Sitting of 4 April 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2o Licensed Lunatic Asylums; Dublin Police; Drainage (Ireland). Reported,—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny. Private.— 2o Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road; Ardrossan Harbour; Drogheda Harbour; Inchbelly (Glasgow) Roads; Kirkintilloch Roads (No. 1); Huish Champflower, &c. Inclosure, 3o and passed:—Bradford (York) Waterworks.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. J. Bailey, from the Glove Makers of Great Torrington, against the proposed Reduction of the Duty on Gloves.—By Captain Gordon, from Aberdeen, and other places, against the proposed Reduction of the Duty on the Importation of Cattle.—By Mr. Strickland, from the Millers of Preston, Lancashire, against the Importation of Foreign Flour.—By Mr. Hardy, from York, Lancashire, Derby, and Oxford, against any Grant to Maynooth College..—By Mr. V. Smith, from the Belfast Anti-Slavery Society, against Domestic Slavery in the East Indies.—By an hon. Member, from Alloa, against the Reduction of the Duty on Baltic Timber.—From Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for Exempting from Duty Coals Exported in British Ships for the use of Steamers, Navigating under the British Flag.— From Evesham, Northallerton, and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against Reduction of Duty on Foreign Leather.— From Parishes in Cambridge, against the Poor-law Amendment Act—From S. Millard, for Inquiring into the Management of County Lunatic Asylums.

THE NEW TARIFF.
Mr. R. Curriewished to put a question to the right hon.
1220
Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), in reference to his proposed financial and commercial alterations. He begged to say, that he asked the question from no party motives; but simply because the reply might regulate the course he should feel it his duty to pursue, on the House going into committee to consider them. When the right hon. Baronet brought forward his financial proposition, he stated in the most explicit manner that it was his intention to stand or fall by its rejection or adoption. The question he wished to ask was, whether the right hon. Baronet's declaration applied to the main principles of the tariff in the same force as it applied to the imposition of an Income-tax? Of course he did not mean to ask the right hon. Baronet to pledge himself to all the details of the tariff; for it was quite evident that subsequent information and consideration might induce the Government to make alterations in the details; but what he wanted to know was, whether the right hon. Baronet meant to uphold the main principle of the tariff—namely, the reduction of duty on articles of general consumption, and especially on food and cattle, with the same firmness and determination as the right hon. Baronet intended to uphold the principle pf his proposed tax on income?
Sir R. Peelstated in reply, that he certainly had said, as the hon. Gentleman represented, that the Government, in bringing forward so important a measure as the proposed Income-tax, for the purpose of relieving the country from its financial embarrassments, brought it forward as a Government measure, and an the whole responsibility of the Government. When it was considered that the proposal of the Income-tax was to become the foundation of the financial and commercial policy of the Government, he felt it to be evident that the measure was of such importance that its failure must decide the fate of the Government. He was sure hon. Gentlemen would not take advantage of this declaration, and apply it rigidly to every detail. He spoke of the Income-tax as the foundation of the financial and commercial policy of the country; and he said, that with respect to the details, in the mode of collection, for instance, there were modifications which he intended to propose. With respect to the tariff, there were of necessity many persons whose interests were affected by

1221
it; and he must reserve to himself the power of communicating with them, and making such modifications in the details as might appear desirable. He had brought forward these measures, financial and commercial, as a whole, and with the sineere desire and intention to do justice as far as possible between the producing and commercial classes of the community. Subsequent reflection had confirmed him in the opinion, that though the tariff affected many interests, yet that, on the whole, the arrangements he had proposed were just, and it was his intention, with reference to the general principle of the measure, to uphold them,
Lord J. Russellsaid, that an amended edition, of the tariff, having errors of the press corrected, and containing many alterations, which on consideration might be deemed advisable, had been promised to be ready on the meeting of the [louse. He wished to know whether this, amended edition were now ready, or whether it would be soon prepared?
Sir R. Peelhad stated generally he could not lead the House to expect any important alteration in the tariff. Various trades were, however, anxious to state their views to the Government, and those communications were still going on. It was desirable that the Government should have an opportunity of hearing an explanation of the views of the different parties before reprinting the tariff, which would be done at as early a period as possible. He would undertake to say, that all the parties, or the greater portion of them, who asked interviews with the Government, would be heard by Monday next; and on that day he would lay the amended tariff on the Table of the House. Though he proposed to make modifications in details, the general principle would be adhered to.

FORGED EXCHEQUER BILLS.
On the motion of Sir R. Peel,the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Committee on the forged Exchequer-bills Bill was read.
The bill recommitted.
Clauses 1, 2, 3, and 4 agreed to with verbal amendments.
On clause 5 being read,
Sir T. Wildesaid, he wished to submit to the committee certain alterations which he proposed to make in the present clause and also in subsequent clauses, and he thought it would nave time if he now stated
1222
the reasons which induced him to propose them. The present clause, as well as. every other clause in the bill, should, he thought, be read with a reference to the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer made when the bill was brought in, because from them the object of the Government could be best understood. He owned, that he was somewhat disappointed and surprised to ascertain that the alterations he intended to propose were supposed to be open to objection; for he certainly had not the slightest wish to embarrass the proceedings of the Government, but merely a desire to carry into effect what he understood to be the object of the Government in proposing the bill. He was not now aware that any part of the amendments he proposed could have the effect in any degree of frustrating that object. The present clause related to the duties imposed on the commissioners, and it was, of course, of great importance that no question should hereafter arise as to who, was the intention of the Legislature with respect to these duties. What it was intended the commissioners should do ought to be clearly defined; for on the duties which the commissioners would be called on to execute depended important interests. In them might, perhaps, be involved the ruin of many very respectable persons. There were among' the number to be affected by the bill persons whose interests at stake amounted to 30,000 l., 40,000 l., and 50,000 l.; and though they might be in such a condition of life as to prevent so fatal a consequence as ruin from being the result of the loss of that property, yet it was obvious that the bill was of the greatest importance to them. In proposing alterations in the present clause his object was to carry out the intentions of the Government, and to do nothing more. He had attended to the speeches made on the introduction of the bill, and as there was then little discussion or expression of opinion in regard to the justice or policy of that House paying the alleged forged public securities, and as a right hon. Gentleman opposite deprecated any discussion on that point until the facts were brought before the House by the report of the commissioners, he did not presume at that time to offer any remarks to the House, though it occurred to him that some of the statement! made on the occasion gave

1223
a colour to the case which did not properly belong to it. But now it was extremely important to take care that the bill should present the case to the House in a proper shape, to enable it, when the report of the commissioners came before it, to determine on the question of the propriety of paying the bill-holders. It was distinctly stated, that it was not intended to delegate to the commissioners the power of pronouncing any opinion or determination with respect to their claims. The commissioners were to ascertain the facts of the case, and, those facts being ascertained, the matter was then to come back to the House; and it was for the House to consider the course which it would be proper and judicious to pursue. Among other observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it was said, that the House should be cautious in indicating any opinion on the propriety of paying these forged bills,, because such a proceeding might involve a principle of vast importance to the public; and might, according to the observations of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have the effect of preventing in the receipt and circulation of public securities the caution and care on which the public safety depended. As he apprehended, the whole foundation on which these bill-holders could expect the public to relieve them from loss, if their bills turned out to be forged, was this: that by reason of the misconduct of a certain public officer, effected through the want of a sufficient control and check in his department, they had been subject to a great fraud, committed against them, and consequent loss. This was consistent with that general principle, the justice of which no one would dispute, that if the agents of an individual were able, in consequence of the want of proper caution on the part of the principal, to commit frauds on the public, the principal should be the sufferer. and not the victims of the fraud. From having been counsel to Mr. Beaumont Smith, he was aware of the importance of having this principle brought into discussion on the presentation of the report of the commissioners, but he did not believe it would arise. He had looked at the bill to see what the commissioners were required to do, and what to report. The clause the committee were at present considering, enacted,—
" That the said commissioners shall, by all-such means as to them may appear best, with
1224
a view to the discovery of the truth, inquire into the case of every owner or holder of any document purporting to be an Exchequer-bill which shall be referred to them by the Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, and shall from time to time report to her Majesty what they shall find concerning the manner of the issue, circulation, deposit, or possession of every such document, and especially in what manner the owners or holders of such documents received the same; whether in exchange for other bills, and if so, in what manner such exchange was made, or whether by purchase in open market or otherwise, and if so at what rate of purchase; or whether by way of deposit as securities for loans of money, and if so at what rate of interest and for what time such loans were made, and whether such loans were renewed, and if so, how often and for what time; and also, whether the owners or holders of such documents received the same in the usual course of business, and whether they employed any and what means of inquiry into the genuineness of such documents; and all other matters and things whereby, in the opinion of the said commissioners, the truth may be better known touching the premises."
These were the several inquiries to be made by the commissioners, and it might be inferred from the circumstance of their report being ordered to be laid before the House that the House would be put in possession of all the information received by the commissioners. But the words in the clause he had just read directing the commissioners to report "what they shall find" would prevent this result; for though they might appear technical, they were perfectly well understood in all legal proceedings, and would be well understood by two of the commissioners, who were men of legal knowledge and habits, to mean that they were to report, not the evidence, but their conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Following up the object, as he conceived, of the Government, in introducing the bill, he should propose the addition of the words directing them to report" the evidence which shall be taken by them," as well as "what they shall find." Of course there could be no objection to the commissioners reporting their opinion; but, at the same time, it was essential that the House should know the premises from which that opinion was drawn. Recollecting what was said, on the introduction of the bill, respecting the necessity for a stringent inquiry, and the propriety of laying the most accurate information before the House, he could readily conceive that the words introduced, requiring the commissioners to report

1225
" what they shall find," were intended to meet all that was proposed. But they would have no such effect; and he deemed it of great importance to the justice of this case that the evidence should be laid before the House. He might be told, perhaps, that there was no doubt but that the commissioners would lay it before the House; but still it would be more satisfactory to have the clause drawn in an explicit manner, directing them to report the evidence. No party with honest views could desire any concealment. He had given notice of an alteration he intended to propose in the preamble, and which would operate on the present clause. As it stood it suggested the expediency of the commissioners inquiring into the means whereby these documents came into the hands of parties. He proposed to introduce words declaratory of the expediency of an inquiry also into the means whereby these documents were made and issued. The insertion of the word "issued" was necessary to make the preamble correspond with the subsequent enactment. In order that the case might be properly brought before the House, the House must know whether this fraud had been committed, notwithstanding the observance of due care and caution, and committed in such a manner, and under such circumstances, that no prudent foresight for the future could protect the public against a similar injury; or whether it had been the result of such an imperfect system, that very little care and caution would suffice to protect the public in future. But certainly, unless the House were made aware of all the facts of the case, it would not be able to form an accurate judgment as to whether the fraud had arisen from circumstances necessarily incidental to the existence of such securities, or merely from an imperfect system capable of cure. He believed that the present fraud had been committed, not from any negligence on the part of the officers now occupying the department, but from the pursuit of a system which had been thought sufficient by several successive officers to protect against fraud. If it should turn out that that which the public had a right to look to as authentic evidence of the genuineness of those bills—namely, the official seal—if it should turn out that that had been so carelessly attended to that any person could obtain access to it, then Would he say that want of due care and
1226
caution had been the sole cause of the commission of the fraud. Therefore did he wish to suggest that the commissioners appointed by the bill before the House should report under what circumstances those Exchequer-bills had been made and issued. He was aware that a prior report had been made, but he had reason to think that it did not contain all the evidence which had been given. He did not mean to say, that there had been any intentional suppression of important evidence, but that evidence might have been withheld which was considered irrelevant. He, however, had reason to believe, that evidence had been given which was highly important, and quite relevant to this part of the subject, which did not appear in the report to which he alluded. His desire was, that the House should be in possession of the whole facts of the case, in order that it might exercise a sound discretion. It was necessary to know under what circumstances the bills in question were made, in order that they might see whether the fraud had been the result of an imperfect system, before they proceeded to the second stage of the question— namely, whether the bill-holders had done all that they ought to have done on receiving those bills. The first alteration, then, which he should suggest would be an investigation into the circumstances under which the bills were made, his object being, if it should turn out that the bill-holders were true and bonâfide bill-holders, who had received those bills honestly and with due caution, to prevent its being said to them hereafter, "We know you are honest men, we see you are unfortunate, and we pity you; but it is of great importance to the public that those securities should be maintained and such misfortunes, being inseparable from them, must occasionally happen." Another alteration he proposed in this clause was, that the bills which the bill-holders held should be stated in a distinct schedule. He had reason to believe, in the first place, that Rapallo had still 100,000 l. worth of bills of the same character in his possession; and that being the case, it seemed to him expedient that the House should not say what course it would take, lest he (Rapallo) might, by foreseeing what that course was to be, induce persons to take those bills. The House must therefore, take care, while it put itself in a position of doing justice to

1227
certain bill-holders, whose names were perfectly familiar as the holders of the bills, that persons should not hereafter come forward and prefer other claims upon the bills now in Rapallo's possession. He therefore proposed that the bills should be described in a separate schedule. There would be no difficulty within a week of obtaining the name of every bill-holder. None of those bills were under 1,000 l.; they were not scattered through the country, and he had no doubt that they would all be found in London. In order to protect the public against a future claim they might require official notice to be given by the present holders of their claiming payment of those bills. He, therefore, proposed that the present holders of the bills, with their names, and a description of the bills in their possession, or a description of the bills without their names, should be set forth in the schedule. By the 8th clause a power was given to any of her Majesty's judges to award a writ for bringing up any person in the criminal custody to be examined, if the judge should so think fit, and here he proposed to add, after the words, "at his discretion," the following—
"Upon the certificate of such commissioners, or any two of them, that the evidence of any such person is necessary to the effective prosecution of the inquiries, or any of them, directed by this act."
He next proposed to add a clause which he understood was the subject of some attention. That clause was,
" And be it enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for the several and respective persons claiming to be bonâ fide holders of the several documents purporting to be Exchequer-bills, which are mentioned and described in the same schedule here underwritten, or any of them, to attend and be heard by themselves, their attornies and council, before the said commissioners, and to produce such evidence before the said commissioners in relation to the matters referred to them as such person or persons may be advised, in such manner, and at such time or times as the said commissioners shall order, appoint, and direct."
Of course those commissioners must have the power of controlling and directing the proceedings for the purpose of due order and convenience. It Would be observed that the nature of the inquiry suggested in the 5th clause extended to the manner of possession, to the circum Stances under which the bills were received
1228
whether in exchange for other bills, &c. Now, many of the persons holding these bills were entirely unused to legal proceedings, or to the manner of submitting evidence and of putting questions, and were unapprised altogether of that species of evidence which it might be necessary to produce, in order to found a given conclusion. There was nothing more reasonable than that they should have professional assistance, that they should be heard by counsel, and that they should have the power of producing and examining witnesses, and of cross-examining any witnesses that might be called against them. Now, the 5th clause provided that the commissioners should not merely inquire, but report what they shall find concerning the manner of the issue," &c, or in other words, give their own inferences and conclusions from the evidence. If the commissioners were simply to take the evidence and report upon it, then justice would not require more than that counsel and attorney should have the power of examining the witnesses. But, if any power of judgment be delegated to the commissioners, then must it be apparent —unless all such proceedings in courts of justice were superfluous—that the several parties interested, whose commercial existence, perhaps, depended on the issue, should be allowed to have professional assistance. It might be said, that such a course would take up much time; but was time to be put in competition with the satisfactory elucidation of the truth in a matter of so much importance? Besides, to none would a saving of time be more useful than to those very parties to many of whom he believed delay was almost as bad as absolute ruin. They it was who had the greatest interest in haste and expedition, and he knew of no reason which her Majesty's Government could have for haste that must not operate in a tenfold degree as regarded the parties interested in the transaction. If the reports of the commissioners we to be of any avail, he maintained that these parties should be permitted to have counsel. The other clause which he proposed was,
" And be it enacted, that the said commissioners are hereby required to meet for the prosecution of the inquiries directed by this act at such time and times and at such places as the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury shall appoint and the said commissioners are hereby required to report upon

