Sitting of 22 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Stage Carriages; Poor Rates Collection.—Read a second time:—Militia Ballots Suspension; Postage Duties.—Read a third time:—Inland Warehousing; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. T. Attwood, from the Coach Proprietors of Birmingham, against the Duties oppressing them.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, from Gloucestershire, to the same effect.—By Sir W. Somerville, from one place, against the Bank of Ireland Charter.—By Mr. Plumptre, from Alverstoke, and Liverpool, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. O'Connell, from the Paper Makers of Dublin, against the Penny Postage measure.—By Mr. Macauley, from Edinburgh, for further Church Extension in Scotland.—By Mr. Bannerman, from one place, and by Mr. Hume, from a number of places, in favour of a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Colonel T. Wood, from Poplar, against the Collection of Rates Bill.

INCREASE OF THE ARMY. NEW POLICE.
Lord John Russellwished to state to the House, the propositions which would be made by Government relative to the present state of the country in certain districts. It was the intention, then, of the Government to lay on the Table of that House immediately an additional estimate, to allow of an increase of our infantry regiments from 739 to 800 men. This estimate would provide for an increase of the numerical force of our army to the extent of about 5,000 men. The sum which would be required for the maintenance of this additional force up to April next would

621
not exceed 75,000 l. The constant call for military aid from various parts of the country, especially from the north of England, and the impossibility, at all events the extreme danger, of diminishing our military force in the colonies, especially in Canada, made it, in the opinion of Government, a duty incumbent on them to ask for this additional force before Parliament separated. He had also to state, that he had received a representation from the mayor of Birmingham, addressed particularly to him (Lord J. Russell), but of a public nature, and stating that in the opinion of all the magistrates of Birmingham there was nothing which would conduce so much to the permanent peace of that town as the establishment of a local police force. The communication further stated, that in the present state of things, owing to the circumstances which had occurred with respect to the corporation, and to the disturbed state of the town, they did not think that they could proceed to the levy of a rate so immediately as would be necessary to carry this object into effect. He therefore proposed to move a resolution which would enable him to bring in a bill to provide that the Treasury might have power to advance a sum not exceeding 10,000 l. for the establishment of a police force in Birmingham, such sum to be repaid by a rate to be levied on that town. It was likewise his intention on Wednesday next to ask leave to bring in a bill to enable county magistrates to establish a constabulary force in counties, or districts of counties, for the better promotion of the peace and tranquillity of such counties and districts. Magistrates had at present the power of swearing in special constables, when any apprehension was entertained of a breach of the peace. They had not, however, the means of defraying the expenses of any such increased force; and the bill would provide these means. He bad thought it convenient to announce these intentions on the part of the Government to the House; and when the bills were before them he would explain himself more at large.

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF COUNTY MAGISTRATES.
Sir E. Wilmothad seen it stated in the public papers, that the highest judicial authority in this kingdom had declared it to be his opinion that county magistrates have no concurrent jurisdiction in any borough. Did the
622
noble Lord recollect that the 111th section of the Municipal Corporation Act in its first part gave this concurrent jurisdiction to county magistrates in all boroughs which had no Quarter Sessions? The last portion of the clause exempted those boroughs which possessed Quarter Sessions. He wished to know whether Birmingham, which had no Court of Quarter Sessions, could therefore be considered as exempt from the concurrent jurisdiction of the county magistrates?
Lord J. Russellexpressed his regret that his hon. Friend the Attorney General was not in the House to answer this question, with the authority which belonged to his position and to his knowledge of the subject. He could state with confidence, however, that the opinion of that hon. and learned individual, as well as of his hon. and learned Friend near him, the Solicitor General, was, that the corporate magistrates and recorders of boroughs, where a Court of Quarter Sessions was held, were alone entitled to exclusive jurisdiction in the case where the Court of Quarter Sessions had existed previously to the passing of the Act; and that in the case of boroughs to which a grant of Quarter Sessions had since been made, and still more where no Court of Quarter Sessions existed in the borough, the county magistrates retained their jurisdiction concurrently with the local magistrates.
Sir E. Wilmotexpressed himself much satisfied with this answer, which was so distinctly opposed to the opinion given in another place.

ANGLO-SPANISH LEGION.
Captain Bolderostated, that on the 26th of June, 1838, with the unanimous assent of the House, it was agreed that "a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct her Minister at the Court of Madrid to use his best endeavours to procure an early settlement of the claims of the Anglo-Spanish Legion." He wished to be informed by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign affairs what further steps he proposed to take in this matter?
Viscount Palmerstonreplied, that the first step was obviously the examination of accounts, with a view to obtaining a return of the actual sums due to each claimant. The commission which had recently been sitting in London had examined into all these claims, and reported

623
upon each. The parties had been all furnished with certificates; but every one knew the state of penury to which the Spanish government was reduced. Under these circumstances, it was not easy to obtain payment of these sums. He regretted to find that a great number of persons had disposed of their certificates for little better than a nominal value; for he felt assured that they would ultimately be of a real value. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no efforts would be omitted by her Majesty's Government to induce the government of the queen of Spain to make these payments as speedily as possible.

TRADE WITH SPAIN.
Viscount Sandonwished to ask the noble Viscount whether any progress had been made in forming a commercial treaty with Spain.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that great efforts had been made by her Majesty's Government to induce the government of Spain to enter into a commercial treaty which would be obviously to the advantage of the Spanish government. Almost all the principal articles of foreign produce prohibited by the Spanish government were invariably obtained by the process of smuggling, by which means the government of Spain lost all the benefit in the shape of taxation which would arise from their regular importation. But there were old interests invested in the maintenance of this system of abuse, interests which it was extremely difficult to overcome. There were also persons in Spain who imagined that Catalonia produced excellent manufactures, the fact being that these so-called domestic manufactures were imported from England and sold for the productions of Spain. The prejudices which subsisted in many parts of Spain were so strong, that he feared, until the civil war came to a close, he could hold out little hope of their concluding this commercial treaty.

POSTAGE DUTIES BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the second reading of the Postage Duties Bill.
Mr. Goulburndid not intend to engage in a discussion, or to call upon the House to vote against the second reading of this bill, which he had only had in his hand that morning; but he must be allowed to say, that he never saw a better specimen of a summary mode of disposing, not only
624
of the question of postage, but of a great many other public questions. The bill gave the Treasury the absolute power of reducing the duty, or of raising it, exactly as they might think proper, without any limitation whatever. He never saw a bill which gave such large discretionary powers, and if it were carried, there was no reason why those two great branches of the revenue, the Customs and the Excise, should not be regulated by the same compendious contrivance, that of giving unlimited power and discretion to the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had stated, on a former occasion, that the Treasury already possessed the power of reducing the rate of postage. Now, he wished to call the attention of the House to the way in which that power had been conferred, because it would bring to their notice the manner in which the support of the House was obtained, to measures, the operation of which, at the time, was by no means foreseen. The right hon. Gentleman acted wisely in not relying entirely upon the powers which he already possessed, when he proceeded to reduce the rate of postage, for he (Mr. Goulburn) was sure that such a course would have caused a great outcry on the part of every man acquainted with the way in which the power in question had been obtained. The act of the 7th William 4th, and 1st Victoria, cap. 34, proceeded upon the old and true constitutional principle of laying down the rate of postage, payable upon every letter according to the distance. The act gave no power to the Treasury to remit any part of the charge, but stated specifically what the charge should be in every case, a whole page of the act being devoted to these details. That act passed on the 12th of July, 1837. The date was important. On some day in July, it was stated to be expedient to regulate the postage of letters to the East-Indies, and a resolution was proposed in consequence, respecting the rates of postage of letters to the East-Indies, and particularly with reference to those carried by way of Suez. But it was not understood that the resolution was intended to relate to the postage upon any other letters than those directed to the East Indies, and no observation was made to that effect, either on the resolution being agreed to, or the report being received. A bill was brought in to carry into effect the resolution, and no one could imagine

625
that a bill to regulate the postage of letters to the East-Indies, would contain a provision, enabling the Treasury to reduce the rate of inland postage in this country. However, the bill was brought in, and its title expressed, that it was a bill "to impose rates of packet postage on East-India letters, and to amend certain acts relating to the Post-office." Now, the resolution on which that bill was founded related to the East-Indies alone, and not a word was said, in any stage of the measure, about inland letters. Must it not then be said, that this power was obtained, in the first instance, by deceiving the House? It was in this act, and this act only, that was contained the power to the postmasters to reduce the rate of postage on colonial and inland letters, and any other British postage, to such extent as the Lords of the the Treasury should direct. He agreed that it was very prudent of the right hon. Gentleman, not to rely exclusively upon that power. Then with regard to the present bill, he had only to say, that in an arrangement of that complicated nature, there never had been a bill of this nature submitted to Parliament before. They were about to risk a revenue of 1,500,000 l., and to trust entirely to the superior judgment of the Treasury to devise the means by which the plan was to be effected. They were giving to the Treasury enormous powers—the power of augmenting the rate of postage without limit, the power of interfering with the right of franking, either wholly or partly; so that an order of the Treasury might declare, that the House of Lords should alone be deprived of the right of franking, or that county Members should be excluded from it, or that Members for boroughs might enjoy it exclusively, or, in fact, impose any other restriction it pleased. It was to have the whole discretion as to the covers being on stamped paper, or a stamp being placed upon letters, while the bill contained, as far as he was aware, no penal provision to prevent forgery. The whole matter was to be left in the hands of the Treasury. By this bill, therefore, they were about to confide to the Treasury powers which might be fatal to the best interests of the country, and which, under any view, could not be had without considerable danger.
Sir R. H. Inglisshared in the opinion of his right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Cambridge that it was
626
not fit or prudent to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretray of the Treasury the power contained in this bill. He contended that the power of altering the rates of postage, however objectionable those rates might be, was a power which constitutionally ought not to be given to any individual. There was nothing in the bill to prohibit the Treasury, not only from taking the privilege of franking from the House of Lords, and continuing it to the House of Commons, but of continuing it only to one class of Members in the House of Commons. He did not accuse her Majesty's Ministers of entertaining such a project, but of bringing forward a bill liable to that interpretation. He was sure there was not one person in the House who believed that this bill had received the cordial support of her Majesty's Government. He would ask, if it were not absolutely forced upon some Members of the Government? He would ask, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state whether he did not bring forward this measure in opposition to the Postmaster-general, and all those officers, whether past or present, who had been, or were connected with the fiscal arrangements of the Post-office? If the bill could be defended upon the ground of its giving to the poorer classes the advantages to be gained from it by the wealthy classes, he believed it would receive a more general sympathy on his side of the House. But it did no such thing. It was a plan in itself for the benefit of the great traders. It was a plan which had been brought forward to obtain public favour. He certainly did think that it had been introduced partly on political grounds, and partly, but mainly, for the purpose of benefiting great mercantile houses. Look to the number of mercantile men that had been examined before the committee; look to the number of the petitions in favour of the proposed plan, which they did not conceal would be highly advantageous to them. Before the franking privilege was limited, they had heard that it was worth, to a mercantile house, from 300 l. to 800 l. a-year. At present it could not be worth less than 300 l. The great advantage, therefore, which this plan held out to mercantile houses was the cause of the numerous petitions which had emanated from them, and of the meeting at the Mansion-house two or three weeks ago. He would, therefore, resist this bill. He must advert to a minor point, namely, the privilege of franking. He did not understand why this was to be abolished; or

627
why, because a tax was to taken off others, a tax was to be imposed on Members. It would be, to those who had much correspondence, at least 15 l. a-year, at the reduced rate of a penny for every letter sent. To the revenue the saving to be obtained was so small, that he hoped the House would not consent to rescind that privilege. He had said, that this bill was proposed on political grounds. He would go so far as to say, that he believed no persons had been more disappointed with the division that had taken place upon this question than her Majesty's Government. He fully believed that her Majesty's Government would rest perfectly satisfied with the glory of having made the concession, that they would very willingly dispense with the triumph of a vote in their favour; and he ventured to hope that, in a future stage of the measure, the vote now for its support, would be changed into one against it. This he the more earnestly and confidently hoped, from a conviction that the affairs of the country were in a state which did not permit a relinquishment of any part of the revenue, especially a portion of the revenue so large in amount, and so easy of collection. The real question before the House was not, whether the Government could send the letters of the community from London to Edinburgh for one-twelfth of a penny each, and, therefore, ought not to charge a shilling, but what it would cost each individual to forward his own letters, if no such thing as a post-office existed. It had been observed, in support of the measure, that Parliament, so far from interfering with the interchange of ideas, ought to do everything in their power to promote that object. He submitted that, in the present state of society in this country, it was too late to make use of any argument of that kind. Why, he would ask, had they not acted under the influence of that consideration in the reign of Charles 2nd; Why not in the reign of William 3rd? Why not at different times since then? In the present state of the revenue, he thought it would be most unsafe to incur the hazard of losing so large a sum as it was stated in the evidence they were likely to lose by the proposed change. On these several grounds he did not hesitate to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. F. Baringregretted, that the right hon. Gentleman should have alluded to what had taken place on a former occasion without better informing himself upon the subject. The right hon. Gentleman was
628
quite under a mistake as to what had taken place upon the introduction of the clause in the bill of 1837 to which he referred. He recollected perfectly well what had taken place upon that occasion. He had himself proposed that clause, but not, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in an indirect way. He had at the time, in answer to a question as to the nature of the clause, explained its object. He had stated, that it was advisable to give to various parts of the country the advantage of the railroad communication, which while it in many cases increased the distance, would create a saving in point of time; that by the law, as it then existed the charge of the postage upon letters was made according to the actual number of miles gone over, and that it was, therefore, necessary to introduce the clause he had brought forward to prevent the increase in the rate of postage which must otherwise have taken place where the railroad communication was increased in point of distance. The clause had been acted upon in the sense in which it had been introduced. It had been introduced for the purpose not of creating such great reductions as were proposed by this bill, but of getting rid of small grievances, and reducing the postage in small cases. The right hon. Gentleman stated, and stated fairly, that this bill conferred great powers; but it was not intended that they should be pushed to their fullest extent. The greater the readiness with which the House placed confidence in a certain department of the Government, the more incumbent was it upon that department not to abuse that confidence by exceeding the necessary exercise of the powers confided to them. He begged to remind the House that the bill contained a fair degree of restriction; and if any further check should be deemed advisable, he was ready to allow its introduction, provided it would not get rid of the power necessary for carrying the plan into operation. The bill conferred the power upon the Treasury of adopting the plan of payment by stamped covers, or in such other way as they should think fit, and also of carrying the bill into effect at what time and in what manner they should think advisable. Those powers, which did not extend beyond that, must be given to some part of the Government. Let them propose what plan they pleased, he considered it not only advisable, but absolutely necessary, to

