of a greater man than any who had been in the House, since he had the honour of a seat in it—he meant Mr. Huskisson—it was his opinion, expressed before his death,—that, after every scheme of affording relief to the people had failed, the time for considering a general revision of the taxation of the country was come. He would read a portion of a paper which he held in his hand because it spoke his sentiments with much more clearness than he could possibly deliver them; and because it plainly shewed that if the views he entertained were visionary and erroneous, they were at least shared by that great man. Mr. Huskisson, in a Motion he made in this House on the state of the nation in 1830, after lamenting that reduction of taxation had been carried by the Government to the fullest extent which they considered compatible with the exigency of the public service, declared,—
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 incomes 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 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 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

739
description, that of the productive capitals of this country being transferred to other countries, where they would be secure of a more profitable return. The relief of industry is the remedy against that danger.*
He looked, as it were, prophetically forward in the view he took; and he declared that the resources of the country were sufficient to pay the taxes under the existing currency, which has a powerful bearing on the Question. Mr. Huskisson was then out of office, but he knew what official responsibility was, and his words were deserving the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite:—
If at any future day a sense of public interest should induce his Majesty's Government to act upon these views, I shall be prepared to give my most cordial assistance and support towards overcoming the various difficulties which I am fully sensible must arise in carrying those views into effect, and towards conciliating the feelings of all those who might continue averse to their adoption.†
What did Mr. Huskisson mean by that? He most clearly meant, that the time was arrived when a large portion of the public burthens ought to be laid upon the possessors of property. He knew well the difficulty there was in effecting such a change in taxation—he knew the disinclination of persons to pay in proportion to their property; and he said, that if Government should undertake any measure to produce what appeared to him to be a necessary change of taxation, they should have his support in endeavouring to carry it through the House. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, was not in attendance, or he might hear what were his own sentiments when he was on the Opposition Benches, and was out-voted upon a Motion which he introduced. He would read them, and then ask the House, how they could reconcile his absence with the sentiments he then expressed, and with the opposition which he was prepared to give to his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman when he introduced his Motion in 1830, which first obtained for him the celebrity he now enjoys, made use of these words; and if there be any Gentleman present who considered his views erroneous and extravagant, let him learn that they were the views of no less a personage than the President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Poulett Thomson in 18303 used these words:—
Hansard, vol. xxiii. (new series) p. 604.
Ibid, p. 606.
740
In proposing that the whole taxation of the country be taken into consideration by a Select Committee, I protest that I am not actuated by any want of confidence in his Majesty's advisers. My object, Sir, is far different.— it is to arm them with greater power of doing good, and to assist them in the praiseworthy object which they have already commenced— that of reducing the burthens which press upon the people. My object, in short, is to give them that power which they cannot exercise effectually, as I conceive, without the assistance of a Committee.*
And then, anticipating an objection which was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman used these further expressions:—
If you grant this inquiry you prove to the people, that you are anxious to alleviate their distress, by affording them the articles most necessary for their subsistence and comfort at a cheap rate to the country, that you desire to afford this relief, but at the same time to meet the claims of the national creditor, and to preserve inviolable the public faith.†
These were the words of a Gentleman now filling one of the highest situations in his Majesty's Government, which show that the subject had occupied his attentive consideration. But where was his attentive consideration now? Did he merely make use of these words to succeed in his object, and then throw them away as no longer worthy his attention. The public at large was not disposed to treat the matter so lightly. The right hon. Gentleman said further—"If you refuse this inquiry," he would add, "if you evade it," for he saw no distinction,
"If you refuse the inquiry it can only be for reasons which I can scarcely conceive. You can only do so under the notion that Parliament is incompetent to conduct it, and allow me to say, that in doing so you will abandon the highest and most important part of your duty, and send the people discontented and dissatisfied away.‡
These were the words of the President of the Board of Trade in 1830, when that right hon. Gentleman took precisely the same view he now took of the subject, that the difficulties under which we laboured did not so much consist of the want of means to fulfil the public engagements, as a want of the proper application of the public resources. We had contracted a large debt —our establishments were overgrown and expensive to the last degree—and he was convinced that the burdens of the people
* Hansard, vol. xxiii. (new series) p. 894.
† Ibid. p. 896. ‡ Ibid. p. 898.

741
were nearly doubled by the operation of Sir Robert Peel's Bill of 1819—but he still contended, that under all these disadvantages, there were such resources in this great and mighty empire, if they were properly applied by the Government, assisted by the wealthy class, without whom it could not be done—the landholders, the fundholers, and merchants, that they were equal to those engagements. He said, too, that if the wealthy classes shrank from the performance of this duty, the evil would only accumulate with tenfold force, and that if they now turned round and persisted in continuing to levy the taxes on the suffering people, and would not come forward and contribute their reasonable portion to the public burdens, a great public sacrifice would at length be demanded. He knew that the difficulties of the country were exceedingly great, and he was afraid that without assistance, the chance of extricating it from these difficulties was exceedingly small. He should be sorry to entertain a bad opinion of the wealthy and aristocratic classes of the country. He believed it only wanted a little decision and firmness on the part of the Government, and a little honesty of purpose on the part of those Members who coincided with him in opinion, to speak out in such language as they ought to assume, and he had no doubt the wealthy classes would have public virtue enough to keep them from shrinking from their due share of responsibility. Mr. Thomson said:—
It is not of the amount of revenue that I complain; it is not of the extent of taxation; it is not the sum of money which passes into your Treasury, it is the manner in which you raise it which checks your industry, destroys your energy, and must lead you, at last, to ruin and poverty.*
These were the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman in 1830; and could he suppose that he was willing now that he is in office to leave the country with its energies impaired and destroyed, rather than render his powerful assistance in support of such a Motion as this? He had, at least, shown that his opinion was one entertained by greater men than himself. It he had not found this the case, no consideration should have induced him to come forward on this occasion. Let the House look at the condition of the agricultural population, coming for-
* ansard, vol. xxiii. (new series) p. 863.
742
ward night after night with petitions, declaring that the land of the country was about to pass away from the hands of its ancient possessors into the hands of other parties; the farmers declaring that they were no longer able to pay their rents without which the landlord said he could no longer fulfil his engagements; and the labourer declared that all the labour which he had at his disposal could no longer obtain for him such a miserable pittance as would be enough to support his family. He would not deny that, comparatively speaking, there was a great degree of activity in the manufactories; yet he would contend, in the face of this House, that the condition of many of the operatives was so bad, and the wages were so extremely low, that it was the imperative duty of the House —to endeavour, at least, to find the means of improving it. When they were taught to admire the greatness to which the country had attained, above all others in the world, —the pride of the English, and the envy of the foreigner,—let him ask upon what it was, the country must depend for the maintenance of this greatness and power, but the ease and comfort of the labouring population? If they became degraded, and their morals depraved—if crimes increased with the frightful rapidity they had done—if the gaols were filled, and the country overspread with workhouses to maintain people who could not find employment out of them—what was the prospect of the future condition of the country? The fact of the case was, that the poorer classes could not afford to pay the taxes; and he was afraid the rich would not, unless they were obliged. Was any hon. Gentleman disposed to deny that there was a gross inequality in levying the amount of taxation? If so, allow him to state to him the facts given in evidence before the Hand-Loom Weavers' Committee last year. There were many hon. Gentlemen present cognizant of the fact that it was there stated the amount of the wages of the labourer amounted to 8s. per week, or 20 l. a-year; and that out of this 20 l. a-year he contributed, in indirect taxation, not less than 8s. to the State. Now, if the labourer had this 8l. to spare, perhaps it would not be complained of; but when, in many instances, to give it up deprived him and his family of food and raiment, and rereduced them to so deplorable a condition that he could scarcely feel any interest in society; how could the House, in justice, refuse to institute such an inquiry as that

743
which he moved for? Hon. Gentlemen who had passed through a contested election would recollect the questions which were put to them by their constituents as to their disposition to relieve the weight of taxation now pressing on the country. Did they recollect the promises they then gave; and did they think that the people would be satisfied by the display they made on the Question of the Malt-tax, and the still more abortive attempts to reduce the Window-duty? Did they think that these things would satisfy the people? No, they required something more; and it was only, as he said, by the House taking the question fully into consideration, they could ever expect to overcome the evil. What could be a greater argument in favour of such a commutation of taxation as would relieve the labouring classes by taking some of the duties off the articles of consumption, and placing them on those which will affect the wealthier classes of society, than the fact that there was an immense excess of capital in the country, co-existing with a want of employment, That alone superseded the necessity of using any other argument to show that the industry of the country was over-taxed. He would advert to a strong argument to induce the landowners to consent to a levy of tax upon the property of the country. They complained, and with truth, that their estates were already deeply mortgaged and encumbered with engagements; and that a direct tax in the shape of a Property-tax, or an Income-tax, would be their entire ruin; but such a tax would not bear upon them to a greater extent than the income of which they were in actual receipt, and the weight of it would fall upon those who were in the enjoyment of the mortgage of their estates. It was only by some general levy of tax upon property that funded property could be subject to tax, because in many cases it was now exempt by law. It was a curious fact that whilst we complained that the means of taxation were exhausted, funded property was exempt; not because the fundholders could not afford to pay, for they profited by the change in the currency, but through a fear that if the funded property was taxed, other property, in common justice to the country, must be taxed also. That argument was used on a former occasion, to induce the House to let such matters alone; it was the favourite doctrine of particular individuals, and of some financial Gentlemen, but it would not bear inquiry. It was said, that the
744
revenue increased. Undoubtedly, it had a tendency to increase, owing to the increase of population, and to the ingenious manner in which the taxes were levied, so that it was impossible for any person to escape them; they were so nicely levied that even paupers and criminals paid them; and it was no wonder that the revenue had a tendency to increase. But was it not at the expense of the lower classes? How was it that persons with a great property were entitled to exemption from taxation, while the poor man paid? He had stated, that a man who only earned 20 l. a-year, contributed 8l. out of that 20 l. to the burthens of the State; but there were many persons possessing 10,000 l., who, if they lived in a parsimonious manner, and did not keep up an establishment corresponding to their property, might pay, not in proportion to their property, but to their expenditure, and the rest of their property, protected by the State, escaped taxation. If a man was an absentee, he paid no taxes at all, and left his property in safety at home, spending the interest among foreigners, and not contributing a farthing to the burthens of the State. He protested against this in a country where almost every source of taxation had been exhausted. He remembered the declarations which were made during the last war, when the most enormous engagements were sanctioned, particularly by many of the landed gentlemen, who were profiting by the high war-prices—they declared their devotion to the service, and their determination to sacrifice their lives and fortunes in support of the "Heaven-born Minister" of the day, in prosecuting the righteous war in which he was engaged; but when peace came, and with it not that plenty which ought to be the consequence of peace, but when, on the contrary, this country was placed in a most critical situation by it; what was the first step taken by the landed interest? They called upon Parliament to pass the Corn-law for their own exclusive protection which had the effect of raising the price of food to the consumer. By that war, certainly the country reaped a rich harvest of glory, and the pages of our national history were adorned with the narration of some of the most brilliant, naval, and military achievements, to be found in the annals of any country, but the future historian would have to record the consequences of it in the miserable condition of the people, and in engagements contracted during the war,