1229
the several matters and things hereby referred to them, within months from the passing of this act, or within such further and other time as the said Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury shall name and appoint."
He had the greatest confidence in Mr. Sergeant Stephen and the Earl of Devon, with whom he wag acquainted, and he had no doubt of the desire and ability of the other gentlemen to discharge the duty of commissioner with every efficiency, as he was sure the Government would not appoint any one not deserving of confidence, but he wished nevertheless that a spur should be given in the way of expediting the proceedings. In order that there might be no embarrassment thrown in the way of those proceedings he did not object to giving the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury the power of enlargement as they might think fit. To the publication of the evidence he could see no possible objection, and in withholding it from the public no object could be obtained beyond that of screening some individual or individuals, which he was sure the Government did not want to do. If disclosures were required by justice, they should be made without reference to their effect upon certain individuals. He could not understand who the persons could be of such importance as to impede a fair inquiry into the case, such an inquiry as would enable the House to do proper justice to the parties. If they turned out to be bonâfide holders of those bills he was sure the House could have little hesitation in adopting that course which justice pointed out; and therefore was it that he felt it his duty in point of justice to submit these amendments to the House, which he preferred doing in an aggregate form to taking them one by one.
The Solicitor- Generalsaid, he was not disposed to differ from many of the amendments suggested by his hon. and learned Friend. The real difference would be as to the mode of carrying those amendments into effect. The object of the commission, as he understood it, was not, as suggested by his hon. and learned Friend, for the purpose of obtaining information as to the mode in which the parties became the holders of those Exchequer-bills, but for the purpose of obtaining a history of those bills, and of tracing that history from the period at which they were issued until they got into the hands of the present holders. The present
1230
holders of them were enforcing no legal right; they merely came to the Government asking for compensation for forged Exchequer-bills, and the Government wished to ascertain, and clearly to ascertain, the circumstances under which they had become possessed of those bills. He quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, that that House and the public should be fully informed of every circumstance connected with those bills. It was never intended by her Majesty's Government that the evidence taken before the commissioners should not be reported and laid before the House. The intention of her Majesty's Government was, that the commissioners should report fully to the House, or, in the first instance, to the Treasury, the report to be subsequently laid before the House; but he could not quite agree with his hon. and learned Friend in the propriety of compelling the commissioners to report the whole of the evidence, and of obliging the Government to lay the evidence, so reported, before the House. He could conceive particular instances in which it might not be judicious or proper to lay the evidence before the House; and he could not help suggesting that if it were understood that the whole of the evidence was to be reported to the House, a full inquiry might be in some degree prevented. He thought it would be better to leave the matter to the discretion of the commissioners, as in all ordinary cases of commissions; but he must repeat that there never was the slightest wish on the part of the Government that the question should not be fully investigated, and the evidence laid before the House. That being the case, he should hope it would be unnecessary to introduce a clause compelling the commissioners to hear the counsel and evidence of every individual who chose to make any complaint against the Government. It would be exceedingly and obviously inconvenient to leave it discretionary with every holder of these bills to say, "I am myself the best judge of what I require. By act of Parliament you are obliged to hear me. You must hear my counsel, my statement, my witnesses, and any one I choose to bring forward, for the Legislature has so enacted." He could not speak from experience, but he believed there was no case of a commission of inquiry in which the commissioners were compelled to hear whatever witnesses the parties interested.

1231
might choose to bring forward. The commissioners would conduct the inquiry according to their discretion—a course which he deemed far preferable to that of rendering it imperative on them to hear counsel and receive evidence in every case, as proposed by his hon. and learned Friend. His hon. and learned Friend said, that the present bill-holders were not interested in delay. Certainly, the great mass of bonâ fide holders were not; but would his hon. and learned Friend say, that another description of holders might not be interested in thwarting this inquiry, and endeavouring to withhold instead of elicit the truth? His hon. and learned Friend's argument, too, totally failed as regarded the necessity of parties being heard by counsel, as the commissioners had not to decide any matter connected with the question. They had only to inquire, and that inquiry was to be followed by any act which the House might think fit to adopt. They might direct further inquiry, but if the evidence itself were reported to the House, as his hon. and learned Friend said it ought to be, then, he asked, could there be any necessity for allowing every bill-holder, as well he who was interested in thwarting the proceedings as he who was interested in getting at the truth and accelerating the proceedings, to compel the commissioners to hear him and his counsel as long as they pleased? As to the other amendments, when his hon. and learned Friend said it might be important to ascertain the mode in which these bills had been made and issued, it was, no doubt, important to know the means under which they got into circulation; but if his hon. and learned Friend meant that this commission should proceed on the same inquiry as that commission which had just reported to the House, then he could not help thinking that they were imposing upon this commission that which it was not the intention of the Government to do when it was appointed, and which did not appear to him to bear immediately on the subject; not that there could be any wish on the part of the Government, but that the fullest investigation should be made into the mode in which these forgeries took place, and the bills were issued, and if his hon. and learned Friend confined the inquiries of the commission, so far as they were relevant to the matter in question, there would be no
1232
objection to them. With respect to the amendment which his hon. and learned Friend proposed for scheduling all bills, and not to leave it to the discretion of the Government, his hon. and learned Friend said there would be no difficulty, in the course of a week or two, in ascertaining a description of all bills from all persons now holders of them. That might be so; and, if so, there would be no objection to introduce those bills of which they could get a description into a schedule to the act. But, at the same time, he thought it was not right to confine the inquiries of this act to bills so scheduled, because there might be other bills, and they might, in point of fact, be working a great injustice by such restriction. Except that there would be no other objection to the clause being altered in that respect, it might be more convenient to discuss these amendments when they came to those parts of the bill where his hon. and learned Friend proposed to insert them; because the variation of a phrase might possibly obviate the objections that were now made to some of them; but he would add, that as to this particular amendment to have the bills scheduled, there would be no objection to do so if the Government were allowed to refer such other bills as they might think proper.
Sir R. Inglissaid, the question immediately before the committee had reference to the 3rd line of the 5th clause, in which the hon. and learned Member for Worcester proposed, after the word "any," to insert the words "of the." But although he took occasion to enter pretty largely into the merits of this subject, yet both he and the hon. and learned Gentleman who followed him abstained from expressing any opinion as to the course which the Government would take towards the bonâfide holders of these bills. He would also abstain from expressing any opinion upon that point. As far as he could collect, the amendments of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite were three. The first had reference to reporting to the Crown in the first instance, and through the Crown to this House, the evidence which should be taken by the commission; by the second, the commission was empowered to examine not merely into cases referred by the Treasury, but also, other cases of bills mentioned in the schedule of this act. With regard to that point, the hon. and learned Gentleman had ex-

1233
cluded from the schedule all cases which the Government might think fit to submit to the commission; but on the understanding which was stated by the learned Solicitor-general, he entirely concurred in that amendment. As to the third amendment, viz.,—that parties should be permitted to appear by themselves, their counsel, or attornies, he could not give his consent to it; but he cordially agreed in the prayer which the hon. and learned Member for Worcester addressed to the Treasury, that no time might be lost in coming to the decision of this question. Personally he had no interest whatever in these Exchequer-bills, but he felt that the most cruel treatment which bonâ fide holders of these bills could sustain was delay; and he would say, that if they could not agree to a limited period in which the commission should be required to make its report, at least the Government should exercise the influence they possessed to induce the commission to proceed as summarily as was consistent with justice, so that their report might be laid on the Table of the House in the existing Session; and that something might be done in reference to those who might be bonâ fide holders of these bills—his hon. and learned Friend did not deny that some were, and he believed the majority were—to relieve them from the cruel state of embarrassment in which they were at present placed.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that with the exception of the suggestion that parties should be heard by themselves, their counsel, or attorneys, they were differing practically about a shadow. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Worcester had admitted, that as to two of the commissioners, he had the highest possible opinion of them; that the Earl of Devon and Mr. Sergeant Stephen he knew to be men of high legal attainments and integrity, and that two men more fitted for the duties of commissioners could not have been found; and he (Sir R. Peel) was sure that hon. Gentlemen on the other side, from what they had known of Mr. Mitford, the third commissioner, in his connection with the Treasury, would admit, that he was as much entitled as the other two commissioners to their favourable opinion. It was considered desirable, when the three commissioners were appointed, that the third should not be a professional man, and at the same time a person not connected with these commercial matters, but
1234
nevertheless one possessing a knowledge of general revenue and finance. Mr. Mitford possessed those qualifications, and it was impossible to name any person in whom greater confidence could be placed than in him. Those three commissioners having been appointed, the general presumption was in their favour, and that they would properly discharge the duties committed to them. With respect to the production of the evidence, he agreed in the general principle, that the report would be unsatisfactory unless accompanied by evidence; but it never was in the contemplation of the Government to withhold the evidence from the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that that evidence might bear hard on individuals not now in office, but who might have been in office, and that on that account it might be withheld. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member, that no part of the evidence should be withheld merely on that account, nor did he see how it could, because this bill enacted that the commissioners should "inquire into the case of every owner or holder of any document purporting to be an Exchequer-bill, which should be referred to them by the commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, and should from time to time report to her Majesty what they should find concerning the manner of the issue, circulation, deposit, or possession of every such document." If they found there was any negligence in making out these bills, he did not see how the commissioners would be warranted in refusing a full investigation into that subject. He could conceive it to be part of the case of a holder of these bills to show that no vigilance or diligence on his part could have induced him to take caution against the loss he had sustained, and therefore it might be the duty of these commissioners to hear that case upon the part of such holder. He thought, however, it was better not to make it imperative by law to publish every part of the evidence; for he could conceive cases bearing upon the public interest in respect of the forgery of Exchequer-bills, which it was not at all necessary to produce, and which it might be desirable that the commissioners should have the discretionary power to produce or not as they thought proper; but, as a general rule, he thought that the evidence, where it was at all material, whether it bore hard on any individual or not, should

1235
be produced. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), that, it was of the utmost importance to proceed with the inquiry without delay; and, upon that principle, he would ask, with reference to the amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether, considering the length to which some speeches of counsel might extend, if they gave an absolute right to every party to be heard by his counsel or attorney, it might not have the effect of protracting instead of expediting the inquiry. Two of the commissioners were men of great legal attainments, and he trusted that the House would leave it to them to determine as to the best mode to be adopted in this respect, for great inconvenience might arise by giving every person of supposed interest in these matters an indiscriminate right to be heard by his counsel or attorney. The real points at issue were exceedingly narrow. They had on both sides agreed that the inquiry should be full and complete, and that all the evidence in the case of individuals, or in the matter generally, should be laid before the House before they were called upon to decide what course should be taken upon this subject.
Lord J. Russellquite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that the points upon which any difference of opinion existed between the Government and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Worcester were exceedingly few. With respect to the bills being placed in a schedule, the learned Solicitor-general had admitted that there should be a schedule of that description, but that power should be given to the Treasury to refer any other bills to the commissioners. Upon that point they agreed. With regard to the next point, as to the publication of the evidence, the learned Solicitor-general said it was the intention of the Government that the evidence generally should be published. That, he thought would be satisfactory, if it were left to the Crown— that was, to the Treasury, rather than to the commissioners, to decide as to what part of the evidence should be withheld. It should be the duty of the commissioners to report the whole of the evidence to the Treasury, and it should rest with the Treasury, and not with the commissioners, to judge whether, upon the ground of public expediency or public feeling, any and what part of it should be withheld.
1236
He therefore thought that the declaration of the right hon. Baronet upon the subject, with that understanding, was satisfactory. The only remaining point was as to counsel being heard, if any of the parties required it. They gave a power to the commissioners to report from time to time, and therefore with respect to cases in which no lengthened inquiry was necessary, the reports as to them need not be deferred on account of other cases; but as to other cases, in which the inquiries were more lengthened, he did not think the answer of the right hon. Baronet would be quite satisfactory to those parties. His hon. and learned friend the Member for Worcester said, very truly, that the established mode of ascertaining the truth and justice of any case was by hearing counsel and attorneys at the bar, and that might be necessary now. As to the reason for suppressing the use of counsel on account of the proceedings being thereby protracted to an inconvenient length, they would remember that last year, when they were discussing the propriety of what was to be done as to the delays in the courts of Chancery, not a word was said that it was owing to the length of the speeches of counsel that those proceedings were so delayed, and that therefore those speeches must be abridged, but that further means must be given for hearing those counsel. In the same way, in other courts of law, a party was never deprived of the use of counsel, but further means were given for their being heard. They should adopt, then, in this instance, a remedy of the same kind, and, if necessary, have other commissioners. It was possible, as the learned Solicitor-general said, that there might be some persons who had only a supposed interest in this inquiry, and that it might lead to a protraction of that inquiry for them to be heard by counsel, but that was such a mere possibility that not much weight could be attached to it as an objection, and therefore, rejoicing that they agreed on two of the points proposed by his hon. and learned Friend, he must say that he thought his hon. and learned Friend was right in asking for the other point.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, it was extremely satisfactory to find that the difference between the Government and his hon. and learned Friend, the late Solicitor-General was reduced to a single point. It would, no doubt, be more

