Sitting of 17 June 1842

MINUTES
BILLS. Public—1° Customs Act (The Tariff).
2° Poor-law; Primrose-hill. Committed.—Justices Jurisdiction.
3° and passed:—Assessed Taxes; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Dean Forest Poor.
Private.—Reported.—Deptford Pier.
3° and passed:—London and Greenwich Railway (No. 3).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir B. Hall, Captain Pechell, Mr. S. Crowford, Colonel T. Wood, Mr. Leader, and Mr. Stuart Wortley, from Rochdale, Whitechapel, Kingston-upon-Hull, St. Pancras, West Ham, Brighton, St. George the Martyr, Southwark, St James's, Westminster, and St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, against the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Caetain Pechell, from Berwick, Brunk-low, Bed worth, and other places, against the Dissolution of Gilbert's Unions.—From Leigh, in Kent, against Railway Travelling on the Sabbath.—From Lambeth, for the Better Gbservance of the Sabbath.—From St. John's, Clerkenwell, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Metropolitan Bridges.—By Dr. Bow-ring, from Warrington, for the substitution of Declarations in lieu of Oaths.—From Rathdrum, for Alteration of the present system of Education in Ireland.—From the Middleton Union, for the Abolition of the Tax on Coals and Culm.—From Yetholm, and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, for the Abolition of Lay Patronage.—By Lord Ashley, from Sheepridge, Rochdale, Hulrne, and Great Bolton, for Limiting the Hours of Labour to Young Persons working in the Factories.—From Amberley, Stockwell, and Lambeth, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—From Trustees of the Dudley Hill, Killinghall, and Harrow-gate Turnpike Roads, and of Leeds, and Halifax, against the Turnpike Roads Bill.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
Mr. Fox Maulepresented a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, against the continuance of lay patronage in the Church of Scotland. Mr. Fox Maule then stated that he had delayed presenting this petition until the right hon. Baronet came into the House. He had already given notice, that it was his intention to bring forward a motion on the subject of patronage in the Church of Scotland, on Monday, July 5, but since he had given that notice, he had reconsidered the subject, and seeing that the motion would be attended with a discussion which would probably be without further result, and seeing also that it was probable, on a division taking place, that the motion for an address would be negatived, and feeling also the discussion would not be satisfactory to himself from the absence of his right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Leith, and also from the circumstance, that the feeling of some of those who were favourable to the object of his motion was averse to have the subject debated at present, he had determined not to proceed further with his motion for the 5th of July. He was satis-

91
fied that the initiative would come best from her Majesty's Government, and he would now state, that if a measure on the subject did not come from them early next Session, he should feel it to be his duty to take up the subject.
Sir R. Peelthought, that he should be excused in making an observation, after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He would at once say, that on the part of her Majesty's Government, be should not deprecate any discussion on the motion of which the right hon. Gentleman bad given notice. In the spirit in which he trusted that a matter of this kind would be discussed, he should have felt himself called upon to state the reasons why he did not think, under present circumstances, that any attempt of the Government to carry a measure with the view to the settlement of this question would be attended with the success which was desirable. Under these circumstances of the case, he was willing and prepared to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, so as to enable him to bring forward this subject on the day on which he bad given notice. He would not say another word on the subject, beyond observing, that he was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject, and that nothing would be more gratifying to her Majesty's Government if the state of circumstances in Scotland, together with the prevalence of that good sense and moderation, together with a deep conviction of the extent to which these disunions affect the welfare of the country, afforded them an opportunity to bring forward some measure on the subject.
Lord J. Russellhoped, that he might be permitted to say, that during the existence of the late Government, no opportunity arose so as to enable it to settle this question. He also felt bound to say, that be did not think that the present opportunity was one in which the Government could judiciously interfere with the view to the settlement of the question. He hoped, that if an opportunity arose, the Government would proceed to legislate on this question so deeply interesting as it was to the people of Scotland. For his own part, he left the matter with perfect satisfaction in the hands of the Government.
Mr. A. Campbellsaid, that his object in bringing forward this bill, was to give effect to a principle for which the Church
92
of Scotland had always contended. He regretted that the bill had been defeated in consequence of a technical objection, having reference to the rights of the Crown. It would probably have been better had the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Perth, given notice of his intention to some of the leading members of the Church of Scotland before he gave notice on the subject. He approved of the course proposed to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman.
Subject at an end.

POOR-LAW (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Edward Ellice, jun. rose, according to a notice he had given to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of putting a question involving a subject of very grave importance to the people of Scotland. It would be in the recollection of the right hon. Baronet, that, towards the close of the last Parliament, in consequence of representations made to that House, a committee had been appointed to inquire into the state of the Highland poor, with a view of relieving their distress by means of emigration. He had been one of the members of that committee, and, in conjunction with others of its members, had endeavoured to extend its inquiries beyond the actual state of destitution, and the means of relief likely to be afforded by emigration carried on at the public expense. He had thought it to be necessary to inquire into the means arising from other sources that had been previously employed for relieving the poor, and into those which could be depended upon thereafter for protecting that part of the population which (supposing emigration to take place) would be left behind, from want and starvation, in the event of a continuance of that extreme destitution that had been proved before the committee to exist. The majority of the committee had, however, determined to restrict their inquiries to the subject of emigration, and his endeavours to extend the inquiry had been defeated. There was no reason to suppose that the distress in the Highlands had diminished since that period. The right hon. Baronet had a fearful instance, in the case of Paisley, how greatly it had increased in the Lowlands. No further inquiry had been made, no legislative measures bad been taken to check the evil, and in consequence of its having been represented to him, that, un-

93
less some immediate steps were taken by the Legislature to prevent it, the miseries of famine, which had prevailed from time to time in the more remote though populous districts of the Highlands, were likely to be extended to the Lowlands, where the consequences would be fatal to the health and tranquillity of the people. He now rose to put the question of which he had given notice. He would ask the right hon. Baronet, whether the attention of Government had been directed to the evidence taken before the committee appointed last year to inquire into the state of the Highland poor, and to the proceedings of that committee? Whether, taking into consideration the actual destitution in many parts, the increasing distress generally throughout Scotland, and the utter insufficiency of the existing law for the purpose of affording any general relief—was it the intention of her Majesty's Government to recommend any immediate measures to Parliament, or to institute any general inquiry, with a view of extending the system of compulsory relief to the poor, or of adopting measures for the improvement of the law in Scotland, and the existing administration of it, on that important subject?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that, as to the first question, he could only say that he was generally aware of the proceedings which had taken place before the committee which inquired into the state of distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. He could also state that the Government had directed its attention to the present state of the law, and its practical operation, in reference to the relief of the poor in Scotland, more especially in the large towns and manufacturing districts; but Government did not intend to propose in the course of the present Session of Parliament any alteration of the law in that respect. To any proposition to alter the law he thought there would be a serious objection, as full inquiry ought to precede any legislation on a subject of such immense importance. At the same time, he had no hesitation in stating that his own opinion as to the law for relief of the poor in Scotland, particularly in large towns, to which part of the subject he had more particularly directed his attention, was, that it was a question well worthy the most serious consideration; but he must repeat that the most mature inquiry and deliberation must precede any legislation
94
in the matter. What mode of inquiry Government would adopt he could not then say, but he could say, that Ministers would direct their attention fully to the subject, more particularly in reference to the large towns and manufacturing districts.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS, (IRELAND.
Lord J. Russellasked whether it was intended to introduce any measure this Session as to Irish registration.
Sir R. Peelsaid it would be much better to determine the principle of English registration, before they proceeded to that of Ireland.

NEW POOR-LAW.
Sir James Graham, in rising to move the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Poor-law Bill, said, that as he had already explained to the House the principles on which this measure rested, he did not imagine the House would think it necessary for him again to go over the same ground, and he would, therefore, content himself with moving that this bill be read a second time.
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid: In rising to oppose this measure, I do not look upon myself as the mere representative of a particular constituency, but as a Member of this House, called upon to consider the interests of the whole nation, and I can conceive no subject more vitally important to those interests than the measure the principle of which we are now called upon to agree to. Before undertaking to oppose the second reading of this bill, I feel myself called upon to state the reasons and motives which induce me to take such a course. When this House is about to give its deliberate sanction to what must be considered a permanent renewal of the New Poor-law Act, it is, in my opinion, right, that the principle and working of the measure should be fully and fairly brought under your consideration. It is just and necessary that the complaints of the people should be heard, and that an act of the nature now proposed should not be passed without deliberately considering whether these complaints are well founded or not. This bill is not merely for a renewal of the commission; it is for the perpetuation of the new system. It is now for the House to determine whether that system is to be persevered in. As it is of importance to understand what is the real principle of the Poor-law Act and the ob-

95
ject of appointing the commissioners, I shall refer to some authorities for that purpose. It is of particular importance to do so at this time, because the commissioners in their last report affirm a system of action which had been negatived in all their former reports, and by all the proceedings which they had adopted during a continued period of eight years. But I shall first refer to a position assumed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department in introducing the present bill. He affirmed that the object of appointing commissioners was not for the attainment of uniformity in the management of the poor, but for the purpose of providing the means of a necessary diversity, accommodating the mode of relief to the circumstances of the different districts. He quoted Lord Brougham as his authority, in a speech delivered by him on introducing the Poor-law Amendment Bill to the Lords in 1834. He quoted the following extract:—
"Again, one part of the country may require one mode of treatment—another may require the application of different remedies. Agricultural districts will stand in need of a very different mode of treatment from that which must be employed with commercial and manufacturing places—nay, the circumstances of one agricultural parish may be so entirely different from those of another, even of one in its immediate vicinity, as to render the same course of management inapplicable to both."
But if the right hon. Baronet had read on to the next sentence, he would have found that a very different meaning would be produced. The noble Lord went on:—
"The point we are desirous of reaching is one and the same for all; the state of things we would bring all back to is the same; but the road to be taken towards this point is necessarily different in different places, for each may have deviated from the right path by a different route, and by a different route must be brought back."
Thus it will be seen, that the inadvertent omission of that sentence of the speech which intervened between the two sentences quoted, gave an untrue meaning to the sentiment intended to be expressed; but that uniformity was the ultimate object to be obtained is more strongly declared in another paragraph of the noble Lord's speech:—
"I think I may lay down as clearly following from what I have stated, that there is one main point, the necessity of arriving at which cannot be denied,—I mean the securing such a degree of unity of action in the authorities
96
invested with the parochial superintendence as can be obtained only by the establishment of one central power."
In a former extract the noble Lord said, that the point to be reached is one and the same for all. What, then, was that point? That will be explained by a further reference to Lord Brougham's speech:—
"For most certain it is, that anything more mischievous, anything more fatal to the country, anything more calculated to multiply indefinitely the numbers of the poor, cannot be conceived than the application to them of any regular fixed provision, be it tithe, or be it tax, which they can claim at the hands of the rich, except by the force of that duty of imperfect obligation—private charity, which is imposed upon all men; every permanent fund set apart for their support, from whomsoever proceeding and by whomsoever administered, must needs multiply the evils it is destined to remedy."
Again, the noble Lord, in another part of his speech, says,—
"That at the present he would say nothing about repealing the Poor-law itself,"
But goes on to remark,—
"That when time shall have been allowed for inquiry and consideration, and when this measure shall have paved the way for the reception of ulterior projects, they will, should experience warrant their adoption, receive my assent."
Such was the object Lord Brougham had in view, and no better authority can be quoted with respect to the purposes of the act. Perhaps other supporters of that measure did not take so extended a view of its objects and results; but if they had reflected they would have found that the limitation to in-door relief, which was the object the act had avowedly in view, must necessarily tend to the total withdrawal of relief from the able-bodied worker under any circumstances in which he might be placed. The truth is, it is evident that the great object of the promoters of this law was to do away with any fixed provision for the poor with as much speed as the state of transition would admit of; but they had not the courage (which Lord Brougham had) to assert that object, or to declare it in the act. The intention was not discoverable by the act itself; the fifty-second clause appeared to countenance the continued exhibition of out-door assistance, but the poison was covered under a sweet exterior, and the commissioners were to do that by laws of their own making, which the

97
Parliament of the country deemed it imprudent to venture on. It can be clearly shown, from a reference to all the reports of the commissioners except the last one, that such was their view of the case. We find them holding the opinion that the spirit of the act and the intention of the Legislature was, that the in-door test should be brought into uniform and universal operation with the least possible delay, and that the only claim for relief should be absolute destitution. They uniformly objected on principle to the administration of relief under any other form than the workhouse test. In order to work out these objects, the commissioners acted upon the following principles:—1st. That out-door relief should be abolished. 2nd. That the only ground of claim for relief should be absolute destitution. 3rd. That the test of destitution should be workhouse confinement. 4th. That the test should be rendered effective by the nature of the feeding, labour, discipline, and restraint. 5th. That no discretion should be exercised in the admission or treatment of claimants founded on character or the cause of distress. I shall now proceed to quote some extracts from the commissioners reports. In the seventh annual report we find the following passage (page 42:—
"We cannot omit stating that since the institution of the Poor-law commission all the proceedings of the commissioners have been directed to a faithful execution of the intentions of the Legislature, which are embodied in the Poor-law Amendment Act. In particular, the intention of gradually withholding out-door relief from the able-bodied is declared in so explicit and unambiguous a manner as left the commissioners no option as to the course which they should pursue."
Here is the view which the commissioners entertain of the objects of the act, and of the duty to be performed by them, expressed in the most clear and intelligible terms; and in conformity with this, we find the general order given in the same report (p. 63), expressed in the following terms:—
"And we do hereby order, &c., that from and after every able-bodied person, male or female, requiring relief, shall be relieved wholly in the workhouse of the said union, together with such of the family of such able-bodied person as may be resident with him or her, and may not be in employment, and together with the wife of every such able-bodied male person, if he be a married man, and if she be resident with him, save and except in the following cases."
98
The order then details certain exceptions, but these exceptions in no degree derogate from the inviolability of the principle laid down as the general rule of action,—that the able-bodied are to get no relief other than in the workhouse. These exceptions have been put forward as if they abrogated the rule; but what do the commissioners say of their own exceptions? (Page 64.)
"Upon the portion of the order which relates to the able-bodied, the commissioners have only further to observe, that although the exceptions introduced in it are larger and better defined than those contained in the previous orders, yet it is upon the whole more restrictive than most of the previous orders, inasmuch as it extends to single women, including those with illegitimate children and to widows without children."
In the special report of the 31st of December, 1839, the commissioners state (P. 28),
"That all distribution of relief in money or goods to be spent and consumed by the pauper in his own house is inconsistent with the principle in question,"
namely, the principle of the act. They state their opinion against an out-door labour test in return for relief (p. 28) in the following terms:—
"Supposing again that the persons charged with the duty of relieving the poor, relieve them with money or goods at their own houses, but attempt to exact some labour in return, this mode of relief is found to be equally inconsistent with the principle in question." "In order, therefore, to carry the above-mentioned principle into effect, it is necessary that the pauper should be relieved, not by giving him money or goods to be spent or consumed in his own house, but by receiving him into a public establishment."
They then proceed to say
"The only expedient for accomplishing the end in view which humanity permits is to subject the pauper inmate of a public establishment to such a system of labour, discipline, and restraint, as shall be sufficient to outweigh in his estimation the advantages which he receives from the bodily comfort he enjoys."
In conformity with this principle, we find the regulations of the workhouse are to be carried out even to infirm paupers and the partially disabled. In page 29, we find the following observation:—
"With regard to the aged and infirm, however, there is a strong disposition on the part of a portion of the public so to modify the arrangements of these establishments as to place them on the footing of almshouses; the consequences which would flow from this