745
which the nation in the time of peace, was not in a condition to meet, without the imposition of taxes bearing unequally upon one particular class of the community. An additional reason why the House should attend to the claims of the labouring class of the community was, that they enjoyed no direct representation in the House; and if the House was not prepared to meet their claims in the extension of the suffrage, at least show them, that while they were denied a direct representation, the fair and reasonable protection which they ought to have was given them. The reduction in taxation which had taken place within the last few years, had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on a former occasion, who was undoubtedly correct in stating, that in 1812 the amount of taxation was 71,000,000 l. At the present time it was 48,000,000 l., but in 1812, 13,500,000 quarters of wheat paid the whole amount of the tax of 71,000,000 l., while now it took 24,500,000 quarters to pay the reduced amount of 48,000,000 l. of taxation. In 1812, manufactured goods of the official value of 51,000,000 l., paid the 71,000,000 l. of taxation; while now it took goods equal to 100,000,000 l. to pay the reduced 48,000,000 l. These were circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman ought not to forget when he showed the arithmetical reductions in taxation which had taken place since the war. The complaint was not now so much of the amount of the taxes, as of their pressure upon particular classes, in consequence of the enhanced value of money. That was the difficulty in which the country was involved. Now, though he had never supported any Motion for the adjustment of the Currency, it was not because he did not admit the force of the arguments of hon. Gentlemen, who complained of the oppression of Sir Robert Peel's Bill of 1819, but because he thought the means they proposed would not be sufficient for the object in view; and that it would be unjust to pay those debts and engagements, which had been contracted with a view to a metallic currency, in any other. At length, however, a state of things had arrived when it was incumbent upon the Government to consider in what way the financial difficulties of the country could be relieved by a better distribution of the public burthens. Adam Smith said, that the fundamental maxim on which financial policy ought to rest, was, that every person should con-
746
tribute towards the assistance of the State, according to his means; but the complaint now was, that our system absolutely reversed that wise maxim, and placed the burthens of the State principally upon the shoulders of those least able to bear them. These might appear to some Gentlemen, to be mere truisms, but they were the gravamen of the whole subject. Whether the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whose habits of industry, official knowledge, and financial experience, no man was more disposed to admit than he was, and to acknowledge his peculiar fitness for the office which he was called upon, under great difficulties, to fulfil, whether he admitted his arguments or not, he must tell that right hon. Gentleman, that the great difficulty with which he would in future have to contend, would be, to maintain the revenues of the country —if he were disposed to uphold them upon the present system, without breaking down and impairing those resources upon which he must depend for the continuance of the revenues. What was the cause of the altered condition of the country, as respects the labouring classes, but the continuance of those onerous taxes which bore upon them at a time when there was a superabundance of labour caused by machinery. He was not now going to enter into the complicated Question, as to whether the extension of machinery was likely to be eventually beneficial or prejudicial to the labouring classes; but he entertained a deep conviction, that, at least for the present, the effect of machinery was to interfere with and lessen the value of human labour, and to lower the rate of wages throughout the country: —and he very much feared that the extension of that system in foreign countries, which were gradually adopting our improvements, and by that means rivalling us in foreign markets, would at length supersede our labour for they were drawing to themselves the advantages of British industry and ingenuity. It became, therefore, the most important duty of a Government, which pretended to enjoy the confidence of the people, not lightly to gloss over the operation now going forward, and which was so likely to affect the future condition of the working people of this country. It was said, too, that agriculture was rapidly declining; if so, and if the manufactures of this country were likely to be materially affected by the progress which foreign countries were making in manufactures, what was the future condition

747
of the labouring classes likely to be? He could not look upon the prospect without alarm, and he saw no other way of providing against it, but in taking our system of taxation under revision, and removing the burdens from industry, and laying them on realized wealth and property, so that every man should pay less in proportion to what he did than to his means. One of the objects he proposed in moving the appointment of the Committee was a reduction of the expense to which the collection of the revenue put the country under the present system. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Dundee, in his able work upon Financial Reform, estimated the cost of collection at no less than 4,000,000 l., which appeared to him to be a low estimate; but he was satisfied, that by a revision of the mode of collecting the taxes, this enormous cost might be considerably lessened. To show the baneful effects of the amount of indirect taxation, he begged leave to state, and it could be demonstrated, that while the Malt-tax brought to the coffers of the nation 5,100,000 l. a-year, the imposition upon the consumer of beer amounted to no less than 12,000,000 l. annually. And if Gentlemen would look at the amount of other taxes, they would see that though, in many cases, there might not be quite so great an augmentation, the complaints of the labouring classes were not without foundation, suffering, as they were, from the enormous additional price the retail dealer was obliged to put on every article of consumption, in order to pay the taxes, in addition to the first cost. These taxes were raised now upon malt, hops, spirits, sugar, tobacco, soap, tallow, butter, cheese, meat, and other articles of consumption, which materially affected the poor, articles which ought to be rendered to them as cheap as possible. It was cruel to allow the great the weight of taxation to be levied upon the labouring classes, especially at a time when the rate of labour was reduced, and when the more wealthy classes were not taxed in a fair proportion. The whole system of taxation was one of the grossest injustice and inequality; and if he were to enter into detail, he could prove that the taxes were levied in an unfair and an unequal manner, and in a proportion directly inverse to the means of paying them. Take, for example, the stamp, the legacy, and probate duty, and see the proportion in which it bore upon a man who had only 100 l. or 200 l. to leave to his family, compared to
748
the manner in which it was escaped by the nobleman who left a million of money at his death to his heir. He would next advert to the objections entertained against a Property-tax. He made no direct allusion to a Property-tax in the motion he had to submit to the House, because he wished to keep out of the way as many obstacles to the appointment of the Committee as possible. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, when the question of a Property-tax was, on a previous occasion, before the House, had declared that one great objection to such a tax was its unpopularity. On referring, however, to the time when the demand for the repeal of the Property-tax was loudest, when it was said there was a great clamour raised against it, he found that only fourteen counties out of the fifty-two petitioned for its repeal. There was ample property in the country now to relieve the class which had most occasion for relief. To accomplish that object, then, there was only wanting a disposition on the part of the Government to levy a tax on the wealth of the country. Lord Althorp had changed his opinion no less than three times on the expediency of adopting a Property-tax. In the year 1819 he was against it; in 1830 he was in its favour, being then out of office; and in 1833, when he (Mr. Robinson) brought the subject forward, the noble Lord again declared himself hostile to a Property-tax. He did not expect the right hon. Gentleman opposite to assent, on the present occasion, to any proposition of the kind; it was enough for his purpose to state that the means existed of making a considerable improvement, if an honest Committee were appointed, in the condition of the labouring classes, without so extensive a change. Lord Althorp's objection to a Property-tax was that it was objected to by the wealthy; but if the House came to the conclusion that such a tax was necessary, such difficulties as the noble Lord described ought not to be allowed to obstruct the measure. The right hon. Gentleman knew many taxes at present interfered with the industry of the country, with the progress of manufactures, and with our exports; and these were taxes which might advantageously be revised, even should the Committee declare themselves hostile to an Income or Property-tax. The impediments to such a tax had hitherto arisen from the indisposition manifested by the wealthy classes to submit to direct taxation; but if the House arrived at the conclusion that justice required it, no

749
difficulties ought to stand in the way of its adoption, Had there been no difficulties to overcome in other questions which had been argued by the House? Were there none attendant upon the repeal of the Roman Catholic Disabilities—of the Test and Corporation Acts—upon that great measure affecting the condition of the negro population, and which laid an additional burden of 20,000,000 l. upon the country for its accomplishment? But Parliament did not object to encounter these difficulties; and why should it now shrink from the imposition of any tax which will afford relief to the labouring classes of society? The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might think that such an inquiry would act prejudicially to the operations of trade; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that any such disadvantage would be more than counterbalanced by the confidence it would give the people that Parliament was determined to look into their condition, with a view, if possible, of affording them relief. He was of opinion that a Property-tax would be found equally advantageous to the labouring, the middle, and the wealthy classes. The labouring classes it would relieve from indirect taxation; the middle classes it would relieve from the pressure and inconvenience of collection; and on the wealthy classes it would not impose an additional burden without relieving them from most of the taxes they paid at present, and without affording them a better security for their property, which altogether would be more than equivalent. He would not on the present occasion go into any detail of the subjects that he proposed to bring under the consideration of the Committee; he would, indeed, rather leave the Committee to act on their own view of what they might consider to be the best course. In conclusion he would declare that he sincerely believed this to be a question on which the security and future prosperity of the empire more depended than on any other question that could occupy the attention of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That it is expedient to refer the general taxation of the country to the investigation of a Select Committee, with a view to a repeal or reduction of such imposts as injuriously affect the interests of agriculture, trade, manufactures, and navigation, or those which may be found to press with unequal severity upon any portion of the community, especially on the working and productive classes; and, further, to consider the pro-
750
priety of substituting, if necessary, other taxes less objectionable in their operation, so as to simplify and economise the enormous cost of collection, and lighten the pressure by a more just and equitable distribution of the public burdens."
Mr. Richardsrose to second the Motion, and observed that no gentleman could refuse to admit that the taxation of the country had increased to an enormous extent; but if any Member did doubt that, let him reflect that in former times the country was able to export its surplus corn: why then, after the successive good seasons which they had for many years enjoyed, was it that they could not get rid of that surplus corn now? What was the reason that the market price was so low that it would not repay the costs of sowing. It was because the cost of production was greater here than in any other country; and what was the cause of that? It was owing principally to the high price of labour, and that high price was owing to the manner in which indirect taxation entered into the cost of every thing required to support life or which the labourer used. It was true that the price of labour was influenced by the supply and the demand; but the demand for labour was influenced by the funds in existence, applicable to the maintenance of labour, and also to the way in which those funds were applied to the profit of the person who employed them. By the influence of those wonderful improvements in machinery, introduced by Arkwright, Watt, and others, the country had been enabled to compete with the other nations of the world, in manufactures not merely upon equal terms, but upon terms favourable to a continual increasing demand for the manufactured goods of the country. But agriculture was very different from manufactures. Agriculture was nearly the same now as it was 1,000 years ago. Other nations had instruments similar to, if not better than those which we used. Agricultural instruments were simple contrivances, easily made and easily imitated. The application of science to agriculture had not enabled men to lessen the cost of production in such a way as to counterpoise the oppressive weight of taxation which entered into it so largely by the quantity of labourers employed, with the price of the production of wheat. The English farmers were not, therefore, able to compete with other nations in the market with regard to agricultural produce, and therefore, after success-