629
give to the Executive department the power of carrying the reduction of postage into effect at such time and in such manner as they might think fit. Gentlemen who thought, that by Act of Parliament on a specific day a particular arrangement should take place all over the country could not possibly be aware of the difficulties which were opposed to such a course. Where there would be a great increase of business there would consequently be an increase of errors; and if they were suddenly to throw open the flood-gates of the establishment, they might not only inconvenience the public service, to the ruin perhaps of many individuals, but they might endanger the stability of the establishment itself. A Gentleman had recently told him, that he had lost 3,000 l. by the delay in the delivery of one letter. The system, must therefore, be introduced most carefully. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, in reference to the privilege of franking, that under the bill the Treasury had the power of taking it from the House of Lords, and continuing it to the House of Commons, or any portion of its Members. Perhaps the bill did confer that power as it was worded. He would only say, that the word "partly," in reference to the privilege of franking referred not to Parliamentary but to official franking, and he would readily consent to any alteration to that effect. The right hon. Gentleman likewise said, that the Treasury had the power of inflicting penalties by a simple warrant; but if he would look at the bill, he would find, that it only alluded to the penalties imposed by the acts now in force relating to the stamp duties.
Lord Seymourdiffered in opinion with the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House. So far from thinking, that this bill would not be beneficial to the lower classes, he thought, on the contrary, that it would confer great benefit upon them. He believed, that one of the great disadvantages which the poor at present had to suffer, was the want of easy and cheap communication with their friends. Now, with respect to the privilege of franking, he and another hon. Member of the House had gone to the Post-office to make inquiries on that point, and he was there told by the secretary, that some Members of the House were in the habit of using their privilege, to evade a payment, by franking more than the allowed
630
number of letters, and that one of the Members who was particularly remarkable in this respect was the hon. Member himself.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that when the noble Lord presumed to connect his name with a practice which amounted to nothing less than attempts to cheat the revenue, he felt bound to call the noble Lord to order, and he felt assured that he did not ask too much of the House, when he begged permission to state his invariable practice: that practice was, to keep not merely a regular account of the number of letters which he franked, but to enter the names of the individuals to whom they were addressed. If other gentlemen could state as much, it would afford him pleasure. The statement made to the House by the noble Lord was not one for which he had the least warrant in any evidence on the table of the House; and moreover, the statement to which he referred had not been, as far as he knew, made in any quarter in the terms in which it had been delivered to the House by the noble Lord. He had understood that the Secretary to the Post Office had stated that three members of that House were watched, and that he was one of those Members. He should not state who the other Members were; all he should say was, that he had been one of the number: he should state also, that two hon. Friends of his who lately went to the Post-Office, made inquiries on the subject, and the result was, that upon one occasion, and upon one only, had he been found to exceed his privilege. He certainly was accustomed to equal his number of franks, but very rarely to exceed them, and never intentionally; most rarely, indeed, had he ever exceeded the privilege; he had done so once, but if he had done so ten times, during the period that he had a seat in that House, it would not perhaps have been extraordinary. He felt ashamed to state to them as a gentleman, that he had never exceeded his privilege intentionally. When it had been imputed to him that he had been guilty of attempts to cheat the public revenue, he was sure the Speaker, if the noble Lord rose again, would call on him to state what he meant by the observations which fell from him on the subject of the privilege of franking having been exceeded.
Lord Seymoursaid, he should be ashamed of himself if he had said anything personally offensive to the hon. Baronet, and he begged, therefore, to apologise for the expression he had used.

631
What he meant to state was, what he had heard in the committee and from the Post-office, that the hon. Baronet was one of those who valued his privilege of franking so much, that he frequently exceeded his number. He had only said what had been stated to him and other Members of the committee. He did not know whether the hon. Baronet was satisfied. He did not undervalue cheap communication throughout the country. He believed that for some time the plan that was proposed would occasion a defalcation in the revenue; but he was sure that if power were not given fairly and fully to carry this plan into effect, they would not only lose the advantage of revenue, but also the advantage of giving to the people cheap communication.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that he had gone to the Post-office with other members of the committee, and he had been shown, among other things, the table were franks were taken which were above the proper number. Whether as a matter of joke be did not know, but it had been stated, in reply to a question, whether an accurate watch was kept over the franks, that it was impossible to do that, but that a few Members at a time were always watched, that that process was going on at that time, and amongst the number was the name of the hon. Baronet; his own name and the name of a third person whom he did not recollect. As a matter of joke, as soon as he saw the hon. Baronet, he told the hon. Baronet that they were both in the same list, when the hon. Baronet convinced him it was almost impossible, for he pulled out a list in which not only the franks were entered, but also the names of the individuals to whom they were sent. He was, therefore, quite sure that the hon. Baronet only claimed what was partly his due when he said that he kept as accurate an account as any other Member. For his own part he would offer no apology. With regard to the privilege of franking he was perfectly ready to give it up for the sake of the general benefit which he thought this bill would confer on the people at large. With regard to the powers proposed to be given to the Treasury, he certainly thought, considering that those powers would cease on the 1st of October in the ensuing year, they would be in safe keeping in the hands of the Treasury. He was convinced that this bill, if it wore passed into a law, would give
632
to the poorer classes of this country one of the greatest boons that could possibly be conferred on them, whilst it would be hailed also by the higher classes as a very great benefit. If it should happen that a falling off of the revenue was caused by adopting this measure, he was sure that the representatives of the people would be ready and willing make up the deficiency.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould have been disposed to have left this bill on the explanation of his hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury, had it not been for the declared intention of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) to take the sense of the House against the second reading; and if the hon. Baronet had not also in the course of his observations thrown out certain suggestions respecting the conduct of Government which required an answer. He was quite sure that the explanation of his noble Friend was calculated to remove any unpleasant impression that might for a moment have arisen in the mind of the hon. Baronet. Undoubtedly, his noble Friend had never intended to apply to the hon. Baronet any intention of evading the payment of postage. Whether the hon. Baronet, or any other Member, had ever exceeded the number of franks permitted, such a thing might be attributed to any Member without inferring any moral reflection whatever. To those most conversant with the accurate habits of the hon. Baronet he had given a new proof of his love for accuracy, for he had not only chronicled the number of his franks, but every person to whom they were sent. No one, however, required to be told this, either as a proof of the hon. Baronet's accuracy, or of the fact of his being incapable of violating any law, or making any improper use of the privilege conferred upon hint. He could not pass this question of official franking without suggesting that the hon. Baronet must have been sadly at a loss for an objection when he suggested the possibility of this, or any other government, using the powers given by this bill for the purpose of conferring the privilege of franking on one branch of the Legislature and withholding it from another, or of conferring it on one side of the House to the exclusion of the other. When the hon. Baronet was obliged to have recourse to such an imaginary danger as this, he thought he had a right to conclude that there was a singular deficiency of real argument against this

633
measure. The hon. Baronet had stated that undoubtedly there was a very strong feeling on the part of our great mercantile interest in favour of the present measure. So far from that being an objection, it was rather with him a very strong recommendation of the measure. Undoubtedly, a great portion of the evidence rested on mercantile grounds, and if it rested simply on that, he would say it was in itself a recommendation of the bill. Was it to be said, that this measure alone, of all financial measures, was not to be attended to, because the trading, the manufacturing, the commercial, and the banking interests were concerned in it? He knew that those parties would be greatly benefitted; but he confessed, that it was from those parties that he looked for a considerable proportion of revenue to remunerate the Treasury for the loss occasioned by the benefits which the people generally would receive. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford had spoken of the extraordinary powers given to the Treasury by this bill, upon which he had been partly answered by his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury. It was hardly possible, in adopting so extensive a measure as the present, to be able to legislate for all the details and circumstances which might be expected to arise, and therefore it was necessary that in the meantime powers of a large and comprehensive nature should be given to the Treasury. But whatever these powers might be, it should be borne in mind, that not one of them would survive the next Session of Parliament. No doubt, the new system would involve the necessity of increasing the Post-office establishments to a very considerable extent, and in his opinion, it would neither have been wise nor just to increase them to such an extent without previously obtaining the sanction of Parliament. Believing, also, that the system would involve a considerable loss to the public revenue, he did not think it wise or constitutional to encounter that loss without further obtaining a pledge from Parliament, that that deficiency should be supplied: that pledge had been given by the House, and had been most fairly and handsomely repeated by the hon. Member who presided as chairman of the committee on the subject of the Post-office. He would not now enter into the financial details by which this pledge might hereafter have to be carried into effect; that would be a sub-
634
ject for future legislation, and all he could now say was, that he had proposed it in perfect good faith, and that he believed it had been given in an equal spirit of good faith by the House. He relied entirely upon the good sense and good feeling of the House of Commons, to keep up the public credit of the country, and to make up any deficiency which might occur in the public revenue of the country by the adoption of this measure. With respect to the Parliamentary privilege of franking, which the hon. Member for the University of Oxford still supported, and, he hoped, stood alone in supporting, it was true, that the sacrifice of that privilege might be small in amount; but at the same time, be it small of great, he thought, that there would be not one feature in the new system which would be more palateable to the public that this practical evidence of the willingness of the Members of this House to sacrifice everything personal to themselves to the advantage of the public revenue. It was true, that the privilege of franking had been used to a great extent by the heads of public departments; but that was a power which had been a great deal abused, and in future it would be better, in order to avoid that abuse, that every department should pay its own postage. Every department had a direct interest in keeping down its expenditure; but there was no one which felt much interest in keeping down the number of franks. At the same time, he thought, there might be cases in respect to public documents in which it might be necessary to retain the privilege to a certain extent; but upon this point he would one day become the subject for Parliamentary interference. He would certainly preserve the right of communicating to the public in the country the Parliamentary papers; but, at the same time, he thought, that there should be some restriction on the privilege of forwarding the very heavy volumes of reports which were published by the House; or, rather, that there should be some new regulations adopted, by which the public might derive all the benefit of this privilege without throwing an obstruction in the way of the prompt transmission of other communications of more immediate importance. Now, also, that they had made their vote-office an office for the sale of their papers, he thought it would be hard that a book-

635
seller, who might purchase 300 copies of any particular document, should be able to call upon the Post-office to transmit this heavy load of volumes by the quickest mode of conveyance, to the obvious obstruction of other and more pressing calls for the public service. With respect to bills, he thought, that as they affected the future legislation, they could not be too promptly conveyed to the hand of the public. Having on a recent occasion so fully stated his sentiments upon this subject, having more particularly stated the only objection which he entertained to this scheme, namely, on the score of revenue; and, having obtained from this House, by a large majority, a pledge that any deficiency which might occur to the revenue should be made up, he would not now trespass further upon the attention of the House than, in conclusion, to move the second reading of this bill.
Sir R. Peel:I will in the first instance refer to two or three minor points which have been alluded to on the assumption that this bill will ultimately pass into a law. Assuming that to be the case, I do not concur with my hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, that it would be desirable, that the Members of this House should retain their Parliamentary privilege of franking. I think, if it were to be continued after this bill came into operation, that there would be a degree of odium attached to it which would greatly diminish its value. The reason for keeping it up will, in a great degree, expire with the passing of this bill, for when Members of Parliament can receive their communications for a penny each, it will not be necessary to preserve the privilege of franking. With respect to official franking, whether the bill pass into a law or not, some alteration would be advisable. So far as the measure is an experiment I concur with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that new regulations ought to be adopted. I think it would be advisable to require, that each department should specially pay the postage incurred in the public service of the department. If every office be called on to pay its own postage, we shall introduce a useful principle into the public service. There is no habit connected with a public office so inveterate or so difficult to be laid down as the privilege of official franking. But the benefit of adopting a new principle will be this, that the man who, acting on an uni-
636
form practice, and who, from the force of an established habit, would not refuse to frank a packet of letters for a friend, would refuse to take eight or nine shillings out of the public coffers by conferring a similar obligation under the new system. Of late years a very great extension has taken place in the practice of official franking Indeed, within the last two Sessions a great increase has taken place in the number of persons admitted to frank, and this bill convinces me, that it would be advisable to take this privilege under some new regulation. With respect to the privilege enjoyed by Members of the House of transmitting without restriction voluminous documents at the public expense, I certainly think, that this is a privilege liable to very great abuse. It is monstrous, that a Member of Parliament may send 150 volumes of Parliamentary papers of the present Session, and two hundred volumes of a former Session, through the post-office without any restriction or any charge. I apprehend, that the advantage of this privilege is very much over-rated, and I am sure that it acts very unequally. I am sure, that there are many Members of the House who would object to send packages in this way through the post-office. I am sure that there are many Members of the House who would shrink from the exercise of such a privilege. With respect to the particular regulations to be adopted, I will not now offer any opinion, but some regulations are undoubtedly desirable. I am convinced, that if the 658 Members of the House were to send the whole of the blue books received during the Session through the post-office, it would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to that department, and I shall concur in any regulation that may appear calculated to control that privilege within proper limits. There might still be the permission to purchase the papers at the public office in the usual way; but if every person can procure these books at a very cheap rate, I see no reason why the public should be called upon to pay the charge of sending them through the post-office. I stated on a former night, that, having deliberately protested against this measure, I should not think it necessary to meet its further progress with any vexatious opposition. I am not surprised, that my resistance to this measure has been ineffectual. I know very well, that whenever the

637
Chancellor of the Exchequer declares himself in favour of the remission of any tax all resistance to such remission becomes vain. I know very well, that if the Secretary of the Home Department were to declare, that the disturbers of the public peace were to be kept free from any control or interference, we could expect nothing but to have the country overwhelmed with confusion and disturbance. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has the control with respect to taxation, and when be declares his intention to remove a tax, all resistance must prove unavailing. I stated that, in the present circumstances of the public revenue, I objected to increase the risk, and I think, that the right hon. Gentleman has given me a very ample vindication of the course I have pursued. The right hon. Gentleman says, that he wishes that more time had been given for consideration, and that he might have full means of estimating the loss of revenue. The right hon. Gentleman admits, that he ought not to have brought forward the subject without the calmest consideration. Suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had asked time for that, and had asked the House to consent to a postponement till next Session, and that notwithstanding he had been overborne by the sense of Parliament, in that case, the responsibility would rest upon the House, but at present the responsibility rests with the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman will succeed in carrying his measure, for it cannot be effectually opposed. I think, however, that in opposing this proposition I have done right, and I am desirous that the public opinion shall be pronounced on my conduct, not now or in two months after the passing of this bill, but on the day when Parliament must either abandon its pledge or be called on to make good the deficiency. The whole pledge amounts to this (and it is contained in the preamble), that Parliament will make good any deficiency that may occur. That is the whole amount of the pledge. There is no enactment, no recital in the preamble of its nature, or the extent to which it is to go. Now what passed the other night? My objection was, that no one could fix the time at which Parliament would be called on to redeem the pledge. The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade acknowledged that there would be a considerable deficit, a thing always to be
638
deprecated in a great commercial country, and stated that in the next Session we shall be called on to redeem our pledge, and to fix a new tax to supply the deficiency. That was the only distinct intimation we have had of the time when the redemption of the pledge will be required. When the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that his present conviction is that Parliament will redeem the pledge, he should bear in mind the reservation with which many hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House accompanied it. The hon. Member for Greenock says, that he will cheerfully bear his part in supplying the deficiency; but I do not understand him to construe his promise as the Chancellor of the Exchequer construes it. I understand him to say, that if eventually there shall appear a great deficiency he will then consider the means of replacing it. Then the hon. Member for Bridport means to redeem his pledge, not by taxation, but after the reduction of postage shall have had what he considers to be a sufficient time for fair trial, he will consent, not to reduce taxation, but to endeavour, by some new arrangement of the revenue, to give such a stimulus to commercial industry as will, after another lapse of time, make up the deficiency. Sir, I have before expressed my apprehension that, without reference to the Post-office, there must be a continued and increasing deficit in the revenue, and this apprehension has been confirmed by what I have heard this evening. I have heard that Government, feeling themselves bound by an imperative sense of duty, propose to make an addition to our regular force of 5,000 men, which will incur an expense of at least 150,000 l. a-year. We also hear of measures for the establishment of a rural police throughout the country. There may be necessity for both these measures—I say not one word as to their policy. The circumstances must be grave indeed which call on Government to submit them to the House, but what will be the effect of those measures on the revenue of the country? Shall we be able to meet this increase without reference to the Post-office? I fear, on the contrary, that the deficit now existing will be increased, and that next year it will be much greater than at present. But I will not over-rate these difficulties. I do not deny that great social and commercial advantages will arise from

