Sitting of 13 April 1837

BRIGHTON RAILWAY. STEPHENSON'S LINE.
Major Beauclerkpresented a petition from certain landholders of Surrey against this line.
Mr. T. Duncombepresented a petition from the chairman and others of the provisional Committee of a company for constructing a railway from London to Brighton, complaining that the sub-committee on standing orders had been griev-

1159
ously imposed upon by the promoters of Stephenson's line, and praying the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the conduct of these parties.
Mr. Curteisrose to call the attention of the House to a petition which he presented two or three days ago, and which had been printed, with the votes. Its prayer was, that the House would be pleased to institute an inquiry, by means of a Select Committee, into the evidence given before the sub-committee relative to Stephenson's line. Mr. Mills had stated to him that morning, that there were, to his knowledge, no less than thirty-seven material alterations between the plans left with the clerk of the peace for the county of Surrey, and those deposited in the private bill office; and, moreover, he had stated that the petitioners, whose petition, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), had just presented, were prepared to prove 131 variations between these plans. Under these circumstances, he did say, that this was a fit case for inquiry; and he begged to state, that in the course he was taking, he was by no means actuated by a desire to stop the progress of Stephenson's line before the Committee. He was wholly uninterested in these railways; and, as he had said the other day, he brought this matter forward distinctly as a breach of the privileges of the House, for he did deem it a very grave Parliamentary offence for agents to come before Committees of that House, and state what was untrue. If the allegations contained in these petitions were proved, he should not think that the parties received more than their due, if they were confined to Newgate for the rest of the Session. This, it might be well to observe, was by no means the same case to which he had called the attention of the House on a former day—it was a case where, as he fully believed, false evidence had been given before the sub-committee; and having the strongest assurances from an engineer, that it was practicable to prove 131 instances of this false evidence, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the subject. So little was he interested in, or acquainted with, the case, that he did not even know who were the parties concerned, and he only wished for a Committee to inquire into the case, which could be fully sifted in an hour or two. He moved that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matters
1160
charged in this petition, and report their opinion thereon to the House.
Sir G. Stricklandthought, that if the allegations of the petitions were true, it would be quite impossible for the House to pass them over in silence, because he had a very strong feeling of the great injury which parties occasionally suffered from the loose mode of conducting business in the Committees of that House. The conduct attributed to these agents would, before a court of justice, take the name of perjury; but, as the House did not examine on oath, it only amounted to a breach of veracity. He thought the House, nevertheless, were bound to institute an inquiry, and he should vote for the motion.
Sir E. Knatchbullopposed it. He could not but think that the object of this proceeding was to get quit of Stephenson's line, and so give the preference to Mr. Rennie's.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that with respect to the objection that this motion was intended to raise obstacles in the way of Stephenson's line, he, for one, saw no reason why, if these allegations were proved to be true, the further progress of that line should not be obstructed. In that case, who would deny that the Bill ought to be thrown out? Not one individual connected with Stephenson's line, not a single hon. Member, had come forward to contradict these allegations. If (as had been objected) Mr. Mills had not himself been damnified or injured by the conduct of the agents, a very great injury had been done to those parties whose petition he had that day presented—the chairman and other members of the provisional Committee of a company for constructing a railway from London to Brighton. He thought the House, consistently with what was due to their own dignity and character, could not refuse their assent to the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Greenbegged to suggest, that the only point for the consideration of the Committee was, not the whole subject matter of the petition (for it was obvious, that they ought not to go into a great deal relating to Mills's line, and to his mistakes respecting the standing orders, which formed part of the statements of the petition), but whether any parties had deceived the sub-Committee by their statements before it, and who those parties were.
Lord George Lennoxwould answer the

1161
statement of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), that no one had come forward to deny the allegations of the petitioners, by saying that no charge had been made. If they would give him any specific charge, he would answer it. As to speaking of 131 variations, it was but another mode of mystifying the inquiry. If the hon. Member (Mr. Curteis) would defer his motion till the Committee now sitting on the Brighton Railway Bills, should have made its report, then he would second the hon. Member's motion for a Select Committee of Inquiry; but at present he trusted the House would not, by appointing a Committee, prejudice either one line or the other.
The Speaker: This is a case in which the House ought to be very cautious. The inquiry ought to be limited strictly to investigating whether false evidence has been given. It is to be considered that even this inquiry in this stage of the proceedings on the Bill, may involve the House in difficulty. Will the House allow a Bill to proceed, if it shall be found that false evidence has been given? Will it stop the Bill when the parties complaining, not only might, but ought to have brought the question forward, at a time when the matter could have been investigated, without involving the House in those difficulties? The House, therefore, ought to have a very strong case made out before it consents to enter upon such an inquiry, and which must be productive of so much difficulty and embarrassment.
Mr. Curteishaving (by leave) withdrawn the first motion, begged to move, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether any false evidence had been given before the Sub-Committee, with reference to the observance of the standing orders, by the agents of Stephenson's line.
Lord Stanleysaid, with respect to any arrangements that promoters of rival lines of railways might enter into, to refrain from pressing objections, on the score of observance of the standing orders, he thought they were the last things which that House ought to sanction, or even to allow. The question was one of a gross breach of privilege; and the House was called upon to inquire whether or not the parties now actually before the Committee had obtained certain advantages by means of false statements made before the Sub-Committee respecting the stand-
1162
ing orders. He thought they ought not to interfere with the progress of the Bill. The Committee ought to be limited to inquire whether wilful fraud had been committed by the parties connected with Stephenson's line; and then, if they reported, that fraud had been used, it would be for the House to consider whether sufficient ground was laid, not for a Committee, but for the House to interfere further in the matter. He would not object to the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire whether a wilful breach of privilege had been committed.
Mr. Greene Mr. Greene moved an amendment, that the further debate on this question be deferred until Monday.
Mr. T. Duncombeobserved, that the discussion had originally stood for Tuesday, and had been postponed to meet the' wishes of the promoters of Stephenson's line.
The House divided on the motion:— Ayes 73; Noes 51: Majority 22.
Debate adjourned.

PENNY STAMP ON NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Roebuckrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to take into consideration the expediency of abolishing the penny stamp on newspapers. He placed his proposition on the single ground, and on no other ground whatever, that it was desirable to remove every obstruction to the education of the people. It was the duty of that House so to frame their proceedings as to give every facility to the attainment of that object. The existence of the penny stamp on newspapers was unfavourable to that object. Whoever had recently attended to the concerns of this country, and the world, must be aware, that the people took a greater interest in political matters at the present, than they had taken at any former period. As a larger mass of people were thus submitted to the influence of education, it was the duty of every Government deserving the name of Government, to do all they could so to fashion the measures of the Legislature as to give the community the amplest means of instruction with, respect to that on which they wished to be informed, the general concerns of the community, social and political. Now, what had the present liberal Government' done to remove obstacles to the attainment of knowledge by the people? Had they done all they could for that purpose? No;

1163
but when last year, for no fiscal purpose, they took off a great part of the stamp-duty on newspapers, they left enough of that duty to form an obstruction to the instruction of the people. It had been acknowledged by Ministers that the existing duty had not been retained for fiscal purposes. For what purpose then? The noble Lord at the head of the Government in that House had admitted, that the fiscal was the least consideration in the way of retaining the present duty; and that such a purpose ought never to stand in the way of public instruction. Was it retarded for the purpose of maintaining some particular monopoly? The London newspapers were, at the present moment, in his opinion, a monopoly; and perhaps the penny duty might be retained, for the purpose of keeping that monopoly up. Now, his object was, to do away with all monopoly, and to give to people in the country, who now took so lively an interest in political and social matters, the benefit of the discussion of those matters. He was desirous, therefore, to abolish the duty entirely; so that, as in America, every small town should have its newspaper, in which general and local matters might be freely discussed. After what had been said on the subject in that House by the Members of his Majesty's Government, he should be very much surprised if the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to get up and declare, that he retained the duty for fiscal purposes. Taking into the account the increase in the duty on advertisements, and in the duty on paper, which the augmented sale of newspapers must produce, the fiscal advantage resulting from continuing the duty was a very paltry consideration indeed. But they had all along showed their carelessness and apathy on the subject of the education of the people. Why, as had been said by the noble Lord, who was the leader of the Tories in the other House of Parliament, why not take off the remaining penny of duty? What purpose could its retention answer, but to bring his Majesty's Government into disrepute? It could do the right hon. Gentleman's budget no good. By the measure of last Session they had put some thousands of pounds into the pockets of a few monopolists of London, and had done the people no service. He care nothing about the education of the rich they would obtain instruction under any circumstances. But he was very
1164
solicitous for the education of the poor; and, as he had already observed, he was desirous that, every small town in the country should have its newspaper. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the expediency of taking off the penny-stamp duty on newspapers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt it to be his duty to oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Bath. Whoever had heard that hon. Gentleman, must suppose that his Majesty's Government wished to retain the duty for some odious purposes of their own. Nothing could be further from the fact. The stamp-duty on newspapers was as low at present as it was a century ago. When the subject of the reduction of the stamp-duty on news, papers had been first introduced, after his coming into office, he had stated his fears, that the financial state of the country would not permit his making such reduction. But, in a future Session, he redeemed the pledge which he had given by inference in a preceding one. He must now say, that he could not propose, in making any new arrangement, to redeem the remaining tax on the article of newspapers, seeing that he had already made so large a concession. He defended its continuance, moreover, because he contended, that with respect to newspapers, the Government gave to newspapers great advantages, in exchange for the tax which was laid upon them. The free circulation of newspapers through the General Post-office of this country, was just one of those advantages which were given, and one of the means afforded to improve the character of the press, and to diffuse political knowledge amongst all classes of the community. The hon. and learned Member for Bath maintained, that the present law went to establish a monopoly of the press of the metropolis; and the hon. and learned Member had used some hard words in reference to the proprietors of that press.
Mr. Roebuckrose to order. He had given no description whatever of those parties.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerresumed. Why, the hon. and learned Member had argued that the effect of the present duty was to put some thousands of pounds into the pockets of a few monopolists of London. By giving a free circulation to newspapers a national charac-