751
sive good seasons, they could not get rid of their surplus produce which weighed upon the market and occasioned all that distress and outcry of which the Legislature had heard so much. If the cost of production be not repaid by the price of the market, though, in the long run, it was true that the article would rise from not being produced in proportion to the demand, because the producers could produce it no longer; yet let the House look at the ruin of the fanner, the landholder, and the labourer, usually employed in agriculture, by which that diminished supply was brought about. The funds employed in agriculture being diminished or destroyed, the labourers must be thrown out of employment. That single case furnished great reasons for hon. Members not to refuse the inquiry. He agreed with his hon. Friend that there was a great disinclination to any tax on property. In 1814, he remembered being present at a county meeting in Worcester, convened for the presentation of a petition to the House against that tax: he attended that meeting, and moved as an Amendment, that an Address to that House should be agreed to, praying that the Property-tax should be continued; and after five hours debate, he succeeded in carrying that Amendment against all the aristocracy of the country, both Whig and Tory. His view of the case, in reference to manufactures, had not indeed been borne out by the event, but owing to the great improvements in machinery applied to manufactures, they had been enabled to compete successfully with the world. But he was right with regard to the other sort of manufactures, that is, that of wheat. He appealed to the state of the market for the last four years in confirmation of his views on that occasion. There was then a clear distinction between manufactures and agriculture. There was no question which could be brought forward in the House of more importance than that which had been proposed by his hon. Friend, the right hon. Baronet, (Sir W. Rae) who had brought forward the Motion last night, on the subject of the Church of Scotland. He spoke upon great authority of the great increase of crime in that country. Now, though Scotland contained many large manufacturing towns, it was upon the whole to be considered as an agricultural country, and he would ask how much of the crime, stated on such high authority, which had increased so greatly since 1811—how much of that crime was not much more reason-
752
ably to be ascribed to the want of an adequate demand for labour than to the causes to which that right hon. Baronet had ascribed it? He did not mean to argue by a side-wind against the Motion of that right hon. Baronet, which stood for Monday, he should very probably vote for him, but he merely stated his conviction as to the more probable causes of that increase in crime which the right hon. Baronet had brought under the notice of the House. In order that England might stand in her present proud position among the nations of the earth, they must have a low price of labour, and how could they have that without removing a great number of those taxes which pressed so heavily upon the resources and springs of labour; and if it were necessary to have a low price for labour, what reasonable opposition could be offered to the Motion of his hon. Friend? The right hon. Gentleman opposite, would no doubt make a most ingenious speech, and try and persuade the House from entering into the inquiry proposed, from the great inconvenience of attending to the present activity in the manufacturing districts. But he called the attention of the House to the state of the great manufacture— wheat: he had shown that that state, owing to the cost of production, which would not allow them to get rid of the surplus corn, was as bad as possible, and among other distressing consequences, such a state would eventually lead to famine. If there were, therefore, any truth in what he had stated, he called upon the House to accede to the Motion of his hon. Friend, leaving the right hon. Gentleman to enter upon the inquiry with that spirit, energy, and talent, which belonged to him, and probing to the bottom those evils to which his hon. Friend had adverted. He would say no more than that he most cordially seconded the Motion of his hon. Friend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not help saying, that he considered that the absence of the hon. Members, to which his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, had referred, arose not from any disrespect to him, but wholly from the circumstances, that as Gentlemen had already considered the matter and come to a determination, they were not prepared to accompany him to those conclusions which he had urged upon the House. Before he argued the case, he hoped his hon. Friend would allow him to set himself right with him and those hon. Members who had heard his speech, as to the difference between the course which

753
he was about to adopt, and the one he took on a former occasion—he meant—the period at which his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, brought forward his motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of a Revision of Taxes. The hon. Gentleman said—"I will read the Motion which was made upon that occasion, and the Motion which I am now about to make, which will be seen to be so similar, that I call upon those hon. Gentlemen who supported the former, and now refuse to support the present, to defend themselves, if they can, from the charge of inconsistency." Their conduct would however turn out to be no inconsistency at all—and in such a case, there being no charge, there could be no necessity for a defence. In all main respects, not only could he prove the case to be distinct, but in many points diametrically opposite to the one to which the hon. Member referred; and if the cases were dissimilar, the dissimilarity of conduct implied no want of consistency. As well might his hon. Friend charge Ministers with inconsistency, if they declined now to wear the same warm dress, or carry the protecting umbrella as at the wintry commencement of the present Session. The whole circumstances had been changed, and they were not bound to give the same vote now as they gave on that occasion. Let them see what was the state of things now, and at the period of the statements which were made by his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, in 1830. His right hon. Friend recommended as fit objects for abolition, the duty upon hemp, which had been since reduced—the duty upon sea-borne coals, which had been repealed,—and the duty upon printed calico, which existed no longer. He also recommended that a reduction should take place in the duty upon French wines—this had been done; he called for a reduction of the duties on timber also—that no such reduction had taken place was not owing to any disinclination on the part of the Government which immediately succeeded that of the Duke of Wellington—the Government of Earl Grey; they did propose the reduction, but they were overruled by the House. From this statement the House would see that there was a material alteration in the state of things since the Motion to which his hon. Friend referred; and would it be said that no progress in the reduction of taxation had been made by the Government of Earl Grey? and had the present Government, during the short period of time it had
754
been in office, shown no disposition to reduce the taxes as far as they could, to benefit those classes whose case had been brought before the House? He was almost ashamed of wearying the House with a recapitulation of those reductions which had been made, having so often laid them before the House during the present Session; but when a charge of inconsistency was brought against the Ministers, they were called upon —as they valued character—to lay these details before the House and the country. No one year had passed since the existence of the Whig Government, in which they had not come down to the House with some proposition for the reduction of taxation, and no one year had elapsed in which they had not been able to prove by their acts their political consistency. A reduction of the duties on printed calicoes, cottons, drugs, hemp, assurances, the house-tax duties, and the assessed taxes, had taken place during the Whig Administration; the duty upon soap, one article which his right hon. Friend, in 1830, recommended to be reduced, had been reduced one-half; in short, so far from an imputation of inconsistency lying against the Ministers, they had endeavoured, while in office, to act so as to leave no ground for that charge; and, if consistency in principle be a virtue, consistency in action must be a greater one, and to that he appealed as the best proof of the sincerity of Ministers. He could not but notice the adroitness with which his hon. Friend endeavoured to escape from bringing forward the real object of his Motion— and how reluctantly and unwillingly, and with what hesitation, did he at length refer to it. If the Motion meant anything, it meant in substance that a Property-tax was the only remedy for the evils of which his hon. Friend complained. He would first deal with the proposition on the assumption that it did not necessarily include the proposition to substitute a Property-tax, and then that it did—and on both grounds he would say, that the Motion could not be entertained. On a former occasion his hon. Friend proposed the repeal of all the assessed taxes, the whole of the malt duty, the duties on soap, starch, paper, half the duties on tea and sugar, the whole of the duties on cotton goods, the stamp duties on newspapers,—and he calculated the total amount of the tax with which he proposed to deal, at no less a sum than 15,710,000 l. The hon. Gentleman felt, by anticipation, the anwer he was about to make, because he knew it was the plain and obvious an-

755
swer which must be made to his proposition, and he addressed himself particularly to those hon. Members of the House of whom the Reform Bill gave an increased number—the hon. Members connected with the trading and manufacturing interests, and he asked them to contradict him if he was wrong, when he said that on some uncertain notification of the intention of Government, with regard to the alteration of a duty, the moment it became known through a visit to the Treasury, or to the Board of Trade, whether the whole of the trading interest connected with that tax were not thrown into doubt and uncertainty, and no man knew on what principle he was acting, under what circumstances he was placed, or with what competition he had to contend. No one felt more strongly than he did, that there was upon the part of official persons an urgent necessity of keeping their counsel until they came to Parliament to declare the intentions of Government. He had had many visits during the short period he had held his present office; and while many had been very urgent, others had been extremely dexterous in the questions they put to him, in order to extort from him even the shadow of an opinion, which such individuals might afterwards have turned to their own advantage; but the answer he had always given was— that the intentions of Government must be declared to the House of Commons at the time when they were about to carry those intentions into effect. If such were the state of the case with regard to official communications, he should like to know in what a position the great interests of the whole country would be placed if this inquiry were set on foot? All would be thrown into confusion for some time, at least, while the Committee was engaged in hearing evidence; and he took it upon himself to say, that there were few measures which would more influence those great interests, than the institution of such a Committee of Inquiry; and, on this ground, without even supposing that a Property-tax were to be suggested as a substitute for the present taxes, he ventured to appeal to the House, —knowing the time it would take even to inquire into one single tax, especially in this month, to support him in resisting the proposition for a Committee to inquire into the general effects of the whole taxation of the country, without laying down any definite proposition, but merely one for forming a Committee to take evidence,—and then to suspend the inquiry during the re-
756
cess, with the interests involved in it exposed to all the uncertainty and all the speculations which will be naturally produced by such an inquiry. The last proposition of the hon. Gentleman was—and he was bound to deal with that—because without it the whole matter would be a delusion—a Property-tax. In adverting to that he trusted he should not leave his cause without an additional argument in its favour. "True," said the hon. Mover, "the Property-tax was extremely unpopular during the war, and equally so in peace; and what was the hon. Gentleman's conclusion? It might be supposed that having proved the Property-tax to be unpopular both in war and in peace, his conclusion would have been rather against it than in its favour; but he declared the Property-tax to be the only remedy. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the number of petitions presented against it. It was very great; great beyond example, compared to the number usually presented in those days, for then hon. Members were not in the habit of presenting petitions, and raising debates upon them, a custom now so prevalent, though sometimes very useless. But whether the number of petitions were great or small, there never existed in the House of Parliament, or out-of-doors, any determination more strongly expressed, than was the determination against the continuance of that tax. To prove that, he need only refer to what took place on the abolition of the Property-tax. A Motion was made by Mr. (now Lord) Brougham, and carried without opposition, that all the records of this inquisitorial and grinding tax should be burnt and destroyed; and he presumed if there had been any Parliamentary precedent for such an expression, an addition might have been made both by notice, and by the hands of the common hangman. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the distress of the agricultural interests;—he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not one to deny the existence of that distress, but of all the remedies which could be suggested for its alleviation, he would ask the House whether the hon. Gentleman could present to his constituents a "Schedule B" under the Property-tax Act? It was that Schedule B, it should be recollected, under which had been raised 2,700,000 l. from the tenantry of the country; and was the re-imposition of it the remedy which the hon. Gentleman would propose for the depressed state of the agricultural interest?—[Mr. Robinson: In lieu of