639
the change, independent of financial considerations. Even if the scheme had not been proposed, I think the evidence which has been laid before the committee would warrant a considerable reduction in postage. I think we should have made the experiment of a partial reduction. It has been said that the principal advantage of this measure will be felt by the commercial interests. If so, it will only be a greater recommendation to me, for wherever commercial intercourse is facilitated, the result must be the general benefit of the country. The change must also in its extent contribute to the improvement of the lower classes, although I think that the probable benefit has been greatly overrated. I think that at least we should have had an opportunity of getting at something like the exact extent by which the correspondence of those classes would be increased before we proceeded to legislation. We might, for instance, ascertain what is the extent of the correspondence of soldiers and sailors, who, at present, have the advantage of a penny postage. It would be a matter of great importance, in fact a material element in the consideration of this question, to ascertain to what extent those parties have availed themselves of these advantages. You should recollect also that the abolition of the Parliamentary privilege of franking will in itself limit the correspondence of the poorer classes, because that privilege is often at present used for the benefit of those who cannot afford even a single penny. Thus, there is an advantage of sending a letter without any charge, for which even the general reduction to one penny will not compensate. I do not state this as an objection to the measure; I merely state it as a reason for thinking that you have rather over estimated the advantage which the poorer classes will derive from the change. Well, Sir, supposing there is a great defalcation in the revenue, by what new tax would you propose to redeem your pledge? You remit this tax on the principle that all high taxation is impolitic; for that reason you reduce the postage from 6½ to to 1d.; but on what article will you increase the taxation? I look through the long list of malt, hops, candles, coffee, &c., and I ask on which of them you expect to raise a tax of two millions a-year? Can any man deny that there will be enormous difficulty in subjecting any of these articles to a new duty? All the
640
advantage obtained for correspondence will not diminish the objections to whatever tax you may propose. I say then, that I do not deny the advantages that will result for the remission of this tax, for there is no tax the remission of which would not be of benefit to the community. There is, for instance, the tax on internal communication, the repeal of which would redress a balance of injustice, because in that part of the country in which there are no railways, and is therefore, cursed with imperfect communication, there is a charge on posting of two-pence a-mile, whereas, in those parts traversed by railways, while the people have every facility of traveling, they are free from charge. Why, no one will attempt to deny that the abolition of this tax would be a general benefit; but we are precluded from the consideration of that claim by the pressure of the postage measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will not listen to any proposal for reduction of taxation until this is disposed of. For my part I do not say that in the present position of our finances, I will not vote for any reduction of taxation. I attach so much importance to the preservation of public credit, so certain am I that, at a general election, the present measure might serve as a precedent for a Government to court popularity, by proposing to reduce a tax, throwing the task of supplying the deficiency on their successors, or trusting that some future Parliament will redeem the pledge of the one now sitting, that I shall not give this measure my support. Sir, I have been taunted with making this a party question, but I came down here to-night prepared to adhere to the engagement I entered in to on a former stage of the measure—to content myself with entering my protest against the principle. However, if my hon. Friend is determined on dividing the House—although, as the sense of the House has already been so fully expressed, I think it unnecessary to press it to a division. I shall certainly vote with him. However, my own intention is not to trouble the House with any harassing opposition, but to content myself with the protest I have already entered.
Mr. Warburtonrepelled the charge that he was not inclined to maintain faith with the public creditor. On all occasions had he been prepared to maintain public credit; and on several occasions he had sup-

641
ported the right hon. Baronet, when he was attacked for doing so. He was of opinion that as the rates of postage were diminished, a great increase to the postage revenue would be made. Mr. Rowland Hill had calculated that there would be a six-fold increase; that from the number of contraband letters, there would be an increase of double the number, and that, independently of the contraband letters, the increase would be two-fold, making an increase of four-fold. The number of invoices (according to Mr. Cobden's evidence) which would be sent by post with a penny postage, instead of in parcels, would be 50 per cent. on the present number, and the additional number of letters from the working classes would be 75 per cent. Upon the whole, therefore, the estimate appeared exceedingly moderate, and he thought that the result of the experiment would fully realize, if not exceed it. It was, he owned, a bold experiment, but he had no doubt that, when the result was known, the predictions of the sanguine supporters of the plan, would be realized.
Mr. Elliotsaid, he would trouble the House with a few remarks, as he had had some experience in a post-office department. In India, it had been found that the number of soldiers' and sailors' letters had increased to such a degree as to be a matter of complaint: they were so numerous as to be sent in boxes; and this arose solely from the circumstance of their light postage. There would be a difficulty in the pre-payment of postage in this,—that when a postman had delayed a letter, he would throw it in the fire, and the party to whom it was addressed would have no knowledge of the matter, unless every free letter was registered in a book. If some check was not resorted to, he feared there would be very great complaints on the subject of pre-paid letters. There must be also some mode devised to allow of letters being sent without stamped covers, (where persons were hurried and had no stamps,) and to secure the delivery of such letters. In India, the post-office was obliged to make a rule that no such letter should be received unless a slip of paper was delivered at the office with the letter, which was stamped and re-delivered to the person who brought the letter. But the most important matter was to invent a check to secure the delivery of pre-paid letters.—Bill read a second time.

DUTY ON FIRE INSURANCE.
On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Colonel Sibthorpsubmitted a motion for the reduction of the duty on Fire Insurance. When the tax was first levied its amount was exceedingly small; but it had subsequently increased under the pressure of the war, until at last it became extremely burdensome from its amount as well as very unjust, unequal, and partial in its operation. Now it ought to be reduced, and he was sure that a diminution of the tax, so far from reducing the revenue, would materially increase it; for many persons who were anxious now to insure their property were deterred from doing so by the high rate of the insurance duty. He confessed he did not see why this tax should not be reduced, when he found the import duties reduced on castor oil, and human hair, on rhubarb and raisins, on anchovies and French wines, and finally on the essence of bergamot and the balsam of copaiba. The gallant Member concluded by moving a resolution that from and after the 5th of April next, the duty on fire insurance be reduced to one-half the amount now levied.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not agree to the motion. The state of the revenue was not such as would warrant him in entering upon any additional expediment beyond that in which he was now embarked with respect to the Post-office.
Motion withdrawn; on the question again being put for the House to resolve itself into a committee of supply.

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION.
Mr. Gillon,after presenting petitions from stage coach proprietors, complaining of the depressed state of their trade, moved for a committee of the whole House to take into consideration the duties affecting internal communication, with a view of submitting to that Committee a series of resolutions for the reduction of the post-horse, public carriage, and mileage duties. He regretted that a question of so much public importance should be discussed at so late a period of the Session, and with such a thin attendance of Members. But he considered it his duty, nevertheless, to avail himself of the opportunity to urge the claims of the parties who had entrusted their interests to his charge, with the view of asking the House to give

643
effect to these claims for a modification of the taxes which pressed so heavily upon them, and be considered it important for the House to recollect that the weight of these taxes had been greatly increased by circumstances which had taken place since they had invested their capital in that particular branch of the trade. He hoped the House would also excuse him for mentioning that, in the year 1837, he had obtained a committee to inquire into the general question of internal communication, which recommended a speedy modification of these taxes to the House. He now brought the case of these parties forward, in consequence of the assurances which had been given by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that be would take the recommendation of the committee into consideration, and that he would not allow the present Session to elapse without applying a remedy. The parties whom he represented, and who complained of the present oppressive, unjust, and partial mode of taxation on the means of internal communication, were those connected with the old means of conveyance carried on through the medium of animal power. They had long been suffering in silence, and only now came forward when they found themselves opposed to other rivals, who were placed in a new and unexpected position of advantage. One class of those rivals were subjected to no tax at all, and the other to a tax of the most trivial amount. These facts formed, in his opinion, good grounds for the stage-coach proprietors and postmasters of this country for coming forward and stating their grievances to the impartial consideration of the Legislature. He did not complain of the existence of improved means of conveyance. He believed they had been productive of great benefit to the people. They afforded to the poorer classes the means of transporting their talents and capital to the best market at the cheapest price, and so as to make them available in the most expeditious manner. But great as was the competition which the proprietors of stage-coaches and pest-masters bad to contend with in the regard to, the use of steam-power and water carriage, it was quite inferior to the great system of railroad travelling, which was now coming into general operation, and extending itself through all parts of the country. He did nut complain of the use of that great modern improvement.
644
He objected not to it, nor to the use of steam-power in water carriage. In a public sense, he was perfectly sensible of the advantages which resulted from all of them. But what he complained of was, that they were lightly taxed, while the stage-coach proprietors were subjected to the payment of very oppressive and heavy duties. It was not the facilities afforded to internal communication that he opposed, but what the parties whose interest he represented complained of was this, that while the stage-coach proprietors paid 8s. 4d. a head of duty to the Crown, calculated on the principle that his carriage carried four passengers, for each person supposed to be conveyed form London to Edinburgh, and was charged that amount, whether his carriage conveyed such passengers or not, the owners of steam-vessels paid no such duty. The duty on railroad carriages, again, was only one-eighth of a penny per mile, while that on stage-coaches was one farthing, whether the passengers were carried or not. In a commercial country like this, Government ought to render the means of conveyance from the greatest and remotest distances accessible and cheap; but by their impolitic fiscal regulations, they had, on the contrary, aggravated the disadvantages of space. It should not be forgotten that this subject had attracted the attention of the Committee on Turnpike-trusts, who had given in their report, station its importance as regarded the interests of the creditors on these trusts. The amount of debt which had been incurred by those trusts amounted to the sum of nine millions sterling, and the Government were bound not to make themselves accessory in preventing those creditors from recovering their debts. That committee had also recommended the subject to the speedy consideration of Parliament. It was of great importance that the House should secure to the public a competition among those who were engaged in furnishing means of conveyance. Suppose, that the old means of conveyance, for want of proper encouragement, were given up—which was by no means unlikely—the public would not receive the same attention and civility, as at present, form the proprietors of railroads. He thought it by no means improbable that those persons would then increase their charges, and make the most of the monopoly which they would thus enjoy; and in that case,

645
would not the country justly reproach the House, if they should be left at the mercy of those who had embarked their money in these speculations for their own private interests, and with a view to the enriching themselves? Great as was the disparity between the duties levied on railroads and stage carriages, that disparity was still further aggravated by the system of compositions. As an instance of the working of that system, he would mention that by a contract entered into with the Government by the directors of the Greenwich Railway they had compounded on such terms as to be allowed to carry 1,200,000 persons for 400 l., which, if calculated at the amount which stagecoach proprietors would have paid for the same number of persons, would have amounted to the sum of 6,250 l. It might be said, that an end had been put to the compounding system. He must state, however, that it had not been universally extinguished, for he found in the report of the Arbroath and Forfar Railway Company for the present year an ostentatious statement that, by means of an arrangement with the Lords of the Treasury, they had effected a composition for 10 l., for the conveyance of a large number of passengers. All these remarks hitherto applied more to the grievances of stage-coach proprietors and with equal force to post-horse duties, which would be annihilated by a continuance of the existing system. He would suppose a gentleman to travel post from Birmingham to London, with four post horses in which case the postmaster pays a duty of 1l. 8s.; but if the gentleman puts his carriage into a truck on the rail-road the proprietors would have only to pay 4s. 8d. of duty, the difference being all in favour of the stronger party. The post-horse masters paid heavy assessed taxes besides: 5l. 5s. for each four wheeled carriage they kept for hire, and 3l. 5s. for two-wheeled carriages. They were falling rapidly into a state of poverty, from heavy burdens combined with decreasing business. He would give one instance. Mr. Johnstone, of Dunstable, for three months of the year 1837, paid 172 l. 16 s. 3d. duties, and in the same quarter of last year, the amount had dwindled down to 31 l. 17 s. 6d. The House would thus readily form an accurate opinion of the great depression of business which that Gentleman had suffered. But that was not all. These parties had to pay
646
window duties besides, and a heavy licence duty annually to the excise for permission to carry on their trade, while large floating hotels constantly plying up and down the rivers selling all manners of exciseable liquors did not pay a sixpence duty. The victuallers' licenses on the sale of exciseable articles should be repealed altogether. The stage coach and post horse duties were diminishing, notwithstanding the great increase of population and intercourse. Let them take the aggregate amount:—In 1836 they amounted to 514,089 l., while last year they had diminished to 494,138 l. It was true that his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given one boon to the post-horse masters by transferring the collection of the duties payable by them, from those who had farmed them, to the commissioners of excise, by which means the whole amount of duty had been brought fairly to charge in the Exchequer. But still that branch of revenue was decreasing. He would now proceed to state shortly the nature of the remedy which he would propose. It was to place all taxation as applied to railroads, post-horse duties, and stage-coaches, on a fair percentage, calculated on the gross earnings of the parties respectively; and he thought it was but right to state that that alteration was suggested by a person largely connected with railroads. The duties on railroads were unequal in operation as regarded the interests of those connected with such undertakings. On the London and Birmingham Railway the tax was about four per cent., while on the Garnkirk line, in the neighbourhood of Glasgow, it was as high as fourteen per cent. Therefore, in justice to those persons, he thought the principle he had proposed would be found extremely fair and unobjectionable. He proposed also a repeal of all the assessed taxes affecting these parties: a repeal of the licence duty on stage carriages, and of the mileage duties on stage carriages, and the duties on horses let to hire; a repeal of the 5l. 5s. duty on four-wheeled carriages, and the 3l. 5s. duty on two-wheeled carriages, and in lieu thereof a licence duty on stage carriages of 7s. 6d., about one-half of the mileage duty presently leviable on stage coaches to be substituted; a reduction of the mileage from one farthing to about one-eighth of a penny per mile, thus allowing a small advantage in favour of the stage-coach