1165
ter was given to the press; but let not the argument be limited merely to the metropolitan press. He would now call the, attention of the House to what had been the effect of the reduction of the duty on newspapers as established by the act of last year. They had had six months' experience, of the operation of that act. In the half year ending the 5th of April, 1836, the number of newspapers stamped was 14,874,000, In the first half year during which his experiment had been tried that number rose from 14,874,000 to 21,300,000; which shewed a vast increase of nearly one-third, Therefore, if the circulation of newspapers were a benefit to the community, the hon. Member ought to give him credit for the success of his measure. When the hon. Gentleman underrated the value of the experiment which had been made, he must call his attention to the following facts, to show the progress which had been made:—In the first quarter of the, half year in which the reduction of duty had taken place the number of stamps was 8,362,000; and in the second quarter, ending 5th April last, they amounted to no less than 13,000,000, So that pot only was there a vast increase as comparing the last half year with that which had preceded it, but in comparing the two quarters of the last half year separately the numbers rose from 8,000,000 to 13,000,000. Take a further proof of what was going on, if they allowed the present system to continue;—he found that in the last quarter of the last half year (as he before stated) the number of newspaper stamps amounted to 13,000,000, In the last half year previous to the reduction of the stamp-duty the number of stamps for the whole of Great Britain was 14,000,000 and odd; so that the number of stamps in the quarter ending April, 1837, was within 1,000,000 of what it was for six months ending in April last year. Would not, then, the hot). Gentleman admit these figures demonstrated a most beneficial result from the operation of the present act? But then the hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, but you have put down the unstamped papers." Now that was precisely the object which he had in view. It was his object to protect the capitalist from being undersold. But he should be sorry if It were imagined that the financial view was the only one which he took or which guided him, because the hon. and learned Gentleman had very properly
1166
brought forward the number of criminal prosecutions to which infractions of the late stamp acts had led. Returns to the House had been made showing the number of persons who had been imprisoned, the amount of penalties they had incurred, &c., from year to year, for violations of the law in this respect. And, as had been stated, those individuals not only violated the law, but when they were punished they became martyrs and objects of commiseration. From an abstract of the returns which had been called for, it appeared that there had been 600 and upwards of persons committed in the metropolis; 384 committed to prisons in different parts of the country making 984 and upwards of persons committed for violations of these stamp-laws; and let it be remembered, also, that there were prosecutions in the Court of Exchequer, He found the law in. this state then—he found that the greatest possible evils arose from what were termed these infractions of the press. But what was the altered Hate of circumstances now? Why, since the new law came into operation there had. not been, one prosecution—there had been not one press seized. No such evils had resulted since the measure came into operation. To advert to the way in which the revenue had been affected by the change made in the law, he must observe that the reduction of the duty on newspapers, coupled with, half the duty on paper, which was remitted also to other works of literature had created in the last year only a diminution of 8,000 l. out of a sum of 100,000 l, An objection had been made to the imposition of postage on newspapers forwarded to remote districts. It was asked why should the poor agricultural population of the country he taxed for that which the rich were not, This was a subject materially connected with the postage of newspapers, which he hoped in the present Session to see remedied. It was, his intention to propose the reduction of the penny postage on newspapers in the present Session if possible. He believed that such an arrangement would give great satisfaction, though; he confessed he did not yet see his Way clearly as to substituting a hand delivery in the metropolis. The hon. Member for Bath well knew the difficulty there was in another place to get the measure, passed, of which he complained as inefficient. It was almost a miracle that the measure was carried. He hoped that hon. Gen-

1167
tleman would recollect that the proposition which he carried was the very proposition which had been made by friends of his own the year previous. He had done all that he had promised to do. He had done all he could—he had reduced the rate of taxation to what it was in the reign of Queen Anne. He must oppose the motion of the hon. Member, and conclude by moving, as an amendment, for accounts explanatory of the effects produced on the revenue by the change of the law; Returns of all legal proceedings against any offenders; and returns of persons committed to prison (if any) under the new act. This would complete the papers which had been furnished, by showing an honourable contrast with the former state of things.
The question having been put,
Mr. Wakleysaid, if [the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were really so well satisfied with his own plan, he would ask, how could he hesitate to knock off the remaining half of the tax? The right hon. Gentleman had argued that the people had derived great advantages from the free circulation of the newspaper press; and yet he had declared against the setting of the press free, and hesitated to do that which was right. He felt that the Radicals were placed in an unfortunate position since the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had come into office. They had been in a sort of partnership with the present Ministry, supporting them in their good measures, and hesitating to give that support when they disapproved of their proceedings. The Radicals were thus the watching, not the sleeping, partners of the Ministry, and were acting] in a most unfavourable position. If they, in sincerity, advocated those measures which were likely to serve the public cause, was it not hard that after all these efforts on their part they could not obtain from the Government one solitary supporter? It was almost time that this state of things should cease; and it was utterly impossible that it should much longer continue. And he could assure his Majesty's Ministers with much truth, that the Radicals were subjected to very bitter complaints out of doors for the very quiet, easy part which they took in that House. It was often asked of them "What matters it to us whether Whigs or Tories, whether Conservatives, as they are called, or Radicals, be in power, provided we see
1168
some good measures introduced, and some Radical measures proposed and carried." Now he felt himself very often incapacitated from giving a satisfactory answer to this proposition. It was impossible to satisfy his friends on these points. He had voted against the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth when that Gentleman was at the head of the Government, on almost every occasion, and he believed he might say he should do so again in such a case occurring, because he had never approved of the school to which that right hon. Gentleman belonged, he not having any aristocratic connexions, and being sent to that House to serve the cause of the people. And determined as he was to act up to every pledge which he had ever given, it was a matter of no importance to him who were in or out of office, provided that they could get measures passed which were approved of out of doors. The right hon. Gentleman had told them of the number of stamps which had been issued in the last six months, but he had forgotten to say how many hundreds of thousands of papers had been suppressed by the law of last year, which had been freely circulated amongst the industrious labouring classes of the community. He believed that many of the measures of his Majesty's Ministers were good, land he believed, moreover, that better could not be introduced by the Radicals themselves. But let the House look at the state of the country people with reference to one of the best measures that ever was introduced into that House, namely, that for abolishing the Church-rates. Only witness the delusion which prevailed in the country on the subject of this question. In some parts of England— in every parish, or almost in every parish— the rector, the vicar, or the curate, had been round to the parishioners making statements to the people the truth or falsehood of which they had not the means to ascertain. In a parish which he had lately visited in Devonshire the clergyman had called on the labouring people, and asked them "Have you heard of the Ministerial measure respecting Church-rates? Do you know that your Church is to be pulled down? Are you for the Church or not." This had been done [Name, name!] The places to which his observations had reference were, Membury, Stockland, and Yarcombe. But he would name one instance further, where a labouring man refused to sign a petition against the ministerial measure

1169
for the abolition of church-rates. He could not, indeed, write; but the clergyman said to him, "Oh, you will do of course as your neighbours do; I will write your name for you." Now, this he believed had been the case in many instances. For his own part, he would say, that a more Conservative measure than that which the Ministers had introduced for the abolition of church-rates had never been framed. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, (Sir James Graham) on a former night, had addressed himself very strongly on the subject of the voluntary principle; and he had said, that many of those who advocated the ministerial plan were for the voluntary principle. And so he was — he was in favour of the voluntary principle, but not to the subversion of the Church Establishment. He believed that if the voluntary principle were once brought into play, it would be beneficial to the best interests of the Church, because it would tend to awaken and improve the energies of the ministers and members of that Church. He never wished to weaken or disturb a single pillar of the establishment. He denied that the Radicals sought for or desired the subversion of the Church. He knew that in the borough which he had the honour to represent he had always spoken in favour of the Established Church; and he had yet to learn that the mass of Reformers wished to see the Church destroyed. But the assertion that they had any such intention was made only for party purposes. What the Radicals desired was, that the great mass of the people should have an opportunity to understand the questions which were submitted to the consideration of that House. At present they had no such facilities afforded them. The newspaper ought to be the weekly book of the labouring man, and would be so if he had the opportunity of reading it; but let him read the principles of personal rights and personal wrongs. Of these and other Subjects he was now ignorant. The ignorance of the people in many parts of the country was so great as to be hardly credible. Only a little while ago, a farmer in Wiltshire was asked how many kings there were reigning in England, Scotland, and Ireland. "Oh! Lord, Sir," said he, "I don't know how
1170
many there be now, but when I was a boy there used to be but two—old King George 3rd and the Prince of Wales. Another was asked what he understood by the ballot, and what he thought of it. "Oh," said he, with a knowing shake of the head, "that's the only fair way of doing it; all our names be put into a hat, and his as is drawed out, why he's the Member." Now, when such answers as these were received upon matters which were the topic of discussion, how could it be wondered at that there were 300 Gentlemen professing Tory principles on the opposite side of the House. But give to the whole country the means of acquiring information at a cheap and easy rate, and he believed, not only that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) would come over to that side of the House, but that there would not be in the House of Commons more than ten Gentlemen professing Tory principles. It was impossible with an intelligent and well-informed people, that Toryism could continue to exist for a day. It was opposed to all the best interests of the country. What was Toryism? He would not wait to define it; but the effects of a kindred principle of policy and action might be seen in the Carlism of Spain, the Miguelism of Portugal, and the autocratic despotism of Russia and Poland. But to return to the topic immediately under consideration. His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought, that the stamp upon newspapers improved the character of the press—his right hon. Friend thought it tended to make the press respectable.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad been misunderstood. His argument was this, not that the stamp improved the press, but that the substitution of a postage duty for a stamp duty would deprive the English press of its present character.
Sir Robert Peeltook the opportunity afforded by the interruption of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of rising to a point of order. It had often of late occurred to him that they were falling into a bad habit of allowing Gentlemen in the midst of a speech to offer explanations, which, according to the rules of debate, ought to be deferred until the speech was concluded. This practice had a tendency to interrupt the train of argument in the

1171
mind of the speaker, and certainly contributed in no degree to the convenience of the House.
The Speakerobserved, that the circumstance to which the right, hon. Baronet referred had frequently given him much pain. He had always felt the interruptions to be irregular, but had yielded to them, from a desire to consult what, at the time, appeared to be the general feeling of the House. He was, however, firmly convinced, that the convenience of the House would always be best consulted by adhering with strictness to the fixed and settled rule of debate.
Mr. Wakleywas obliged to his right hon. Friend for correcting him; and although the interruption might have been irregular, he was glad it had been made, because, instead of impairing, it tended to strengthen the argument he was about to advance. His right hon. Friend said, that if the penny stamp were abolished, he thought it would deprive the English press of its present character. Now everybody in the habit of reading newspapers knew how private persons and public characters were often abused; and everybody so circumstanced must acknowledge that the present character of the press required to be changed. By way of illustration to this point, he would take the liberty of reading an extract from one of our public journals. They all knew that in poetry the finer qualities of the mind had play. To show what a stamped press could do, he would take a specimen of the poetry of the Times newspaper. It was an allusion to an hon. and learned Member of that House, whose exertions in the cause of liberty for many years, had been indefatigable, and to a great extent successful, and to whom the people of Ireland owed a debt of gratitude that could never be discharged. It was headed, "The Whig Missionary of 1835," and went on in these terms:—
"Seum condensed of Irish bog!
Ruffian—coward—demagogue!
Boundless liar—base detractor!
Nurse of murded—treason's factor!
Of Pope and priest the crouching slave,
While thy lips of freedom rave;
Of England's fame the vip'rous hater,
Yet wanting courage for a traitor.
Ireland's peasants feed thy purse,
Still thou art her bane and curse.
Tho' thou liv'st an empire's scorn,
Lift on high thy brazen horn—
1172
Every dog shall have his day,
This is thine of brutish sway.
Mounted on a Premier's back,
Lash the Ministerial pack;
At thy nod they hold their places—
Crack their sinews, grind their faces.
Tho' thy hand had stabbed their mother
They would fawn and call thee brother;
By their leave pursue thy calling,
Rend thy patriot lungs with bawling;
Spout thy filth—effuse thy sllme,
Slander is in thee no crime.
Safe from challenge—safe from law—
What can curb thy callous jaw?
Who would sue a convict liar?
On a poltroon who would fire?
Thou may'st walk in open light,
Few will kick thee—none can fight.
Then grant the monster leave to roam,
Let him slaver out his foam.
Only give him length of string,
He'll contrive himself to swing."
That was the poetry of the stamped press. He had copied the passage from The Times of the 26th November, 1835, only a year and a half since; and in The Times of the 16th December, 1835, only a fortnight afterwards, there was this notice to correspondents:— "The verses to King Dan are well imagined, but want polish." So that this was a polished specimen of the poetry of the stamped press. From the prose of the same newspaper he might have made many selections, if he had thought them necessary; he had merely alluded to the poetry for the purpose of showing that the stamp, at any rate, had not produced any great degree of refinement in the press. He should have thought, indeed, that his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could have testified to that fact himself. He would now go to another part of the question. He contended that a free people were entitled to a free press. He maintained that a nation was not free where the press was not free. Without a free, press, there was no security for a single free institution that a nation could enjoy. The freedom of the press consisted, not in imposing restraints to prevent breaches of decorum, but in punishing those who were, actually guilty of violations of decorum in these publications. What said Blackstone upon the point? "Every man has a right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public—to prohibit this is to destroy the freedom of the press; but if he publish what is mischievous or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own demerits," Now, that passage disclosed to