1237
satisfactory that all the evidence should be reported to her Majesty, and then that so much of it as it might be considered inconvenient or impolitic to publish should be withheld. He also thought it extremely desirable to come to an arrangement on the other points; and, notwithstanding the anticipated remark of the noble Lord, he did not agree with his hon. and learned Friend as to the necessity, propriety, or benefit of giving every party an absolute right to be heard by himself, his counsel, or attorney, and "to produce such evidence before the commissioners in relation to the matters referred to them as such person and persons might be advised, in such manner and at such time or times as the said commissioners should order, appoint, and direct." He thought it was impossible to doubt, that as far as any evidence or any comments on that evidence were calculated to throw light on the subject, the commissioners named in the bill would do that justice to the public and themselves which the case called for; and it would be better than suggesting a remedy by-and-by, to leave it entirely in their discretion. It would be better to wait and see whether it would be necessary to give the commissioners any admonition as to the restrained and narrow way in which they exercised their discretion. His hon. and learned Friend had compared these proceedings With what took place in a court of law or equity; and the noble Lord seemed to think there was an end of all argument on the subject from the moment he alluded to the supposed benefit of counsel in any suit; but he was sure, when they considered what was the course of proceeding in every court of law, and in every commission which issued similar to this, or rather not similar to this, for none similar to it had there been before, and then took the trouble to compare them with What might take place under the present inquiry, they must immediately perceive the absolute necessity of leaving this as a matter of discretion with the commissioners, instead of making it imperative upon them. As to actions at law, some question was always raised between the parties, which Was considered the issue between them, to which the evidence Was directed, and the speeches of counsel were or ought to be directed. It was the Same in courts of equity, and, with respect to commissions, such as were ap-
1238
pointed for distributing certain funds among a number of claimants, every person made his claim; each case was a suit; it was competent to hear evidence, and the question then was, whether a person was or was not entitled, and if he were, then to what amount; but he could conceive that there would be no limit to the present inquiry. Every party who went there might have a proposal to make. One might suggest one course of proceeding, another, another. Every party who was connected with one of these bills would have a right, apparently, by the proposed clause, to go before the commissioners, and raise every possible issue that could be raised, and call evidence to any extent, and address the commissioners at any length. He was sure the House would agree with him, that nothing could be more inconvenient than the existence of a legal right to prosecute inquiries of the nature proposed to any length which the parties might think proper. If the amendments now submitted to the House were agreed to, who could talk for a moment of setting any limits whatever to the proceedings of the commissioners? They would be confined by no plea, there would be no issue joined; the parties concerned, their counsel and agents, might wander into any inquiry, however remote, and might produce any evidence, however irrelevant. If ever there were an inquiry which afforded no hope of being brought to a termination, he would take upon himself to say, that the inquiry before these commissioners as proposed to be regulated, or rather set free from wholesome regulation, by his hon. and learned Friend, was of that description. If witnesses were to be produced and counsel heard at the discretion of every one who thought proper to make himself a party to the inquiry, he declared his inability to see where the proceedings of the commissioners were to terminate. For these reasons he could not help endeavouring to impress upon the House as strongly as possible his conviction, that it would be very much better to leave to the commissioners that power with which by the bill it was proposed to invest them; and let them upon their responsibility raise such questions, as they thought it right and expedient to enter upon, and to conduct their investigations in such manner as they might think most conducive to the public interest. If, in the course of the

1239
proposed proceedings justice were refused to any one, the doors of Parliament were open, and he might prefer his claim to that House with every reasonable confidence of obtaining redress. When the necessity arose it would be quite time enough for that House to take upon itself the task of dictating to the commissioners on any matter of detail. He was as favourable as any one could be to allowing all who thought they had any rights to assert to go before the commissioners and endeavour to raise those questions which they conceived they were entitled to bring forward, but he would leave it to the commissioners to decide what subjects they would inquire into, and how far, and in what directions, they would carry their investigations. He would not expose the commissioners to the chance of being compelled to carry out their inquiries into the manner in which the funds had originated, no matter how distant the period of that origin might be, or how difficult so ever might be the acquisition of anything like exact information; and in cases where the commissioners themselves saw no necessity for minute investigation, he could perceive no necessity for binding them to examine every act of carelessness or neglect imputable to certain persons during the last six or seven years. The inquiry, as proposed to be modified by his hon. and learned Friend, was one to which no limits could be set. It was a project of—he would not say of litigation, but a multifarious and unbounded inquiry, injurious to the parties themselves, unprofitable to those who sought to make it beneficial, and not creditable to the wisdom or policy of those by whom it was instituted.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he wished to know whether the commissioners under the present bill were to be remunerated for their trouble, and whether the clerks under them were to be paid, and in what sums. There were those filling places in the Exchequer superior to such clerks, and through whose negligence those frauds had been committed; such men, he thought, ought to be made to pay, not only in purse, but in person.
Sir B. Peelreplied, that there could be no question about remunerating the clerks employed under the commissioners; but as to the commissioners themselves, they certainly had not stipulated for any specific remuneration, and he thought it Would be better to postpone the considera-
1240
tion of that subject till they saw the duration, extent, and nature of the duties which those commissioners had to per- form; at the same time he need hardly remind his hon. Friend that it would be too much to expect professional men, whose time and talents formed their capital—it would be too much to expect such men to give up to the public a great quantity of that which was so valuable to them without receiving any return. They were men of high character and attainments; nothing, therefore, could be more obvious than that they ought to be remunerated. As to the principle of fine and imprisonment put forward by the last speaker, he really must protest against that.
Clause as amended was agreed to.
On clause 6,
The Solicitor General,who spoke in a low tone of voice, was understood to suggest that the commissioners should from time to time report the evidence brought before them to the Treasury.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the bill would stand much better otherwise. There was a general opinion out of doors that the Government was in fault; of course he did not mean the present Government, but the last, and there could be no doubt of the great advantage of setting the world right upon that point, supposing them to be in error. The commissioners, it was said, were in the highest degree worthy of the confidence of the country. If that were so—and he did not say it was otherwise—it would be better to trust to the commissioners than to the Treasury. He hoped, therefore,, that the noble Lord would see the propriety of leaving the whole matter in the hands of the commissioners, and allowing them to act upon their responsibility. The public, he had no doubt, were prepared to pay the bonâ fide holders of the Exchequer-bills, but they desired to have a most searching inquiry.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that before the suggestion alluded to had been made, he distinctly understood that there was no wish on the part of her Majesty's Government to screen any one; the only reason suggested for withholding any part of the evidence was, that the disclosure of it might prove injurious to the holders of other Exchequer-bills. As there was no question respecting any attempt to screen the conduct of any one, he did think that

1241
the Treasury, possessing the advice and assistance of experienced public officers, had much better receive the reports of the commissioners; and thus the Treasury could be held responsible for the whole of the proceedings, as it was on them that the onus ought to rest. If the Treasury suppressed anything material they might be called on in Parliament, for to Parliament they were responsible. He was favourable to leaving the whole matter to the discretion and responsibility of the Government, and he should therefore support the suggestion of the Solicitor-general.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the general rule would be to publish the evidence; to withhold any of it would be the exception, and the Treasury would certainly not withhold any part of the evidence in order to avoid compromising any individual; but there were cases in which it might be just as well to abstain from publishing the evidence—for example, evidence relating to the modes in which Exchequer-bills might be forged. In general, he held that the evidence ought to be produced.
Sir>T. Wildeobserved, that if the commissioners reported only when they thought proper, and what they thought proper, the House of Commons would not get any information; but, on the other hand, if the reports were made to the Treasury, the case would be materially altered, and for this, amongst other reasons, that the commissioners could not be as good judges as the Treasury of what ought to form the rule and what the exception as regarded the publication of evidence; and no doubt Government would feel bound to see that substantial justice was done; he therefore thought that the mode proposed of reporting to the Treasury ought to be adopted.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses to 14 having been agreed to,
Sir T. Wilderose for the purpose of moving the amendments of which he had given notice. He said that he had confidence in the commissioners; that he had also confidence in the judges; but he would leave neither the judges nor the commissioners without the aid of counsel. He would not agree to frame the bill in such a way as to deprive them of the advantages which the presence of counsel supplied. The bill must be framed so as to secure justice for the public, and if there were to be no counsel the public
1242
would be without their remedy. It was true that witnesses might be called, but it required something more than ordinary intelligence and common sense to illicit truth from witnesses. To grant the parties concerned an opportunity of producing their witnesses, and at the same time to deny them the aid of counsel, was to give the public the semblance of justice and to refuse them the reality. Should it be said in that House that time was wasted in the hearing of counsel? If it were not wasted, on what ground could the aid of counsel be refused to the parties interested in those Exchequer-bills; and let the House remember that a cause was often decided by the manner in which evidence was placed before the persons who were to pronounce judgment, and not only was it important that evidence should be presented in a favourable manner, but in order to illicit truth it was necessary that questions should be put in the forms best calculated to accomplish that object, — forms with which none were practically acquainted except persons of considerable experience in courts of justice; even the relevancy of questions often became matter of long and earnest discussion. He need hardly remind the House that many of the bill-holders at this moment were on the brink of ruin—their fate would be decided by the commissioners; but then the House proposed to refuse them the ordinary assistance which any man might have on an affair of 4Cs. They were now to suppose that all holders of Exchequer-bills were bonâ fide holders; they said they had embarked their fortune upon the faith of the public credit, and they earnestly desired to have the opportunity afforded them of laying their case before the commissioners to be appointed under the bill. His learned Friend the Solicitor-General, in fact, sought to deny those parties substantial justice. The bills were all to the amount of 1,000l.; the holders of them were all well known. He had not the slightest doubt but the Government had the name of every one down in some list, yet his learned Friend was to suppose, and wished the House to suppose, that some unknown persons were to get possession of the bills, in order to embarrass the commissioners and the Government. But how were these unknown persons to get possession of the bills? Certainly the Government would not afford any facilities to any one for such a purpose,

1243
nor was it likely that the holders of the bills would do so. It was wholly a suppositious case on the part of his learned Friend, and rested upon no sound foundation; yet the House of Commons were asked, upon that suppositious case, to deny to the parties, holders of these bills, that which was only substantial justice. There were two issues to be tried; first, whether the holders of the bills were bonâ fide holders for a valuable consideration, and whether they came into their possession in the regular course of their dealings; and secondly, whether the bills had been issued fraudulently for want of an effective control in the office from which they were sent forth to the public. His learned Friend had said, that if counsel were allowed, they would wander into evidence— wander' was his word —wander into evidence as to the latter issue. Now, in his mind, nothing could be more important than that all the parties, who were already well known, should be allowed to produce Such evidence as they might be advised to do, and that that evidence should be laid before the commissioners in a proper manner, which could only be done by men well acquainted with the manner of fully eliciting the truth. "But what was the answer to this?" said his learned Friend, "the commissioners would do justice." No doubt they would; but what did they know of the case? They might as well gay, ' Trust the judges, they will examine the witnesses, and elicit all the facts." Now, that was well illustrated the other day, when a learned Judge refused to examine from the depositions which were before him; and most properly so, for the moment a judge began to ask questions, except those dictated by the previous evidence, he, in some measure, became a party to the case. His learned Friend said, the parties interested were not to be allowed to call what evidence they pleased to prove their case, because the commissioners would use their discretion in the matter. But what did the commissioners know of the case? He knew it was a very common saying, that where counsel were engaged, they made long speeches to the waste of much time; indeed, he knew that long speeches were very dull and dry, except to those interested in the cause, and he had known many gentlemen, who were celebrated for long speeches while at the bar, when
1244
elevated to the bench, the very first to complain of the waste of time by counsel; he had known many instances of that kind; but what was the length of a speech when put in competition with fair and impartial justice? Was the House prepared to deny these bill-holders the ordinary privileges of law, the privilege of laying their case before the commissioners according to the advice they might receive, upon the supposition that other parties might come in and delay the proceedings? He trusted not, but that the House would grant them their substantial right—the right of being heard by their counsel and witnesses. With respect to the delay which it had been said would necessarily follow the employment of counsel, he would only say, that in very many cases within his own knowledge the employment of counsel had led to the saving of much valuable time. But many of the cases he knew must be disposed of in a few minutes. He alluded to the cases where bills were held by bankers who had taken them in the regular course of their business. He knew also the case of a gentleman of the utmost respectability—a gentleman whose transactions amounted to 16,000,000 l. or 18,000,000 l. a-year. He was the holder of bills to the amount of 50,000 l., and his case could not last long. There might be many other eases equally fair; but the question was, whether they would deny those parties those means which the, law and the constitution gave them —- the means of laying their case before the commissioners in their own way, and the means of eliciting the whole truth. Every one, acquainted with the courts of law was aware, that the impression made upon the minds of the judge and jurors was frequently very different after the address of the counsel upon the evidence to what it was before: the counsel gave his whole attention to the case, and he brought forth remarks upon the evidence which often wholly changed its character and prevented injustice. He did not for a moment entertain a doubt of any one of the gentle men who were to be commissioners, but they would by their office be in the nature of judges, and, like the judges, let them hear counsel for the parties who came before them, before they came to any decision upon the evidence. He thought no answer had been given to the case he had made out, and therefore he would persist in his clause.

1245
It was said, the parties were not there in the exercise of a legal right; granted, that was their misfortune; but they were now demanding common justice, which he trusted they would obtain. He trusted the committee would not be led away from the main question, which was, had the parties received those bills fairly and properly, and had there been any negligence in the department whence they were issued? and for the purpose of proving those issues, counsel ought to be allowed. He, therefore, moved, that the clause, which he had already read to the House, in his former speech, relative to employing counsel, be brought up.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the address of his learned Friend the Member for Worcester had not removed his objection to the clause he proposed to add to the bill. The question he put to the committee was, were they to take the conduct of the commission out of the hands of the commissioners, for the purpose of vesting it in those of any party who might choose to appear, and claim to be interested in any of the bills? Surely his learned Friend did not for a moment suppose, that if any one of the parties made application to the commissioners to have a particular witness or witnesses examined, they would not at once summon the party wanted. The clause was to give parties leave to attend with such evidence as they might be advised; but how were they to get their witnesses there? They had no power to force them to appear, except through the commissioners. If the clause were agreed to, it would take the whole control of the proceedings out of the hands of those conducting the commission, which, in his opinion, would be most improper. The inquiry ought to be conducted like every other parliamentary commission, leaving it to the discretion of the commissioners to examine what witnesses they thought necessary, and to conduct the investigation in the manner they thought the best to elioit truth. The commissioners had not the power to decide anything at all—they were to take and report evidence to her Majesty, and there their functions ended. He thought the clause wholly unnecessary, and would therefore oppose it.
Clause brought up and read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time,
Sir R. Inglissaid, the hon. and learned Member for Worcester sought by his
1246
clause to give the claimants a power and privilege not sought for by the Crown. He could not consent to give one party a power which the other had not, and therefore he could not concur in the proposed clause.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the Government had the power of appearing by the law advisers of the Crown. It would be wrong were parties to appear by their counsel, did not some person appear on behalf of the public; but he did not understand his learned Friend near him to propose such an absurdity as that one party should have counsel and the other not.
Mr. Wakley: The decision of the House would hereafter have to be taken upon the evidence reported by the commissioners—of course that decision must necessarily depend very much upon the manner in which that evidence was taken. In his opinion it would amount to a denial of justice to the parties if they were precluded from giving that evidence in the best manner they could. The House would not do its duty if they did not introduce the clause, which had his entire support.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, to his mind the question before the House was one entirely of a judicial nature; and why, he would ask, should the House deviate from the ordinary rules which governed similar cases? He trusted that no petty considerations of convenience would induce the House to depart from those ordinary and wise rules. If they did they would commit an act of gross injustice.
Sir R. Peel: The question was not whether counsel was to be allowed to make speeches and examine witnesses; it was whether the House would confide to the commissioners the power to elicit truth in the manner they thought best. The commissioners were not partial men, nor were they unknown. Two of them were professional gentlemen of great reputation—one of them had been a Master in Chancery, and surely he was somewhat acquainted with the manner of receiving evidence; the other was Mr. Sergeant Stephen, who, in addition to a long practice at the bar, had formed one of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the laws relating to real property, and surely he also would be enabled to judge of what was the best manner of proceeding in the elucidation of truth. He thought that if the hon. and learned Gen-