647
proprietors. He proposed a reduction of almost exactly two-thirds of the post-horse duties. The probable loss of revenue by these changes, supposing no increase of travelling to take place would be; on stage-coach duty 160,844 l.; on post-horse duty 247,069 l., to which was to be added the reduction of the duty on four-wheeled carriages 36,823 l., and on coachmen and guards 3,708 l., in all 448,000 l. He contended, without fear of contradiction, that there was no branch of taxation involving greater injustice to the parties than that to which he had called the attention of the House As a justification for having brought forward the motion, at that late period of the Session, the hon. Member quoted the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 21st February last, during the discussion which then took place on this subject stating that the subject deserved the attention of Parliament, as it was his intentention to bring a bill to correct some of the evils. He quoted those words, not with any view to raise angry feelings, but merely in justification of himself for having formerly withdrawn the resolutions which he had brought forward for the relief of the parties. He had been obliged, however, in consequence of an interview with the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks since, again to intimate to those parties that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to proceed this Session with any measure for their relief. His object was, to render internal communication more cheap and easily accessible to all parties. Sooner or later his right hon. Friend would be compelled to grant, not only this reduction, but a revision of the whole system of taxation. He would be compelled to take off all those taxes which, by pressing on the necessaries of life weighed so heavily on the poorer classes, and in lieu of them to have recourse to a general property tax. He would leave the subject in the hands of the House, trusting that they would deal with it in a manner just to all parties. The hon. Member concluded by moving, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the duties on the means of internal communication.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould endeavour, as shortly as possible, to state the reasons why the House ought not to accede to the motion of the hon. Member. And first, he must remark, that it would,
648
no doubt, be an extreme gratification to the inhabitants of the county of Fermanagh to find the noble Lord (Lord Cole) who represented them, seconding this motion, of which one of the objects was to introduce a new tax into Ireland, by the general equalization of duties which it proposed. It was a boon, of the value of which the people of Fermanagh would no doubt be duly sensible. As to the proposition itself, he must admit, neither on the present nor on any previous occasion, did he feel surprise that an hon. Gentleman should be found anxious to bring it under the consideration of Parliament. The progress of events had made this duty press severely, even if it were equal; but it pressed still more severely from its inequality. But this was an inevitable result of improvements which had taken place. Not a single step could be taken to advance the most undeniable improvement without pressing upon some previously existing interest. In the cases of stage-coaches and post-horses there would be evils to be endured, even if there were no tax, and those evils were, of course, aggravated by the tax. His objection was not to the principle of the proposed reduction, but to the peculiar circumstances under which it was brought forward. His hon. Friend, and those who supported him, knew that they could not approach this subject without going a great deal further. His hon. Friend's argument went to an equalization of taxation. Upon his principles, he must increase the taxes on railways, introduce the assessed taxes into Ireland, and even then, the object would not be completely attained. His hon. Friend felt that himself, and at the close of his speech, knowing where his principles would carry him, called on the House to consider the whole question of the taxation of the country, with a view of relieving the industrious and working classes from the burdens under which they now suffered, by the introduction of a property tax. He would not argue that question; but it was a serious error to suppose, that such a tax would not press on the industrious classes. It would necessarily make the investment of capital less advantageous in this country than in others, and so tend to transfer to those countries the means of productive employment. Foreign capitalists were already treading on our heels. A property tax, by giving them additional advan-

649
tages, would operate seriously to the discouragement of industry in this country. His hon. Friend, in bringing forward his proposition, was entitled to the best attention of the House, from the great pains he had taken with the subject. According to his hon. Friend's estimate, there would be a sacrifice of 440,000 l. of revenue by his proposals. Without any means of supplying the deficiency, except so far as the reduction might lead to increased communication. On any line of active communication, the reduction of the duty would not in the slightest degree increase communication. On such lines as those between London and Birmingham, or Birmingham and Liverpool, it would be utterly impossible to keep up posting or mail coach travelling. The difference of time, which was so peculiarly valuable in England, would always prevent a revival of the old mode of travelling. If, then, there was no chance of increase of communication to counterbalance the reduction of the tax, could the hon. Member, or could the House, honestly make this reduction? At an early period of the Session, on the 21st February, he had, as his hon. Friend said, declared his intention of introducing a measure on those ditties. He would beg to call the attention of the postage committee, more especially, to this part of the subject. They knew, that although the report belonged to the last Session, from circumstances of which he did not complain, it was not presented or printed until subsequent to the period at which he had made that announcement. Therefore, he was not then, and could not have been, prepared to undertake that great task and great risk which he had since undertaken, namely, the reduction of the postage on letters. He, therefore, declared his intention with respect to the posting stage and coach duties, and he had then a measure in progress which would have risked some portion of the revenue, not amounting to one-half of the loss caused by the uniform penny postages in ignorance of the report of that committee. The House of Commons, however, had a right to declare which of these reductions should be made and it had most unequivocally declared in favour of postage. He was ready to make that reduction which the House had sanctioned, but not at the same time to put in jeopardy any other portion of the revenue. He was ready to do one, but
650
not both. He had made this statement to the deputation to which his hon. Friend referred, and he did not hear form them an expression of surprise at his determination. While referring to the deputation, he would remark, that one answer which he had given had been very much misconceived. He was accused of saying that he would not propose to legislate for particular interests, and, therefore, would not undertake the consideration of the question. His argument was that the duties could not be reduced on lines where there was railroad competition without reducing them also where there was no such competition—and where, of course, there was no such title to receive relief. But to confine the reduction to particular lines would be a legislation—for particular interest to which he felt an objection. When he had proposed the reduction of postage, he was taunted by hon. Members on the other side with not having courage to resist the popular demand for it. He knew, on that occasion, that if he had resisted the reduction, he should have had the support of some of those hon. Members, but he was by no means sure that he should have had the votes of a great many who sat on the same benches. However, in opposing the reduction which was now proposed, he was making an experiment which would show how far those hon. Members would assist him in opposing the risk of a large portion of revenue without any provision for the deficiency. He knew, that in the right hon. Member for Tamworth, he should not find any disposition to fight the battle against the postage reduction by a vote on the posting duty; but he would beg to remind those who supported the postage measure, that nothing could more seriously endangers its success than the success of the present motion. He proposed to introduce a measure which, while it would not endanger the revenue, would be of some benefit to those whose interest were affected by the posting duties. But he could not, as he already said, consent to risk so large an amount of revenue as his hon. Friend's motion involved.
Sir. T. Aclandthought that the opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk stood on very different grounds form what it would have done, if the right hon. Gentleman had not already countenanced a similar inroad upon the revenue. He was not prepared to support the mo-

651
tion, which went too far; but he thought some reduction of the duty was due to an interest which was now exposed to great suffering. He believed that the small reduction of one half-penny per mile, with liberty to carry an additional passenger, whilst it would be a great relief to the coach-proprietors, would cause a loss to the revenue, not of 400,000 l., but of less than 90,000 l. After the great sacrifice of revenue that had been already made, he could not consent to a proposition that would cause an additional loss of nearly half a million. If the hon. Member for Falkirk would put his resolution in such a shape as to produce an equalization instead of a reduction of duty, he should vote with him at all hazards, as he thought it was high time to take the first step towards redressing so palpable a grievance.
Mr. Handleywas exceedingly surprised to bear what had that evening fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman a few months since on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman then stated, when the subject of the reduction of the post-horse duty was introduced, that it was his intention, in the course of the present year, to introduce a bill with a view to correct many of the inconveniences that had been adverted to; and the right hon. Gentleman further stated, that the present rate of taxation was unequal and unjust, and that it interfered with the fair spirit of commercial competition. What had occurred within these few months to change the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman? The right hon. Gentleman now quoted the vote that had been come to on the penny postage question as a reason, and the sole reason, why he refused that relief which a few months ago he thought just and necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman did not reduce this tax, he ought to raise all competing modes of communication by railroads and steam-boats, to the same level. He feared they were establishing a monopoly in favour of railroads which they would one day feel, and he hoped that, at least, fair competition would be allowed to those who had been for so many years in the service of the people; and, he thought that this meritorious class of people would have just right to complain, if their claims were now put aside, contrary to the express declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself on a former occasion.
Mr. H. Hindesaid, that some relief ought to be afforded to postmasters, to enable them to continue with the slightest chance of success against the railroads. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had promised to bring in a bill on this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman had shown no good reason why that intention had been abandoned. The present system was ruinous, and he should feel that he was not doing his duty to his constituents, or to the country at large, if he did not do ail in his power to produce some beneficial alteration.
Captain Pechellsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had endeavoured to thwart the present proposition, by reminding the House of the sacrifice of revenue that must be made to carry out the principle of a penny postage. He supported the penny postage, because he thought it was a measure that was generally called for by the country; but that was no reason why he should not also support the motion of the hon. Member for Falkirk. It was the business of that House to reduce such taxation as they thought called for, and it was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out the wishes of that House, and to supply any deficiency that might thereby be created.
Sir C. Knightleywould support the proposition of the hon. Member for Falkirk. He begged to call the attention of the House to the course that was taken by Government upon two questions, namely, that of the postage of letters, and the post-horse duty. It was said, that the reduction of the postage upon letters would benefit the poor. On the contrary, he thought it would only benefit merchants and rich people. The duty upon post-horses was, on the contrary, unequal and unjust, and ruined all those engaged in the posting business. Government, however, was induced to bring forward the first measure entirely from popular clamour; while the second question, which affected a class of persons few in number, and without the power of doing much good or harm, was altogether neglected.
Mr. C. P. Villierssaid, that as far as he could understand the charge of the hon. Baronet, it was a proof of the superior wisdom of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for it only imputed to the right hon. Gentleman that he considered anti consulted the larger interest—that he

653
considered those who represented the great interests of the country—which he thought it wise to consider in preference to any other. The question, as it seemed to him, lay between the community at large and a particular interest. They had to choose between the postage and the post-horse duty; and the question was, which they were prepared to make a sacrifice for. It was not often, that Chancellors of the Exchequer consulted the general interests of the nation in matters of taxation. Not but that he considered the present post-horse duty unfair, but there were two modes of relieving the parties—by taking off the taxes on letting horses for hire, and repealing the taxes on the food of those horses. Some of the post-horse masters had, on deliberate calculation, found that they would be much more relieved by the repeal of the Corn-laws than by removing the tax on their business. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in proposing the penny postage, made a bold and noble experiment for the general good, and it was impossible to calculate the advantages which would result to society at large from that measure. One thing, he trusted, would never be done, viz., teeing the means of internal communication, than which he thought no measure could be more pernicious.
Mr. Darbysaid, that there was no question, whether one of education or post-horse duty, or be it what it might, which did not afford the hon. Member for Wolverhampton an opportunity to complain of the Corn-laws. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, acted fairly in disregarding the promise he had made, and throwing the postmasters, who had made a strong case, overboard for the sake of the penny-postage. At the same time, he could not vote for the motion of the hon. Member on the ground which had induced him to oppose the reduction of any tax without an adequate substitute having been provided.
Mr. Hawescould not vote for the motion of the hon. Member, in consequence of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Still, he was of opinion, that the post-horse duties might be altered, which would be a great relief to coach proprietors. The traffic on railroads was increasing, while the duties derived from post-horses and coaches were decreasing, and he had been told by the coach proprietors generally, that the next
654
time they took out their license, they must take out the lower license. He wanted, however, to know, why landed property was not made to bear its fair share of the burden, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Devonshire, and the hon. Baronet, the Member for Northamptonshire, who were such advocates for the remission of the duty on post-horses, ought nut to oppose any proposition to levy a tax upon the descent of landed estate.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the hon. Member for Sussex had made a speech in favour of the reduction, but intended to give his vote against the proposition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not care how many speeches were made in favour of the motion so long as he got the votes. So long as the Ministers had the money of the people at their control, they did not care a straw what hon. Gentlemen might say. The proper way was to keep the money out of their hands. He believed that the Government had adopted the postage plan with a desire to benefit the public, and he was grateful for what they had done, but considering the length and breadth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's organs of caution, he was surprised that he had gone so far. A proposition had been made for a property tax. He liked the proposition. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer feared, that the landlords would run away with their wealth to the continent. He should like to see a man pocket three or four thousand acres of land—he would find this rather a difficult thing to get to the continent with. A man might leave a million in landed property to a profligate son without paying one farthing of duty, yet if he had had a faithful servant, who had been with him for thirty years, and left hint 100 l., that man could only receive 90 l. of it, the other 10 l. being taken for duty. Until the people were faithfully represented in that House, they would never get justice. He would vote for the reduction of the tax, as he would do for the reduction of every tax. He did not like to hear any hon. Members mention the subject of a substitute—that was the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to find substitutes was what he was paid for. The hon. Member for Brighton had suggested a tax on railroads [Captain Pechell: No, no], or at any rate the hon. Member suggested, that there should be an equalization of the duties of post horses and railways. This would be

655
a tax on the hon. Member's constituents, as all who travelled by the railway to Brighton would have to pay an extra charge. He was against any such tax, although he admitted, that many hundred persons had been ruined by railways, and he regretted, that there were no means of making the railroad proprietors give compensation to those persons by proceedings in a court of law. He trusted, that the House would agree to the reduction of this tux, and would levy no new tax in consequence, and above all no tax on communications, for all such taxes were most irrational and unjust.
Lord Eliotobserved, that as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared, that in consequence of the financial state of the country, he could only remove one of these taxes, he should prefer the removal of the duty on post-horses to the adoption of the penny postage.
Mr. Humehoped that his hon. Friend would not press the question to a division.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, that a few clays ago he had a communication on the subject of the post-horse duties with a very large coach proprietor, who told him, that a small reduction in the amount of the duty, and an equalisation of taxation, would enable the proprietors to go on, and that those charges would be attended with an increase of revenue. As it appeared, that there was likely to be a deficient revenue, he could not support the present resolution.
Mr. G. Palmersaid, that the effect of the continuance of the present system would be to take all the post-horses off the roads, and to close all the inns and the houses of accommodation scattered over the country. The result would then be, that people would be compelled to travel by railroads, and would be exposed to the grossest impositions, as the proprietors could charge what they pleased, as the railroads were perfect monopolies.
Mr. Easthopesaid, that he could not but be surprised at the extreme incorrectness that prevailed in the minds of several hon. Members as to the existing taxes on the means of communication, as if there were no taxes on conveyance by railways. There was, however, very considerable taxation on railroads, and he knew, that a very large proportion of the capital embarked in the railroads had never paid anything to the proprietors, although it
656
paid largely to the State. He did not quarrel with this, but when hon. Members made these observations, did they recollect, that in taxing railroads they would be taxing themselves and the rest of the community, for it would be nothing more nor less than a tax on conveyance. The hon. Member said, that the railroads were monopolies, and the proprietors might charge what they please. If this were the case, did not the hon. Gentleman see, that a tax on railroads would operate as a tax on the passengers? If a monopoly existed, the railway proprietors might increase the charge to passengers to the amount of the tax. The hon. Member for Essex also spoke as if persons were compelled to travel by railroad, whether they would or not, and as if the interest of the proprietors of railroads did not consist in consulting the convenience of the public. He wanted to know, whether any thing had arisen to induce persons to abandon travelling by coach other than general convenience? None, however, could be more interested that the railroad proprietors in reducing the taxation on stage coaches, as nothing could be more for their interests than low charges for travelling by coach, as they would bring passengers to the railroads. He could not help feeling, that the notion of setting up railroad travelling against travelling by coach was a very superficial view of the question. He was sure, that no railroad company that knew its own interest would wish for a tax on stagecoaches or any other means of conveyance.
Colonel Sibthorpwould be glad to see a clear statement of the property held in railroads by Members of that House, and how they voted. For his own part, he had always voted against railroads, and should continue to do so.
The House divided on the original question:—Ayes 109; Noes 48: Majority 61.
The House then went into a Committee of Supply on the miscellaneous estimates.
Several votes were agreed to, and the House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Timber Ships; Cathedral and Ecclesiastical Preferments; Assessed Taxes Composition.—Read a third time:—Soap Duties Drawback; Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Lord Redesdale, and the Bishop of London, from Haddington, and other places, for Religious Instruction in Scotland.—By Lord Lyndhurst, from the Corporation of Dublin, against the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.—By the Earl of Roden, to the same effect.—By the Duke of Richmond, from Huntley, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By the Earl of Stanhope, from a parish in Cumberland, for the Repeal of the New Poor-law.

