Sitting of 8 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Bead a third time:—Post-Office Com-
992
missioners.; Spirits (Excise) Common Law Courts; Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension.—Read a second time:—Slave Owners Compensation; Ditto Treaties.—Read a first time; Hypothec (Scotland) Militia Pay; Creditors (Scotland); Public Works; (Ireland):—St. Clement's, Oxford, Marriages Validity.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.
Lord John Russell, in moving that the Bill be read a third time, said that two of the gentlemen whose names had been inserted in the list of the Revising Barristers under the Bill had refused to accept the office. The gentlemen he alluded to were Mr. Rogers and Mr. Alexander, and he should have to propose as one of the amendments in the Bill after it was read a third time, that there be substituted in the place of the names of these gentlemen the names of Mr. Russell Gurney and Mr. Edward Winslow.
Bill read a third time.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, he had a clause to propose by way of rider, the object of which was, to carry into effect the provisions of the Act 8th George 4th, commonly called "Davies's Act." which enacted that counsel, agents, and all others employed by candidates at elections, should not have the right of voting, and that their votes at such elections should be invalid. It was well known, that that Act was evaded, and that, where the contest was a keen one, the votes of these disqualified persons were given at the hustings, the parties trusting to the chances attendant on a petition to the House. The present clause proposed to subject such parties for voting under such circumstances to a penalty not less than 10 l. and not exceeding 100 l.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that such a clause was certainly required to carry into effect the provisions of Colonel Davies's Act.
The Earl of Lincolnobjected to the clause, as being irrelevant to the Bill, and as being brought forward without notice.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved that the names of Messrs. Gurney and Winslow should be inserted in the place of those of Messrs. Rogers and Alexander, who had declined to accept the situation of Revising Barristers.
The Earl of Lincolnobjected to the principle on which this Court of Revision was established. The nomination of the persons filling situations in it should not be placed in the hands of a political character like the Lord Chancellor. It was true, that on the present occasion the selection made by the noble Lord was, ac-

993
cording to all he knew and heard, a most excellent one, but the noble Lord might have successors who might not imitate his example, and the appointments might degenerate into political and party jobs. It was much better under the present system, where the appointments were left in the hands of the judges.
Lord John Russellfelt confident that the new system would ultimately be found to be a great improvement on the existing one. It would ensure greater uniformity and accuracy in the decisions, whilst, by reducing the number of barristers who decided, it increased their responsibility. He thought it better to relieve the judges of the duty of making such appointments, as under the present system, whenever political bias or partiality was imputed to a Revising Barrister, the character of the judge who appointed him was generally involved in the imputation. He trusted, that the principle which had been followed in this instance in making the selection, of not choosing from one side or the other, but of choosing indifferently from both, and, above all, of choosing men who were known not to be violent, but moderate in their political opinions, would, now that it had been so fully approved of by Parliament, constitute a guide for those on whom hereafter the duty of filling up these situations would devolve.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Praedproposed, in Clause 64, that after the words "with any land," there should be inserted, for the purpose of securing the exemption of existing rights of voting from the disfranchising effect of the Clause, the following words:—"And whose name shall not, previously to the passing of this Act, have been inserted upon the registry of voters for any city or borough by reason of such occupation."
Mr. Warburtonopposed the amendment, the effect of which, would only be to render valid the decisions of some Revising Barristers, and to perpetuate what were called pigsty votes.
The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 72: Majority 50.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Eaton, R. J.

Ashley, Lord

Fremantle Sir T.

Beckett, rt. hon. Sir J.

Gladstone, W. E.

Bonham, R. F.

Gore, O.

Borthwick, Peter

Hamilton, G. A.

Brownrigg, S.

Hindley, C.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hoy, J. B.

994

Charlton, E. L.

Jackson, Sergeant

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wakley, T.

Palmer, G.

Price, R.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Praed, W. M.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Ross, C.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Lennard, T. B.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bagshaw J.

Lynch, A. H.

Baines, E.

Macnamara, Major

Barclay, D.

Mangles, J.

Baring, F. T.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bentinck, Lord W

Methuen, P.

Bernal, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bewes, T.

O'Brien, C.

Biddulph, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blake, M. J.

O'Loghlen, M.

Blamire, W.

Pelham, J. C.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Potter, R.

Brady, D. C.

Pryse, P.

Bridgeman, H.

Robinson, G. R

Brotherton, J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Burton, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Butler, hon. P.

Ruthven, E.

Buxton, T. F.

Seale, Colonel

Callaghan, D.

Seymour, Lord

Chalmers, P.

Stanley, E. J.

Clive, E. B.

Steuart, R.

Codrington, Admiral

Tancred, H. W.

Collier, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Crawford, W. S.

Thorneley, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Tracey, C. H.

Donkin, Sir R.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Elphinstone, H.

Villiers, C. P.

Ewart, W.

Walker, C. A.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Whalley, Sir S.

Grey, Sir G.

Wilde, Sergeant

Grote, G.

Wilkes, I.

Hall, B.

Williams, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Williams, W. A.

Hoskins, K.

Wood, C.

Howick, Viscount

TELLERS.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Attorney-General

Leader, J. T.

Warburton, H.

On the question that the Bill do pass.
Mr. Praeddefended the present system of Revising Barristers, and contended, that with the salaries now annexed to the situation, they should have got more experienced men than some of the juniors on the list. The fact was, they would have got them, but that the situation precluded them from following their profession at the same time. The hon. Member concluded by expressing his determination to take the sense of the House on the passing of the Bill.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he had not suggested a single name on the list, but believing, as he firmly did, that a better selection could not have been made,

995
he was ready to take the whole responsibility on himself. He was sure that the future appointments could not be placed in better hands than in those of the Lord Chancellor.
The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 23: Majority 57.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Leader, J. T.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lennard, T. B.

Bagshaw, J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Baines, E.

Lynch, A. H.

Barclay, D.

M'Namara, Major

Baring, F. T.

Mangles, J.

Bentinck. Lord W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bernal, R.

Methuen, P.

Bewes, T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Biddulph, R.

O'Brien, C.

Blake, M. J.

O'Loghlen, M.

Blamire, W.

Old, W.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Pattison, J.

Brady, D. C.

Pelham, J. C.

Bridgeman, H.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Pryse, P.

Brownrigg, S.

Robinson, G. R.

Burton, H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Butler, hon. P.

Russell Lord J.

Buxton, T. F.

Ruthven, E.

Callaghan, D.

Seale, Colonel

Campbell, Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Chalmers, P.

Smith, R. V.

Clive, E. B.

Stuart, Lord D.

Codrington, Admiral

Tancred, H. W.

Collier, J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Crawford, W. S.

Thornley, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Tracy, C. H.

Dennison, W. J.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Donkin, Sir R.

Villiers, C. P.

Elphinstone, H.

Wakley, T.

Euston, Earl of

Walker, C. A.

Ewart, W.

Warburton, H.

Grey, Sir G.

Wilde, Serjeant

Grote, G.

Wilks, J.

Hall, B.

Williams, W.

Hawes, B.

Williams, W. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wood, C.

Hindley, C.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Howick, viscount

Stanley, E. J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Stuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Ashley, Lord

Jones, T.

Beckett, rt. hn. Sir J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bonham, R. F.

Lygon, hon. Colonel

Borthwick, P.

Palmer, G.

Chandos, Marquess of

Percival, Colonel

Charlton, E. L.

Ross, C.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Eaton, R. J.

Sandon, Viscount

Gladstone, W. E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hamilton, G. A.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

TELLERS.

Jackson, Sergeant

Fremantle, Sir T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Praed, M.

Bill passed.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES (ENGLAND).
A Conference was held with the Lords on the subject of the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords in the Commutation of Tithes (England) Bill. After the conference on the motion of Lord John Russell, the Amendments made by the Lords were agreed to, and Bill returned.

MALT DUTIES (IRELAND).
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Malt Duties (Ireland) Bill being moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Mr. Hamiltonsaid, he had a petition to present in reference to the Irish Malt Bill, and with the permission of the House he would take that opportunity of presenting it. It was from a most respectable and intelligent commercial body, well known in the House—the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin. It stated, that the manufacture and sale of malt are now regulated by similar laws in all parts of the kingdom. That by the proposed Malt Bill, the manufacture and trade in malt in Ireland is subjected to vexatious regulations and penal restrictions, from which the trade of England and Scotland is exempt. That by the Report of the Commissioners of Excise inquiry and the return of penalties it was established that the malt-duties were extensively evaded in England. That while it thus appeared that illicit malting is common to the three countries, the Bill confined the remedy to Ireland, subjecting that country to different laws, and also subjecting brewers and distillers there to vexatious regulations, to which brewers and distillers in England and Scotland were not liable. That the prosperity of the brewers and distillers of Ireland was of great public importance—and that their produce forms one of the exports of the country; and it prayed that the Bill might not pass into a law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, observed that the present mode of collecting the Malt-duty in Ireland was exceedingly defective, and required speedy and efficient amendment. Many applications had been made to him by persons connected with the trade, to postpone this Bill, but after mature consideration he had stated to them that he felt bound in duty to the public to persevere with it. If, however, it should appear that hon. Mem-

997
bers from Ireland entertained strong objections to the Bill, he would not be averse to withdraw it for the present, with a view to introduce a similar measure in the early part of next Session. He prayed the House to consider the consequences which would follow if they allowed the law to remain as it stood at present for another year. The inevitable result of such a course would be, that illicit traffic would spread itself over the whole face of the country. If not armed with new and more effectual powers, he would be of necessity obliged to put in force the provisions of the existing law with greater severity.
Mr. Hamiltonwas very sensible of the magnitude of the evil which the Bill before the House was intended to remedy, but he was very sensible of the extent to which an illicit malt trade had been carried on in some parts of Ireland, and of the injury which in consequence had been sustained by the honest dealer, and also by His Majesty's revenue: at the same time it appeared to him very objectionable indeed if, at so late a period of the Session, when all Members were looking so anxiously for its speedy termination, and when so many Irish Members had left town, a Bill containing such important alterations, affecting a most important branch of Irish trade, and affecting especially one of the most rising and flourishing of her exports—the beer and brewing business—should be carried through that House, and that, too, under circumstances in which, though a Representation had been stated to have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a portion of the trade, it was quite impossible that the opinion of the trade generally could be adequately collected with regard either to the efficiency of the Bill for its own purposes, or to the nature and effect of its provisions; that he, therefore, very earnestly suggested the expediency of its postponement for the present Session; that, as he wished to place the necessity of its postponement on that occasion simply upon the question of time, it was not his intention then to enter at all into the merits of the Bill, further than to state, that he saw many and great objections both to its principle and provisions, which he should be prepared to argue in the event of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinking fit to persevere with the measure. He had
998
stated, that the practice of illicit malting prevailed in Ireland. The Commissioners of Excise Inquiry had declared in their reports that the same practice prevailed in England, and to a very considerable extent; and, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer find, in the interval between the present time and the next Session of Parliament, that the powers with which he was at present invested were insufficient to suppress the illicit trade, he for one, would be quite willing next Session to go into the whole question, with the view to the adoption of some general measure applicable in its principle equally to both countries, to enable Government more effectually to protect the honest dealer, and to preserve his Majesty's revenue. For its prevention in the interval he would rely upon the increased efficiency of the revenue police, which, as he understood, was about to be reorganized and placed on a better footing by the right hon. Gentleman. He would also rely upon a decision which had recently been come to with regard to the construction of the law by the Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Ireland. That decision, though it did not go the full length that had been anticipated, of throwing upon parties in whose possession suspected malt might be found, the responsibility of proving, that duty had been paid for it, imposed upon such parties the necessity of at least proving that it had been purchased from a licensed maltster; and even if it went no further, he thought the Excise department was thereby armed with a considerable additional power to counteract and prevent the evil; that, independently of his own opinion, and the opinion of that very intelligent commercial body the Chamber of Commerce of Dublin, whose petition he had just had the honour to present, he had been authorized by both his hon. Friends the two Members for Belfast, who had been obliged to leave town, to state, that they concurred entirely in the expediency of postponement, and that there was a general feeling to that effect among the maltsters, distillers, and brewers of the north of Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the Bill would not be further pressed.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, it was with extreme regret that he felt himself called upon to offer his most decided opposition to a Bill introduced under the sanction of his Majesty's Government, because be enter-