757
other taxes.]—But the House ought to be cautious how it proceeded on the subject of the commutation of taxation, especially as it was sometimes said, that the public did not always get the benefit which ought to be derived from the taxes repealed, while they felt all the burden of any new taxes imposed. Besides which, notwithstanding the coincidence between the initial letters of our names, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, brought us together in the alphabetical list, in the division on the Motion of 1830, he must tell the hon. Gentleman that he differed from him, if he believed that the House was prepared, in a time of peace, to reimpose the Property-tax. The hon. Gentleman had referred to a statement made by Mr. Huskisson, but that statement was made before the period at which so great a reduction of taxation as that he had mentioned had taken place; and he took it upon himself to say, that at that time there were none who contemplated the possibility of achieving so great a reduction within such a period. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Knaresborough, told the House of his attachment to the Property-tax in the year 1814, and his affection certainly appeared to be as warm for it now as at that time. He seemed to say, "My love is as warm as when first I wooed the engaging dame, and I will tight her battles now in the arena of St. Stephen's as I fought them at Worcester, in 1814." He certainly proved the fidelity of his attachment, but that was no proof, as might be learned from many a lover, of the correctness of his taste. Was the House prepared in a time of peace, when Ministers were making a gradual reduction of the public burdens, for Members to come forward and demand a developement of its resources. The Property-tax was a sword in the scabbard to be reserved for the greatest conflict, and not to be drawn at a time like the present, when, (although some hon. Gentlemen said there was general distress, and that the country was in a state of age and decrepitude,) he maintained that, without taking an exaggerated view of its condition, and without saying that every thing in its appearance was satisfactory, yet there had occurred a greater improvement in it than the most sanguine could have expected, and by the steady application of the powers of Parliament, with economy on the one hand, and reduction of taxation on the other, they might hope to see it still further improved. At such a time as this ought they to plunge
758
into measures which ought to be reserved for the greatest difficulties. The hon. Gentleman perhaps might dissent from the picture which he had drawn, but when the House recollected that on his former motion he referred to the decreasing deposits in the Savings' Banks, to the increasing pressure of the poor-rates, and to the various other circumstances which, in his mind, were preying upon the resources of the country,—and when they considered that many of these evils were considerably alleviated, he was entitled to say that the state of the country was much improved. The hon. Gentleman seemed to differ from him, and he was not surprised at it. Many fallacies pervaded his speeches, and some of them he had advanced this night. Amongst these was the statement he made, that the progress of machinery was one of the long list of evils which tended to render the change he proposed in the system of taxation necessary. But what would the condition of England be, if it were not for the increase of skill and intelligence in the mechanical arts? That was a most gratuitous statement, and most unfortunate, because there had been a prevailing idea out of doors among the operative classes of the country, that machinery contributed to lessen the demand for labour; but what would be the condition of the working men of this country, if it had not been for the extensive improvements made in machinery, which had enabled England to produce manufactured goods at a rate they could never have done, had they not resorted to such means? The proposition now made was inopportune,—the lateness of the Session would prevent them from carrying it to a satisfactory conclusion,—and it would injure all those great interests which are proposed to be relieved by it. His Majesty's Government could have no concern in it, inasmuch as they had already given proof that they were disposed to persevere in such a course of saving economy as would enable them to make reductions in the taxation of the country. But the hon. Gentleman had been guilty of another heresy. He could assure him that if a writ de heretico comburendo might now be issued, he was the last person on whom he should wish to see it put in force; but what was his next heresy? "O," said the hon. Gentleman, "if the Property-tax had only continued from the time of the peace till the present moment, half the national debt would have been already paid." That idea was based, upon the old heresy of the Sink

759
ing-fund, that it would be desirable to preserve an excess of income over the expenditure; therefore in that respect he was entitled to ask for the support of the hon. Gentleman, whenever called upon to resist a proposition for the reduction of taxation. He had endeavoured shortly to make a few necessary observations upon the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He trusted the House was prepared to oppose this inquiry, in order that the Government might be left to persevere in that course of a gradual reduction of taxation which appeared to them most conducive to the public interests. He could not, however, sit down without informing his hon. Friends of his own country, who sat on his side of the House, that the proposition of the hon. Member had this additional demerit, that it would apply the Property-tax to Ireland; and whether that would reconcile them to it he could not say. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had heard him; but he could say that as long as he had the honour to fill his present office, he should persevere in the same course which was taken by his noble Friend, Lord Althorp, and trusted that the result would be the same —namely, that by a gradual development of the resources of the country, they might be able to effect the object at which the hon. Gentleman aimed, without resorting to such an inquiry as he proposed.
Mr. Hardywas sorry that the statement should go forth uncontradicted to the public, that every Englishman with 20 l. per annum, paid out of it 8l. for taxes. He should like to know what an effect such a statement as that would be likely to produce through the country? He admitted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Rice) that he possessed all that astuteness, ability, and experience which had been attributed to him, but he feared he was possessed of the horror which had prevailed in the minds of his predecessors of a Property-tax, and that it would never meet with favour in his eyes till forced upon him. If it was possible for any change in the system of taxation to relieve the poor and industrious partisans of the community it was incumbent on the House to adopt that system, even though it must be necessary to resort to a Property-tax, and brave all the unpopularity connected with it. He could only say, that when he met that class of his fellow countrymen at the election hustings, and they asked what he would do for them, he could only answer that he was prepared at all times
760
to place the burthen of the country upon the shoulders of the property of the country. It was the property of the country which was protected by the social compact, and it was that which ought to bear the burthens of that compact. Let them not hear of its unpopularity among those who possessed it; or of the lower classes being relieved by the repeal of the Window-duty, or the Assessed-taxes, they would say it was no relief to them; they had no such establishments as rendered the Assessed-taxes in any way oppressive to themselves. They asked relief from those taxes which brought ruin down upon them as described by his hon. Friend, (Mr. Richards) the Member for Knares-borough. It was on that account that he desired to see the House filled, as it was, with men of property, willing to place upon that property its full share of the burthens of the State. He did not wish at once to put ten per cent. upon property, but, because they would not do that, there was no reason why they should not put two, or three, or four per cent. as must be requisite. It was the duty of the House to save, if they could by any mode of taxation, more simple, the enormous cost of collecting the taxes, and prevent the complaints now far too commonly and justly made. He did trust, therefore, that the period was not far distant when the House would feel it its duty to support a Property-tax, and when the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with the manliness becoming a Chancellor of the Exchequer, would come forward and tell gentlemen of property that they must bear their proportion of the burthens of the country, not leave them on the shoulders of the lower classes. But to put such a tax on property as would relieve the industrious poor would be an instance of self denial he hardly expected, yet without that it would not be easy to convince the lower classes that it was not owing to taxation that their sufferings were great, and the distress arising from the want of demand for labour overwhelming. They must be taught by the example of that House that they had no reason to complain of the partiality shown by property. He trusted that the principle of a Property-tax would ere long be recognized by the Government and the House. He should now vote with his hon. Friend, and on all occasions for the imposition of a Property-tax, he would most strenuously contend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in explanation, begged to say, that the hon.

761
Gentleman must not imagine, because he did not allude to a circumstance mentioned by his hon. Friend (Mr. Robinson), it was to go forth as an uncontradicted statement. The hon. Gentleman, the Member for Worcester, certainly did state that a labouring man, earning only 20 l. a-year, was said to contribute 8l. annually out of that sum to the taxation of the country. He did not contradict that, because it contradicted itself; and any Gentleman who would take the trouble to look at the statement, would see that it was wholly irreconcileable with the amount of our revenue, the number of our people, and the articles on which taxation was levied.
Mr. Harvessaid, that he had always yielded to the force of the arguments which were urged in favour of his hon. Friend's Motion, but that if he required any additional reasons in support of it, he need only look to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman in opposition to it. It should be borne in mind that the Motion was one simply for inquiry, and that it did not involve the necessity of carrying into effect any recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire. Many suggestions had been made by the Excise Commissioners which had not been carried into effect; the Reports containing them had been printed, and it did not appear that the interests of trade had suffered any injury in consequence of their being made public, or from their creating any uncertainty such as that of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, and which he had so much deprecated; because it was well known that it was not a matter of necessity that the suggestions of the Commissioners should be adopted. If reference were made to the taxes which had been remitted since the close of the war, it would be found that those which had been first repealed were those which pressed upon property, and, secondly, those which pressed upon land. If a Committee of Inquiry had been appointed to examine the subject at the commencement of the peace, no recommendation would ever have been made suggesting such a preference. He would only say, in conclusion, that he had heard nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) which could induce him to alter the course which he had adopted with respect to the former Motion of his hon. Friend on this subject, and he should, therefore, give his earnest support to his proposition for a Committee.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamthought that if the
762
lower orders of the people were to be protected, they should never consent to their being taxed so unequally as they were at present. He considered that the productive wealth as well as the productive industry of the country would be increased if those taxes were greatly reduced. He, therefore, cordially approved of the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwould say, in answer to an observation of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Hawes), that little had been stated on the part of his Majesty's Government during the debate which would have the effect of changing his opinion as to the propriety of acceding to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite(Mr.Robinson), that an obvious reason existed for not meeting the hon. Gentleman's Motion at greater length, namely, the concurrence of the Members of the Government in one of the objects, at least, of the hon. Member's proposition—relief to the industrious classes. If any hon. Gentleman doubted the intention of Ministers to diminish the burdens of the people, to look at the whole question of taxation with an anxious desire to adjust it in such a manner as that it should press as lightly as possible on productive industry —he would refer him to their conduct during the five years in which they had held office as a pledge of what they were anxious to effect for the future. On that ground alone, namely, the undoubted intention of the Government to effect every possible reduction of taxation, he would oppose the Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into general taxation. The hon. Member for Lambeth had said, that no difficulties would arise, and that no embarrassments in trade would take place, by the appointment of a Committee, because no such effects having resulted from the inquiries and reports of the Excise Commissioners; but he would remind those who used that argument, that the greatest difference existed between a Commission issued by Government, and acting under their directions to inquire into different branches of its revenue, and a Committee of that House carrying with its appointment the weight and authority which were necessarily attached to such a body. The chief and ostensible object of the Motion before the House appeared to be the imposition of a property-tax. He could not help expressing a regret that the hon. Mover, the Member for Worcester, had not explained to the House what he meant by the phrase Property-tax. He was de-

763
sirous that, before the House determined whether or not they should go into a Committee, it should be clearly explained what was the interpretation to be given to the terms "income or Property-tax." It was a very easy but not a very fair mode of proceeding to talk of the imposition of a Property or Income tax, while one hon. Gentleman applied a meaning to the words which differed altogether from that which they bore in the minds of others whose general support he received. Did the hon. Gentleman intend by his Motion that such an Income-tax as that which had formerly existed in this country should be re-established? If that were the case, it was unnecessary for him, in answering the arguments of the hon. Gentleman, to dwell, in the hearing of Members connected with the manufacturing and commercial interests of the country, on the system of inquisition which existed under the old Income-tax. And yet, if such an Income-tax was to be imposed, he did not see (and this might by some be considered an unpopular doctrine) how such a tax could with any fairness be visited upon persons possessing fixed incomes without at the same time levying it on those who derived their incomes from invesment of capital. But such a proposition would, he was sure, be met by the strongest and most direct opposition from the mercantile and professional classes of the community. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman meant by his tax, one levied only on masses of capital, on rent of land, and what were termed fixed incomes from the funds,—but what could be more unfair and unjust, than to tax capital employed in one shape, and leave that invested in another free? And what would be the consequence of such a tax upon the very classes whom it was proposed to benefit? Why the inevitable effect, must be a large export of capital to those countries where the same check did not rest on its employment: and he only intreated those hon. Members who like himself, were disposed to give every possible protection and assistance to the operative classes, to say whether anything more prejudicial to their interests could by possibility be enacted than a law which must drive the capital of this country abroad, deprive labour of a portion of that sustenance on the supply of which it entirely depended, and which, by diminishing the proportion of the capital to be employed to the labour supplied to the home market, must, as a natural and necessary consequence, reduce the wages of the labourer to
764
a much lower sum than that which he at present received. It might, on the other hand, be the opinion of the hon. Member for Worcester, and one which he was anxious to have adopted by the Committee for which he moved, that there should be a general Income-tax equally levied on all incomes of whatever description. In this supposition he was confirmed by the allusion which had been made to remarks which he had expressed on this point a few years ago. He would assert now, as he had at the time alluded to by the hon. Member, that if it were possible to levy a tax on all incomes derived from every source, he should, theoretically speaking, have no objection to such a tax; and he would even go the length of expressing his conviction that its imposition would confer benefit on the country. But then he was met by this difficulty—that such a change in our system must lead to an act of great injustice to those who had invested capital in a particular manner on the pledge of the Legislature that they should not be subjected to this act of taxation. He once expressed the opinion, and he still retained that opinion, that an Income-tax, properly levied and applied, was one from which much advantage accrued; but in speaking of it, if he, indeed, really meant that, the hon. Gentlemen seemed to forget that the system under which this tax had been formerly levied was abolished—that the voice of the country was raised against the propriety of attempting to accomplish the object which it was proposed to effect; and he was not therefore, prepared to inflict upon the country the injustice which must result from a new imposition of the Property-tax. His complaint then was, that they were called upon to go into a Committee, without any defined notion of what was desired—with a conviction on his mind that of four or five plans which might be proposed, three or four were unjust, and one only which would be just, impracticable. He had one more remark to make on the unwillingness which it was asserted the Government displayed on the subject on which the Motion of the hon. Member for Worcester was founded. It was impossible for him to say any thing in addition to what had been said by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He would only refer to the acts of the Government for the four or five years during which they held office, to give the most convincing denial to the assertion of his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth. [Mr. Hawes:

765
I made no such charge against the Government.] He was glad to find that he laboured under a mistaken impression, when he supposed that his hon. Friend, the Member for Lambeth, had thrown out such an insinuation against the Government. He might, however, he thought, take it for granted that it was a correct interpretation of his hon. Friend's words to say, that in those taxes which the Government had repealed, more attention was paid to those which pressed on the rich than those which weighed down the poor. Now, he would just refer to a list of some of the taxes which had been abolished, in order to show how ungrounded such an assertion must, on consideration, be held. Were the taxes on printed cottons, on slates, on candles, tiles, marine insurances, fire insurances, on farming stock, on travellers, clerks, shopmen, the house-tax, and a variety of others, besides the reduction which they had effected in the Customs' duties, to the amount of 400,000 l. or 500,000 l. per annum—were all these, he repeated, taxes which pressed on the rich and not on the poor. The principle on which the Government proceeded, in the reduction and abolition of taxes, was the necessity of relieving the poorer classes as much as possible from direct taxation, and of reducing, as far as was compatible with the exigencies of the State, all those taxes which pressed heavily on productive industry, the removal of which would give additional means for the employment of labour, and consequently, cause an increase of labourers' wages. All this, surely, proved that they were not indifferent to the wants or the claims of the poor; and, as far as his humble voice could go, in seconding the efforts of a noble Friend of his, no longer a Member of that House, it was uniformly exerted in seconding the adoption of those principles which he had laid down for his guidance many years ago, and an adherence to which was, he felt convinced, conducive to the best interests of the country.—It was, therefore, because he considered that all that could be done to effect one of the objects of the Motion, namely to notice the burthens of the industrious classes, would be affected by the Government, whilst the other the imposition of undefined taxes upon property or income, was either dangerous or impossible that he should oppose the appointment of a Committee, and urge the House to leave the subject in the hands of the Executive Government.
Mr. Peaseamidst cries of "question"
766
supported the Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the present system of Taxation in this country. That Motion did not suggest the adoption of either a Property or an Income-tax, and therefore it Was not necessary for him to enter into an advocacy of either of those systems of taxation. To a Property-tax, however, he was favorable, being satisfied that it might be divested of that inquisitorial character which had formerly been a ground of objection to it, and because he was convinced, that as the working classes, especially in the north of England, amongst whom knowledge was daily spreading, could now distinguish between direct and indirect taxation, to that system of taxation in order to raise the revenue the House must eventually come. He supported the Motion for inquiry from the anxiety which he felt to relieve the industry of the country from the unequal comparative burdens which pressed upon it, and under the conviction in his own mind that a saving in the expenses of collection might be effected of between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l. annually, by the adoption (instead of the present system) of a well-arranged Property-tax. In conclusion, he begged to deny the assertion that the Property-tax had been abandoned in obedience to the wishes of the bulk of the people of this country. At present there was a general wish for such a tax, and he was satisfied as large a tax as was necessary might be raised without difficulty or inconvenience.
Mr. George F. Youngconfessed that he was one of those heretics to whom reference had been made by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the course of his speech this evening. He conceived that if the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester had in terms expressed the substitution of a Property-tax for the present system of unequal taxation, it would even then have been a fair and rational mode of settling the question by reference of its consideration to a Select Committee. The Motion contained no such terms, and was not therefore open to objection on that ground. From the quotation which had been made from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, on the 25th March, 1830, he (Mr. Young) should have supposed him to have been favorable to the principle of the adoption of a Property-tax, and though the right hon. Gentleman had qualified that speech and the expressions it contained, he would not taunt the right hon. Gentleman

767
with a change in his sentiments upon that subject. He should support the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Worcester, contenting himself with observing, that the Property-tax was repealed in 1815 in consequence of the outcry raised by the payers of that tax who were the rich. By the same class the out-cry against its re-imposition was now raised, and the demand in its favour was by the poorer classes of the community, whom it was erroneous to charge as having been parties soliciting its former repeal.
Mr. Goulburndid not rise to prolong the present discussion, and was only induced to offer an observation in consequence of what had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House. He must, however, first remark that he still retained the same opinion in regard to the subject of a Property-tax which he had expressed on the occasion of the discussion on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) in 1830, and as he resisted such a motion as the present then, so should he resist the motion of the hon. Member for Worcester now. He stated at that time his views of the consequences that must result from acceding to such a motion as that for the appointment of a Committee so inquire into the general taxation of the country. He had then stated the strong feeling he entertained as to the confusion which must ensue from a return to the system of a Property-tax. He had then alluded to, and pointed out, the speculations which would arise, and the losses to which every class of the trading community would be subjected owing to the uncertainty as to what tax would be repealed and what continued, until the system was brought to a final settlement. He retained those sentiments still, and in conformity to them he should oppose the present Motion, as he had done that propounded in 1830 by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It had been said that the present Motion was distinct from a Property-tax; but such clearly was not the fact, because every hon. Member who had spoken upon it dwelt on it as connected directly with a Property-tax. The hon. Member for Tynemouth had contended that when the question of the repeal of the Property-tax was under the consideration of Parliament, it was carried by the influence of the wealthy and rich portions of the community. This he denied, for he well remembered that the agitation of the question did not originate with those who were usually termed the rich aristocracy of the country, but with an individual who
768
avowed himself and was generally acknowledged to be the advocate of popular interests—he meant the late Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Brougham. He succeeded, and it was therefore erroneous to suppose that the repeal of the Property-tax was the act of the aristocracy. The hon. Member (Mr. G. Young) was not then in Parliament, and, of course, did not hear as he did, the speeches then made by the noble Lord against this tax, week after week, and month after month, The arguments employed against it were, that it threw impediments in the way of trade and commerce, and interfered most injuriously with the industry of the labouring classes. How came it to pass, then, that at that time this tax was selected as the one most desirable to be removed, notwithstanding the variety of other taxes that pressed upon industry? It certainly was not in deference to the wishes of the higher classes. He fully concurred in what was said upon the present occasion, that, if imposed again, it should apply alike to all parts of the empire, to Ireland as well as to England. He still continued of the same opinion which he expressed upon a former occasion, that the task of inquiring and determining what taxes it would be most advisable to repeal, or to alter, or to provide substitutes for, belonged to the Government, and not to a Committee. To refer such a question to a Committee would only increase the difficulties. On these grounds he should oppose the Motion.
The House divided:—
Ayes 42; Noes 105; Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Angerstein, J.

Hindley, C.

Attwood, T.

Ingham, R.

Bailey, J.

Kearsley, J. H.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Lewis, D.

Balfour, T.

Palmer, General

Baring, T.

Philips, M.

Barnard, E.G.

Pelham, Hon. C.

Benett, J.

Pease, J.

Brotherton, J.

Richards, J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Rundle, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Sheldon, E.

Chalmers, P.

Spry, Sir S.

Crompton, S.

Sinclair, J.

Dare, R. W. H.

Scholefield, J.

Denistoun, A.

Scott, Sir C.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Turner, W.

Duncombe, Hon. A.

Trevor, A.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Williams, W.

Gaskell, D.

TELLERS.

Gully, J.

Hawes, H.

Robinson, G. R.

Hardy, J.

Young, G. F.

Paired Off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Mr. Maxwell.

Mr. Praed.

SUPPLY—KINGSTOWN HARBOUR.
The House went into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Baling moved that the Sum of 9,750 l. be granted for the improvement of the harbour of Kingstown, in Ireland.
Mr. Prymeobjected to a grant on such grounds. Why should a local purpose be paid for out of the general funds? In England, where an undertaking of that nature was beneficial, capitalists were always ready to undertake it. If not beneficial, it ought not to be undertaken at all.
Mr. Ruthvensupported the grant. He would not grudge 300,000 l. if it were required, to keep up the communication between Ireland and this country.
Mr. Finnadverted to sums of 50,000 l. and 60,000 l. extracted from the Royal domains in Ireland, and applied to local purposes in England. What were all the improvements at Charing-Cross, and Regent Street, but local improvements, made at the general expense. When it was known that 5,000,000 l. out of 12,000,000 l. of Irish revenue were spent in this country he thought that such a sum as that now proposed ought not to be grudged.
Lord Sandoncould not have agreed to the grant, if it had been strictly local; but considering that it was for the improvement of one of the great means of communication between Great Britain and Ireland, it should meet with his support.
Mr. Chapmansupported the Motion. It was to be placed in the same category as the Breakwater at Plymouth.
Vote agreed to.

BANQUETTING HALL.
Mr. Baring moved, that 7,665 l. be granted to defray the charge of finishing the interior of Whitehall-chapel.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that it would be in exceeding ill taste to persevere in using as a chapel a building which Inigo Jones has designed for a banquetting-hall, and which Rubens's paintings could not fail to remind the visitors was not intended for a place of worship. If the building was to be restored to the condition in which it was in the time of Charles 1st, he should not object to the grant; but he should oppose it, if it were intended again to fit up the place as a chapel.
Mr. Ewartagreed, that the associations connected with the place, and converting
770
it into a chapel, were incongruous, and suggested that it should be turned into a public library, a concert-room or picture-gallery, or any other useful public purpose.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, that the estimate was framed for the purpose of fitting up the interior as a chapel; what would be the expense or utility of fitting it up as a banquetting-hall he did not know.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, that it had been used as a chapel from the time of the burning down of the original Whitehall-hall chapel in the reign of William 3rd. and its having been lately shut up, had been a great inconvenience to the respectable inhabitants of the vicinity. A larger estimate than the sum moved for had been given in to the Treasury, for which more ornamental improvements would be obtained, and he regretted that it was not proposed to grant the largest sum.
Major Beauclerksaid, he would object to the grant, if the chapel were not made accessible to the poor of the vicinity. He would suggest, that half of this chapel, which was to be fitted up from the public funds, should be devoted to free seats for the poor.
Mr. Francis Baringagreed in the principle of the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion, but could not, without more consideration agree to the amount of space he had named; but if he would leave the matter in his hands, he pledged himself that a proper proportion of free seats should be reserved.
Major Beauclerkhad no objection to leave the matter in the right hon. Gentleman's hands.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he should divide the Committee against the grant, since it was to be applied to making the building a chapel.
The Committee divided on the Resolution. Ayes 116; Noes 24: Majority 92.