1173
them, in a very few words, what in reality constituted a free press. But, suppose a man in a provincial town to publish a weekly pamphlet upon any political subjects or public events which he conceived might be, useful to the public, before he could do so, he must send either to Somerset-house or to the stamp distributor of the district, when a paper, similar to one he then held in his hand, and which he had that day received from Somerset-house, was put into his hands, explaining to him the nature and extent of the securities that would be required from him, This man might be an exceedingly intelligent tradesman or mechanic, but without any great pecuniary means. His friends also might be without pecuniary means. What then was he to do? Before he can proceed with his publication, he must give the names and residences, &c., of two persons of respectability, who will become surety for him, in the sum of 200 l. each, for the advertisement duty, and beyond that, he must have two other sureties, in the sum of 400 l. each, to prevent the publication of libels; making altogether a sum of 1,200 l. required for security, before he could publish a penny weekly political pamphlet. Yet they were told that this state of things, arising out of the odious and tyrannical law of last year, constituted a free press, and that the law ought not to be altered. The statute of 60Geo, 3rd., commonly called the "Trash Act," had always been deemed a harsh and tyrannical law: but the Act of last year was infinitely worse. Under the law, as it now stood, a man could not publish a newspaper or political pamphlet, without the lability of having his house broken into, and every article contained in it seized. There never was such a law in England before, Until last year such a law was wholly unknown in the history of the press of this country, His right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, affected to disapprove of Tory principles; he always spoke against them, and against the Tory party; and he was perfectly right to do so, But, suppose that that party should some into, office, and carry into execution the principles which he condemned, what would be the fate of the press then? It was true, that he (Mr. Wakley) did not much fear the hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he knew that the enlightened state of the public mind would never endure Tory principles, He believed that this
1174
was pretty generally felt; and if even the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) should come into office again, he (Mr. Wakley) should expect to see him a good Radical. They had certainly witnessed some extraordinary mutations in public affairs; and after what he had seen since he had become a Member of the House, he should hardly feel surprised at any change that might come about. But if his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were sincere in condemning the political principles of the hon. Gentlemen who sat, opposite, he trusted he would never give them an opportunity of carrying them into effect. The law, as it at present stood, was, in every respect, an objectionable law —a law that, passing into other hands, might lead to great abuses. He would recommend his right hon. Friend, therefore, to take off the whole of the tax. When the measure was last year sent up to the other House, a distinguished Tory peer, made this remark, in reference to the penny stamp, which it was proposed to retain:— "They may do better by sending up a Bill taking off the duty altogether, and by putting aside the complicated machinery and expensive establishment necessary for the levying a paltry penny tax upon each newspaper." That was a declaration of a noble and learned Lord if the other House of Parliament last Session, and he would warn the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, that if they did not act upon the recommendation of that Tory peer, the hon. Gentlemen opposite would take the first opportunity of doing so.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that the reasons adduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for keeping up the tax, were precisely those which weighed with him for its abolition. He hoped it would be no longer permitted to press on the newspaper trade. While it continued, the press could not be said to be unshackled. Every man who paid a penny postage on newspapers in the metropolis since October fast, was defrauded of that amount. It was the clear intention of the Act of last Session that all stamped newspapers should go postage free in town as well as in country, though the twopenny post was not specified in it. If the principle were, not opposed in town, it would be extended, to the country in a very short time.
Mr. Arthur Trevarwas of opinion that if any individual, or any body of indivi-

1175
duals, embarked property in a newspaper, he or they ought to pay some tax for the permission to do so. His opinion was, that nothing could be more essentially absurd than to say, that the taking off the duty on newspapers would remove a burthen from the population of the country. As an individual, he was indifferent to the doing away of the tax, but in accordance with the principles he professed and acted upon in that House, he could not vote for the discontinuance of the duty; but he must say, after the extent to which the Government went last year in the reduction of the duty, he could not see why they should now be so mealy-mouthed on the present occasion. He had constantly opposed the abolition of the duty when the question had been brought forward on former occasions, and should still continue to pursue the same course, and would contend that it was an insult to common understanding to say that newspapers were a general medium for conveying knowledge to the people. In his view of the subject, they did so in a very limited degree indeed; and he must say, that although the arguments of those who supported the present proposition might be specious, they were without solidity.
Mr. Humehoped, as they were about to divide upon the question, that he might appeal to the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) for his vote. The right hon. Baronet had heard the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He should be glad to know whether the right hon. Baronet differed in any great degree from the view taken of the subject by the hon. Member for Finsbury? Or would the right hon. Baronet tell the House that he considered the taxed press as that moral, highly-improved, and intelligent organ of communication that aright hon. Gentleman opposite had once told him it was. He did not wish to take off the penny postage; he only wished to place all the newspapers in the country in the same situation as that in which three or four of the metropolitan newspapers stood. In London several papers were published without a stamp for circulation in town and the suburbs of the town, and with a stamp for circulation in the country. Now, he wished the same liberty to be extended to every place in the kingdom. He wished that every place in the kingdom should be allowed to publish an unstamped paper for circulation at home, liable to a postage charge of a
1176
penny upon each paper that they sent into other parts of the country. He could best explain the advantage of this system by supposing a case. Suppose, then, that in Edinburgh and London there were two papers, each publishing one thousand copies, the tax upon that thousand would be 4l. 3s. 4d. Of the thousand published in London, 700 copies were sent to Edinburgh, and of the thousand published in Edinburgh, 700 were sent to London, leaving to each 300 for home circulation. Now, if his suggestion were acted upon, the tax would fall only upon those that were interchanged, namely, upon 700; which, at the rate of a penny a piece, would amount to 2l. 18 s. 4d. That sum, deducted from the 4l. 3s. 4d., left a balance of 1l. 5s., which was the amount that each place would gain if the proposition were acceded to. At all events, it did not become the present Ministry to allow such an odious machinery as that established by the law of last year to remain upon the Statute-book for the sake of such a paltry tax.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the language of the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last was so seducing, his countenance so very friendly, and his demeanour so alluring, that he was almost afraid, if he did remain entirely silent, that part of the House might infer that he was going to vote with the hon. Gentleman, and the country in general might suppose, in the present state of political parties, that there was some secret communication between them—that that alliance which the hon. Gentleman spoke of between those whom he called the Reformers and the Government was about to be dissolved, and an alliance about to be cemented between the former party and the Conservatives. He therefore thought it absolutely necessary for him to inform the hon. Gentleman that he agreed with his Majesty's Government on the question before the House. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that there was no breach of good faith in the case; and he hoped that he should not be the means of interrupting the communication of the allied parties. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), proposed to lay before the House documents which would exhibit to them the result of the experiment which had been made by the late reduction of the stamp-duty. The hon. Gentleman said, that because he did not

1177
use vituperative language in that House, therefore he must support the removal of the penny stamp upon newspapers. The hon. Gentleman had been at the pains of arranging his argument into a syllogism; but it appeared to him that there were a great many steps to be filled up in the chain of reasoning before the hon. Gentleman could arrive at such a conclusion from the premises, which he hoped were themselves just, that he (Sir R. Peel) wished to discharge his duty in that House without indulging in personalities. That was the course he wished to pursue, and he presumed to think, that if every one were to follow in this respect the example which he endeavoured to set, the course of sound argument would not be obstructed, nor the character of the House of Commons lowered by it. He did not see why, because he deserved that character of abstaining from personalities, he should vote for the removal of this duty. The hon. Gentleman ought to be more impartial in his censures of the public press. The hon. Gentleman took one class of newspapers; he (Sir R. Peel) read others; for he thought a public man would very inadequately perform his duty if he abstained from consulting the public journals. He (Sir R. Peel) did consult the journals; and he was happy to say, after long experience he had now got so callous that he could read them without the slightest disturbance. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that though he had got a very extensive selection of journals, which he actually took in, and many more were forwarded to him by some good-natured friend or other, he could not say he found the penny newspapers much more complimentary than the others. ("There's the Penny Magazine") He sometimes read the Penny Magazine; he found no vituperation in that; and great instruction and amusement were to be derived from perusing even this. But there were newspapers sold for much less than 5d. under the new stamp laws; and he did not find that they improved in mildness in proportion as they descended in price. He also received publications which were subject to no stamp, and he did not find them more complimentary than those which were. From all this combination of circumstances, he inferred that they would not, by entirely removing the duty on newspapers, have a very effectual security against vituperation.
1178
When party spirit ran very high, he believed they must expect that offences against good manners would occur. They could hardly hope for perfect freedom from vituperation; and it would be a dangerous argument to employ against the utility of the press that they occasionally found some severe personal abuse. The hon. Gentlemen surely would not contend that the State should be called on to give any premium on newspapers; but would they not be giving a premium on newspapers if they provided coaches and horses at the public expense to convey them? A very important and extensive experiment had been made last year by the reduction of duty: and one very beneficial effect of the change was, that it had put an end to what might be called smuggling in this branch of the revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to lay before the House documents which would furnish them with authentic information on the whole subject, but his own present information, was in accordance with the views of the Government. If the experiment should not prove to be successful, then the question of the removal of the penny stamp might be considered; but he did not see that its maintenance could be considered in the slightest degree unjust, if the proprietors of the newspapers were relieved from all the charges of conveyance. It might be said, that those which were sold in the metropolis did not derive the same advantage with those which were sent to the country; but it was impossible, in any general arrangement of this kind, to mete out exactly the same amount of favour to every public journal. He thought the principle of the duty just, and the State had a fair right to levy an equivalent for the charge to which it was put. The hon. Member would admit the fairness of a stamp duty. [Mr. Hume: of a postage.] He did not see that newspapers would gain anything by the substitution of a postage. He very much doubted whether the existence of a stamp duty and the free transmission of newspapers by post would not be more advantageous to the proprietors than a postage, varying according to the distance which the newspaper was conveyed. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side wished that the postage should be proportioned to the expense of conveyance. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley) maintained, that the country was not enlightened; but he