99
change would have only to be pointed out to show its inexpediency and danger; if the condition of this inmates of a workhouse were to be so regulated as to invite the aged and infirm of the labouring classes to take refuge in it, it would immediately be useless as a test between indigence and indolence, or fraud."
Alluding to the nature of the rules prescribed by the commissioners (p. 29), they are divided into two classes—
"1st., Those required for the maintenance of good order; 2nd., those which are necessary, not for that purpose, but in order that these establishments may not be almshouses, but workhouses in the proper meaning of the term, and may produce the results which the Legislature intended."
With relation to the separation of married couples, the commissioners again show their horror of any approach to almshouses; they say that if other objections could even be removed (page 31),—
"The domicile thus afforded to indigent couples would change the character of the institution for these couples; it would forthwith become an almshouse, in which not only food, clothing, medical and spiritual aid, but even the comfort of a separate home, would be provided at the public expense."
The commissioners in their last report seem to admit the necessity of out-door relief in the manufacturing districts, but in their former reports we find it was their undoubted intention to bring the whole of the districts under the New Poor-law system. From the report on the Liverpool poor (page 4),—
"In the autumn of 1840 nearly the entire manufacturing district of Lancashire had been formed into unions under the Poor-law Amendment Act, with the exception of the large towns. These had been left under their former management on account of the many difficulties which they presented; and it was thought that their omission would facilitate the working of the new law. The commissioners, however, found that while the leading places of the manufacturing district of Lancashire remained under the old mode of management, it was difficult to administer the law successfully in the neighbouring unions which had been formed and put into operation. Accordingly the commissioners in last autumn represented to the Marquess of Norman by the expediency of completing the union arrangements in Lancashire, and received his consent to that step; and in the sixth annual report, (page 2,) we find the following observations in praise of the refusal of out-door relief by the guardians. Mr. Edwards, sen., informs us that as respects certain unions (mentioned), where the population in some villages is exclusively manufacturing, in others exclusively agricul-
100
tural, although the greater part of the operatives have been only partially employed during the last nine months, and a very large proportion unable to find manufacturing employment, the guardians have firmly refused relief to this class except in the workhouse."
Again (same page),—
"Although we are sensible of the benefits which have resulted from the application of an out-door labour test, in periods of distress in the manufacturing districts, yet we are aware of its inferiority in effect to the workhouse itself; and we hope that on future occasions we may be able to devise arrangements which will render it unnecessary to resort to this secondary system of relief, notwithstanding the workhouse accommodation in a manufacturing union may be found to be inadequate."
What can be more explicit than this, with reference to the barbarous cold-heartedness with which the system was to be wrought out? In page 4 we find reasons assigned for the non-extension of the system as follows:—
"The depressed condition of the manufacturing population, and the disquietude of the public mind occasioned by the Chartist riot at Newport, in Monmouthshire, rendered us extremely unwilling to take any step in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire which might have even a remote tendency to produce a disturbance, or which might be used by designing persons as a pretext for agitation."
If we look through all the reports of the commissioners and the speeches of the supporters of the New Poor-law, we find the leading principle to be, that relief should on no account be given except on the existence of absolute destitution, and that the proof of this destitution should be obtained by means of the workhouse test. And what does the workhouse test mean? It simply means this—that the various regulations of the workhouse should be such as to produce that degree of repugnance to accept its relief, that no man should seek it except placed in the most urgent extremes of destitution; that starvation should be staring him in the face; and that this should be the only passport within its walls. For this reason and object the relief of the poor under any circumstances outside the House was to be withdrawn from the people of England; and the system of action was strictly in conformity with this object. The foregoing extracts most clearly prove the views which the commissioners took of the duties they had to perform. I shall now examine how far their proceedings were confirmatory of those views. In the last Session of Par-

101
liament I stated to the House various cases, which have not been contradicted,
and which established that the utmost severity of treatment had been carried on in several unions. I shall not trouble the House with a repetition of the details of these cases; I shall give a summary only of the facts stated. 1st. Separation of families to the extent even of the mother and sucking child. 2nd. Excessive punishment of both young and old. 3rd. Flogging of adult girls by the master. 4th. Harsh treatment of aged men by washing with pails of cold water, and by insufficient clothing. 5th. Poverty of feeding producing diarrhœa and other diseases. 6th. Indiscriminate mixture of the profligate and the virtuous. I shall now refer more particularly to some cases which have since attracted public attention in a high degree, more especially the proceedings in the Bridgewater and Sevenoaks Unions. The following is a summary of the proceedings at the Bridgewater Union:—In May, 1836, the new system was commenced. In August the dietary and other comforts of the poor were reduced. In September disease commenced, as appears by neglected protests of the medical officer. For nearly six years, up to the present time, the history of this House exhibits the following characteristics of the most loathsome maltreatment:—1st, spare diet; 2nd, rooms crowded to pestilence; 3rd, reckless exposure of the healthy to the most fatal contagion; 4th, its consequences—fevers, inflammations, and deaths; all this notwithstanding the earnest remonstrances of the medical man and others on the poisonous state of the workhouse. It may be said, and justly said, the guardians had their share of the blame; but what could excuse the commissioners for joining in the system and prohibiting the out-door supply of the poor under such circumstances? It was not till the close of six years of these proceedings that the commissioners at last prohibited further admissions. A similar instance is afforded in the Sevenoaks Union, but even of a more desperate character. It appears that this union was formed in April, 1835. The commissioner recommended the guardians to form a workhouse to accommodate 500, but the guardians refused, or neglected to make this provision, and adopted the old house with the sanction of the commissioners, which could only contain 300. In 1836 the Penshurst Union was combined with the Sevenoaks Union, and yet no enlargement of the house. In
102
December, 1836, a strictly prohibitory order against out-door relief was issued to this combined union by the desire of the assistant-commissioner, but still no addition was made to the capacity of the House. The fruits of such a condition manifested themselves in the diseases of the inmates of every class, and in 1841 an inquiry was entered into by order of the commissioners, which confirmed in general all the statements before made, as acknowledged by the report of the commissioners. The commissioners blame the doctor, the master and matron, and the guardians. They complain that they were not sooner informed of the state of things! but had they not the information that a house was only provided for 300, when their assistant deemed accommodation for 500 necessary for the Bridgewater Union alone; and did they not know that they doubled the Sevenoaks Union by the addition of Penshurst; and might they not have foreseen the result? From a report by Mr. Adams, 22nd of April, 1841, the following facts appear:—
"86 boys slept in 19 beds; 75 boys in 16 beds; 57 men in 31 beds; 40 women in 20 beds."
In another return, Mr. Adams stated the health of the inmates as follows.—
"78 boys enlargement of the neck, 42 having likewise goitres; of 94 girls and infant children, 91 had enlarged glands at the back of the neck, and 63 goitres; scrofulous cases 7. Nurse Middleton stated, that there lay 15 children in 2 beds feet to feet, and 18 children in 3 beds; the remainder of the beds had 4 each; the ages of the children, 5 to 12. The 2 beds in which so many children slept were tied together. The beds were four feet six inches wide. She describes the old woman being afflicted with vermin from want of clean clothes. Lying-in women confined two in a bed."
Such have been the proceedings of the commissioners, acting as they stated under the spirit and meaning of the Legislature, as expressed by the New Poor-law Act. They carried this system on for eight years, in defiance of every claim of humanity, forcing it in such manner as to produce disease and death of old and young. But now it appears by the eighth report, that a new order or system is to be created. They have found out that the act gives them ample discretion, and that the out-door labour test is to be admitted as a part of the system. They have now found out (page 12),—

103
"The order prohibiting the out-door relief for the able-bodied, and limiting their relief to the workhouse, is inapplicable under two sets of circumstances:—1st, where the permanent state of the union is such as not to admit of its issue; 2nd, when the ordinary state of the union admits of its enforcement, but the workhouse is temporarily full."
They quote the 52nd section in proof of these powers, and then proceed,—
"From these words it will be seen that the commissioners are expressly empowered by the Poor-law Amendment Act to prescribe other conditions for the relief of the able-bodied besides that of admission into the workhouse. The most obvious and generally applicable condition of this sort is the exaction of labour in return for relief, without the exception of the persons relieved in the workhouse."
Let these extracts be compared with those before quoted from the former reports, and then I would ask these commissioners how they can explain such absolute contradictions. They stated in the former reports that it was the spirit and intention of the act that out-door provision should be withdrawn with all practicable speed, and yet now they affirm that there are certain unions whose permanent state will not admit the enforcement of the in-door test. They formerly reprobated the outdoor labour test, and now they admit its utility in such eases. If this be the case, I would ask, did not Bridgewater and Sevenoaks come under the description of the second class, the houses not being sufficient to accommodate the poor? Why, then, did they issue their prohibitory order in these unions? Why did they persevere in maintaining it up to the last year, when they were aware that disease, produced by over-crowded apartments, was spreading suffering and death among the inmates? Was this a right use of their discretion? They persevered for eight years in maintaining the in-door test. They now say that the out-door test must be resorted to. They must be wrong either in the one position or the other. If their present opinions be right, they have been for eight years committing a grievous wrong against the poor; and such conduct affords a clear demonstration of the evil of having such extended powers placed in their hands. They blame the guardians and officers of the union of Sevenoaks for the abuses which existed; they excuse themselves in this way; but what is the use of the commissioners if they have not the means of information independently of these officers? And here is an evident proof of the evil of
104
such a system—where there is a divided responsibility—where there are two different sets of conductors, and each can lay the blame of their respective crimes or neglects upon the other. They now propose to apply the out-door labour test to manufacturing unions only; what will be the effect of this? If a less oppressive test be resorted to in the manufacturing unions than in the agricultural unions, will it not tend to produce a greater influx of poor into the already overloaded manufacturing districts, and thereby increase the distress? Or if they be returned to the rural districts, will they not be placed there as permanent paupers without the possibility of resuming their former position? Is this a proof of the right discretion of the commissioners? It is contended by some that a Poor-law is an invasion of property—that no man has a right to be supported out of another man's industry: this is true in the abstract, and might be properly applicable to a state of society where monopolies did not exist, and where there was no obstruction to the efforts of labour and the full enjoyment of its fruits; but this state of things exists in very few civilised societies, and none is more remote from it than the condition of Britain. The natural right of man conferred on him by his Creator is, that he shall support himself on the fruits of the earth produced by the sweat of his brow; the laws of society confer the property of the soil on individuals in extended tracts, and the laws of England, by the system of entails and the law of primogeniture, confer and sustain this monopoly, prevent that subdivision which would arise from the disposal of that right of property in the natural course of events, and render the poor man wholly dependent on the wages of hired labour for his existence. The Poor-law then, which sends the distressed poor man back to the land for relief in his necessities, is not an aggression on property, but is only a just compensation to the poor worker for the invasion made upon his rights by the monopolising laws of society. But, although this is the first and greatest invasion of his rights, the other laws which have been since passed aggravate in an immense degree the evils to which he is subjected—amongst which the Corn-law is pre-eminently iniquitous, and establishes beyond contradiction the absolute right of the poor to demand subsistence or employment out of the fixed property of the country. In fact, it is a quit-rent to the worker, to which all your

105
estates were virtually subject before you possessed them. It is a quit-rent which, if not paid, destroys the title to your estates. On the payment of this quit-rent the existence of your title depends in justice and in policy, and according to all the rules of religion and morality. But there are causes of distress to the poor man created by the legislation of the rich for objects in which the poor had no interest—the immense debt, the enormous taxation oppresses him, and interferes with his struggles to obtain an independent support; and another circumstance which has arisen at the present time to increase his difficulties is the progress of machinery in setting aside human labour. Although it is to be hoped that this will be for ultimate good—yet it cannot be denied that present evil is created to the working-man; that it puts his interests still more in the power of the man of wealth, and that means should be taken for his increased protection, instead of the abatement of his right to subsistence. The poor man should be protected against the monied man, as well as against the landed proprietor. The wealthy manufacturer should be kept under the feeling that he will be responsible if he, in the first instance, collects together large numbers of workers, and then by the sudden application of machinery causes a production beyond the demands of supply, and throws those poor people idle; he should know that he will be compelled either to employ them or subsist them. Nothing but a well-organised Poor-law, administered by a body of men in the localities, elected by the whole people, can give the poor man any protection against the oppressions of the rich in a society founded on such principles, and legislated for by such laws as at present exist in England. The rich must be made responsible for the condition of the poor; but on this subject one practical example is worth a thousand theories; and to find that example in the highest degree of force, you have not far to travel—you have only to cross the Channel to Ireland. You will there find where, until recently, there was no Poor-law, that every evil which has been attributed to the English Poor-law by its opponents exists in a character of the most extended magnitude:—improvidence, slothfulness, early marriages, thick population, want of employment, bad cultivation of the land, want of respect for the laws; and why did all these evils exist in Ireland? Because there was no responsibility
106
thrown on the rich with regard to the condition of the poor, a responsibility which can alone be created by the medium of a Poor-law with a settlement clause. Such was the condition of Ireland without a Poor-law. Compare this with the condition of England as it existed under the old Poor-law. What country in the world produced such evidences of prosperity, of improvement, good order, respect for the laws, respect for the rights of property, of peace, and contentment? Am I to be told that the Poor-law had no share in producing this, when such a practical example can be supplied as that of the two portions of the empire—England and Ireland, in juxtaposition? But I have further proofs. If we go back to the history of England, what do we find to have been its condition as to crime previous to the establishment of a Poor-law? We find in Hume's history that in the reign of Henry 8th there were confined, as debtors or criminals, at one time, in the gaols 60,000 persons; that 72,000 criminals were executed for theft and robbery alone in the reign of Henry 8th, an average of nearly 2,000 a-year; ta t in 1569, in the county of Somerset, forty persons are stated to have been executed in one year for robberies, thefts, and other felonies; thirty-five burnt in the hand, thirty-seven whipped. The rapines committed by idle vagrants were intolerable; at least 3,000 or 4,000 persons in every county were living by rapine, assembling in troops, committing spoil in the daytime, and magistrates intimidated from executing their duty. In 1597 an act was passed taking away the benefit of clergy from persons committing robberies in the daytime. An act of the 43d of Elizabeth, ch. 7, recites as follows:—
"For as much as unlawful cutting and taking away of corn and grain growing, robbing orchards and gardens, digging up and taking away fruit-trees, breaking hedges, cutting woods and underwoods, are now commonly committed," &c.
Such was the state of England immediately before the passing of the Poor-law, and we find that after the passing of the Poor-law an amelioration took place, and that at the end of the reign of Elizabeth the entire capital punishments were reduced to 400 yearly, in place of 2,000, as in the reign of Henry the 8th, the preceding sovereign (Hume's history). If we refer to the condition of the people in other respects, we

107
find it described as follows—in Hume's history, in the reign of Mary, 1558:—
"The frequent plagues were ascribed to dirtiness—floors commonly of clay, strewed with rushes, under which all manner of offensive dirt lies collected. Scarcely a chimney to the houses, even in large towns; the fire kindled by the wall sought its way out by the roof, door or window beds, a sack of chaff with a round log of wood for a bolster; houses built of sallow or willow; oak dedicated to the use of the rich."
Now, if we refer to the accounts of the condition of the people lately published from various quarters, we find a progressing descent to the condition above described; we find them gradually losing both the comforts and decencies of life in their houses. The operation of the Poor-law as formerly established in the prevention of crime is further proved by a reference to the facts given by official returns as to crime at present, and previous to the enactment of the New Poor-law Bill. It appears from Parliamentary returns, Session 1842, that from 1834 to 1841 crime has increased as follows:—

England and Wales.

1834.

1841.

Offences against property with violence

1,027

1,454

Offences against properly without violence

12,177

16,285

Total of these two classes

13,204

17,739

Total of alt offences

15,995

20,280

From the above, it appears, that since 1834 to 1840 convictions for offences against property have increased about one-third, and the total of all offences has increased about one-fourth; but the most rapid increase has been in the last three years of this series regularly progressing, as appears from the following statement:—

1838.

1839.

1840.

1841.