999
tained the fullest confidence in the sincerity of their disposition to promote good government in Ireland. It was true, that many of the measures which they had brought forward during the present Session had fallen very far short of his expectations; yet, because they contained some measure of good, and because he regarded them as instalments of a great public debt, he gave them his humble but earnest support; but while he did so, he, at the same time, determined to persevere in the suit until the last farthing of his country's claims had been liquidated, and Ireland placed upon a footing of perfect equality with the remainder of the empire. The Bill before the House was of such a nature that he could not conscientiously support it. It did not contain a single ingredient of good, while it inflicted direct palpable injury upon one portion of the empire, which was entitled to equal protection with the remainder. He felt, as a Representative of one of the largest and most influential counties in Ireland, and owing, as he did, his return to the people, that he should betray the trust reposed in him—violate the solemn pledges which he had given to his constituents, and be unworthy of a seat in that House, if he permitted such a Bill to pass without giving it his most decided opposition. If the opinions he entertained upon (his question rested upon no better foundation than his own judgment, he should hesitate before he resorted to any course which might have the appearance of factious opposition. But in order to ascertain how far his opinions accorded with the public feeling, he felt it his duty to address a letter to the people of Ireland, explaining his view on the subject; and he now came forward armed with their authority to resist the further progress of the Bill. He had received numerous communications, not only from his own constituents, but from persons connected with the malt trade in various parts of Ireland, expressing their strong disapprobation of the measure, and thanking him for the course he had adopted respecting it. The Chamber of Commerce of Dublin had, in the petition presented by the hon. Member for the metropolis of Ireland, called on the House not to pass the Bill, and the National Association of Ireland and the Trades' Union of Dublin, had expressed their opinions on the question in language too plain to be misunderstood. Under these circumstances he was
1000
quite willing to bear his share of the responsibility which the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would impose on the Irish Members who called upon him to withdraw this obnoxious Bill. For his own part, he would at once say, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not intimated his intention of withdrawing it, he would have resisted it, by every means which the forms of Parliament allowed; and if the right hon. Gentleman persisted in the determination he had expressed of going on with this Bill in the next Session of Parliament, if he stood alone, he would oppose it in every stage. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, as a justification of this Irish coercion bill, that smuggling prevailed to a very considerable extent in Ireland. He (Mr. Ruthven) did not deny that smuggling was carried on in that country; but he would maintain that it was not carried on to a greater, or perhaps as great an extent as it was in England and Scotland, as would be proved by documents which he would read with the permission of the House. The first to which he should call their attention was an extract from minutes of evidence taken before the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, and to be found in the 15th Report, a later authority than that quoted by the right hon. Gentleman. In reply to a question respecting the smuggling of malt in England, Mr. Joseph Taylor, of Bishop Storford, maltster, gave the following answer:—
"I think Government have never turned their attention sufficiently to protect the fair trader, and to prevent fraud; that an immense fraud is going on at this moment I am well aware. I am in the habit of seeing immense quantities of malt both in the country and in London, much of which is purchased in the London market, which I know never can have paid the duty, or it could not have been sold at the price."
The next witness to which he should refer was Mr. Edward Churk, of Ware, maltster:—
"Is there in your opinion much evasion of the duty in England?—I can only say that at Ware we go justly to work; we work as closely as men can do; but malt frequently comes to market from Norfolk and Suffolk, and from the west of England, 5s. 6d., and sometimes even 7s. a quarter under ours; then I should make allowance for our better quality; but one cause of malt being bad is the running the duty. I should say that, sup-

1001
posing the difference to be 6s., half of it may be owing to the difference of quality; but I think the duty must have been evaded."
The hon. Member quoted a variety of testimony to the same effects. He then said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the maltsters of Ireland had memorialed the Treasury for a restoration of the old permit system. He did not deny, that a certain portion of that body would be anxious for any measure which might have the effect of restoring the monopoly which they formerly enjoyed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not perhaps aware that permits or covers in the old system could be purchased for any quantity of illegal malt at 2s. per barrel. But he begged the attention of the House to a very high authority on the subject of the permit system—namely, Mr. Guinness, the eminent brewer of Dublin. The evidence of that gentleman was contained in the same report.
"Mr. Guinness—Would you propose to restore the old permit system?—No; I conceive that the old permit system was injurious to the fair trader, and ineffective in its operation.
"In what way?—There were, during the operation of the permit system, two prices for malt of the same quality; for the purchaser of a cargo of malt who would receive a portion of it without permit could get that portion at a reduced price."
He would not trouble the House with further evidence on this point, but refer at once to the Report of the Board of Excise, in reply to the inquiry of the same Commissioners relative to the collection of the Irish malt duty, in which is to be found the following important passages:—
"Upon a review of the operation of the Irish acts, as compared with the system now prevailing, no conclusion can be drawn so favourable to the former as to warrant the re-enactment of a separate malt law for Ireland, connected, as such a step would be, with the complaints and inconveniences, which in a great measure led to the adoption of the present assimilated regulations.
"Upon a careful consideration of the whole subject, it is conceived that a recurrence to the old system, such as existed in Ireland previously to the consolidation, would be very obnoxious, and give rise to serious and perhaps well-founded complaints; and that no more effectual means can be resorted to for checking the progress of illicit malting in Ireland than the measures now in operation, which, it is confidently anticipated, will shortly be the means of convincing the dishonest trader that fraud cannot be profitably practised—that detection is almost inevitable, and that great pe-
1002
cuniary loss, if not ruin, will follow detection,"
Again the Chairman of the Board of Excise, Sir Francis Boyle, corroborated the evidence to which he referred. That the statement of Sir Francis Doyle was correct would be at once apparent from the following returns of the duty paid in Ireland on malt during the years 1833 and 1834:—

1833

£245,000

1834

272,000

Showing, on a comparison of two years, an increase of 27,000 l. in the duty paid into his Majesty's Exchequer, and yet they were told that smuggling had increased to a frightful extent in Ireland. If such an increase had taken place, how did it happen that Scotland exported (as appeared from a return which he held in his hand) 7,349 puncheons of whiskey to the port of London, from the 1st of January to the 7th of August, 1836, while Ireland, during the same period, exported but 355 puncheons? He also found from an official return that the penalties awarded against the English maltsters in 1835, amounted to 10,954 l.; against the Scotch 6,565 l.; while those against the Irish were only 1,024 l. The inference to be drawn from this evidence was first, that there had not been such an increase of late in smuggling as had been stated, because, by the latest returns, it appeared that there was an increase of 27,000 l. in. the year 1834, as compared to the amount of duty paid on malt in the year 1833, while the exports from Ireland of whiskey to England, as compared with those of Scotland, were scarcely deserving of notice—secondly, that smuggling prevailed to an enormous extent both in England and Scotland, and to as great an extent (for all that appeared to the contrary) as in Ireland—thirdly, that this alteration in the law was in direct opposition to the recommendation of the Board of Excise, and opposed to the general feeling of the persons engaged in the trade. So that even upon the grounds taken by the right hon. Gentleman, there was no justification for the present Bill. But if all which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated were well founded, he would still oppose this Bill, because it coerced one portion of the empire, while it left the other unfettered—because it applied a principle to Ireland which would not be extended to England—a principle which, in its operation would,

1003
be a gross violation of the liberty of the subject. Upon this point, however, he would not dwell further, as the right hon. Gentleman, he presumed, had abandoned the Bill; but, before he sat down he begged to suggest a short remedy "for the more effectually securing the duty on malt" not only in Ireland, but in England and Scotland. Let the right hon. Gentleman reduce the duty to half the present amount, and he would give a more effectual blow to smuggling than he could ever hope to accomplish by the most; severe fiscal regulations.
Mr. Sharman Crawfordsaid, that as the Irish Members had been appealed to by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he thought he might be permitted to make a few observations. He was perfectly aware, and he freely admitted, that the malt trade in Ireland at present was in a state highly injurious, if not positively destructive, to the interests of the fair dealer. He, however, felt compelled to solicit the Government not to press the measure, and to suspend any new legislation on the subject till next Session. It was his impression that the Bill, whilst it imposed penal enactments of a most offensive description, would not effect the object intended, and his chief objection to it was, that its application was limited to Ireland, and not extended to the other portion of the empire. If the enactments of the Bill would have the effect of suppressing the illicit manufacture of malt in Ireland, what would be the inevitable result? Why it would be offering a premium for the illicit manufacture and importation of malt from other parts of the empire into Ireland, and thus impose on the honest dealer annoying and vexatious regulations, without giving him any adequate protection. He (Mr. S. C.) was decidedly of opinion that no measure could be safe or useful which was not universal in its operation? and as there was not time to digest the details of the measure, he preferred its postponement. He was quite satisfied that all attempts at putting an end to illicit traffic would fail, except by reducing the duty. He called on them to remember that all the arbitrary enactments which were passed, and which the police, and even the army, were for a long time employed in the enforcement of, were ineffectual with respect to illict distillation, till the duty was reduced—and what was more important, that reduction was followed by an actual increase of the revenue. But he objected to this Bill on higher and more
1004
important considerations. He objected to it, because it created a dissimilarity of legislation for Ireland as contradistinguished from the other portions of the empire. He objected to this practice, except under circumstances of clear and absolute necessity; but he objected to it, more especially, as it referred to penal enactments. If the system were continued, jealousy and irritation must be perpetually engendered, and every separate enactment afforded an argument and created a desire for a separation of the two Legislatures. He was of opinion that all minor considerations should be abandoned, and if, in particular instances, it should so happen that a degree of injury should be sustained, such partial injury would be infinitely more than compensated by the national benefit to be derived from the practical operation of uniformity in the laws of Great Britain and Ireland. He maintained that it was impossible that the minor and less wealthy country could have any security for her rights or interests when united in the same Legislature, except on the basis of uniformity of laws and institutions. The operation of this system of separate legislation was never more strongly manifested than by the effect produced on the public mind by the proposition contained in the Bill before the House. There never was a Government so popular in Ireland as the present—there never was one so deservedly so, and yet the Bill had produced an excitation of a most serious character. The Government was blamed even by their most warm and devoted supporters. Why was this? He answered because the Bill was partial, and because it was another sample of separate legislation. In justice, however, to the Government, he was bound to say, that they were not to blame on this occasion. He knew that pressing solicitations had been made for protection by persons of high respectability in the trade in Ireland, and he was aware that they contended that some measure should be passed during the present Session. He was convinced that the Bill was brought forward at the urgent entreaty of these parties, and he gave due credit to the Government for the desire they had manifested to acquiesce in the general opinion of the Irish Members on the present occasion. He also thought that it was unjust to charge any particular member of the Government with the unpopularity of this Bill from the incidental circumstance of his name having appeared on the back of it. He thought that at this particular period, when a great struggle was

1005
before them, that the principle of common legislation should be sustained and insisted on. What prospect had either country of a successful issue in that struggle, except by a complete union of interest and efforts? All minor considerations of partial interests or partial objects should be set aside, and Britain and Ireland should pull together in a combined and uncompromising demand for justice and for civil and religious freedom.
Mr. Walker, though individually in favour of legislation on this subject, was decidedly opposed to many provisions of the Bill. Under all the circumstances he recommended the postponement till next Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that in accordance with the wishes of the Irish Members, so unanimously expressed, he would consent to defer the consideration of the question till that day three months.
Bill postponed.