1179
ought to remember that the charge of enlightening the persons who had figured in the anecdotes with which he had favoured the House, would be very heavy, compared with the charge of enlightening those who dwelt in the vicinity of the metropolis. Civilization and knowledge generally decreased in proportion to the distance of a locality from the metropolis, and yet, the hon. Gentleman would exactly invert the rule, because in the neighbourhood of the metropolis the postage duty Would be very light, while in those villages of Devonshire which the hon. Gentleman wanted to make accessible to the light of knowledge, and which were some 200 or. 250 miles distant from London, a heavy postage must be paid. He thought that the views of the hon. Gentleman would be best followed up, that knowledge would be most widely extended, and civilization most effectually promoted, by charging one stamp duty upon all newspapers, and giving to the population which was neatest to the great centre of civilisation no unfair advantage over that which was most distant from it. Upon these grounds he must express his opinion as decidedly as he could against the motion. He Could assure the hon. Member for Finsbury that he was not meditating the repeal 6f this tax, for his Opinion in favour of maintaining it could not be stronger, If the progress Of the expertment which was now going on, and the documents promised by the right hon. Gentleman, should lead to the conclusion that the tone of the press might be improved by the proposed measure, that would be a subject for subsequent consideration; on that he would give no opinion; but he had heard nothing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from which he dissented. He had not intended to say anything On this question; but the tone of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley's) observations had made it necessary for hint to offer to the House the few observations which he Had made.
Mr. Charles Bulleras a quasi Devoniensis begged leave to inform the right hon. Baronet of one little circumstance of which he appeared to be ignorant—namely, that the art of printing was known in Devonshire, and if they were allowed to catty it on as extensively as they pleased, they would not require the London press, because the people Of Devon had wit' enough to get up a press of their own. He
1180
once, indeed, thought that the circulation of the London press in the provinces, was absolutely necessary; but he confessed that things had shaken his opinion on the subject, for he had observed that in every respect—in ability, moderation and intelligence, the Country press was infinitely superior to that of London. If there were a penny postage instead of a penny stamp, the provinces would have the advantage of obtaining the London newspapers as easily as they do now", and at the same time of enjoying a cheap press of their own. He was apprehensive that the right hon. Baronet on rising was going to declare himself hostile to the reduction of the penny stamp; but at the end of his speech the right hon. Baronet gave him (Mr. C. Buller) reason to hope better things. There appeared, however, to be a great split with the party upon that question, for while the right hon. Baronet agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the stamp should be retained, the hon. Member for Durham in that House, and Lord Lyhdhurst in another place, were for doing it away, so that there were two to one of his own Friends against the right hon. Baronet. It Was possible, therefore, when the right hon. Baronet came into office, the hon. Member for Durham and the noble and learned Lord might make it a condition, in joining his Government, that he should concede to their opinions upon the penny stamp question. He (Mr. C. Buller) had listened with great pleasure to the very admirable speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, who had explained the question with the greatest force; and he could but admire also the tone of the hon. Member. It expressed exactly that feeling which he wished always to be adopted when speaking of the intellectual state and education of the people. He was sorry however that the hon. Member should have talked about the difference between his Majesty's Ministers and their Radical supporters. He thought the hon. Member did them injustice in saying, that the Ministers did not support Radical notions, although the Radicals always supported them. This was not a fair way to put the case, because he must say that the Word Radical had changed its meaning of late— and he believed that a great many of the measures which the Ministers now supported, and the language which they now held, would have been Radical a short

1181
time ago. It was hardly fair, therefore, to say, that while the Radicals supported Ministers, Ministers did not support the Radicals. It was fairer, on the whole to say that the Ministers had made great progress in Radicalism. Upon this point he thought that rather a harsh tone had been assumed towards the Ministers. He must confess that, although differing from them with respect to the penny stamp duty, he still thought that they had pursued, on the present occasion, the only course that was open to them. Much as he himself desired the whole duty to be repealed last year, yet it would, in his opinion, be an act of levity and inconsistency on the part of those to whom was intrusted the management of public affairs, and such as would not be calculated to excite the confidence Of the country, if, after determining to retain the penny duty, the Ministers Were the very year after, to remove it. At the same time he, as an independent Member of Parliament, and without the responsibility of a Minister of State, was at liberty to express his opinion upon the question; he would, therefore, say that he thought it was desirable that the penny stamp duty should be removed. Last year, while expressing a wish that the whole of the duty should be abolished, he acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to great thanks for reducing the stamp to a penny, and said it would do a great portion of good. But he now found that he was wholly wrong, and was greatly disappointed in the effect which that reduction had had. It did not appear to have improved the tone of the newspapers by breaking up the monopoly, or by diffusing political information amongst the people. The right hon. Gentleman had said that there had been a great increase in the circulation of newspapers since the reduction of the duty; but he would venture to predict that when the Returns were obtained it would appear that that increase had taken place among the Sunday and country newspapers only. The price of those papers being only sevenpence a week, the reduction of threepence or four-pence was a very sensible reduction. But the reduction of the expenditure on the daily newspapers was so trifling that it had not increased their circulation. Last year he expressed his opinion with regard to the talent and character 6f the daily press of this country, which had brought
1182
down upon him some severe animadversions; but he could only say that nothing had occurred since the reduction of the stamp duty which induced him to think the monopoly of that press had been effectually broken up, or that the litterary characters engaged in the political department of it had been in the least degree improved. Everything ought to be done to diffuse political knowledge among the people, and he was astonished that a public man and a statesman should speak so slightly of it. Could any statesman of the present day look at the condition of this people, and the great mass of working men, armed with vast physical force, and possessing intelligence enough to know What was going on in the political world; but with little learning, knowledge, or talent, to enable them to form a Correct judgment upon political questions, without dreading what might befal this country whenever any future period of excitement should put that mass in motion? The Government was now experiencing the consequence of this ignorance on the part of the people; for to what else were to be attributed the prejudices which prevailed upon what was acknowledged by all men of education to be the very best of its measures— he meant the Poor-law Amendment Bill. However much the aristocracy of this country might be opposed to them upon other points, it was the fact that Upon this point the Government had received greater support from the educated classes than he believed any Government Could upon any other point whatsoever, He had spoken to many Gentlemen of the Tory persuasion— and he really thought that the good which had been derived from that measure had reconciled them to Many other steps which the Government had taken, in spite of their political prejudices. But why did a contrary opinion unhappily prevail among the uneducated, not among the class who were supposed to be the sufferers of that measure, but among those who had just that degree of intelligence which was got from oral communication with the inhabitants of large towns, and who had not the advantage of a cheap press that could inform their minds, and fill them with good opinions and the correct facts of the case? He believed that had a cheap press diffused amongst that class of persons merely the facts of the case, there would have been but little of that

1183
ignorant prejudice which had long been one of the greatest obstacles to the good Government that existed in this country. He should certainly vote in support of the present motion; and he hoped that though the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not take any further step this Session, he would apply himself seriously to, and reflect upon, this subject, seeing that he must gird up his loins for a very sharp race, which the right hon. Baronet appeared prepared to run with him.
Mr. Roebucksaid, he was disappointed at the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had answered his statement. He had put the question on its widest base, and had laid down the principle that the State ought not to tax the necessaries of life, among the foremost of which he would place education. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not met the argument, had not shown that a tax on newspapers was no obstruction to the diffusion of knowledge; but had merely said, that because other things were taxed, education must be taxed also. The doctrine which he (Mr. Roebuck) held was, that they should tax those things which were least necessary most heavily, and those things which were most necessary, and which it was most difficult to get, most lightly. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman might be very good for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, but would not satisfy any man of education. The Post-office had nothing at all to do with the large circulation of the London newspapers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to fasten on him a reprobation of the language used by the press when the fact was, that he never said a word about the manner in which the press was conducted. He hoped the House would not refuse to abolish a monopoly so injurious to the general advantage of the community.
The House divided on the original motion.—Ayes 42; Noes 81:—Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Duncombe, T.

Brady, D. C.

Elphinstone, H.

Brotherton, J.

Ewart, W.

Bullet, C.

Fielden, J.

Butler, hon. P.

Grattan, H.

Chalmers, P.

Grote, G.

Chapman, L.

Harvey, D. W.

Codrington, Admiral

Hawes, B.

Crawford, W. S.

Hector, C. J.

1184

Hindley, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Hume, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Humphery, J.

Tulk, C. A.

Jervis, J.

Villiers, C. P.

Leader, J. T.

Wallace, R.

Lister, E. C.

Warburton, H.

Marshall, W.

Ward, H. G.

Marsland, H.

Wason, R.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Whalley, Sir S.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, W.

Palmer, General

Parrott, J.

TELLERS.

Rippon, C.

Roebuck, J. A.

Rundle, J.

Wakley, T.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnot hon. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Balfour, T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Bannerman, A.

Perceval, Colonel

Baring, F. T.

Philips, M.

Benett, J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Bewes, T.

Pryme, G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Brodie, W. B.

Rice, rt hon. T. S.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Richards, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Cavendish, C.

Rickford, W.

Dillwyn, L.

Robinson, G. R.

Donkin, Sir R.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Eaton, R. J.

Ross, C.

Fancourt, Major

Russell, Lord J.

Fergusson, right on. R. C.

Ryle, J.

Sandon, Viscount

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Sanford, E. A.

Forster, C. S.

Scarlett hon. R.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Seymour, Lord

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sharpe, General

Harcourt, G. S.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Hardy, J.

Stuart, V.

Hawkins, J. H.

Talfourd, Mr. Serjeant

Hinde, J. H.

Thompson, right, hon.

Houstoun, G.

C. P.

Howard, P. H.

Trelawny, Sir W.

Hoy, J. R.

Trevor, hon. A.

Johnston, A.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Kearsley, J. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Vesey, hon. T.

Lee, J. L.

Vivian, J. E.

Martin, T.

Wall, C.B.

Maunsell, T. P.

White, S.

Meynell, Captain

Wilson, H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wodehouse, E.

Mostyn, hon. E.

Wood, C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Young, J.

Parker, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

TELLERS.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Maule, hon. F.

Pechell, Captain

Stanley, E.

The returns moved for by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were ordered.