1247
tleman succeeded in carrying his clause, that in every case the claimants should have the privilege of employing counsel, then the discretionary power invested in the commissioners would be removed. He thought that it would be better, in any case, to allow the commissioners to decide whether counsel should be employed either by the holders of Exchequer-bills or by the Treasury. Certainly it would be better to pursue this course, than to fetter the Crown by such an obligatory clause as that now proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Why not trust this matter to the discretion of the Crown and the commissioners? It should be remembered, that the commissioners did not sit as judicial authorities—their object was to investigate, not to pronounce judgment.
Sir T. Wilde,in reply, asked, whether confidence in the ability, learning, and judgment of the commissioners selected by the Government was a fair argument to urge in defence of the course pursued by those who opposed his motion? He did not think that it would be just to the parties having claims upon the Government, if the commissioners were invested with the powers of deciding what was or what was not evidence. What was the case with those who acted as judges in our courts of law? A judge could not refuse to hear legal evidence; and why should the commissioners have the power of refusing? Who were to select the witnesses?—were the commissioners? He thought that the inquiry would be imperfect and unsatisfactory, unless the Treasury was allowed to appear by counsel. Each person having claims should have the power of appearing by counsel and stating his case. The question was not whether commissioners were trustworthy. It was not a question of confidence or no confidence on the part of the gentlemen selected to act as commissioners. Let the Treasury state their case, and let the bill-holders state theirs. Would the House give to the commissioners the power of selecting the cases which should be heard before them? Was it just or proper that the holders of Exchequer-bills should be deprived of the power of examining witnesses? If a committee of this House had been appointed to investigate the matter, would the claimants have been refused to employ counsel? Certainly not. They would have had the power to appear
1248
by legal advisers. It had been urged that the commissioners were not to sit as judges, they were, to pronounce no opinion on the matter. This he considered like a very inconclusive argument. He thought that if the inquiry was conducted in the manner now proposed by Government, it would prove to be illusory, and a mockery of justice.
Mr. G. H. Vernonwas anxious to do justice to the parties concerned, and he was still more anxious to do justice to the public. He would not willingly be a party to bring the question before the House with a prejudice against either the holders or the public, and from the strong opinion which had been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite that justice could not be done unless counsel attended on behalf of the bill-holders, he felt convinced that if the proposition were not acceded to, the question would come before the House with a prejudice in the public that full justice had not been done towards the holders. The hon. Gentlemen opposite had said that full justice could not be done unless counsel attended to protect the interest of the bill-holders. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Government would give way, and permit the clause to be added to the bill. Although, if he were a holder of Exchequer-bills he should be perfectly satisfied to leave the whole question to the discretion of the commissioners, yet, considering the learned Member for Worcester as the representative of the bill-holders, and having heard what had fallen from that hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought it would be the least inconvenient course to accede to his proposition. The only inconvenience that could arise from doing so would be delay, and for that the holders would be answer able, and by it they alone would be the sufferers. For his own part he thought there would be ample security in trusting to the discretion of the commissioners and therefore he should vote with the right hon. Baronet if the question came to a division, but he had thought it right to say what he had said to guard against a prejudice which he foresaw was likely to arise.
Mr. Kemblewished to be informed by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, whether the inquiry was to be conducted in an open court, to which the public would be admitted?
Sir R. Peel:That would be left en-

1249
tirely to the discretion of the commissioners.
Mr. Kemblestated, that he felt much interested in this question, as he had undertaken originally to present to the House a petition of the claimants. He would not press for the parties concerned to have counsel employed. It was his opinion, if the law-officers of the Crown were placed in the court in hostility to the holders of Exchequer-bills, that their cause would be considerably damaged. He also thought that the inquiry should be an open one. It was his intention to vote against the motion of the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. F. T. Baringperfectly concurred in the arguments urged by his hon. and learned Friend in support of his proposition. He thought parties had a right to expect a full and fair investigation into their respective claims. The public also ought to have the power of enforcing the examination of those witnesses which were necessary to the elucidation of the truth. He thought that the interest of all parties would be better effected by having counsel employed to conduct the case of those who had claims upon the Government. In saying this, it was not his wish for a moment to cast any reflections upon the character of the gentlemen who were appointed to act as commissioners. He considered them to be gentlemen of high and deserved reputation. He did not, however, consider that the commissioners alone should be invested with the authority of asking questions and sifting evidence. He thought that no step should be taken by the commissioners before counsel was appointed to defend the interests of the Crown.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that the hon. Member opposite was mistaken in supposing that there was a clause in the bill investing the commissioners with the power of hearing counsel on the part of the Crown. It was unfair to suppose that the commissioners would hear counsel on the part of the Crown without giving the parties holding Exchequer-bills the same privilege. He thought that the bill acted fairly to all parties concerned. They were placed precisely on the same footing. The bill gave a discretionary power to the commissioners, but at the same time, the claimants and the Treasury had equal advantages extended to them.
Mr. Hardysaid, he conceived it most desirable that every holder of Exchequer-
1250
bills should have the power of appearing before the commissioners by counsel. If a person thought it necessary to call in the assistance of counsel or an attorney for the support of his claim, and his application to the commissioners for their sanction were refused, the commissioners would be placed in a very invidious position. In such a case, a claimant might very justly complain that his case had not been properly investigated, in consequence of his not being allowed to have the assistance of counsel. It must be remembered that the commissioners would be the agents of the Government, that they would have to report not only the evidence, but their opinion upon the cases brought before them; and he thought, therefore, that the Government ought, to use a phrase common in courts of justice, to come before the House with clean hands.
Mr. Hawessaid, if the commissioners were to decide in what cases they would or would not hear counsel, the result would be, that parties to whom the assistance of counsel was refused would complain that their cases had not been properly investigated, and the House would be called upon to go through such cases again. His opinion was, that this investigation should be conducted according to the ordinary forms of judicial inquiries; that a party should appear to make out a case, that another party should appear to oppose, and that a tribunal should be constituted for the decision of the question.
Mr. M. Attwoodconceived that it would be only justice for the Government to pay the amount of those bills which were held honourably, and under circumstances that precluded suspicion. It would, however, be the duty of Parliament to inquire into all the circumstances. Now he (Mr. Attwood) was personally acquainted with many of the holders of these bills, and he could therefore affirm that the holders were men of such character that they courted the fullest investigation; and if they thought the investigation would be more advantageously proceeded with by the assistance of counsel and attorneys, he thought it hard upon them to be refused the course which they conceived would ensure a proper representation of their claims.
The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time. Ayes 64; Noes 77: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Attwood, M.

Morris, D.

Barclay, D.

Morrison, Gen.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Morrison, J.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Brien, J.

Bernal, R.

O'Brien, W. S.

Blewitt, R. J.

Palmer, G.

Bodkin, J. J.

Parker, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Powell, C.

Broadley, H.

Protheroe, E.

Brodie, W. B.

Rawdon, Col.

Browne, hon. W.

Rennie, G.

Buller, E.

Ricardo, J. L.

Busfeild, W.

Richards, R.

Butler, hon. Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Cayley, E. S.

Scholefield, J.

Christmas, W.

Smith, B.

Crawford, W. S.

Somers, J. P.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Easthope, Sir J.

Stewart, P. M.

Ebrington, Visct.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Evans, W.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Tuffnell, H.

Gibson, T. M.

Villiers. hon. C.

Gill, T.

Wakley, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Wason, R.

Hardy, J.

White, L.

Harris, J. Q.

White, S.

Hawes, B.

Wood, B.

Howard, hn. C. W.G.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

TELLERS.

Martin, J".

Wilde, Sir T.

Masterman, J.

Buller C.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Fuller, A. E.

Ackers, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Adare, Visct.

Gordon, hn. Capt.

Adderley, C. B.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Allix, J. P.

Greenall, P.

Antrobus, E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bailey, J. jun.

Harcourt, G. G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Hardinge, rt.hn.SirH.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Beresford, Major

Hodgson, F.

Boldero, H. G.

Hodgson, R.

Bradshaw, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Bruce, Lord E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buck, L. W.

Irving, J.

Buckley, E.

Jermyn, Earl

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Johnson, W. G.

Campbell, A.

Jones, Capt.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Kemble, H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn Sir

Cockburn,rt.hn.SirG.

E.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Law, hon. C. E

Darby, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

D'Israeli, B.

Lopes, Sir R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

MacGeachy, F. A.

Eliot, Lord

Marsham, Visct.

Emlyn, Visct.

Morgan, O.

Escott, B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R,

Follett, Sir W. W.

Peel, J.

1252

Pigot, Sir R.

Trotter, J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pringle, A.

Verner, Col.

Reade, W. M.

Vernon, G. H.

Round, J.

Wood, Col.

Russell, C.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Scarlett, hon. R. C,

Wyndham, Col. C.

Somerset Lord G.

Young, J.

Stanley, Lord

Sutton, hon. H. M.

TELLERS.

Tennent, J. E.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Baring, H.

House resumed. The report to be received.

INCOME-TAX.—WAYS AND MEANS.
Sir R. Peelmoved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means, to consider the Income-tax resolutions.
On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Mr. Blewittsaid, that the right hon. Baronet opposite had introduced a tax which had been received with universal execration by the people of this country. In connection with that tax, the right hon. Baronet had proposed certain amendments in the tariff, and the general feeling throughout the country, a feeling in which he participated was, that it was not in the power of the right hon. Baronet to carry the amendments he had proposed. In that opinion he said that he shared, because he remembered a noble Duke in another 'place declared, that if the right hon. Baronet brought forward any pro-. position in which that noble Duke did not coincide, that he and his party would turn the right hon. Baronet out of the position which he now held. He saw a corroboration of this in a newspaper of yesterday, which contained an account of a meeting held in Lincolnshire, at which a gentleman stated that he had been told by a noble Duke, that if he were to oppose the tariff, the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would be obliged to modify it. Believing, then, that the tariff would most likely be carried in the shape proposed, he thought they ought first to consider the tariff before they proceeded with the question of the Income-tax. Taking into account the probable expense of the war with China, the right hon. Baronet had calculated the deficiency in the revenue at about 3,000,000 l. but now he called on them to raise, by means of an Income-tax, 3,770,000 l. He would not be doing his duty to his con-

1253
stituents if he consented to the right hon. Baronet raising 770,000 l. more than he had shown any absolute necessity for; and until the right hon. Baronet could show that there were no other means of making up the deficiency, he for one would never consent to the imposition of an Income-tax. Having no wish to take up the time of the House; and having stated shortly his objections to going on with the Income-tax, he would conclude by proposing a motion to the House. The hon. Member concluded by proposing as an amendment to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the question, in order to add the words
" Part of the produce of the Income-tax which has been proposed by her Majesty's Government is intended to form a fund to provide for a large amount of existing taxes to which this House has not yet consented, and which it may refuse to reduce or repeal; that the adoption of the said Income-tax, under such circumstances, would impose upon the people, already suffering under very severe privations, a greater burden than the necessities of the public service for the current year will require; that this House, therefore, will not again resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means on the Income-tax, until after the House shall have determined what amount of the existing taxes it will consent to reduce or repeal."
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid that he wished to make a very few observations on the question During the recess, he had taken the opportunity of communicating with his constituents on this subject, and he had made up his mind to support the proposition of Government so far as it went to lay a tax on real property, because he was of opinion that such a tax would fall on the rich, and exempt the poor. He also felt inclined to support the proposal for taxing non-residents and funded property. In agreeing in the opinions of his constituency on these points, he also concurred with them in thinking that there were disadvantages arising from the tax which counterbalanced the advantages of the measure. He was of opinion that the tax on incomes derived from trades and professions would be of a most oppressive and unjust nature, more especially any tax on commercial property would, at the present time of distress, be peculiarly oppressive, and ought not to be submitted to. In 1833, when Mr. Robinson proposed an Income-tax, he also proposed to take off taxes on consumption to the amount of 3,000,000 l, His great objection to the
1254
tax now proposed was, in consequence of its being proposed for the purpose of sustaining monopolies, while an abatement of the duty on foreign corn and sugar would have gone far to replenish the revenue, and to render the tax itself unnecessary. He also objected to the tax on the ground that it was proposed for the purpose of carrying on wars which, in his opinion, were sinful and unjust; that with the Chinese was to support a contraband trade, and to enable this country to introduce a poisonous herb into China; and in India they were endeavouring to place a tyrant over an unwilling people. The state of the revenue of the East-India Company had been put forward as a ground for the tax; but if the East-India Company had been wasteful and extravagant, he saw no reason why the House and the country ought to be called on to make up any deficiency on that account. The hon. Member then read two resolutions passed at meetings held at Rochdale, condemnatory of the tax, to the effect that—any deficiency in the revenue ought to be met, not by an Income-tax, but by a corresponding reduction in the expenditure. He did not wish to oppose the right hon. Baronet as a party man, but he felt bound to give his measure that opposition which he thought the interests of the country required. He felt surprised at the right hon. Baronet not taking into account the revenue which would arise from the increased importation of foreign cattle—he had made no estimate of revenue from this source. In opposing the Income-tax, he was greatly influenced by his having no idea how long it would be continued. The right hon. Baronet had proposed three years in the first instance, but he had not informed the House by what means he expected to be able to dispense with the tax at the end of that period. He would not trouble the House further. He felt it his duty to his constituents to state what he had done as explanatory of the vote which he intended to give.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that as this motion seemed to be treated with silence by Ministers, he wished to state very shortly how he intended to vote if the motion should be pressed to a division. He had heard, in answer to a question put to the right hon. Baronet in regard to the tariff—which, by the way, he always supposed to be part and parcel of the Income-tax measure—that the right hon