PENSIONS' DUTIES BILL.
The Report on the Pensions' Duties Bill was brought up.
On the question that it be agreed to.
Mr. Harcourtthought it his duty to submit to the consideration of the House the Clause of which he had formerly given notice. If the effect of the present Bill was to impose for the first time a tax of twenty-seven and a half per cent. on the Parliamentary grant to the descendants of the illustrious Duke of Marlborough, the measure would do that which would be utterly inconsistent with the intentions of the Legislature which made the grant, and with the proceedings of that House in analogous cases during the last twenty years. It might be a small matter in itself, but was a great injustice. He was of opinion, that to deduct from a grant to an individual so eminently distinguished for his services to his country as the great Duke of Marl-borough would be to deduct from the honour of the nation. The hon. Member referred to the services performed by the great Duke of Marlborough, in respect of which a pension of 5,000 l. a-year and Blenheim House, and the lands attached to it, were settled on his family. If a stranger were to visit Blenheim, he would expect to find that lands commensurate with that magnificent structure were attached to it. But what was the fact? He could state, that the value of the manor of Woodstock and all the ground attached to Blenheim was not more than
1006
3,000 l. a-year. Whilst that House showed itself anxious to remove from the Pension List those names that had been unworthily placed there, they ought to draw a distinction between merited and unmerited pensions. He thought, that it would not become them to introduce a law for the first time, which affected with a duty the estate of the Duke of Marlborough, The hon. Member proceeded to compare the rewards assigned to the Duke of Marlborough for his services, and those assigned to others for similar services. If the historian were called upon to point out for public reward the men who, above all others during the last two centuries, had performed the most distinguished services, he would, undoubtedly, select the names of Marlborough, Nelson, and Wellington. He was not going to compare the rewards assigned to the Duke of Marlborough with those assigned to Nelson and Wellington; those assigned to the Duke of Wellington were much larger in amount, but not larger than the gratitude of the country was willing to grant. The pension of the Duke of Marlborough was one with which this country ought not to interfere. The hon. Member concluded by moving a clause to exempt, in conformity with the invariable practice in such cases, the Parliamentary grant of an annuity, settled in the reign of Queen Anne, on the descendants of John, Duke of Marlborough, on account of his eminent services, from all taxes and deductions whatsoever.
Sir Robert Inglisseconded the motion, on the grounds that the original grant was clearly intended to be free of all taxes and impositions whatsoever; and, because he did not think it would be doing justice to the memory of the great Duke of Marlborough to place the annuity enjoyed by his descendants on a different footing from the grants to the Duke of Wellington, Lord Nelson, Lord Amherst, and Lord Chatham.
The clause brought up and read. On the question that it be read a second time—
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the grant having been originally made by Parliament, the Government had no right whatever to take upon themselves the construction of the Act of Parliament, or to decide either in favour of or against the claim of the present Duke of Marlborough, to be paid the whole amount of the annuity without any deduction being made for

1007
land-tax. The question was one which the Treasury felt the Government had no right to decide, and, therefore, it was, that they had declined expressing any opinion on the subject, in order that the matter might finally be determined by that House, the only authority to whom it could properly be referred. If they were now about to grant a new pension, he did not think they should allow the land-tax or any other imposition to attach to it; but when there was evidence to show that this grant was originally made subject to land-tax, he did not think they would be justified in giving to the Act of Parliament a different construction from that which the framers of it intended it should bear. If the case were a doubtful one, he was ready to admit, that they should resolve the doubt in favour of the Duke of Marl-borough. Under these circumstances, he would leave the case in the hands of the House, satisfied that he had vindicated the Government in declining to acquiesce in this clause, and because, if the boon sought for were granted, it would have additional value in the eyes of the Duke of Marlborough, because it would not be the Act of the Government, but of the House of Commons—because it would show that, by giving an enlarged and liberal meaning to the statute of Anne, the great services of his illustrious ancestor were as fresh in the memory of the people of this country at the present day as those of the Duke of Wellington must be in all times to come. Having now vindicated the course which the Treasury had taken, and stated the grounds on which he thought the House should view the question, he for one would be most happy to acquiesce in any determination to which the House might come.
Mr. Francis Baringthought, there were strong reasons for supposing that there was no intention on the part of the framers of the Act of Anne to relieve the grant to the Duke of Marlborough from the payment of land-tax. It might be all very proper to redress injustice; but if injustice had been done in the present case, all he could say was, that the evil could not be remedied by a clause construing an Act of Parliament, but ought to be removed by a distinct Act on the subject. It had been said, that the omission of land-tax in the exemption was the result of accident; but this he did not believe, because he thought the evidence was all the other
1008
way. From the year 1780 to the present time this had been the regular payment If it was intended to carry the proposed object into effect, it would be more creditable to do so in the usual course, and not under cover of a clause such as that which had been submitted to their consideration.
Sir T. Fremantlewas not prepared to contend that an additional grant should not be made in favour of the Duke of Marlborough's family, taking into consideration the altered value of money; but no case had been made out in support of the proposition submitted by the hon. Member, and he should certainly vote against it in its present shape.
Mr. M. Attwoodthought, all pensions were or ought to be subject to the tax, and if some had hitherto escaped, it was time they were now taxed.
Mr. Humeopposed the clause. He certainly thought that when a pension had been granted it ought not to be reduced by any deductions such as those that had been referred to; but that was not now the question. He did not think there were any circumstances to justify them in giving an increased pension to the descendants of the Duke of Marlborough. He, therefore, would oppose the clause.
The House divided. The numbers were:—Ayes 37; Noes 35: Majority 2.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, M.

Palmer, G.

Barclay, D.

Palmerston, Lord

Bellew, Sir P.

Perceval, Colonel

Biddulph, R.

Price, S. G.

Bruen, F.

Pusey, P.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Campbell, Sir J.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Churchill, Lord C.

Russell, Lord J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Smith, R. V.

Donkin, Sir R.

Stanley, E. J.

French, F.

Steuart, R.

Gordon, R.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Tancred, H. W.

Hughes, W. H.

Thompson, Alderman

Lennox, Lord G.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wall, C. B.

Maule, hon. F.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Morpeth, Viscount

TELLERS.

Morrison, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Bridgeman, H.

Baines, E.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, T.

Brownrigg, S.

Bewes, T.

Butler, hon. P.

Blamire, W.

Collier, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Corbett, T. G.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Elphinstone, H.

1009

Ewart, W.

Robinson, G. R.

Hawes, B.

Smith, B.

Hodgson, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Horsman, E.

Thornley, T.

Hoskins, K.

Tulk, C. A.

Hotham, Lord

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Williams, W.

Leader, J. T.

Williams, W. A.

Lushington, Dr.

TELLERS.

O'Loghlen, M.

Baring,—

Potter, R.

Fremantle, Sir. T.

Clause read a second time.
On the motion that it be added to the Bill,
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton moved that the Bill be recommitted.
Mr. Francis Baringurged the hon. Member not to press his amendment. The sense of the House had already been taken on the question, and he would not be a party to any further opposition.
Mr. Humecomplained that the House had been taken by surprise with respect to the clause. He should, therefore, support the amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the battle of Blenheim were as fresh in the memory of the House as the battle of Waterloo there would not be a word of objection to the proposed increase. He had felt bound to lean in favour of distinguished military services, and he gave the fullest credit at the same time to the Secretary of the Treasury for the having nobly and manfully vindicated the more economical view of the subject. He hoped the amendment would not be persevered in.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 55; Noes 35 Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Archdall, M.

Grey, Sir G.

Attwood, M.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baines, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Barclay, D.

Harcourt, G. G.

Baring, F. T.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Borthwick, P.

Hodgson, J.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Hughes, H.

Browne, R. D.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bruen, F.

Jackson, Sergeant

Burdon, W. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Lennox, Lord G.

Clements, Viscount

Maule, hon. F.

Corbett, T. G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Donkin, Sir R.

Neeld, J.

Duncombe, T.

O'Brien, C.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Palmer, G.

Gordon, hon. W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Gore, O.

Perceval, Colonel

1010

Price, S. G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Pusey, P.

Tancred, H. W.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Thompson, Alderman

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Russell, Lord J.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Sibthorp, Colonel

TELLERS.

Steuart, R.

Smith, V.

Stormont, Viscount

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Hutt, W.

Bewes, T.

Leader, J. T.

Blamire, W.

Lushington, Dr.

Bowring, Dr.

Lushington, C.

Brady, D. C.

O'Loghlen, M.

Bridgeman, H.

Potter, R.

Brotherton, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Smith, B.

Butler, hon. P.

Thompson, Colonel

Callaghan, D.

Thornley, T.

Collier, J.

Tooke, W.

Elphinstone, H.

Tulk, C. A.

Ewart, W.

Villiers, C. P.

Hall, B.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W. A.

Horsman, E.

TELLERS.

Hoskins, K;

Warburton, H.

Hotham, Lord

Hume, J.

Question again put.
Mr. Warburton: As the House had been taken by surprise, he should feel himself justified in moving adjournment after adjournment, until the question should be finally disposed of. With the view of closing the discussion on it for the present, he would move that the further debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdenied that the House had been taken by surprise inasmuch as a notice on the subject had appeared on the votes since last May. He thought the better course for the hon. Member to adopt would be to take the sense of the House on the question when the Bill came on for the third reading.
Mr. Robinsondid not see what objection could be made to duties, the payment of which had not been objected to by the person to whom the pension was originally granted.
Mr. Wakleywished to know if this clause was agreed to whether it was the intention of Government to pay the arrears of the pension for the time past, as well as to remit the duties for the future? If they were remitted for the future it was an admission that they had hitherto been unjustly received, and the non-payment of the arrears would be direct robbery. Either this was the view which should be taken of the case, or else the proposition was to give an additional pension of 800 l.

1011
a-year without any inquiry whatever. He hoped the hon. Member would persist in his motion for adjourning the debate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged to remind the hon. Member for Finsbury that this clause was not brought in by Government. It would not have a retrospective effect, and consequently no arrears could accrue.
Mr. Humesaid, as no intimation of the proposition was given to the House he should say they were taken by surprise in being called on to grant a new pension of 800 l. a-year to the Duke of Marlborough. This was a grant that should be considered, and they only asked for time—say even until to-morrow.
Lord J. Russellsaid, it was a most unjust charge to make, that the House was taken by surprise. The case was not of that peculiar character that required particular notice to be given by the Government. To say that this was a new grant of 800 l. a-year to the Duke of Marlborough was, to say the least, a strange and not creditable error. If it were so, the case would indeed have been altered. The question was whether, as pensions had been granted to many individuals for public services, naval and military, such as Nelson and Wellington, and as deductions on the ground of public expediency had been made from the pensions of these persons, the same rule would not apply to the present Duke of Marlborough? He thought that it was shown in the course of the debate that it could not. The noble Duke's ancestor had earned this pension well, and he for one would not defame his memory by curtailing the pension. As a proof that this was not really a Government question he would say that the President of the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General voted against the rest of the Government upon it. As the House would have another opportunity of discussing the subject, on the third reading, he hoped they would allow the second reading.
The House divided on the question of adjournment. Ayes 33; Noes 6l: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, T.

Browne, R. D.

Bewes, T.

Brownrigg, S.

Blake, M. J.

Butler, hon. P.

Blamire, W.

Callaghan, D.

Brady, D. C.

Collier, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Elphinstone, H.

1012

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Colonel

Hawes, B.

Thornley, T.

Hindley, C.

Tooke, W.

Hoskins, K.

Tulk, C. A.

Hotham, Lord

Wakley, T.

Leader, J. T.

Wall, C. B.

O'Brien, C.

Williams, W.

O'Loghlen, M.

Williams, W. A.

Potter, R.

TELLERS.

Robinson, G. R.

Hume, J.

Smith, B.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Law, hon. C. E.

Archdall, M.

Lennox, Lord G.

Baines, E.

Lincoln, Earl of

Barclay, D.

Maule, hon. F.

Baring, F. T.

Methuen, P.

Borthwick, P.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bruen, F.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Burton, H.

Neeld, J.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Clements, Viscount

Palmer, G.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Palmerston, Viscount

Corbett, T. G.

Perceval, Colonel

Dalmeny, Lord

Price, S. G.

Donkin, Sir R.

Pusey, P.

Duncombe, T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.

Richards, R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

French, F.

Russell, Lord J.

Gordon, hon. W.

Seymour, Lord

Goulburn, Sergeant

Sibthorp, Colonel

Grey, Sir G.

Smith, R. V.

Hamilton, G. A.

Stormont, Viscount

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stuart, Lord D.

Harcourt, G. G.

Tancred, H. W.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Thompson, Alderman

Hodgson, J.

Trevor, hon. A.

Horsman, E.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Howick, Viscount

Wood, C.

Hughes, W. H.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Jackson, Sergeant

Stanley, E. J.

Jones, T.

Steuart, R.

The Clause added to the Bill, and the Report received. Bill to be read a third time.