List of the NOES.

Bowring, Dr.

Pease, J.

Buller, C.

Potter, R.

Buckingham, J. S.

Sheldon, E.

Crawford, W. S.

Spiers, A. G.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Thornley, T.

Elphinstone, H.

Trelawney, Sir W. L.

Ewart, W.

Tulk, C. A.

Fielden, J.

Wakley, T.

Finn, W.

Williams, W.

Gisborne, T.

Wood, M.

Gully, J.

TELLER.

Hindley, C.

Warburton, H.

Maxwell, J.

Oliphant, L.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
On the Motion, that the sum of 44,000 l. should be granted to his Majesty, to defray the charge for providing temporary accommodation for the two Houses of Parliament,
Mr. H. B. Curteisconsidered 44,000 l. for building this and the other miserable House of Parliament most enormous; and he strongly protested against it.
Mr. Francis Baringsaid, that the actual estimate for the buildings was only 30,000 l. the remainder being for furniture and other necessary articles. The very short time allowed for restoring the buildings, unavoidably increased the expense; and, under all the circumstances, he thought the country had no reason to quarrel with the charge.
Mr. Herbert B. Curteisconsidered the charge for furniture to be most scandalously extravagant. The country was called upon to pay upwards of 10,000 l. for nothing but a parcel of deal tables and a few rusty old chairs. He would undertake to prove that the whole of the furniture never cost so much as 2,000 l.
Mr. Frenchthought that if the charges were extravagant, the present Government at least could not be blamed for it.
Mr. Francis Baringassured the hon. Member (Mr. Curteis) that if he would call for the accounts he would see that he was in error as to the supposed extravagant nature of the charges.
Mr. Tulkregarded the charges as much too high. A splendid and magnificent building had been recently erected in Birmingham, capable of affording every possible accommodation for a larger number of people, than to the Members of both Houses of Parliament, at an expense not exceeding 22,000 l.
Dr. Bowringcomplained of the want of accommodation for the Committees that were now sitting.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted the inconvenience spoken of by the hon. Member; but, under all the circumstances, he thought no fault could attach to the Government, whether the present or any other, either on that account or on account of the expenses. The necessity of providing immediate accommodation to the two Houses of Parliament, put every other consideration out of view. The gentleman who superintended the restoration of the buildings was a man in whom the greatest confidence could he placed.
Mr. George F. Youngwished to be informed whether the Government had taken any
772
steps with respect to the erection of a now House of Commons. The Report of the Committee had been made upwards of a fortnight; and he thought that no time should be lost in acting upon it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to remind the hon. Gentleman that notice had already been given of a motion for an address to the Crown on that subject.
The Resolution was agreed to, and several other grants were made.

THE UNIVERSITIES.
On the next vote, of 2,000 l. for salaries and allowances to certain Professors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge being put,
Mr. Tookesaid, that he should certainly oppose any grant of the kind until the University of London had the privileges accorded to it which it had so long and so justly demanded.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the Members of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge paid three times more to the public in the shape of taxes than they received as grants.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the question of the claims of the Dissenters to University privileges, to which he was decidedly favourable, was in his opinion too large and important a Question to be decided incidentally by a vote of this nature.
Mr. Pease supported the grant.
Mr. Tookesaid, that it was not because the Universities refused admission to the Dissenters, but because they endeavoured to prevent the London University from having a charter, that he proposed that the grant should, for the present, be suspended, but not altogether abolished. He would divide the Committee on the Question, that the Grant be for the present suspended.
The Committee divided—Ayes 86; Noes 3; Majority 83.
The House resumed.

CIVIL COURTS BILL (IRELAND) CHANGE IN PROCEEDINGS.
On the Motion that the Civil Courts Bill (Ireland) be read a second time.
Mr. Lynch moved, that it be referred to a select Committee.
Motion agreed to, and Committee named.
Mr. Goulburnthought this Committee too numerous, it was almost a Committee of the whole House.
Colonel Percevalsaid, if the Bill was to be referred to a Select Committee it should not be a one-sided Committee.
Sir James Grahamsaid, he observed with regret a novel and mischievous proceeding of late growing up in the House, of departing from the usual and proper practice of discussing the principle of Bills on the second reading. It was said, do not discuss the principle of this Bill now as it is to be referred to a Committee up stairs. The consequence of referring important Bills to Committees of that kind (of the present Bill he knew nothing, but it seemed from the remarks of the learned Gentleman (Mr. Lynch), who ought to be considered good authority on the point, that it was a very important one), was that the Select Committee would decide upon it, and the House and the country would hear no more of it till it became a law. That was a bad practice, and he called on the Government not to overlook a consideration of that nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet was a good one. It was certainly important that such a Bill be deliberately and dispassionately considered, and the more fairly the Committee was selected, the more likely was it that it would receive just deliberation. He thought it better that the appointment of the Committee on the present Bill should be postponed.
The Speakersaid, after the judicious remarks of the right hon. Baronet, he would observe that a material change in conducting the business of the House was gradually taking place; and he would not say that it was a change for the better. No doubt, from the great pressure of business, some alteration might be necessary; but then that alteration should be made after the deliberate consideration of those best qualified to decide on it. By not taking such Question into consideration as formerly, precedents were established and followed from time to time, and a total change of practice gradually took place: a course which must be deprecated, as calculated to countenance dangerous precedents, and affect the proceedings of the House insensibly, but surely.
The appointment of the Committee postponed.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Oaths' Abolition, and a great Number of Private Bills,—Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of GORDON and Viscount MELVILLE, from several Places, for further Accommodation in Scotch Churches, and for protection to the Established Church of Scotland.—By the Marquess of BRISTOL and the Earl of MORLEY, from Plymouth, and Bury St. Edmund's, against allowing Beer to be drunk on the Premises of Beer Shops.—By the Marquess of BRISTOL and the Earl of HARROWBY, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.

EDUCATION.
Lord Broughamsaid, that it was in the recollection of their Lordships that the debate upon his Resolutions relative to Education had been postponed to the present time. He now proposed that the consideration of these Resolutions should be resumed on Thursday next.—[Several noble Lords said that that day was the anniversary of the battle of Waterloo.]—Oh! he begged pardon; he would not let the schoolmaster come in competition with the hero on that day; and if all conquerors fought with as pure motives, and for purposes as much directed to public advantage—Qthe Duke of Wellington bowed]—there would be less necessity than at present for arraying the schoolmaster against them. The noble and learned Lord then appointed Tuesday week for the further consideration of these Resolutions, observing that as there were some Resolutions in the House of Commons which embraced a part of his plan, and but a small though an important part of it, he wished to bring it as early as possible before their Lordships.
The Lords ordered to be summoned for Tuesday week.

LORD BROUGHAM'S PENSION.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had had an opportunity, somewhat irregularly, but such as all their Lordships enjoyed, of knowing that there had been certain statements made in another place which were very complimentary to him, but which, as they were wholly untrue, he was most anxious to contradict. It was said that he now enjoyed a pension of 15,000 l.; he wished he did: it was a pension of 5,000 l.; and it was said that he enjoyed this pension merely for having had a large salary as Chancellor for the term of four years. He should have that pension if he had only been five minutes Chancellor. It was said that he gave up nothing for it; he gave up a larger, a much larger income. He was

711
ready to take these parties strictly at their word, and if these excellent persons would send up a Bill enabling him to have again what he had given up—his practice at the Bar, he should—he meant it not offensively to their Lordships, whose good will and favour he was always anxious to conciliate, however unfortunate he might have been in his attempt—be the first person to second such a Bill, and further it in its progress through that House. These persons, these very persons, who, when he made an offer to take upon himself a most laborious office, in order to save the pension, these very persons were those who, by the clamour they raised, drove him, against his better judgment, to retract the offer he had made. He said at the time, "Now mark what will follow; these very persons who raise this clamour will be the first to complain of me for having a pension." They were the first persons to do so. He was not altogether idle. What he did was certainly voluntary; there was no necessity for him to perform any labour, but he had thought it his duty to assist as far as he could in the administration of the judicial business of this House. In that labour he had employed six or seven hours each day for a period of ten weeks, since the judicial business had commenced sitting five or six days during the week. He did not sit in that way in consideration of the provision he received, for he had a right to that provision; but he did sit to assist in the administration of the judicial business of that House, and no one could say that that business was inattentively, though it might be ill performed; for he believed that in no period had there been so many written judgments delivered as by himself in the course of this Session.
Subject dropped.

SLAVES IN THE MAURITIUS.
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had yesterday asked a question relative to slavery in the Mauritius, when his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was not present. He now begged leave to repeat that question. There were 30,000 negroes in the Mauritius as slaves. They were made so by acts of piracy and otherwise; and he wished to know, first, whether any means had been adopted to effect their release; and, secondly, whether any steps had been taken to interpose a public decree, which should render it impossible for any one of the slaves thus detained to be taken into the account in the distribution of the twenty
712
million sterling, which had been voted as compensation to the slave-owner.
Lord Glenelgsaid, that in order to answer the question put to him by his noble and learned Friend, he feared he would have to trespass for a longer period on their Lordships' attention than he could have wished. His noble and learned Friend had truly said that this was a most important and interesting subject, and he (Lord Glenelg) could assure their Lordships that no one felt its interest and importance more deeply than he did. His noble and learned Friend, however, had allowed that it was a subject surrounded by difficulties, and no one could more accurately judge of those difficulties than his noble and learned Friend. He (Lord Glenelg) offered this observation merely to show to their Lordships that the subject had not wholly escaped his attention, and that he was fully aware of the practical difficulties in the way of accomplishing the object which his noble and learned Friend seemed to have in view. Although he said this, he would be most happy to give his support to any measure by which the evil could be remedied; but he, at the same time, feared that the period for such a measure had long since passed. Their Lordships must all feel that the difficulties which surrounded the identification of any individual negro who had been illegally imported into the Mauritius were all but insurmountable. It was, he admitted, quite true that there had been illegal importations of slaves into that colony. The fact had been satisfactorily ascertained by the Commissioners who had been sent out there to inquire into the subject. And although they stated that this illegal traffic had been carried on to a considerable extent, they did not specify whether the number of negroes imported amounted to 30,000, or any other number; they mentioned no specific number. Now, besides the difficulty of selecting and identifying any individual negro who had been illegally imported, there were a great variety of other difficulties in the way; inasmuch as the importation of slaves into the Mauritius had altogether ceased during the last fifteen years. It had been his duty since he entered the office which he had the honour to hold, to examine into the facts connected with this question, and from the best information he was able to procure on the subject, he had arrived at the conclusion that since 1820 no importation of slaves had taken place into the Mauritius. It was in the years 1817, 1818, and 1819,