1255
Baronet was not now prepared to stand by the tariff as originally laid on the Table of the House, but that considerable modifications were to be made in that tariff. Now, what was the question involved in the motion of the hon. Member for Monmouth? Simply, that the House ought to be acquainted with the extent of the duties proposed to be reduced before it laid any additional burdens upon the people. They heard, that it was very prevalently stated throughout the country— and the farmers not quite one hundred miles from London had been told—that the tariff would be postponed, or at all events considerably modified. They were told to swallow the pill of the Income-tax, or else the right hon. Baronet would be turned out of office, and the tariff would be postponed. He did not care whether the tariff were postponed or not; but he did hope that it would not be modified or altered in any way to such a degree as not to be worthy the acceptance either of the people or the House. He felt sure, that the right hon. Baronet would feel greatly indebted to him, for giving him an opportunity of explaining whether it had ever crossed his mind to postpone the tariff. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman had any such intention; but it was right that individuals out of doors should not be misled by persons within— that persons should not be allowed, for the sake of bolstering up a vote, to say to the farmers, "Oh, do not take alarm at the tariff; it may be postponed." The motion, in his opinion, directed itself to that point; it asked the House, before agreeing to the Income-tax, to take care and clearly to understand that the duties in the tariff were to be repealed to the extent proposed. He had always understood that the tariff and the Income-tax were to go pari passu, and that, if any accident should happen to the Tariff Bill, here or elsewhere, that the right hon. Baronet was too honourable to seek in that case to press the Income-tax. The motion ought not to have been met by the silence and by the contempt of Ministers. They had treated it as one totally undeserving their attention, while, if the right hon. Baronet had taken the trouble to read the resolution, he would have found that it contained a good deal of reason, justice, and common sense.
Sir Robert Peel:The hon. Gentleman had asked him whether it had ever crossed
1256
his mind to postpone the consideration of the tariff after he should have obtained the sense of the House in favour of an Income-tax. Without hesitation, he would answer that question by saying, that it never had crossed his mind to do any such thing. Some little delay had been found necessary before bringing on the discussion of the tariff, but he was sure the House would, when the matter was explained, readily acquiesce in the propriety of that delay. Many important interests would be seriously affected by the alterations proposed, and it was considered but just to give the parties an opportunity to have the subject duly weighed before the measure was introduced, in order that the tariff might undergo such changes as circumstances seemed to demand. He had great hope, that on Monday next he should be able to introduce the tariff so amended; and he thought he could state with confidence, that it would be considered by an immense majority of the House that, in the amended tariff, they had, in all its essentials, adhered to the principles of the original tariff. The delay between this and Monday arose solely from a wish on the part of the Government to hear the statements of those affected; still he was justified in saying none of the alterations would be considered as a departure from the general principle of the measure. He trusted that because of these few day's delay, the House would not refuse its consent to this preliminary resolution on which to found his measure for an Income-tax. It was very important that he should have leave to bring in the bill, in which the details and machinery of the measure would be distinctly set forth. The amended tariff must be in possession of the House before they would be called on to vote for the second reading of this bill. If then the House should consider that there was any departure from the general principles of the tariff after passing this resolution, it would be perfectly open to the House to withhold its assent to the second reading of this measure and reject it altogether. With respect to the delay of a few days, he had already stated that such a notion had never entered into his head as that imputed to him by the hon. Gentleman's observations opposite.. It was quite clear that by the general reduction of the duties he had proposed, an important question arose as to the necessity of an

1257
Income-tax. The proposed reduction in the duties would involve a sum of 1,000,000 l., or 1,200,000 l.; under which circumstances a little delay might not be considered unadvisable. He thought that hon. Gentlemen could not accuse him of entertaining any such notion as when endeavouring to get the House to pass this Income-tax, at the same time to be voluntarily engaged as a party to the postponement of the tariff. He had acted throughout with the most perfect good faith, and he did not think by the short postponement of the tariff that they had any reason whatever for refusing their consent to this preliminary resolution, which was necessary to have passed, to form a foundation for the introduction of the bill. The House should bear in mind that it would have the fullest opportunity of recording their dissent against the principle of this bill in its future stages. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth had said that the proposition of an Income-tax had met with universal execration. Now, his (Sir R. Peel's) impression was totally and entirely different. He, on the contrary, considered that the proposition had been received with general and universal approbation throughout the kingdom, fie would not, however, quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on this subject; but he begged to assure the House that, from the numerous communications which had been made to him, he thought there was a very strong and general impression among the commercial, manufacturing, and trading communities, since the commercial tariff and commercial policy of the country was made known, that they hoped to derive the greatest advantages from the passing of the measure, which would conduce, in a great degree to the interests and prosperity of the country. After having delayed proceeding with the measure until after the holidays in order that that tremendous burst of indignation which had been anticipated by hon. Gentlemen opposite might be allowed to have effect, every opportunity had been given for this tremendous demonstration. And if hon. Gentlemen opposite were satisfied at this loud explosion of public indignation on the subject, he could assure them he was equally well satisfied. They could then approach the consideration of the question with mutual satisfaction, as each party bad gained their end.
Mr. Ellicewas glad to have the present
1258
opportunity of offering a few remarks upon the subject before the House, and of saying that he so far agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that, finding a great deficiency of revenue, and an increasing expenditure, he had no other course to take than that of appealing to the property of the country to make good the deficiency, and at the same time to give as much relief as possible to the suffering commercial interests of the country. He said that he thus agreed with the right hon. Baronet, not because he should have been at a loss to have found some other theoretical mode of proceeding that might have been better in itself, but because in his (Sir R. Peel's) situation, he did not see what other practical course the right hon. Baronet could have adopted. Although he had stated this, yet he could not concur with the right hon. Baronet in his Income-tax. What the right hon. Baronet should have attempted, if there were any overwhelming public exigency (but he did not at present see any very severe pressure)—what he should have attempted to do, according to his view of the case, would have been to have found some less objectionable principle under which he could have brought a tax upon property to the assistance of the revenue, without having recourse to the old Income-tax, with all its inequality and unfair pressure upon the community. Agreeing as he did with the right hon. Baronet that there must be some means taken for maintaining the credit of the country, and making the revenue more adequate to the expenditure of the State, one of three modes must be adopted. They must either have recourse to further taxation upon articles of consumption, or they must endeavour to divert a part of those taxes which were now paid to support monopolists into the public Exchequer; or they must do that which the right hon. Baronet wished to do under the guise of an Income-tax, appeal to the property of the country to support the credit of the country under its present exigencies. But when he gave his general assent to the principle of the right hon. Baronet, he felt bound to say that there seemed to him to be some great errors in his budget. He thought there were some things in the budget which would have the effect of increasing the deficiency of the revenue, and which appeared to him to be perfectly uncalled for. He could not understand

1259
why they were to abandon the tax upon timber. [" The Whigs proposed it. "] He knew they had proposed an alteration, and he should have preferred the budget of last year to the one now proposed by the right hon. Baronet, if it had been practicable to carry it. Nobody recollected better than he did he difficulties his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) had to encounter when he was called upon to take the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. His right hon. Friend did all that he could do. He appealed to the House to increase taxes upon articles of consumption. The House assented, as it ever would do in cases of emergency. But that failed him. The additional tax produced but a very small sum towards the amount his right hon. Friend calculated upon. Last year his right hon. Friend was very much in the same situation as the right hon. Baronet was now. His right hon. Friend was obliged to come forward to supply a deficiency in the Exchequer. His proposition was to endeavour to obtain a part of the sum abstracted from the pockets of the public by monopoly taxes, but which did not find its way into the Exchequer. He hoped to have obtained from that source a sum sufficient to meet the public wants; and he thought it was unfortunate that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and his party opposed that proposition. Still he would not disguise from himself that probably the sums expected to be derived from those sources were somewhat exaggerated, In principle, they were the best that could have been proposed, under the circumstances of the country. He, as an older practical observer of the workings of measures of finance, might probably not have entertained the same opinion as his right hon. Friend as to the productiveness of his measures; still, whether so or not, the alterations proposed were right, and were very creditable both to him and to the Government who supported him. It was beginning a new era in endeavouring to remove the shackles and impediments that interfered with the trade of, the country; and so far as the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had imitated his right hon. Friend (Mr. Baring), he, on behalf of his constituents, and on the part of the commercial community, gave the right hon. Baronet his sincere thanks. But what had induced him principally to allude to this subject, was the proposition of his right hon. Friend last year in
1260
respect to the timber duties, which was to reduce the duty on foreign timber. Now his opinion last year was that the way they ought to proceed with regard to timber was to levy an additional duty on American timber at once, by way of revenue, and then, when they had more nearly equalized the duties between foreign and American timber, if the state of the finances admitted it, they might at a future day reduce the duty on both together. But the plan of the right hon. Baronet, as well as that proposed last year, was to give up the present duty. Why, he could not possibly understand. There was only one interest—the shipping interest—that could have any possible claim to such a favour. He admitted that the shipowners were entitled to every indulgence, and if they had complained, it might have been reasonable to have given them relief. But who else was there that suffered so much more from a tax upon timber than upon any other commodity? If the right hon. Baronet had proposed an additional duty of 20 s. upon Canadian timber, with a view to equalize the duties on colonial and foreign timber, and then, when the state of the country admitted it, have proposed to reduce the tax on both, he could have understood it; but he could not see why, instead of imposing a certain additional sum on Canadian timber, and maintaining the present duty on foreign timber, a reduction should be made of the latter duty that would subject the revenue to a loss of above 1,000,000 l. An additional duty on Canadian timber would have been raised; the trade would have borne it. He had himself fully examined this subject upwards of twenty years ago. If, indeed, compensation to the Canadians was considered necessary, there was a mode at hand. Why not take off the paltry duty of 2s. or 3s. a quarter upon Canadian wheat? He could not understand why that tax was maintained. The taking off that duty would have been a full and adequate compensation to the Canadians for any loss they might have sustained by an additional duty on timber. He could not, therefore, help thinking that the proposed reduction of duty on foreign timber was altogether a sacrifice of revenue. Then with respect to a property tax. He was not one of those who thought that there was something so sacred about property, that they could only approach a property tax in time of

1261
war. He could not conceive why property I should not at all times be taxed. It was I a source from which assistance could be most easily drawn under all circumstances, and with the least injury to the different trading interests of the country. But if it should be desirable to impose a tax upon property, why not attempt to arrive at some reasonable and equitable mode of raising that tax, especially in the peculiar times in which they now lived? He represented a great commercial city (Coventry). Let the right hon. Baronet go and witness the depression of the trade of that city, and then let the right hon. Baronet allow him to ask, whether it was fair to tax the income derived from a declining trade, or to put the persons who were engaged in that trade, and contending with the difficulties of their situation, to the obligation of either saying—" We have nothing. We lost last year; and we have nothing to return as income:" or else, for the sake of endeavouring to maintain their credit, inducing them to make a return of some reasonable average of profits? Then with respect to professions, the same hardship was produced. He thought, under the peculiar circumstances of the country, and particularly at a time when there was no great urgency in public affairs to require haste, an effort should be made to arrive at some reasonable means by which the inequalities of an Income-tax should be avoided, at the same time the revenue be maintained. This was not the only country where a property tax had been established. When Gentlemen talked of direct taxation he believed that nearly half—certainly one-third of the whole taxation of France— was derived from a direct tax upon property and, when Gentlemen talked of the impossibility of imposing a tax upon property separable from income—why, in France nobody thought of taxing profits or income, except derived from property. In the different states of Switzerland there was a property-tax. Everybody was obliged to go before a commissioner to state, beyond his landed property or other visible property, which was easily assessed by the collector, what other capital he had engaged in trade; and an average percentage was put upon that property, but there was no tax upon profits. He knew that all this led to great difficulties; he did not mean to say that they could easily adopt such a measure as this.
1262
It was one which required great care. It was much easier to walk in the footsteps of those who had gone before, and adopt a burden which they had devised, with all its inequalities and injustice, from which it was impossible an Income-tax could ever be exempt. He for one sincerely thanked the right hon. Baronet on behalf of the commercial interests of the country, for the great relief he had promised to afford by his new tariff; and he could place such confidence in the right hon. Baronet of his intention to do what he had honestly promised to do, that he could not assent to the motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Blewitt), which was, that the House should refuse to pass the right hon. Baronet's first measure for fear they should not arrive at a satisfactory result with respect to the second. He knew enough of the right hon. Gentleman to be convinced that he meant honestly to carry out the whole of the measures he had propounded; he would not, therefore, be a party to impede his course: and, above all, though most earnestly opposed to the injustice, to the inequality, and to what the right hon. Baronet would find throughout the country to be considered the odious character of an Income-tax, he would not throw any unnecessary obstacle in the way of a well regulated property-tax.
Mr. T. Duncombein explanation, disclaimed having said, that the right hon. Baronet had the intention of carrying his Income-tax, and then throwing overboard the tariff. He was sure the right hon. Baronet could not have any such intention, and he had only called upon the right hon. Baronet in consequence of what had been said out of doors, to state so explicitly to the House.
Sir R. Peel:What the hon. Gentleman asked was, whether it had ever crossed his (Sir R. Peel's) mind to do so; and to that he had given a distinct answer; and now he hoped the House would consent to treat this subject in a proper manner, and discuss it in committee. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blewitt) was at liberty to divide the House upon his motion he wished to do so.
Mr. Blewittdenied having said, it was the intention of the right hon. Baronet to abandon the tariff; what he said was that the right hon. Baronet might be forced to do it. Giving the right hon. Baronet full credit for a sincere and honest desire to

1263
redeem his pledge, he would with leave of the House withdraw his motion. He did not think it was in good taste for the right hon. Baronet to denominate the speech of an honest and independent Member of Parliament as an explosion. If the House would allow him he would make a prophecy. The gallant Commodore be low (Sir Charles Napier) had made a grand explosion at San Jean d'Acre; now he (Mr. Blewitt) would venture to prophesy that if the Income-tax should be carried, there would be such an explosion in the country that would blow the Members of this House from one side of it to the other.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had made no allusion to the hon. Member. He had remained perfectly tranquil under the hon. Member's explosion. He spoke of the explosion which was threatened to break out in the country during the holidays— an explosion created by the universal execration with which this measure would be met throughout the kingdom.
Motion withdrawn, House in Committee.
The Chairmanread the resolution formerly moved by Sir Robert Peel as follows—
" That it is the opinion of this committee that, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty, there be charged annually, during a term to be limited, the several rates and duties following, that is to say; for and in respect of the property in any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, and for and in respect of every annuity, pension, or stipend, payable by her Majesty, or out of the public revenue of the United Kingdom; and for and in respect of all interest of money, annuities, dividends, and shares of annuities payable to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, companies or societies, whether corporate or not corporate; and for and in respect of the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to any person or persons whatever, resident in Great Britain, from any kind of property whatever, whether situate in Great Britain or elsewhere, or from any annuities, allowances or stipends, or from any profession, trade, or vocation, whether the same shall be respectively exercised in Great Britain or elsewhere; and for and in respect of the annual profits or gains arising and accruing to any person or persons not resident within Great Britain, from any property whatever in Great Britain, or from any trade, profession, or vocation, exercised in Great Britain; for every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount thereof, seven-pence."
Question put, and resolution carried.
The Chairmanthen read the second branch of the resolution—
" For and in respect of the occupation of any lands, tenements or hereditaments (other than a dwelling house occupied by a tenant distinct from a farm of lands), for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof, three-pence half-penny."
Mr. M. Gibsonsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had made a statement so completely the reverse from those made by the hon. Member (Mr. Blewitt) as to the feeling of the country upon the question of the Income-tax that he was sorry they had not the opportunity of ascertaining the fact in the most legitimate way; namely, by receiving the petitions of the people. They had no opportunity to receive petitions on this question. He was glad to hear the hon. Member for Fins-bury say he should take the sense of the House upon the propriety of the rule as to not receiving petitions at certain stages of any measure. The right hon. Baronet, by way of inducing hon Members to vote for the Income-tax, had promised that it should only last three years. He could not see any reason, if the tax was necessary now, why it should be less necessary in three years' time. The right hon. Baronet had laid it down that the deficiency of the revenue was a permanent and not a casual deficiency, and that if nothing were done to prevent this disparity between the revenue and the expenditure, the deficiency would last. What had the right hon. Baronet proposed that would enable them to dispense with this tax in three years' time? It was true he had brought forward a tariff reform, by which he said he would revive the trade of the country, make the customs duties more productive, and thus increase the expenditure of the country. No doubt such a policy would in time have the effect the right hon. Baronet anticipated, but it must be by bolder and more comprehensive measures than were now proposed. Talk of the visionary theorists of the Anti Corn-law League. Why, the right hon. Baronet expected a larger result from his commercial reform than ever was expected by the most sanguine and visionary enthusiast. He could not conceive how the right hon. Baronet could suppose, that at the end of three years four millions could be derived from other sources than those now open to him, in consequence of his commercial reform. Therefore, knowing