SUPPLY—(MUSEUM).
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
Sir H. Inglis Sir H. Inglis moved a grant of 21,974 l. to meet the expenditure of the British Museum up to Lady-day, 1837. He did not anticipate that so important and beneficial a grant would meet with any opposition. The great advantages to be derived from this national institution were becoming every day more generally felt. Since its opening, the number of visitors had increased in the proportion of four to one, and that of the readers in the Library in the proportion of thirty to one.
Mr. Hawescongratulated the House on

1013
the statement just made by the hon. Baronet. He begged leave to observe, however, that from the Report of the Commissioners, he was at a loss to understand exactly at what hours the Museum was to be open. Upon that point he wished to be informed, and also whether there was any probability of a more perfect catalogue being provided, for it was certainly very much needed. He had also to observe, that he did not think 500 l., as specified in the grant, sufficient for supplying moulds to the French Government for taking casts of the Elgin marbles, and it would be pitiful to make that Government pay for them.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that it was intended to keep the Museum open during the months of May, June, July, and August, from nine in the morning until seven in the evening, and during the rest of the year at the usual hours. He believed a perfect catalogue would be ready before the end of the year, but the Commissioners feared they could not carry their plans into effect without some assistance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the Treasury would be always ready to assist the Commissioners, if they made out a proper case.
Vote agreed to.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
On the question that a sum not exceeding 38,500 l. be granted for the advancement of education in Ireland,
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, he could not give a silent vote upon the proposed grant. It was understood that there was to be another vote of 11,000 l. in addition to an outlay of a similar sum for remodelling Tyrone House. He considered the vote as a most extravagant one, but he did not rise so much on that account as for the purpose of expressing his unqualified disapprobation at the mode in which this system of education was worked in Ireland. The system was not conducted on the plan originally proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley). It was stated by that noble Lord to be intended as an united system of education—modelled on religious education. Now, he would take upon himself to say, that this system, so far from being an united system, was exclusively Roman Catholic—he did not mean to say, that there were not a few Protestants attending the schools—but he maintained that the great body of the persons attending them were of the Roman
1014
Catholic persuasion. He could also state, that schools were under such superintendence that it was utterly impossible that Protestant parents could send their children to be instructed at them. It was placed beyond all controversy that twenty-four of the schools receiving aid from the Education Board were placed under the superintendence of monks and nuns, and he would put it to the House whether, under such circumstances, it was not quite a farce to suppose, that a united system of education could be imparted to Protestants and Roman Catholics? In that respect the experiment had been an utter failure, inasmuch as neither Protestants nor Presbyterians could conscientiously permit their children to attend schools conducted as these schools necessarily must be. He did not mean to divide the Committee upon the grant—but he hoped an investigation would be instituted to ascertain how far the rules had been adhered to, and how far the children of various persuasions were in the course of receiving education at these schools. He was afraid the result of the inquiry would prove that, under the present plan, it was impossible to carry on a system of united education. So exclusively Roman Catholic were these schools in their character, that they were familiarly called the priests' schools—and he complained of that state of the new system of education, because the Protestants of the country ought to be more regarded. This system, being exclusively Roman Catholic, he saw no reason why Parliament should not allocate some funds for the instruction of the Protestants. The Protestants of Ireland had been considerably underrated, and he had not the least doubt that they amounted to 2,000,000. [Laughter from the Ministerial Benches.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh, but he had data to prove that to be nearly the actual number. But, at all events, the Protestants of Ireland were a body sufficient to demand respect, and he trusted their interests would not be wholly slighted. He must again express a hope, that an investigation might be instituted—the rather as the hon. Member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), not then in his place, had stated, when the appropriation clause was under discussion, that he would not consent to it unless the charges preferred against the Board of Education should be investigated and proved to be groundless.
Dr. Bowringprotested against any re-

1015
ligious distinctions being drawn between the people of Ireland when they were legislating for the general good.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had complained of that very practice; he had complained that the schools had been made exclusively Roman Catholic.
Mr. Chisholmsaid, the Government of the country was a Protestant Government, and, therefore, the Ministry was bound to support the Protestant Church and system of education. It was against popery that Protestants especially protested, and as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House he should never forget that essential principle of Protestantism.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfethought, the hon. and learned Member for Bandon might as well have said the Protestants of Ireland were 3,000,000 as 2,000,000. It would have been much more satisfactory if he had laid his finger on any particular parish, and proved the inaccuracy of the Commissioners' returns in respect to the number of Protestants. It was true that the schools were called "priests' schools," but only by those Protestants who had done everything to keep up party distinctions, and to defeat the efforts which had been made to render the system of education united and generally acceptable.
Colonel Percevalsaid, he considered that the hon. and learned Sergeant had been rather more severe upon his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bandon, than the circumstances warranted. The hon. and learned Sergeant accused his hon. Friend of dealing too largely in assertion, and on the instant the learned Sergeant dealt more largely in assertion himself than had his hon. Friend near him. The hon. and learned Gentleman had asserted that the opposition to those schools emanated from his hon. Friend the Member for Bandon; but the fact was, that the Protestants of Ireland ceased to attend these schools because they were held in Roman Catholic chapels. He could state an instance of his own knowledge. He had named it before, and had no objection to do so again. The school to which he alluded was held in the chapel of Ballymoate, the parish in which he resided. He had himself visited the school, and he supposed it would not be denied that it was one of the rules of the Education Board that no religious books or catechism should be used. Now the
1016
first book he took up in the school was a Roman Catholic Catechism. As to the number of Protestants in Ireland being considerably underrated, he would beg leave to give a reason for coinciding in the opinion as to that point expressed by his hon. and learned Friend. In the parish in which he (Colonel Perceval) resided, the Roman Catholic priest returned only one Protestant for the whole parish, and that one was himself. He happened to have a wife and nine children, not one of whom was a member of the Church of Rome. He had at the time upwards of thirty Protestants residing within the walls of his demesne, including his family, gate-keeper, &c; and he could add that he was present at the parish church last Easter Sunday, when he saw 180 Protestant communicants; and still the priest's return was limited to one Protestant, and that one he himself was. So much for the accuracy of the returns. He hesitated not to say, that if the grant were worded perfectly, it should be headed "a grant for the Education of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland." As it was it was absurd to call the system a united system.
Viscount Morpethwished to know if the Commissioners adopted the particular return alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member.
Colonel Percevalbelieved that they did not; but there were places in Ireland where the testimony of the Roman Catholic priest on this and other subjects was implicitly relied on.
Lord Clementswas sure, that if the Education Board had been made acquainted with the case, they would have interfered.
Mr. Frenchwished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact, that 50,000 l. was the sum agreed upon as the amount to be granted for education in Ireland, and he regretted that sum was not the amount to be voted at present. By the Report of the Commissioners it appeared that 400 applications for Sunday schools had been made, but owing to want of funds they were unable to comply, and the Commissioners were also unable to procure proper teachers for the schools, owing to the limited sums they were at present able to give them.
Mr. Dillon Brownesaid, the grant was opposed solely to obtain an opportunity for calumniating, the Catholics.
Colonel Percevaldenied that he had calumniated the Roman Catholics. He stated that the priest returned to a constable named Thompson the return of the Protestants in his (Colonel Perceval's) parish, and that return amounted only to one. Thompson returned the statement on oath.
Mr. Shawagreed with those hon. Friends who had preceded him, that at that advanced period of the Session, and in the then thin state of the House, it would be in vain to divide against the grant to the Board of National Education in Ireland. He could not, however, content himself without again recording his opinion against the system pursued by that Board, as one which was opposed to the conscientious feelings of the great majority of the Irish Protestants, and which he believed never could promote united education in that country. He could, if it were not unnecessary to trouble the House with them at that time, adduce innumerable instances in which the rules of the Board were violated in the schools in connexion with them. He did not mean to say, as seemed to be assumed by his noble Friend (Lord Clements), as the argument of those who agreed with him (Mr. Shaw), that the Board refused to listen to complaints on that subject. That was really not the question. The insuperable objection in his (Mr. Shaw's) mind, to the system was, that it formed a fundamental part of it that the Bible, in its simple and entire form, was excluded from the national schools, when alone they could be considered as such. If it was said, that extracts were allowed, his answer was, that that would not obviate the objection, even if those extracts were fairly made; but he was bound to add that they were not, in his opinion, fairly made, but such as might justly be termed garbled. He was as desirous as any one could be for the success of an united and harmonious system of education for the poor in Ireland; but he was persuaded that such a system, so far as regarded Protestants, never could be successful if based upon the anti-Protestant ground of the exclusion of the Word of God. For his part, he had no doubt that the plan of the Kildare-place society would before then have been generally adopted and successful throughout Ireland, but for the party and political motives which influenced the opposition it had met with. Of one thing
1018
he was sure, that without the help of the appropriation clause in the Irish Tithe Bill, there was no desire on either side of the House to refuse from considerations of economy, whatever sum of money might be required for the purpose of education in Ireland. He would certainly prefer that separate grants should be made to Protestants and Roman Catholics, if no system of united education could be agreed upon, rather than that the present delusion should be countenanced of supporting under the name of a system of general education, a scheme which virtually excluded from its benefits the poor Protestants of Ireland.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Cashel had made some personal allusion to him, and he therefore felt bound to offer a few observations in reply. If that hon. and learned Gentleman had been in his place on a former occasion, he would have heard him expose the erroneous nature of the returns which the Commissioners of Public Instruction had made to that House. He contended that the returns made by the Commissioners of public Instruction were not deserving of the credit which they too frequently received; and, in his opinion formed no safe ground for legislation. He should trouble the House with but one or two examples to show how little they were to be depended on. Upon a former occasion he stated that a parish in Kerry—the same arish in which the hon. and learned Gentleman who now represented Kilkenny resided—had been returned by the Commissioners as containing but forty-nine Protestant inhabitants, which was one under the number that, according to a Bill of which the House must have full recollection, would be required, to secure to a parish the benefit of Christian instruction by a minister of the Church of England. Now it happened that very shortly after those returns were in the hands of Members he was handed a letter by his friend, the Knight of Kerry, informing him, on the authority of the clergyman of that parish, that the number of members of the Church of England resident therein, amounted to fifty-six at the time the returns were made, and had since then been augmented to sixty-three. He had likewise called the attention of the House to the case of a parish of which the son of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was the incumbent,

1019
and in that return 300 Protestants of the Established Church were suppressed. The census of one of the parishes in Dublin was taken in July, when the greater part of the Protestant inhabitants were at the watering place of Bray, and the census of the parish of Bray was taken in October, when they had all returned to town, so that no place got credit for possessing that portion of the Protestants of Ireland. Another instance he was supplied with by Mr. Barnard, in which the return made by the Commissioners was fifty under the number of Protestants actually residing in the parish. Every person must be aware, that it must be much more easy to ascertain the precise number of schools in Ireland than to obtain anything like a correct census of the Protestant population, scattered as they were over the whole face of the country. Now, the Commissioners returned the number of schools, in connexion with the Kildare-place Society, as amounting altogether to only 235, whereas to his (Mr. J.'s) positive knowledge they exceeded 1000. Their return set forth, that in three dioceses there was not a single school in connexion with the Society; whereas in the very district named there were 300 schools, being a larger number than the Commissioners gave the Society credit for having in all Ireland. Now, where a blunder of such a nature was manifest, it was not unreasonable to suppose that errors to an enormous amount had crept into the census of the Protestant population. With respect to the charge preferred against him by the hon. and learned Member for Cashel, of keeping away children from the school, he denied having ever interfered to keep a single person away from them. The hon. Member for Mayo had said, that the grant was opposed solely with a view of calumniating the Roman Catholics. It had never been his (Mr. Sergeant Jackson's) habit to calumniate any person, and least of all had he that night calumniated the Roman Catholics.
Viscount Morpethobserved, in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, that he had thought the testimony already laid before the House on the subject of the parish in Kerry would have been considered quite sufficient: he thought before, as he did now, that the difference between forty-nine and fifty-six being only seven, had been sufficiently accounted for, and he should therefore not trouble the House with any remarks on the subject. As
1020
to the discovery which the hon. and learned Gentleman made with respect to the parish at Bray, he wished him joy of it, and hoped that on some future occasion he would explain to the House how it was possible for persons to be returned as in a parish which at the time the return was made they did not inhabit. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the University of Dublin, had represented the version of the Scriptures used in the Schools under the sanction of Government, as consisting of garbled extracts; to that he begged permission to observe in reply that much higher authorities in matters of religion than the right hon. Gentleman held a totally different opinion, and by those authorities he felt much more disposed to abide than by the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfewished to say, that what he had charged some hon. Gentleman on the other side with was, having proclaimed to the Protestants of Ireland that the Government system of education was subversive of their faith. They complained that the Protestants were supplied with nothing but a mutilated version of the Scriptures, and they certainly did all they could to prevent Protestant children from attending the Schools.
Mr. Shawmust insist, notwithstanding the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Morpeth) that he had properly termed the extracts made by the Education Board garbled, at least as compared with the authorised version of the Scriptures. He believed, that in nine cases out of ten when the authorised and Rhemish versions differed, the latter had been followed by the Commissioners. The noble Lord boasted of the Board containing able scholars and divines—that might be true—but would the noble Lord venture to assert that such a Board as that was to be regarded by the Protestant people of these countries as a tribunal competent to undertake the great and important work of a new translation of the Bible of the Church of England?
Mr. Archdaleconsidered the establishment of a national system of education had been hitherto proposed and maintained as an experiment—that the experiment had proved a complete failure—and to ask for it now the support and protection of the Legislature, was to ask, that the public money should be largely applied for the gratification of the Roman Catholic priests, and the propagation of Popery in Ireland.

1021
The scheme had been rejected and denounced both by the Protestants of the establishment and the Presbyterian Church, and was notoriously perverted—if it could be called perversion, and not the natural operation of the system—for the purpose of extending the dominion of the Church of Rome. He perfectly agreed with his gallant Friend (Colonel Perceval) that it would be better if the Roman Catholics must have money, to let them have it avowedly for the support of their own un-scriptural and superstitious system. He (Mr. Archdall) did not consider it possible that the religion of Scripture, and that of human authority and tradition, could be brought together into one common system of national education—the former would be corrupted by the foul contagion, and the result would be to endanger the existence of true religion.
Vote agreed to.