Offences against property with violence

1,150

1,053

1,484

1,454

Offences against property without violence

13,513

14,294

15,852

16,285

Total of these classes

14,663

15,357

17,336

17,739

Total of all offences

16,785

17,832

19,927

20,280

Thus it appears that under the old Poor-law, England had prospered in an unprecedented degree, and that since the partial abrogation of that law by the new
108
act, the descent from prosperity has progressed with extraordinary rapidity. I am ready to admit the imperfections of that law as it was latterly administered, and that it required amendment; but I maintain that its spirit should not have been violated. The vital and essential difference between the two laws is this, that by the one the poor were protected from destitution, by the other no relief is to be administered till the last stages of destitution have arrived. The one was prevention, the other is destruction. By furnishing the poor worker with work, or else with subsistence when temporary evil comes upon him, you preserve him in his condition; he is enabled again to become an independent member of society; but if you give him no aid till the last stage of destitution has overtaken him, you bring him to the condition of an irrecoverable pauper. When his employment ceases, he first gets into debt. He next pawns, first his articles of furniture, next his clothing. He parts, by degrees, with all the comforts, if not the necessaries of life. He cannot pay his rent. He is ejected. He then becomes a fitting object for your poorhouse, and if ever he leaves that house, he goes out as a vagrant; he commits crime, and becomes the inmate of a gaol. Such is the state to which your New Poor-law, in connexion with your other legislation, is reducing the people of England. You find the people now in such a condition that your Poor-law is incapable of relieving them; you have reduced them to the state of beggars, and you call for charitable subscriptions to answer the demands of these beggars. The supporters of the New Poor-law say, that the poor ought to be relieved by private charity. They say this consistently enough with their views, because charity will never be applied to any extent till extreme destitution has arrived, and even then it will not avail; but if the poor are to be thrown on the support of charity, are you to continue your vagrant law? How can the poor make known their wants except by asking alms, and if they ask alms, are they not treated as criminals of a high order? Was there not a case of this kind lately brought before the House, when a poor man, in the last degree of poverty, for the mere fact of seeking alms, was seized by a policeman and barbarously chained to a manger till it suited the convenience of this policeman to take farther steps for the enforcement

109
of the law? Is this the fate to which the poor, industrious, working men of England are to be brought? But it had been said, that Poor-law taxation had progressed to an enormous extent, swallowing up property. But it appears by Mr. Rickman's calculations, officially made and returned to the House of Commons, that on a comparison of the amount of poor-rate expenditure and population in the years 1748, 1749, and 1750, as compared with the year 1839, the total contribution of each individual taken in the average value of wheat at each of these periods was exactly the same,—namely, forty-two pints; but in 1750, the condition of the working classes was infinitely better, because, since that time, machinery has interfered with the domestic manufacturer, by which the parent and all the members of the family could be employed at home at good wages. The most important acts which have been passed for regulating the relief of the poor were the three following—namely, the 43rd of Elizabeth, the Gilbert Act, and the Select Vestry Act; all these acts were founded on the principle that subsistence was to be given to the unemployed worker in return for work, if that subsistence be given to an able-bodied person; and the Select Vestries Act particularly placed the discretion as to this relief and the persons to receive it in the hands of representative bodies. The new law gives the representative bodies a mere mockery of power, and places the real power in the hands of three commissioners. The action of the Select Vestry Act is highly approved in the first abstract of evidence published by the commissioners, who gave instances of its successful operation in reducing the rates, and particularly in the parish of Stanford Rivers, in Liverpool, in Garstang, Lancashire, in the city of Carlisle, and in Whitehaven; in all which cases the rates had been rapidly reduced. There is a proceeding of the commissioners which cannot be passed over without comment. By their first and second annual reports we find that the commissioners exerted their utmost influence to induce a migration of working people from the rural districts to the manufacturing towns, and that they partially succeeded: Can such a principle of action be defended? Is it not manifest that although a temporary relief might by these means be obtained that a permanent evil would be created, by multiplying the numbers of those wholly dependent on the
110
wages of manufacture? The very reverse should have been the course; instead of increasing the masses in the manufacturing towns, the manufacturers should have been induced to erect their mills in the rural districts, and thus combined the double means of support to be derived from manufacture and agriculture. The commissioners have now permitted an out-door test to be acted on, but from the previous disposition manifested, can it be doubted that they will make the terms of this test so severe as to deprive the poor of any use of it? Can their discretion be trusted in the humane administration of any test? Besides, this test is only permitted at present to be applied in five unions. Can it be supposed that if these five unions require it, there are not a multitude of other unions in which it would be requisite? I have now endeavoured to place before the House the principles of the act which you are called on to renew, and the principle of action on. which the commissioners carried it into operation. You are called on to renew both the act and their powers. You are called on to make nonentities of the representative bodies which you have constituted, and to leave for five years the care of the poor in the hands of these commissioners. Will you do so? Will you practically upset the grand principle of the British constitution, which places the power of taxing and the disposal of that taxation in the hands of the representatives of the people? Eight years should have given sufficient experience of the regulations generally necessary. Let Parliament, then, enact such regulations as it shall deem fit, but let not the lawmaking for the poor be left in the hands of an arbitrary oligarchy of three individuals. I do not deny that a court of appeal might be proper, but this court should have no other power than to decide whether boards of guardians had acted according to law, or the reverse. With reference to the outdoor administration of relief, I do not ask that the able-bodied poor should receive aid without the demand of work in return; but this work should be given with humanity, according to their strength and power of working and former habits of work; and the wages should be such as to afford a fair subsistence for themselves and their families. This I hold to be the wholesome principle of the original Poor-law, and I desire to see it restored not only in name but in substance. These are the principles which I wished to see tarried

111
into operation, and I now call upon the House to reject a measure which goes to continue all that is objectionable in the system, which goes to continue all those powers of the commissioners which, in my opinion, have been grossly abused. Nothing, I can assure the House, is further from my wish or intention than to make this a party question. I am convinced there are many hon. Members who, at the time they gave their support to the New Poor-law, did it with the best intentions, and through a sincere desire of benefitting the country. But I now call upon those hon. Gentlemen to look to the experience of that law, not obstinately to adhere to any preconceived opinions it be may have entertained regarding it, but to judge of it the by results it furnishes, by the effects of its operation, and if they find that in the working of it the poor have been materially injured, and that they are likely still to be injured by its continuance, then do I hope that they will not persevere in a course which must be obviously unjust towards those who most stand in need of our protection. I thank the House for the attention with which I have been heard in endeavouring, as far as I could, to lay before it the principles of this bill, and the ground upon which I now move that it be read a second time this day three months.
Captain Pechellhad great satisfaction in seconding the motion which had been so clearly and so ably brought forward by his hon. Friend. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in introducing his bill, had appealed to the compassion and good feeling of hon. Members, and expressed a hope that the House would entertain it in a genuine spirit of charity, benevolence and good will. But what must have been the surprise of the House, after such a commencement, to find that the bill contained not a single alleviation of those clauses which operated with so much severity and cruelty. The right hon. Baronet had frankly announced his intention of abolishing the Gilbert Unions; while the right hon. Baronet avowed that he would not interfere with the local acts, because the law already gave sufficiently the power of doing that. Now, he was hostile to the powers of the commissioners, because he saw that there was no hope for the local acts unless those powers were abrogated. He should therefore give his strenuous opposition to every part of the measure,
112
and take every means of defeating it. [The hon. Member entered into some details concerning Gilbert's Act to prove that it authorised relief near the pauper's place of residence, and that the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had not accurately quoted it.] The hon. Member continued:—As for what the Poor-law Commissioners said of that act, their reports had only misled the country;—they had been founded on wrong data, and, like all the other measures of the commissioners with reference to these unions, they had only had for their object to distract, torment, and wear out the Gilbert guardians, as indeed they must have distracted and tormented any one less hardy than a Somerset-house commissioner. The right hon. Baronet had averred that under the Gilbert Act the employer might be one of the guardians, and that the man might agree with his employer and guardian what proportion he would pay and what sum should come out of the parochial fund. Now, the burden of proof in this case lay with the right hon. Baronet, and he challenged him to state one case in proof of his allegation. But those were the sort of general charges made against all who acted under the Gilbert enactment. It was on a par with the allegation that all the Gilbert guardians were illiterate men, and men who were not likely to act for the interest of their parishes. Certainly, with respect to the latter part of the allegation, there was pretty good proof that they knew their own interest in the fact that they had resisted the incorporation of the unions over which they presided. Then another complaint of the right hon. Baronet's was, that there was no harmony between the Gilbert and the Poor-law Act unions, and that they could not coexist, because the Gilbert Guardians could not send able-bodied men to their workhouses. Now this assertion was also not borne out by the facts. He would quote a case which had arisen in 1835, and which had been submitted to the opinion of the late Attorney-general, now Lord Campbell. That learned Crown officer delivered the following opinion on the point:—
"I am of opinion that guardians under Gilbert's Act may order into the workhouse poor persons able and willing to work, when their being in the workhouse is compatible with their having employment under the 32nd section of the act, but not otherwise."
But then another great ground of objec-

113
tion was, that beer was supplied to the paupers under Gilbert's Act. That seemed to be a heinous crime, and was in fact the ground for all these clauses. Again, it was said that these unions offered geographical impediments to carrying out the Poor-law. Now, certainly that would be an excellent objection to the completeness of a game preserve; but he really thought it was immaterial whether the Poor-law unions were square, round, or of any other imaginable shape. Indeed, the idea of uniformity was discarded by the right hon. Baronet himself, so that he cut from under his argument the very groundwork of his own objection. But, turning to the other side of the question—contemplating the great interests involved—he must say, that when he saw so large a number of families enjoying the benefits of Gilbert's Act, he thought that House ought to act with some caution, when they were asked to consent to the entire abrogation of that system. At the present time there were 294 parishes with a population of 182,473 receiving the benefits of this act. In addition to these, there were 228 parishes with a population of 1,182,600 incorporated under local acts. Thus altogether 1,500,000 of the population of this country were enjoying freedom under their own acts, and under an act of Parliament which they had been at great trouble to obtain, and which they considered to have been satisfactorily administered. On a previous occasion, the right hon. Baronet had stated the number of persons living in parishes under Gilbert's Act at only 155,000. He had reason to doubt the correctness of that statement, and he found on inquiry that there were 182,000 and more persons taking advantage of its operation in 1831, whilst under the census of 1841 that number had increased to nearly 200,000. He might, therefore, have named 2,000,000 as the amount of the population not subject to the control of the Poor-law Commissioners. He was quite aware, that the great object of the Government was to deal what had been styled "a heavy blow and a great discouragement" at the nuisance, as they thought it, of the Gilbert Unions, and eventually at all other unions not under the control of the commissioners. The right hon. Baronet had, indeed, stated that this bill would not interfere with the operation of local acts, and so far he was correct in his assertion. The people were
114
quite aware, however, of the power placed in the hands of the commissioners, and after the decision of Lord Denman in the Brighton case, in which it was adjudged that the commissioners had the power to build the workhouses, they were on the alert against every encroachment. After all he had heard, he should indeed be wanting in his duty to his constituents if he did not at once declare his intention of opposing this measure in every stage and in every way in his power. Before it was advanced an inch further it ought to be shown that the Poor-law had given satisfaction to the country. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet who sat on the Ministerial bench (Sir E. Knatchbull) would take an early opportunity of stating how far he was satisfied with the working of the measure in Kent. He fully recollected that in February, 1841, the right hon. Baronet had refused to consent to any bill on the subject unless he was so satisfied, and that he had then come down to that House, and expressed the strong feelings he entertained at the refusal of certain boards of guardians in that county to provide food or labour for the poor during the time they were out of employ, in consequence of the snow of the preceding year. He hoped that the right hon. Baronet would state what had been the result of his experience since that time, and that they should find from his explanation that the statements which had gone forth in the public papers had not had any foundation in fact. Now, it had been stated by the hon. Member below him (Mr. S. Crawford) that crime had increased throughout the country since the passing of the Poor-law. He had no doubt of the fact, and he would further express his conviction that crime would be found to have prevailed to the greatest extent in those parts where the Poor-law had been the most rigorously enforced. In his own county, Sussex, it had been stated at a late meeting of the magistrates in quarter sessions assembled, that the Lewes House of Correction was filled to overflowing, chiefly by persons committed for offences in the union workhouses. At his instigation a return on this subject, showing how many of these crimes had been practised in the Gilbert and Poor-law union houses respectively, had been ordered, and he could not but express some surprise that it had not been laid upon the Table. At that meeting it was

115
also stated that the county had been put to great expense owing to these offences, and he would, with their permission, read to the House a short document giving a sample of the sort of crimes for which those committals took place. The case he referred to was that of a boy named Robert Crouch, who was charged before the magistrates on the Battle bench with running away with certain articles of clothes belonging to the guardians of the union. That charge was, in effect, that he walked out of the workhouse with his jacket and trousers on, and perhaps it was not quite so heinous an offence as that of the police, who commonly of a morning took away the clothes of the boys who were found after certain hours bathing in the Serpentine. But let the House hear the particulars. The master of the house stated that the boy had not long returned from the House of Correction at Lewes, where he had committed the same offence. As soon as he returned he again absconded and returned again to the house, where he endeavoured to instil into the minds of the other boys that Lewes gaol was better than the union-house, and several boys had run away for the purpose of being committed there. The magistrates said, it seemed extraordinary that the guardians should apply to the bench on such occasions. It appeared, on the following day, that this boy and another absconded, and were taken by a policeman and placed in confinement in the union-house. During the night they contrived again to escape; one was retaken and committed by a magistrate at Hastings to Lewes gaol for three months, which was just what the boy most desired. He understood that since this case had been heard the magistrates had grown quite tired of such proceedings, and had given notice that such charges must not be brought before them. Therefore it was, that he said it was only fair and just that before they abrogated the Gilbert system they should show that they intended to supersede it by some system of superior management. They ought to hold out some inducement to take such a course. They should soften opposition by showing that some benefit would be likely to accrue—either in the lessening of the expenses, in the better and kinder treatment of the poor, or in the improvement of the general workhouse regulations. He would only further say, that as he had never at any one time made this a party
116
question, so he should now continue to pursue the course he had always taken—that of treating the matter fairly and justly, and without consideration as to the political views of the party in power. Entertaining these opinions, he should most gladly second the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale.
Mr. Pakingtonhoped for the indulgence of the House whilst he stated the reasons which induced him to give his most cordial support to the measure which had been brought in by her Majesty's Ministers. There had been so much misconception of the entire principle of the measure, arising from a well-intentioned, but misplaced humanity, and in addition to this such unscrupulous endeavours had been made to excite the bad passions and the angry feelings of the people against it, that it was the duty of every man who had given the subject his conscientious attention, and who was desirous to afford the law a fair trial, without undue prejudice on the one side or partiality on the other, not to shrink from the bold expression of his opinions, whatever unpopularity might attach to them. He was glad to find that in the measure about to be introduced, Ministers had not been induced to swerve from the principle of the Poor-law. When a brief discussion took place on this question in last September, he ventured to express his hope that whilst Government would not hesitate to relax any of the provisions which might be found to operate with undue severity, no important principle should be compromised. He was glad to perceive that there were many useful alterations made in the bill, but he was equally pleased to find its main principles were preserved, and it should therefore have its support, for he was perfectly convinced that it was a measure of all others best calculated to promote the true interests of the working classes themselves. He should not follow the hon. Member for Rochdale through all the topics which the hon. Gentleman touched, such as the conduct of the policeman chaining the prisoner to the bed-post, as he did not see how such a case bore upon the question. There were two objections, however, of the hon. Gentleman to which he would address himself. The hon. Gentleman first objected to the commissioners, and next to the workhouse test. Now to him it appeared utterly impossible that the measure could be properly carried out, through all