RIOTS AT BIRMINGHAM.
The Duke of Wellingtonseeing the noble Viscount in his place, would ask him whether or no, when he stated to the House on Thursday last that the conduct of the magistrates of Birmingham, in reference to the riots that had taken place there, was to be inquired into, he was in possession of any information respecting the letter from Mr. Hebbert, who had written to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on behalf of certain inhabitants of Birmingham? [Viscount Melbourne.—No.] Then it would be necessary for him to call the attention of their Lordships again to the subject, in consequence of the mariner in which he had been misrepresented in another place and out of doors, as to what he had stated to the House last week. He had been accused of exaggeration. It might be a Parliamentary phrase; he would not presume to decide that it was an unparliamentary term, but he believed it was a term not much used among gentlemen. It was used, however, in a privileged place that must be nameless, and he should advert to it no more than to notice the conclusions which might be drawn from the use of that term in reference to what he had said. He trusted their Lordships would excuse him for troubling them for a few moments upon this subject, because he really thought he had been most unjustifiably made the subject of personal attack for what he had said in their Lordships' House in respect to the late riots at Birmingham. What he had said was founded on the same amount of information which it appeared was in possession of her Majesty's Government; for neither the noble Viscount nor any other of the noble Lords opposite knew any more of the subject than he did; they knew nothing beyond what they saw

587
in the newspapers, and he stated at the time that he knew nothing beyond that himself with respect to the facts. But he had compared the transactions at Birmingham with certain other transactions of which certainly he had more knowledge than most other noble Lords in that House—matters of which he had a certain and positive knowledge, and he had said, and he firmly believed that it was true—and that in making the comparison he had not in the least degree departed from the truth, that the peaceable inhabitants of the town of Birmingham were worse treated upon that occasion than the inhabitants of any town he had ever known or seen taken by assault. That was what he asserted, and that was the fact, according to his opinion. He would tell their Lordships how it was the fact. In the first place, the town was plundered, the houses were plundered; secondly, four houses were stripped and set on fire; and thirdly, the houses were gutted; that was a term which perhaps many of their Lordships did not understand, but he explained what he meant by it on the first occasion he had used it—the furniture was taken out of the house by the mob and placed in the middle of the street, and there destroyed by fire, and then the burning embers were carried into the houses in order to complete the work of destruction. Those were the facts upon which he had grounded the comparison he had made; and he would now state and affirm again, that he had never known a town taken by storm, he had never seen a town taken by storm, so treated as the accounts from Birmingham stated, that that town bad been treated. So much, then, for exaggeration, Exaggeration? Yes, that was the term which had been applied to him. He was the person charged with exaggeration for having made that comparison. He could not help thinking, that it was most extraordinary, that in the year 1839, after nine years of liberal government, after nine years' enjoyment of the blessings of liberal government, their Lordships should be discussing whether or not the amount of destruction completed in a peaceful town in her Majesty's dominions was equal to the mischief done to a town when taken by storm. And yet that was clearly demonstrated. It was clear, that in peaceful, happy England, which had carried on a war for 22 years, and which had mad the most extraordinary efforts to maintain
588
that war, and had carried it on with circumstances of glory and success in all parts of the world, in order to avoid these miseries, as it was hoped, so that no such mischief's might ever approach her shores—in this same happy and peaceful England, after nine years of liberal rule, here was a town plundered and its peace destroyed; and yet he was accused of exaggeration, because he said he never knew any town taken by storm to be so ill-used as this one town had been. He confessed he was not at all surprised at the conduct of the noble Lord who had so liberally applied the term "exaggeration" to what he had said, when he reflected who were the followers and supporters of that noble Lord. But he was now about to call the attention of their Lordships to certain documents connected with this subject. He begged their Lordships to recollect that the town of Birmingham in the course of last year had a charter granted to it by the noble Viscount's Government. After the grant of the charter, the noble Viscount thought proper to go a little further, and made a grant to the corporation of what was called a Quarter Sessions and a bench of justices. Now that grant was made in January last, and he begged their Lordships to recollect the date. It was well known that at the time the body called "Chartists" were moving through the country. Arms were purchased by them—pikes and all sorts of dangerous weapons were in the course of being manufactured, and there was a good deal of terror and alarm pervading the country with respect to these bodies of Chartists. The Government at that time exhibited some intention of going further, as he had already stated, by granting Quarter Sessions. At that period a large number of gentlemen residing at Birmingham presented a memorial or address to her Majesty, in which, among other things, it was stated, that the Government had been pleased, under the authority of an Act of Parliament passed in the 6th year of the reign of his late Majesty King William 4th., to grant a charter of incorporation to that town; that in pursuance of the provision of the said charter, an election of town-councillors for the different wards had recently taken place, in the course of which much asperity and party feeling was manifested; that the election terminated in the return of persons of extreme political opinions to the

589
exclusion of all persons of moderate principles; that the memorialists were informed that it was intended to form a Quarter Sessions in Birmingham, and do away with the jurisdiction of the county magistrates within the borough. The memorialists, represented that the administration of justice had hitherto been intrusted to justices of the peace for the county of Warwick, of whom there were eighteen gentlemen of all political opinions, all residing within the distance required by the Municipal Act, and who had been selected from men of the best reputation, being persons who were most worthy of the confidence of the inhabitants. Those gentlemen had been found most amply sufficient for the proper administration of justice. The petitioners most humbly represented further, that it was most important to keep the administration of justice free from every imputation of party bias, particularly in a town large and populous like Birmingham, where manifestations of public feeling had frequently been carried to a lamentable extent. They, therefore, prayed that the Royal prerogative would be exercised in the appointment of justices of the peace for the borough from among those only who at that time discharged the duties of justices of the peace for the county of Warwick. That memorial was presented immediately after the granting of the charter, and the noble Viscount had those statements before him. Still the Government had thought proper to advise the appointment of a great number of magistrates, three or four of whom only had been magistrates before, the majority having been selected or recommended by the town council. He refrained from animadverting on the conduct of the magistrates; he spoke only of the conduct of the noble Viscount. He entered not into the question now whether the magistrates had acted right or wrong on the occasion alluded to; but it would appear, that the magistrates had been appointed contrary to the clause in the Act of Parliament. That affair happened on the 15th, and on the 16th Mr. Hebbert, a gentleman of Birmingham, forwarded a memorial from the inhabitants in the following terms:—
"To the right hon. Lord John Russell, Secretary of State for the Home Department.
"We, the undersigned inhabitants of the borough of Birmingham, and chiefly resident or having property in High-street and the Bull-
590
ring, in the said borough, beg to represent to your Lordship that, from about half past eight to a quarter to ten o'clock last night, Monday, the 15th of July, the properly and lives of your memorialist, were left unprotected to the violence of an organized mob, although full and authenticated information had been early given to the mayor and magistrates of the borough of the intentions and plans of the rioters. Your memorialists, therefore, feeling that the mayor and magistrates have been guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty, request your Lordship forthwith to institute such proceedings as are necessary for bringing them to trial for their misconduct, and that you will, in the mean time, suspend them from any further control and interference in protecting the lives of your memorialists and their fellow-townsmen, and in preserving the peace of the borough."
On the 17th the following letter was written in reply to the memorialists:—
"Whitehall, July 17, 1639.
"Sir,—I am directed by Lord John Russell to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th inst., transmitting a memorial from certain inhabitants of Birmingham, complaining that their lives and property were left unprotected to the violence of an organized mob, although full and authentic information had been early given to the mayor and magistrates of the borough of the intentions and plans of the rioters,' and to request the memorialists will transmit to his Lordship any evidence or proof in their power to show that previous information was given to the magistrates of the intentions of the rioters.
"I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
"S. M. PHILLIPS.
"J. B. Hebbert, Esq. Temple-st, Birmingham."
The noble Lord had said, that he had no knowledge of these matters. From these letters it was obvious, that the intention on the part of the Government to inquire into these unfortunate affairs was dependent on the answer which they might receive from the memorialists, in reply to the letter written under the direction of the Home Secretary, as to any knowledge they had that the magistrates had full notice of the intentions of the rioters. He would now draw their Lordships' attention to the answer of the memorialists, because that answer showed what sort of confidence in the Government existed in the place where these unfortunate occurrences had taken place. In answer to the letter from the Home-office, these Gentlemen, the memorialists of Birmingham, wrote as follows;—The letter was dated

591
"Temple-street, Birmingham,
"July18,1839.
"My Lord—I have the honour, on behalf of the Gentlemen who signed the memorial which I had the honour of transmitting to your Lordship last Tuesday night, to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from your secretary, dated the 17th inst., and to express their gratification at finding, from the report of the proceedings in the House of Commons last night, that your Lordship is of opinion that the single acknowledged fact of the property of the inhabitants of the town having been left unprotected for upwards of an hour and a-half on Monday night, is of itself sufficient to make an inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates absolutely necessary. When the inquiry takes place the memorialists will be prepared to adduce the fullest evidence in support of their own charges against the town, authorities; but they cannot but remember that when on a former occasion other of their fellow-townsmen thought fit to represent to your Lordship the disgraceful conduct of the civil and military authorities, your Lordship submitted those representations to the parties accused, and received from them personal explanations, with which your Lordship professed to be satisfied, without communicating to the complainants the answers which you so received. The only result of what was then supposed to be a discharge of public duty was a censure from your Lordship, and, in one instance at least, a challenge to fight a duel from one of the persons whose conduct had been impugned, sent to a most respectable inhabitant of the town, who joined in that representation. Under these circumstances, therefore, your Lordship will not be surprised if the memorialists respectfully decline to make any private communication to the Home-office; at the same time that they reiterate their readiness to adduce the fullest proofs of the truth and justice of their charge before any legally constituted tribunal, and when they can do so with safety to themselves and the confidence that it will not be done in vain. I have the honour to be, my Lord,
"Your Lordship's most obedient Servant,
"JOHN B. HEBBERT.
"To the right hon. Lord John Russell."
Now, upon the course which was here alluded to, he should make no observation, as it appeared that in the present case they were to have an inquiry, when the whole matter would be brought under consideration. But he must say, that certainly the paper he had just read showed that even when the letter of the 17th had been written, no one in Birmingham felt assured that inquiry would be made. And what was the reason of that want of assurance? Why the conduct of the Government on a former occasion, to which allusion was made in Mr. Hebbert's let-
592
ter. He would not allude to what was said in that letter as to this extraordinary mode of conducting business, but he must say, that these proceedings—that the calling for the evidence which Gentlemen might have acquired for the purpose of substantiating a charge against the magistrates for neglect of duty, and then turning round upon them when it was communicated, and instead of proceeding in the Court of Queen's Bench, or before the assizes at Warwick, against the persons complained of for having been guilty of corrupt and improper neglect of duty, communicating the information received by the Government to the parties accused, gave to one party a most unfair advantage and tended to produce private revenge and other evil consequences. These remarks again might be called "exaggerated," he might again be charged with exaggeration, but here were the papers which proved that the course which he complained of had been pursued by the Government on a former occasion. And what would be the consequence of their communicating to the accused the information furnished to the Government by the accusers? In point of fact, it would be that a magistrate who misconducted himself would be exempted from punishment, unless the Government consented to become a party to the prosecution, for if the course complained of by the gentlemen of Birmingham were followed on other occasions, no private individual would come forward to complain of the conduct of any public authority, however grossly unjust that conduct might be. Now, he apprehended that according to the law of England, any individual was at liberty to complain of the conduct of a magistrate, and to proceed against him in a court of law. No one had ever doubted that in this country every individual had a right to complain of, and to proceed against, the magistrates, when the magistrates misconducted themselves. It was in accordance only with the Code Napoleon—with the code of laws of that high priest of liberalism, the Emperor Napoleon—that the consent of the Council of State should be given before a justice misconducting himself could be tried and punished. Hitherto, in this happy country, the practice and the law had been different, and he hoped they should hear no more of such proceedings. But follow out the system laid down in the letter from