MAYNOOTH.
On the proposition that a sum of 8,928 l. be granted for the Roman Catholic College at Maynooth,
Colonel Percevalobserved, that he had repeatedly recorded by his vote his objection to the proposed grant; and he entertained as strong an objection to it at present as at any former period. His hon. Friend the Member for Durham, had given notice of a motion for next Session, when he intended to move for a Committee to inquire into the system of education pursued at Maynooth College. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friends would not then insist upon a division; if they did, he should certainly feel it his duty to record his vote against the motion, but he trusted that under the circumstances they would not take the sense of the House.
Mr. Arthur Trevorsaid, he for one certainly should take the sense of the House on the question. It was true, that he had given notice of the motion which his hon. and gallant Friend had just mentioned, but that should not restrain him from taking any opportunity of supporting the rights of the Protestants of Ireland—rights which he thought were much neglected.
Mr. Shawhoped his hon. Friend would not divide the House upon that grant. It was, at all events, in one respect unlike the grant proposed for National Education in Ireland—there was no disguise about it. He deprecated the system of Maynooth as conferring neither benefit on the country nor credit on the Roman Catholics themselves.
1022
He thought it demanded a searching inquiry, and he hoped such an inquiry would be granted; but he owned that, considering the circumstances under which this vote was brought forward, that it had been sanctioned by various governments, and that many persons were dependent upon it for support, he did not think it would be reasonable to put a sudden stop to it.
Mr. A. Trevorbegged his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Dublin, to believe, that he entertained the highest respect for any recommendation coming from him, but he had presumed his right hon. Friend knew him well enough to expect, that when once he took a thing into his head he was not to be moved from his purpose.
Mr. Hamiltonsaid, that an inquiry into the whole system of Maynooth College, and especially of the system of education pursued there, was, in his opinion, loudly and imperatively called for, and he regretted very much, that the hon. Baronet, who had given notice of a motion for such an inquiry, had not been able to follow it up. As an individual Member of this House, he felt bound to raise his voice against a grant of public money for the advancement of a religion, and for the promulgation of doctrines which, as a Protestant, he conscientiously believed to be erroneous. He fully concurred in the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Southwark on a recent occasion, that where one set of men differed from another in essential matters of religion, and were sincere and honest in that difference, and believed that it involved principles of great importance, whatever they might profess, it was impossible but that, believing those others to be wrong, they must be anxious not only to convince them of their error, but to prevent the promulgation of that error; and they ought not, therefore, in his opinion, to be parties to its advancement or extension. It surprised him that hon. Members on the other side of the House, especially those of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who were so ready to condemn the connexion of Church and State—to declare that they should consider their religion contaminated by such a connexion, and who, not satisfied with dealing with their own religion as they pleased, should be so forward in endeavouring to free the religion of others from that supposed contamination, by effecting its separation from the State. He confessed he was surprised that persons holding these opinions should consent to owe the educa-

1023
tion of their clergy to a public grant from the State.
Captain Bolderosaid, that this was the best of the whole eight and twenty grants. When the Roman Catholics were in the habit of taking money for education, they might the more readily take stipends for their clergy, and thus there would be an end to the influence of the crafty priest and the cunning agitator.
Mr. Sergeant O'Loghlenbegged to ask the hon. Member, as he had placed his opposition on such grounds, whether he could consent to make a grant of money for Roman Catholic or for Protestant Dissenting places of worship?
Mr. Hamiltonsaid, if he understood the question rightly, he had no hesitation in answering it. He might vote for those Protestant Dissenters whose opinions did not appear to him wrong in essentials; for the others he could not, because he did think them wrong in essentials.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 10: Majority 41.

List of the NOES, (Not Official.)

Alsager, Captain

Perceval, Colonel

Archdall, M.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Borthwick, P.

Stormont, Lord

Gordon, Captain

Hamilton, W.

TELLER.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Trevor, hon. A.

Hodgson, J.

PUBLIC WORKS—IRELAND.
On the question that 3,140 l. be granted for the promotion of Public Works in Ireland,
Mr. French Mr. French moved, that the sum of 210 l. for the probable cost of works on the Upper Shannon should be struck out. It was, he considered, sufficient that the interests of the country should be neglected, without consulting them by this pitiful grant. 50,00 l. expended on the Upper Shannon would render the entire river, from Lower Allen to the sea, navigable for vessels of fifty tons. Colonel Burgoyne, the intelligent Chairman of the Board of Works, considered it could be done for a considerably smaller sum, but declared, in his evidence before a Committee of that House in 1834, that if it required that sum, or double the amount, as a matter of public policy he would decidedly recommend its outlay. The Government was ready to adopt the recommendation of committees in all cases where it went to diminish the assistance for Ireland, as was proved by the annual diminutions of the miscellaneous estimates. But the Report of the Committee of 1834, re-
1024
commending a very different course, was not attended to; that Committee had declared, that a very large portion of the river, that part of it for which the present grant was proposed, was in the hands of the Government, and in a very unsatisfactory condition, and recommended that Government should be called on to put that part into an efficient state for the purposes of trade, and to fulfil the obligations to which they appeared to be equitably subject. The navigation from Athlone to Lower Allen was in the hands of Government, who had not even taken the pains to complete the works they had themselves begun, and the Committee reported they felt themselves entitled to recommend the House to call on the Government to alter and improve this part of the river, as its present inefficient state must be owing either to their supineness in not providing for repairs, or to an original defect in the contract, for which the officers of Government were responsible. All these recommendations were unheeded by the right hon. Gentleman, and, in place of 51,000 l., his Majesty's Government substituted 210 l. He, on the part of his country, objected to it with scorn. The right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself more than once that a grant would be proposed to a considerable amount for the improvement of the Shannon during the present Session. He did so several months ago, on a motion brought forward by his noble Friend, the Member for Leitrim. At a later period, on a motion of his own, the right hon. Gentleman had assured him that he was prepared to act this Session. His answer was the same to a question put by his hon. Friend, the Member for Limerick. He regretted to be obliged to state, the interference of the right hon. Gentleman had been fatal to every measure for the improvement of Ireland since he had a seat in that House. A Bill was about to be brought forward with the sanction of the Committee for the improvement of the Shannon. The right hon. Gentleman volunteered to bring it forward. It was given to him. After several months' delay it made its appearance in a totally different shape; not such a Bill as the Irish Members had a right to expect—not a Bill founded on the recommendation of the Committee—nor such a Bill as the interests of Ireland required. But even the trifling benefits that could be expected from this Bill were, by his management, postponed. A Bill for the construction of a bridge over the Shannon, at Athlone, was prepared by him. The right

1025
hon. Gentleman requested him to confide it to his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) care, as it was a money bill, pledging himself to carry it through. He did so, and the right hon. Gentleman had not brought it forward, and, in all likelihood, never would. The Public Works Bill had been promised by him from Session to Session—from day to day; he had named four distinct days on which to bring it forward, and it had not been yet produced, and he thought he might venture to predict it would not be a satisfactory measure whenever it should make its appearance. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the sum of 210 l. be struck out of the grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he thought the proposition a most extraordinary one. Because the hon. Member for Roscommon could not get all he wanted, he refused to take anything. Anxious as he was personally for the improvement of the Shannon, he would not ask Parliament to grant a single penny until the local proprietors had subscribed their quota. He had been charged with not bringing in a Bill upon the subject; he held the Bill in his hand, and intended to move for leave to bring it in the moment the House resumed.
Lord Clementswas sorry his hon. Friend (Mr. French) proposed to strike out the sum requisite for keeping the works in repair, though he perfectly agreed with him in the justice of the remarks he had made. He objected to having the navigation of the river placed under the control of the Government, and he was confident, that the trade of the river, if left to private individuals, would pay all the expense of improving the navigation.
Mr. Frenchsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had distinctly pledged himself to bring forward a measure for the improvement of the broad waters of the Shannon during the present Session, in his reply to his motion to inquire into the tributaries. If the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to redeem his pledge, he was perfectly aware that no report from the Commissioners was required. There was no land to be valued, nor any damages to be estimated. He denied, that the right hon. Gentleman was either deeply or personally interested in the improvement of the Shannon. He had no connexion whatever with it, the right hon. Gentleman's property all lying below Limerick. The right hon. Gentleman had done a great deal for Limerick, where he was
1026
deeply and personally interested, but nothing for the navigation of the Shannon.
Amendment negatived. Vote agreed to. The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—St. Clement's Oxford Marriages' Validity; Grand Juries (Ireland); Poor Rates; Ecclesiastical Leases Act Amendment.—Read a second time:—Common Fields Inclosure; Customs; Owners of Vessels Liability (Ireland).—Read a first time: Ecclesiastical Benefices (Ireland); Registration of Voters;—Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension; Common Law Courts; Post Office Commissioners; Spirits Excise; Church Temporalities (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord STRAFFORD, from Ardee, for repeal of Stamp Duty on Newspapers.—By Lord ELLENBOROUGH, from Bristol, Clifton, for the Insertion of a Clause in the Common Fields Inclosure Bill against the Inclosure of Durdam Downs.—By Lord REDESDALE, from Helston, against Stannaries Bill.—By the Duke of WELLINGON, from the Licensed Victuallers, Macclesfield, against Inns and Ale-houses Bill.—By the Marquess of WESTMEATH, from Crickowell, for the Clause of the Established Church Bill for the Religious Instruction of the Welsh in their native tongue—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Denbigh and Kingston-upon-Hull, for Charitable Trustees Bill.

STAMP DUTIES.—NEWSPAPERS.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Stamp Duties Bill, said, I beg to call your Lordships' attention very shortly to the principles and the objects as well as the causes and reasons from which a necessity for such a measure as that to which I refer has arisen, and to the great importance that exists of not throwing any hindrance or impediment in the way of its passing into a law. The object of this Bill is to reduce the duty on newspapers. The. duty on news-
968
papers is 4d., with a discount of twenty per cent., which reduces the duty in fact to 3d. and one-fifth. That duty it is intended to reduce to one penny. On the present amount of the stamp-duty, which yielded a revenue of 450,000 l., the loss, if the calculation was made on the present sale of stamps, would be 300,000 l.; but as it is naturally calculated that there will be a very considerable increase in the number of stamps, that will very considerably reduce the loss to the revenue, which will be still further reduced by the additional duty which will accrue from the increased consumption of paper used for printing newspapers. These are the circumstances attending this change with regard to the revenue of the country; but I am sure your Lordships will feel that there are other circumstances connected with it—when we consider the nature of the press of this country, the power which it possesses, and the influence and effect which it has on the morals, temper, feelings, and character of the people—I am satisfied, I say, that when your Lordships reflect on the subject you will see that there are many other considerations involved in it far more important than its pecuniary and financial relations, though, undoubtedly, these are not to be laid out of view. The object of this measure is, in the first place, to take off the heavy burthen on the public press of this country, and to facilitate the general dissemination of knowledge—to facilitate the speedy transmission of accurate intelligence, and, in short, to afford every sort of advantage to that liberty of the press against which I have not known any one, for many years past, venture to raise his voice either in this or in the other House of Parliament. But your Lordships need not be told that one of the evils of the present system is the existence of a contraband trade in newspapers, and that publications of this nature have been carried on for many years past, as those are facts to which the attention of your Lordships has already been called. Your Lordships' attention was directed to this subject particularly during the last Session of Parliament, by a noble and learned Lord, whose absence during the present Session is greatly to be lamented, and who strongly urged, that the present reduction, if not the total abolition, of the duty should take place, in order to improve the character of that press, and in order to take away from those engaged in that contraband trade, and who frequently adopted