1265
how much they had heard of the impropriety of holding forth expectations which could not be fulfilled, and of the impolicy of giving rise to hopes which would afterwards be disappointed, he concluded there must be other commercial reforms coming, but which for the present were postponed—perhaps an alteration in the duties on foreign sugar. Some treaty perhaps with Brazils, or some other ground caused its postponement. There must be some such circumstance in order to justify the right hon. Baronet in holding out the expectation that this Income-tax could be dispensed with at the end of three years. He could only say that if there were any new reforms to be made—if, for instance, there were any proposition to come forward for equalizing the duties on inheritable real property with the duties on personal property if there were any such intentions on the part of Government, he regretted that they were not brought forward now: because he thought, on a future occasion, the right hon. Baronet would not find the same subserviency as that which supported him now. The time of Parliament would be advanced, and Members would soon have to meet their constituents, and they would not be so subservient, so docile, nor so willing to be led wherever the right hon. Baronet might be disposed to lead them. But he entertained no hopes of such measures, and he feared that if the Income-tax should be now adopted it would become a permanent part of our system. And why not, if it were so just a tax as the right hon. Baronet said it was? If every one would pay according to his means to support the State, and according to the degree of benefit he derived from the State, he would ask why should the right hon. Baronet hold out the hope that he would give up so good a tax at the end of three years? If the tax were so good and so just, why, when there should be a surplus, instead of giving up this tax, should he not give up taxes on consumption, which the right hon. Baronet himself said were so injurious and unjust? Thus, the argument of the right hon. Baronet is not consistent. He says, "I will put on a good tax; but I will give it up at the end of three years, and will maintain all those which are so injurious." He had not at present given his own opinion upon the Income-tax; and before he did so, as he might be supposed to have spoken in dis-
1266
paraging terms on the tariff, he wished to say that he should not be expressing his own opinion or the opinions of his constituents if he were to say that in the tariff' there were not many improvements, and which were not considered both by himself and by them to be a more free system of commerce. He did not go so far as the Agricultural Advocate, which had stated that the Anti-Corn-law League had found in Sir Robert Peel a fit minister for their purposes, because he believed the reductions, were, in many instances, of so trifling a character, and the articles affected so insignificant, that the alterations amounted to little more than mere make believe. He considered the doing away of prohibition on the introduction of foreign cattle, although the duties were still high, to be a step in the right direction, which would lead to great improvements in our commercial system. He regretted, however, that the right hon. Baronet had not made a bolder attack upon the system of protection. The right hon. Baronet had quoted the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, a man of deservedly high authority, looked up to by the Anti-Corn-law League and their party; but he wished the right hon. Baronet had thought of one quotation when making his alterations in the tariff; he wished the right hon. Baronet had thought of the saying of Mr. Deacon Hume, "that people cannot pay private taxes and public taxes too." He wished that instead of reducing those duties which went into the Exchequer, the right hon. Baronet had made a bold attack upon those taxes paid by the consumer, but which did not go into the Exchequer, but into the pockets of private classes. The West India proprietors secured to themselves the difference between the duty of 8d. on foreign coffee and 4d. on colonial. The question he had put to himself was this: Supposing the commercial reform proposed by the right hon. Baronet would produce the effects he himself anticipated, and there was a deficiency in the revenue, ought he to consent to an Income-tax? In considering this question it was necessary for him to bear in mind that they were not about to enter upon a large, a bold, a comprehensive scheme of fair taxation. They were engaged in no such scheme. The plan of the right hon. Baronet was only to levy a contribution for a given period in a certain way upon the country. Now, he

1267
contended that this particular way did distribute the burden of contribution unjustly upon the people. The right hon. Baronet had professed that he wished to take from all parties according to their means, but he failed to realise his professions, because he exacted from persons in trade, and from persons who lived by their learning and faculties, as much as from individuals of real property. He appealed to every man, Conservative or Liberal, whether this was just, and moreover whether they would sanction injustice with their eyes open? Did not such flagrant injustice invite every species of evasion? As an excuse the necessity of the State had been urged, but what necessity was greater than that of being just? The very plea of necessity showed that the proposers of the law knew it to be unjust. The right hon. Baronet had said that all taxation must be unjust; financial science had not yet discovered the means of imposing taxes with equality. He begged to know whether the experiment of imposing taxes equally had ever been tried? The Income-tax formerly adopted had failed; it had been weighed in the balance and found wanting, on account of its inequality It had been the studied endeavour of the framers of our laws not to levy taxation equally, but to ascertain how they could favour particular classes, and shift the burden from the shoulders of one party to those of another. If half the zeal, half the energy, half the ingenuity displayed in making taxation unequal, had been evinced in making it equal, we should have now heard no complaints of injustice and oppression. The right hon. Baronet had said much of the exhaustive process; but he seemed to have avoided some obvious sources of taxation, and his politicial opponents could have given him a useful lesson upon this point, but they were right in not giving it, upon the very principle stated by the right hon. Baronet at Tam-worth, when he said he would not prescribe until he was called in. Not only was the tax unjust in itself, but it was unjust in its mode of collection; to realize the sum calculated upon, the Income-tax must be levied with the utmost strictness and severity, and the system existing of old must be revived, of employing persons to give information against those who were supposed not to have given in a fair account of their incomes. Spies and informers must be set to work, and a pecu-
1268
niary interest must be given to them in the additional amount they procured for the Exchequer. Could anything more obnoxious or more repugnant to English feelings be devised? Mr. Pitt imposed 10 per cent., and endeavoured to raise a revenue from it by a lax system, but finding it unavailing he imposed 5 per cent., and collecting that with rigour, by the aid of spies and informers, he found that it produced him as large a revenue as the 10 per cent. When the right hon. Baronet taunted the opposition side of the House that there had been no explosion, no expression of public feeling, he ought to recollect that the people of this country never began to move until they began to smart. Depend upon it, all in good time, the right hon. Baronet would find quite as loud an explosion as he could desire, but it might be the intention of the present Cabinet to impose this tax for a short time, and then to get a new lease of popularity by repealing it. This might be a good party manœuvre, although the right hon. Baronet might not have given his consent to it. He (Mr. Gibson) believed that it would prove a mere delusion to promise that the Income-tax would be repealed in three years: it would prove a delusion also that any important articles of consumption would be reduced in price: the tax would be most unequal and oppressive, and the collection of it odious and injurious. On all grounds, therefore, he should resist the imposition of it.
Mr. Wasonproceeded to say, that there was in fact no question before the committee: the first resolution, if he were not mistaken, had been put and carried. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Rice) had risen before the question was put and after it had been carried, but had not persevered in his intention to address the House, because the hon. Member for Southwark had informed him that the resolution had been agreed to. He wished to know whether he was correct in saying that the resolution had been put and passed?
Mr. Green(the Chairman) was not aware that the hon. Member for Dover had risen. He had certainly put the question upon the resolution, and, after a pause, had declared that he thought the ayes had it.
Mr. Wallacehad come down to take part in the debate, having hitherto been prevented from attending by indisposition.

1269
He had not heard one word of the resolution read from the Chair, nor did he even hear the Chairman declare that the ayes had it. He believed, however, that it was quite open to any Member to discuss the whole question on the second resolution. For his own part, he had been taken by surprise, and at a disadvantage.
Sir E. Knatchbullhad no doubt that the hon. Member had not heard the question put, but that it had been deliberately put he was quite sure, and that it had been heard by Gentlemen standing below the bar. The hon. Member for Dover had certainly risen twice, but twice he had resumed his seat. He had sat long in the House, and could assert that he never heard a question put more distinctly and deliberately: afterwards there was almost a dead silence, indicating surprise that no Member on the opposition benches rose to speak.
Mr. Hawesobserved that the Chairman, quite unintentionally he was sure, had put the question in a tone of voice, and with a rapidity of utterance calculated to take off attention. He should not have said so but for the solemn and emphatic manner of the right hon. Baronet when asserting the contrary. He was sitting close to the Table at the time, and had not heard the question put, and left his seat to ask the Chairman whether he had in fact put it. All the Members round him had participated in his doubts, and some Members on the Treasury bench seemed to look with extreme surprise when they found that the question had been put and carried. Nobody had risen to speak, because they were not aware that the opportunity had arrived, much less that it had been lost.
Mr. Ellicehad sat near the Table, and did not hear the question put. The effect was, that those who objected to the resolution had been deprived of the opportunity of voting against it; but many other occasions would offer themselves.
Mr. T. Duncombedid not consider it of much importance whether the committee divided upon the first or second resolution. He, for one, had not heard a syllable of what was read by the Chairman, excepting when he declared that the ayes had it. He hoped that the hon. Gentle man would speak louder in future. He was quite sure that the right hon. Baronet would not take advantage of the accident.
Mr. Lindsaystated that he had dis-
1270
tinctly heard the question put when he was below the bar and outside the green door.
Mr. V. Smithremarked, that in that case the Chairman was much better heard out of the House than in it. He had not heard the resolution read, but merely the declaration that it was carried; it certainly was not read in the usual solemn and formal manner. If the second resolution were even successfully resisted, the right hon. Baronet would be able to found his measure upon the first resolution.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that hon. Gentlemen could hardly plead ignorance of the resolution itself, seeing that it had been upon the notice paper for about the last three weeks. At the same time, they might not be aware when it was actually passed. He was certainly aware of the course taken by the Chairman, and heard him say that the ayes had it. He was surprised that it had passed, and that no hon. Member on the other side had risen to oppose it. He admitted that there had been some inadvertence, but still the resolution had been passed; and it would be a course of extreme danger to endeavour to reverse the vote. The debate might proceed on the second resolution, but it seemed to him that it would be much better to enter into a discussion of the whole question on the report. It was not his wish to take undue advantage of any accident.
Alderman Humpheryobserved, that he was sitting near the Table, and could assert that the question was put most deliberately. He had not seen the hon. Member for Dover rise until the Chairman had said that the ayes had it.
Mr. Ricesaid, that he had risen after the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), being desirous of saying that it was especially necessary at this period for this country to display the extent of her energies and resources. He would not treat this as a party question, and he believed that the proposal was founded upon the best economy. It was perfectly consistent for the Members of the late Administration to resist the Income-tax, because they had proposed to augment the revenue by reducing the burdens of the people; but he should offer no opposition to the measure of the right hon. Baronet. At the same time he must say, that to tax fluctuating incomes in the same degree as. fixed property, was a great injustice, and he hoped that some remedy might be found for it. He had always been in favour of

1271
direct taxation, and so far as this tax was direct, he approved of it. A large sum must be raised for the exigencies of the State, and he was willing to give a candid consideration to any proposal to meet the necessities of the public service. On this account, he should not resist the introduction of the bill.
Mr. Gibsonexplained that he had understood the right hon. Baronet to say that be could not discriminate the sources of income, and would rather abandon his plan than attempt to make the discrimination.
Sir R. Peelhad been misunderstood on that point. He had never said, "I propose my plan, and you can make no alterations in it." He had merely stated that the tax ought to be in proportion to income, and that for that purpose he would take the principle of former acts. He had heard nothing in the slightest degree to shake his opinion that the tax should be imposed upon income, and not exclusively upon property, nor was there any ground for saying that it was only a resource for time of war. A tax upon income was the basis of his financial policy, and he meant to defend that principle to the utmost; but he had never said that he would abandon it because some alteration might be made in the details; he had never held out any such expectation as that he would abandon the tax altogether because the House might be against him on some particular point.
Mr. Gibsonrecollected the words of the right hon. Baronet very distinctly, and the published reports would confirm his memory. The right hon. Baronet had said, There ought to be no discrimination as to the sources from which income may be derived; and if you attempt to remit the tax upon any principle which has reference to the sources from which income is derived, we must abandon the tax altogether." Such was then the language of the right hon. Baronet, although he might be disposed now to admit of modifications.
Sir R. Peeladded, that he did not recognise the justice of the principle of discriminating, and he meant to do all in his power to carry the tax upon the principle he had stated in the outset.
Mr. Riceexplained that he was not in favour of exempting incomes derived from professions, but of modifying the tax as regarded them.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that he had been a
1272
commissioner under the former Income-tax, and was acquainted with the working of the whole system. Wherever he had been of late, he had heard the inequality of the tax reprobated, whether by men in business, or by such as were engaged in agriculture; but all admitted that the right hon. Baronet had managed it with great tact and apparent cunning, in order that one portion of the House might be set against another. Thus the Members for Ireland were arrayed against those of England and Scotland, by relieving that country from the operation of an Income-tax. The reason was, that the right hon. Baronet had no machinery there by which to work it, inasmuch as no assessed taxes existed in Ireland; he could establish no system of espionage in that country. He could speak from his own knowledge of the oppressiveness and injustice of the tax in former times, when he was a commissioner. It was objectionable, not merely because it was burdensome, but because it was inquisitorial, and, therefore, odious. He was a young man at the time, and in a very short time he found his duties so painful, and incompatible with the feelings of a gentleman, that he had told his father that he would no longer continue an actor in such a scene of iniquity. If he were not much mistaken, the right hon. Baronet would find difficulties of this kind in his way on the present occasion. He was speaking of the day when 10 per cent, was exacted, and on this occasion there was no difference in point of principle, and very little in point of practice; for the right hon. Baronet had passed a bill which nearly brought 10 s. to the value of 20 s. That bill and the enormous amount of the national debt with which the right hon. Baronet's predecessors had saddled the nation, were at the root of the evils under which we now suffered, and not the seven or eight millions that the late Ministers had allowed to go into arrear. If it were true that we were at war with three or four different countries, why did we not borrow money as we had done before? and if we were not at war, why did they not postpone the tax? He had himself sat as a commissioner of the Land-tax with men of different classes, with landowners, with merchants, and once with a wine merchant, who were strict scrutinizers of income, wanting to know how other people got through the world better than themselves. They were, indeed, sworn to secrecy, but