593
the Home office, and the result would be that no man, particularly if he had to complain of the conduct of a magistrate, would without the consent of the Home Secretary go into a court of justice to obtain redress. To such a course, he trusted, he should see some check put before it was further established by precedent. He should refrain from any further observations upon this matter at present, and he would now ask the noble Viscount whether there was any objection to the production of the documents he had read, as he conceived it was necessary that those papers should be laid before their Lordships.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to the observations which had been made in another place, and to which the noble Duke had alluded, he was not well informed. Of this, however, he was perfectly assured, that whatever comments had been made upon the remarks of the noble Duke, whatever observations had been adduced by his noble Friend in the other House of Parliament, there was no intention to impute to the noble Duke anything improper or unjust. There was, he was sure, no intention on the part of his noble Friend to give offence to the noble Duke any more than there was on his own part when he observed in that House at the time that the noble Duke saw the matter in an exaggerated point of view. The noble Duke complained of the word "exaggeration," and, unwilling as he was to revive the arguments on this unfortunate affair, unwilling as he was to urge anything which might irritate or offend, he could not help stating, that there was no real offence in the arguments of his noble Friend, and that no offence could be inferred. He would ask whether the word complained of was not one of the mildest and most common expressions used to express that a strong view had been taken of any matter? He would not go back to examine with what propriety he himself had used the word exaggerations, but certain was that if the observations of the noble Duke were not exaggerations of the subject to which he alluded, then must war be a much milder affair than he had before imagined. The noble Duke had said, that it was an unfortunate and melancholy consideration, that in the midst of profound peace they should be called upon to discuss questions of this kind, and that occurrences such as
594
those which had happened at Birmingham should thus be forced upon their notice. He perfectly admitted the truth of that observation, but he feared, that during profound peace, and while a country was in a prosperous and flourishing condition, such a period would not be found to have been always remarkable for domestic tranquillity. On the contrary, he much doubted whether that was not the very season when domestic disturbances were most likely to occur. He scarcely knew what charge the noble Duke intended to bring against the Government, with respect to the magistrates of Birmingham. The noble Duke seemed to complain that he and his colleagues were, when this matter was first alluded to, totally uninformed on this subject, and in relation to events which had only taken place a few hours before,—upon a subject, in regard to which it was desirable that the fullest information should be obtained, on which no hasty conclusion ought to have been formed, and on which it behoved the Government not to speak, without the fullest and most ample knowledge. If that was the charge against himself and his colleagues, it was a charge to which he could not attach the least degree of importance. He could see no force in that charge, for the course which had been followed was the same which had been adopted in a much more grave and serious case, but to which the noble Duke had strangely enough not alluded. He alluded to the Bristol case. On the occasion of the Bristol riots, several lives were lost, and a great part of the town burnt, while the town, instead of being only for an hour or two, was, for a considerable time in the possession of a lawless and infuriated mob. He did not remember that such observations as had been made in reference to Birmingham had been made in Parliament in reference to Bristol, or that such a desire to censure the Government or the magistrates had been manifested. But on the occasion of the Bristol riots, an inquiry had been made into the conduct of the magistrates, and the result was, that an information had been filed in the Court of Queen's Bench against them, and the consequences had been, that they were tried and acquitted. On the present occasion, the Government had followed the same course. An inquiry had been instituted, with a view to ascertain what the conduct of the magistrates

595
had been, and to see whether there were any good grounds for ulterior proceedings. With respect to the papers alluded to by the noble Duke, he was perfectly ready to acquiesce in any motion for their production, as he was most anxious to have every possible information before the House, which could tend in any way to the full understanding of the subject. He admitted, that it might be, that the memorial which had been read by the noble Duke, showed a want of confidence in the Government. The matters alluded to by the memorialists had reference to a general election, on which occasion some riots took place at Birmingham, in regard to which, both the civil and military authorities had been charged with neglect of duty. He was not, however, prepared to go into the case, as he had not a perfect recollection of the circumstance, nor was he perfectly aware of the reasons for the course which, on that occasion, had been followed by his noble Friend, the Home Secretary. But this he would say, that there was no evidence given on that occasion from which it could fairly be inferred that his noble Friend would pursue a course contrary to justice, or that it was his intention to communicate the information which had been conveyed to the Government to those persons who were accused of misconduct. It was necessary for the Government to know all the facts before it came to a conclusion as to the proper course to be followed, or before adopting the course which the noble Duke seemed inclined to pursue. In respect to whether granting a charter to Birmingham was a proper or an improper step, that also was a subject for the examination of Parliament. He begged again to assure the noble Duke, that by the remarks to which he had alluded, no offence was intended. These remarks implied no imputation against the veracity of the noble Duke, but only that he had given a stronger colouring to these unfortunate transactions than his noble Friend had thought they deserved.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the acquittal of the Bristol magistrates showed that they had done their duty, and the case was not, therefore, in point. That which he complained of was, that the Birmingham magistrates were not appointed according to law, but on the nomination of the town council. The Home Secretary was responsible for the conduct
596
of these magistrates; and the ground of his complaint was, that they were appointed in an unconstitutional manner. Government had, on one occasion, communicated the information received from persons, complaining that the magistrates had not done their duty, and it mattered nothing what the occasion was. The result was the same, whatever was the occasion. The memorialists concluded that the Secretary of State, judging from their past experience, was unwilling to prosecute when a complaint was made, and they had not confidence that the information they might furnish would not be communicated to the parties accused.
Viscount Melbourneexplained, that Parliament was not sitting when the Bristol riots occurred, and the reason why they had not been noticed in Parliament was, that people had had time to reflect upon the matter. Time had been afforded for consideration, and it would, in his opinion, have been more prudent to have reflected more on the present occasion. With respect to what the noble Duke had stated, as to the magistrates having been virtually appointed by the town-council, in violation of the Act of Parliament, that he entirely denied; because he remembered, that in all the debates upon this subject, it was said to the Government, "We are depriving you of no power that you possess; you may take the advice of the town-council if you please." What could be more natural than that the Secretary of State should take the opinion of the town-council upon an appointment of this nature?
The Duke of Wellingtonrecommended the noble Viscount to consult the clause in the Act of Parliament, and not to trust to his memory respecting what passed in debate.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that in a conversation which took place the other day respecting the grant of a charter of incorporation to Birmingham, his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had alleged, that gross frauds had been practised on the part of those who were opposed to the charter. Since that time, he had communicated with those Gentlemen, and they assured him, in the most positive manner, that so far as they were concerned, and so far as the town of Birmingham was concerned, no such transaction whatever, as had been represented

597
to have occurred, had taken place. No fictitious names had been appended to the memorial against the charter, and no streets bad been put down which were not in existence. The opponents of the charter had also forwarded in every possible way the inquiry which had been instituted, and, in fact, they were the persons who had called for an inquiry, and it was the greatest absurdity to suppose that such persons would throw obstacles in the way of its prosecution. He was sure that what his noble and learned Friend said the other day, was not quite correct, and he wished to know whether his noble and learned Friend could now say, whether his observations did or did not apply to the town of Birmingham.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that be found that he had applied to Birmingham what really belonged to Manchester.
Papers ordered.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Lord Broughamwould take the opportunity of their Lordships being about to proceed to the Order of the Day for the second reading of that very important measure the Irish Municipal Bill, to make a few observations to their Lordships in connection with the measure, and at the same time to state the course which he intended to pursue with regard to it—a course so entirely different from that which other noble Lords would probably take, whether they opposed the principle or the details of the bill, that he felt it would be more fair in him to address their Lordships thus at the preliminary stage. Be the merits of the measure ever so great, be it ever so unexceptionable, be its principle ever so clear or the details ever so perfectly framed, his objection to it was still the same:—that this was the 22nd of July—that they had been sitting there wellnigh six months, and had hardly done anything in point of legislation during that time, and yet that they were now called on—as usual, he must admit, for this was no new complaint, it was one he had himself made two or three years ago, and the evil had been increasing from year to year during the last twenty years—to proceed at once to legislate upon a subject of the very highest importance. He did not complain more of the present Government than of any others; but the evil had become so positive that he felt their Lordships were reduced to the necessity of taking some
598
effectual step to apply a remedy to this great and increasing mischief. He was not unmindful of what had been said by a noble Friend of his behind him, that the complaint was one which he had heard every year since he had been in office; but he said increasing mischief, because it was the nature of the evil to increase unless the appropriate remedy were timely applied. He repeated, that after having sat six months, they had done nothing: they had debated a great deal, appointed committees of inquiry into some important questions, passed some private bills; but, as regarded their legislative functions, they had literally done nothing. With the exception of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) he was perhaps the most constant and regular attendant of their Lordships' House; and he would take upon himself to say, that they had not ten times during the whole Session sat until eight o'clock, and he was quite sure they had not sat five times so late as ten. The bulk of the business had generally been over soon after seven o'clock; so that, in fact, it could not be said that they had done anything but wait for measures to be sent up from the other House. To show the situation in which the House was now placed with regard to measures sent up at this late period from the other House, he need only refer to the printed list of business for this day. There were no less than ten or eleven important measures standing for second readings or some equally important stage; and if by their being disposed of or proceeded with was meant that their Lordships should discuss and come to a resolution after duly weighing and inquiring into the subject, it was utterly impossible that those which were appointed to be the proceedings of the day could be the proceedings of the day, if by the clay was meant the legislative day of seven or eight hours. This was the list:—Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill, second reading; Metropolis Police Bill, second reading; Custody of Infants Bill, committee; Pleadings in Courts (India) Bill, committee; Beer Act in part Repeal Bill, re-commitment; Prisons Bill, report; Bankrupts' Estates (Scotland) Bill, report; Church Discipline Bill, third reading; Indemnity Bill, third reading; Soap Duties Drawback Bill, third reading; and Stannaries Courts (Cornwall) Bill, third reading. An hon. Friend of his behind him observed that some of these

599
must of course be put off. Exactly so, they must be put off. That was the very thing he complained of. Look at the first measure on the list—The Irish Municipal Bill. It contained no less than 256 clauses, some of them perfectly new clauses. [Lord Ellenborough: One hundred and twenty-four are new.] Some of them remodelled, but upwards of fifty absolutely new. It formed on the whole a volume (a great part of which they had not seen before, and of the remainder of which they knew little except by the experience of former years) containing more pages than there were in the statute-book for the first 38 years of the reign of Elizabeth. Now was it fair to call on the House of Lords to discuss so many measures all at once? Was it fair to call on them to discuss more than one at once? Was it even fair to call on them to discuss so important a measure as the Irish Bill to-night, when it was only printed on Saturday—a day, probably, of recreation to most of their Lordships, who no doubt found themselves as much jaded with doing nothing, as others elsewhere no doubt were with doing so much. Was this a right mode of dealing with a subject of such vast importance—one which the experience of past years showed it would be impossible for them to carry through without the greatest controversy, both on its principle and its details? It might be answered that the bill had only just come up from the other House, and that other things had prevented them from sooner sending it up to their Lordships' House. But what measure could there be requiring precedence more than this? Assuredly it was most important in itself; and if the promoters of it were to be believed, upon it depended the peace and good government of the corporations of Ireland; and moreover it had already been waiting three years for precedence; and the subject which it embraced formed part of the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the Session. Surely this was a strong case for its having been brought in earlier. A noble Friend reminded him that the bill was first introduced in the other House in February. If so, what had they been doing in the other House—that Temple of Themis, or of whatever exceeding halt and lame deity presided over it? What could they have been doing during the six months they had sat, if they had been unable to send up earlier this mea-
600
sure, described as of so high importance, and which was indeed expressly referred to in the speech from the Throne? But if this bill at last obtained precedency, it would seem that there were more to come; that although their Lordships' table now groaned with ten or eleven enormous bills, they were to have at least ten or eleven more. Indeed, six or seven had been brought up to-night; and the next ten days would, in all probability, force up many more from the same laboratory of immature legislation, all bearing the marks of the same immaturity, or of being half made Thus it was, that within one week or a fortnight their Lordships were overwhelmed with measures which the other House had taken the whole Session to discuss, and with regard to which they were expected to discharge their duty as if they had had the six months to consider them. Was it right, safe, or expedient, that this should be? Was the Legislature to consist of two Chambers or but of one Chamber? He (Lord Brougham) had heard it said by some, that the House of Lords ought to be abolished—that it was a nuisance in the Constitution. This opinion he had always combatted, although he had frequently felt himself bound to differ from their Lordships, and had never said behind their backs half so much as he had taken the liberty respectfully and firmly to state in their presence. It was a most pernicious proposition, and so anomalous, that he would rather see a republican government, than a government composed of the Crown and the people with no intermediate legislative body. Ridiculous and absurd as he conceived that proposition to be, he yet thought their conduct more so who advocated the retaining the House of Lords as a branch of the Constitution, who called upon them to act as lawgivers, and exercise their deliberative functions, yet brought before them those measures at such a time, in such a mass, and in such a shape, as made it physically impossible in any legislative body to decide upon them. Was it, then, supposed, that the functions of their Lordships' House might in another manner be dispensed with? That, in fact, the bills came up from the other House in so perfect a state, that no revision, alteration, or correction, was required in them? On the contrary, they came up, for the most part, in such a shape, that he defied the most devoted admirer of proceedings elsewhere, or even

601
the authors of the measures themselves, to deny the necessity for their being roost carefully examined when they came under their Lordships' consideration. The more misshapen and deformed were the offspring, the more they always seemed to seize upon the hearts of their parents; yet he defied even the authors of those measures themselves to show, that they came up in a state that did not require revision and correction—that, in fact, they were not oftentimes in a state which rendered it absolutely dangerous to allow them to pass into laws without those necessary operations being performed. To give an instance—there came up in one year two bills, the title, heading, and amendments of each of which applied to the other; and so those bills would have stood in the statute-book to this hour, had not the mistake luckily been discovered just before the prorogation. And then what was done? Why a bill was passed by which it was enacted, that certain parts of the one bill were to apply to the other bill. This he knew to be a fact from the statement of the Speaker of that time. In another case a bill was introduced to amend the administration of criminal justice from and after the October ensuing. This bill, although full of good points, and containing many most excellent provisions, gave an extraordinary power by which any single judge, though he might not have heard a word of the evidence offered on the trial of a prisoner, might the very next morning send for the prisoner and alter his punishment. Their Lordships threw out the clause containing that provision, and what was the consequence? Why the other House were so angry at the change being made (though it was not a money bill) that they threw out the whole bill, and the measure did not pass till a year ago. Now, any one acquainted with the constitution of the two Assemblies must be aware, of what invaluable use that House was in correcting and amending the bills that came up from the other House. It was not enough merely that their Lordships should agree in the principle of a bill and approve its details, because there might yet be a vast deal of matter in the bill (of the kind to which he had just referred) requiring amendment. But if they were to meet every day for the next fortnight or three weeks, when the Session would virtually terminate by the absence of noble Lords, it was impossible that the measures now on the notice-paper
602
for the next two days would receive even the semblance of a fair discussion. He had already read a list of the business for to-night. He would now read what was set down for Tuesday:—"Prisoners' Trial Bill, second reading; Lower Canada Government Bill, second reading; Registers of Births, &c., Bill, second reading; Election Petitions' Trial Bill, Committee; Tithes' Commutation Acts Amendment Bill, third reading; Supreme Courts' (Scotland) Bill, third reading." But, notwithstanding that there were all these measures already there for discussion, the Government had not, it seemed, done introducing bills. Instead of, at all events, finishing the measures brought forward early in the Session, they were actually introducing totally new ones. It was but the day after he had postponed his Education Bill at the suggestion of his noble Friend, on account of the advanced period of the Session, that a Member of the Government in the other House did not hesitate to get up in his place, and introduce a measure—one quite new to the Legislature—respecting inland bonding and warehousing—a measure which he happened to know was of great importance, from the circumstance of his having already had two deputations from the city complaining of it. In one week after, as late as Friday last, the Under-Secretary of State introduced a measure of considerable importance, and they were now told to expect the speedy introduction of a bill to effect an object of a great and most important kind—the establishment and organization of a constabulary force for the whole kingdom. He really must be allowed to express his hope, that at this period of the Session, their attention would not be called for the first time to a question so extensive, important, and difficult. A bill for the establishment of a general constabulary force was one, he conceived, which might, with the utmost propriety, bye been first introduced in that House—it was no money bill. What was the practical result of the observations which he had addressed to their Lordships on this subject? That unless they at once proceeded to take the remedy into their own hands, they would always be treated n this manner. Year after year was this intolerable mischief on the increase. They were left during five months with nothing to do, and then the other House sent up to them more than could be done in five or six