DISMISSED OFFICERS.
Sir Edward Codringtonrose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion for a Return, stating the period at which the names of

1185
Commander Edward Edwards, Lieut. Bryant, Lieutenant Rowland Millner, Lieut. John Bee, Dr. Thomas Williams, and Surgeon William Boyce, were removed from the list of the navy, and were deprived of their half-pay, and the reasons for such deprivation. The hon. and gallant Admiral said, that the officers in question were prepared, if a course of inquiry were afforded them, to disprove the truth of the alleged charges, and their entire innocence of any charge that could render them unworthy of the situations they had filled in his Majesty's service of one of these individuals, Mr. Millner, it was alleged that he had borrowed money of a Mr. Solomon Alexander, of Portsea, for which he had given, as security, a power of attorney for the receipt of his half-pay, and had subsequently applied for, and obtained his half-pay himself. He was not at the time entitled to half-pay at all, or if so, he was entitled to a much larger sum. Neither was he on full pay, for, if he was, the inquiry would have been by Court-martial. Soon after he did receive some half-pay, and further explanation was subsequently demanded from him by the Admiralty. This demand was made fourteen years after the events took place. He had been deranged. Very naturally, he did not wish to divulge this circumstance, and he could not be certain as to what took place while in that state; but upon inquiry he found that in point of fact he had never had any transaction with the person who claimed this debt. He offered him, however, 20 l. not to proceed further, from an unwillingness that the previous state of his mind should be made known. The pretended creditor did not know what the name of the captain of the ship was at the time the debt was said to have been contracted. His ignorance upon this and other parts left no doubt on his mind that Lieutenant Miliner never knew anything of him. He would have prosecuted the Times newspaper for a libel, but he had not the means of defraying the expenses. The next case was that of Lieutenant John Bee. He was promoted in the year 1826, and struck off the list in September of that year, without inquiry, and without having been made acquainted with the charges against him. Sir George Cockburn, induced him to accept the situation of gunner. Now, if he was not fit to be a Lieutenant he was not fit to be a gunner, which
1186
was a very responsible situation. He accepted it, in the hope that he might be afterwards restored. In the next case, that of Dr. Thomas Williams, he got no copy of the case against him till five years after he was struck off the list. He totally denied the charge, and asserted that Collier himself, the solicitor who brought it against him, was also ready now to deny it. The last case was that of Surgeon William Boyce, who was declared a bankrupt in 1817. He owed his agent at the time 56 l. The Commissioners said, that it was to be considered in the same light as any other debt in his schedule, and he was accordingly discharged. He was, however, deprived of his half-pay. Why were officers of inferior rank to be subjected to so severe an ordeal, while the Admiralty, as he could prove, entirely overlooked far more serious charges in a higher quarter. He did not impute the blame in these cases to the present Board of Admiralty; but why should they father the conduct of the former Board? If he should be hard driven he would prove, by cases which would astonish the House, that the rich, and the poor were not treated in the same way. He claimed the support of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, who, upon two occasions, when the question of Orange Associations was under consideration, said, that no man's case should be decided on without having previously given him a hearing. If the noble Lord did not support him upon this occasion he would never support the consistency of the noble Lord in that House. He might be told that it was the prerogative of the Crown in all those cases to dismiss the parties. Blackstone said, that the prerogative could not be held in communion with others—it belonged solely to the Crown. If the King devolved his prerogative upon the Admiralty, therefore it was no longer prerogative. Allusion had been made, upon a former occasion, to the case of Mr. Booth a purser, one of the most respectable men in the service. This gentleman had some reason to think that he had not received all to which ' he was entitled while serving in the Mediterranean under Lord Exmouth. He applied to that noble Lord for a certificate, who furnished him with one, signed "Exmouth." He immediately called him back, and substituted the word "Pellew." He presented it

1187
to Mr. Croker, then Secretary of the Admiralty, who called him back, and said, "This is a forgery, and you are a forger." He was going to knock the Secretary about the head, as would naturally occur to an honorable high-minded man, were it not that Sir George Cockburn came in to his assistance. He was struck off the list in consequence. Sir Matthew White Ridley threatened to bring the matter before the House, and the consequence was, that this gentleman was restored, by an Order in Council. He would also claim the support of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), who laid down the principle that in cases of this kind no man should be condemned without a hearing.
Mr. Robinsonseconded the motion; and be would not do so were it not that the petitioners had exhausted every other means of obtaining redress, and were, therefore, driven to bring the case before the House. If the prerogative in such cases was exercised with the advice of Ministers, Ministers ought to be responsible. Though commissions were given by the King, it Was not so clear that they could be justly taken away without inquiry, after officers, had earned their half-pay by length of service. There would be no ground of complaint if officers, when charges were made against them, refused to submit to inquiry. He saw no reason for refusing inquiry except the mere technical one that these officers not being on full pay could not be tried by Court-martial. It would be easy to substitute some other tribunal of officers.
Mr. Charles Woodopposed the motion. In all the cases mentioned the parties had an opportunity of stating their case before a fair tribunal. That House was not the place to adjudicate them in. He believed it was not denied that the King, by his prerogative, might dismiss officers of the navy and the army. There was this difference between the two branches of the service, that the King delegated the whole of his prerogative to the High Court of Admiralty, but did not do so as regarded the army. The House knew that there was a class of offences qualified under the designation of ungentlemanly conduct. When charges of this nature were made against officers on full pay they were tried by Court-martial. It was not the case as regarded officers on half-pay. The Admiralty had the power to dismiss officers on half-pay. He would
1188
admit, however, that in all such cases as those alluded to by the gallant Officer there would be just ground of complaint if no inquiry was made into them, and if the parties were not called upon for explanation. So far as he knew, the fullest and fairest inquiry was made into all the cases now brought before the House. He would refer only to one or two of them. The first case was that of Commander Edward. He was called upon to state his case. He did so, and the Admiralty was not satisfied. He was, therefore struck off the list. With respect to Lieutenant Millner, it was not true that he had no half-pay due to him, when he gave the power of attorney. If his offence had been known soon enough he would have been tried by a Court-martial; but he had been so long on half pay that that course could not be resorted to. As to the case of the next-mentioned officer, he had not been removed from the service without trial, and the explanation he had given had not been by any means satisfactory. With respect to the case of Dr. Williams, it was one which had been so frequently before the House, and the circumstances of it were so well known that he did not consider it necessary to go into it on the present occasion; and in the case of Mr. Bee, to whose correspondence with Sir George Cockburn allusion had been made, no satisfactory explanation had been afforded the Amiralty to induce them to act differently from the course they had pursued with regard to him. The hon. and gallant Member had alluded to the case of a Mr. Booth, but he must beg of the House not to take that for a matter of fact which they only knew from the statement of the party himself. Mr. Booth had not been hastily struck off the list. The document supposed to have been forged purported to be a letter from Lord Exmouth. Mr. Booth was dismissed on the 24th of March; on the 29th Lord Exmouth's letter in reply to a communication made to him was received by the Admiralty, and the very next day a letter was sent off to pray that his Majesty would be pleased to allow the Admiralty to repair the error and injury they had committed. Those officers who had been removed from the service had been struck off upon the strength of reports made by officers competent to judge of their cases. The House had the best security as to the com-

1189
petency of the tribunal before whom the conduct of those persons had been examined. Let them look at the case of Mr. Bryant. A material fact with regard to that gentleman's case had come to light since last year. An important witness, no other than Mr. Bryant's own brother, had come forward, and stated, that the evidence he himself had given was false. The truth of that statement had been ascertained, and on that very ground the officer in question was restored to his former rank. All the officers who had been removed had been called upon to give explanations of their conduct, and in some cases those given were not satisfactory, and in others none had been given at all; and the natural consequence was, their being struck off the list. The Admiralty, in removing officers from their rank, had a most painful duty to perform, and did not exercise it except when absolutely necessary for the honour of the service over which they presided. If there was anything in the conductor character of an officer which rendered him unfit for the service he had no right to be allowed to remain, in it or to receive his half-pay. Now, the reason why these officers had been considered unfit for the service was, that they had been guilty of conduct unbecoming officers and gentlemen. Supposing all the evidence with regard to them that could be found in the records of the Admiralty to be produced, the only purpose it could serve would be that of again trying those officers; and on the ground that the real effect of granting the motion would be a call for the production of all the evidence in the Admiralty for many years back, for the purpose of re-trying these cases, and as he thought that a fair trial could not be had before a tribunal which he now considered incompetent, he should most decidedly oppose it.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, he had heard nothing in the arguments of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty to warrant his refusal to produce the Returns moved for. The real state of the case was, that there had never been any trial at all—at least nothing worthy the name of one. There never was a case of greater hardship and injustice than that of Mr. Rowland Millner. Talk of the honour of the service! Was it for the honour of the service that the evidence taken before a harsh tribunal like the Admiralty was never laid before the parties accused? The hon. Gentle-
1190
man the Secretary to the Admiralty said, there had been in all these cases the fullest investigation, and that they had had every opportunity of clearing themselves. He would assert, that the investigation had been a secret one—and before a tribunal that exercised the power with which they were invested most harshly. With respect to Mr. Millner, the first notice he ever received from the Admiralty was in a letter from Sir John Barrow. He was accused of having borrowed 12 l. from one Solomon Alexander, on the security of his half-pay, having already drawn that half-pay. If that was really the case, then the sentence which had been passed upon him was a just one. But the allegation was made, let it be remembered, in 1810,, and the investigation only took place in 1831. It was proved, that Solomon Alexander was a money-lender of the lowest description, and had gone under false names. Did the hon. Secretary mean to say that Mr. Millner had ever been personally examined, or that he had ever so much as seen the letter in which he was accused to the Admiralty? Had Alexander been personally examined? If so, then his (Mr. Aglionby's) obervations at once fell to the ground; but, if not, then he would say, was it just that an officer should on such weak grounds as these he removed from the service? Mr. Millner denied having received his half-pay at the time, and wrote to the Admiralty to that effect. The reply he received from Sir J. Barrow was, that he had laid his letter before the Lords Commissioners, and that they had authorised him to say, that they could not comply with the request contained in it. He wrote again to Sir J. Barrow, requesting, at least, to see the documents which it was stated had been, produced against him, in order that he might say whether the signatures to them were in his own hand writing or forgeries. The answer was, that his request could not be complied with. He presented a petition to the King, and Sir Herbert Taylor's reply was, that, in compliance with his Majesty's order, he had referred the petition to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, who finally referred Mr. Millner to their former answer to his communications. The statements of the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty appeared to him (Mr. Aglionby) inconsistent in the extreme, as to whether Mr. Millner had, or had not, any half-pay due to him at the time of the

1191
alleged fraud? Under all these circumstances he hoped the House would consider that a sufficient case was made out for a further inquiry into the matter. He considered it was the duty of that House to exercise a control over every Court where it could be shown that harshness and injustice had taken place.
Mr. Charles Woodsaid, he had the necessary papers with him upon the point of the half pay alluded to, but he was sure Mr. Millner was, at the time, on half pay, and, that being afterwards appointed to the Diadem, on full pay, and wishing to raise a little money to fit himself out, he applied to Alexander for a loan, to whom he gave an order to draw his half pay. Alexander sent the order to his agents in town, and up to the day of his death he swore that the signature was that of Mr. Millner; in addition to which, his (Alexander's) wife had since corroborated his testimony by stating that she remembered the circumstance. Mr. Millner, on his return home, kept out of the way so long, that the time within which he could have been brought to a courtmartial passed away before recourse could be had to such a trial.
Mr. Richardswas somewhat surprised, that the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty should call on the House to disbelieve these gentlemen because they had been accused, and to believe him who was their accuser. The Board of Admiralty had been designated a tribunal, when, in fact, it was no tribunal at all. He did not think that the Admiralty ought to shelter itself under the prerogative; if the facts were as the hon. Secretary stated, no objection ought to be made to the inquiry; he therefore should support the motion.
Sir Love Parrysaid, it was evident that there was an anomaly at the Admiralty between the cases of officers on half-pay and those on full, for the former could not, like the latter, have the opportunity of clearing themselves by a Court Martial from charges brought against them, while the latter could do so. He considered, that the individuals in question, as well as any others, had a right to call for investigation into their conduct, and not to be thrown upon the world as paupers, without having had a satisfactory trial. Such, he was happy to say, was not the case in the profession to which he belonged. The returns moved for, could not, with any show of justice be refused.
Sir Thomas Troubridgedenied that' injustice, if any had been done, had been inflicted by the present Admiralty. It was a case of almost thirty years standing. He had himself investigated the case, and was satisfied that no injustice had been done. What interest could the Admiralty possibly have in breaking an officer unless he had committed some offence? If this interference were established, the service would be ruined, for it would infringe upon the due observance of those rules which had for their origin the necessity that every man in such a profession should be a gentleman, and wholly untainted by the least suspicion of dishonourable conduct.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that some investigation was necessary. The practice of striking officers off the Half Pay List without trial was not right, how honourable soever the persons to whom the power of doing so might be committed. The hon. Secretary had mentioned the case in which the Admiralty had, in consequence of subsequent inquiry, redressed the grievance committed by its having relied on the sworn testimony of one brother against another; he (Mr. O'Connell) thought, that it would be better to investigate previously to dismissal. The House would observe, that Mr. Millner had declared the power of attorney produced by Alexander to be a forgery, and he could not but think it suspicious that during the whole of Mr. Millner's absence on service, that power of attorney had remained unused. The House, in voting for the inquiry, would not pass a vote of censure on the Admiralty, but simply vote for the production of papers; he, therefore, should support the motion.
Mr. Cumming Bruceconsidered, that it would be a dangerous proceeding to transfer the functions of the Admiralty to a Committee of the House of Commons, and he should therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. Arthur Trevorstated, that a sense of justice would compel him to vote for the motion. The circumstances under which the parties were placed, made it only fair to grant an inquiry.
Colonel Thompsonthought, that without questioning the decisions of the naval or military departments, motions such as this, ought to be acceded to as a means of satisfying the public. The course adopted by these departments would not be