969
a tone and language which were highly to be lamented, those advantages and profits which they at present reap, and to give to those who may be disposed to combat such opinions a fair opportunity of doing so, as far as it could be afforded, by allowing them to enter into a fair competition in that market in which publications of a different style and nature now enjoy a protection. Our attention has also been called, during the last three years, by some other Members of your Lordships' House, who read to us from publications of the unstamped press certain passages of a very violent and inflammatory character, and charged the Government with great remissness and dereliction of duty in not having taken all the measures in our power for putting it down. I do think that such a charge against the Government is, in no respect, well founded. The Government has gone, at least to the extent of its powers in this matter, but the state of the law does not enable the public prosecutor to cope with the vendors of these unstamped publications. There are three Acts of Parliament in existence directed against unstamped publications; by one the printers or publishers are liable under an Exchequer process; there is another Act directed against the sellers of these publications; and a third against those who are found hawking them for sale, imposing on them certain penalties, and in default of payment, prescribing certain periods of confinement. But such regulations of the law are rendered altogether inoperative and inefficient for their purpose by the impossibility of producing evidence on which to justify conviction. Not having the power of entering on the premises, it is perfectly impossible to prove the printing and publishing, particularly the printing, and it is almost impossible to detect the real name of the printer. There are only two unstamped papers to which the real names of the printers are annexed. These are names which, I have no doubt, were I to mention them, would be perfectly familiar to your Lordships. The individuals to whom they belong have been prosecuted over and over again—they have undergone sentences of imprisonment of no inconsiderable duration—they have been visited with infliction of penalties, which have either been paid for them by subscription or which it has been found impossible to levy; and such, my Lords, is either the profit which they derive in that way, or the determination with which they pursue their career,
970
that I believe these persons have been in no respect deterred from proceeding in the course by any prosecutions under which they have suffered. With respect to the sellers it is still more difficult to carry into effect the law which has been laid down for their punishment. An obscure shop is opened in an obscure part of the town, in which a woman or child is placed, and is almost impossible to discover the real owner of the shop; and if the name should be ultimately ascertained, it turns out, in all probability, to be that of a person who can without difficulty change his residence—who is here to-day, and gone to-morrow; or who opens a shop in another obscure part of the town. Thus is the law which provides that the summons should be personally served defeated; and the only mode of proving the publication obviated by the person in the shop refusing (as is the case at present) to sell to any but regular and acknowledged customers. With respect to the third power which the law confers, that of suing persons found selling those publications in the streets, that power has been exercised in the most vigorous though not in the most effectual manner. Officers have been employed for the purpose; they have taken up I know not how many persons during the last five months; they have apprehended three hundred persons, most of them boys, for vending these unstamped publications. Though these persons have not been committed, a return has been moved for in the House of Commons, which did not give a very satisfactory account of the number confined under these laws. The first return referred to the year 1831, and gave as the number of persons committed, 295; and the last return showed the number committed from March, 1834, to the period at which it was made, to be 213 persons. But the last return entirely omitted the years 1832 and 1833, which their Lordships were aware were two years the most rife and productive in this species of publication. Therefore, it is not probable that less than 800 to 1,000 persons have been committed during the last four or five years under this law. There is no doubt but that these unstamped publications have increased to an extent which it is impossible to ascertain with correctness; but it has been computed, by those most conversant with the subject, that during the last twelve months the sale has increased from 50,000 to 250,000. This I know, that when Mr.

971
Cleave's printing-house was entered, on a day previous to that of publication, and the officers had a right to enter it because they were informed that an unregistered press was at work, it was discovered that 40,000 copies were prepared for publication, and the press was employed in throwing off several hundreds by the hour. Now this Bill, my Lords, is intended to put an end to this state of things and, by diminishing the duty, to diminish the temptation to publish unstamped and illegal newspapers. It provides the same protection for collecting this branch of the revenue as is given for the protection of other branches of the revenue, and which will be found, I have no doubt, effectual for the purpose; for nothing else can be found effectual. It proposes that, on information, a warrant can be issued empowering the officer to enter the premises of the printer in the day, and to do so by breaking open the door if necessary. Thus I think these publications will be greatly lessened by this measure, because, on the one hand, it diminishes the temptation to issue them; and, on the other hand, it arms the revenue with sufficient power to enforce the law. I am perfectly satisfied that this will be the effect of the proposed change in the law. Your Lordships will not fail to remember that if this Bill do not pass into a law, the present state of things will necessarily continue, and the evil will probably become worse, and these unstamped publications will increase. Besides, if on the present occasion your Lordships should think fit to reject this measure, the effect will be, to throw the whole trade, which expects the proposed remission of duty, into a state of disturbance, whilst, I am persuaded, as I have already said, that if you sanction it, it will extinguish the present unstamped publications. I thought it necessary to refer thus briefly to the existing state of the law and to the probable effects of the proposed measure, at the same time I have pointed out the consequences of not passing it. I now move that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.—Motion agreed to; House in Committee; Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
On the 11th Clause (which enacts, that a return of all the proprietors of newspapers shall be made to the Stamp-office half-yearly) being read,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, he admitted to the fullest extent, the importance of this measure, which had for one of its objects,
972
the putting an end to the unstamped press, and the giving just security to the fair and honest trader. He admitted, that it was the bounden duty of their Lordships to prevent that violation of the law which the noble Viscount had adverted to, and which had continued for too long a time. He did not rise to oppose that part of the Bill which was calculated to put a stop to such illegal proceedings, but the noble Viscount would recollect that he had some time since stated his insuperable objection to the clause which they were now called on to consider, and it was his intention to move, that it should be expunged from the Bill. His objection extended also to the following clause, and to schedule B. annexed to the Bill, all relating to the same subject—the registration of all the proprietors of a newspaper at the Stamp-office half-yearly. He should state in a few words what was the effect of these clauses. By them it was enacted that the name of every proprietor of a newspaper, however numerous those proprietors might be, together with his occupation, in addition, and his place of residence, should be registered at the Stamp-office. Not only should his name be registered at the Stamp-office, but his share and interest in the newspaper must also be stated. And these clauses further provided, that in case of any transfer of a share, or of the transfer of any part of a share, such transfer should be notified at each registration half-yearly. Now, a system more arbitrary, more inquisitorial, more unjust, or more unnecessary, was never resorted to than that which was countenanced by this Bill—a proposition of the truth of which he was sure he should be able to convince their Lordships before he sat down. He would, in the first place, call their Lordships' attention to the regulations that now existed with respect to the newspaper press. It was by those regulations provided, that the name of the printer and publisher should be certified at the Stamp-office. It was necessary, also, that the names of two proprietors, holding as large shares as any of the other proprietors, should be registered. Previously to the year 1798 it was extremely difficult, when it was found necessary to bring an action on account of libellous matter contained in a newspaper, to ascertain against whom the proceedings were to be directed, and, therefore, it was that the Act of 38th George 3rd was passed. The provisions

973
of that Act rendered necessary those proceedings to which he had just referred—namely, that the printer and publisher should register their names at the Stamp-office, and that Act had been, their Lordships observed, in operation now for a period of nearly forty years. That law had been uniformly found effective; no instance had occurred in which an action was brought against a newspaper where there was any difficulty in finding the proper defendants. Now, he would ask, what took place at that time? The party then in opposition—he would not say the Whigs, because he understood this term, on a former evening, was considered offensive—most strenuously and most vigorously opposed the Bill. They were at that time, it is true, candidates for power; circumstances had since occurred which had raised them to power, and with the alteration of circumstances, their feelings with respect to that Bill appeared also to have changed, for they were now ready to go a great deal further than was contemplated by the Bill which they had so strongly opposed. In 1820, another Act was passed, by which security was to be given to the amount of 400 l. on the part of those commencing newspapers, in order to meet any demand that might be consequent on the event of a verdict obtained, either by an individual in the way of civil action, or following a criminal prosecution at the suit of the law officers of the Crown. That was the state of the law at present. Now, as the law stood, it was clearly pointed out against whom proceedings should be had, either in case of action or of criminal prosecution; and he would say with confidence, that this state of the law had been considered a perfect security to every class of his Majesty's subjects. Indeed it was quite clear, that that security was considered sufficient, if they looked to the conduct of his Majesty's Government at the present day; because, when this Bill was introduced to the House of Commons, and until it had advanced to the very late stage, the clauses to which he now objected were not brought forward. Their Lordships would find, that the provisions of the Act 38 George 3rd were introduced into the Bill now before them, almost in the same terms in which they were originally worded; so that it would appear that the noble Viscount, who no doubt, had been consulted on this subject, considered
974
that the Act, as originally framed, was amply sufficient for the object which it contemplated. This being so, their Lordships would naturally inquire how these clauses came to be added to the measure in a very late stage of the Bill. From the votes placed on their Lordships' Table, and from other sources, he arrived at the conclusion that they had not been introduced on the suggestion of his Majesty's Government, but that they had been brought forward by some individual, or body of individuals, in the other House of Parliament, who professed extremely liberal principles, though he could not reconcile such principles with the propositions which they had advocated. When the noble Viscount was last in possession of office, some observations fell from him as to the necessity of upholding the Constitution, not by the influence of party, but with reference to the general support of the country. In that principle he coincided; and he agreed with the noble Viscount that nothing was so likely to endanger the Constitution of the country as when a feeble Government yielded to suggestions, and adopted suggestions, of which they did not themselves approve, coming from any section of their supporters to whom they were obliged to bow, or otherwise to quit their situations. He had already stated to their Lordships that the Whig party in 1798 opposed a Bill on the subject of newspapers, which he contended was a wise and salutary measure. It was opposed by Mr. Tierney, Mr. Sheridan, Sir William Pulteney, and Mr. Hobhouse, and also by another Member of the Lower House, to whom he would not have called particular attention on this occasion if it had not been for his name and station. The individual to whom he alluded was Lord William Russell. That noble Lord gave his decided opposition to the measure. He was of opinion, that if the editor and actual proprietor were made responsible, there was no reason why persons giving their capital in aid of a newspaper should be involved in any legal proceedings connected with it; and he emphatically stated, "that this Bill was an insidious blow at the liberty of the press." Such was Lord William Russell's opinion of that measure. The other individual to whose opinion he wished to refer was Mr. Sheridan. That gentleman said, that "unless a number of persons were to join

975
in the establishment of a paper, it would often be impossible, from the capital required, to establish one at all; and such a regulation would certainly discourage people from having any share in a newspaper." Now he (Lord Lyndhurst) would aver, that no one man was better acquainted with the newspaper business than Mr. Sheridan; that gentleman went on to say, "He should be glad to know whether by this it was meant that if Government paid a paper for abusing the opposition, the Treasury, by so assisting to keep up the paper, was to be considered as a proprietor, and to be responsible for the consequences? If so, it would tend to reconcile him to the measure now proposed." He did not participate in any feeling of that kind, and if any such principle were established as that which Mr. Sheridan spoke of, it certainly would not reconcile him to this measure. In consequence of the discussions on this measure many alterations were made. The then Attorney-General, Lord Eldon, wished to have the names of three proprietors registered, but the Speaker (Mr. Addington) considered, that that was going too far; that it was asking for more than was necessary for the object which the Bill had in view, and in consequence, two proprietors were substituted for three. Such was the proceeding in 1798, and the Act had remained in force from that time to the present. Its provisions were absolutely, in the first instance, embodied in the Bill now before their Lordships. Now what was the present Bill? It enacted, that the name of every proprietor, his residence, his occupation or addition, all circumstances connected with him—the amount of his share, the transfer of that share, or any portion of that share, should be registered every six months at the Stamp-office. If this proposition came from the quarter which he understood it did, it only afforded one more instance, that persons most clamorous about liberty, who called most loudly for the freedom of the press, who were Radical and root-and-branch men—it only afforded another instance that persons of this description, when they had any object in view, were more abitrary, more tyrannical, more grinding, and more unsparing, than any other set of individuals whatever. What Mr. Sheridan said was perfectly correct—a good newspaper could not be established without large property, which must be derived from a number of individuals; there
976
must be a most extensive correspondence abroad; there must be a very considerable establishment at home; a large sum would necessarily be required for literary assistance, and the outlay of capital under all these heads must be very great. In fact, it was quite evident that, with a first-rate paper, there must be at the same time, in order to ensure its success, an immense expenditure of capital as well as an immense income. Such an undertaking could not be supported by three or four individuals; a great number of individuals must necessarily hold shares in it who could not by possibility have anything to do with the management of the concern. Many of those persons would reside far from the metropolis—many of them would of necessity be women and children: the property would, in some instances, be subject to marriage settlements; in others it would be held as security for debt, or it might become the subject of mortgage; in short, it might be disposed of in a great variety of shapes by those who had nothing whatever to do with the direction of the newspaper. Now, let their Lordships pass this law, and what, he asked, would be the consequence? Why, it would be this—that each and every of the shareholders would become liable to every possible species of attack and annoyance—nay, they would be subjected to punishment for publications with which they had no concern—of which they knew nothing, and of which, from their situation, it was impossible they could know anything. What, then, would follow from this? The consequence would necessarily be, that individuals would immediately endeavour to withdraw their capital from this species of employment, and they would invest it in other transactions where they would be less exposed to trouble and annoyance. This must of necessity lead to a great depreciation in property of that kind; and it had been stated to him by a most respectable individual (Mr. Baldwin, one of the proprietors of the Standard newspaper) that if the Bill passed in its present shape, it would deteriorate his property fifty per cent., and would operate in the same way with respect to all property of a similar description. That being the case, it was quite clear that such a revulsion in the value of property would, when individuals were endeavouring to get rid of their shares, prevent other people coming forward to purchase; and; he would ask,