1273
somehow or other it all got wind, the clerks perhaps peached, and it was no uncommon thing to hear it asked, "Is it true that Mr. So-and-so has only such an income?" How would landowners like all their In cumbrances and family allowances thus made known? Then, again as to commercial men supposed to have large incomes, they might have lost much the year before, but they would be glad to pay a large tax upon what they did not possess, because if their customers knew that they had lost so much the year before, their trade would be destroyed altogether. They would, therefore, give an income which they did not possess, and injure themselves, rather than lessen their credit. The right hon. Baronet now estimated the produce at a small sum, but he believed it would be much larger; the screw would be put on to a great extent. He knew how it was done before, for he had been a commissioner of the assessed taxes from the time he was born, he might say. [Laughter.] He might raise a laugh, but it was true. The assessed tax commissioners in Scotland were generally the justices of the peace, and he was himself on the list of justices when he was eleven years old, and became a justice on attaining twenty-one, just because he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. That was the reason why they bad so many discreditable magistrates in Scotland: they succeeded as justices as they succeeded as heritors. And having seen what had been in Scotland under the old act, he wished to put the people on their guard as to the machinery employed. He should have other opportunities for discussion, but he now objected to the measure on every ground, both as a Member of the House and as a member of the community; and he had no hesitation in saying, as far as he could judge, that the people approved of the conduct of those Members who had stopped this measure, and sincerely thanked them, whilst they did not like those Members of the late Ministry who went out of the House at a certain hour of the night, and left their posts undefended. The people highly approved of the conduct of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe), and thought him their best friend. The people did not understand what the word "factious" meant; they thought that the Radical Members had only done their duty, and could not distinguish between faction and duty. Those who had been
1274
absent on the recent division had not done their duty.
Mr. Christmashad thought there had been a growing feeling in the country in favour of direct taxation, and he thought also that this mode had found great favour with hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. Although he did not concur in that opinion, he had felt great satisfaction in finding such a mode of taxation adopted by the right hon. Baronet, as fixed a great portion of the other side of the House to support it. He was aware that the Income-tax might give rise to some injustice in respect to annuities, and as to incomes derived from taxes and salaries; though he did not see that they should go entirely free, yet he admitted that there was some hardship in putting the same tax on incomes which depended on the exertions of individuals, and might be interrupted by illness, as on more permanent incomes. Holding these opinions, the simple question was, whether the urgency was so great as to make up for these defects? He thought that it was, and that her Majesty's Government were fully justified in their proposal. In a great country like this, the revenue should be equal to the expenditure, or rather exceed it; and they were called upon to adopt some mode of taxation in which there should be no uncertainty. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were always professing themselves favourable to commercial reform, and they ought to prefer, as he did, the tariff of the right hon. Baronet to their own, especially that part of it which related to the timber duties; for the late measure would have deeply injured Ireland —it would probably have thrown much Canadian timber out of the market; this would stop emigration to Canada, and in proportion as they stopped that emigration, they would inflict an injury on Ireland. It was said that Ireland was to be exempted from the Income-tax, but it had to pay two other new duties, and he confessed that if money must be raised, he preferred taking it by a tax on spirits, which would operate as a discouragement to intemperance. He would, however, call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to one or two parts of that tariff. That which enabled vessels to procure for themselves foreign provisions, had given rise in Ireland to great complaints; and as to foreign cattle, he did not think there would be a great increase, but there should

1275
be a higher duty on fat cattle than on lean. Upon starch also, the reduction of duty was very great, and he hoped to see it increased to 10s. He would, however, support the right hon. Baronet, for if the alternative were between the Government of the right hon. Baronet and a new Government to be formed by hon. Gentle men opposite, the only course which he had to pursue was clear.
Mr. Wakleythought, that the committee was proceeding with this discussion at a very great disadvantage; and the main resolution having been carried, he could not discover that any benefit could arise from a division being taken against a minor proposition; but he thought that hon. Members near him should rather strive to muster all their force for the purpose of opposing the general measure at a future stage of the proceeding. With regard to the manner in which the first resolution had been put to the House, he begged to assure the hon. Chairman that he had not heard it. He was, at the moment when it was put, engaged in a conversation with some hon. Friends near him upon the propriety of adjourning the debate to another evening, and it had not reached his ears; but he begged to suggest, that for the future convenience of the committee the Chairman should vociferate "Order, order," in as loud a tone of voice as he could command, before he put any proposition for adoption. He thought that it would be improper now to go into a discussion of the proposition which had been already decided; but there was one matter before the committee affecting the landed interests of the country, on which he would offer a few remarks. It had been always felt in all countries, and in all ages, that taxation, to be useful, should be drawn from the people according to their means of bearing it, and that there should be no inequalities in its operation. His constituents asked him why it was that a special provision was made for the farmer, and that no such provision was made for any other portion of the trading community of this country? And they referred to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government by which farmers were ex empted from the scrutiny—that oppressive, annoying, and torturing ordeal which tradesmen were to undergo in giving an account of their income. He believed, that the right hon, Baronet had applied
1276
all the powers of his intellect to remedy the difficulties in which the country was placed, and he had successfully applied his mind to the necessities of the empire; but in looking at the tariff which he had proposed for the relief of the nation, it appeared that his will was at variance with his proposal. Let them look to the proposal with reference to the exemption of the farmer from the scrutiny. The committee had heard the statement made by the hon. Member for Greenock with regard to the course of conduct of the commissioners under the old acts. Was it nothing to undergo such a scrutiny as he had described? Was it nothing to be questioned —for a man to be put upon his oath—to be treated with contempt, and insult— and though he had given his evidence on oath, for that evidence to be rejected as unworthy of unbelief? This system was not to be applied to parties connected with the agricultural interests of the country; and in answer to the question of his constituents, why such an exemption should be made, he could only refer them to the right hon. Baronet himself, for he confessed his inability to discover any satisfactory reason for it. But it was said out of doors, that by reason of the removal of the prohibition upon the introduction of cattle, the farmer would be ruined. For his own part, he thought that the agriculturist need be under no apprehensions whatever upon this score, for he thought that before the proposition of the right hon. Baronet had been submitted to the House, his calculations had been very shrewdly made, and he was satisfied that the farming interests would suffer no injury from its adoption. He believed that if the necessities of the country demanded a sacrifice, the people were perfectly willing to submit to it; that they were quite prepared to support the honour of the nation by whatever means might be deemed requisite. But they denied that there was-any necessity for the sacrifice which was called for, and they demanded that if it was enforced, its weight should fall equally upon all classes. What was the first proposition with regard to the farmer? It was, that if the farmer's rent was under 300 l. per annum, whatever his profits might be—whatever amount of capital might be invested in his establishment, he should be free from the scrutiny; and that, after all, was the great, the master grievance; and should besides be subject to no

1277
Income-tax. Then, going above 300 l. per annum, supposing the rent of the farmer to be above 300 l. a year, his profit was to be assessed at one-half his rent. What, he asked, was the justice of this resolution? He would tell the right hon. Baronet what was passing out of doors— what were the opinions expressed upon this subject by those who were entitled to express their feelings and views. It was believed that this proposition was made to keep the 50 l. tenants in good humour—that it was a "sop to Cerberus," to satisfy the great land monster of the country. He had heard no satisfactory explanation of this part of the case from the right hon. Baronet. He believed that the right hon. Baronet had the greatest possible difficulties to contend with—he unhesitatingly admitted that he had never known a ministry assuming office under circumstances of greater difficulty, but he thought that some explanation upon the point to which he had adverted was requisite. Then, what was the state of the case with reference to the tariff, and the Corn-law? He believed that the right hon. Baronet himself did not consider that he should reduce the price of bread in this country by the proposal which he had made in reference to the introduction of foreign wheat into England. The tradesman said to this, "See the reduction the Minister is proposing on articles of foreign manufacture; but surely when such a reduction is made, a similar reduction should be made in the price of food," and he thought that this was a very fair and just observation. It was exceedingly difficult to know whether any reduction in the price of food would be made by the measure of the right hon. Baronet, and he believed that those who were most conversant with the subject declared their conviction that there would be no reduction effected; the experiment of the right hon. Baronet might regulate trade with reference to the introduction of foreign corn, but he was convinced that in the actual price of bread no change would be effected favourable to the working man. Looking at the tariff, they found that many of the duties, which were called protective duties, were reduced 50 per cent, and upwards, and they were told that this was done for the benefit of the working classes: but the working people came to him and said—" As the price of food is not to be lowered, are these reduc-
1278
tions fair?" Articles of brass, bronze, pewter, copper, shoes, gloves, furs, were all to be admitted at reduced duties; but the working classes declared, that as the consequence of this measure their ruin was inevitable. He believed that the right hon. Boronet desired most sincerely to benefit the country, but he thought that if he gave his proposition some new consideration, he would draw the conclusion which had already been drawn by others, that it was injurious to the interests of the working classes, in permitting the introduction of articles of foreign manufacture at reduced prices, while it did not make a corresponding reduction in the price of food. Something had been said of the introduction of cattle, and of the consequent injury which would be produced to the landed interests of Scotland, and also of Ireland. He was sure that if the landed interests of England would only investigate this subject with a proper feeling, and with a due consideration for the wants and necessities of the empire, if they would but reflect on the immense amount of wealth which they had accumulated in consequence of giving freedom, and therefore increased energy to the commerce of the country, they would be satisfied that the security of their own possessions would be best attained by an extension of that system which had been already commenced. He hoped, therefore that the right hon. Baronet would again take his propositions into consideration; and notwithstanding the clamour raised among interested parties out of doors, see whether it was not consistant with his duty to bring forward a resolution for the purpose of reducing wheat to a lower price, so as to enable the working people of this country to compete with the foreign artificer—an object which, if he gained, he was convinced would secure him the blessings of millions of his fellow country men.
Mr. Stuart Wortleythought that the answer to the question, which the hon. Member who had just sat down had put to the right hon. Baronet, was obvious. It was this—that in the case of the agricultural tenant, there was a test as to the amount of property on which the assessment should be laid, whereas with respect to persons who derive a subsistence from trade no such test existed. With regard to the proposition between rent paid by the tenant, and tax imposed upon him,

1279
there might be room for discussion, but that was a question entirely different from that upon which the hon. Gentleman had relied, and into which he should not enter. The hon. Gentleman, he thought, had quite miscalculated the result of the measure of the right hon. Baronet with reference to its result upon the landed interests of the country; for he fully believed that the new tariff and the proposed Corn-law would have a most material effect upon the prices of the food of the working classes. In the article of corn alone he believed the reduction of duty would amount to not less than 130 per cent. For his own part he should have been exceedingly willing to have seen a measure adopted with a view to a reduction of the Income-tax in the case of persons engaged in trades and professions. If such a course could be taken without any serious damage being done to the scheme of the right hon. Baronet—and he really hoped that the right hon. Baronet would exert all his ingenuity, and adopt any suggestion which might be offered to him, with a view to carry out this object—which could be adopted without endangering the general success of the measure which he had proposed.
Mr. Hope Johnstonewould press upon the attention of the right hon. Baronet the case of the farmers of Scotland, who, so far from realising a profit from their agricultural exertions of one-half the amount of their rent, were, in reality, in a far inferior position. If the opportunity were afforded them, he was persuaded they would be able to prove this fact by evidence at the bar of the House.
Sir R. Peel:I hope the House will bear in mind the two speeches which have just been delivered on this subject; I mean the speech of my hon. Friend who has just sat down, and that of the other hon. Gentleman, the Member for Fins-bury. The latter Gentleman seems to hint that favour was shown to agricultural income, for the purpose of conciliating political opponents; and spoke of rumours being afloat, that the present proposition was brought forward for that purpose. On the other hand, my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Johnstone) contends, that it is unjust to the agricultural tenants to assume that their income ought to be estimated at one-half the rental, and denies that such is the case, as regards that class of persons in Scotland. I hope that
1280
the conflicting opinions contained in these two speeches will serve to convince the House that it was the intention of Government to attempt to deal out an equal measure of justice to all parties. 1 can, at all events, assure those hon. Gentlemen and also the House, which I hope will support me in carrying through the mea ' sure successfully, that in making the proposition there was no intention to conciliate any political parties in the country, the only object being to deal as fairly as possible between the producer and the consumer. I am relieved by the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury, from some difficulty which I might have in an swering various communications I have received, the whole tenour of which was, that the proposed financial scheme went in wholly in favour of the manufacturer, and dealt with much injustice by the agriculturists. It will afford some satisfaction to the parties so complaining to hear from the hon. Member for Finsbury that there will be no material reduction in the price of corn, and that upon this point the agricultural classes are labouring under a delusion. The statements of the hon. Gentleman are so completely different from the communications which I have received that I owe him some acknowledgement for assisting me to dispel the alarm which existed on the part of the agricultural body. The hon. Gentleman dwelt strongly upon the favour which the proposition conferred upon the agriculturists as compared with the manner in which it would operate upon manufacturers, and the hardship to which those latter would be subjected by a scrutiny into their trade. I hold in my hand a statement made to the Government on the part of the farmers with respect to the proposed financial plan. This document states that they have never, with the exception of one or two favourable years, made a profit on their farms, including the interest of their capital, nearly equal to half their rents, and that for the last six years there has been a, succession of bad crops, which has made the return for their labour and outlay very inadequate. They conclude by saying, that they do not object to an Income-tax, that they are quite willing to pay their fair proportion of the necessary burdens of the State, and that all they desire is, that they should not be dealt with according to an arbitrary rule, different from that applied to

