Sitting of 1 June 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Canada Clergy Reserves; Census of the Population.
Petitions presented. By Lord G. Bentinck, from Lyme Regis, against the County and District Constable Bill, and against the Poor-law Amendment Act Bill.—By Lord R. Grosvenor, from Chester, for Medical Reform.—By Mr. O. Gore, from Denbigh, against the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, and for Church Extension.—By Sir W. Follett, from the Provincial Newspaper Society, for an Alteration of the Law of Libel.—By Mr. Easthope, from Leicester, &c., against Church Extension.—By Mr. Sergeant Talfourd, from Mr. Feargus O'Connor, to be removed from York Gaol to the Custody of the Marshal of the Marshalsea.—By Mr. Bethell, and Mr. Hodgson, from a parish in Yorkshire, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, against the Ecclesiastical Revenues and Duties Bill.—By Mr. Baines, from Leeds, against the Sugar Monopoly.—By Sir R. Bateson, from Londonderry, for the adjustment of the Church of Scotland Question.—By Mr. Wilbraham, from various places in Chester, against Church Rates, and against the Rating of Workhouses.—By Mr. Pendarves, from several places in Cornwall, for the Abolition of Church Rates, and the Release of John Thorogood.—By Mr. Grote, from the Commercial Steam Packet Company, for Relief from Light-house Dues.—By Sir J. Graham, from Hadleigh, and Boxford, against the War with China.—By Mr. Colquhoun, from families in Glasgow belonging to the poorest class, for Encouragement to Emigration; and from 400 Spirit Sellers in that city, to prevent Selling Spirits on Sundays.

CASE OF NATHANIEL CAVE.
Mr. Easthopewished to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether, as had been promised, any inquiry had been made into the case of Nathaniel Cave?
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that he had, by direction of the Secretary of State for the

779
Home Department, written a letter, requesting an explanation of the circumstances connected with the case of Nathaniel Cave. It appeared from the answer which he had received, that Mr. Mountain had done nothing against the law. It also appeared, however, that the laws in the House of Correction were extremely improper, as persons committed for trial were treated in the same way as persons convicted.

CASE OF MR. BRADSHAW—BEETROOT SUGAR—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the question, that the petition of Mr. Hercules Bradshaw concerning the manufacture of sugar from beetroot be referred to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said, not having been in the House when the learned Member for Dublin moved for a Committee on the claim of Mr. Bradshaw for compensation for loss sustained by the levying of the duty upon the manufacture of beetroot into sugar, he begged now to state that a more groundless claim he never heard of; for what, reason had Mr. Bradshaw to conclude that the Government would allow him to manufacture the sugar free of duty, when such heavy duties were levied on sugar for a revenue, and on foreign sugar for the protection of our colonial sugar.
Mr. E. Tennentthought Mr. Bradshaw's claim for compensation was a just one.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Government had allowed Mr. Bradshaw to go on for more than a year and a-half, and then suddenly came upon him; decidedly there was a case for inquiry at all events, and he should press his motion for a committee.
The House divided—Ayes 71; Noes 91: Majority 20.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Archdall, General

De Horsey, S. H.

Bagge, W.

D'Israeli, Benjamin

Bailey, Joseph, jun.

Douglas, Sir C.

Bellew, R. M.

Dunbar, George

Beackstone, W. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Feilden, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Gore, O. J. R.

Canning, Sir S.

Gore, O. W.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Grimsditch, Thomas

Cavendish, G. H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Christopher, R. A.

Hardinge, Sir H.

780

Hastie, A.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Packe, C. W.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Palmer, Robert

Hillsborough, Earl

Praed, W. T.

Hogg, J. W.

Rawdon, J. D.

Hope, hon. C.

Roche, W.

Hope, G. W.

Rolleston, L.

Houldsworth, T.

Scarlett, J. Y.

Houstoun, George

Shaw, Frederick

Howard, F. J.

Sheppard, T.

Hughes, W. B.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hume, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hurt, Francis

Somerville, Sir W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Stuart, Villiers

Jones, Theobald

Style, Sir Charles

Kemble, Henry

Talbot, J. H.

Lefroy, Dr. T.

Thornhill, George

Lincoln, Earl of

Vere, Sir C. B.

Litton, Edward

Vigors, N. A.

Lucas, E.

Waddington, H. S.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wood, B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Yates, J. A.

Meynell, H.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Lord

O'Connell, D.

O'Brien, W. Smith

Tennent, J. E.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, Peter

Hodges, T. L.

Alston, Rowland

Holmes, W. A'Court

Ashley, Lord

Hoskins, K.

Baring, F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Baring, W. B.

Howick, Lord

Barnard, E. G.

Hutton, R.

Barneby, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Benett, John

Irton, S.

Berkeley, hon. H.

James, William

Bewes, T.

Labouchere, H.

Blackett, C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bowes. J.

Loch, James

Broadley, H.

Lushington, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Brotherton, J.

Macauley, T. B.

Busfeild, William

Marsland, H.

Byng, George

Maule, hon. Fox

Calcraft, J. H.

Morpeth, Viscount

Childers, J. W.

Murray, A.

Clay, W.

Noel, Wm. M.

Clive, E. B.

Palmerston, Viscount

Cochrane, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Philips, M.

Craig, W. G.

Phillpotts, J.

Divett, E.

Protheroe, Edward

Duncan, Viscount

Pryme, G.

Dundas, David

Rich, Henry

Edwards, Sir J.

Round, John

Egerton, W. T.

Rundle, J.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Russell, Lord John

Ferguson, Sir Robert

Rutherfurd, A.

Fleetwood, H.

Seymour, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

Sheil, R. L.

Goulburn, Henry

Smith, R. Vernon

Graham, Sir James

Stanley, hon. W.

Greig, D.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grey, Sir G.

Steuart, R.

Grote, G.

Stewart, John

Hawes, B.

Strutt, Edward

Hawkins, J. H.

Sturt, H. C.

781

Thornely, Thomas

Winnington, Sir T.

Tufnell, H.

Wood, C.

Turner, William

Wood, G. W.

Wall, C. B.

Wood, Colonel T.

White, A.

TELLERS.

Williams, W. A.

Stanley, E. J.

Wilshere, W.

Parker, J.

TURKEY AND EGYPT.
On the Order of the Day being moved for a Committee on the Customs Duties Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, that as that bill imposed a taxation of more than 2,000,000 l. upon the already impoverished people of this country, he would avail himself of the present opportunity to state his objections to the foreign policy of the Government, which was alleged as the cause for the necessity of that increased taxation. The people of England were going to be punished to support the policy which the British Government was erroneously pursuing with regard both to Turkey and to Egypt. If the policy of the British Government were erroneous, as he sincerely believed it to be, the House of Commons ought to withhold the supplies from that Government until it saw clearly what that policy was, and what object it was intended to attain. In the most gracious Speech which was delivered from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, Ministers claimed credit for the peace which had been maintained in the East, owing to the union of the Five Powers. The collective note of the Five Powers, delivered on the 27th of July, had prevented the Divan from concluding peace without their concurrence. He had, on a former occasion, made such comments as he thought fit upon that note; and the noble Lord had not felt himself in a situation to deny any of the positions which he had then laid down. All that the noble Lord had then said was, that he had been completely misinformed on all the points which he had noticed, and that he was consequently totally unacquainted with the policy pursued by the Five Powers. Since that time an important event had occurred. The French ministry had been changed. The French Chamber, before they would consent to vote the money which the new minister, M. Thiers, had called for, required him to declare explicitly the policy on which France was acting towards Turkey and Egypt. M. Thiers then stated what his policy was, observing that he had made it known to the British Government and to others,
782
and added that France was strong enough to maintain it, whether the other Powers concurred with France or not. He would read to the House one or two sentences from the speech of M. Thiers, as reported in the Moniteur, to show how different was the policy professed by that statesman from that followed by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He was sorry to say that we had estranged ourselves from France, that we had allied ourselves with the great enemy of Turkey, that we had joined in supporting the policy of Russia, and that in so doing we had promoted and forwarded the ambitious projects of that Power. For those projects we were now maintaining a fleet in the Mediterranean at the expense of half a million sterling a-year, and, instead of forwarding, we were positively preventing peace between Turkey and Egypt—which was essentially a Russian object. Now, if it were true that France had offered to withdraw ten sail of the line from the Mediterranean if we would do the same, it was quite clear that France had no idea of war or of the necessity of war. He, therefore, thought, that as the French Chambers had called upon M. Thiers, so the British House of Commons ought to call upon the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for a declaration of his policy before it voted the taxation requisite to support it. M. Thiers, in his address to the Chamber of Peers, on the 14th April, 1840, said—
"The opinion of France is, that the independence of Turkey should be maintained; but by the word independence, we do not mean an impossibility. France believes, at least her cabinets have believed, that to maintain the Turkish empire, could not mean the restoration to the Turkish empire of all the provinces which have been successively detached from it; but we have thought, that to maintain the Turkish empire was to prevent any new dismemberment; and, if by the side of the Turkish empire a new empire had risen up which consented to the bond of vassalage which consented, as in other times, to be the faithful vassal of the Turkish empire—that if Egypt had succeeded better than Constantinople in arranging her finances and in creating an army which, though they do not resemble our finances nor our army, are yet superior to, those of Constantinople, it would be a real service to the Turkish empire to give to it the Pacha of Egypt as an ally, for besides the Turkish empire, which might defend itself, you would have the rear guard of a powerful vassal, useful and able to support the Sultan in moments of difficulty."

783
The dispute between France and England upon this question seemed to be this: that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, insisted that the Divan should not make peace with Mehemet Ali, by yielding up to him Egypt and Syria. The noble Lord was willing to let the Divan yield up Egypt. France, however, was desirous that Syria, as well as Egypt, should be yielded up to Mehemet Ali, and that for Syria he should pay tribute, own his vassalage to the Porte, and consent to assist the Sultan, whenever he was required to do so. M. Thiers further said, that if the Powers should attempt to take Syria from Mehemet Ali, he would interfere on his behalf, and would prevent it from being taken from him. Such being the case, he thought that our Government was the cause of the present state not of peace but of suspended hostilities, and of the large naval and military establishments now kept up in the Mediterranean and along its coasts. He called upon the House, as it valued the interests of England, and those of free and liberal Governments, to act in concert with France, and to cease from being the ally of Russia. Why was there this difference of policy between England and France, the two countries, of all others, which ought to be united? He complained that the present policy of the British Government was hostile not only to a strict alliance with France, but also to the interest of Egypt, which we of all others ought to maintain. He maintained that, in the year 1833, the Sultan had given Mehemet Alia Syria as a Pashalic, and had afterwards given him Adana and other places as an appendage to it. He likewise maintained, that it was in consequence of the Sultan's having attempted to take back those provinces from Mehemet Ali, and of his having landed troops in Asia Minor to enforce his attempt, that Mehemet Ali had been compelled to put his own forces in motion, and that in the progress of events the Turkish fleet had deserted to him from the Sultan. What he further complained of was, that the policy of the British Government had not only stopped the negotiations for peace, but that when Mehemet Ali had offered to give back the Turkish fleet on certain terms, to be guaranteed by France and England, England had refused to guarantee those terms. The hon. Member read an extract from the speech of M. Thiers on the 14th of April
784
last, but we could not collect even the substance of it. It was his opinion that it would not be in the power of France and England united to take Syria from Mehemet Ali, and as the sentiments of M. Thiers were in direct opposition to those of Lord Palmerston, it became a question of great importance whether we should persevere in our present erroneous course at so heavy an expense to the British people, and whether we ought not to promote an union between Turkey and Egypt, and allow the heavy armaments to be put down which were now kept up at an immense expense to every country. He understood that within the last six months Redschid Pasha had made a proposition for peace to Mehemet Ali, which would have been accepted, had not the British Government interfered to prevent it. These were points into which it was necessary that the House should inquire, before it gave the means of supporting so large a naval force as was deemed necessary to support our negotiations with Turkey and Egypt. He wished that the noble Lord would satisfy him and the country that he was proceeding in the right course. He would, in conclusion, ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any proposition had been made to him from the government of France for the purpose of promoting peace and withdrawing the heavy armaments now in the Mediterranean?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that his hon. Friend had placed him in considerable difficulty, by endeavouring to draw him into what he regarded as a premature discussion of the details of a negotiation which had not been concluded, and it would be very prejudicial to the public interests if he were to discuss it in the manner in which his hon. Friend had invited him. It would not be consistent with the public interests, with those interests especially of which the department over which he presided was charged with the conduct, to state to his hon. Friend all the particulars which he wished to know; yet he did feel t his duty to assure the House that almost very assertion which his hon. Friend had made as to the folly of the course pursued by this country, as to the communications which had taken place between this country and other powers, as to the conduct of her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and as to the desires and wishes of