603
times the interval that elapsed before the end of the Session. The accumulation bad never been so great as it was this year; and the bill now before the House was a glaring and unparalleled instance of the evil he complained of—taking all the circumstances together—considering the fact of the subject having been introduced in the speech from the Throne, and that this bill was sent up to them at the eleventh hour—it was a mockery, and nothing less, to call them a deliberative body, and yet to render their deliberation a physical impossibility, by withholding from them the subjects on which they were to deliberate. Let them be treated as cyphers—told, that they should not exist at all as a deliberative body—commanded merely to register the acts of the House of Commons-never called upon even to look at a bill, much less to examine and improve it: all this he could understand. But to be treated as a deliberative assembly—to be called upon to examine measures—to be told, that they must discuss the principle of each measure in the House, and its details in Committee: to have all this responsibility thrown upon them, and at the same time to receive from the other House so many measures when it was a physical impossibility fully to discuss even one of them, was a mockery, and an insult on their understanding. The remedy was in their Lordships' own hands. Let them show, that if bills came up at this season of the year, they would not pay attention to them. Without in any way entering into the merits of such measures, or deciding on them, let them be rejected on the ground of the advanced period of the Session, and on that ground only, unless good reason be shown, why they could not earlier be brought up from the other House. Let this course be once resolutely pursued, and he would answer for it, that in the next Session bills would be introduced in the proper place, and those introduced in the other House would be brought up to their Lordships at a convenient period in the Session. These observations he had held it his bounden duty to make in consequence of what passed two years ago. The House at that time allowed him to introduce certain changes as to the mode in which private business should be transacted in that House. At the same time he took occasion to call their Lordships' attention to the evil of which he was now complaining,
604
but he did not then suggest a remedy; he now, however, ventured on the credit of having then at least helped their Lordships to an effectual mode of improving the practice of the House with regard to private business, to ask them now to take a decided course with respect to public business also, as the only mode of practically and effectually working the cure of an evil the extent of which all admitted, and of which no man could deny the importance. On the one single ground which he had stated, he should oppose the second reading of this bill, and he begged at the same time to notify, that he should on the same ground oppose many other bills, in the hope that he would be supported in a course of proceeding which he was satisfied was the only one by which their Lordships would recover the full exercise of their legislative and deliberative functions.
Viscount Melbourne,in rising to move the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, would, in the first instance, observe, that the observations of his noble and learned Friend, as he himself had admitted, were not new. They applied to a state of things that had existed almost ever since Parliament itself had existed—a state of things of the origin of which no account could be given, although the subject had often been discussed in that House. Of the many conjectural reasons for the practice that had been suggested, the most natural appeared to him to be, that it was a habit of assemblies of the kind, in all parts of the world, to allow the really practical measures to accumulate and gather together until near the close of the Session. At the beginning of a Session a representative assembly, and the other House of Parliament particularly, was usually occupied with party operations and contests. And when his noble and learned Friend said, that bills might be introduced in their Lordships' House, he surely must be aware of the reasons why it was neither convenient, politic, nor expedient, to originate measures in that House. His noble and learned Friend, in a very ingenious speech on a former occasion, seemed disposed to enlarge upon the advantages of large majorities of the other House. He (Lord Melbourne) did not entirely agree in all that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend on the subject; but at the

605
same time it could not be doubted, that a bill coming up to that House, with the sanction of the opinion of the other House, would have more effect than a measure merely introduced in their Lordships' House in the first instance. If his noble and learned Friend had wished not to add to the evil of delay he would not have made the speech he had made on this occasion. The course which he recommended was by no means a new one to their Lordships—it was one which they were virtually very much in the habit of pursuing. There could be no argument more effectual with their Lordships against a bill than that which urged them to throw it out on the ground of the lateness of its introduction, for their Lordships were by no means very ready to pass any bills, except those which they felt it would be neither wise nor prudent not to pass. At the same time he must be allowed to say, that the observations of his noble and learned Friend, applied less to the present bill than they would apply to almost any other bill that could be brought up; because their Lordships would remember the great principle and the main provisions of the bill had already been before them in three successive Parliaments, and had been with tolerable impartiality discussed and considered by them; nay, had been to a great extent sanctioned and recognised by them; and although it might be very well, for the sake of rational argument and to produce an effect upon the eye, to hold up a large bill, and, as it were, SEíKTLKWC, yet such a mode of arguing was very fallacious, and particularly so in the case of this bill, which might be said to be, in almost all its main points, the fruits and product of the combined wisdom of that and the other House, and one on very few points of which there could be a difference of opinion. With respect to this bill, it was their own doing; and the principal bulk of it consisted in those amendments which their Lordships had introduced, and therefore it was a measure, in fact, to which the observations of the noble and learned Lord would apply with much less strength and force than to any other which might be sent up from the House of Commons. He had thought the measure was so far agreed upon by their Lordships, that but for the expressed intention of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Roden), who had declared his intention to take the sense of
606
the House upon it, he should not have thought himself called upon to address any observations to the House upon the subject; and he should not now feel himself bound to waste much of that time which the noble and learned Lord had shown to be so precious, and in which they had so much to do, in referring to this question. That the corporations of Ireland required revision—that they were framed upon a principle of exclusiveness which did not suit the present day, or the laws or the rights of subjects of all classes of society, he thought had been completely and entirely admitted. It appeared to him that such was the case both in this country and in Ireland. It was admitted by the corporations themselves; and, with the exception of Dublin, he knew of no demonstration having been made in opposition to the bill on the part of any corporate town in Ireland. It was unnecessary for him, therefore, to urge any further arguments as to the general principle on which the bill was brought forward. As to the provisions of the measure, the main point of difference between them and the House of Commons was the qualification clause. It was sent up from the House of Commons with a clause proposing a 5l. qualification; their Lordships returned the bill with a 10 l. clause; the House of Commons differed from the principle embodied in the provision proposed to be made, and, in consequence of that circumstance, the bill was lost. It was now sent up with an 8l. clause, which was proposed to be adopted for three years, the principle adopted in England being also proposed to be carried out, and that was the point now for consideration. With regard to another part of the bill, that concerning the boundaries, their Lordships having incorporated certain provisions upon this subject in the measure, the House of Commons had agreed to them, and had sent up the bill, having adopted the suggestion which had been thrown out. The other great point was, the nomination of sheriffs. There were several other minor subjects of consideration, but this was the one which afforded most matter for discussion, although it did not affect the general principle of the bill. The House of Commons had sent up the bill, containing a provision, that the town-council should name three candidates, of whom the Lord-lieutenant should select one. Their Lordships, however, had differed

607
from that provision, and had placed the nomination in the Crown. From that the House of Commons differed, and had now sent up the bill with their original proposition. The other point was, the provision for appeals against valuations by those who valued for the purpose of assessing for the poor-laws. These were the points which remained to be discussed. The House had had the bill under their consideration for three years, and had adopted its provisions over and over again, being convinced of its necessity. There had been much difference of opinion upon it, and much vehemence of discussion, perhaps more than the importance of the subject justified; but he hoped that the House would now fairly consider the question, with a view to its termination, and he sincerely trusted, that if the Government should carry this measure, it would settle the question beneficially for the country.
The Earl of Rodenhad, Session after Session, carefully guarded against its being supposed that he agreed to the principle of the bill, and he had always thought, that it was opposed to the good of the country in which its provisions were to be carried into effect. He found that in the preamble of the bill it was recited, that "whereas divers bodies corporate at sundry times have been constituted within the cities, towns, counties of cities, counties of towns, and boroughs of Ireland, to the intent that the same might for ever be and remain well regulated and quietly governed; and it is expedient that the charters by which several of the said bodies corporate are constituted, should be altered in the manner hereinafter-mentioned:" or, in other words, that they should be so constituted that the effect would be, in his opinion, that they should no longer answer the purpose for which they were originally intended, namely, the good government of the people. On the contrary, a system of government, similar to that which had been established in England, would be adopted in Ireland; which, in his opinion, would be only calculated to call into increased action all those religious differences and party feelings which now existed in that part of the kingdom. He begged to ask, whether it were necessary to establish a corporation in every town where there were 3,000 in. habitants? For his own part, he thought, that such a provision would call into ex-
608
istence normal schools of agitation, sedition, and repeal, and, in short, every means by which disturbance might be produced, to the detriment of the country. Every witness who had given evidence before the committee up-stairs, from the Marquess of Wellesley down to the humblest individual examined, had all traced the evils of Ireland to the system of agitation which was continually kept up in that unhappy country. The language of one and all was this, that political agitation was the parent of outrage. And was not the proposed plan of electing officers of these corporations in the different parts of the country the most likely means of producing this agitation which could be conceived? He would ask any one who had any doubt of the truth of this to look at what had passed during the late election in Ireland, and he would name two of the counties in which the greatest agitation appeared to have been produced—he meant Sligo and Roscommon. There it was sworn, that before the election the happiness which existed could not be paralleled in any other country; and yet, since the agitation which had been produced by this election, such was the state of society that the gentry were unable to visit one another after nightfall, and many of them on going out from home were obliged to be constantly armed. He could refer also to the election of commissioners under the 9th Geo. 4th., which had produced equal mischief. Even the elections, which had taken place under the act recently passed for the poor-law commissioners, had been made the subject of political agitation throughout the different towns in Ireland. The House was congratulated on that bill being passed—that at least there was one measure from which all party-feelings and party-spirit would be absent. But the moment it quitted that House it ceased to sustain that character. In many of the towns where the poor-law guardians were chosen, what were called "priests' lists" were sent about, and all who were not named in those lists were excluded from being elected. This had been the case in many places, but more especially in Dublin. One would have supposed that if property had had any influence in securing the appointment of proper persons, it would be in that city; but the spirit of party feeling and religious animosity, had been carried to a great extent there, proving that agitation could be

609
fed by the best measures and till it was ruinous to the best interests of the country. Was it possible, then, that the House, with the evidence before them to which he had alluded, would consent to pass a measure which must make bad a great deal worse, and which must prove that this proposed system of municipal corporations could not safely be carried into effect. It was proposed to erect municipal corporations in every town where there were 3,000 inhabitants, and which might apply to be incorporated. These persons would have the appointment of the magistrates—of the mayor. Here was a most serious case. Here was the dispenser of justice appointed, chosen by the town council. This council, it would be found, would be chosen from the "priests' list," judging from analogy, at least from the existing system; and then, he begged to ask, what chance there would be for justice—what security there would be for the lives or the properties of the people? But further, the election of the mayor and town council was to be annual; so that there was to be an annual renewal of agitation, and of the means of increasing it. Under the provisions of this bill two powers were to be conferred on the magistrates to create new officers, and to give what salaries they pleased to those officers; so that in Dublin they might appoint the lord mayor from among themselves; perhaps the individual selected might be the greatest agitator in Ireland, and they might choose to give him an immense salary. The same power might be carried out in reference to all other officers, and he thought that the House could not, therefore, fail to come to a conclusion that this bill would be most dangerous in its effects. He called upon the noble Viscount and his coadjutors to remember the important responsibility which rested upon them, he called on them to retrace their steps, and to avoid proceeding any further with a measure which would increase the political evils of Ireland. He thought that the observations made by the noble and learned Lord opposite were of themselves a sufficient answer to this motion; but even if those arguments founded upon the late period of the Session at which the measure was brought forward, and the short notice given to the House for its discussion, were deemed unsatisfactory, he thought that when the powers to appoint magistrates were considered, coupled with the recent
610
events in Birmingham, their Lordships would pause before they committed themselves so far as to adopt this measure. It appeared to him a most provident circumstance for the safety of Ireland, that the unhappy event to which he had referred had occurred just at the present time, because, it was obvious that if such insecurity existed within five hours of the control of that House, the condition of the small boroughs in Ireland, of which the House could have but little knowledge, would be still more unfortunate. It was impossible to describe the state of panic which had seized upon the minds of the people of Ireland in reference to this measure. They conceived it to be a bill calculated to crush them, and that it was one under the provisions of which all justice would be denied them. He believed that they commanded the sympathies of the people of England, Scotland, and Wales; and further, that the bill if it passed would be the heaviest blow which had been given to Ireland. Therefore he felt it to be his duty to raise his voice against it, and to protest against its second reading. He hoped, from the circumstance which had taken place, from the events which had occurred in Birmingham, and from the petitions which had been laid upon the table, against this bill, even should it go through committee, and be there altered so as to render it much less hurtful than now, the House would be induced to throw it out on the third reading. He would conclude by expressing his determination to take the sense of the House upon this bill.
Lord Stuart De Deciesregretted much the course taken by the noble Earl who had just addressed the House. He well remembered the observation made in another place by a right hon. Gentleman, recently about to become Premier, that Ireland presented more difficulties in his way than Jamaica, which had abdicated its legislative functions, or than Canada, in which a civil war was still smouldering, or than India, in which open war had commenced; and he had no doubt that the difficulties arose from that party which the noble Earl represented in that House. The noble Earl had objected to the corporations which might be created under this bill, that they would become so many normal schools of agitation. He (Lord Stuart) thought very differently, or he would not support it. Nothing he depre-