117
its complex details, without some central guiding authority. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself admitted the necessity of some central control. As to the commissioners, he was of opinion that, whilst some of their acts might, perhaps, be open to cavil, it must, on the whole, be admitted that they performed a delicate and difficult duty with great judgment and impartiality; and while he was on this subject, he must bear the testimony of his approbation to the late appointment of Sir E. Head, which was highly creditable to the Government, inasmuch as it showed the appointment to have been made apart from party consideration, and merely with a view to the due discharge of the duties involved. Last year he dissented from the proposal of vesting such power as was proposed in the commissioners, unless it was subjected to Parliamentary revision; but, at the same time, he thought it necessary to secure to them independence of action, by not having their appointments made from year to year, but for a sufficient given time. There could be no greater proof of the necessity of a central controlling body than what had recently taken place at Easingwold. There the guardians threw up their offices, because out-door relief would not be allowed to the able-bodied mothers of illegitimate children, to which relief the commissioners very properly objected. The relief was attempted to be justified on the ground of the deserving character of the parents, who never before had had illegitimate children, and were under twenty-two years of age; but if such an argument were to be allowed, and out-door relief granted, how could it be refused to poor but respectable widows? If every board of guardians showed such a disregard of sound principle, and abandoned their functions in such a way, there could be no more convincing proof afforded that it was necessary there should be a central board, to step in and check such irregularities. This, then, was one of the reasons why he approved of the commission. The next, and perhaps the most important, point in the measure was one of the provisions to which the hon. Member for Rochdale objected—namely, the workhouse test. The hon. Gentleman expressed great disapprobation of this part of the measure, and adduced several instances of alleged abuse as occurring in the workhouses under the existing law. Amongst these he enume-
118
rated the Hoo, the Bridgewater, and the Sevenoaks Unions. He could not do better, as regarded this part of the argument, than slate to the House some of the malpractices which took place under the old law. He would take an instance from the general report of Mr. Mott, the assistant Poor-law Commissioner. In the first annual report Mr. Mott stated:—
"There are some of the parochial establishments for the reception of the poor which are positively a disgrace to our common nature."
In the report on the workhouse of St. Philip and St. Jacob, out-parish of B s-tol, there occurred the following:—
"The state of the workhouse was filthy in the extreme—the appearance of the inmates dirty and wretched. There was no classification whatever—men, women, and children being promiscuously huddled together. In one corner of the building, I discovered a most dismal filthy looking room. I entered it, and the scene which I witnessed it is impossible to forget; it reminded me of a coal-cellar, or any place rather than the residence of a human being. The sole tenant of this miserable abode was a poor distressed lunatic. His appearance was pitiable in the extreme; his clothing was ragged; his flesh dirty as the floor; his head and face were bruised, apparently from falls.…. I endeavoured to arouse this poor pitiable fellow-creature, but the attempt was useless—all sensibility had forsaken him. To the very great shame of the parish officers, I found he had been in this disgusting state for years."
In the report of Mr. Pilkington—
"Mr. John Hunt, who is surgeon to one of the districts of the Westbourne Union, stated to the board, that on visiting the Bosham workhouse—a house which had not then been altered from the system in which it had been left by the overseers acting under the old administration—he one day found a married man standing up in bed in the middle of the day, with nothing on but his shirt; while two young women, one of whom was daughter to the governor of the house, were making a bed adjoining the one on which he was standing. The old governor has been discharged by the board of guardians, and these indecencies have been prevented by a proper separation of the sexes. When Mr. Weale, now one of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, visited the workhouse at Horsham, at my request, he found several couples of able-bodied married persons regularly sleeping, without any partition or screen between them, in the same room; while several young females were also sleeping in a corner of it. He also found a highly dangerous lunatic in chains in the common sleeping room."
As the hon. Member for Rochdale had

119
spoken of the alleged abuses of the new system, he would ask the House to compare the two, and he would put it to them to say, whether details so revolting and disgraceful to human nature as he had just enumerated, were not utterly inconsistent with the useful application of a Poor-law. There was another point to which he would call the attention of the House, in comparing the old with the new system. He had just stated the condition in which a pauper lunatic had been for four years, and that arose from the fact, that under the old system there was no security against abuse, for no one knew what was going on, and there could consequently be no detection. Contrast that state of things with what had been said respecting the Sevenoaks and Hoo Unions. He did not mean either to palliate or defend the conduct of the master of the Hoo Union, but it was seen, that his conduct had been inquired into, he himself had been brought to trial, and he suffered three months' imprisonment. It should, however, be taken into account in bringing a great experiment which was to extend over the whole kingdom into operation, that it was not possible, in the first instance, to find persons who were all fully qualified to aid in carrying it out. With respect to Sevenoaks, no person could regret more than he the illness which sprang up there, or the misconduct which had taken place. But what was the result? The guardians refused to build a new workhouse when the inmates were found to be too numerous. In the spring of last year, attention was called to the fact that a glandular affection had exhibited itself amongst the children, and yet the guardians postponed increasing the establishment. This conduct led to an order on the part of the commissioners for the purpose of preventing the House being over-crowded, and this showed, that the poor could not be neglected, or abuses suffered to exist with impunity, whilst the Central Board had the power of correcting the evil. If, then, he wanted an argument in favour of the commission, the transactions which had taken place at Bridgewater, Sevenoaks, and Hoo, would serve to show their utility in bringing abuses to light, and secure the public from any fear of their continuance. There must be some test, and, in his opinion, none was better than that afforded by a well regulated workhouse. Workhouses
120
were not almshouses, but places of last resort for persons thrown for support upon the public, and where three of the greatest advantages which persons in their position require,—namely, a good shelter, abundance of fire, and wholesome food, those three things were not denied in the workhouse—and if the poor man was sure of enjoying at the time of need what the honest and independent workman frequently wanted, he could not complain of some necessary restraint imposed, and some useful restrictions adopted. The outcry against the bill was raised by those who took no part in its administration, and was the result in many instances of good and benevolent, but mistaken feelings. He was convinced, that if those who from such motives now opposed it, were to lend their aid in administering the law in kindness, in justice, and in mercy, the complaints now made would not be so prevalent. There was one part of the bill, however, which he was inclined to consider with no little hesitation. He meant that part of the measure which related to the educational districts. This part would involve considerable expense, and it was very questionable, taking into account the great expense which had been already incurred in erections, whether it would be judicious to add a new item for schools. Whilst he applauded every measure for the promotion of education, he still thought it questionable whether illegitimate children who had been abandoned by their parents and thrown upon the country for support, should enjoy advantages which were denied to the children of honest and independent labourers. He was pleased, however, with the proposal of district committees, which would prevent the necessity of long journies; that he considered a wholesome alteration. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Brighton, he must utterly dissent from the doctrine laid down respecting the Gilbert Unions. It was essential to the well-working of the bill that the existence of these Unions should not interfere with the unity of action of the measure throughout the whole country. On the contrary, he regretted that there were two omissions of what, if he remembered correctly, had been introduced into the bill of last year. One related to the payment of county-rates by the board of guardians, and the other had reference to the rating of small dwellings. With re-

121
spect to the expense, the amount of the rates under the old law was enormous and a great saving had been effected under the new system. When he spoke of this point, he always guarded himself against being supposed to mean that this was the great or primary object of the Poor-law Amendment Act. The primary object of that Act was to restore habits of industry and independence to the English peasantry. He believed that it was well adapted to effect its object, and that in many instances it had already succeeded in that object. He believed it to be, in all its principles, a sound and wholesome law, and he would not be deterred by any prejudice or clamour that had been raised, or any unpopularity of which he might be the object, from giving his assent to the bill now before the House.
General Johnsonobserved, that opinions respecting this measure were more contradictory, on both sides of the House, than on any other which he remembered. The hon. Member had talked of uniformity of system as the main advantage to be obtained by the original measure, but that ground had been totally abandoned by the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, in his speech on introducing the present bill. No other advantage had ever been held out as likely to result from the appointment of the commissioners than that they should enforce uniformity. They had now held power for eight years, and had totally failed to enforce it. Was there any security, if five years' more power were granted to them, that they would do any better than they had done during the last eight years? They had sown disunion instead of establishing uniformity. The Poor-law Amendment Act had set man against man throughout the country, beyond any measure that House had ever passed. It had stirred up hatred between the employer and the employed—a hatred which would never be forgotten so long as the law continued in force. As for the assistant-commissioners, he should be glad to know from any one who could inform him, of what sort of use they were. He had spoken to the chairmen of several boards of guardians, and had never been able to ascertain from any of them that those commissioners were of the slightest use whatever. They were an incumbrance on the boards; they im-
122
peded their proceedings, and did no earthly good whatever. That was an expense, therefore, which might be saved to the country. It was a mere source of patronage, which had better be got rid of. One part of the subject he wished to advert to, which had been totally overlooked by the hon. Member who had just sat down—the extreme difficulty experienced under this law by the poor in obtaining medical relief. The distance they had to travel before reaching the place where it could be obtained was often very great; and when the place was reached, the granting relief was entirely at the option of the medical man, who, it was probable, said he would come next day. He knew a case where a sick man had to go twenty-nine miles, backwards and forwards, over the union in search of relief; the medical man did not see him until the third day, and he died on the fourth. Another great objection to this law was, that it treated good and bad men alike. Whether it was the misfortune or the vice of an individual that made him a pauper, he was dealt with in the same way. The authorization of out-door relief was at the discretion of three men at Somerset-house who could know nothing more of the expediency of granting it than the box on the table. They had forbidden it wherever they dared, although their proceedings had been counteracted by the guardians of several Unions who had given out-door relief in spite of their order. Those Unions succeeded best which paid least attention to the orders of the commissioners. The amount of the poor-rates considerably decreased in the last three years before the act passed, but during the last four years it had most materially increased in almost every Union. The ratepayers were crying out against the enormous salaries paid to the commissioners and their officers. He was of opinion that the overseers had, in many cases, a fair claim to be paid for their services. They had often to go ten or twelve miles in and out, and a day was of consequence to farmers attending the board, particularly at certain periods of the year. In the Union with which he was connected they had been obliged to send to the next town to procure guardians to make a board. If guardians were to be employed that way, they had better be paid for their attendance. He thought the poor would have a better chance of being attended to if the guar-

123
dians were paid for their time, than if they were put to the loss of their time and trouble. By the present bill, it was proposed to give power in cases of bastardy to imprison the father of the child under certain circumstances. If the mother could be supported for 1s. 6d. per week, it would be hardly worth while to prosecute the man. He would suggest, that the man should be obliged to support the woman during her lying-in month and pay her expenses. It had been said, that the present act worked well; he was of opinion it worked well for none but those who had to work it. Was it just to subject those for whose benefit it was pretended the act was passed, and who had no representatives in Parliament, to the control of the gentlemen of Somerset-house, who could know nothing of the local circumstances of the various districts? He objected most strongly to the system of centralization established by the act. Our forefathers were perfectly well able to take care of themselves and of all the inhabitants of their parishes, and why should not the present generation do as much? Why should the commissioners of Somerset-house, who were responsible to nobody, have the power of making laws? Why should the people be delivered up to the power of the commissioners without any liberty of appeal from their judgment in every case? It had been said, previous to the passing of the new law, that it would raise the value of labour and the rate of wages, but it had, on the contrary, lowered them, and had it not been for the employment afforded by railroads for five or six years, it would have depressed them much more. Would any man say, that wages in the south and west of England were not scandalously low, much lower than they ought to be? He did not know of any instance in which the New Poor-law had raised wages. The labourers were entirely in the hands of the guardians, their chief employers, who regulated the rate of wages, as must always be the case, by the quantity of labour in the market. The hon. Member who spoke last had drawn a parallel between the workhouses under the new act and those under the old system, but formerly it was well known there was hardly one workhouse to 100 parishes. For the reasons he had stated he should offer the present bill his most strenuous opposition.
Colonel Sibthorpremarked, that it
124
might be supposed he was most anxious to give his support to the measures of he present Government, entertaining as he did the highest respect for their talents and integrity, and knowing that they were possessed of every quality which could recommend them to the confidence of the country. He regretted, therefore, to be compelled by a sense of duty to stand up in that House and oppose any bill introduced by them. He objected to the measure before the House on the ground, that it would entail a very heavy and useless expense on the country. After eight years' trial of the new system, he thought that it had produced no good results; that the poor were not better taken care of, and not better satisfied under the present system, and that there had been, not a decrease, but a considerable increase, in the rates. He should give his cordial support to the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale.
Mr. Grimsditchregretted, that such a bill as the present should have emanated from the Conservative side of the House. The existing law, as administered by the central power sitting in Somerset house, was condemned by the great mass of the people—not only by the recipients of relief, but by those who contributed to the maintenance of the poor. Within the last two years he had scarcely found a gentleman of any rank in society who considered it an improvement. On the contrary, he had heard it universally said, that unless some discretionary powers were given to the boards of guardians who had the management and distribution of the funds raised for the maintenance of the poor, the law could not be maintained. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had led the House to expect that this bill would enact some ameliorations and mitigations of the law; but, after a careful examination of its various clauses, he found it was nothing more nor less than the bill introduced last year by the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), although it was tricked out in somewhat different garments. When he found it seriously proposed that the Poor-law commission should continue for five years he could not help thinking that the object was to render it perpetual; and he had little doubt, if the country were to remain for five years longer in the hands of the commissioners exercising the powers they now possessed in the admi-

125
nistration of the local funds for the relief of the poor, the people would be up in arms against it. The present law was based on a theory which was altogether unconstitutional. The commissioners exercised a power amounting to positive tyranny over the whole arrangements, even of the most minute character, in any way connected with the machinery of Poor-law administration. Their control extended to the appointment and superintendence of every master of a workhouse, every clerk to a union, in fact, every officer, even down to an overseer. In the union with which he was connected, a case had recently occurred which would illustrate the extraordinary manner in which they interfered in these matters. The four overseers had an assistant-overseer, who acted as clerk. In the course of last year they discovered, that he did not properly keep the accounts; indeed, it was found, that he had received monies for which he had not accounted. The overseers immediately applied to the board of guardians, whom they considered their masters, requesting that the assistant might be dismissed. The answer was, "We have no power, we are the mere tools of the Poor-law Commissioners, you must apply to them." Application was made to the commissioners through the auditor of the union, and their reply was, that the board of guardians were the proper persons to investigate the charge which had been made. The case did accordingly come before the board of guardians, consisting of some fifty persons—a little Parliament in itself. Macclesfield returned seven of that number, the remainder being guardians over a wide district round about. The board of guardians insisted that this was an affair of the town of Macclesfield, and that it was the duty of the guardians of that town to investigate it; they did, and reported unanimously to the general board that the charges had been proved. Next week the question was to be discussed whether the defaulter should be recommended to be discharged; but in the meantime the party charged went among the county guardians, and succeeded in bringing a majority of them to say, that he should not be dismissed. By-and-by an assistant-commissioner was sent down, and having stayed an hour or two in the place, reported to Somerset-house, whence the secretary announced to the board, that the commissioners saw no reason why
126
this person should be discharged. Why should respectable men be insulted in this way, because reliance was placed on the representations of an assistant-commissioner, who held his situation only by managing to please those who appointed him? Last year, he was shocked to find, when the superintendence of parochial vaccination was placed in the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners, they were treated as a permanent body. On these grounds he should certainly vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Rochdale. It was expedient and politic, that the powers of the commissioners should be annihilated; and he did hope the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would at no distant time apply his great mind to the whole working of this system. It was sometimes said, by those who objected to the present system, "Why don't you suggest a substitute?" He himself had, on a former occaion, suggested one to the noble Viscount (Viscount Howick) then Member for Northumberland, now for Sunderland, having lost his election for the county in consequence of his opinion on the New Poor-law; and he offered to show him how the principle of unions might be carried out to the satisfaction of the country at large and the comfort of those who received relief. Coming from so humble an individual as himself, the suggestion might perhaps have been treated with derision, but still he would frankly tell the right hon. Baronet, that if ever the system of unions was to work satisfactorily to the country, instead of paying 80,000 l. a-year to the Poor-law Commissioners, they must at once reduce the size of the unions. That was absolutely necessary, and if this bill were read a second time, he trusted the House would assist him in making it imperative on the Poor-law Commissioners to reduce the size of the unions. For this purpose altogether new machinery must, of course, be introduced, and he should propose where any rule, order, or regulation was to be confirmed, it might be done by Order in Council. Some machinery of this sort, he was convinced, would be infinitely more satisfactory to the country than the administration of the Poor-law commissioners. While on his legs, he could not help adverting to one portion of the speech of the right hon. Baronet in introducing this measure. He quoted the authority of a great and distinguished