785
the Turkish government, were all founded on the most extraordinary misinformation, and he might really venture to say, that not one of them had the remotest resemblance to what had really taken place. The hon. Member had told the House, that the French government had notified to us, that they would have recourse to arms if we attempted to take Syria from Mehemet Ali. No such communication had ever been made to us by the French government. The hon. Member had also said, that the British Government had been informed, that if any attack were made by the British on the Egyptian fleet, it would be protected by the fleet of France. No such communication had ever been made. This method of denial came to almost the same result as that of assertion, and if he were to deny, and explain why he denied, all the information on which the hon. Member had proceeded, and which he was sure the hon. Member fully believed, he would be led very nearly to the point to which the hon. Member wished to bring him. He had denied the basis on which the hon. Member had founded his observations. The hon. Member said, the House had been called on to vote a very large amount of additional taxation, and that it was rendered necessary by the mistaken policy which he had endeavoured to pursue. Had the hon. Member forgotten that the great bulk of this increased taxation arose from measures which he himself had urged on the Government, and which he admitted were not founded on an erroneous policy? A great part of it arose from the reduction of the rates of postage; a great part of it also arose from the wants of the public service in Canada, and the question in which we had been involved with China; and a very small proportion of the whole amount now proposed to be raised was required, as the hon. Member wished to represent, for the service of the navy. But he would tell the hon. Member further, that the increased demand for the service of the navy did not arise, as he imagined, from the particular question now pending in the Mediterranean. The reasons which rendered it necessary were stated by Government when the condition of the navy was discussed. Larger supplies were required to place the navy on a footing more consistent with that which ought to be its standing with reference to the navies
786
of the other great powers of Europe. So far was it from having been stated by the French government, as the hon. Member supposed, that if this question were settled ten French sail of the line would be withdrawn from active service, that he was not aware that the settlement of this question would lead to any reduction whatever in the aggregate amount of the French navy. He believed the contrary to be true;—he believed that if France and Britain were entirely agreed upon every matter of detail that could arise in connexion with this question, there would not be, as the hon. Member seemed to suppose, any reduction whatever in the naval force of France, and he said that, independently of the Eastern question. When we looked at the various important questions now pending in every quarter of the globe, and considered the amount of the naval armaments of other powers, it must be seen that a very small portion only of the increase of taxation had been called for owing to the state of affairs in Egypt. He objected no less strongly to the other principle which seemed to have furnished the staple of the reasonings of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that if he could show to the House that the French government or any French minister entertained a particular opinion on any question, it became a duty and obligation on the British Government immediately to adopt and follow that opinion in all respects. Now, no man in the House attached greater value than he did to the intimate alliance of Britain and France. He believed it was not more advantageous to the interests of the two countries than beneficial to the security of the peace of Europe; and since he had had the honour of holding his present office he had zealously endeavoured to promote the continuance of that alliance. On more than one occasion he had had to defend himself in that House against a charge of doing the very thing which the hon. Member thought he should now have done—that was placing the British Government entirely at the beck of France, and serving the interest of France, whether or not it was consistent with our own. On those occasions he had always stated that he thought nothing was more to be wished for the interests of both countries, than that the alliance should continue as long as it was consistent with those interests; but he

787
had at the same time not concealed the consideration which must force itself upon every mind, that the two nations were too great, two powerful, and too high-spirited, and had too many important interests at stake, which each Government was bound in duty to protect, to allow of their being coupled in any such indissoluble bond as would induce them to follow each other's policy invariably. The Government of Britain should neither follow the policy of France, as contradistinguished from that of Britain, nor that of Prussia, nor that of Austria, but they ought to look to the interests of Britain, without paying any regard to the opinions that might be entertained by any foreign government or minister. The point was to show that any proposed policy was consistent with the interests of Great Britain, and if that could be made out, the denegation of it would become a matter of charge against a government. But the mere fact of a foreign minister holding a particular opinion on any point was no argument, and proved nothing as to the soundness of its policy. He utterly denied, and so far the House would believe him, that the French government had at any time intimated any intention of taking up arms against the other four Powers on this question. He was assuming the statement made by his hon. Friend to be correct, that France differed on some points from the other four Powers but he assured the hon. Member that he was mistaken if he thought that difference if difference existed, likely to lead to a war between Britain and France. He thought that was very improbable, independent of the other relations existing between Britain and France, which would be sufficiently strong to prevent the French government from breaking them, and rushing into the other extreme of hostility. Looking at the other great interests of France, and the questions she now had on her hands, it was not to be supposed that France would enter into a chivalrous crusade in defence of interests not her own, which she could not reconcile with the national faith and honour, and with the obligations she had entered into with the other Powers. The hon. Member had done him the honour of supposing that the collective note presented in July last to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople was entirely the work of his (Lord Palmerston's) own hand. The hon. Member said
788
it was by that note that he had prevented an amicable arrangement being concluded between Mehemet Ali and the Porte. If the hon. Member supposed that we had such an entire influence and control over the other four great Powers, as to be able to persude them all, France included, to sign and deliver that note, he must admit that the hon. Member paid a compliment to the influence of the British Government. It was not for him to explain from what quarter the note arose. All he would say was, that the British Ambassador immediately and most cordially joined in it; but the suggestion did not come originally from him. The French government had never retracted or disowned that note, and when the hon. Member asked him to state to the House what had been the policy of Britain on this question he could only refer him to the speech from the Throne at the beginning of the Session, in which it was said that the integrity of the Ottoman Empire was an object which it was thought deserving of every endeavour on our part to defend. That opinion he still held, and the more he thought of it, the more satisfied he was that it was sound doctrine. He was fully persuaded that the interests of this country required the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman empire, and that those interests would be sacrificed if the policy which the hon. Member wished for were to be adopted. The integrity of the Ottoman empire would at once be destroyed by the dismemberment of some of its most fertile and rich provinces, and consequently its independence would be reduced to the mere shadow of a shade. He was convinced that even taking that view, which was so much a favourite of the hon. Member, bearing on the naval expenses of the country, if what the hon. Member called peace, which was a mere surrender to Mehemet Ali, had taken place at the time mentioned by him, this country would have been compelled in order to prevent the consequences that would have ensued, to keep up a large naval force in the Mediterranean. Thus, as far as we were concerned, peace would have taken place without any of the advantages which peace ought to bring with it. He could not conclude without expressing a hope that we should be able to make some arrangement, in conjunction with the other powers of Europe, which would restore amicable

789
arrangements between Turkey and Egypt, and prevent the recurrence of that unfortunate policy which once brought the Russian army to Constantinople, and if it were resumed, would in a short time bring another to the shores of the Bosphorus. He could only say, that when negotiations of this importance, complicated from their very nature, from the number of interests concerned and the distance which separated the Powers who were acting in them, were made the subject of discussion before they were finished, and when hon. Members, acting, like his hon. Friend on misinformation made statements which were entirely unfounded, and incorrect regarding those transactions, persons holding the situation he filled were placed in great difficulty. He might, perhaps, not have answered the expectations of his hon. Friend, and he was afraid he should not be able to do so until matters came to something more like a termination; but till that time he should be compelled to refuse to go into the points on which explanation was sought by his hon. Friend, and confine himself to setting him right as to the misinformation he had received. He trusted, however, that the House would not take for granted that the facts were as his hon. Friend had stated, for he could assure them that his hon. Friend had received the most extraordinary misinformation on all the material points to which in the course of his speech he adverted.
Mr. Humewished to know if the British Government were acting in accordance with the French, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, what the speech stated was, that the concord of the five Powers on the Belgian question had led to satisfactory results, and it was hoped that the same concord would bring the questions pending between Turkey and Egypt to an amicable termination. He had not abandoned that hope.
Order of the day read. On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair to go into Committee on the Customs' Duties Bill,

ASSESSED TAXES (IRELAND).
Mr. Christopherrose, in pursuance of notice to move, "that it is the opinion of this House (as the people of Ireland do not contribute to the assessed taxes) that in any additional taxation that may be required to make up the deficiency of the
790
revenue of the United Kingdom it is unjust and inexpedient to impose any tax which will fall exclusively on the people of Great Britain." He could not see the justice of such a partial system of taxation as that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had adopted. He might come forward, as the representative of a large agricultural constituency, and say, that they were very little benefitted by the reduction of the penny postage, but would be exposed to much inconvenience by the increase of assessed taxes. The only ground which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could take was, that the people of Ireland were in such a state of poverty and distress that it would be wrong to impose on them the same amount of taxation as on other divisions of the empire. That was a very dangerous argument to introduce. But he would not waste the time of the House in dwelling upon arguments of this description, because he could show that the people of Ireland were as able as the people of England to contribute towards the taxation of the country. Now, if it could be proved that Ireland derived as much advantage from the colonies as England—and the colonies, it should be recollected, were a main source of the increase in our expenditure—and also that Ireland had derived a greater advantage than England from the Penny-postage Act, because she was brought into closer communication with the commercial towns of England, then it would follow, that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced principles of taxation which were partial and unfair. He wished to call for an expression of opinion on the part of the House, that the system proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was unjust and inconsistent. He could show that it was so, for he held in his hand a convincing proof of the increasing prosperity of the people of Ireland. Ireland might be looked upon as a purely agricultural district, and if he could show from official returns that the agriculture of Ireland had increased since the union to an amazing extent, that was a sufficient proof of the increasing prosperity of the people of Ireland. He held in his hand a return of the exports of every description of grain shipped from Ireland from the year 1800 to the year 1839. In the year 1801 the quantity of grain of every description exported from Ireland was 525 quarters; in 1802, the year after the union, the quantity ex-