611
cated so much as the renewal of agitation. He remembered that which was raised on the subject of the repeal of the Union, and in favour of a domestic Legislature. The friends of the union of the two countries had the greatest difficulty in overcoming that agitation, but there was one argument which had much effect. They said, that Parliament had but recently been remodelled, and that it was but fair to give it a trial, and they said, there could be no doubt that whatever civil privileges or municipal rights might be granted by the Legislature to England or Scotland would also be given to Ireland. This brought upon them the ridicule of the advocates of repeal, and they were called "the wait-a-whiles." However, at length came on the motion of Mr. O'Connell for the repeal, which was met by those celebrated resolutions which, as far as they went, tended to verify the predictions of the opponents of repeal; but had those predictions been since realized in giving municipal rights to the people of Ireland equal to those given to Great Britain? Let the bill then on their Lordships' Table, answer that question. Did they suppose, that because the repeal cry had remained silent for the last four or five years, that it was to remain quiet for ever? Did they suppose that the Irish, unless their wishes were attended to, would not seize the first favourable opportunity of urging that question? and the occasion they would seize upon would be when those who opposed their wishes should again come into power. He would recommend the noble Lords opposite, on the grounds of expediency as well as of justice, to withdraw their opposition to this measure, if they would preserve themselves and their country from much future embarrassment. The noble Earl opposed the bill on the ground that the abolition of the Irish corporations would be prejudicial to the interests of the Protestant Established Church. [The Earl of Roden: No. I am for the abolition of all corporations.] The noble Earl had made a remark on the great danger of the Protestants being excluded from the corporations through the influence of the priests, and if his argument did not mean that that would endanger the Protestant Establishment, he did not know what it did mean. He was sure, that the maintenance of the existing corporations against the express wishes of the bulk of the people, would be infinitely more dangerous to the
612
Established Church than their abolition; for where existed the great security of the Irish Protestant Church Establishment but in the Legislative Union? But if the Imperial Legislature, acting on the advice of the noble Earl, continued systematically to oppose the wishes of the people, then would the people systematically oppose those establishments that were distasteful to them. The noble Earl's motion, if successful, would drive the Irish to the adoption of one or two alternatives—either to the Repeal of the Union, or to the destruction of that very Protestant Establishment which the noble Earl desired so much should remain a bar for ever to the Irish Municipal Corporations.
Lord Lurgancould not have believed, had he not heard it, that the noble Earl would have been the man to make a motion for flinging out a bill which had for its object the reform of institutions, the name of which was synonymous with all that was most corrupt and profligate. The municipal institutions in Ireland in their present state were mischievous to society; they were most faulty in their principle, and in their proceeding, in their constitution, and in their practice. Such was the character of those municipal institutions, as at present found in Ireland, that when this matter was referred for inquiry to the Irish municipal commission five years ago, they were told to use all possible despatch, so great and pressing were the evils, in order that there might be some legislation on the subject in the next Session of Parliament. Such being the character of these corporations, he owned he was surprised to find that any noble Lord in that House, and more especially an Irish Peer, should make a motion which had for its object the upholding of institutions such as these had been reported to be by that commission. The noble Earl had stated, that he was not for upholding these municipal corporations, but that his object was to abolish all corporations; but, in the course of five years, the noble Earl had taken no step towards their abolition. He must say, that they were not afraid to meet the question, if they were started by the noble Earl. If their Lordships would but look at the inquiry of the Irish commissioner, under any of its heads, he was sure he was not making a bold statement, when he asserted, that under any one of those heads would be found enough to justify and to invite prompt le-

613
gislation. The evils complained of had never been contradicted, and were of such a nature that it was quite impossible for their Lordships, without incurring serious responsibility, and inflicting serious injury on the country, to pause in providing a remedy for them. About ninety-nine municipal institutions had exercised corporate functions during the last century: but since the legislative union a good many of these had become defunct or were scarcely worth the mentioning; deducting these there were about fifty-nine corporate bodies now existing in Ireland, and in only about twenty-three of these was there anything like a commonalty or freeman-ship. The remaining thirty-six corporations, to which were committed the duties of magistrates, the power over the police, and the control of a considerable income, were altogether without any control; they were irresistible, self-elected bodies. Now, when the noble Earl asked their Lordships to throw out this measure, he asked, was the state of these corporate bodies a proper one, or was the state of the municipal government in Ireland such as the noble Earl would call on their Lordships to uphold. [The Earl of Roden:—No.] The noble Earl said, no and the noble Earl did not mean to uphold these sinks of corruption. Had he ever taken any one step to move their Lordships to abolish them? He had done no such thing. [The Earl of Roden:—I voted against them.] Yes, but that would not suffice to get rid of these corporations; they were too deeply rooted in the country to be got rid of by the mere vote of the noble Earl. The noble Earl knew what he was about, and when he was in earnest and wished to accomplish a point, he knew as well as any noble Lord in that House that something more than a vote was necessary. If bodies of this kind were under no control, the consequence must be mismanagement and loss of property, and by the operation of the system a very considerable amount of corporate property had been lost to the public. This was a most serious offence, and it was their Lordships' duty to rectify this, and look after the property. Many of the corporate estates bad been grossly mismanaged, many of the Members of the corporate bodies granting valuable leases to themselves at low rates, and depriving the public of all advantage; and their Lordships were called upon to allow these sinks of corruption to exist till doomsday.
614
But the very head and front of the offence which these corporations presented to his mind was, that they were exclusive bodies, and were banded to shut out, upon sectarian grounds, the great mass of the Irish people. That was quite intolerable; and he was sure that their Lordships, upon reflection, would be disposed to agree with him, because so long ago as the year 1793 a bill was passed for the repeal of the statute by which the Roman Catholics were excluded from the corporations of Ireland, but up to the present day, or at least to the day when the Municipal Corporation Commissioners made their report, the Catholic population of Ireland had reaped no practical advantage from the abolition of that system of exclusion in 1793. He said this confidently, because though the Roman Catholics might have been admitted in some boroughs to the freedom, they were everywhere altogether excluded from the governing body; and even when they had been admitted to the freedom of the town, they had been admitted, not as a matter of right—no such thing—but in deference to the influence or popularity of some leading man in the corporation, and out of compliment to him. This was an odious system of exclusion, which ought to be got rid of. Why should Roman Catholics be excluded. They brought a perfect equality of civil worth, and when, therefore, people talked of admitting them to corporate rights as a matter of favour and kindness, he said that the favour was insulting and the kindness odious. In Ireland they much wanted local government; the want was pressing and urgent, for under the present system, every object of utility and civil government must be effected by local Acts of Parliament, by separate local commissions, and by separate bodies, who were frequently but little fitted for the duties they were to perform, and who were often conflicting. So what they wanted was a good system of corporations; and if their Lordships looked to the case made out, they would be obliged, he thought to come to the conclusion, that these odious rotten corporations must be abolished utterly, and that new ones should be established and founded on a system of general admission to the body of freemen on the one hand, and to the governing body on the other. Believing, then, that these evils could only be met by some such measure as the present, he should

615
give as hearty a vote as he ever gave in his life for the second reading of the bill.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him that the noble Lord who had just spoken with so much ability, and who had so lately taken his seat among their Lordships, had not yet acquired a knowledge of the history of this measure; and also that the noble Lord had entirely misunderstood the speech of his noble Friend (the Earl of Roden). His noble Friend did not defend the Irish corporations; he did not desire the continuance of those corporations on their present footing—nay, on the very ground stated by his noble Friend it had been admitted that the existence of those corporations ought to be abolished—namely, on the ground of the exclusive plan on which they had been governed. This all their Lordships would admit. In fact, a measure had been proposed by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst,) of which the object was to put an end to all the corporations of Ireland, and to govern the country according to the principles of the common law of the country. That measure was not approved of by the other House; but it was passed by their Lordships, and he believed that his noble Friend voted for it. Indeed it appeared to be the fixed opinion of the other House, as it was also of many of their Lordships, that certain corporations ought to exist in Ireland, founded on an electoral principle. For his part, he was formerly of opinion that the best mode of governing Ireland was to abolish all these corporations. He was of that opinion, and he entertained that opinion still, but he had given up his own opinion to the opinion which generally prevailed in the other House, and which also prevailed among a great number of their Lordships, as soon as he found there was a prospect of forming, in each of the towns where a corporation was to have existence, a constituency which might be formed on some system of rating, or on any principle whatever, except on the perjuries of those who claimed to have votes as burgesses in these corporations, and on the perjuries of those whom they might produce to support those claims. He had lived long enough in this world to have an extreme dislike of revolutions. He did not like to take power one day from one set of men, who had held it for centuries, and the next day transfer that power into the
616
hands of men who had never held it. In Ireland, however, he conceived that it was now possible to find a system of qualification, by which provision would be duly made for the division of power between the two classes of inhabitants of that country, and by which the peace and the good government of those towns would be secured, and, conceiving this, he was anxious to support any measure having such an object in view. On these grounds, then, and having supported the Poor-law Bill for Ireland, and hoping that the good working of that measure might afford the groundwork for a qualification adapted to this other measure, he had supported it in the last Session, and done everything in his power to amend the bill as sent up to their Lordships from the other House, so that when it left their Lordships, it might go down to the other House again in such a shape as might be best calculated to attain the object he had in view—namely, the good government of the towns of Ireland, rather than the satisfaction of those views to which the noble Lord (Lurgan) had adverted with so much eloquence. Eloquence, of this kind, however, he must confess, never made any impression on his mind. He had no notion of a repeal of the union, or of any measure of that kind, the carrying which, he thought, depended in a great measure on the Government of this country, where he hoped always to see the Government strong enough to oppose and defeat the passing of such measures. But with respect to the bill before them, when the noble Lords on his side of the House adopted the principle of election for the formation of these corporations, he was in hopes that those on the other side would have met them half way, and, that before now they should have agreed on a system which might have given security for the results which they had in view for Ireland, and which he declared were none other than the peace and good government of the country, and the contentment of every class of its inhabitants. This he had expected and hoped, but here they were on the 22nd of July, for the first time in this Session, taking a measure of this kind into consideration—a measure which contained 265 clauses, of which 124 clauses had never been before their Lordships previously, containing as they did very nearly 124 new principles, and he must say, that feeling as he did, averse from this bill, for

617
the reason alone which had been stated by the noble and learned Lord, he should have been disposed to vote against the second reading. There was certainly not time to go through the whole bill. He was perfectly aware of the misconstructions which might be put upon the conduct of public men, and the use which might be made of such misconstructions out of doors, but still he could not recommend their Lordships to reject the second reading of this bill on the 22nd of July. What he did recommend, was the considering of the measure in committee, and, if possible, the making it such a bill as ought to pass, and as might be calculated to attain the objects they had in view. But he must say, that many of the topics adverted to by the noble Earl who moved the second reading that day six months, had a very great effect on his mind, for he could not avoid looking around him, he could not avoid seeing what was passing at Birmingham, and what was passing in other corporations—he could not avoid adverting to these effects of what was called corporate reform in this country, and he could not but think, that these circumstances furnished stronger reasons than before existed for caution in effecting any change, and for taking care, that the corporations of Ireland should not be invested with the power for mischief which they would have under this bill. If it were not to come out of the committee much amended, and if it were not to come out such that he could vote for it, consistently with his ideas of what was a security for good government in Ireland, and for the contentment of the people in general, then he must vote against it in all its future stages. With respect to the speech of the noble Lord who had last addressed the House, it was obvious, that the noble Lord, and he spoke of the noble Lord with the respect which was due to his character, and to the abilities which he had shown that night, did not know much of the history of this measure, or he would not have talked about giving powers with respect to harbours, and watching and lighting, and so on. These were not the things intended, but what was to be the result of the measure as originally framed, was to establish certain Roman Catholic corporations for what is called the municipal government of those towns to which the bill applied, and to these corporations he believed it
618
was intended by this bill to give as little to do as possible. If the bill did not come out of the committee very materially altered, he should most undoubtedly advise their Lordships to reject it, for the circumstances of the moment were not propitious for entering into a discussion by conference with the House of Commons upon a bill of this description. It seemed at present likely, that Parliament would not sit for more than a fortnight longer, and he was sure that a fortnight was not sufficient to amend this bill in such a manner as was necessary. Under these circumstances he should recommend their Lordships to vote for the second reading of this bill, passing by for the present the amendment of his noble Friend, to go into committee upon the measure, to consider its provisions well, and to introduce such amendments as would render it fit for the government of the corporations of Ireland, and produce contentment in the country. If it should not come out of the committee in such a shape as that good might be expected from its passing, then he would recommend their Lordships to adopt a motion similar to that made by his noble Friend.
The Earl of Wicklowhad not been induced to come to the determination to vote for the second reading of this bill by the arguments of the noble Baron who had addressed their Lordships to-night for the first time (Lord Stuart de Decies). As to the cry of repeal, which the noble Baron had said would be raised if the bill were rejected, he entertained for that cry and its supporters the most sovereign contempt. He was satisfied, that it never would assume a dangerous shape from the efforts of faction in Ireland, if those efforts were not prompted and encouraged by the madness of the people of England. Nor did he anticipate that danger which his noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) dreaded from the establishment of institutions which his noble Friend expected would prove to be normal schools of agitation. He thought, that the best means of checking agitation, and diverting the minds of the people of Ireland from mischievous pursuits, would be to supply them with proper occupation in the interesting subjects of municipal regulation. He did not support this measure on the ground that it was demanded by the people. He cared not in the least whether the people of Ireland desired the measure or not, he

619
should think the worse of them if they did not, for he could not believe, that any people would be so indifferent about those institutions, which were the proofs of liberty, but he never would consent, that any measure which it was thought necessary to adopt for the promotion of public liberty in this country, and the improvement of its institutions, should be refused to the people of Ireland. It had always been his desire, that beneficial measures, more especially those which would extend popular liberty, should not be confined to England. Besides, he considered this bill as a corollary from the Act of Emancipation, and he could not imagine how those who had supported that measure could deny their assent to one which might be regarded as a direct consequence of it. Having determined to concede to the people of Ireland the benefit of free municipal institutions, he should not be induced in committee to make any alterations which, while in semblance bestowing those institutions, would, in fact, take them away. It had been said, that this measure was designed to transfer political power from the hands of the Protestants into those of the Catholics, but he saw nothing in it to warrant that inference. Considerations of party ought not to sway them in attempting to remodel those institutions. There were no provisions in this bill which would take away the power from any individuals on account of their principles. If the bill should have such an effect in any case, power would be obtained in proportion to the influence of the candidates. If the greater share of power should be found to rest in the hands of the Roman Catholics, it would be because they were the most numerous. Some noble Lords appeared to be hostile to this bill, because it had not come up to them at a proper time. That might be a good argument in the case of a bill which could have originated with their Lordships, but the present bill was one that came peculiarly within the province of the other House, and of which the representatives of the people were the most fitting judges. He saw that this bill contained many improvements on that of last Session, and it appeared from what the noble Viscount opposite had said, that it had been the object of the framers to meet the wishes of their Lordships. If the insertion of the new clauses, which so much swelled the bulk of the bill, arose from the opin-
620
ions expressed by their Lordships last year, certainly that ought to have great effect in inducing them to adopt it. The noble Duke below had said, that the total abolition of the Irish corporations would be a great improvement. He (the Earl of Wicklow) was not disposed to deny this, believing, that in the present state of society these institutions were by no means so necessary as they had been, but he never would be a party to enforcing this principle in Ireland when it had not been introduced into England.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 59; Not-Contents 8: Majority 51.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

EARLS.

VISCOUNT.

Gort.

Roden

LORDS.

Charleville

Dunsany

Glengall

Rayleigh

Bandon.

Farnham.

Bill read a second time.