977
what was this to be done for? Was not the law sufficient for every fair purpose of prosecution as it stood at present? If a libel were published, they had defendants; and if a verdict were returned for the plaintiff, they had a security by the Act of 1820 for whatever damages might be awarded. Why, then, should they countenance this sort of inquisition, to which no other species of property was exposed? Why should they, by passing these clauses, interfere with this large mass of property; clauses which, he would say, were unnecessary for the purpose which the Bill was intended to effect, and which Government themselves, it was evident, did not conceive to be necessary, because they had not introduced them. The country was deeply interested in the conduct of the public press; it was deeply interested in its respectability and purity; and who, he demanded, would embark in an employment of that kind if these clauses were passed? He would confidently say, that none would so embark but persons of little property or character; they would very soon have a press of a much lower scale in point of intelligence, information, and talent. He would add, when he made that remark, that nothing was of greater importance to the country than the keeping and placing the press on a just and firm basis. He did not blame Ministers for having originally proposed these clauses; they certainly had not introduced them; but he did blame them for having weakly and rashly given way to the suggestions of persons who, as it were, forced those clauses upon the Ministers. Some persons were of opinion, that the public should know the author of every article that appeared in a newspaper. He would not discuss that point now; much, he admitted, might be said on both sides. But it was unnecessary for him to argue that point, because the Bill contained nothing to require any observations on the subject. So far as that point was concerned the Bill did nothing whatsoever. It had been said, that they had no right to interfere with these clauses—that this was a money Bill, and that they could make no amendment in it without infringing on the privileges of the House of Commons. He, however, denied the justice of that allegation. The clauses which he wished to be expunged were not money clauses, but clauses of police and regulation. They were clauses which referred to the
978
administration of justice and police. The Bill contained the clauses in question, in addition to the money clauses; and were they to be told, that, leaving the money clauses unnoticed, not objecting to them in the slightest degree, they had no right to touch those regulation clauses? If they were told, that they could not alter clauses of this nature—that they could not in any way interfere with them, because they formed part of a money Bill, then he would say, that they were deprived of a great part of their most important privileges, and the sooner they came to a right understanding on the question the better. He was not at all averse to the rest of the Bill, and if these were money clauses, and that any alteration of them would be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons, there was still a remedy to his Majesty's Government. Let them send up another Bill in the same form as the present, omitting these objectionable clauses, and that Bill might be passed; or they might do better by sending up a Bill taking off the duty altogether, and not keeping up the complicated machinery and the extensive establishment necessary for levying the paltry tax of 1d. on each newspaper. He contended, that their Lordships were entitled to reject these clauses. They had nothing whatever to do with the money clauses,—they were mere clauses of regulation and of police, and were contrary to every principle of justice—contrary to the principle recognised and adopted in the year 1798—contrary to the policy of his Majesty's Government itself, and they had only found their way into the Bill in consequence of the weakness of his Majesty's Ministers in listening to the dictation of others in the Commons' House of Parliament. On these plain and simple grounds he would now move the rejection of the 11th Clause.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it was not his intention to enter into the character of the opposition, and certainly not into the state of parties and politics, in the year 1798, a question which had been raised by his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down. His noble and learned Friend had described the clause as one of the greatest tyranny and oppression. Now, of what did the clause consist? It consisted of a provision that every proprietor of a newspaper should be bound to have his name registered, that newspapers should not be authorised to pub-

979
lish until the information was generally announced. Was that a provision new in principle—was it a principle unknown until the year 1798? His noble and learned Friend, whose accuracy of information was great on all subjects, and particularly on this matter, to which it would appear he had turned his attention, had omitted (perhaps by accident) to state the provisions of the 28th Clause of the Act of 1798. True it was, that by that Act it was considered necessary that the two largest proprietors only should be announced to the public by affidavit, to be filed at the Stamp-office; true it was, that this regulation was held to be a sufficient security to the public; yet the Act to which he referred went a step further, for it provided, by the 28th Clause, that if any person or persons should file a bill in any court of equity for the discovery of the name or names of any proprietor, editor, printer, or publisher of a newspaper, or for the discovery of any matter relating to the printing and publishing thereof, in order to enable him or them to carry on any action or actions of damages for slander or libel, it should not be lawful for the defendant or defendants to plead or demur to the bill, but that they should be compelled to make the discovery thereby required. Was not this, then, oppression—was not this tyranny—was not this invading the rights of persons holding property of this description? He addressed himself to the argument of his noble and learned Friend, that it was tyranny and oppression not to permit proprietors of newspapers to conceal themselves from the public. Such formed no part of the scheme of 1798; and what was the present clause? Why this: the Act of 1798 having laid it down as a rule and principle, that although only two proprietors were required to be registered, means were afforded by which parties aggrieved could get at all the proprietors. The clause now under consideration provided, that a return should, from time to time, be made of the names of all the proprietors—in short, that there should be registered at the Stamp-office a declaration, containing the names of all the proprietors. It could not be denied that this was a much less expensive mode of proceeding than by the machinery of the Bill of 1798; and were not the charges of tyranny and oppression quite as applicable to that Act as to the present measure? He therefore repelled those severe terms applied to a provision which really was only a renewal of the principle to be found in the Act of 1798. In short, while it followed in principle the remedy
980
given to the public in that Act, the clause in question effected that object in a more consistent and less expensive manner. His noble and learned Friend had stated, that by striking out these clauses the Bill would not be injured so far as to make it necessary for the House of Commons to refuse to entertain a Bill of this character so altered. Now, if his noble and learned Friend should be mistaken in this assumption—if the asserted privileges of the House of Commons were such as to induce them to regard the Bill as a money bill thus altered, the effect of the adoption of the proposition of his noble and learned Friend would be to lose a Bill so material to the interests of the public press—a Bill containing, in other respects, provisions in which his noble and learned Friend entirely concurred. If there had been any evil in the converse of the principle established by the Act of 1798—if it were essential to the well-being of a well-regulated press that persons engaged in newspapers should have the means of concealing from the world the knowledge of their being proprietors, that might be an objection to any measure which went to alter that principle; but when their Lordships found that the clause only provided a different means of attaining the same object, and that there was no alteration of a principle already established, he thought the House would not be induced to run the risk of losing a measure which he believed the press itself considered highly essential to its interests.
Lord Wynfordcommenced by observing, that reference having been made to the possibility of an infringement of the acknowledged privileges of the other House of Parliament by the rejection of the clause now under consideration, he would venture to state, that the House of Commons had in-fringed upon their Lordships' privileges by the insertion into this Bill of such a clause as that which his noble and learned Friend had objected to. The House was debarred from exercising its discretion as to the propriety or otherwise of these regulations, because there were also money clauses in the Bill, and he for one contended that these matters of regulation ought to have been made the subject of a distinct and separate Bill. They had been introduced, however, in this Bill for no other purpose than to prevent their Lordships from exercising their discretion upon them, and, if it so thought fit, of striking them out. This House ought to be as jealous of its privileges, as the House of Commons were justly

981
jealous of any infringement of its powers and privileges. It was, however, impossible for any man looking at these clauses not to say that they greatly infringed upon the liberty of the press. His noble and learned Friend who had spoken last stated, that there was no oppression in these clauses, because the same thing had been done in the clause contained in the Act of 1798. There was a great difference between the clauses objected to in this Bill and those provided by the Act adverted to. There was a great difference between them, and his noble and learned Friend had touched but lightly on a very important part of the clause now before the Committee. When his noble and learned Friend opposite talked of the luxury of a Bill of discovery, he omitted to state, that in the Act of 1798 was provided a guard which was not to be found in the present Bill. The Act of 1798 contained a guard against the use which was to be made of the discovery when obtained, and it provided that the discovery was to be used only for the purpose of supporting civil rights, and by the clause now objected to by his noble and learned Friend behind him, the information to be obtained at the Stamp-office might be used in support of criminal prosecutions. He admitted that there was a difference between the 11th Clause and that which in the 38th of Geo. 3rd permitted the certificate of the three names registered to be given in evidence; but if the list of proprietors could not itself be made evidence, there would be no difficulty, after getting the names of the most wealthy, opulent, and respectable proprietors, to obtain evidence against any of them by calling any one of the parties by whom the list or return was to be made up, and then asking him in a court of justice whether A B, or C D, or any other name included in the list, was not a proprietor of the particular journal against which the criminal proceedings were then under trial. He agreed with Mr. Sheridan in thinking that this would lead to the complete destruction of the liberty of the press, and would place that engine entirely in the hands of the Crown. He was sure that neither the present Attorney-General, nor the Government to which that hon. and learned Gentleman was attached, would allow such proceedings to occur; but still the House was not to provide for any particular Ministry, but ought rather to secure the liberty of the press and the liberty of individuals. He was not sure but that the time might come, when under these powers in-
982
dividuals might be selected for prosecution in consequence of the part they might have taken in politics. He had heard with great satisfaction from the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, that the public were deeply interested in the respectability of those who conducted the newspaper press of the present day; but he was of opinion that this respectability would be put an end to, if the clauses objected to were retained in the Bill. To carry on a newspaper required greater capital than generally fell to the lot of those by whom they were conducted, and it was necessary that in every firm there should be united those who contributed their talents and those who contributed the contents of their pockets. He did not mean to say that any man was disparaged by belonging to any of the principle newspapers of this country; on the contrary, he thought it was rather an honour than otherwise to be connected with them; but he was convinced that, independent of the fear of being liable to criminal prosecution, many men of respectability and capital would refuse to be concerned in newspaper property if their names were made public, as provided by these clauses. This publicity of the partners in a banking-house was not required, and why should a newspaper firm he differently treated? He admitted that it was fit and proper that the public should have some security for the good conduct of a journal, and he contended that this security was afforded by the laws as they now stood, and by these clauses was carried further than necessary. He further contended that it was of infinite importance that the most powerful engine, the press of this country, should be directed by persons of respectability. Nothing could be more dangerous than to drive men of property from a connexion with the newspaper press, the effect of which would be, to put the newspaper establishments into the hands of reckless men, who would exercise their powers to the injury and destruction of the country. On the whole, he conceived a greater mischief could not be done to this country than by passing this Bill in its present shape. He concurred in the view taken of this subject by Mr. Sheridan on the occasion when it was last under the consideration of Parliament. He proposed that the number of names registered should be limited to three: that number Was reduced by Mr. Addington to two; and it was remarked by the former, that if greater publicity was given, shares then worth 200 l., would very soon not be worth sixpence. He

983
confessed he was surprised that the noble and learned Lord opposite should even have dreamt of supporting such a clause as this. He should rather have expected the noble and learned Lord, on behalf of his Majesty's Government, would have got up and said, "We are the same Whigs we were in 1798 We are no parties to these clauses; they form no part of our proposition, and that, though his Majesty's Government had erred in the Commons, we in this House will cure the error by striking these clauses out of the Bill." For their own sakes, he was much surprised that they had not done this, instead of leaving it to his noble and learned Friend to move the Amendment, in the propriety of which he most cordially concurred.
The Lord Chancellor, in explanation, said, that though the return of names could not be used against the parties stated to be proprietors, yet it would merely give information who they were, and that information once obtained, there would be no difficulty in making a case against them. His noble and learned Friend opposite was not quite accurate in supposing that the clause in the act of 1798 had not the same effect, but after a most expensive and troublesome proceeding. Under the act of 1798 parties against whom a Bill of discovery was filed were compelled to make the disclosure after the expenses of the proceedings had been incurred.
Lord Wynfordobserved, that information so obtained could only be used in civil actions.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that a party filing a bill of discovery must do so at his own expense. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) had, however, shown these clauses to be unnecessary at least, and therefore he thought their Lordships would have no difficulty as to the propriety of their rejection.
Viscount Melbourneadmitted, that this clause was not necessary for any purposes of revenue; but, at the same time, he begged most earnestly and anxiously to press on their Lordships' consideration the fact that any alteration in it would be fatal to this bill. He could assure their Lordships, that after reference to the authorities, there was but one opinion on that subject. It was for that very reason that he prefaced his motion for going into Committee with a short statement of the whole case, and he entreated their Lordships not to come to a vote under the
984
notion that it would be possible to repair the effects of that vote during the present Session of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord who had moved the amendment had said, "Bring in another Bill, and not only do that, but bring in a bill to repeal the whole of the stamp duty on newspapers." He (Viscount Melbourne) begged to ask if the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Wellington), and other noble Lords near him, were parties to that recommendation? It was bidding for popularity with a vengeance. The noble and learned Lord had said, that his Majesty's Government yielded to the Radicals. He would ask the noble and learned Lord, at whom was this recommendation levelled—what party it was intended to gain—whom to please—whom to satisfy? What was the meaning of that observation? It was an attempt to outrun his opponents in the race for popularity, and to take up circumstances which the noble and learned Lord thought favourable to himself. There was a great objection, however, to take off the whole stamp duty, as, if so, it would be impossible that newspapers could be transmitted through the Post-office, and therefore a tax in the shape of postage must be collected. Such a tax, so far from being fair or equitable, would give an advantage to those who read the newspapers in London over those who read them in the country. That was the reason why his Majesty's Government continued the duty on newspapers, and were not prepared to adopt the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. It had been said that the registration of two proprietors had been always found sufficient for the security of the public. He had, however, been told that such was not the case, and that, on the contrary, solvent defendants had not always been found to answer for the damages given against them. Everybody knew, that a part of the stamped press in London indulged in great scurrillity and abuse; and he was informed such was the character of the registered proprietors, that when counsel was consulted as to the course to be pursued in reference to their scurrillous slanders, they advised proceedings to be abandoned, inasmuch as no damages would be recovered after verdict was obtained—that the plaintiffs would have to pay their own costs and get nothing by their action. He believed that the securities to the public already existing had