791
ported was 461,371 quarters; in 1810 the quantity had increased to 631,227 quarters; in 1820 the exports were 1,415,722 quarters; in 1830 they had increased to the extent of 2,215,521 quarters; in 1835 the exports were 2,679,000 quarters; in 1836, 2,900,000 quarters; in 1837, 3,030,000 quarters; and in 1838 they were 3,474,000 quarters. Thus it was evident, that in the last thirty-eight years the quantity of grain exported had increased from 525 quarters to the enormous extent of 3,474,000 quarters. He thought that there could not be a greater proof than this of the increasing prosperity of that country, and he believed that if Ireland were free from the continual state of agitation which was now kept up there, there would be very little difference in the condition of the people of England and Ireland. He was convinced, that whatever might be the motives by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been influenced in proposing his plan, the people of England and Ireland would attribute it to the important support which the Government received from the Irish Members in that House. He thought that he should not have done his duty towards his constituents if he had failed to bring this question under the consideration of the House, and he should conclude, therefore, by proposing the resolution which he had already placed in the Speaker's hands.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, that it was very far from his intention to rise for the purpose of seconding the motion of his hon. Friend. There was very little indeed of what had fallen from him in which he could concur; but he could concur with him on one point, and that was, that in his opinion the mode by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to supply the deficiency in the revenue was a partial one, but it was by no means partial towards Ireland. He conceived that the mode adopted was both unjust and inconsistent. The assessed taxes had indeed been remitted to Ireland, but it was not from any feeling of liberality, but because those taxes had not been productive. An immense staff was necessary for their collection, and he believed that the income received was exceedingly small, and that was the ground on which the remission had been made. But his hon. Friend had said, that Ireland had been benefitted by those causes which had led to the present deficiency. His
792
hon. Friend said that Ireland derivd very great advantage from the colonies. Now, could any assertion be more extravagant than this? Ireland had no import or export trade with the colonies. He admitted that she received benefit from emigration, but England received as much. As to trade, however, with the colonies, Belfast was almost the only town in Ireland which carried on any foreign trade worth speaking of. His hon. Friend said, that taxation ought to be imposed equally on the two countries. Was his hon. Friend aware of the mode in which spirits were taxed by the plan of the right hon. Gentleman? The duty would operate much more oppressively on Ireland than either Scotland or England. An equal duty of 4d. per gallon was to be laid on spirits of all kinds. Now, the present duty on French brandy was 22 s. 6d. per gallon, and the increased duty would only be 1½ per cent. On the spirits distilled in Ireland the duty was now 2s. 4d., so that an increase of 4d. per gallon would amount to 14½ per cent. The duty on English spirits was 7s. 6d., and the proposed increase would only amount to 4½ per cent. This, therefore, afforded a just ground of complaint on the part of Ireland, and he submitted that he had clearly made out, that though the mode by which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to supply the deficiency was a partial one, the partiality shown was not in favour of Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman seemed disposed to regard Ireland, in one respect, as an English country—but had Ireland the same privileges—had she the same franchises—had she the same liberties, as if she were an English country? The hon. Gentleman would, indeed, give to Ireland an equality of burdens with England, but he would at the same time deny to her an equality of rights. The hon. Gentleman would give an equality in the burden, but an inequality in the relief. The financial was a different question from the political, and yet by the Union they were to be secured an equality of political rights, while they were told that they were to be free from an equality of fiscal burdens. But, then, the hon. Gentleman talked of the prosperity of Ireland! He said that Ireland was prosperous because it exported the prime necessaries of life! Now, if the hon. Gentleman spoke of its imports, it would then be known that the country was prosperous, because it was a consumer

793
of those necessaries of life. On the contrary, it was a proof of the poverty of the people. Did the manufactures of England go to Ireland in return for their exports, or did money return to Ireland for them? No; the provisions went to Liverpool—they were turned into money, and it was sent to the banking-house of the absentees. And it was for this cause that the hon. Gentleman talked of the prosperity of Ireland! The hon. and learned Member for Brandon had truly said, that the assessed taxes were given up in Ireland because they were not productive. But, now, let them look a little closer to this question. Since the peace the amount of taxes reduced in England was 40,000,000 l. and in Ireland but 1,000,000 l. including even this miserable portion of the assessed taxes. On one article—that of spirits, the hon. and learned Member for Bandon had shown what was the proportion of the rise. Taking it in round numbers, the rise on English spirits was 5 per cent.; on Scotch 10 per cent.; and on Irish 15 per cent. This, then, was the partial taxation of which the hon. Gentleman complained, as unfavourable to England, and favourable to Ireland! He admitted that the duty was smaller on Irish spirits, and that it was in the same money the calculation was made. But, why was the duty smaller? Was it as a matter of favour to Ireland that it was smaller? No; but because the smuggler had corrected the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was to make it productive to the revenue that the small duty was imposed and substituted for the large duty. In England, the spirits were allowed to be transferred to the rectifying distiller without paying duty. It was not necessary that it should pay duty on leaving the King's stores, as in Ireland; and at the time that it was announced that the new taxes should be imposed, it happened, by a very fortunate accident, that there was no stock of spirits in Scotland, there was no stock in England, and there was an enormous stock in Ireland. In the latter place it arose from two causes; first, the badness of corn last season, and next the cessation of the use of spirits, owing to the exertions of Father Mathew. There would then, of course, be a great deal of taxation on the spirits in Ireland; while there was scarcely any stock in Scotland, and he was assured that there was none in England. This was a very
794
fortunate accident both for Scotland and England. If hon. Gentlemen would look into this subject (and he trusted that they would, now that the question had been mooted by the hon. Gentleman opposite) they would find that the grossest wrong and the greatest injustice had been done to Ireland on the subject of taxation. What was the relative state of the debts of the two countries at the time of the Union? Ireland then owed 20,000,000 l. and England owed 446,000,000 l. Now, England had had a bonus of ten millions on this. The debt of Ireland, as to that of England, was as one to twenty-two, and that was the proportion of the burden which she ought to have borne; but instead of being as twenty-two to one, it was as eight and a half to one. Lord Castlereagh made these flourishing premises on the subject on the 5th February, 1800.
"In respect to the past expenses, Ireland had no concern whatever with the debt of Great Britain, but the two countries were to unite as to future expenses, on a strict measure of relative ability. He should have considered it a most valuable circumstance in this arrangement if the countries could have been so completely incorporated as not to have had distinct revenues, a part of the system of the Scots' union, which had been felt to be of such importance that a great effort was made to equalize the circumstances of the two countries for that purpose. England had a large debt, Scotland had none charged upon her revenues; an accurate calculation was made of the sum to be paid to Scotland, to justify her in accepting her share of the debt, and the sum was paid accordingly by England. The taxation of the two countries was accordingly fixed at the same proportion, except in the instance of the land-tax, which was fixed at a different ratio, because the land-tax in England was imposed so unequally, that had Scotland paid in the same rate as the nominal tax of England, she would really have been taxed much higher than her just proportion. He mentioned this to show the pains that had been taken to incorporate the two countries, as well in point of finance as other circumstances; but in the present situation of these countries, this part of the system could not be adopted. Great Britain now paid in taxes for interest on her debt ten millions annually (it was nearly 17,000,000 l. for funded and unfunded debt in the January of the next year, according to the Parliamentary papers endorsed to be printed 15th April, 1824,) for any proportion of this she could not call upon Ireland, nor could she offer, as in the case of Scotland, any equivalent; it was, therefore, necessary, that the respective debts of the countries should remain distinct, and of course, that their taxation should continue separate."

795
See, then, how far the premises of Lord Castlereagh were realised. By the Parliamentary paper ordered to be printed on the 15th April, 1824, it appears that the amount of the funded and unfunded debt of Great Britain, and the annual interest payable thereupon, were, in January, 1801, or when the act of union became first operative, as follows:—

BRITISH DEBT AT THE UNION.

Funded debt

£420,305,000

Unfunded debt

26,080,000

Total debt

£446,385,000

ANNUAL INTEREST.

Charge of funded debt

£15,800,000

Ditto of unfunded

1,021,000

Total charge

£16,821,000

Thus it appears that the amount of revenue Great Britain was compelled exclusively to raise at the union was nearly 17,000,000 l. in a single year. There being a junction of debts, and a power to levy indiscriminate taxation, Great Britain does not now raise 17,000,000 l. exclusively, or, as far as can be conjectured, 7,000,000 l. According to the finance accounts of the last year, the following were the items of her separate taxation:—

Land and assessed taxes

£3,939,000

Bricks

463,000

Soap

782,000

Post-horse duty

224,000

Total

£5,408,000

In certain stamp duties and home-made spirit duties there is a higher rate of taxation in England than in Ireland. Its produce is at present uncertain, but should be ascertained. Assuming it to add a fourth to the foregoing items, the total is 6,775,000 l., which leaves a balance of relief from exclusive taxation to Great Britain exceeding ten millions annually. Thus it was that the promise and the pledge of Lord Castlereagh were redeemed. Here was a plain and a palpable wrong done to Ireland; and yet with the fact falsified by Lord Castlereagh of what it was that England was liable to pay, it being 17,000,000 l. and not 10,000,000 l., as he had stated, the hon. Gentleman, perceiving this, talked of both countries being equally taxed. Now, when the union took place, the first thing that was done was to raise the taxes as rapidly as possible. The report of the select com-
796
mittee on the income and expenditure of Ireland, which was ordered to be printed on the 19th of June, 1815, would show how a united Parliament dealt with Ireland, for it would be found that that report said this:—
"Your committee cannot but remark, that for several years Ireland has advanced in permanent taxation more rapidly than Great Britain itself, notwithstanding the immense exertions of the latter country, and including the extraordinary and war taxes; the permanent revenue of Great Britain having increased from the year 1801, when the accounts of both countries were first made to correspond in the proportion of 16½ to 10—the whole revenue of Great Britain, including war taxes, in the proportion of 21¾ to 10, and the revenues of Ireland in the proportion of 23 to 10. But in the twenty-four years referred to by your committee, the increase of Irish revenue has been in the proportion of 46¾ to 10."
But let him now refer to the opinion of the chief governor of Canada, Mr. Thomson, who, on the 26th March, 1830, in moving for a Select Committee for a revision of taxes, said:—
"A case is established in the instance of Ireland, which was written in characters too legible not to serve as a guide to future financiers—one which ought to bring shame upon the memory of its authors. The revenue of Ireland, in the year 1807, amounted to 4,378,000 l.; between that year and the conclusion of the war, taxes were successively imposed, which, according to the calculations of Chancellors of the Exchequer, were to produce 3,400,000 l., or to augment the revenue to the extent of 7,700,000 l. What was the result? Why, that in the year 1821, when that amount, less about 400,000 l. for taxes afterwards repealed, ought to have been paid into the Exchequer, the whole revenue of Ireland amounted only to 3,844,000 l., being 533,000 l. less than in 1807, previous to one farthing of these additional taxes having been imposed. Here is an example to prove that an increase of taxation does not tend to produce a corresponding increase of revenue, but, on the contrary, an actual diminution,"
In 1821, however, the Irish revenue fell to 3,844,000 l., which proved that the English Government had put burden upon burden upon Ireland, until she actually broke down under the load. Then, with regard to the balance arising from the remittance of public money, to and from the Irish and British Exchequers, he held in his hand a Parliamentary document, dated the 24th of August, 1833, from which it appeared, that from 1796 to 1800 there had been a balance of 435,637 l.,