127
man, who undoubtedly would always stand high in the estimation of the public—he meant Lord Brougham—who, in his speech on this subject, had thought it right to animadvert on those who were the framers of the salutary and mild statute of Elizabeth. Lord Brougham said,
"Those who framed the statute of Elizabeth were not adepts in political science. They were not acquainted with the true principles of population; they could not foresee that a Malthus would arise to enlighten mankind."
The present bill, then, was intended to carry out the principles of Malthus, who insisted that no man came into the world with any title to relief from his fellowman. He had thus been led to look into the early history of pauper legislation in this country, and he found, that in 1388, the 12th of Richard 2nd, c. 7, prohibited persons from departing from the hundred in which they lived without a testimonial, which continued to be the law for 107 years. In 1495, the act 11th of Henry 7th, c. 2, required beggars to go to their place of birth without begging out of the hundred. The 19th of Henry 7th, c. 12, required them to go to the place of birth, or the place of abode for the last three years, without begging out of such place; which continued to be the law twenty-seven years. By the 22nd Henry 8th, c. 12, justices were to assign limits for begging. If out of the limits the beggar was to be imprisoned two days and nights in the stocks, and then sworn to return to the assigned limit; the able-bodied to be first whipped. The 27th of Henry 8th, c. 25, enacted compulsory relief. Every parish was to maintain its own poor, or forfeit 20 s. per month. Sturdy beggars to be punished, first offence, whipped, second, the right ear to be cropped, third, to be tried at Sessions and suffer death as a felon. This law remained in force five years, but its severity prevented its execution. By the 1st of Edward 6th, c. 3, the able-bodied labourer was to be branded with the letter V, and serve as a slave for two years on bread and water, and refuse meat, and caused to work by beating, chaining, &c. If he ran away to be branded on the cheek with the letter S,—a slave for life. Second time to suffer death as a felon. Obligation of each parish to maintain its own poor on pain of forfeiture, if a city, 5l., borough, 40 s., village, 20 s., for not setting labourers to
128
work. In 1550, 3rd and 4th Edward 6th, c. 16, repealed the last act, and revived the 22nd of Henry 8th, c. 12. The 5th and 6th Edward 6th, c. 2, confirmed 22nd of Henry 8th, and the 3rd and 4th of Edward 6th, and directed collections. In 1556, 2nd and 3rd of Philip and Mary, c. 5, re-enacted 3rd and 4th of Edward 6th, c. 16, in precisely the same words. The 5th of Elizabeth, c. 3, gave powers to justices to enforce contributions. The 14th of Elizabeth, c. 5, recited,
"That all parts of this realm of England and Wales be presently with rogues and vagabonds and sturdy beggars exceedingly pestered, by means whereof daily happeneth horrible murders, thefts, and great outrages;"—
and assigned punishment for the first offence to be grievously whipped and burnt through the ear with a hot iron, of the compass of one inch about. Second, felons. Third, to suffer death as felons without benefit of clergy. Under this act, justices were to assess all the inhabitants, 1598, 39th of Elizabeth, c. 3, and 39th Elizabeth, c. 4, altered the punishment, and mitigated the severity in some degree—whipping until the body be bloody; transportation beyond the seas, or to the galleys. Four years afterwards, by 43rd of Elizabeth, c. 2, provision was made for setting to work the able-bodied, and relieving the poor and impotent. The punishment of the able-bodied was to be imprisonment in the House of Correction on a refusal to do the work set for him. There was no further alteration of the law till 3rd and 4th William and Mary, c. 11, which was the first foundation of the justices' power to order relief. The 9th of George 1st, c. 7, prohibited relief to those who refused to enter workhouses. Then came the 36th of George 3rd, c. 23rd, which gave power to the justices to order relief generally, under which the abuses so much complained of had grown up. But he contended, the present was not the law to cure those abuses. It was said, that the law in the manufacturing districts had been relaxed, and it was very proper that it should be so, for it could not be enforced. The population of those districts was of a character altogether different from that of the agricultural districts. In the report of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, who had been recently sent down to inquire into the state of Stockport, he found the following passage. They stated, that

129
"Eighty accounts of provident institutions had been opened at the savings'-bank in that town; a proof of a wide-spread prevalence of habits of economy. In addition to these we must, in justice to the manufacturing population of the northern counties, state, that they exhibit a degree of hardihood in the endurance of distress, and a spirit of pride and independence in regard to the receipt of parochial relief, which are not commonly prevalent in other parts of England."
Again:—
"Those among them who have not been able or willing to leave a place where at present their labour is of little or no value, have been found enduring distress with patience, and abstaining, sometimes to the injury of health, from making any application for relief, while others, who have been driven reluctantly to that extremity, we have seen receiving a degree of relief sufficient only to support life, often with thankfulness and gratitude, and generally without murmur or complaint."
He put it to the House, whether these were a class of persons who should be driven into the workhouse, their little habitations destroyed, their goods and chattels sequestrated, when a little temporary relief in sickness or distress, for a week or even a day, perhaps, might enable them to recover themselves? He believed, it was the desire of the Poor-law Commissioners to do the best they could, but it was impossible that they could have a proper acquaintance with the condition of all the various unions in the country. He did not see the necessity of the appointment of these mighty gentlemen, one of whom he perceived in the gallery. [Order.] Well, he would proceed without addressing anybody. He maintained, that the Members of the Board of Guardians, and the overseers of the poor in that part of the country to which he had referred, were as respectable, intelligent, and as anxious to do their duty as any set of gentlemen resident in the metropolis of London; but they found themselves, in consequence of the New Poor-law system, placed in a very irksome situation, being obliged to receive orders from a board which could not possibly form a just opinion of what ought to be done. He regretted, that he was obliged to vote against the present Government, but a sense of duty to his constituents and to the country at large induced him to vote with the hon. Member for Rochdale.
Sir C. Napiersaid, there were many points of the present Poor-law of which
130
he thoroughly approved, and many others to which he felt great objection. He would state shortly to what parts he objected. His first objection was to the Poor-law commissioners. He could not for a single moment understand what was the use of paying the Poor-law commissioners in London 60,00 l. a-year for the purpose of supervising the affairs of the various unions in the country, of which they had no local knowledge, and interfering with those who were employed in them. In a district of South Hampshire with which he was connected there was an union of four small parishes, which had done an immensity of good to the district in which he lived. Generally speaking, the board of guardians established there had conducted the affairs of the union with great good management, and to the satisfaction of the people at large; and if all unions were equally small, he believed that the Poor-law bill would be a blessing to the country instead of a curse. He had been guardian there himself, and had paid great attention to the business. They were in the habit of giving out-door relief to elderly poor of sixty years of age, allowing each person 3s. a-week, and a man and his wife 6s. a week. The expense of keeping paupers in the house came to 2s. ll d. each per week. Why, then, for the sake of saving one penny, should every poor person be driven from their homes into the union workhouses? The feeling of the guardians there was, that they ought to possess more power, and be allowed to extend the out-door relief, for the purpose of aiding deserving persons, who should not be driven into the union-house because they were not sixty years old. This was a point to which, as he believed, the commissioners objected. It was quite true that many guardians evaded the instruction of the commissioners on this head, and acted contrary to law, and when he was a guardian he certainly lent himself, as far as possible, to practices contrary to the law. In his union the elderly people were not confined as prisoners; but when they conducted themselves properly they were, on application to the master of the house, allowed to go out to walk in the country and amuse themselves. He believed that if it were permitted that the poor people should be generally treated in this way, they might be induced, instead of looking on the workhouses as they now did, as bastiles,

131
to regard them as old seamen and soldiers did the hospitals of Greenwich and Chelsea. One great objection of the present system was this:—If a man had a wife and three or four children to support, his wages of 12 s. a-week were sufficient to maintain them; but if he had eight or nine children, his wages of 12 s. were insufficient for their maintenance. The consequence was that he was obliged to give up his cottage, which, if another system were adopted, might be made comfortable for him, and go into the workhouse with his eight or nine children. Was it right that good and industrious men, because they had the misfortune to have a large family, should be driven out of their cottages and kept in the union workhouse perhaps for years? He believed that the guardians generally, though they were not in the habit of acting too generously, would, if it were not for the commissioners, act with much greater generosity. It would be a far preferable course, instead of forcing the industrious man, who was exerting himself to the best of his power to provide a living for himself and family, into the workhouse, to take one or two of his children into the house, and feed, clothe, and educate them; and this would be better than giving out-door relief, which might encourage people to be indolent. He would then make use of these children in connexion with the bill of the right hon. Baronet, who was not attending to what he said, for increasing the navy. He would maintain them until they were fourteen years of age, under the express condition that they should repay their country for the care which had been taken of them, by serving their country either in the army or navy for a limited period. He did not see any reasonable objection to such a system, which would not be compulsory, but carried into effect by voluntary agreement between the guardians and the parents. He hoped his suggestion would attract the attention of the right hon. Baronet opposite. There was another part of the bill to which he materially objected, viz., the bastardy clauses. He believed the onus of maintaining illegitimate children had been thrown on the mother from a wise and just motive, namely, with the hope of rendering females more discreet. He did not believe that this part of the bill had had the smallest effect in that way, especially in the rural districts. He believed that there
132
were as many illegitimate children born as ever, and the bastardy clauses had rendered, not the women more discreet, but the men more reckless. It was unjust towards the unfortunate girl to have the whole burden of maintaining her illegitimate offspring thrown on her. He saw that one of the amendments proposed by the right hon. Baronet was to the effect that the goods of the putative father were to be seized and sold for the maintenance of the child if it were in the workhouse, but if it were not in the workhouse, then the putative father was to escape clear. Why was this proposed? Was it to drive the unfortunate mother into the poorhouse by force; and why should not the father be obliged to come forward and support the child to the best of his power? He did not believe that the morals of the unfortunate woman would be improved by such a course of proceeding. But there was still a greater hardship. If the mother went into the poor-house she might when there receive the offer of a situation in which she would be enabled to support herself respectably and retrieve her character; but she could not accept the situation without taking her child out of the workhouse, and her wages in the country would not be sufficient to maintain herself and child. What objection could there be to enable a woman to go into respectable service by allowing her to leave her child in the workhouse, and making her pay something towards its support? In the union in which he lived there had been a woman and her child in the House for four or five years. She could get a place in a farmer's house, but she was kept in the union because her wages would not enable her to take her child out of the house. The system pursued was calculated to encourage bad conduct. He would suppose that a girl of a really bad character was living in a workhouse, together with a girl whose morals were not entirely corrupted. The bad character wished to go out of the house to have a "lark," or perhaps to amuse herself with some young man. She gave three hours' notice and set out, amusing herself for three or four days, and when she thought proper came back, pretending that she was unable to get a place. The guardians were obliged to take her in, and she might run this rig once a fortnight, or even once a week There was no law to get rid of her so long

133
as she conducted herself well in the house. Was there sense, reason, justice, or morality in this? While the poor girl who conducted herself well could not escape from this prison, but was a prisoner there for life; but should she be offered a situation, the wages would not be sufficient for the maintenance of herself and child. He suggested whether it would not be as well in this case to allow the child to remain in the house, a charge of some 6d. or 1s. being made for its support. What could be the right hon. Baronet's reason for proposing the clause as it stood? He could not see any reason, justice, religion, or morality in it. He thought it altogether abominable and horrible. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the house. If, as in the district to which he had alluded, every cottager was obliged to pay something, however small a sum, say a 1d. or 2d. a week—towards the poor-rate, this contribution would make him feel when he applied to the union for relief, that he had a right to it. Were such a system carried out generally, it would give to the unions something of the character of clubs, to the funds of which the poorer sort would themselves contribute. There was another point—namely, the Gilbert Unions, respecting which he had not got a clear notion. He understood from hon. Gentlemen connected with them, that they were extremely well conducted. If so, why should the Government be so desirous of interfering with them? Why not let well alone? Why try an experiment with bodies which had done a deal of good, and subject them to the inconvenience of change—for all sudden changes were bad? Though he approved of a great part of the bill, and was anxious to see it amended, yet he thought the only course left for him to pursue was to vote against the bill; for this was the only step he could take for the purpose of putting an end to the Poor-law commission.
Mr. Ferranddeeply regretted that some Member in that House of high celebrity, or else connected with the Ministry, had not before the present hour stood forward to state the grounds on which they presumed once more to call on the people of England to support a law against which, wherever it had been carried out, there had been manifested an almost universal spirit of opposition. He rose that evening to tell the House, with every feeling of
134
respect, in the name of the people in the north of England, that the New Poor-law Bill had been attempted to be enforced with a tyranny and oppression which it was a disgrace to Englishmen to submit to. He called upon the supporters of the law to show to him, to the House, and the country, in what way the act of Elizabeth had operated injuriously in the north of England? He had paid attention to the reports of the Poor-law commissioners, and he could not find a single passage in any one of them, and he defied any advocate of the measure before the House to place his finger on any portion of them which stated that the ratepayers of the north of England had neglected their duty. He challenged the right hon. Baronet, the father of this measure, to stand up in that House and tell the ratepayers of the north of England that they had forgotten their duty to themselves or to the poor; and that, therefore, in the right hon. Baronet's opinion, they were nothing but idiots, and the commissioners and their myrmidons were required to carry out the law for the relief of the poor in the north of England. He maintained that the act of Elizabeth had been regularly enforced, and given satisfaction to every class. The ratepayers had carefully nursed the rates, while they had not at the same time lost sight of their duty to protect the poor. He asked the right hon. Baronet, then, why he attempted to place the ratepayers of the north under an authority which, wherever it was exercised, constituted a monstrous violation of the Constitution? He was aware that the ratepayers in the south of England had forgotten their duty, and had not paid proper attention to the condition. He did not state this on his own authority; but on the authority of the commissioners, and he would show that wherever a man stood forward fairly and conscientiously to do his duty, the old law could be carried in to effect in the south. He would begin with a high authority—the county of Berks,—where the New Poor-law found its origin. It happened one day that while a noble Duke—a high authority—was taking his morning walk, he entered a vestry and found relief being granted in a headlong manner by a person whose duty it was not to grant, but to administer relief according to the directions of the ratepayers. He found this person squandering away the parish money. He inquired how this happened, and he was

135
informed that the gentlemen in Berks were too fond of fox-hunting to attend to such parish matters. This noble Duke found that the farmers were paying the wages of their men out of the poor-rates; and, perceiving this indifference on the part of the gentlemen, he said, he would fill himself the office of overseer. He did so, and, carrying out the 43rd of Elizabeth properly, he soon brought the parish to a wholesome state. He appealed to the gentlemen of the surrounding parishes to support the law, but they would not, and the consequence was that the New Poor-law was introduced and finally made the law of the land. What said the Poor-law commissioners themselves? He appealed to the authority of a report of Mr. C. Mott, dated June 26, 1835. That gentleman stated, that:—
"The heavy amount of poor-rates was to be attributed to peculation and bad management almost exclusively. In a parish in Suffolk complaint was made to me, that notwithstanding there were at least thirty competent persons in the parish, the magistrates had actually appointed an old woman as overseer, and this woman is now acting as overseer of one of the badly managed parishes. It is not uncommon to find overseers appointed who can neither read nor write, and in a parish in Somersetshire, out of a population of 390 persons, only three persons besides the clergyman can read or write; one of these three persons is a respectable farmer, who about three years since went to reside in the parish, and finding the parochial matters, to which he was the principal contributor, managed so grossly bad, he undertook the task of investigating the affairs himself; the usual result followed: in less than two years he reduced the rates in that parish from 400 l. per year to 100 l. per year."
He would then call forward Dr. Kay, another assistant Poor-law commissioner, who had authority. In a letter dated Manchester, the 22nd of July, 1835, he said:—
"The debasing influence of the southern method of administering or rather perverting the influence of the late Poor-law" (at the time recollect it was the late Poor-law he was speaking of) "is peculiarly evident in the character of the labourers who have migrated into Lancashire when contrasted with the population long trained to industry by the manufacturers of this country."
There was a contrast between the labourer of the south and the labourer of the north! Now, having called those two assistant Poor-law commissioners as his authority for the statements he had made,
136
that the old Poor-law was well and judiciously enforced in the north, but by the negligence of the magistrates and ratepayers jointly it was carried out in the south to the injury of the poorer classes of society, he had a right to state to that House that it was a system full of hardship, a weighty system of oppression, that the poor should be punished for the sins and omissions and commissions of the rich. If the rate-payers and the magistrates of the south forgot their duty, why was that tyranny and oppression to spread itself throughout the whole breadth of the land? Why were they to be punished who had done no wrong, who had only taken advantage of the example held out to them by others? But this system of Poor-law commissioners and assistant commissioners, which was appointed to run riot throughout the south of England, to get up a case against the old law, found that they would have great difficulty in carrying out their views unless they could manage in some way or other to get rid of what they termed the "surplus population" of the south—unless they could find some mode of driving the poor from off the soil of the south of England—of liberating the claims and demands which those poor people had on the soil—those kindred claims which he regretted to have heard so lightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Droitwich when he spoke of the benefit the poor would find in becoming the slaves of this oppressive system. The people of England had a right as old, as constitutional, and—he trusted to God this country would proclaim in a voice of thunder—as long, as sound, and as legal a right as that of any hon. Member in that House to the property he possessed. That right and that claim was to the soil of the country, and the poor of the south had a right and a claim to be protected from oppression. They had a home upon that soil to save them from destitution and want; they had more—they had homesteads on that soil; and he would tell the present proprietors in the south of England that their poorer population had been tempted into the north by that horrible system which could not be looked upon as less than an act of slavery. Many of the poor in the south of England clung with affection to their homes; they could not be driven away from the land of their birth; they knew they had a right to it, and they clung to it with steadfast feelings