1193
sanctioned by the public if followed by criminal courts; and he did not think that the people would be content with it if practised by other authorities. As a matter of wisdom then, of prudence and policy, he should support the motion.
Mr. Harveysaid, the present was not a gratuitous proposition of some Member who was ever found ready to bring forward cases which had something to redress in them. The Board had been stated to possess constitutional responsibility. They claimed the power of cashiering at will, naval officers, and having done so, he would ask, to whom was that Board amenable? It had also been said, that the House ought to place confidence in the correctness of the inquiry which had already taken place; but was the House prepared to place such confidence in any Member of his Majesty's Government as to receive his statement without calling for evidence? Why, he would ask, having admitted the right of the House to make the inquiry, did Government refuse to grant the Return required? A constitutional House of Commons could never recognise the dictum that the House ought to be satisfied with the inquiry which the Board had made; on the contrary, the House ought to say they were willing to believe the motives of the Board had been beyond suspicion, but they would take leave to judge for themselves.
Admiral Adamcould not find fault with the hon. and gallant Member for bringing forward this motion, if he really felt that justice required it; but he could not, at the same time, avoid congratulating him on the able supporters he had in the hon. Members for Durham and Knaresborough. He, however, called on the House to beware how it interfered with the prerogative of the Crown, which had been given for the benefit of the country. In the absence of any other constitutional tribunal, the Admiralty had investigated this case, and had come to an honest decision upon it; and until some other tribunal was appointed, they would continue to exercise the functions of judgment reposed in them, with, he hoped, as much honour to themselves as benefit to the service, and to the country.
Captain Gordonsaid, that if he understood the question right, the object of the motion was, to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown; and, in his opinion,
1194
it was absolutely necessary, for the good regulation of the service, that the Crown, and the Admiralty as its representative, should have the power of dispensing with, the services of officers, and on that ground alone he objected to the production of the papers.
Mr. Phillip Howarddeclared, that resting on the authority of the gallant Admiral (Sir E. Codrington) who had brought forward the motion, he should give his vote in favour of it.
Sir Edward Codringtonobserved, that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) had on a former occasion stated, that if he (Sir E. Codrington) should act in any way unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, the right hon. Baronet should feel it his duty, if he were at the Board of Admiralty, to recommend his dismissal from the service. Now, he should be glad to learn from the right hon. Baronet what he considered to be conduct unworthy of an officer and a gentleman. Did he think that a naval officer who employed his Majesty's ships in carrying materials for building houses would be acting in a manner unworthy of an officer and a gentleman? Would he consider that the officer in command of a ship, who fished up brass guns which had been blown up, and distributed the proceeds of their sale as prize-money among men who had never been in the action, at the rate of two French dollars a-man—would he consider that a naval commander, who had thus conducted himself, had been guilty of behaviour unworthy of an officer and a gentleman? He should be glad to hear the right hon. Baronet's opinion on this point, because he knew that such circumstances had taken place.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that if the object of the division was to ascertain who were the friends, and who were the enemies of the navy, he for one gladly accepted the hon. and gallant Admiral's challenge. Nothing, he thought, could be less conducive to the interest of the service, than to have persons whose honour had been tainted, in connexion with it; and he was persuaded, that if the sense of the navy were taken, it would be found that they were not unfavourable to the power exercised by the Board of Admiralty, or desirous of an appeal from its decisions to the authority of that House. He must deny that he had ever contended that the power vested in the Board of

1195
Admiralty should be exercised in all cases: but he had said, that where the officers of the navy or army—who were not on full pay, were not amenable to the tribunal of a Court-martial—were guilty of conduct that tainted their honour, it was the paramount duty of the Government to strike them off the lists of the service. This power was, of course, exercised under responsibility, and never called into action unless the case brought against the individual was fully established against him, to the satisfaction of those in whose hands the power was placed. The hon. and gallant Officer had called upon him to define what the conduct was that he considered would be unworthy of an officer and a gentleman. Had the hon. and gallant Officer ever presided at a Court-martial? If he had, was it for him to tell the hon. and gallant Officer what the conduct was that would be unworthy of an officer and a gentleman? Every man who heard him was as competent to answer the hon. and gallant Officer's question as he was, and therefore, he must express his surprise at finding that the hon. and gallant Officer was so uninformed as to render a definition on the subject necessary. He was most unwillingly drawn into the present discussion; but he could not, at the same time help saying, that he was surprised at the reference which the hon. and gallant Officer had made to the conduct of a brother officer, who was not present to defend himself against such insinuations as the hon. and gallant Officer had thrown out. He was aware of the name of the gallant Officer to whom the hon. and gallant Officer alluded, and it was but right that the House should know that he was an officer not on half but on full pay. Now, would the hon. and gallant Officer have had him exercise the authority of the Board of Admiralty in such a case? [Sir E. Codrington—No, no.] If the gallant Officer referred to had done anything wrong, if he had been guilty of conduct that was unworthy of an officer and a gentleman, he was amenable to a Court-martial—to that tribunal on which the hon. and gallant Officer so strongly relied, and from an investigation by which the gallant Officer in question would not have shrunk, had those charges now imputed been preferred against him. He must say, that it was unworthy of the hon. and gallant Officer thus, without notice, and behind his back, to pronounce such a
1196
censure on the conduct of a brother officer, without at the same time mentioning his name. This matter might not be perfectly understood in that House, but it would be understood elsewhere—it would be understood in the service to which the hon. and gallant Officer alluded to belonged; and yet the hon. and gallant Officer, knowing this, took that occasion to question him as to the conduct which was becoming in an officer, and a gentleman.
Sir Edward Codringtonwas understood, in explanation, to speak to the following effect:— "Sir, I mentioned the subject because I had complained to the right hon. Baronet himself, that men who were not at the battle of Navarino, had received two dollars each as prize money, for guns fished up after the battle from the Bay of Navarino. I made the complaint because the right hon. Baronet resisted giving to my men the gratuity I claimed for them for that battle. But, Sir, what did the right hon. Baronet do? Why, he appointed that very officer who did this, to supersede me in the command of the Mediterranean fleet. Sir, the right hon. Baronet has taunted me with not having named the officer to whom I alluded, but as I should be incapable to speak that of a gentleman behind his back, which I would not say before his face, I have no hesitation whatever in stating, that the officer to whom I alluded is Sir Pulteney Malcolm. I, for one, Sir, disapproved of Sir Pulteney Malcolm's conduct, and I think that marry men would have subjected themselves to be tried by a Court-martial, if they had acted in the same way. If any other officer had been tried upon the charge, and it had been proved against him, I am convinced that this would have been the case. Now, Sir, I hope I have spoken explicitly. Sir Palteney Malcolm spoke freely of me, and in doing so he did not speak fairly. I state this, Sir, as a fact. I think I have spoken explicitly now."
Sir James Graham: The hon. and gallant Officer has spoken explicitly enough. The hon. and gallant Officer alluded to this subject on two or three former occasions, but this is the first time that he has ever mentioned the name of the officer to whom he referred. Sir, I entertain the highest opinion possible of Sir Pulteney Malcolm, and I do not believe that there is a more honourable or gallant officer in the profession to which he belongs, it

1197
is perfectly true that the hon. and gallant Officer was superseded in the command of the Mediterranean fleet, and that Sir Pulteney Malcolm succeeded him in that command. I admit that I am responsible for having superseded the hon. and pliant Officer, and that I did so, because I would not listen to insinuations and charges which were made in such a manlier as the insinuations and charges made to me were made. Those who were fully competent to form a correct opinion of the conduct of Sir Pulteney Malcolm, I consulted, and I now feel it my bounden duty to declare, that I totally disbelieve the charges brought against him. Sir, had there been any foundation for those charges, might not Sir Pulteney Malcolm have been called upon to answer them before that tribunal to which he was at that time amenable? He never was, and I therefore think it rather hard that the hon. and gallant Officer should have attempted for years to whisper away the character of Sir Pulteney, without mentioning his name, until the hon. and gallant Officer found himself driven into a corner.
Admiral Adam: Sir, I must Say that I also was surprised to hear the hon. and gallant Admiral behind me prefer such charges against my old and gallant Friend, Sir Pulteney Malcolm. If the hon. and gallant Admiral had had charges to bring against my old and esteemed Friend, why did he not make them in an open and manly manner, and net by Way of insinuation?
Mr. Humesaid; he was anxious to bring the House back to the real question before them. He must say that a secret inquisition was highly objectionable; and as he thought it unfair that the characters of officers should be whispered away by a dozen individuals, on, perhaps, incorrect information, he was Opposed to the power which was placed in the hands of the Board of Admiralty. It was true, that they had an appeal to the Crown, but of what advantage was that appeal, when the only thing to be gained from it was, a reference back to the same authority by whom the matter was decided in the first instance.
The House divided —Ayes 46; Noes 153; Majority 107.

List of the AYES.

Bannerman, A.

Bowles, G. R.

Bish, T.

Brady, D. C.

Blake, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

1198

Brownrigg, S.

Robinson, G. R.

Chapman, L.

Rundle, J.

Crawford, W.

Stuart, V.

Duncombe, T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ewart, W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Fector, J. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Fielden, J.

Thompson, Colonel

Grattan, H.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Hall, B.

Trevor, hon. A.

Harvey, D. W.

Tulk, C. A.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Howard, P.M.

Wallaoe, R.

Hume, J.

Wason, R.

Lushington, C.

Whalley, Sir S.

Mainland, H.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Connell, D.

Williams, W. A.

O'Connell, J.

Williams, Sir J.

O'Connell, M.

Wood, Alderman

Palmer, General

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

TELLERS.

Pattison, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Richards, J.

Codrington, Sir E.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

East, J. B.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Eastnor, Viscount

Bailey, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Baillie, H. D.

Ebrington, Viscount

Bainbridge, E. T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Baines, E.

Elley, Sir J.

Balfour, T.

Estcourt, T.

Baring, F. T.

Farrand, R.

Baring, H. B.

Ferguson, rt. hon. R. C.

Baring, T.

Finch, G.

Barneby, J.

Forbes, W.

Barron, H. W.

Forster, C. S.

Benett, J.

French, F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Geary, Sit W

Bethell, R.

Gladstone, T.

Biddulph, R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Blackburne, I.