797
and up to 1833 a balance of 11,389,178 l. in favour of Ireland. He would now beg the attention of the House to an extract from the report of the committee of 1814:—
"Your committee have employed a considerable portion of their time and attention in the investigation of the expenditure of the United Kingdom, with a view to the settlement of the account of proportionate contribution between the two countries. They have not yet the means of stating an account with so much exactness as to serve as the foundation of a definitive settlement between Great Britain and Ireland, as the accounts which they have directed to be made up in Ireland are not yet completed. While they have been in preparation your committee have to state that they could not be more usefully employed during those several sittings than in discussing and settling, subject to the final judgment of Parliament, the principle by which the account ought to be regulated, with respect to certain articles as to which the sense of the Act of Union appeared to admit of question. With respect to these points your committee are of opinion, that in the adjustment of the payments made on account of the joint charge of Great Britain and Ireland, the payments made from the consolidated fund (Ireland), since the union, under the act of 40 George 3rd, ch. 34, so far as relates to any composition to any bodies corporate or individuals, in respect to any city or borough which may have ceased to send Members to Parliament in consequence of the union, should not be a joint charge."
This "joint charge," the gentle name intended to include the bribing money, with which the Act of Union was purchased, amounts to 1,275,000 l.; and the sole payment of this sum was cast, as it were, as a brand of infamy upon the people of Ireland. According to Lord Castlereagh, there were seventeen millions which ought to be paid by the people of England, the people of Ireland being left untouched; whereas he had shown that the people of Ireland paid ten millions to England's seven millions. All he asked for the people of Ireland was, that if they were to be thus taxed, they should, at least, have the credit of it, and enjoy equal rights in every respect with the people of England.
Mr. Lucassaid, that Ireland was already sufficiently taxed, and he thought the proposition of the hon. Member would be unproductive of any real good, he could not support it.
Colonel Conollyexpressed his regret at being compelled to differ with the hon. Member for Lincolnshire, but he must do
798
so upon this occasion. The assessed taxes in Ireland had not produced more than 120,000 l., while they cost 70,000 l. in the collection. Then, again, with regard to the duty on spirits, the abatement of that duty from 6s. to 2s. 4d. per gallon was found to have a most beneficial effect, inasmuch as it very nearly extirpated the illicit trade. He trusted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bear that latter fact, in mind, and that the House would see that no advantage could possibly arise from laying fresh taxation upon Ireland.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he had felt it his duty to second the motion, and after listening to the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House, he must say that the motion had not been fully and fairly discussed. These hon. Gentlemen, who came from the other side of the channel had carefully watched their own interests, and showed zeal for their country; but all parties had suffered the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to escape both on this and on former occasions. The right hon. Gentleman, ay, the whole of the Ministers ought to be told, that they had no business to entail upon either England or Ireland any new lax at all. The statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer showed that there had been gross mismanagement of the finances of the country, and hence had arisen the necessity for this new taxation. He was astonished to see the public money voted away in so thin a House. To be sure, hon. Gentlemen pleaded that it was their dinner hour, but let them remember that they might deprive many a poor man of his dinner. He observed a noble Lord smiling. Why, did not the noble Lord know that very often there was not a single Minister in his place to answer a question? He was sorry that steps were not taken to oust such Ministers altogether. Some people might say we cannot find better. One thing he knew, it was impossible to find worse. They had got into place and power by professing to be friends and promoters of economy and retrenchment. What taxes had they reduced? Why, the duty on balsam of copaiba, and on shepherd's dogs, and such like trumpery matters. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the increase of taxation was only the beginning of the mischief. He could foretell that in the next Session of Parliament 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. more would probably be demanded. And

799
all this was the consequence of the mismanagement of the finances of the country during the last six or seven years. Instead of retrenchment, the present Ministers had favoured the country with the grossest extravagance. Look at their commissions. Why, 119,000 l. went in one year for new commissioners, who, he believed, were chiefly employed in doing nothing. Well, the consequence was, that there must be an increase of public taxation. But why did they tax the poor, and not the rich? He wanted to see 10, or 20 or 30 per cent, laid upon all salaries of 800 l. per annum and upwards, and not upon the poor under clerks. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, then might be made to contribute his share to the public burdens, for he received a very good salary, although he spent half his time in cutting capers and dancing quadrilles. Oh, he did not blame the noble Lord for that; he was fond of dancing himself. But if the noble Lord was wanted in Ireland, why did he not go thither? and if nor, if a deputy could do his duty there, why was not his deputy better paid, and he compelled to pay a percentage upon his income. He thought a small absentee tax upon some persons would have a very wholesome effect. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken a better mode of increasing the revenue. It must be increased, it appeared, but the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to care how, so the poor were to be taxed as heavily as the rich. He did not wish to say anything rude of the right hon., the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he believed him to be a very good man in private life, but he was wholly unfit for his present office, and knew not how to manage the finances of the country. He did not think it was quite fair to saddle this country alone with the proposed increase of taxation. He could not acquit her Majesty's Ministers of partiality in this or in other matters in which Ireland was concerned. He perceived that they were the complete slaves of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He saw that they watched his eye, and his every feature, and were entirely at his control. His nod was positive law to them, and they were nothing more nor less than his absolute slaves. That state of things might not be agreeable to some of them, and he confessed that he wished he could see a division
800
amongst them, as it would be a sign of their breaking up. Whatever became of the motion, he was satisfied that he and the hon. mover had done their duty to their constituents.
Mr. Humpherywished to asked the right hon. Gentleman whether gentlemen who came from Ireland, bringing their own carriages, horses, servants, &c. with them, were exempt from the payment of assessed taxes while they remained in this country?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that they were protected under a special act; but gentlemen arriving earlier than the opening of the Parliamentary session, and staying after its close, would be liable.
Mr. Humpherythought it a hard case upon English gentlemen that Irish gentlemen should be thus exempted, and on bringing up the report he should move the insertion of a clause for the purpose of taxing the horses and carriages of Irishmen resident in England to the same extent as the horses and carriages of Englishmen were taxed, which was not the case at present.
Mr. J. Jervisthought this was a proper subject for inquiry, as the first step to equal justice to Ireland, for he could not see why Irishmen living under the protection of British laws should not be taxed to an equal extent with Englishmen. He could not understand what objection there could be to equal taxation. If, however, this motion came to a division now, he was afraid the minority would be such as to compromise the question in some degree, and he therefore hoped it would not be pressed at present.
Mr. D. Brownesaid, that if the hon. Alderman near him (Alderman Humphrey) proposed to tax Irishmen residing in England higher than Englishmen, he should be glad to second that motion, as such a course would, he hoped, have the effect of inducing Irishmen to reside in their own country, and to spend their money there.
The House then divided, when there appeared—For the motion 11; Against it 86: Majority 75.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Benett, J.

Baring, F. T.

Bernal, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Bewes, T.

Barry, G. S.

Blake, M. J.

801

Blake, W. J.

Lucas, E.

Bridgeman, H.

Maule, hon. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Brodie, W. B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Browne, R. D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bryan, G.

Ord, W.

Busfeild, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Butler, hon. Col.

Pendarves, E. W.

Callaghan, D.

Philips, M.

Collier, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Corry, hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Courtenay, P.

Rutherford, rt. hon. A.

Damer, hon. D.

Salwey, Col.

Dundas, D.

Seymour, Lord

Ewart, W.

Sheil, R. L.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Slaney, R. A.

Fort, J.

Somers, J. P.

Goulburn, H.

Stansfield, W. R.

Greig, D.

Stewart, J.

Grote, G.

Stock, Dr.

Hall, Sir B.

Strutt, E.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Style, Sir C.

Hastie, A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Hawkins, J. H.

Tufnell, H.

Hayes, Sir E.

Turner, E.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, J. E.

Howick, Viscount

Williams, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Williams, W. A.

Hume, J.

Wood, C.

Hurt, F.

Wood, B.

Hutton, R.

Worsley, Lord

Jackson, Serg.

Wyse, T.

James, W.

Yates, J. A.

Kemble, H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

TELLERS.

Lefroy, T.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Litton, E.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnot, H.

Polhill, F.

Fielden, J.

Rickford, W.

Hector, C. J.

Rundle, J.

Humphrey, J.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Lockhart, A.

TELLERS.

Mackenzie, T.

Christopher, R.

Marsland, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

CUSTOMS DUTIES.
House in committee on the Customs Duties Bill.
On the first clause—
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he would avail himself of that opportunity to state the course which he intended to pursue with respect to Baltic timber, which was one of the articles affected by this bill. He had received many communications on the subject, and he had endeavoured to ascertain the real facts of the case by every means in his power. He was bound to say, according to the best information which he had been able
802
to obtain from those for whose opinions he had the highest respect, that the effect of any addition to the present duty on Baltic timber would not only be injurious to the trade, but would also tend to diminish, instead of increase, the revenue of the country. The duty on Baltic timber at present was 55 s. a load, and on Canadian timber it was only 10 s.; so, that if by an increase of the duty on Baltic timber he should prevent the introduction of one load from the Baltic, to be supplied from Canada instead, it was clear that he should lose the difference between the amount of duty on a load of Baltic and a load of Canadian timber. It was not his intention, however, to postpone the present bill. He should go on with that measure, but it was his intention to bring the article of timber separately under the consideration of the House, with the view of getting the same amount of revenue from that article as at present, which, in fact, he could not give up, but he would not attempt to obtain that amount by a percentage on the present duty, but by assimilating the duty in certain cases between Baltic and Canadian timber. He would not then enter into details, but by the end of the week he would be prepared to state the plan he proposed to adopt for levying the revenue from timber.
Mr. Grotewas glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to alter this bill so far as it related to Baltic timber. He was sure if an increased duty was placed on timber from the Baltic, as was originally proposed, that such a course would not only cause a serious loss or ruin to many persons engaged in the trade, but would also have the worst effect upon the revenue. He was, therefore, happy that an alteration in respect to timber was to be made in the bill.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman admitted a distinction with respect to timber from the fear that an increase of duty would cause a loss to the revenue, he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that the same principle would be found to apply to other articles, and that he would be asked to make other exemptions from the operation of this bill. For himself, if timber were exempted, he should feel considerable difficulty with respect to spirits, on which the