137
of affection. What was the consequence? The assistant Poor-law commissioners recommended and advised that they should be starved out of it—that they should be driven from their homes by starvation. ["No."] Did hon. Members say "No?" What said the language of the Poor-law commissioners? ["Read."] He would read, and he hoped they would allow him a fair chance of stating the whole case which he had to bring before the House, as this Session was fast drawing to a close. He felt very strongly on this question, and he should express his opinion firmly but respectfully to that House, and was prepared to substantiate every word he uttered. He would repeat that the assistant Poor-law commissioners recommended and carried out a system of starvation, to drive the poor from the south into the north of England, into a servile state of existence horrible to think of, and of which he would give a description from the pen of the assistant Poor-law commissioner himself. It was a state of monstrous, horrible oppression, in which he participated in driving those poor wretches. For those who were in favour of this bill, it had been better not to have called on him to "read." He would now read another extract from Dr. Kay's letter, dated from Manchester, July 22, 1835. And now let hon. Members, who cried out "Read, read" when he told them that the commissioners determined to starve the poor out of the south of England, listen to the words of Dr. Kay. He said—
"Necessity must drive some of the southern population from their present homes. Some natural yearnings for country and kindred will with others have to be overcome, and the dread of an untried change to a new and monotonous occupation must be extinguished."
Had he verified his words? It was, indeed, a dreadful state for this country to be in, when a paid officer of the Government should recommend the poor to be starved out of their parishes. ["No."] What! Did hon. Members say [" No?"] Why Dr. Kay spoke of the "necessity." [Great confusion.] Let hon. Members listen. [Continued confusion.] He begged pardon of the House if they misunderstood what he had stated, he would repeat it, and if they could construe it in any other manner, he should be glad, for the honour of his country, to find that he had misinterpreted what he had read. He would trace these Poor-law commissioners in
138
their career. He was now tracing them during the time that they ran riot in the south, and he would follow them in their course of driving the poor from the south into the north. Some hon. Members opposite seemed rather astonished, but he would read them now a letter from a manufacturer in the north of England who was in constant communication with that assistant Poor-law commissioner who had stated that necessity must drive these poor wretches from their homes. This was a letter from Mr. R. H. Gregg to Mr. E. Chadwick, secretary to the Poor-law commissioners, and he said—
"I have for some time thought of addressing you on the same matter as my Friend Ash-worth did some time ago, viz., the propriety of opening a communication between our (strange to say) under peopled districts and the southern over peopled ones. It is at this moment a most important suggestion, and deserves to be put into immediate operation. It must be looked on as a happy coincidence." (This was a cotton-spinner in Lancashire who wanted hands.) "It must be looked on as a happy coincidence, that at the period of depriving, or curtailing perhaps, the facilities of gaining a livelihood to the people of one-half of England, and causing a fall in their present low wages, and a scramble amongst them for employment, there should exist a difficulty in obtaining labourers at extravagant wages in these northern countries."
He asked the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to listen to what this cotton-manufacturer said. His letter continued—
"This fortunate occurrence should be taken advantage of."
Now, he wished particularly to inform the House, that the letter from which he was then reading was inserted in the report of the Poor-law commissioners, but some parts of it had been first cut out, because they durst not allow them to appear in their report. His hon. Friend, the Member for Oldham, whom he then saw opposite, once brought that statement before the House, and moved for an unmutilated copy of the letter to be laid upon the Table, but he was unable to carry his motion, and from that day to the present it had not been fairly brought before the public. He was therefore in the dark as to certain parts of that letter; but be thought he should be able to show to that House and to the country what was the manner in which those assistant Poor-law commissioners and their friends in the

139
north carried on their system of kidnapping the poor in the south of England in lights so strong as to induce the House to take care that they never had the power of doing so again. The writer of the same letter continued—
"The suggestion I would make is this—that some official channel of communication should be opened in two or three of our large towns with your office (that was, the office of the Poor-law commissioners), or any office to which the more overcharged parishes might transmit lists of their families. Manufacturers short of labourers, or starting new concerns, might look over the lists and select, as they might require (for the variety of our wants is great) large families or small ones, young children, or grown-up men or widows, or orphans, &c."
That was indeed a large class to select from—"widows, orphans, young children, or grown, up men," and an "&c." at the end of it. And then the letter went on—
"If this could be done, I doubt not in a short time, as the thing became known and tried, we should gradually absorb a considerable number of the surplus labourers of the south."
That was the conspiracy of which he complained: that the manufacturers in the north should have entered into a conspiracy with the Poor-law commissioners to "absorb" the surplus population of the south. Had he, he asked hon. Members opposite who cried "read, read," stated what was not correct?—"
"It must be understood at once that we cannot do with refuse population and insubordinate sturdy paupers. We should require fair play. While food is cheap and wages high," (so said this manufacturer,) "the want of education (I do not mean the ability to read and write), which few here are without, but education which may affect manners, morals, and the proper use of their advantages, is extremely felt, and to be deeply deplored."
It was not improbable that the right hon. Baronet might think he had not slated sufficient to show the conspiracy between the Poor-law commissioners and the manufacturers of the north to kidnap these poor people in the south; but he should hear another letter from a manufacturer. This was to his "respected friend Edwin Chadwick," and was from a gentleman who was somewhat notorious in the north of England as well as in the south, namely, Mr. Ashworth. It was dated—
140
"Turton Bolton, 6th Month 27, 1835.
"Respected friend Edwin Chadwick,—Agreeable to thy request, we proceed to give thee some account of four families who have migrated from Bedlow, in Buckinghamshire, to undertake employments in our manufactures, adding such information as we have been able to obtain from them relative to their previous condition. The wages of Joseph Stevens and four children the first year was 1l. 5s.; the second, 1l. 9d.; and the third 1l. 13 s. The weekly income now is 1. 8s. Previous to their removal it averaged 14 s. 2d. The Bucks people have sent a number of families to the neighbourhood of Staley-bridge, of which thou art aware. Our attention is constantly alive to this subject."
No doubt it was; they were anxious to absorb the surplus population of the south; and he would ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides to listen, because he was going to show them what was the course pursued in the manufacturing districts. He would state it without making it a party question, for he who ran might read the statements that he made that evening. He did not mean to charge the writer of the letter he had just quoted with anything unfair or unjust, but he meant to say that he had mistaken his character of an Englishman, and that he had committed an egregious mistake in becoming the tool of the Poor-law commissioners. This Mr. Ashworth continued—
"We do not apprehend any immediate danger of the working population of this district becoming too redundant by reason of any extensive emigration from the south."
He should be able to follow some of that population by and by; and he would now give the right hon. Baronet another authority from a paid agent appointed for carrying on this system of kidnapping in the south. ["Oh, oh!"] He would say that it was nothing else; and he should be glad for any hon. Member on either side of that House to give him an opportunity of answering any speech in which it was said that that was a proper manner in which to treat the poor of this country, and of exposing this most disgraceful system of tyranny. They had paid 20,000,000 l. to put down slavery amongst the blacks, but they still had a system of slavery carried on in this country before their own eyes. The letter from which he was about to quote was from a Mr. Beard, a kind of paid agent for passing the poor from the south to the north. It happened, however, that they did not always find their

141
way to the office of that gentleman; for he knew it to be a fact that some of them were one night turned out of a cart at Blackstone Edge. A man was hired to carry them in a cart from Manchester; but he grew tired of his labour and turned them out at Blakcstone Edge. What sort of a place that was hon. Gentlemen who were acquainted' with the north of England knew full well. Now, Mr. Beard's letter was dated from "Hope-hall, Manchester, July 7, 1835," and was to this effect:—
"I have made a further arrangement to send twelve more strong boys and girls"—(They were to be strong, it seemed)—"And have this day been introduced to several of the great spinners from Staleybridge. Amongst others, Mr. Thomas Ashton, of Hyde, and he seems to take the soundest view of migration that I have met with."
Let them listen to this:—
"He conceives it to be impossible for too many hands to be sent. They are wanted, and must be had; and if the agricultural districts will not send them, the Irish will. I, therefore, with all due submission, beg to suggest the propriety of your taking the matter into your consideration, as some labourers were sent from Bucks in a most deplorable condition, and if this is too often repeated, migration will be greatly impeded."
They were, therefore, not to send them in this deplorable condition, lest they should put a stop to that "absorption." He should not have dared to trespass on their time, if he had not considered that he had an awful responsibility attaching to him that night, and therefore, however painful it might be to him to trespass on their time, and however he might have to claim the indulgence of the House, he was going now, fearlessly, as a Member of that House, to hold up to public reprobation, from the mouth of the man himself—an assistant Poor-law commissioner, a paid agent of the Government of this country—for having assisted in kidnapping the poor, ignorant, deluded, starving wretches of the south of England into a state which they should hear described from that commissioner's own lips, in his own pamphlet—a state, indeed, of slavery, more horrible than was ever met with in a land of freedom. The writer of that pamphlet, Dr. Kay, was acting and practising as a physician in Manchester. He saw the frightful state in which the working classes existed, and he then appealed to the people of England to come forward
142
with their Christianity and rescue them from their dreadful state, and his appeal should that night be quoted in the House of Commons as showing the true state of that society—that slavery into which the labourers from the south of England were sold by parties whose paid agent he afterwards became. He would now read some extracts from the work published by that assistant Poor-law commissioner, entitled The Moral and Physical Conditions of the Working Classes. In that work Dr. Kay said,—
"Instructed in the fatal secret of subsisting on what is barely necessary to life, the labouring classes have ceased to entertain a laudable pride in furnishing their houses and in multiplying the decent comforts which minister to happiness."
"When this example is considered in connexion with the unremitted labour of the whole population engaged in the various branches of the cotton manufacture, our wonder will be less excited by their fatal demoralization. Prolonged and exhausting labour, continued from day to day, and from year to year, is not calculated to develope the intellectual or moral faculties of man. The dull routine of a ceaseless drudgery, in which the same mechanical process is incessantly repeated, resembles the torment of Sisyphus—the toil, like the rock, recoils perpetually on the wearied operative. The mind gathers neither stores nor strength from the constant extension and retraction of the same muscles. The intellect slumbers in supine inertness, but the grosser parts of our nature attain a rank development. To condemn man to such severity of toil is, in some measure, to cultivate in him the habits of an animal. He becomes reckless. He disregards the distinguishing appetites and habits of his species. He neglects the comforts and delicacies of life. He lives in squalid wretchedness, on meagre food, and expends his superfluous gains in debauchery."
There was a state into which Dr. Kay was employed to draw those poor creatures from the south of England—from their green fields and shaded lanes, their homesteads and their friends, although they had been guilty of no wrong. But he continued—
"The family sits round the table, and each rapidly appropriates his portion on a plate, or they all plunge their spoons into the dish, and with an animal eagerness satisfy the cravings of their appetite."
And then let those hon Members who upheld that transportation from the south of England hear what Dr. Kay went on to state:—
"Hence, besides the negative results—the

143
total abstraction of every moral and intellectual stimulus—the absence of variety—banishment from the grateful air and the cheering influences of light—the physical energies are exhausted by incessant toil and imperfect nutrition. Having been subjected to the prolonged labour of an animal—his physical energy wasted—his mind in supine inaction—the artizan has neither moral dignity nor intellectual nor organic strength to resist the seductions of appetite. His wife and children, too frequently subjected to the same process, are unable to cheer his remaining moments of leisure. Domestic economy is neglected—domestic comforts are unknown. A meal of the coarsest food is prepared with heedless haste, and devoured with equal precipitation. Home has no other relation to him than that of shelter—few pleasures are there—it chiefly presents to him a scene of physical exhaustion, from which he is glad to escape. Himself impotent of all the distinguishing aims of his species, he sinks into sensual sloth, or revels in more degrading licentiousness. His house is ill furnished, uncleanly, often ill ventilated, perhaps damp; his food, from want of forethought and domestic economy, is meagre and innutritious; he is debilitated and hypochondriacal, and falls the victim of dissipation."
Dr. Kay, speaking of a district of Manchester, said—
"This district has been frequently the haunt of hordes of thieves and desperadoes, who defied the law, and is always inhabited by a class resembling savages in their appetites and habits. It is surrounded on every side by some of the largest factories of the town, whose chimnies vomit forth dense clouds of smoke, which hang heavily over this insalubrious region."
Speaking of other parts of Manchester, he said—
"These districts are inhabited by a turbulent population, which, rendered reckless by dissipation and want, misled by the secret intrigues and excited by the inflammatory harangues of demagogues,ߞ"
["Hear, hear."] Hon. Members cried "hear, hear." He could put his finger on some of those demagogues. [Cheers.] He knew what that cheer meant; but he challenged any hon. Member to place his finger on one word that he had ever uttered, either in public or in private, but what was calculated to excite loyalty to his Queen and obedience to the laws of the land. He would say, "Go thou and do likewise." Dr. Kay said, that the population of those districts had
"Frequently committed daring assaults on the liberty of more peaceful portions of the working classes, and the most frightful de-
144
vastation on the property of their masters. Machines have been broken, and factories gutted and burned at mid-day, and the riotous crowd has dispersed ere the insufficient body of police arrived at the scene of disturbance. The civic force of the town is totally inadequate to maintain the peace, and to defend property from the attacks of lawless depredators."
And then Dr. Kay went on to say—
"Though they labour fourteen hours and upwards daily, they earn only from 5s. to 7s. or 8s. per week."
And then, assuming the population of Manchester to be 230,000, he stated—
"More than one-half of its inhabitants are either so destitute or so degraded as to require the assistance of public charity in bringing their offspring into the world."
He then went on to say—
"The children thus adopted by the public are often neglected by their parents. The early age at which girls are admitted into the factories prevents their acquiring much knowledge of domestic economy; and even supposing them to have had accidental opportunities of making this acquisition, the extent to which women are employed in the mills does not, even after marriage, permit the general application of its principles."
Now, he would only give one more quotation from this assistant Poor-law commissioner. Speaking of the view which a stranger might take of this state of things, he said—
"When he turns from the great capitalists, he contemplates the fearful strength only of that multitude of the labouring population, which lies like a slumbering giant at their feet. He has heard of the turbulent riots of the people—of machine-breaking—of the secret and sullen organization which has suddenly lit the torch of incendiarism, or well nigh uplifted the arm of rebellion in the land. He remembers that political desperadoes have ever loved to tempt this population to the hazards of the swindling game of revolution, and have scarcely failed. In the midst of so much opulence, however, he has disbelieved the cry of need."
This was the language of a now assistant Poor-law commissioner giving an account of the manufacturing district of Lancashire. Yes, this was his language before he became an assistant Poor-law commissioner, when he was a physician practising at Manchester, with every chance of obtaining an intimate acquaintance with the condition of the poor; and this was what he said, speaking from his own ocular demonstration—this was the