1281
other branches of the community, and which, in their own individual case, they think would be attended with injustice, affecting not only themselves but the public at large. The hon. Gentleman opposite says I am unjust to the agricultural interest. To what part of them is that observation meant to apply ! [Mr. Wallace:To my own country.] Oh! to your own country only. The manner in which, in former periods, the Income-tax has been applied to those engaged in agricultural pursuits, has been by calculating the profits of the farmer on a certain proportion which they have been assumed to bear to the rent. That proportion I reduce from three-fourths to one-half, from a perfect conviction that the rent of the farmer has been raised in proportion to his profits, and because I do believe that reduction to be consistent with justice. I am quite willing to admit, that there are circumstances in respect to Scotland which may make some difference. There are modifications in the act of 1806 which apply to the Scottish farmers. Allowances were made to them on account of the exemption of the land from the payment of tithe. There are also circumstances, I am ready to admit, as to the mode in which county and local charges are borne in England and Scotland, which require some consideration. All I can state is,; that I wish to put the Scottish farmer as nearly as may be on the same footing as the English farmer, which is, I think, demanded by justice. I apprehend the I peculiarity of the case is, that local charges in that country being generally borne by the landlord, and in England by the tenant, that constitutes a reason why a difference was made in the former act; and I readily admit, that it would not be quite fair to tax the tenants of the two countries in precisely the same ratio. With respect to the general question of imposing this tax, I find throughout the country, as 1 have said in the course of this evening, a strong sense of the necessity of some vigorous exertion for the restoration of the national finances. I find also, I must say, that interest felt in the maintenance of public credit which induces all parties to come forward with cheerfulness, and take their share in the burdens which may be necessary for this purpose. When it comes to the question of imposing taxes, I must, say, I think it highly creditable to this country that there is a generally prevailing
1282
inclination to make an exertion for the maintenance of national honour and good faith. I must say also, of the agricultural interest in particular, that I have found among them the greatest willingness to bear their part of taxation, and I am perfectly certain that the prevalence of that feeling will ensure ultimate success to this attempt to equalise the expenditure with the income of Government. At the same time, however, I must say, that concurrently with that general acquiescence, there is on the part of every interest in the country a universal desire to remonstrate against any interference with them, each saying that they are the part of the community which is most hardly treated by the tax. The hon. Gentleman opposite says, for instance, that there is no reduction in the protection to articles of food corresponding with the reduction which I propose in articles of manufacture. It was impossible for me, in dealing with interests so extensive and so complicated, not to anticipate that I should receive remonstrances of that kind. But the consolation which I and my Colleagues have is this—the consciousness that in dealing with those interests we have attempted to do justice, and not to conciliate support. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester said at one time that he was perfectly convinced this tax would be a permanent one, and at another time he said he was perfectly convinced the outcry against it would be so great that a repeal must immediately take place. He said I had promised a repeal of the tax at the end of five years. I begged to remind him of what I really did say. I said I thought a fair experiment could not be made with respect to the tariff in less than five years; but at the same time I proposed that the duration of the tax should be limited to three years, and I reserved to Parliament the full power of determining whether or not the tax should be continued. That was the statement I made; but I am perfectly certain, if the tax should receive that strong opposition with which I am threatened by Gentlemen on the other side, and if the general sense of the country be decidedly against it, that, at the end of three years, Parliament will be unwilling to continue it; but if no such aversion to it should be manifested, then I must say, I hope, that at the end of the period of three years Parliament will consent to the continuance of it for

1283
such a period as the public exigencies may require, and it will be for Parliament itself to determine the length of that period on a comparison of the advantages of the tax with its inconveniences. Feeling every confidence that the reduction which I propose in the protective duties will afford ample scope to the development of the energies of the community, I entertain the hope, that unless circumstances not now foreseen should arise, there may be an opportunity of putting an end to this tax at the expiration of the period of five years to which I have referred, but I have a very strong impression that its imposition in the meantime will be for the general benefit of the whole country. With respect to the reduction of the protective duties on corn I have always said that I thought there ought to be a corresponding reduction in the protection on manufactured articles. I propose a reduction of the protection on all articles, almost indiscriminately, on corn and provisions, as well as on manufactured goods. I entertain now the confident belief that there will be from the combined result of all these measures that which I think will be highly desirable to this country,— a reduction in the general expenditure of the people on articles necessary to their subsistence and to their comforts. We shall then bold out an increased temptation to Gentlemen to remain at home, instead of spending their money abroad. I entertain the confident belief, that speaking generally, there will be. on account of the reduction in the price of living—a reduction, be it observed, in the benefit of which the agriculturist will participate equally with the manufacturer and the labourer—a pecuniary saving in the amount of weekly, monthly, and annual expenditure, which will compensate, very nearly, if not altogether, for those sums, whatever they may be, which individuals are called upon to contribute on account of the tax of 3 per cent, on their incomes. Sir, I hope that this House, after having discussed the subject, will come to the conclusion which 1 have formed, and which further reflection has confirmed, that the present situation of the country does require a vigorous exertion to be made, and that the House will consent to enable us to make the experiment of restoring our finances to prosperity by a tax on the income of the country. If they resolve on an Income-tax, then I hope they will adopt the principle of that
1284
Income-tax which has been in force in former years. I hope they will feel, that there can be no distinction expedient in time of peace, in respect of the nature of the income taxed, which might not be appealed to in time of war; and in establishing an Income-tax for a limited time, I hope they will take special care not to establish any precedent which would have a tendency to impair the efficiency of that instrument which you may be compelled to call into action in time of war, and on which your chief reliance may, perhaps, be placed for enabling you to make the income of the country in time of war in some degree correspond with its expenditure. I trust the House will never lose sight of the importance of keeping this principle un infringed, and if an Income-tax is to be taken, whether in time of peace or of war, I hope the country will see the justice of a proposal to subject the income of individuals to equal taxation. If, in time of peace, you make exceptions in favour of persons holding a life interest, or holding offices, I do say you will be establishing a precedent to which in time of war an appeal may be made with equal justice. I should be inclined, Sir, to doubt the policy of an income-tax at all, if you could not have resort to it without establishing a precedent which might lead to the most dangerous consequences.
Lord J. Russellentirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in the principle he had laid down, that it would be most unadvisable to impair the efficiency of such a powerful instrument of taxation as an Income-tax, and it was for that reason he should be unwilling to vote in favour of any particular exemptions which might be proposed. Therefore it was, that he felt disinclined now to entertain the proposal of such a tax at all, because he felt, that if you called upon the country to make a great effort of this kind, and if the country found the burden to be very oppressive and very galling, you would, in a certain degree, prejudice any demand which might be made for large contributions in time of war. It appeared that the House had now to deal only with a particular part of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, and he wished to say a few words only on this part of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman said, he looked to the principles on which the former Income-tax was levied in fixing the proportion which was to be borne by the agricul-

1285
turists. He must say, he thought the right hon. Baronet had made a mistake as to the amount of rent which he had selected as the lowest standard on which the Income-tax was to be levied, and that change now made would be very injurious, because, while there were some estates on which, the farms being large, the tenants would have to pay the tax, there were other estates where the tenants, having small farms, would not be liable to any tax at all. If this tax were to last for a certain number of years, the landlord of the latter would derive an advantage which the proprietor of the former would not possess. He thought it was not advisable in any scheme of taxation to favour any particular mode in which a proprietor might choose to let his land. Consequently the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman had this injurious effect which had not attended the former Income-tax. The observation made by an hon. Gentleman representing a part of Scotland, with respect to difference between the Scotch and English tenants, was also deserving of consideration. Under the former Income-tax three-fourths of the rent were taken as the criterion of the profits of the English tenants, and one-half of the rent as the criterion of the profits of the Scotch tenants. There seemed to be some reason for making that distinction, because many charges were paid by tenants in England, being ancient and customary, which were not paid by tenants in Scotland, and I therefore the rent of the former was proportionably lower. The right hon. Gentleman said, he found the English tenants charged too much, and he diminished the amount on which the tax was to be rated to one-half of their rents; but it did not appear why some distinction should not be made between the English and the Scotch tenants. He certainly had not heard any reason for not retaining this distinction; but this was a matter of detail, and might be discussed hereafter. With respect to opposite and contradictory complaints having been made, he must say, that though they were opposite, there was very considerable justice in many of them. He thought the hon. Member for Finsbury had made a well-founded complaint when he said that a great distinction was drawn between the landed interest of this country and some of the manufacturing interests, in respect to the lowering of the tariff. It did not appear why the reduction of the
1286
duty on corn should be in a smaller ratio than that on metals and leather. He could well understand that the makers of boots and shoes, and workers in brass, might declare their readiness to compete with foreign manufacturers, but then he had a right to ask to be put upon equal terms, and if he found that the corn and flour from abroad would feed him better and cheaper than the corn and flour at home, he might claim to be enabled to buy that corn and flour, in order that he might compete with foreigners. But let him not be exposed to that competition at a disadvantage, for that would not be manifesting that wariness with which the Legislature ought to act in regulating the different duties. He (Lord [John Russell) confessed, that the mode which had been adopted in arranging the duties in the tariff was not the fairest which the legislature could have adopted. The right hon. Gentleman said there was an unnecessary alarm prevailing in the country, both amongst the producers of corn and provisions, but that they should recollect that the reduced cost of living would affect them as well as other classes. Now it appeared to him that one of the great evils which had been attendant on the plan of the right hon. Baronet was the suddenness of the change. The change must have appeared most sudden to the class of persons he had alluded to, for, from the declarations and the recommendations of Gentlemen opposite, their supporters had no reason to believe that any such propositions were intended to be made. They were not told that he was aware of, by Gentlemen opposite, that the Corn-laws were so defective that they must be altered. They had not been informed by these Gentlemen at public meetings, or from the hustings, that the prohibitory duties on the importation of foreign cattle were so very absurd and objectionable that they must be abandoned and taken away. If they had previously been informed of this, they would not have the same ground of complaint as they had at present. After such complete silence had been maintained by those whom they had so strenuously supported, was it surprising that the farmers were not ready to see the necessity of adopting the proposed changes. For his own part he sincerely believed, that when the proposed arrangements were made, there was no necessity for the farmers to apprehend

1287
any great evils that would result. He must add, that when he recollected the conduct of those who had, both in that House and out, stated that they stood up exclusively as the friends of the farmers, and who arrogated to themselves the sole privilege of protecting their interests, and who had declared that they would keep the Corn-laws intact, and that the prohibitory laws against the importation of foreign meat should remain as they were, he was not surprised at the apprehensions expressed by the farmers. The conduct pursued on this occasion appeared to him as if it were like following the front rank of an army which suddenly turned round and fired on those whom they had induced to follow them. After what had taken place with reference to the first resolution, he did not think it necessary to take the sense of the House on the second resolution, but in bringing up the report he should propose a resolution, as he found that it was only in the House that he could propose an amendment to the resolution. He begged the committee to recollect, that the proposed alteration in the tariff was an entirely different matter from the present proposition; and, in alluding to the proposed changes, he would seriously beg those whom it was proposed to continue to favour with a high protecting duty on corn, seriously to consider whether it was not at once desirable to make the Corn Bill assimilate and conform to the general rule which seemed to be laid down in the proposed tariff with regard to articles of manufacture. If they did not assent to such a change they might depend upon it that constant propositions would be made for the alteration of the proposed duties, or for the abolition of them altogether, and they would be bold, and truly bold, when they made the alterations in the general duties, if they left corn, and corn alone, as an anomaly in the tariff. He trusted that hon. Gentlemen would on reflection see, that it was impossible for them to continue to maintain this high rate of protection alone for one particular interest. He, therefore, would suggest, that it would be better, instead of waiting for one or two years, when they would have to make a further change, to do so now, and thus aid in reducing, as the right hon. Baronet said, the cost of living in this country, which must ultimately prove for the benefit of the landed interest. It would then appear that they did not give any advan-
1288
tage to the foreign manufacturer over our own manufacturer, but that they were prepared to carry out the same principle as regarded themselves for the general interest and benefit of the community.
Mr. Greenesaid, that before leaving the Chair he wished to offer a few words in explanation of his conduct. When the hon. Member for Ipswich had risen to order, he had supposed that the hon. Member had intended to advert to something which had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester, who had just sat down, and it was only on that account that he had thought it his duty to check the hon. Member. He (Mr. Greene) had little thought that the hon. Member had risen for the purpose of alluding to his conduct in relation to what had occurred during the preceding part of the evening. He was the last person in the world to wish to interrupt hon. Members who were desirous of observing upon his conduct; on the contrary, he was thankful to hon. Members for observing, whether in public or in private, on his conduct in the Chair, for he could assure the committee that he was only anxious faithfully to discharge his duty. It was his conscientious belief that he had put the question fairly and distinctly, and he could assure the committee that nothing could be more painful to his feelings, than to have it supposed that any conduct of his had been such as to prevent any opinion from being expressed, either by the committee or by any hon. Member.
Mr. W. Williamshad understood the hon. Gentleman to express his willingness to put the first resolution again, if such should be the desire of the House. [" No, no."] It had been his intention to have voted against the first resolution. As, however, that resolution had been agreed to, in consequence of which all the property of the country, except landed property, was to be subjected to an Income-tax, and as the only effect of negativing the second resolution would be unjustly to exempt landed property from the burden to which every other species of property was subjected, he should not, under the circumstances oppose the second resolution. He regretted the error which had taken place, and thought, whenever an error occurred in the proceedings, the House ought to have an opportunity of rectifying it.
Second resolution agreed to; as was also the third, which was as follows:—

1289
" That, towards raising the supply granted to her Majesty in lieu of the several stamp duties now payable in Ireland, there shall be charged, levied, collected, or paid, upon and in respect of every deed, writing, or other written or printed instrument, or in respect of any legacy, or succession to personal estate upon intestacy, or in respect to any other matter or thing now liable to stamp duty in Ireland, the like amount or rate of stamp duty as is now payable in Great Britain."
The House resumed; report to be brought up on Thursday.
Lord J. Russellhoped, if the report were to be brought up on Thursday, that the discussion would be commenced at an early hour. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman had made any arrangement with those Gentlemen who had notices on the paper for that day?
Sir R. Peel said, the only notice that he was aware of was the notice of the hon. Member for Greenock; and as that hon. Gentleman's motion could not be conveniently discussed in the absence of the Lord Advocate, who was at present unable to attend to his duties in the House, in, consequence of illness, he trusted the re- port might be brought up at an early hour.
Mr. T. Duncombehad a notice on the paper for Thursday, of which he had given notice in the early part of the evening. It was for a suspension of the standing orders preventing the presentation of any petition in relation to a tax which had been proposed in a committee of Ways and Means. As that motion had some relation to the present subject, and as it would not take long to discuss, he certainly did not feel inclined to give way. Had it been on a matter not in relation lo the subject, he would not have hesitated to give way at once.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had a perfect right to take precedence on Thursday, if he desired it.
Mr. Wallacewould not, certainly, press for the presence of the Lord Advocate, if he were unwell, sooner than was quite convenient to himself; but he believed that the Home Secretary had a great deal more to do with the question which he had to bring forward than the Lord Advocate. He should not be long about what he had to say; indeed, it was almost matter of indifference to him whether his motion were acceded to or not, as he should make use of it either way. He did not, however, imagine that the House would be detained by the discussion.
Sir R. Peelwould not bring on the question on Thursday at a late hour in the evening, and if he should be prevented proceeding on Thursday, he would fix on Friday for the bringing up the report.

MUTINY BILL.
Sir George Clerkmoved that the report on the Mutiny Bill be brought up.
Mr. Bernalobjected to the report being brought up at that late hour, as he had a clause to propose.
Sir George Clerksaid, that the hon. Member would have an opportunity of preparing his clause on the third reading, and wished to know the precise words of the clause that the hon. Member wished to propose.
Mr. Bernalsaid, the clause he intended to propose was to prohibit the infliction of corporal punishment in the army, except for offences committed on the line of march, or for felony.
Report brought up.
Adjourned.