803
difference of the duty was far greater than on timber. With respect to the differential duties between Canada and other timber, he should not give an opinion; but if there was any intention to deprive Canada timber of the advantage it had enjoyed, there never was a time when it was less called for than when we were trying to adjust the differences with Canada, when, whilst we persevered in maintaining our rights, it should be our object to do every thing that would conciliate the colony.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwished it to be distinctly understood that it was not at all with reference to an alteration of the scale of duties that he made the proposition; so far from it, that he believed that by the alteration he should propose, he should leave the question which had been mooted, and respecting which a great variety of opinions prevailed, in a better state for Canadian interests; for he was satisfied, from the communications he had received, that the additional burthen which by the bill he originally had imposed on Baltic timber would have caused more difficulty and doubt than by the course he now proposed to take.
Mr. A. Chapmansaid, the object of the differential duty had been, not to put one penny more into the Exchequer, but to give employment to 1,000 ships, and 15,000 seamen, at a time when they were debarred from employment in the Baltic. This was the consideration which had induced the Timber committee to come to the resolution, and he thought no measure had been more satisfactory to the country generally than the present scale of duties. Timber was an article of such importance to us, that we must draw it from every part of the globe.
Mr. Hawes,as one of that committee, must say, that the present scale of duty was considered unfair and unequal, and a reduction had been recommended. He regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not now state the course he intended to take; it was of great importance that the trade should know it.
Mr. Humewas surprised that the hon. Member for Whitby should have stated, that the present scale of duty was satisfactory; every consumer of timber disapproved of it. He hoped the time was not far distant when the Chancellor of the
804
Exchequer could equalize the duty, and thereby increase the revenue.
Mr. Kembleagreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) that this would be an inauspicious moment to deprive Canadian timber of any advantage. With respect to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a person largely concerned in the timber trade with the Baltic, as well as Canada, had stated to him, that the proposed alteration would diminish instead of augment the revenue. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he contemplated any further alteration in the bill, or intended to adhere to it with this single exception?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he did not intend to propose any other alteration in the bill except verbal alterations, and if any should be proposed, he meant to oppose them.
Mr. W. Attwoodsaid, the bill was so unfair and unequal in its operation, that he could not believe the House would adopt it without further alteration. In the clause before the Committee the original proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was, that the additional duty should be levied from the 15th of May, but he submitted, that although that arrangement might seem to be fair, it inflicted a hardship on parties dealing in the articles. Though there was a proviso with respect to contracts, yet there might be virtual agreements made, which would not have the benefit of the clause. Instead of fixing a particular day when the duty should commence, the fairest way would be to levy it from and after the passing of the bill. It was bad both in principle and practice to charge the duty from the passing of the resolution of this House.
Mr. Humesaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to give a schedule to show how the five per cent, would bear upon particular articles.
Captain Jonesrose to propose certain amendments, limiting the increase of duty on Scotch and Irish spirits to five per cent, on the existing duties. He did not propose to interfere with English spirits, rum and brandy; Irish spirits, or Scotch spirits, coming to England would be subject to the 4d, duty. He was bound to give some reason, and it was this—that Irish spirits were taxed to the utmost at present. The reports of the commissioners on the subject of Irish excise showed beyond the least possibility of cavil, that

805
Irish spirits had already been taxed to the utmost. If the present duty were augmented, the effect would not fail to be an increase of illicit distillation. In another point of view, he wished the House to look at the probable effect of such a proceeding. A general complaint would be raised, that justice had not been done to Ireland. For some time past it had been found impossible to levy assessed taxes upon Ireland, and he did not hesitate to say, that any attempt to levy them there must be unsuccessful. For these reasons he proposed to leave out the words "United Kingdom," and should that proposition be agreed to, he intended to propose such additional words as might be necessary for carrying the object which he had in view into effect.
Mr. Lucasobserved, that by some means or other the English distillers obtained information beforehand, which enabled them to get rid of their stocks of spirits, and the result would be, that not 500 l. in duty would be collected in England during the present year. By some arts of divination the Scotch distillers arrived at the same knowledge, but the Irish distillers remained in ignorance, retained their stocks on hand, and were therefore in great danger of losing severely. The measure would therefore be an ex post facto law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas understood to say, it was impossible, that any of the parties concerned could have obtained the least information upon this subject one hour earlier than the others. Knowing the state of the revenue, it was perfectly natural, that persons engaged in the manufacture of spirits should anticipate the possibility of being subjected to increased taxation, and, apprehensive that they could not escape the Chancellor of the Exchequer, took their measures accordingly. The question which the House had to decide was, whether there should be a per centage or not. Now, he contended, that spirits were a very proper object of taxation, and then the only practical question which remained was, whether 4d. would be too heavy. On this point he arrived at a different conclusion from that put forth by the hon. Gentleman opposite. The present duty was 2s. 4d. From 1831 to 1834 it was 3s. 4d. He was far from saying, that it would now be expedient to bring back the amount to 3s. 4d. by the addition of 1s., but what he pro-
806
posed to do was, to raise it from 2s. 4d. to 2s. 8d., not 2s. 10 d., as in the year 1826, yet it was worthy of observation, that when the duty was 2s. 10 d. the revenue was a rising revenue, at the same time that he thought the addition of 1s. would now make it a falling revenue.
Mr. Goulburnsaid it was true, that in 1830 the duty was 2s. 10 d., and the revenue was then rising. An impression at that time prevailed, that the remission of 6d. would put an end to illicit distillation, but the change which then took place had not produced the effect which had been expected. Although he could not profess himself favourable to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he felt, that not possessing the official information which was accessible to him, he (Mr. Goulburn) ought not to oppose the measure which had been submitted to the House by her Majesty's Government, nevertheless, he felt all the responsibility with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Callaghansaid, it was quite clear, that the English and Scottish distillers were not likely to suffer, whereas the Irish had not been aware of the measure intended. There was not less than 20,000 puncheons of spirits now on the hands of the distillers in Ireland which would be affected by this proposed increase of duty, and he would contend, that never had there been any duty which was so unpalatable to the capitalists in spirits in Ireland as this would be. The unanimous opinion in that country was, that the additional duty would not be of any advantage to the revenue, but that, on the contrary, it would encourage illicit distillation. He therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not press the proposition he had made.
Mr. Home Drummondwas of opinion, that if the additional duty of 4d. per gallon did not answer the object that was in view, the Government would then find it necessary to take off a larger sum than was now added to the rate of duty. He should support the amendment.
Mr. Plumptresupported the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would have been better pleased if a heavier duty on spirits had been proposed, so that the system of gin drinking might be checked.
Sir Robert Fergusoncould not support the proposed increase of duty, as in his opinion it would give a great stimulus to

807
smuggling, to the great injury of the country.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksondeprecated the plan, as falling more heavily on Ireland and Scotland than on England, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had listened to reason on one item of his proposed taxation—namely, the timber trade—he hoped he would also take into consideration the inequality with which this tax would bear on the three kingdoms.
Mr. R. Steuarthad no fear of this additional tax leading to smuggling in Scotland, as that system had received a most effectual check by the last enactment on this subject.
Mr. Shawso far agreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Kent, that if he thought an increased duty would lead to a diminution in the consumption of spirits, he would give his vote in favour of the additional rate, but as he believed, that it would not have that effect, and that on the contrary it would encourage illicit distillation, he should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Londonderry.
The Committee divided on the question that the words "United Kingdom" stand part of the Clause:—Ayes 97; Noes 26: Majority 71.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Hall, Sir B.

Aglionby, Major

Hayter, W. G.

Attwood, W.

Hector, C. J.

Bailey, J., jun.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Barnard, E. G.

Hodges, T. L.

Benett, J.

Hodgson, R.

Blake, W. J.

Hollond, R.

Bowes, J.

Hoskins, K.

Broadley, H.

Howard, P. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

James, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Jervis, S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Kemble, H.

Bryan, G.

Knight, H. G.

Buller, E.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Busfeild, W.

Langdale, C.

Childers, J. W.

Lushington, C.

Clay, W.

Lushington, S.

Clive, E. B.

Macaulay, T. B.

Collier, J.

Marsland, H.

Courtenay, P.

Martin, J.

Elliot, J. E.

Maule, hon. F.

Ellice, right hon. E.

Morpeth, Viscount

Euston, Earl

Morris, D.

Fector, J. M.

Muskett, G. A.

Filmer, Sir E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Fort, J.

Ord, W.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Grey, right hon. Sir C.

Pechell, Captain

Grey, right hon. Sir G.

Pendarves, E. W.

808

Phillpotts, J.

Style, Sir C.

Pigot, D. R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Tancred, H. W.

Price, Sir R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Pusey, P.

Thornely, T.

Rawdon, Colonel

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rickford, W.

Tufnell, H.

Rolleston, L.

Turner, E.

Round, C. G.

Wakley, T.

Rundle, J.

Walker, R.

Russell, Lord J.

White, A.

Rutherfurd, A.

Williams, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Williams, W. A.

Seymour, Lord

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Sheppard T.

Wood, Colonel

Slaney, R. A.

Wood, B.

Smith, R. V.

Yates, J. A.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

TELLERS.

Steuart, R.

Gordon, R.

Strutt, E.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Arbuthnott, H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Barry, G. S.

Lowther, Colonel

Bodkin, J. J.

Lucas, E.

Bridgeman, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Callaghan, D.

Maher, J.

Corry, hon. H.

Martin, T. B.

Damer, hon. D.

Round, J.

Evans, G.

Shaw, F.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Vigors, N. A.

Godson, R.

White, H.

Gordon, Captain

Young, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Hope, hon. C.

Jones, Captain

Hughes, W. B.

Drummond, H.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 7,
Mr. B. Woodrose to propose the omission of a clause. Its effect was, to impose the extra duty upon the buyer, where a contract for the sale of goods was not completed at the time fixed for the act to come into operation. This would operate very unjustly where the bargain was made upon the understanding, that the duty was included in the price.
The Chancellor of' the Exchequersaid, it was difficult to frame a provision which should not in some individual cases produce hardship, but a similar clause had been introduced into other acts by which duties had been increased, and upon the whole it appeared fairer, that the buyer should pay the extra duty, which was not taken into account when the bargain was made.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 8,
Captain Pechellproposed to add a proviso, excepting windows from the proposed additional tax of 2s. in the pound.

809
He could not agree in the statement which was often made, that this tax affected mainly the more opulent classes, for although it was true, that the cottage of the agricultural labourer was exempt from the duty, yet artisans, who formed the largest body of the working classes, felt the pressure of the tax in the shape of the increased rent of the lodgings which they occupied. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation as to what was meant by the surveys which were intended to be made, as, notwithstanding the explanation which had been given, some alarm still existed upon the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not think the hon. Member could expect to succeed in his proposition. Considerable reduction had been made in this tax, and he could not make any concession with respect to it upon the present occasion. He admitted the tax was unpopular. He did not enter into the defence of any single item. The bill must be taken as a whole.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had givan no answer to the question respecting the assessment of reopened windows. Would old windows opened since the passing of the act of 4th and 5th William 4th on this subject, be liable to assessment under the new survey? Lord Althorp had given a distinct pledge that they should not be assessed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the provisions of the act alluded to should be strictly adhered to, and the attention of the surveyors had been directed to them. The assurance given by the act of Parliament would not in the slightest degree be infringed by the present bill.
Mr. Godsoncould find no clause in the act of Parliament carrying out the pledge which the hon. Member for Kilkenny said, had been given by Lord Althorp. All reopened windows would consequently be assessed under the new survey.
Sir B. Hallsaid, that the pledge given by Lord Althorp was to the effect, not merely that these re-opened windows should be free from assessment, but that the first tax repealed should be the window tax. Instead of this being done, an increased duty was now laid on windows.
Mr. Brothertonthought the increase of the assessed taxes would restrict the present franchise under the registration law, and he trusted the new act for the registration of voters would pass, and relieve
810
the voters from the present restriction of the franchise.
Mr. Fectorobserved, that innkeepers felt it to be a grievance, that while the duty on shop windows had been repealed, their bar windows still remained liable to tax.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreferred to the last act, and quoted a clause exempting all windows re-opened since the passing of that act from assessment. The same exemption did not apply to newly built windows.
Mr. Jervissaid, the exemption did not apply to the property, but to the person. He thought it desirable to add a clause to the present bill to carry into effect the object intended to be secured by the last act on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the House thought such a clause desirable, he had no objection to its introduction.
The Committee divided on the question that the proviso proposed by aptai n Pechell be inserted:—Ayes 36; Noes 83: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, Major

Marsland, H.

Attwood, W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Bateson, Sir R.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, C.

Neeld, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Parker, M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Rolleston, Colonel

Codrington, C. W.