145
agent and assistant commissioner of those men whom the House were now called upon to re-invest with an exorbitant power for another five years—this was the man who afterwards became the agent of the Poor-law commissioners in kidnapping, or, if the House liked a more mild phrase, in transporting, the poor from the south into the north of England. He said in his report of the 22nd July, 1835—
"It is certainly grateful to a benevolent mind"—(to the benevolent mind of Dr. Kay)—"to have (with whatever partial mingling of ills) to offer so great a boon as thrice the amount of the present earnings and parish allowance of the southern labour; independent industry for pauperism; abundance for starvation; a home of comfort for a hovel of wretchedness."
Now, would any hon. Member, after the exposure which he had that evening made of this assistant Poor-law commissioner, presume so far on the patience—he would say on the indulgence—of the House, as to venture to stand up in his place and ask them to sanction the authority—it was more than authority, it was reckless power, that the Poor-law commissioners had been invested with—to sanction the reckless power of these men for another five years? Were the poor of the south absorbed? Would the Poor-law commissioners come to the Bar of the House and say that they were absorbed—that there was to be no more kidnapping for the purpose of fixing them in a state of slavery under the manufacturers of the north? Would those gentlemen and their assistants come forward and say that they were deeply sorry for the offence of which they had been guilty—for offence it surely was in this Christian country—in being participators in passing the poor of the south from the land of their home to endure slavery amidst the scenes he had described? He would now, with the permission of the House, ask a question, the answer to which he looked for from the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham). Where were the poor who had been transported from the south to the north? Where were they at that moment? Had the Poor-law commissioners rendered any return of those who had died, or were dying? or of those who were suffering starvation? or of those who had been torn limb from limb by machinery, and who were wandering as cripples through the country? This was the question he
146
asked, and this was a question which the House of Commons ought to have an answer to. They ought to demand from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department a full and complete answer. It was no trifling question, or one relating to a small body of the people of this country. Tens of thousands had been passed, in the prosecution of this hideous scheme, from their homes in the south to the manufacturing districts. What was their fate? Had the right hon. Baronet any cheering accounts to give of them to their friends? Had he any account to give? Did the Poor-law commissioners know anything about what had happened to these poor people—were they able to tell the country anything about them? What had become of them? Were they wandering through the country wretched outcasts, after having been told by assistant Poor-law commissioners Kay and Mott that they should never know want? Could the right hon. Baronet render any account of them? Because, if he could not, then he (Mr. Ferrand) called upon the House not to repose any further confidence as to this matter in the right hon. Baronet. He would tell the right hon. Baronet that it was his belief that the country would not agree to maintain this system much longer. They would not see much longer the constitutional laws of this country and the laws of the Bible at once trampled under the feet of this triumvirate. It was said in that holy book, "Vengeance is mine, said the Lord, I will repay." And would He not bring on a retribution for these things? Has He yet repaid? Let the House look to what had been the state of the country since the New Poor-law came into operation in the northern part of this kingdom. The effect of the law had been to break through the old-established laws of this country, as well as those of the Bible itself, which enjoined men to "succour the poor and needy," and to put these poor men from the moment they left the land of their birth into the hands of men who rolled in exorbitant wealth, and which he might say was their idol, and who cared not for the poor. What had been the result? From that moment the trade of the district had sunk; it had decayed from day to day, from year to year, in a continuous decline. If the House was to be guided by the laws of religion, there was surely something for them to study in this

147
result. But he had another point which he was desirous of bringing under the attention of the House. These poor wretches had been passed from their homes in the south into the manufacturing districts of the north, not for their own welfare, but in order to save eventually the pockets of the rate-payers of the southern parts of England. Now, he had watched the annual reports of the Poor-law commissioners, and the burden of their song had been that they had saved a large sum to the country. In their last report they said, that in the year 1841 they had saved, as compared with the year 1834, the year previous to the passing of the act, 1,556,326 l. When this act was first brought foward, its chief advocates declared that there was no determination to carry it out oppressively; that there was no intention to separate man and wife in the union workhouses; or to tear the child from the bosom of its mother. He would quote a passage from a speech of Lord Brougham:—
"He had to give the most distinct, unequivocal, and peremptory contradiction to the statement relative to the alleged separation of families in contemplation under the proposed plan. No one ever entertained such an intention; but undoubtedly one or two workhouses in the union would be converted into hospitals, and the sound would not be shut up with the sick as heretofore. This was all the separation that could be contemplated. No child of an age to require nurture would be separated from its parent, nor would husband and wife be parted."
That was the language of Lord Brougham, the parent of the New Poor-law, in the debate on the Stoke Poges petition; and on the points there noticed he called on both sides of the House to express their opinions fully and frankly. He would next ask the right hon. Baronet another question. Had the Poor-law commissioners been enabled to carry out this law in the north of England? Were they able to carry it out there? That was the question to be decided. They had attempted to carry it out there, and they had failed, and they knew that it was utterly impossible to carry it out there even if every rate-payer in the country would lend his willing aid; and if the enactment was as just as it was unjust, the Poor-law commissioners knew that they could not carry it out there, because the mass of the population would prevent them. But he had a particular charge against the commission-
148
ers. In direct violation of their last report they had attempted to carry out the New Poor-law in his own union, and in a manner more unjust and more arbitrary than in any case that he had ever heard of. He found, from the last report of the Poor-law commissioners, that the order prohibiting out-door relief to the able-bodied and limiting their relief to the workhouse is inapplicable under two sets of circumstances—first, where the permanent state of the union is such as not to admit of its issue; secondly where the ordinary state of the union admits of its enforcement, but the workhouse is temporarily full. Now, he resided in a large manufacturing district inhabited by a population of somewhere about 50,000 souls, and yet, depressed as trade had been, ruinous as the poor-rates had been, in that district, the Poor-law commissioners, knowing all this, for the purpose of attempting to practise their absurd and ridiculous ideas on this subject, had issued to the guardians a prohibition of out-door relief. They had ordered that no able-bodied person should have one farthing's relief unless he threw up all the work he had and went into the workhouse. This order was put in force on Monday week, but it was his opinion if the commissioners persisted in enforcing it, a worse state of ruin would instantly ensue. They would find that the poor, instead of being summoned by hundreds as at present before the magistrates for not paying poor-rates, would be summoned by thousands; instead of summoning them by hundreds because they could not pay 2s. 6d. a week, they would be summoned by thousands for not paying a less sum. A short time before leaving his own union to come up to town, he was told of the following case: A poor man who had not had any work for weeks, was summoned before the magistrates, to show cause why he did not pay his poor-rates. He found the man one day standing at the door of the board of guardians of the union, and upon his questioning him, he said that he was out of work and had 3s. a week allowance from the board, which he had just got, but that as he was coming out he was met by an officer, who deducted 2s. 2d. for poor-rates, so that he was only left 10 d. to keep himself and his wife and family for the whole week, and all for having been summoned to pay rates which he was unable to pay. This he found to

149
be correct upon going back to the board, and he must tell the House that, in his opinion, hundreds of thousands, if the Poor-law were to be carried out in the north of England would be subjected to the same distress as this poor man. But with respect to another point, he asked, was it not a monstrous cruelty which they enforced upon aged people, that at seventy, or eighty, or ninety years of age, and he knew many persons of that age, they were to be turned from their homes under the direction of the Poor-law commissioners, who were not acquainted with their circumstances, or left to starve? This was so, for there had been a distinct order that no allowance should be made to them for the rent of their cottages. This was most unjust, because there was many a loyal old person, who, after paying poor-rates all their lives, and who were now no longer able to help themselves, and yet were to be left to starve. But he asked whether it was not the duty of the rate-payers to take care that these persons should not be taken from their homes and crowded in a bastile? How, then, was the right hon. Baronet to carry out the law in the north of England? Was he aware, that in an union not twenty miles distant from his part of the country the relieving officer went his rounds under the protection of a troop of cavalry? Was this living in the light of the Constitution, as the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself to do when he accepted office? Was it according to the laws and usages of England that your relieving officers should go about under guard of a troop of cavalry, so odious were they? The people in the north of England said, "Leave us to ourselves; we challenge you to produce one single act of injustice to the poor or to the ratepayers ever committed by us during the time that we had the administration of our own poor." He appealed to the House generally. It was not more than twelve months since they had appeared on the hustings before their constituents. They had all made great professions there of opposition to this tyrannical law, and detestation of the Poor-law commissioners and their myrmidons. He wanted to know if they were determined to stand to their professions. The electors of England were not an arbitrary body of men, they were easily satisfied; and if the House did its duty to its constituents, this bill would never pass into a law. He told the Mem-
150
ber for Montrose that it was so, and he hoped, at any rate, that they were not ready to vote black was white. If they were true to their promises, this bill would never disgrace the statute-book, and the country would not be again handed over to the arbitrary legislation of the officials of Somerset-house.
Sir James Graham: Sir, if I understood the hon. Member who has just sat down correctly, he asked what Member would, after he had addressed the House, presume to press for the second reading of this bill. Not daunted, however, by the vehemence of the hon. Gentleman's manner, I am quite prepared to press upon the House the policy, the necessity, and the justice of passing this measure. I have been pained and astonished by some remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made on a most faithful servant of the public. Dr. Kay was unknown to me until I was placed by the favour of her Majesty in the office which I now have the honour to bold. The hon. Member spoke of "the benevolent mind of Dr. Kay" with something of a sneer. Now, I must say, that if ever there was a public servant who was faithful to his trust, of whose acquirements any gentleman might justly be proud; and whose charity, and benevolence, and kindness to the poor were conspicuous, I should name Dr. Kay as the man. That gentleman is not my private friend. I know him only as a public servant, but I think I should betray my duty if I did not stand forward to defend from attack the character of an absent man, with whom I have in every respect, so much cause to be satisfied. Now, with respect to the conduct of Dr. Kay in a matter more immediately under the cognizance of the House,—in order duly to understand that conduct dates are most important. In regard to the first passage cited by the hon. Gentleman, I really must say that I think he placed a most incorrect construction upon the words which he read to the House. Dr. Kay was speaking of the condition in 1832 of the labouring classes in certain agricultural districts. [Mr. Ferrand: in Manchester.] No, not Manchester. I think I am not wrong in my comprehension of what fell from the hon. Member. I understood the hon. Member to have cited particular words, which I think 1 took correctly,—that speaking of the condition of the labouring poor in certain agricultural districts, (I believe Buckinghamshire or Bedfordshire) the words of Dr. Kay were,

151
"Necessity must drive some of this population from their homes."
Now, the hon. Gentleman attempted to put a gloss upon those words, the effect of which was to impute to Dr. Kay that he intended to say, that the time referred to was a very advantageous opportunity—one which ought not to be lost—of forcing from their homes and into another district this population who were so circumstanced. I will at once say, that I think this was a most unfair construction to put upon those words of Dr. Kay. That gentleman was stating a fact, not using an argument—and he was describing the condition to which, in the southern parts of England, the labouring population were at that time reduced; and if the real cause of that condition were to be inquired into it would be found to be the abuses of the old Poor-law as it existed before the introduction of the present law. Talk of the slavery, of the tyranny, of the oppression which the labouring classes now suffer under the new law! I must call the attention of the House to the condition of those classes in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire at the particular time to which the extract refers. Does the House forget what that was? I think it is recorded that in one workhouse in Bedfordshire there were fifty or sixty able-bodied men in close confinement, desiring labour but obtaining none. Even in Sussex what was the state of the labouring classes there? Why, that they were working in gravel-pits, dragging their trucks like beasts of burden. This was the condition of those classes when the act was introduced—this was the condition in which Dr. Kay found them, and which led him to say that necessity must soon drive some of them from their homes. It was at a very considerable time after that the migration which has been spoken of took place. It was at a period of unexampled prosperity in the manufacturing districts. Dr. Kay had himself an opportunity of observing in the manufacturing districts the improved condition of these people. For a time they worked well, they shared the prosperity of the district, they were faithful, and their condition was changed to this state from a state of oppression under which they had suffered in the agricultural districts where the system of rounds men prevailed—where they worked, not according to their own wishes, but were reduced to take what they could get. They changed their former unhappy condition for several years of prosperity while the season of
152
manufacturing prosperity continued; they had their cottages, and ample wages; they subsisted in comfort; and it was not until the unhappy revulsion which occurred in those districts that they were reduced once again to reap the fruits of comparative misery; and I repeat, that I never knew of more strenuous efforts made by a public servant than those which were made by Dr. Kay to improve the condition and alleviate the miseries of his suffering fellow-countrymen. The hon. Gentleman has put to me several questions, and particularly he has asked me about the administration of the law by the Poor-law Commissioners in the North of England. I admit that the prohibitory order in many districts in the North of England, more especially in the manufacturing districts, has not been acted upon. I have always contended for the necessity of investing the Poor-law Commissioners with a discretionary power; and if I required any test of their fitness for the office which they hold, I know of no one stronger or more safe than the prudence with which they have issued, or abstained from issuing, that order. But does the hon. Gentleman really mean to contend that the poor, in the midst of the misfortunes with which they are at present surrounded, should be taught to believe that they have an absolute indefeasible right to relief without any condition whatever? Does he really mean to say, that there exists a right in able-bodied men to claim and obtain relief for their distress without any test being imposed upon them? [Mr. Ferrand: No.] The hon. Member says no. [Mr. Ferrand: In my district it is in force.] Then I tell him that there the prohibitory order is not in force, but the outdoor relief order. Let us see how the case stands. The hon. Member objects to the prohibitory order which applies a test of work, and he cites the case of his own union, in which that order is not issued. There is, however, in that union what is called the out-door labourer order, and what is that? Why, simply this—that no able-bodied man shall receive relief from the union without a task of work to be performed, not in the workhouse, but under the direction of the relieving officer. That is a test, though not a test applied in the workhouse; but if you give relief, not in consideration of work done out of the workhouse, but without work at all, then you establish that dangerous doctrine of the indefeasible right to relief. You call it relief, but you had much better call it sub-

153
sistence upon the industry of others. A more dangerous doctrine, one more degrading—one not only subversive of the rights of property, but destructive of all order, and, therefore, inconsistent with the well-being of the labouring classes themselves,—has never been propounded in any legislative assembly. But the hon. Member cited the report of Mr. Mott, the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, and that report is one entitled to great respect. I hold in my hand a report from Mr. Mott as to the present state and condition of this very union of Keighly, about which the hon. Member said so much. I must say, that it is unwillingly I am thus drawn from the general consideration of the measure to this local subject; but it is my duty to answer the hon. Gentleman, and to tell him what are the real circumstances attending the out-door relief order in the Keighley Union. This is, however, quite apposite to the matter in hand, for I could not have a better evidence than the history of this union affords to show the absolute necessity of some superintending control over local authorities—that which I contend is the essence and spirit of the measure the second reading of which, and therefore its principle, we are now discussing. This report of Mr. Mott is dated the 23rd of April last. Mr. Mott says, speaking of this union:—
"Relief in aid of wages is generally given and payment of rents to an alarming extent. The workhouses are not subject to either classification or discipline. AH the errors of the old Poor-law are followed. The paupers claim relief as their right. I need scarcely add that the rates are fast increasing. To show the mischievous extent to which the practice of paying rent has arrived, I submit the following notice, which was brought to the meeting of the guardians by a pauper, and submitted on his behalf by one of the relieving officers:—'I hereby certify, that Edward Walton will be indebted to his landlord, the Rev. John Sevire, one year's rent, 3l. 3s., on the 13th day of May next.'"
[Lord John Russell; When was this?] In April of the present year. Mr. Mott goes on:—
"On complaining of the deviation from the provisions of the law, the guardians stated that it arose from the interference of the magistrates."
Now this is the result of the objection to the "three kings of Somerset-house,"—this is the result of a wish to revert to the local magistracy, those who can get an easy character for great humanity, those who can obtain the title of the "poor man's
154
friend,"—this is the result of giving the power of issuing orders of relief which are to be administered by third parties. Mr. Mott goes on:—"
"I was surprised to find, that an opinion prevailed amongst the guardians that their proceedings in granting relief were subject to the control of the magistrates, and a case was named in which, where the guardians had granted 9s. per week to an able-bodied man and his family, the magistrates had interfered and obtained a further relief of clogs, &c. The guardians even stated, that the magistrates had fixed the 'scale' by which they were to be guided in granting relief to able-bodied paupers."
This report is dated on the 23rd of April in the present year; and this is the state of things in the north of England; the very district which is favoured by the presence of the hon. Member himself, and here you have the very word "scale" adopted, which has been, it seems, exploded in the south. Mr. Mott, and bear in mind that he is an authority with the hon Gentleman, goes on to say:—
"The Keighley Union affords a forcible illustration of the impossibility of any union or parish being depended upon to carry out the provisions of the Poor-law without a powerful control. The report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the old system of Poor-law management has been sent to every union formed under your board; the ruinous results of such a system have been repeatedly pointed out; the mischievous effects of the power given to the magistrates under the old system of relief have all been printed and widely circulated in every union placed by your board under the provisions of the Poor-law Amendment Act. No man can plead ignorance of them, and yet the Guardians of the Keighley Union, without, as I verily believe, the least intention of doing wrong, have introduced the worst features of the old Poor-law, under the belief that they were still under the control of the magistrates to whose directions they were bound to submit."
So much for the Keighley Union. And if I were not fearful of troubling the House too much, I would go further; for perhaps the hon. Member would like me to complete the picture of the Keighley Union. ["Go on!"] Well, I will go on—having shown what is the mismanagement in this union, 1 will expose some of the jobbing that has taken place there. I continue to read from Mr. Mott's report. He says—
"Amongst the other extraordinary proceedings of the Guardians of the Keighley Union may be named the encouragement given to lawyers to create legal disputes."