713
that the first attempts to put an end to the traffic in the colony were made by Colonel Hall and Colonel Darling. Those officers did their duty admirably, and the result was, that an end was put to all further importation of slaves. In 1821, a treaty was made with the King of Madagascar, he being the great importer of slaves, the effect of which was, to put an end to any further importation. In 1826, another measure was passed relative to the trade, and which completely answered its purpose. He mentioned these facts, in order to show that they must go back for nearly twenty years to find out any individuals who had been illegally imported as slaves. The difficulty of proving the fact of illegal importation would, therefore, be very great; and this he said, not from any opinion he had formed himself upon the subject, but upon the authority of gentlemen who were well acquainted with legal proceedings, and consequently enabled to speak with accuracy on such matters. He was told that a negro who had been illegally imported was entitled to his freedom, because, never having been a slave, he had never forfeited his liberty; but then came the difficulty of proving such a case. It could not, as he understood, be proved in any Court in the Isle of France, and although an appeal might be made to the Court of Admiralty, he believed that such an appeal would not be successful, because, even admitting the negro to he evidence in his own case, still the confusion in which such testimony was proverbially involved, a confusion inconceivable to persons unacquainted with the character of such witnesses, rendered it utterly impossible to arrive at the truth. Until the Isle of France became an acquisition of this country, the slave trade was carried on there to a considerable extent; but he admitted that his noble Friend (Lord Ripon), when at the head of the Colonial Department, applied himself to this subject. His noble Friend commissioned a gentleman to go out to the Isle of France to ascertain whether or not illegal importations were still carried on there; and this gentleman, but not without great trouble and expense, succeeded in bringing several cases of this description to trial. The number of negroes thus proved to have been illegally imported amounted to from 400 to 500; but he (Lord Glenelg) doubted very much whether, if a similar attempt were now made, it would not be completely baffled. Indeed, he did not believe that it would be possible to arrive at any certain
714
conclusion under such circumstances, which, no doubt, was the reason why the Government had not been able to follow up the course which his noble Friend had adopted. Now he (Lord Glenelg) lamented that such was the case, as he was as desirous as any one could be to arrest the evil. He did not, however, see how that could be done; but if his noble and learned Friend would suggest any means of effecting that object, all he could say was that it should have his best consideration. To show that he was not indifferent to the subject, he was ready to admit that even if one single instance could be established, it should be visited with the penalties of the law; but while he said this, he would, with their Lordships' permission, take the liberty of making one observation, which would go to show that slaves were not now in so wretched and deplorable a condition as formerly. He was by no means desirous of narrowing the feeling with which they were generally regarded, but it must be acknowledged on all hands that their situation since the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act was better than it had been at any former period. He had already admitted that if even a single case of illegal importation could be brought home, it would justify the interposition of the Government; but as the negro, whether slave or not, would have to pass through an apprenticeship before he received his freedom, it was, he must say, a source of consolation to think that the change which had taken place in the law had so far improved his situation, as he had now only to work seven Hours and a half a day, and was amply provided with both food and raiment. While he said this, he wished it to be fully understood that if any cure for the evil could be discovered, he should gladly avail himself of it; but at the same time he thought that the representation came too late to enable the application of a remedy, as the Rules and Orders respecting the compensation to be given to the slave-owners must have reached the Colony in January or February last, and were now actually in force. For these reasons he should be reluctant to take any step at present upon the subject; but, with respect to the question of compensation, he certainly should regret extremely that any person who had taken part in the illegal importation of slaves should also share in the compensation to be given to the bonâ fide slave-owner. He feared, however, they were precluded from raising the objection by the Slavery Abolition Act;

715
but if that were not the case, all he could now do was to repeat his readiness to consider any suggestion on the subject which might be thrown out.
Lord Broughammust say, that if we were to pay 500,000 l. or 600,000 l. in respect of illegally imported slaves, or in other words, for felony and piracy, it would be one of the most hateful operations ever perpetrated in the financial concerns of this country. He was not sure, however, that we should not be compelled to do some thing of this kind, but thought that means might be found to narrow the amount of this species of compensation by instituting a proper inquiry on the spot. He had received suggestions on this subject from persons acquainted with the Mauritius, which he should refer to the Colonial-office, in the hope that they would not be discarded till they were found after mature consideration incapable of producing the effect which their authors anticipated from their adoption.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that when in the Colonial-Office he had applied his attention to this subject, and, acting on information communicated to him by persons well acquainted with the Mauritius, he gave instructions to facilitate the bringing cases of illegally imported slaves before the Court of Admiralty. The result of the inquiries made had been more efficacious than his noble Friend supposed: for before his instructions were sent out upwards of 1,200 individuals had been released. How many more were liberated after the new instructions went out he could not tell. [Lord Glenelg:—I believe 500.] Very likely. With regard to compensation, if it could be proved in reference to any one person that he had been illegally imported, the owner could not claim compensation on account of an individual who, though held in slavery, in point of law never was a slave. He admitted that proof of the fact would be attended with incalculable difficulty. However, he again said, if it could be shown that an individual had been illegally imported, neither on account of him nor of his descendants was an owner entitled to compensation. The whole slave population of the Mauritius did not exceed 65,000, and he thought his noble and learned Friend had overstated the amount of compensation for illegally imported slaves when he fixed it at 600,000 l.
Lord Glenclgsaid, that from 1810 to 1826 nearly 3,000 persons held in slavery had been liberated; but those were slaves
716
captured by our cruisers or illegally adjudged.

SPANISH AUXILIARIES.
Viscount Strangfordwished to inquire of the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government, in reference to an Order in Council recently published in the Gazette, by which British subjects were permitted to enter into the service of the Queen of Spain, whether the Government of this country contemplated making any provision for the widows and families of those persons who might perish in the contest which they were thus invited to engage in, or whether the Spanish Government intended to take that care on itself?—Or, if neither the British or Spanish Governments meant to take this course, he wished to know whether it was intended that the widows and orphans of persons who might be killed, or the families of those who should be disabled by wounds from earning their livelihood, were to be thrown as a burthen upon the parishes of this country.
Viscount Melbournesaid, it would be more convenient, if notice were given of such questions as that just proposed by the noble Viscount. Those British subjects who might enter the service of the Queen of Spain under the permission recently promulgated must look to the Government they were about to serve, and not to the Government of this country, for any provision which was to be made hereafter, and take all the chances of the service which they entered with their eyes open; they could have no claim on his Majesty's Government, and must depend upon other means.
Viscount Strangford.—That is, they or their families must come upon the parishes in England.
The Duke of Wellingtongave notice, that he should move on Monday for the production of the London Gazelle, for the purpose of drawing a more distinct explanation from the noble Viscount on the subject referred to.
The Marquess of Londonderryhoped that the Order in Council would be taken regularly into consideration.

CANADA COMMISSIONER.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he had hitherto abstained from putting any questions on the subject of Canada, and had avoided entering prematurely upon the consideration of that important topic, from a desire not to embarrass noble Lords opposite in the con-

717
sideration or performance of their duty, but having seen in the Gazette the appointment of a noble Lord to the office of Governor of the Colony, he thought the time had arrived when he might advert to the state of Canada. It was due to the importance of the subject and just to the House and to the country, and a duty which he owed to himself from what had taken place formerly in reference to it and to the pledges lie had given on the matter, to state what was the condition of the question at the time when the late Government resigned office. He also thought it only fair to noble Lords opposite, especially to the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, to afford them an opportunity of stating, so far as they might think consistent with their duty, the course which they proposed to adopt in relation to Canada. Important as the subject was, he was aware that it now excited comparatively little interest in the House, but he was much mistaken, if, in a short time, it would not be pressed upon their notice, he hoped not under circumstances of additional pain and difficulty. He would not detain their Lordships with a minute narrative of the differences existing between this country and Canada, but would only advert shortly to what had taken place in the course of the last year. Early in last year certain Resolutions were passed by the House of Assembly of Lower Canada—twenty-two Resolutions—embodying a number of grievances, and containing various subjects of complaint, comprising much recriminatory matter against the local Government and the Government of this country. These Resolutions came before Parliament, and were in April, last year, referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, which examined the subject and continued their labours for upwards of three months, having before them every document that could be afforded by the Colonial Office, and all the evidence which it was possible to collect. The Committee made their Report on the 3rd of July. In that Report they declared no opinion of their own in reference to the subjects contained in the Resolutions, but lamented that much misconstruction of the measures of Government appeared to prevail in the colony, and referred it to the Government of this country to adopt measures calculated to clear up those misconstructions and restore harmony. From that time till the dissolution of the noble Viscount's Government, he did not think any step had been taken in furtherance or
718
execution of this recommendation. True, a right hon. Gentleman had stated, that on the very day of the dissolution of the Government (the 15th of November) he did address a despatch to Lord Aylmer, in which he informed his Lordship, that he was prepared to send him full instructions on all points at issue on the next day but one—the 17th; but lamented that the dissolution of the Government prevented him from doing so. Now, whatever might have been the opinions and intentions of that right hon. Gentleman, it was impossible that any such instructions would or could have been sent out for some time. When he succeeded the right hon. Gentleman, in the office of Colonial Secretary, he found no vestige of any such instructions— no record of any proceedings on the subject in the Colonial Office. Having entered on a subject entirely new to him, and without the aid of any knowledge of his predecessor's intentions, he lost no time in making himself as conversant with the Question as he could, and after due investigation, and the lapse of a certain period, did address a despatch to Lord Aylmer, in which he announced the intention of Government to appoint a special Commissioner for the purpose of investigating and redressing all the grievances submitted to his consideration; and at the same time he gave the noble Lord a general view of the spirit and tenour of the instructions prepared for the guidance of such Commissioner. That despatch the Governor communicated to the Canadian House of Assembly; it was printed in the provincial papers, had since been copied into the English journals, and probably such of their Lordships as took an active interest in the subject had seen it. He trusted that no blame could attach to the spirit of the measures which the late Government had it in contemplation to adopt. A noble Lord was finally selected for the important office of Commissioner, but when the noble Lord's instructions were far advanced, it became apparent to him (the Earl of Aberdeen) that possibly he might not have to direct the execution of them. Under such circumstances, he might have declined to proceed further, and left the matter as he found it; however he thought it his duty to bring the whole subject to a state of completion, whatever might be the result, and leave it in as complete a state as he could, in order that noble Lords opposite might be able to execute it, if it should not be his own fate to do so. The instructions were completed. Having