Round, J.

Duncombe, T. S.

Rundle, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Rushout, B.

Fector, J. M.

Salwey, Colonel

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Godson, R.

Sotheron, T. E.

Hall, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Vivian, J. E.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hollond, H.

Williams, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Lockhart, A. M.

TELLERS.

Lushington, S.

Pechell, Captain

Mackenzie, W. F.

Berkely, F. H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T.

Bryan, G.

Adam, Adm. Sir C.

Buller, E.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Busfield, W.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Clay, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Clive, R. H.

Bewes, T.

Collier, J.

Blake, M. J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Blake, W. J.

Egerton, Sir P. G.

Bodkin, J. J.

Eliot, Lord

Bridgeman, H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Broadley, H.

Euston, Earl of

Brodie, W. B.

Fleetwood, Sir H.

Brotherton, J.

Fort, J.

811

Gillon, W. D.

Pigot, D. R.

Gordon, R.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C. E.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Price, Sir R.

Hayter, W. G.

Protheroe, E.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pryme, G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Rawdon, J. D.

Hodges, T. L.

Reddington, T. N.

Hodgson, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Hoskins, K.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Howard, P. H.

Sandon, Viscount

Hume, J.

Scholefield, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Seymour, Lord

James, W.

Sheppard, T.

Jervis, J.

Smith, V.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Stanley, W. O.

Langdale, hon. C.

Stewart, R.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Strutt, E.

Maher, J.

Style, Sir C.

Martin, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Martin, T. B.

Tancred, H. W.

Maule, hon. F.

Thornley, T.

Melgund, Lord

Tufnell, H.

Morpeth, Viscount

White, A.

Muskett, G. A.

Williams, W. A.

O'Ferrall, M.

Winnington, H.

Ord, W.

Wood, B.

Parnell, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Pendarves, E. W.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Philips, M.

Parker, J.

On Clause 12,
Mr. Gillonproposed as an amendment, that the words referring to carriages kept to be let on hire be omitted, which would exonerate them from all taxation.
Colonel Sibthorpconsidered, that this tax pressed very unfairly, and was for taking it off altogether.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he would be very much disposed to do so; but that as it amounted to the sum of 154,000 l. per annum, the present state of the revenue would not permit the reduction.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that if the carriage tax were removed altogether, the horse tax would more than make up the difference.
Captain Berkeleyobserved, that the number of post-horses on the road to Windsor, had amazingly diminished of late.
The Committee divided on the question that the words stand part of the clause:—Ayes 69; Noes 58:—Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Bewes, T.

Aglionby, Major

Blake, M. J.

Ainsworth, P.

Blake, W. J.

Archbold, R.

Bodkin, J. J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Bridgeman, H.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Brotherton, J.

812

Buller, E.

Pigot, D. R.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Price, Sir R.

Clay, W.

Protheroe, E.

Clive, hon. E. B.

Rawdon, Col. J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Redington, hon. T. N.

Duncombe, T.

Rundle, J.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Russell, Lord J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

Ellis, W.

Scholefleld, J.

Euston, Earl of

Seymour, Lord

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Smith, R. V.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Stanley, rt. hon. E. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stanley, W. O.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Steuart, R.

Hayter, W. G.

Stuart, W. V.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stock, Dr.

Hoskins, K.

Strutt, E.

Howard, P. H.

Style, Sir C.

Howard, Sir R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

James, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Jervis, J.

Thornley, T.

Langdale, hon. C.

Tufnell, H.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Turner, E.

Martin, J.

Williams, W. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Wood, G. W.

Melgund, Lord

Wood, B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wyse, T.

Muskett, G. A.

TELLERS.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Gordon, R.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Adair, Lord

Jones, Captain

Attwood, W.

Lockhart, A. M.

Bainbridge, E.

Mackenzie, W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, C.

Neeld, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Neeld, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Palmer, R.

Broadley, H.

Pechell, Captain

Brodie, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Brownrigg, S.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Bruges, W. H.

Pryme, G.

Burroughes, H.

Rice, E. R.

Busfeild, W.

Rolleston, L.

Cavendish, Hon. G.

Round, J.

Darby, G.

Salwey, Colonel

Douglas, Sir C.

Sandon, Lord

Eaton, R. J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Egerton, Sir P.

Sheppard, T.

Ewart, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Farnham, E. B.

Sotheron, T. E.

Fector, J. M.

Stuart, Lord J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Verner, Colonel

Godson, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Wakley, T.

Hindley, C.

White, A.

Hodges, T. L.

Williams, W.

Hodgson, R.

Winnington, H. J.

Hollond, R.

Howard, F. G.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Gillon, W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Hume, J.

Remaining clauses agreed to, House resumed.

GOVERNMENT OF CANADA.
The Report on the Canada Government Bill was brought up.
On the motion that it be agreed to,
Mr. Humeexpressed a hope that the Habeas Corpus Act would no longer remain suspended in this province, as a most respectable Gentleman, seventy-five years of age, had now been immured in a dungeon for more than three years, and had never been brought to trial even before a court-martial. The sufferings of the Italian prisoners in the dungeons of Austria, had not been more atrocious than the sufferings inflicted by the British Government on some of the most virtuous citizens in Lower Canada.
Sir C. Greyfelt, that he should be acting a most unmanly part, if he did not support the proposition that Mr. Bejet, whose acquaintance and hospitality he had enjoyed whilst acting as a commissioner in Canada, should be immediately discharged. He believed it was the mode in which his property was implicated with the ecclesiastical seigneuries of Canada, that had prevented him from giving to the British Government the sureties, which it had demanded as a preliminary condition to his liberation.
Lord J. Russellfelt, that it was quite impossible for him to speak with any certainty as to the measures which might be taken with respect to Mr. Bejet; the Governor-general of the colony, who was on the spot, must judge of the danger to be apprehended to the province from the liberation of any persons now in custody. He was led to believe that Mr. Bejet, who was one of the richest men in Lower Canada, had been concerned in giving aid to a most atrocious rebellion, which had been accompanied with some most cruel, revolting, and sanguinary murders. But as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just acknowledged, Mr. Bejet, if he had given the required sureties, would not have been detained in custody. If this bill should be passed, and if a representative form of government should again be restored to Canada, he was quite sure that there would be a desire to overlook all that had occurred, so far as was consistent with the security of the province. He had no doubt that under such circumstances, the restrictive system would no longer be continued.
Sir C. Greysaid, that his impression with respect to Mr. Bejet was, that he,.
814
being one of the richest men in Lower Canada, had given encouragement not to those who had embarked in the rebellion, but to the setting up of those newspapers, which had supported the same principles that were avowed by those who were concerned in that dangerous and delusive enterprise.
Report agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Indemnity.—Read a third time:—Feuing of Entailed Estates for Churches, etc. (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Radnor, from Perth, St. Andrew's, and other places in Scotland, for the Separation of Church and State; from Dundee, Sunderland, Newton, a place in Somersetshire, and Leicester, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws; and from Southwood, in Somersetshire, Bradford, in Wiltshire, and other towns, against Church Rates.—By the Earl of Winchilsea, from the Protestant Association, against any further Grant to the College of Maynooth.—By Lord Holland, from Nottingham, against Church Rates.—By the Earl of Rosebery, from places in Scotland, against the Intrusion of Ministers.—By the Duke of Rutland, from Leicester, in favour of Church Extension.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
The Marquess of Breadalbane, in presenting a petition against the intrusion of ministers into the Church of Scotland, and praying that the bill then before Parliament, introduced by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), might not pass into a law, observed that the general assembly of the Church of Scotland had, as their Lordships were aware, come to a decision, by a large majority, unfavourable to that bill, and such he believed to be the feeling not only of a great majority of the Church of Scotland, but of the people at large.
The Earl of Haddington felt it necessary to say, that the concluding portion of the noble Marquess's observation did not tally with the information which he had received, and which he believed most other persons had received, from that portion of the United Kingdom.
The Marquess of Breadalbanecould only refer the noble Earl to the numerous

763
petitions which had been presented in favour of the principle of non-intrusion which principle he did not consider was embodied in the bill of the noble Earl.
Lord Broughamsaid, that not having been able to consider sufficiently the bill of the noble Earl, he would abstain at present from saying anything respecting it. He would, however, maintain the opinion which he held the last time he had the honour of addressing their Lordships upon the subject, which was, that the people of Scotland did not go along with those who had placed themselves in resistance to the law of the land. The law of the land had been declared by the highest authority in the law—by their Lordships in their judicial capacity; and if there were any who persisted in offering resistance to the law, he asserted that it was not the people of Scotland, but those misguided individuals or bodies who had thought fit to join them. He might be told that there was conflict and collision upon the subject; but what was it? It was a conflict and collision which there ever would be in every case where a decision had been pronounced by a legal, authorized, and only authorised tribunal—namely, a conflict and collision between that tribunal and the party against whom that tribunal had pronounced judgment. And whether that party were an humble or a powerful individual—whether an individual or a body corporate—whether the meanest lay corporation in the country, or the highest clerical body in the country—it fell within the same rule, and must be considered as the party in a suit in which the decision was given against it by a competent tribunal. Great differences prevailed on other points in that part of the kingdom to which he alluded; he was anxious that those heats should subside; he was anxious, as the peace of the country would be endangered if the peace of the Church were endangered—he was most anxious, before any legislative measure should be adopted, that proper means might be taken in the proper quarter to secure and enforce not merely a nominal but a real and substantial obedience to the law as it at present existed.
Petition laid on the table.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE—COURT OF CHANCERY.
The Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Administration of Justice Bill having been moved,
Lord Broughamsaid, that he had to apoligise to their Lordships for rising to give his opinion with respect to the bill in its present stage, but not having been present on a former occasion, so as to avail himself of the opportunity of doing so at the proper stage, he had no other alternative. He had had repeated occasions—indeed he was sorry to say how often, as the frequency showed for how long a period so important, a question had been left unsettled, but he had had repeated occasions of addressing their Lordships upon this subject, and his noble and learned Friend deserved the thanks both of their Lordships and the country for bringing it again before their Lordships, without being dispirited by the failure which he suffered upon the point four years ago. He hoped he should not be accused of an obstinate adherence to his former opinions if, after having since the introduction of this bill given to the subject, the greatest possible attention, he still, in some measure, adhered to those opinions. In giving the grounds he would not say of his opposition to, but of his doubts as to the necessity of so large a measure, he did not mean to say that there was no necessity for some increase of the judicial force; but, as there was great conflict of argument upon the subject, it would better tend to guide the House, so as that it might more clearly find its way through so intricate a question, to state clearly all that might be urged for and against it; for his own part he felt that he should best discharge his duty by fairly stating the reason which induced him to adhere to his former opinions. One of the main facts which the House had to consider was, whether the increase of business in the courts of equity was or was not such as to require so large an increase of the judicial force. The two main sources of the business were the bills filed and the petitions presented, and in both these it was stated, that a great increase had taken place. Now, in the five years ending in 1754, he found the number of bills filed was 1,698, being something under 1,700., and the average number of petitions was 282, making altogether 1,980. In the five years ending 1835, being the latest period at which returns had been presented, the number of bills filed was 2,366, and the number of petitions presented was 1,271, making a total of 3,637, which, instead of being double, as