Gordon, R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gordon, hon. Captain

Boiling, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Bonham, R. F.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Borthwick, P.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Bradshaw, J.

Hale R. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Harcourt, G. S.

Bruen, F.

Hardy, J.

Byng, G.

Harland, W. C.

Campbell, Sir H.

Hastie, A.

Charlton, E. L.

Hawes, B.

Chichester, A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Clayton, Sir W.

Hinde, J. H.

Clive, Viscount

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hodges, T. L.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Hogg, J. W.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Hope, J.

Cole, Viscount

Houstoun, G.

Coote, Sir C.

Howard, R.

Cripps, J.

Howick, Viscount

Damer, G. L. D.

Humphery, J.

Darlington, Earl of

James, W.

Dillwyn, L, W.

Johnston, Andrew

Divett, E.

Irton, S.

Dottin, A. R.

Kearsley, J. H.

Dowdeswell, W.

Knight, H. G.

Duffield, Thomas

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

1199

Law, hon. C. E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Lefevre, C. S.

Richards, R.

Lennox, Lord George

Rickford, W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Ross, C.

Leveson, Lord

Russell, Charles

Lewis, D.

Russell, Lord J.

Lister, E. C.

Russell, Lord C.

Long, W.

Ryle, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Marsland, T.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Maule, hon. F.

Scott, J. W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Scourfield, W. H.

Miles, William

Seymour, Lord

Morpeth, Viscount

Sharpe, General

Morrison, J.

Shirley, E. J.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Stanley, E. J.

Neeld, J.

Stewart, J.

Nicholl, Dr.

Surrey, Earl of

O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.

Tennent, J. E.

Packe, C. W.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Palmer, R.

Twiss, H.

Palmer, G.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Palmerston, Viscount

Vere, Sir C. B.

Parker, M.

Vesey, hon. T.

Parker, John

Ward, H. G.

Parrott, J.

Weyland, Major

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

White, S.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Whitmore, T. C.

Perceval, Colonel

Wood, C.

Pigot, R.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Poulter, J. S.

TELLERS.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Adam, Sir C.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

SURVEY OF CHURCH LANDS.
Mr. Thomas Duncomberose to renew his motion for copies of all the Parliamentary surveys of Church lands made in 1646, and deposited by Parliament in the library of manuscripts in Lambeth Palace. He was sorry that accident had prevented him from being in his place when his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex brought this motion forward as his substitute. He was afraid that he had, by his absence on that occasion, placed his hon. Friend in a most ungracious position. The papers of which he was now moving for copies, were the property of Parliament. They contained the surveys of Church lands, which Parliament had ordered to be made in 1646, and were placed by Parliament, which did not know what to do with them at the Restoration, in the care of the Archbishop of Canterbury for safe custody, They were therefore beyond all dispute public property; but still, if you wanted an extract respecting any particular parish you must pay a fee of half a guinea for it to the Archbishop's secretary, or if you wanted, as he had wanted, extracts respecting twelve parishes, you must pay
1200
six guineas for them. He understood that on a former occasion the Attorney-General had objected to the production of these copies, on the ground of the expense of making them. He had said that there were forty folio volumes of them, and that it would require a cart and horses to produce them; but the fact was, that there were only twenty quarto volumes, written only on one side of the page, and written too, in a very large hand. The expense of copying them would amount to 40 l.; and the copies themselves, if printed, would easily go into the compass of an ordinary Parliamentary volume. He believed that those documents would show that a great deal of property, which was then in the Church, had since been alienated, and would render it necessary for Parliament to call for some explanation of the mode in which the alienation had been made. He was sorry that his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, (Sir R. Inglis) was not present, as he should have appealed to his hon. Friend to confirm his assertion that the documents of which he wanted copies were the property of Parliament. He concluded by formally making the motion which he had mentioned at the commencement of his speech.
Lord John Russellwas unwilling to oppose this motion, although he could not see its utility. He understood that these documents were considered as public documents in the library at Lambeth, and that any person who wished to see them might do so for a small fee, He doubted, however, whether it was worth while to go to the expense of either copying or printing them.
Mr. Humewould be sorry to put the country to any unnecessary expense, but he still thought that these documents ought to be printed. He assured the noble Lord that he had found great difficulty in obtaining what he wanted in these manuscripts. It was of great importance that the contents of these documents should be open to the public.
Mr. Baineshad gone to the library at Lambeth Palace, and having stated that he wanted to examine these manuscripts for historical purposes, had received from the Archbishop of Canterbury and from his librarian every facility he could desire, and that, too, without the payment of any fee.
Sir Robert Peelwas not going to throw

1201
any obstacle in the way of the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He thought, however, that the first document which the House ought to call for should be an authentic statement of the circumstances under which these documents were placed as public property in the library at Lambeth. When that formal authority was produced, either in the shape of an extract from their journals, or in any other authentic document, there could be no objection to order the production of the surveys in question. He made this suggestion to the House to prevent it being imagined that they had exercised their authority to extract documents which were not their property from a private library.
Lord John Russellconcurred with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that some Parliamentary ground should be laid for demanding these documents as public property from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Debate adjourned.

PRISON DISCIPLINE (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the subject which I feel it to be my duty to bring under the notice of the House, is one of so much importance, that I trust I may be permitted to trespass for a short time on its attention, while I detail the amendments which I propose to make in the management of the prisons and system of prison discipline in Scotland. All who have turned their attention to this interesting subject, concur in opinion that without uniformity of system no great improvement can be obtained, and, however in some cases centralization of management may be undesirable, in respect to prisons there seems to be but one opinion as to the propriety of its adoption. Fully subscribing to this doctrine, which I find strongly recommended in Mr. Hill's two Reports on the prisons of Scotland, I have endeavoured to frame a measure which shall carry it into effect, and rescue that country from the stain which the present system casts upon it. Did my time permit, I might enter into a detail of the present evils, which, perhaps, would be the most formal course previous to suggesting the remedies; but these are so well known to every one connected with that country that I feel, as far as they are concerned, it would be an unnecessary consumption of time, and will content myself by referring the House and the
1202
public to Mr. Hill's excellent reports in justification, if it be required, of the measure which I shall lay on the table. But I cannot avoid mentioning one striking fact, that, notwithstanding the immense changes that have taken place in Scotland—the increase of population—the establishment of large commercial communities—the enlargement, if I may say of the field for crime, and the increased strictness of the administration of the law —the statute which regulates the confinement of prisoners bears the antiquated date of 1597. By this Act, in return, no doubt, for valuable privileges at that time enjoyed by them, the royal burghs were called upon to take charge of all persons sentenced to imprisonment, and were held responsible for their safe custody and maintenance when convicted, out of the common goods or property, of the borough, of which, at the time, no doubt, there was a sufficiency for the purpose; for, I fear, the majesty of the law was so ill upheld in those days, that few were made subject to its necessary vengeance. But many of our royal burghs have fallen from their former estate, and their property is gone: but their liability remains; and what is the consequence? Their gaols are in the worst possible condition—no discipline can exist, for there are no means to carry it out—male and female, convicted and untried, the hardened in crime and the juvenile offender, debtor and felon, may be seen herded together under the charge of a gaoler, with a salary of some 4l. or 5l. a-year, who ekes out the remainder of his scanty income by the profits he derives from supplying beer, spirituous liquors, and other articles to the unfortunate individuals under his charge. This state of things has not been unnoticed by Parliament, though no effectual remedy has yet been provided. In 1818, and 1819, a Committee of the House was employed in carefully investigating the subject; but the only result of their labour was the 59th of George 3rd, c. 61. This Act is very defective in its provisions, and it only applies to rebuilding gaols on their old sites, and leaves it a matter of choice to the counties to give or withhold aid as they see fit. In 1826 the attention of Parliament was again attracted to the subject, and the result of their inquiries was, that in the opinion of the Committee the state of the prisons in Scotland was very defective in point of security, accom-

1203
modation and management, while the funds from which such prisons ought to be improved were in most instances inadequate for the purpose. The Committee go on to state, that it is no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity, that a speedy and effective remedy should be supplied to an evil of such, magnitude. Notwithstanding these suggestions, no farther steps were taken towards an improved system till 1829, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite brought forward a Bill, which, had it been entertained, would have gone far to remedy the existing evils, and contained some of the provisions which I have adopted in the present Bill. Counties have also, in some instances, stepped in voluntarily to share with the burghs the burthen of maintaining prisoners, and providing secure accommodation. Various kind and charitable individuals have also formed themselves into societies, which have done some good in introducing religious instruction, and attracting public attention to the subject; but with the best intentions, their objects have been in a great measure rendered ineffectual by want of a proper system of discipline and order. But there is another principle to be considered. Is it right that the present liabilities of burghs should remain? I cannot for a moment subscribe to such a proposition; and I hold that all classes of the community are bound, according to their means, to be subject to this natural duty. Impressed with these opinions, I will state shortly the heads of the Bill which I shall ask leave to introduce to the House, and which they will find to be framed much upon the principles and suggestions contained in Mr. Hill's reports. It is proposed to place the whole prisons of Scotland and regulation of prison discipline under one board of directors, to be named in the Act, with the addition of the inspector of prisons for the north, and two directors to be named by the Secretary of State; the office Of director to be honorary; the board to make regulations subject to approval or alteration by the Secretary of State, and to lay their proceedings annually before Parliament. I propose the board shall lay before Parliament every year art estimate of the expenses for the ensuing year; this estimate to be on the table of the House for one month, and, if not questioned in that time, to be carried
1204
into effect by the board levying an assessment on counties and burghs according to their population. The proportions for each being allocated according to a schedule in the Bill, the assessment is proposed to be raised oh counties along with the rogue money, and in burghs by the magistrates along with any convenient burgh rate that may exist. It is proposed to limit the amount of the assessment to what is right and reasonable; and I propose that it shall not exceed 30,000 l. in any one year over all Scotland. By the calculations I have made, I find that this sum, being the highest possible rate, would impose an assessment upon the city of Edinburgh of only about one penny in the pound of rental, and even on the country generally would fall so lightly as scarcely to be felt as a burthen. I propose that there shall be three great penitentiaries in different parts of the kingdom, and it fortunately happens that there are buildings belonging to Government exceedingly well adapted for this purpose, which I am prepared to state Government will grant the use of, and which will enable us, with comparatively little expense, to carry the plan into effect; There are also several smaller prisons at present existing, which, some of them in their present state and some of them with slight alteration, will still remain useful. Thus I have endeavoured to show the House the principle I propose to adopt; the manner of carrying it into effect; the means of defraying the expenses of it; and the equity with which they will fall on all classes of the community, rural as well as urban. They will perhaps understand the details better when the Bill and its schedules are in their hands; but I could not in justice to the subject allow it to go to the public without this explanation of its Various points. I fed quite assured that though there may be some difference of opinion as to these details, to which I am by no means bound if improvement can be shown, the gentlemen of Scotland will support me in carrying the principle into effect. Men of all parties and opinions will approach the subject with but one feeling, and lend their aid and influence to promote the Cause of justice and humanity, and render our country as distinguished for the order and regularity of our prisons as she has long been for the intelligence and morality