985
not been found to be effectual, and therefore it was, that this clause had been introduced into the present Bill. True, it was not contained in the original Bill, but had been proposed in the House of Commons, not resisted by any party there, but, on the contrary, very much acceded to and approved of by the whole of that House—even those who were supposed to act with the noble and learned Lord opposite, had offered no opposition to it when proposed to be introduced in Committee, and it was not till the third reading that the hon. Member for Berkshire did make some opposition to it; but, notwithstanding that, only fifteen Members voted with him on that occasion. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the press was a very extensive trade—that great capital was embarked in it; and he had asked why that trade was to be conducted on a different principle from any other. The noble and learned Lord had forgot, that in order to give security to the public, it was provided, in a Bill now on their Lordships' Table for the regulation of Joint-Stock Banks, that all the proprietors should be registered; all bankers were required to be registered at the Stamp-office, and he saw no reason why the same principle of security should not be extended to the great trade, as it was called, of the newspaper Press. Why should not the names of newspaper proprietors as well as those of other persons who employed their capital in other transactions and speculations be registered? The noble and learned Lord had said, that shares in newspapers were the subject of marriage settlements, and that females and minors in different parts of the country were interested in them, and therefore that this system of registration would be inconvenient. The noble Lord forgot that the same class of persons interested in speculations of a different character were required to be registered, and he could not see that it would injure the character of the Press if it were known who were its real conductors. The noble and learned Lord had said he respected very much the Whigs of former times. He would say that he entertained a very great respect for the Tories of former times, and he well remembered the doctrine urged with reference to this question by one of that party:
"Ipse pater, media nimborum in nocte, coruscâ. Fulmina molitur dextrâ."
986
It was this night-like mystery, in which these publishers were enveloped, that he wished to see removed. He desired to see the shade by which those who exercised such power and authority in the country were surrounded, dispelled. There could be no reason for their concealing themselves. The noble and learned Lord had himself spoken of the talent and the learning connected with the press of this country; and nobody could think it disgraceful or derogatory to be connected with the press. He also presumed, that it was impossible that any person would give assistance or lend his capital to a journal professing principles other than he himself entertained; it was, he took it for granted, impossible that a Conservative lent his aid to a Radical newspaper, or that a Radical applied his capital to a Conservative journal. He supposed, too, that it was perfectly impossible that the characters of these individuals could be injured by their names being divulged, except those, perhaps, who had gained notoriety by personal slander. He presumed it was not for these that the noble and learned Lord put himself forward on the present occasion. It was perfectly impossible that their Lordships could desire to shelter those who made a gain and a profit from the dissemination of private slander. It was not to be supposed hat such people were entitled to be screen d from the knowledge of the pub-lie; and if it had so happened that any fellow who had raised himself from a humble station in life to that of a Member for a county, who feared that his veracity might be impeached, or his vanity injured, by these discoveries, it was hardly necessary to legislate for that purpose, or for his protection. But he was most anxious to call to their Lordships' attention what the effect of the loss of this Bill might be on the country, on the state of the press, and on the future well-being of every thing that was connected with that subject. If there really was such an objection to this clause—if, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, the clause infringed on the liberty of the press, for which so much acute sensibility had been displayed by the other side of the House—if the clause were inconsistent with every principle of liberty, then certainly their Lordships would not consent to keep the clause in the Bill. That, however, was not his opinion. Dissenting as he did from the noble and learned Lord opposite, he thought their

987
Lordships ought to pause before they hazarded the fate of the measure by so rash and unadvised a step as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Viscount had not stated any very strong reasons for the adoption of this clause, and it was quite obvious that the clause was what his noble and learned Friend near him had stated. It had been attached to a money bill in order to pass this provision which was directed against a certain number of individuals who were proprietors of newspapers. It was not at all necessary for the purposes of the tax; the noble Viscount did not propose it in the first instance, and did not now think it necessary to the Bill; but he urged their Lordships to adopt it, because it appeared to him that its rejection would be fatal to the Bill in another place. The noble Viscount had taunted his noble and learned Friend with suggesting another Bill, and had told them that another Bill could not be brought in. If another Bill could be brought in, in the name of God let their Lordships know the intention of the Government—let the noble Lord bring in his own measure, as originally framed, without the clauses. There was time, or if not, time could be given, for this proceeding. At all events, no answer whatever had been given to the observations which had fallen from both of his noble and learned Friends near him, unless the inquiry made as to whether he joined in their opinions could be considered as an answer to the objections they had raised. He should be sorry to put the Government to any inconvenience, but he considered it his duty to support the motion of his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that the noble Viscount had adverted to a certain county Member. He presumed the noble Viscount meant the hon. Member for the county of Berks. The noble Viscount had insinuated that he wished to shelter that individual. Now, he begged to say, that he never saw that hon. Member, that he never spoke to him, that he never held any communication with him, and that he did not even know his person. With respect to what the noble Viscount had said, as to plaintiff's being unable to get the effect of their verdicts from slanderous publishers, he (Lord Lyndhurst) begged to observe, that must be the fault of the Solicitor of Stamps, for every printer and publisher was bound
988
to give a bond for 400 l., with three sureties, to the Stamp-office authorities, who ought to look to the solvency of the parties before the publication was allowed to issue; and he (Lord Lyndhurst) never knew an instance in which a verdict was obtained against a newspaper to the amount of 400 l. He must also remark that the clause under consideration was introduced late in the Session; its effect was not immediately and it was not until the third reading that its effect was known. The third reading took place in a thin house, consisting of less than sixty Members, and considerably after twelve o'clock at night. Under such circumstances, he thought their Lordships were not much inclined to agree to the clause.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that if their Lordships could entertain any doubt as to what light these proposed alterations must be considered in in another place, they had had that doubt removed by the conduct of the noble and learned Lord. This House, it was true, had privileges, as well as the other House of Parliament, to maintain; and if the noble and learned Lord thought that this clause was a tack to this Bill, there was a prescribed course which he ought to have pursued: but the noble and learned Lord had not ventured to adopt the course which Lord Grenville pursued when a bill was sent up from the Commons for the regulation of trade—a Bill combining revenue and principles of general policy. Did Lord Grenville go into Committee on that bill, and propose alterations in the clauses? No; he was not a politician who chose this byway mode of proceeding; and he denounced that Bill as infringing on the privileges of this House, and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) remembered well joining Lord Grenville in that opposition. There was no pretence for representing this clause as a tack. The clause merely regulated the mode in which the names of the proprietors of newspapers should be made known—the mode by which those who were answerable for the conduct of those newspapers should be ascertained; the clause was one of regulation only. He would not follow the noble and learned Lord through the events in the year 1798, to which he had alluded; that was a time, however, which the noble and learned Lord had said no man had a right to impute to him any politics whatever. At that time the

989
Act which had been alluded to was passed, and in it was to be found distinctly laid down the same principle of tyranny and oppression that the noble and learned Lord condemned in the present Bill, which, however, provided means by which the names of proprietors could be got at of a less expensive and troublesome character than the Bill of 1798. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from his noble Friends near him on the importance to be attached to the respectability of the press, and of the character of those who conducted it, and he believed that nothing could be more likely to add to that respectability, to contribute to that character, and so to raise the press in the estimation of the public, than if it were declared that the name of every individual connected with the press should be liable to become known. He believed, that there were a few men of high and honourable characters connected with the press of this country who felt no reluctance at their names being known by this or any other process. At all events, these clauses presented one of the best securities that was contained in the Bill for the maintenance of the respectability of the press, and for the avoidance of those scandalous and outrageous libels and defamations to which he had often heard in that House that some portion of the press was extremely obnoxious. He had often heard complaints of this kind, and if their Lordships should determine upon rejecting these clauses, he should have the satisfaction of thinking that we should hear of those complaints no more. They had heard from the noble and learned Lord (Lyndhurst) that the press stood at present upon the best possible footing, and that he was not prepared with any remedy for those evils which were to be found in its train beyond those remedies which already existed. The noble and learned Lord contradicted the opinions which he had frequently heard expressed in that House, that the licentiousness of the press ought to be checked, and therefore, for the purpose of putting a stop to the libels and scandals of unstamped publications, they knew now that in the noble and learned Lord's opinion no remedy was necessary but such as was already provided. He believed, that the effect of these clauses would be, to produce an improvement in the character of the press, and to give additional security to the pub-
990
lic, connected, as they were, with a great and just boon to the public, to which he thought that it was fairly entitled, though he was not quite prepared to run the lengths to which the noble and learned Lord, in his enthusiastic and innocent zeal, was ready to go. The noble and learned Lord, in concurrence with parties with whom he would not offend the noble and learned Lord by saying he usually acted, declared himself anxious to take off the whole of the duty levied upon newspapers, but under present circumstances he was not prepared to say that the tax could with safety be remitted to that unqualified extent to which the noble and learned Lord expressed himself favourable. Upon these grounds he should vote for the retention of the clauses, being perfectly convinced that their rejection would insure the rejection also of what the noble and learned Lord admitted, and was on all hands admitted to be, a most wise, a most prudent, and a most salutary measure.
Lord Lyndhurst, in explanation, admitted that these clauses were not technically a tack, and it was because they were not, that he took the course to which the noble Marquess had referred. But the objection he entertained against them was, that the Bill related to two independent matters which had no necessary connexion with each other, and by bringing in a Bill in this form, the power of their Lordships to deal with it was improperly restricted. With respect to what the noble Marquess had said relative to what he (Lord Lyndhurst) had urged with regard to a new Bill, he had stated that the noble Viscount might take one of two courses—the Government, in the event of the House of Commons considering the rejection of these clauses as an infringement upon their privileges, might bring in a new Bill; or they might dispense with the tax altogether, because, in his opinion, the amount of the duty would be so small that it would not be worth while to retain the complicated machinery which the provisions of the Bill would keep in constant action.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion: Contents 40; Not-Contents 61; Majority 21.

List of the CONTENTS.

The Lord Chancellor.

Leinster

DUKES.

Argyll

Richmond

Sutherland

Grafton

991

MARQUESSES.

BARONS.

Lansdowne

Bristol

Headfort

BISHOPS.

Queensbury

Saye and Sele

Westminster

Glenlyon

EARLS.

Barham

Albemarle

Holland

Tankerville

Seaford

Thanet

Ducie

Carlisle

Foley

Ilchester

Hill

Scarborough

Hatherton

Minto

Plunkett

Charlemont

Templemore

Leitrim

Mostyn

Sefton

Langdale

VISCOUNTS.

Dinorben

Melbourne

Gardner

Duncannon

TELLER.

Torrington

Strafford.

Falkland.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Exmouth

Cumberland

Hood

Wellington

Beaufort

LORDS.

MARQUESSES.

De Roos

Salisbury

Berwick

Hertford

Saltoun

Bute

Reay

Westmeath

Hay

EARLS.

Monson

De Grey

Dynevor

Chesterfield

Montagu

Westmorland

Douglas

Doncaster (Duke of Buccleuch)

Dunsany

Redesdale

Shaftesbury

Ellenborough

Warwick

Forester

Bathurst

Penshurst

Brownlow

Farnborough

Beverley

Wharncliffe

Mansfield

Lyndhurst

Liverpool

Cowley

Bandon

Stuart de Rothesay

Rosslyn

Wynford

Limerick

Fitzgerald

Powis

De Lisle

Rosse

Tenterden

Orford

Harrowby

ARCHBISHOP.

Verulam

Armagh

Beauchamp

Glengall

BISHOPS.

Falmouth

Rochester

Ripon

Glocester

VISCOUNTS.

Oxford

Gordon, Abereen (Earl of)

Cork

Clause 11 was rejected, as were Clause 12 and Schedule B.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to. The report to be received.