765
had been argued, was only about as five to nine compared with the former period, If the average of the five years preceding 1819 were taken, it would be found to be nearly as great as that presented by the last return; but these arose from peculiar circumstances relating to the period, which were subsequently obviated, and in 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, there were great diminutions in the arrears. Indeed, in the years 1831 and 1832 it might have been said, that there were no arrears, and the consequence was, that a great extension of justice ensued, for the cessation of a denial of justice was tantamount to an extension. By the arrears which had accumulated the channels of justice had been choked up, and the stream could not flow freely. The consequence was, that bills ceased to be filed; but when the obstructions were removed, and the stream flowed freely, a great increase took place in the filing of bills, and in 1833, the effects of the increase began to be practically felt in the business of the court, and in 1833 the amount of business was from this cause—namely, the removal of the obstruction, increased to an enormous extent beyond its natural limit. The result, however, of all the calculations and inquiries which he had made was, that taking the amount of business as a test, and even including the extraordinary increase arising from peculiar circumstances, the increase was not greater since the time of Lord Hardwicke, was not greater in proportion, than as five to nine. That was one side of the account; but they must take the other side of the account also, and on doing that they would find, that instead of the judicial force to perform the office being the same as it was in the time of Lord Hardwicke; on the contrary, if the work was increased threefold, the machinery for effecting that work, the force by which the weight was to be moved, had also increased threefold, or at least had increased more nearly in the proportion of three to one, than of two to one. He did not understand, and he believed nobody understood, why, when the force was increased threefold, and the weight had only increased in the same proportion, the force was not sufficient for the work. Let it be remembered, that the case was very different now from what it was in the time of Lord Hardwicke. Then there were the Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls to perform the business of the
766
court, but since there had been a great increase of force. By a cursory observation it appeared, that the increase had been fifty per cent., but in reality that increase had been much greater, because the Master of the Rolls only sat in the evenings formerly, that was to say, only twelve hours in the week. The number twelve, therefore, answered to the power of the Master of the Rolls in Lord Hardwicke's time. Then, again, thirty hours in the week was more than the Chancellor then devoted to the public business of the court, because he had to attend to the Privy Council business, the Cabinet business, other judicial business, and Ministerial business, which came under none of the former heads; and, last and greatest, the business of their Lordships' House, which was certainly a most material item; so that, taking all these, and stating the number of hours devoted to the business of the court by the Chancellor, instead of thirty, at twenty-seven, or perhaps twenty-five hours—and he believed that was rather an overstatement that an understatement of the time which the Chancellor was enabled to devote to the Chancery Court—but taking it at twenty-seven hours, the power of the master of the Rolls would be represented by twelve, and that of the Lord Chancellor's Court by twenty-seven, or twenty-five, perhaps, in the time of Lord Hardwicke. Now, what was the case at present? Taking the same sum to represent the power of the Lord Chancellor, and thirty hours at least to be the number occupied by the Master of the Rolls now sitting in the mornings, which was according to the statement of his noble and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls; and therefore, if this were the least number, the average would be something greater, but taking thirty as the average of the Master of the Rolls, and supposing the Vice-Chancellor to sit thirty hours a week, and add these sixty hours to the twenty-five hours, which were the common period of the Chancellor of the present day and of Lord Hardwicke, that all together would make eighty-five hours; therefore it was quite demonstrable that they had between eighty and ninety hours instead of between thirty and forty hours occupied in the business of chancery. But if instead of taking thirty and twenty-five hours, he was to take, as he had a right to take, this ground of supposition, that the Vice-Chancellor and the Master of the

767
Rolls sitting six hours a day, and why they should not sit that number like the courts of common law did, he (Lord Brougham) did not know—then he should have seventy-two to represent the power of these two judges, and then, instead of the power of the whole court being represented by forty-two, as in the time of Lord Hardwicke, the amount of judicial force would be represented by 102, that was to say between two and three-fold what it was then. But that was not the only circumstance which had occurred having a bearing on the question, for another alteration had taken place in the Court of Chancery which was very important in reference to this discussion. The business of bankruptcy had been re moved from the great seal. Some little relief had been given in respect of the Recorder's report, the abolition of which had given about seven or eight days in the year which it used to take. If, therefore, he said that the increase of force had been such as to make it between two and a half and threefold greater than it was in the time of Lord Hardwicke, he should not be wrong. It might be said that these were merely speculative opinions, and that he did not exactly show that these three learned judges had power to increase the force of the court. He came therefore to the returns themselves, to show that there was ground for thinking, as perhaps their Lordships would think by and by, that something of the sort might be effected. At all events, justice must be done; the suitors must be relieved; the court must be helped. Well, then, the number of causes set down for hearing annually on an average of seven years, ending with the year 1834, was, according to his noble and learned Friend, 890; the number of bills and answers was 370; the number of pleas and demurrers, 56; making a total of all matters to try, of all the business in Chancery, of 1,316. But it was said, that very extraordinary exertions were made in those years. Take, then, the number of matters occurring annually on an average of the four years ending in 1839, and it appeared that there were to be disposed of 1,281; and that of those the number actually disposed of was 1,253. From this, therefore, they were fairly entitled to argue that the judicial force had been found sufficient for the discharge of the increase of business, and on the face of the returns, at least, more or less
768
adequate to the performance of the duty. But there was the arrear. No doubt there was an arrear, because if a bill failed, a suit was commonly brought into court. There was, then, an arrear, and no doubt it was necessary to find some remedy and relief against the evil, and he would, therefore, request their Lordships and his noble and learned Friends who had proceded and succeeded him on the Woolsack to give him their particular attention on this part of the subject. He said, then, there was an arrear; he admitted there was a heavy arrear. Then the first question, and the main question, was, whether was that arrear temporary, or constant and permanent; did it arise from a defect in the machinery of the court, from a want of judicial power, or was it accidental, arising out of the nature of the business, as, for instance, the increase of bills on railways which had come into the court within the last few years, of which so much had been said, but which it was manifest could not last for ever? He asked, was the arrear temporary or permanent? This was very material to ask and to have ascertained, because, if in order to get rid of this arrear they should appoint additional judges permanently, then, in case of the arrear turning out to be temporary, they would have the arrears got rid of, and the judges remaining with but little to do. He must say, he did not anticipate a very triumphant answer to this, but certainly the judges ought not to be too highly worked. Let them see, then, was the arrear permanent or not? He took now as the test that which was always resorted to—namely, the amount of causes, the exceptions, and the pleas and demurrers standing ready for hearing and not heard in each year. He took the end of Michaelmas term in each year. He should begin with the year 1827, quoting what he found in the printed returns. Then the causes ready for hearing and not heard, the pleas and demurrers, in 1827, were 668 at the close of Michaelmas term; in 1828, they were 668; in 1829,722; in 1830,374; in 1831,229; in 1832, 145; in 1833,202; then they came to the great influx of business to which he had referred, and in consequence of which the number of bills had increased from 2,600 to between 2,600 and 2,700; consequently, in 1834, the number was 630; in 1836, it was 782. In order, then, to ascertain

769
whether the arrear was permanent, what mode could be better than to see whether that arrear had continued the same, or whether it had diminished or increased? Proceeding with the above account, the number in 1837, was 647; in 1838,607; in 1839, 693. This was a great number, but still it was about 100 less than in the year 1836. It was clear, therefore, that the arrear was not a permanent but a temporary arrear; and was it not a most important inference from this statement, and its peculiar tendency to show, that if they applied a great increase to the permanent judicial force of the court in order to get rid of the arrear, that arrear would be got rid of, and that in two years or so, perhaps, there would be no sufficient occupation for those additional judges? But, then, it was said, in order to prevent this, you may increase the business of the Court of Chancery in two ways. First, the business of the Court of Equity Exchequer was to be transferred to the Court of Chancery. That would be one source of increase. And, second, there might be an increase in consequence of the diminution of arrears, which would invite more suitors into the court. With respect to the first, he would not then go into a discussion of it, because their Lordships would have other opportunities of going into that part of the plan, but be might observe that it was not denied, that that change would increase the business in Chancery to the extent of 1–13th or 1–14th. Then, however, if they were to increase the judicial power of the court, as was proposed, they would increase it not by 1–13th or 1–14th, but by something like two-fifths or more, for the bill proposed to appoint two more vice-chancellors. The judicial force then, instead of being, as it ought to be, only two and a half times as great as it was in the time of Lord Hardwicke, would be, on the plan of his noble and learned Friend, at least four and a half or five times greater than it was then. Considering, indeed, all the circumstances, he was disposed to think, that they would be in all increasing the force seventy per cent., at a time when the additional work caused by adding the Equity Exchequer jurisdiction to Chancery would only be about eight or nine per cent.; therefore, there was to be eight or nine times as much increase of power as that increase of business would justify. But then it was said, that there would be another cause of
770
increase, in consequence of the diminution of arrears attracting suitors to the court. The increase, however, would be but slight in comparison; instead of being seventy or eighty per cent, on the business, it would not be much more than three or four per cent. The remedy proposed to remove this increase was a quintuple power to that which existed a century ago. Though there was an increase of business, he thought there was nothing to require the addition of two judges. At most he should be inclined to give but one additional judge, and would ask their Lordships not to give more. The reason why he very reluctantly said one, was this—that he knew if they should get into arrear the consequences would be, there would be an additional judge appointed. When he had filled the office, now so much more worthily filled by his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, he had resisted the wish of the common law judges in Westminster-hall to increase the number of the judges. He had stated to them that his opinion was, that some extraordinary increase of exertion was preferable to endeavour to diminish the arrear of business, and then to go on. And certainly, if an additional judge at common law had been appointed at that period, there would have been more judges appointed than would have been wanted. There was another part of this measure which opened a subject of very serious consideration, and that was the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the appellate jurisdiction. It had very often been said, "Why don't you have a great board, a great tribunal, to judge these causes, which, instead of sitting occasionally a week now and a week then, would sit regularly? Why had they not a regular court, as they had in other countries, always sitting when there was appeal business to do, so that every one should have free and open access to it to have their judgments reversed? But they must attend to the right constitution of the court on the one hand, as well as to its constant and convenient sittings on the other. If they had a court constantly sitting, it was impossible that the judges of it could belong to other courts; they must be judges of appeal only; but if they were so, they would be comparatively less able to transact the appeal business. He did not mean that it, was necessary that every one of the judges should have seats in other courts; some