1205
of her people. I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill to improve prisons and prison discipline in Scotland.
Major Cumming Brucewas sure the House would agree with him, that no apology was necessary for his hon. Friend for occupying their time with the able statement with which he had introduced the present important measure; a measure which he trusted would soon remove the disgrace which at present attached to Scotland from the state of her prisons. He liked not only the general principles of the measure, but the details also, and he anticipated the happiest results from its operation. Though not a friend to the principle of centralization in all matters, he was convinced, and he was sure that others would agree with him, that this was a case in which centralization was necessary, seeing that this was a matter not of petty local interests, but of national concern, and that it was only by putting the prisons of Scotland under one general direction, that any efficient and permanent reform could be obtained. If he had had any doubt of the necessity of this and the other leading principles of the Bill, those doubts have been removed by the perusal of the reports of the inspector of prisons for Scotland. In all the principles and views brought forward by Mr. Hill in those reports he heartily concurred, and he thought that the more the present measure was made in accordance with those views and principles, the more good it would contain. The advantage was to be general, and therefore it was quite reasonable that there should be a general assessment, and that all should contribute according to their ability, whether they happened to be inhabitants of burghs or not. The burghs had already borne their peculiar burdens too long, and he was glad to find that this measure would afford them relief.
Sir William Raesaid, that the country ought to feel obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having brought this measure forward. He trusted that this was a Government measure, as it was the only mode in which it could be effectually carried through. He had paid much attention to this subject, and had endeavoured to apply a remedy to the acknowledged evils at present existing. His chief difficulty had been in providing the large district prisons and procuring the necessary funds, but the ban, Member would not have the same difficulties to contend with, if he obtained
1206
the assistance of Government in providing the penitentiaries required; if he needed to raise any large sum by a new form of assessment, he would perhaps be beaten. The rates in counties in Scotland were at present levied according to a valuation made nearly 200 years ago, which, of course, does not show the value of property. The right hon. Member concluded by saying that, he would be very happy to afford any assistance in his power in aid of such an important measure.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that the Bill was a Government measure, and that Government would do all in its power to carry it through Parliament.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the present system of prison discipline was a disgrace to Scotland, and could not be allowed to continue. It was also a consideration not unworthy of the attention of the House, that the proposed measure was likely to prove a measure of economy. That it must be so, was evident from this —that if crime be diminished, expense must be diminished in the same, or nearly in the same proportion.
Captain Gordonconsidered that the plan was exceedingly good, and one which it was most desirable should be carried into immediate effect. He wished to know whether it was the intention of his hon. Friend, in cases where nothing could be established against particular prisons, that the parties maintaining those gaols should be put to additional expense.
Mr. Fox Maulereplied, that if the proposed measure became an Act of Parliament, the prisons of Scotland would be placed under one board possessing power to levy a general assessment over the whole Country, by which means counties and boroughs would be relieved from any future expense.
Mr. Forbesdid not much approve of any further increase of centralization, and certainly, before he gave his assent to the measure then before the House, he must see what was said to its details in the county which he had the honour to represent.
Mr. Hawessaid, it would be highly advantageous, if, in establishing regulations of the kind proposed, arrangements should be made for rendering the gaols of Scotland self-supporting establishments.
Sir William Maeinquired whether or not it Was intended that the same responsibility as formerly should attach to magistrates in cases where debtors effected their escape.
Mr. Maulesaid, it was expected that in future a more respectable class of men would fill the office of gaoler than had done so formerly; they would, therefore, be enabled to find sufficient security, and the magistrates would then be relieved from further responsibility.
Motion agreed to. Bill brought in and read a first time.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lords ROLLS, REDESDALE, ASHBURTON, the Bishop of LONDON, the Duke of WELLINGTON, and other Noble LORDS, from the Isle of Thanet, Sarum, Sittingbourne, and other places, against, and by Viscount MELBOURNE, Lords HATHERTON, BROUGHAM, and other Noble LORDS, from Haddington, and various other places, for, the Abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord SKELMERSDALE, from the Medical Profession of Bolton-le-Moor, for an Alteration of Poor-laws Amendment Act, with respect to the Remuneration to Medical Men.
The Earl of Shaftesbury, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor, took the Woolsack at a quarter before five o'clock.
Mr. Bernal, and others from the Commons, brought up the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, the Mutiny Bill, the Marine Mutiny Bill, the Penitentiary (Millbank) Bill, and the Edinburgh Police Bill.
Mr. G. F. Young, and others, from the Commons, brought up a message, requesting their Lordships to permit Lord Ellen-borough and Lord Glenelg to be examined before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to inquire into the claims for compensation of Captains Glasspoole, Newall, and Barrow, late in the East India Company's maritime service.
On the motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury, leave was subsequently given.
Soon after five o'clock the Lord Chancellor took the Woolsack.

WANT OF CHURCHES (IRELAND).
The Earl of Riponpresented a petition from the Bishop of Down and Connor, and 105 clergymen of that diocese, complaining of the great deficiency of church accommodation in that part of Ireland. The petitioners stated that there were 105 parishes, which afforded the most inadequate accommodation for the poor that could be imagined; and they further set forth, that in order to supply proper accommodation, it would be necessary that fifty-one churches should be repaired, enlarged, or built. They had applied to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for assistance under the Act of Parliament, but the answer was, that they had no means of affording it. The parties who made this application had volunteered to contribute

1155
to the expense, and many others had no doubt had made similar offers, but their application was fruitless, the Commissioners not being provided with any means whatsoever to contribute to this important object. What mode should be adopted to remedy this deficiency, he was not prepared to state; but it was a most grievous and lamentable thing that the Church of Ireland should be placed in such a situation, without any means being devised to remedy it. The Commissioners were appointed, under an act of Parliament, to provide especially for the efficiency of the established Church in Ireland. That Act of Parliament had now been in existence three years and more, and yet not a farthing had the Commissioners been able to afford in furtherance of that important object.
The Marquis of Downshiresupported the petition. The diocese was a large and important tine, and the spiritual wants of the inhabitants ought to be attended to.
Lord Hathertondid not wish to say any thing on this subject that was likely to provoke discussion. He was disposed to Concur in much, but not in all, that had fallen from the noble Earl. He agreed with the noble Earl that, In this diocese, a large Protestant population was not properly accommodated, and that was the reason why he supported the Bill of last year, by which sufficient funds would have been derived from places where there was no Protestant population to afford the necessary church accommodation in parishes, where there was.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the noble Baron had stated that he would not introduce any point that was likely to provoke discussion, and he had then immediately alluded to the appropriation clause, than which no subject was more likely to create discussion. He, however, would not follow the example of the noble Lord, but he must say, With reference to the church question, that whenever he heard the word "surplus," it always struck him to mean "deficiency."
The Earl of Riponsaid, he had moved for a return of the expenditure of the Church Commissioners in Ireland, and thought it should have been supplied before this. In respect to the Report of the Commissioners themselves, he supposed that the Lord-Lieutenant had not considered it worth his while to send it to England.
Petition laid on the table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill having been brought up from the other House of Parliament, perhaps it would be convenient for their Lordships then to determine on what day they would take the second reading. He would move that the Bill be read a first time and printed, and he would propose the second reading on Tuesday, the 25th inst.
The Duke of Wellingtonbegged leave to remind the noble Viscount of a passage in the King's speech, at the opening of the session; and also of a paragraph in the address in answer to that speech. In the speech these words occurred;—"His Majesty has more especially commanded us to bring under your notice the slate of Ireland, and the wisdom of adopting all such measures as may improve the condition of that part of the United Kingdom. His Majesty recommends to your early consideration the present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the laws which regulate the collection of tithes, and the difficult, but pressing question, of establishing some legal provision for the poor, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such precautions against abuse, as your experience and knowledge of the subject enable you to suggests His Majesty commits these great interests into your hands in the confidence that you will be able to frame laws in accordance with the wishes of his Majesty, and the expectation of his people. His Majesty is persuaded that, should this hope be fulfilled, you will not only contribute to the welfare of Ireland, but strengthen the law and constitution of these realms, by securing their benefits to all classes of his Majesty's subjects." The answer to that part of the speech ran thus:—"Humbly to assure your Majesty that we will direct our attention to the state of Ireland, which your Majesty has been graciously pleased to bring especially under our notice; and, convinced of the wisdom of adopting all such measures as may improve the condition of that part of the United Kingdom. We will take into our early consideration the present constitution of the municipal corporations of that country, the laws which regulate the collection of tithes, and the difficult but pressing question of establishing some legal provision for the poor, guarded by prudent regulations, and by such precautions against abuse, as our experience

1157
and knowledge of the subject may enable us to suggest: we cannot but feel grateful for the confidence with which your Majesty commits these interests into our hands, and we are persuaded with your Majesty, that should we be able to frame laws upon these matters, in accordance with the wishes of your Majesty, and the expectations of your Majesty's people, we shall not only contribute to the welfare of Ireland, but strengthen the law and constitution of these realms, by securing their benefits to all classes of your Majesty's subjects." Now, it appeared, that of the three subjects mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, and in the answer of that House, one only had been brought into their Lordships' House—namely, that which related to the Irish municipal corporations. Another subject, the poor-laws, had, he believed, been brought under the consideration of the other House of Parliament, and stood on the votes. But the third subject, which related to Irish tithes, had not been yet introduced to either House. It certainly appeared to him that, before their Lordships were called on to discuss the principle or details of the Municipal Corporations Bill, they ought to know what the measures were which Ministers intended to introduce with reference to the other subjects alluded to in his Majesty's Speech, and in the address. Under these circumstances, he requested the noble Viscount to postpone the consideration of this measure to a later period; and he was the more particularly anxious the House should not proceed with it on a very early day, because a noble and learned Friend of his (Lord Lyndhurst), who took a Very distinguished part in the discussion of the measure last year, was absent on account of a domestic misfortune, and would be unable to attend in his place for some days. Under all these circumstances, he trusted the noble viscount would postpone the second reading of the Bill to some more distant day.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to the ground which the noble Duke had urged for a postponement of the second reading of this Bill, and which had reference to the three measures alluded to in his Majesty's Speech from the Throne, and in the Address, he did not concur in thinking that it was sufficiently weighty to induce a postponement of the consideration of the Municipal Corporation Bill. As to the three measures alluded to by the
1158
noble Duke, as referred to in his Majesty's Speech, he would state, that one of them had been brought into that House, and was the subject of their present discussion Another was the question of poor-laws, and the principle of the Bill oft that subject had already been fully opened in the other House, but it was yet a question whether or not it should be adopted by Parliament. The third was the question of tithes, and upon that subject a notice would shortly be given in the other House, and the Bill Would be brought in as soon as the state of the public business would permit. He thought, therefore, that these measures would be before their Lordships in quite sufficient time to decide upon them calmly and deliberately. He greatly regretted the cause which presented the attendance of the noble and learned Lord, and he would be most happy to do anything to meet his convenience. At the same time, personal feeling could not be allowed to weigh too much, and courtesy demanded some limit, when the country required that measures of great public importance Should be expedited, Under these circumstances, he could not recede from the day which he had already fixed for the second reading of this Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughunder stood the noble Viscount to state, that all the three measures would be before that House before the Irish Municipal Bill was disposed of.
Viscount Melbourne: I said, the two others would be sent up to this House as soon as possible.
Bill read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 25th of April.
Viscount Duncannonlaid oh the table, the return on the subject of the Carlow high sheriffs.
The Bills on the table were then forwarded a stage, and their Lordships adjourned.