719
formed his own judgment upon all points at issue, having received the concurrence of his colleagues in the proposed course of policy, and finally, having obtained his Majesty's consent, he said the instructions were completed and given into the possession of the party who was to execute them in the first week of April. Had his noble Friend (Earl Amherst) proceeded in the execution of his duty under his noble successor in office, he should have been most anxious and ready to take any share of the responsibility for the instructions issued. If any alterations had been necessary, or if any fresh instructions conceived in the same spirit as his own had been suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Glenelg), he should have been most happy to have co-operated with him. However, noble Lords opposite adopted a different course. He would not enter into a detail of the nature and form of the instructions —it was sufficient to say, they were in strict conformity with the declarations he had formerly made in the House, and embraced the largest possible measure of conciliation, consistent with what was indispensable for the maintenance of the King's dominion in the province. Short of that point, the instructions proceeded on a principle of the utmost liberality. When he talked of large and liberal concessions, their Lordships were not to presume that sacrifices were to be made by this country, for it would be unjust to infer that what was conceded to Canada was lost to England. He could not conceive what interest this country could have in refusing large and liberal concessions—Legislative Assemblies were not to be treated as children, and entirely directed from this country; but should be left to the enjoyment of the utmost freedom, consistent with the maintenance of the King's dominion. Of what use were Legislative Assemblies, if they did not relieve the parent State from the responsibility and difficulty of constant interference in their concerns? Noble Lords opposite, however, did not think it advisable to adopt the course which he was prepared to pursue, and had therefore assumed the entire of that responsibility, which he should have been happy to have shared with them. He must confess, it was not without apprehension that he looked to the consequences of this change of proceeding. If the noble Lord had thought fit to act on his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) decision, much delay would have been avoided, which he feared was now likely to be attended with mischievous
720
effects. Lord Aylmer in consequence of the information, that a Commissioner was going out, convened an extraordinary meeting of the Legislative Assembly for the 30th or 31st of last May. The Assembly would have met by this time, and if the noble Lord (Lord Glenelg) had acted on his predecessor's determination, the noble Earl (Earl Amherst) would have arrived in the province about this time, and entered at once upon a course of conciliation. As matters stood, the Assembly would have met before now, and the Governor would have had no option but to dissolve it, a course which he apprehended could not but be attended with bad effects. He could not help expressing regret that the person intrusted with the important office of Commissioner should have been changed—an observation by which he meant nothing invidious to the individuals now selected for the duty. He had been given to understand that noble Lords opposite expressed themselves desirous that the noble Earl (Earl Amherst) should continue to hold the office to which he had been appointed by their predecessors; if so, he must say, that rather extraordinary means had been resorted to to insure compliance with their wishes, for Ministers had adopted a course which rendered it impossible for the noble Earl to continue in the situation. He thought they could have expected no other result than the noble Earl's resignation, from the steps which they had taken. He begged to say, that the appointment of the noble Earl was not a political step on his part. He had no political connexion, and very little personal communication, with the noble Earl. He believed the noble Earl was a supporter of the Government of which the noble Viscount formed a part; he was certainly a member of his Majesty's household during that Government. He did not mention this as forming, in his opinion, any special qualification of the noble Earl, or any recommendation to his (the Earl of Aberdeen's) favourable opinion—not at all; but what did recommend the noble Earl to him was the knowledge he possessed of the noble Earl's sound judgment and discretion, of his long experience in public life, and the high offices the duties of which he had discharged with great credit to himself and advantage to the country. And, above all, the noble Earl was recommended to him by his amiable character and conciliating disposition. These were the considerations which induced him to select the noble Earl,

721
and after the appointment, in giving his opinion and explaining his views on the subject to the noble Earl, he had seen enough to induce him now to say that he had never been instrumental in any appointment with which he had more reason to be thoroughly satisfied. As to the course now proposed to be taken, the noble Lord (Glenelg) would explain his intentions so far as he thought fit. He saw that a Governor and Captain-general of our North American provinces was appointed, and thence he was naturally led to conclude that there was no intention to send out a Commissioner, for if he could have prevailed on himself to recall Lord Aylmer, he never would have thought of sending out a Commissioner. However, from what he had subsequently heard, a Commission was intended to be sent out; a course which appeared to him not only useless, but worse than useless. It might be a fit thing in this country in moments of timidity, in order to get rid of a difficulty, to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, which he understood the new Commission was to be; but in this case a Commissioner ought to go out ready to act, and a Commission of Inquiry was worse than useless. It was competent to and incumbent on the Government to decide at once on all important matters now at issue in Canada; there were but few, and those trifling matters, on which further inquiry was required. However, he spoke in the dark on this subject, and should be still happy to hear what explanation the Government could offer. He had not brought the subject forward in a feeling of hostility to the Government; he did not disguise his apprehension that the course about to be taken, if he understood it aright, was not so calculated to lead to a favourable result as that which the late Government contemplated; but he still hoped he might be mistaken in his fears, and, in or out of the House, he should never be wanting in any efforts in his power to forward a favourable termination of existing difficulties. In conclusion, the noble Earl moved for a Copy of the Commission by which his Majesty had been pleased to appoint the Earl of Gosford Captain-general and Governor-in-chief of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada.
Lord Glenelgoffered his acknowledgments to the noble Earl for the moderate spirit and temper in which he had brought forward his motion. This was a most important subject, and one above all party considerations; and he felt bound to admit
722
he had ascertained that the noble Earl, when in office, had undertaken the question in reference to the good of this country and the colony, and not with a view to party considerations. He regretted, in common with the noble Earl, that delay had taken place in the matter. He would not enter into the supposed delay that occurred last year, not wishing to excite any discussion on that subject. His noble friend seemed to be of opinion that, notwithstanding what his right hon. Friend had said, Canada had not formed the subject of any document then in possession of his right hon. Friend.
The Earl of Aberdeenbegged to observe, that he had never said that his right hon. predecessor in office had not prepared a document containing his own views on the subject of Canada. His right hon. predecessor had sent out a despatch stating that those views would be submitted to the Cabinet on the 15th of November, and that full instructions would be sent out on the 17th. Now, it had turned out impossible that that promise could be fulfilled.
Lord Glenelgknew that his right hon. Friend had been most anxious to bring the subject under the consideration of the Cabinet, and, in point of fact, he also knew that it would have been immediately brought under their consideration but for events to which he would no further allude. His noble Friend said, that he had formed his opinions on this subject in great liberality. He most cheerfully admitted that the instructions which his noble Friend had prepared for the Commissioner to Canada were drawn up in a liberal spirit. His noble Friend, however, seemed to think that it was possible for the present Government to have taken up the question exactly as he had left it. Undoubtedly it would have been more easy for him to have done so. His first impulse certainly was to adopt the measure of his predecessor in office, and to close every part of the transaction in this country. But, with the noble Earl ready to depart for the Canadas, with a measure to be executed there, of which he must be answerable for the results, he put it to the noble Lord opposite whether he would have acted in a manner befitting the office which he had the honour to hold, supposing that he had adopted the instructions issued by his noble predecessor, and had sheltered himself from all responsibility under the responsibility which attached to his noble Friend for issuing them. Would it have been consistent with his official character to have

723
stated, "I find these instructions ready to my hand, and I will accede to them without examination?" [The Earl of Aberdeen.— Not without examination.] Not without examination? Then there was no blame to be cast on Ministers that they did not proceed immediately, but took some time for inquiry. His noble Friend would undoubtedly have been willing to take his full share of responsibility, but he was sure that no man in his situation would have consented to allow his noble Friend to take a share in any responsibility which did not justly attach to his actions. It, therefore, became his duty to look into the nature of those instructions, and to see whether he could defend the whole of them. No one was more aware than his noble Friend of the vast extent of this question in all its bearings. He did not mean to say that he himself had mastered it. He had, however, looked into it diligently, and had exercised his judgment upon it to the best of his ability. After the most deliberate examination on the part both of himself and of his colleagues in the Government, it had been thought proper to change the instructions drawn up by his noble Friend. His noble Friend said, that he regretted extremely the change of person who had been selected as Commissioner. He (Lord Glenelg) regretted it too, for nothing was more true than that his Majesty's Government wished the noble Earl (Earl Amherst) to retain the situation to which he had been appointed. He was glad to see that noble Earl that evening in his place: and, seeing him there, he appealed to the noble Lord, whether the Ministry were not desirous to obtain for the country a continuance of his services in the Canadas. His noble Friend had said that it was impossible for the noble Earl to give Ministers his services, now that a Commission of three persons had been appointed, instead of a single Commissioner. To that he would only add, in reply, that among the reasons which the noble Earl had given for declining the appointment there was no statement of any disapprobation of the plan laid down by his Majesty's Government. He would not pretend to follow his noble Friend, point by point, through his speech; he must, however, allude to the inquiry made by his noble Friend as to the intentions of his Majesty's Government on this question. Instead of appointing a single Commissioner his Majesty's Government proposed to appoint a Commission consisting of three
724
persons, one of whom was to be the Governor of the Canadas, to inquire into the grievances of those colonies. As far as was consistent with his duty, every information respecting the nature of that Commission should be afforded to their Lordships. He was sure that their Lordships would recollect that last year the House of Assembly in Canada sent over a petition to this country complaining of various grievances. That petition was referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, but nothing had been done as to the Canadas since then. With regard to the question as it now stood, he thought that all the noble Lords opposite would agree with him that it was impossible to pass by that appeal from Canada to England without examination. Then, as the House of Assembly had complained of grievances, there were only three modes of acting with respect to them. You might object instantly to all their complaints, and reject them entirely; or you might reject them in part, and concede them in part; or you might grant an inquiry into them with a view of redressing the grievances, if they were found to exist. Now, to reject their complaints instantly and entirely without inquiry would of course have been an improper line. It would have been deemed most objectionable even by the people of England. The petitioners had presented a petition complaining of grievances. A Committee of the House of Commons had heard their evidence, but had resolved that it ought not to be made public. All the Report which that Committee had made consisted of a recommendation to the Government to take such measures as they should deem proper to redress the grievances complained of. The petitioners would therefore have a right to say—"You suppressed the evidence which we gave; from that time we have been precluded from coming before you—and now you pronounce the entire and instant rejection of our claims." That course he thought was one which none of their Lordships would recommend. But if it were determined partially to reject and partially to grant the demands of the petitioners, that was equally open to objection. That could not be done without offending two parties, both those who assented to and those who denied the existence of grievances. There were at present in this country two deputies from Montreal and Quebec, specially delegated from Canada, claiming to be heard in

725
their own persons before Parliament on this subject. Those persons would have a right to complain if any concessions were to be made which they might deem injurious to those whom they represented, without their being heard upon the subject. If, then, an inquiry was to be instituted, the only question left for consideration was, where should that inquiry take place? He thought that there could be little doubt that the proper place for such inquiry was the country in which the people resided who were affected by the alleged grievances, and in which remedies to those grievances must be applied. It had been asked by his noble Friend what reason there was for sending out more Commissioners than one. Now, it struck him that if a real and a searching inquiry was to be instituted, more than one Commissioner would be wanted to conduct it. The vast field of inquiry into which it would be necessary to enter in Canada would be beyond the powers of any single individual to undertake. Not only political questions but fiscal questions and judicial questions and legal questions of great importance, must come under the examination of the Commission, and it was therefore no disparagement to any individual, let his talents be what they might, to say that he would scarcely be able to grapple single-handed with the whole extent of the various subjects which must come under his consideration. It was not by receiving information at this distance from the Canadas that the best means of conciliating their inhabitants could be devised. If he wished to ascertain their grievances, and to learn what were the best practical remedies for them in the opinion of sober-minded men, the best mode of acquiring that knowledge was by mixing personally with them, and obtaining from their own mouths a knowledge of their feelings. If the Legislature received the delegates from the Canadas, and took their testimony, it ought not to forget that those delegates must be the representatives of extreme opinions, and the best advocates of their respective causes. If, therefore, the Legislature wished to obtain the best information, it must be sought by personal inquiry among the inhabitants of the country, who were most competent to afford it. The noble Lord, concluded by thanking their Lordships for the indulgent attention with which they had listened to his observations.
The Earl of Aberdeen,in reply, stated that he did not blame the Government for
726
the course which it had adopted; he only regretted that they had not deemed it expedient to pursue the same line which the late Government had chalked out for itself. If, however, in consequence of the adoption of a less liberal course than that which he had intended to pursue, the result should be less favourable than their Lordships all wished, he should then, if he found that there was any likelihood of our being obliged to resort to other measures, consider it to be his duty to move that a copy of the instructions which he had prepared should be laid before their Lordships, in order that they might see what would have been the consequences had a different policy been adopted.
Motion agreed to.