771
of them might be advantageously always placed in the Court of Appeal, and not sit in the other courts; but some of them should be accustomed to sit in the other courts, otherwise two difficulties would occur, one of which was sufficient to show that it was necessary. Matters of practice hardly ever came to appeal, or very rarely, but they might now and then come before the court, and might be the very points on which the cause turned; but in matters of ordinary practice, that court would have little or no experience. It was, therefore, necessary to have in the Court of Appeal one or two judges who were in the everyday working of the courts, and who saw all the trifling matters that came before them. But there was another consideration more material. The judge who only sat occasionally had not sufficient constant practice to enable him to have a due confidence in his own judgment or the judgment or the opinions of others. Those, therefore, who had considered the question had generally risen with the impression that it would not do altogether in a court of appeal to have judges so constituted and appointed as to have no dealings with the other courts. But if they had a court of appeal consisting of judges who sat in other courts, it followed that the appeal court could not hold permanent sittings, but that it must more or less study the convenience of the other courts from which it drew some of its judges. This was one of the difficulties to be met. He thought that if such an arrangement could be made, and the permanent assistance of the competent authorities be obtained, such a tribunal should be presided over by the head of the law—the great law officer of the Crown—who should preside as the chief judge of that court. He admitted that one additional judge might be required, but no more, to get rid of the arrears, and that assistance would enable the Lord Chancellor to preside over the court of appeal. This led him to say a word on that part of the plan which related to the transfer of the Master of the Rolls from his own court. The following was the state of the causes set down to try in the Rolls' Court since 1833. In 1833 there were 652 cases set down for hearing; in 1834, 462 cases; in 1835, 519; in 1836, 465; in 1837, 370; in 1838, 259; and in 1839, 202 cases. So that it had come down from 500 or 600 cases, to 200 within the last
772
five or six years. Could any one doubt that if the Rolls' Court were shut up for sixty days in the year, but that it would put an extinguisher on it, and that instead of 202 cases, there would not be 102 next year, and that parties would only go to get a decision there to bring their causes up for appeal? Instead of being taken away, the judge ought to work double tides, and ought to be more ready and anxious to remain in his court, in order to keep up to the business. When he said, that the business of that court was coming down, he begged not to be misunderstood. There were not, there could not be, any ground, not even the least vestige of a shadow for saying that this was owing to the court itself; but they all knew that at different times there was a fashion with respect to courts in Ireland; for instance, at this moment he understood there was an enormous disproportion of cases taken into the Court of Exchequer, which was overwhelmed with business, while some of the ablest Judges were in the Queen's Bench and Common Pleas with comparatively little to do. At other times, in England, it had been the fashion for suitors to crowd the Court of Queen's Bench, although judges to the full as able as the judges of that court presided in the Common Pleas. The business of the Exchequer was increasing, and had increased. The increase had begun at the time his noble and learned Friend opposite, presided over that court. There was no reason in the world why that court should be a favourite, since just the same legal talent, and the same judgment, could be found in all the other courts. He would now state what, in his opinion, was the proper remedy for this. He did not see why there should be any choice of courts permitted. He could never see any reason why a plaintiff should have the power of choosing his court any more than the defendant. If it were because the plaintiff was the person in possession, it might perhaps be right, but the plaintiff was generally the person out of possession. Now, if the choice was given because he was the person out of possession, it would at least be consistent; but he was not always the person out of possession, and there was nothing less consistent than that the plaintiff should have the choice of courts, and in earlier times such was not the case. The plaintiff in those times had no choice, and all

773
suits went to their respective courts, and it was not until fictions were introduced that the plaintiff had the choice of courts. Now, how did this apply to the Master of the Rolls? He would say, that if they removed the Master of the Rolls from his court, they would increase the evil, and the remedy was not to give parties the choice of courts, but to send suits to the Rolls to relieve the Court of Chancery and the Vice-chancellor. He might be told that it would be hard upon the suitor to compel him to go to the Rolls, but what were they about to do? The Master of the Rolls was going to the Privy Council. The suitor had no choice of judges of appeal, and there could be no appeal against his decision, as there was no appeal from the Privy Council. On one other point he wished to address the House. He thought there ought to be an intermediate Court of Appeal for certain purposes. He believed they ought to allow an appeal from the Rolls to the Vice-chancellor or Chancellor. Parties might elect which, but they should not have another appeal from that decision. The bulk of appeals which came to the House of Lords, did not come from the Court of Chancery, but from Scotland and Ireland. His noble and learned Friend would, he hoped, not require further assistance than would, after the arrears was once got rid of, be sufficient to meet the real exigencies of the case, and he should advise their Lordships strictly to restrict the additional supply to those exigencies.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would recall his noble and learned Friend's attention to one or two tests which he (the Lord Chancellor) thought his noble and learned Friend would admit were quite conclusive as to the necessity of having a considerable addition to the force of the Chancery judges. He knew that it was almost universally the opinion of the bar, that great additional strength was required; and that it was the opinion of the solicitors who practised in the court, he knew. It was also the opinion of the judges engaged in administering equity. These were the persons, and the only persons, who, being conversant with the present state of business in the Court of Chancery, could state the difficulties which at present existed in obtaining justice in the present state of the arrears of that court. Whatever might be the
774
arrears, it was their duty to apply a remedy as soon as they found the evil existed. In order to find out the evil, let them take the book of causes, and take the first forty causes set down for hearing before the Vice-chancellor, and they would find, that in all those causes, after they had been completed, and after all the evidence had been examined, three years must elapse before a suitor had any chance of obtaining a hearing. And then very few causes were disposed of without a report, and the suitor had in that case to wait three years more. He waited three years for the original decree, and three years more for further directions. It had not been suggested by any body that a want of exertion on the part of the judges had caused the present arrear, and he knew that if it were so suggested, it would be without the slightest foundation, for he believed that in every branch of the courts there was every exertion for doing that which the public of right demanded—namely, justice, and justice failed only because there was not the power to do it. His learned Friend had alluded to a period which showed great peculiarity in the administration of justice—he meant the period when a very celebrated man, afterwards Master of the Rolls, was made Vice-chancellor—Sir John Leach. More work had been got through by him, than ever before by any individual, and, considering the vast quantity of business he did, it was well done. But he would ask his learned Friend, whether there was not great danger of failure in justice, when the judge had only in view the rapidity with which he could get through his causes? He might get through a great quantity of business, but that was not the only question: the most important was, how was the business done? He did not think that Sir John Leach's example was one which it would be wise or safe for any other judge to attempt to follow. His noble and learned Friend had referred to a period which had always excited the astonishment of every one who had looked into these matters—namely, how it happened that so large a number of bills were filed in the time of Lord Hardwicke, compared with the business before him. The reason was this—if a party came into court he was sure to have his business done, and was not told he must wait six years for justice. But if they wanted to ascertain what was the business of the

775
judge, they must look at the hearings; it was these which occupied the time of the court. But there were not one-third of the number of hearings in the time of Lord Hardwicke that there were at present. In the five years ending 1764 there were 283 hearings, and in the same period ending in 1839, the number of the hearings was 1,248. There was not, therefore, one-third of the quantity of business in the time of Lord Hardwicke. But it was not necessary to go back to the time of Lord Hardwicke; the time of 1812, when the Vice-chancellor's Court was established, was a much safer period to go back to, and the business was now double what it was in 1812. During the five years following 1812 the hearings amounted to 562, and in the five years ending 1839 they amounted to 1,248. But it was not merely the quantity of business to be done at a particular period that they were to look at; they must look to the country to see what business was to be done which was not entered for want of opportunity. The average number of causes set down for hearing during the three years before the Vice-chancellor was appointed was 540, and during the three years afterwards it was 714. What had happened in the course of these six years to make the great change? It was not anything in the history of the country; but before the Vice-chancellor was appointed, the suitor knew that he had no chance of being heard, and afterwards, instead of abandoning his rights, or compromising them, he came into court. The number of bills filed after the appointment of the Vice-chancellor proved the same thing. When they inquired what additional strength the Court of Chancery might want, they had, in these returns, something from which to form a conclusion. They had to provide, not only to get rid of the arrear, but also for what they knew would happen, to get rid of the number of suitors who would come. There was another point to which he wished to call attention, from which it might be seen how unsafe it was to refer to figures. He knew that in the Court of Chancery, the longer a list of causes remained unheard, the more impracticable it became when it came to be heard; and the reason was, that it was not every cause that had a chance of being taken, but short causes were picked out. The result was an arrear, not of common causes, but of causes which had been postponed from
776
term to term, and from year to year, in consequence of their length. It would, therefore, require a long time, and great judicial strength, fairly to grapple with the evil. His noble and learned Friend had referred to some of the details of the bill, which he thought would be better discussed in Committee; but there was one to which he could not help adverting for a few moments—he meant the attendance of the Master of the Rolls, as president of the Privy Council. In order that the extremely important business of that court might be satisfactorily conducted, fifty days, or one quarter of what was called the judicial year, must be devoted by the person who should be appointed to preside. It was natural, in looking to the profession for the purpose of finding a judge who could attend to this duty, to select the Master of the Rolls, who had for fifty years before the Judicial Committee was instituted presided over the Privy Council. No doubt the Court of Chancery would lose his services to that extent, and no one lamented this more than he (the Lord Chancellor) did; but, as there would be a power under this bill of distributing the Chancery business, no inconvenience would arise to the suitors from the partial attendance of the Master of the Rolls at the Privy Council. So much could not be said if any of the other superior judges had been selected; their places could not well be supplied. The business of their courts would be at a stand-still during their absence. For these reasons he was prepared to justify that part of the bill. There were other details to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, but he should reserve what he had to say in reply till the bill went into Committee.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, their Lordships had attended to the statements and details which had been entered into upon this occasion, in a manner which the importance of the subject demanded; and he was quite satisfied they could only come to one conclusion—that it was impossible to arrive at any safe and satisfactory decision with respect to this bill, except by referring the consideration of it to a committee upstairs. He was clearly of opinion, that at least one additional judge was necessary for the Court of Chancery. It was quite impossible to get rid of the arrears existing in that court, without consenting that one judge should be added to its present strength. The only doubt that existed in

777
his mind was, whether one additional judge would be sufficient for that purpose. That was matter of detail for minute, particular inquiry; and, with a view to that investigation, he proposed that the bill itself should be referred to a committee up stairs. He felt it was unnecessary to enter into the details at present, as they would be fully and more properly investigated in the select committee, to which he now moved that the bill be referred.
The Lord Chancellorfelt perfectly satisfied as to all the details of the bill; but, believing this motion to originate in a bonâ fide intention to serve it, by enabling other noble Lords fairly and fully to investigate the subject, and having no doubt as to the conclusion to which they must come, he should at once acquiesce in the motion.
Lord Broughamhad no objection to that course. In explanation, however, he must be permitted to say, that his noble and learned Friend had somewhat mistaken his argument. He admitted that there was a very heavy arrear in the Court of Chancery, but he contended that that being only of a temporary nature, the appointment of one additional judge would be abundantly sufficient to master it within a reasonable time.
Lord Ellenboroughentirely agreed in the propriety of sending this bill to a committee up stairs; he hoped, however, no one in that House would misunderstand, and none out of doors misrepresent, the object of his noble and learned Friend. He was quite sure his noble and learned Friend would go into the committee with the sincerest desire to abate this long-continued grievance, which he had himself brought under their Lordships' consideration in former years. His noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) thought one additional Vice-chancellor would be sufficient to get rid of the arrears. But even if the smallest case could be made out for the appointment of a second, it would be the duty of the committee to recommend it.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, unless he were satisfied with the clearness of demonstration almost that one would be sufficient, he should certainly vote for a scond additional judge.
Lord Abingeralso concurred in the propriety of referring the consideration of this bill to a committee up stairs. The evil
778
was admitted on all hands, but the extent of the remedy would be most fittingly discussed in that committee. He sincerely hoped the result would be found satisfactory and beneficial.
Lord Denmanthought their Lordships were perfectly competent, after all the inquiries which had taken place upon this subject, at once to form an opinion as to the best remedy for an universally admitted evil, without sending this bill to a committee up stairs. At all events, he hoped the committee would proceed with its inquiries forthwith, and report as speedily as possible. He had come with great, reluctance to a full conviction that it was necessary to increase the judicial strength of the Court of Chancery, and the sooner that remedy was applied the better. A state of transition in courts of justice was one of the worst for the suitors that could possibly exist.
Bill referred to a select committee.