155
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield complained of the manner in which the lawyers were excluded from all adjudication under the management of the existing law. Now we will see how they do act where they are employed—not by the "three kings of Somerset-house," but under the authority of the local magistracy. Mr. Mott says:—
"The clerk is himself a solicitor, but being paid an inadequate salary (7O l. per year), an inducement is offered to obtain additional remuneration by legal fees. The other attornies of the town were generally desirous of obtaining a share in the profits, and on the 6th of May, 1840, I find, by the minute-book of the guardians, an encouragement given to excite litigation by the following singular resolution:—'Ordered, that the trial of settlement cases for Keighley be given to the attornies of the town in rotation.' This plan does not appear to have suited the legal gentlemen, and, doubtless, the most profitable appeals may have been selected to take place at certain periods. An alteration was therefore desired, and accordingly, eighteen months afterwards, namely, on the 13th of October, 1841, the guardians further assisted the views of the attornies by the following resolution:—'The order of the 6th of May, 1840, having been attended by some inconvenience, ordered, that the attornies be so employed annually after the present sessions;' with such support from the guardians it is not to be wondered at that unfortunate Keighley is suffering severely from legal disputes. One of the Keighley guardians complained that the lawyers' bills for that town the last year would not be much less than 500 l."
The hon. Member asked me questions with regard to the Keighley Union, and I have given him the best answer I could. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that relief was given—as was unfortunately the case—in the neighbourhood of Keighley within the last fortnight, aided by the presence of a body of cavalry. Now I am free to state to the House, that in the district in question, where very great distress undoubtedly prevails, there has been an extreme difficulty within the last month in carrying the Poor-law into effect. But in regard to this subject, I am not now about to cite the information furnished by the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, but that received from another party. In saying this, I beg it to be understood that I am not, for a moment, disposed in the least degree to disparage those gentlemen, on whose reports I, for one, speaking from experience, am ever ready to rely with confidence. They are not gentlemen nominated by me, or in any way connected with
156
my political friends; they are persons nominated by my political opponents, but in no case, as far as I can judge, have they been selected for political reasons. I consider them as highly honourable, well-educated, able men, fully entitled to the confidence of that Government under which they are now employed. The information I am about to repeat, however, came, not from one of the Assistant Poor-law Commissioners, but from a local magistrate, a gentleman who was present at the scene which has been spoken of. I have already stated to the House how dangerous I consider the doctrine of an absolute right to relief, without any previous test whatever being applied, or any labour exacted, as the condition of relief; and I will now state to the House what was the report of a magistrate who was present at the unhappy scene which has been mentioned. His words were:—
"I take the opportunity of stating to you, that after a strict inquiry into the disturbance which occurred op Tuesday, the 31st of May, we find that the men most prominent in that movement had, or might have had, ample employment for the support of themselves and families; and, indeed, that these men have actually hired other men, who were at work, to swell their begging party. I may add, on this subject, that I do not in the least anticipate any serious outbreak. No doubt considerable distress exists, but the people bear it with great patience, and we have to-day taken care that relief is afforded at once, amply, and satisfactorily. The people, when left to themselves, are patient, obedient to the law, exemplary in their conduct; it is only when acting under excitement by persons not in destitution—who tell them they are slaves—that their condition is that of slavery—that they are oppressed by grievous wrongs—and it is only gross tyranny which refuses them relief when they ask it; it is, in short, men of a higher station, who, raising up in the people's minds unlawful and unreasonable expectations, produce the dangers and inconveniences of which I have spoken."
It was not ray intention to have addressed the House at this period, but having heard a gentleman for whom I entertain very high respect spoken of in a violent and most unjust manner, I was induced to rise; and now, being on my legs, I will take the opportunity of shortly pointing out what has hitherto been overlooked in the discussion which has taken place. I beg to remind hon. Gentlemen, however, that we are not now discussing the details of the bill which are for the committee. My hon. friend the Member for Droitwich has complained

157
of the absence of certain clauses. In his admirable speech he pointed out many reasons why this bill ought to be read a second time, and in the main he approved of it. But he also, anticipating the duty of the committee, urged upon the House the propriety of adopting certain rating clauses. I have already stated that I purposely excluded all such clauses; I think the bill, as it is, is quite sufficiently laden with matter, and will give the House quite enough subject for consideration, independent of the subject of rating; but I have also stated, that if it should then still be my duty officially to discharge the functions now imposed on me, I shall consider it indispensable, at an early period of the next Session, to bring forward a measure dealing with the whole question of settlement and rating, as essential to the full carrying out of the system. Again, the hon. and gallant Commodore opposite, who, I am surprised to hear, is going to vote against the second reading, after the evidence he has given of the satisfactory working of the plan in the union with which he is connected, complained of certain clauses in the bill which have reference to the maintenance of bastard children by their putative fathers; a matter no doubt well worthy of consideration, but which will come properly before the House when in committee. The hon. Member for Macclesfield also complains of the size of the unions. I have endeavoured to deal with that question. 1 may not have done so in a manner that will be satisfactory to the House, but it will be a matter for the consideration of the House in committee whether a better mode can be devised than that which I have proposed. Then, again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who seconded the motion that is made in opposition to the bill, complains of the bill as far as relates to the Gilbert unions. [Captain Pechell: I object to the whole.] And who are the two hon. Gentlemen who have moved and seconded the rejection of this bill? I speak with the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Rochdale. I should be ashamed not to say that, although an Irish gentleman, he was fully able to deal with every subject of legislation, but as an Irish gentleman the hon. Member can not be practically acquainted with the working of the measure; and, by a strange coincidence, he is the representative of one of the manufacturing towns of large size which are not under the operation of this law.
158
Who is the hon. Gentleman who seconds the motion of the hon. gentleman the Member for Rochdale? Why, he is the representative of a town which is governed under a local act, and which has hitherto had no experience of the working of the present law. Now, speaking generally, I must say that those who have had the longest experience of the present law will be amongst those who are in the main the best and firmest supporters of this measure. I am prepared practically to admit that the point to be considered upon the second reading of this bill is chiefly centered in this short question—"Will you, or will you not, continue the control of the central commission?"—Every other question may be regarded as a question of detail. I will moreover add, that the bill is so framed that after the House shall have agreed to continue the commission, all the other clauses are, I think I might almost say without any exception, clauses which mitigate the rigour of the existing law. Without a single exception they are either clauses of mitigation, or clauses which may be made so to a very great extent. I beg the House not to forget this, that you may defeat the continuance of the commission, but that if you do so, the effect will be to put an end to control and introduce confusion; and having introduced confusion you will not be likely to mitigate the law. I shall now state to the House two or three reasons in support of the main principles of this bill. Its object first of all is to bring into general operation gradually, and therefore safely, a great alteration in the system of the relief of the poor. If you do not proceed by some such control as it enacts in immediate connexion with the Executive Government, you must legislate brevi manu, upon some general principle, and the circumstances in the condition of the working classes are so different in different quarters—I had almost said so opposite—that any such general enactment, not proceeding upon experience, and not considered with due caution, would be dangerous in the extreme. I say that you can devise no means so good as this central commission; and when hon. Gentlemen come to talk or remedies, they really propose something so very like this commission, that it is hardly to be distinguished from it. What said the hon. Member for Rochdale? Why, that he should like to have a perambulatory commission. He objects to a central control, but he thinks that there

159
should be commissioners who would go circuit, which, under another name, is nothing but the assistant-commissioners without the central control. What does the hon. Member for Macclesfield propose? He proposes to have, as in the case of the factory commission, district commissioners, which under another name is but the suggestion of the hon. Member for Rochdale—namely, assistant-commissioners, only uncontrolled by a central commission. I now pass to my second reason for supporting a central control. I assert what has been proved by experience, that what may be found to be injurious in one union may, through the central government, be instantly stopped in every union throughout the kingdom. This, I say, is an immense advantage, and an advantage which can only be obtained by means of a central management in connexion with and under the control of the Executive Government. My third reason is, that for every act of an illegal character for which this authority is responsible, they can be promptly brought under the jurisdiction of the supreme courts of law in this country. It is vain, therefore, to say, that those commissioners are not a responsible body. They are bound to administer the law as it is enacted, and if they should be guilty of the slightest infraction of that law, they can be made responsible for it before the supreme tribunals of the land. It is impossible to legislate upon the minute details of a measure of this kind, the regulations of the workhouse, the dietary of its inmates, and all those minute particulars on which in the main the useful execution of the law depends; and it would be still more impossible for the Executive, without a commission of this kind and controlled by them, safely or beneficially to carry the law into operation. My last and strongest reason, which I have illustrated by a recent specimen of the results that ensued from the appearance of magistrates in the Keighley union, and that is only one instance amongst hundreds of what took place when the country generally was under the control of the magistracy;—my last reason is that, if you remove the central authority, you must revert to that local authority of the magistracy, and, with the return of that control of the local magistrates, I am certain you will open those floodgates which will let in upon the country all the abuses which it is the object of the law to put an end to; and I am also certain that the second condition
160
of the labouring classes under such a change will, if possible, be worse than the first. Upon the most conscientious and guarded view which I have been able to give to the subject, it appears to me that the original enactment in the main is right, and believing it to be right I feel perfectly regardless of any imputations that may be cast upon myself individually, or upon the motives by which I am governed, and I should betray my duty if I for one moment hesitated to urge upon the House the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Ferrand, in explanation, wished to say, as a magistrate of the Keighley Union, as chairman of a board of guardians, and as a Member of that House, that that report of the Poor-law commissioners was grossly unfounded.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that the House was now called upon to decide what might be considered the main principle of the bill, namely, whether the Poor-law system of this country should be for the future as it had been for some time past, submitted to a central superintendence; and in briefly expressing his opinion on the subject, he was anxious to show that he was prepared to the fullest extent to act up to any profession that he, at least, had made upon the hustings. He might have been supposed to have proclaimed strong opinions upon this subject. He certainly had proclaimed decisive opinions, founded upon strong convictions, but he had never thought it necessary, nor should he on the present occasion deem it necessary, to express those decided opinions in a manner likely to prove inflammatory, or to cast reflections upon others, because their opinions happened to differ from his own. He must observe, that he did not think such a course was conducive to the good of the cause they had in hand; and he should belie his conviction, if he were to say, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department, the Poor-law commissioners, and the assistant-commissioners themselves, were what they had been represented to be—tyrants and demons. He believed no such thing. He differed widely and strongly from those individuals who used such language, and he conceived they were taking a mistaken view of the question. They might be pursuing that plan which they considered conducive to the interests of the lower classes, but they were not on that account entitled to impute motives to the conduct of others.

161
With respect to the immediate question before the House, he was prepared to take it upon the footing upon which the right hon. Baronet had placed it,—namely, whether the administration of the Poor-law in this country should be for the future submitted to the control of a central commission? He had no hesitation in saying, that it would be quite consistent for any hon. Member who thought with him that it wag absolutely impossible—that, in a legislative sense, it was perfectly impracticable to sweep away the system under which the Poor-law was at present administered, to admit the second reading of this bill, and endeavour so to alter it in committee as to adapt it to his own views. The bill proposed to continue the commission for a limited period, and further to amend the laws relating to the poor of England. Now, he was prepared to admit, as on all occasions he had admitted, that it would be almost impracticable, and if practicable, impolitic, to suffer this Poor-law commission to expire at the present moment. He had always contended, too, that it would be impossible to repeal the Poor-law Act as it at present stood; but that did not preclude him from entertaining the strongest objection to the principle and views upon which this bill had been brought into the House; because, although he might be justified in saying, that he should now vote for the bill, and look to the committee for that limitation to the period of the commission which he desired to see effected, still he thought, that in considering and making up their minds upon the subject, they were bound to be guided, not merely by the letter of the bill itself, but by the language with which it was introduced, by the principle it went to continue, and by the prospects which were held out by the Minister from whom it proceeded. Under these circumstances what did he find? That reasons which the right hon. Baronet deemed insuperable had been advanced by him in favour of a superintending control. He was, therefore, bound to consider whether, if he voted for the second reading of the bill, he thereby pledged himself to an opinion in favour of the expediency of continuing such control in the abstract sense; because that was a principle to which he never could give his consent. He thought that the commission might be justified by an emergency, but that its existence should not be prolonged one moment beyond that
162
emergency. He was aware, that in some parts of the country abuses had become so interwoven with society as to render a strong and decisive remedy indispensable; and so far as those parts of the country, and those abuses were concerned, he had no hesitation in admitting, that it might have been necessary to invest somewhere an authority such as that possessed by the Poor-law commissioners. But he was not, therefore, compelled to admit, that body having been constituted, that they were to forget its origin, to forget the grounds upon which it had been created, and to reconcile themselves to the permanent continuance of it as if it were a body which was in entire accordance with the spirit of the constitution. He was aware, that arbitrary acts, such as the suspension of the habeas corpus and the Coercion Bill, had been resorted to by the executive for express purpose of meeting certain cases; but in all instances they had been regarded and treated as only temporary. He repeated, therefore, that although he might think it necessary to submit to the continuance of such an authority as they had now to deal with, an authority empowered to issue statutes and laws for the purposes of effecting a reformation of certain abuses—although he might think it right to submit to it with a view to the exigencies upon which it was first established, he could not be thereby bound—he was not thereby bound—to regard it as an integral part of the institutions of the country. When the question was last discussed, some hon. Gentlemen who thought that this commission could not be dispensed with, said, that a board of guardians having had the question referred to them, at once avowed that this superintendence was necessary; stating, that if deprived of the assistance it afforded, it would be driven into abuses which their own conviction would induce them, if possible, to avoid. But he held that to be no reason whatever, if they looked to the more permanent view of the question, and to what ought to be the object of a Legislature in providing a machinery for the management of a great system. Were they to assume, that in all future times those natural established functionaries in whom that machinery was to be found were incapable of performing their functions? He considered that it should be the object of the Legislature gradually, but as certainly as possible, to adapt the system to the existing machi-

163
nery, and so guide and instruct those by whom it ought to be administered, that they should meet the responsibility placed upon them by their position in society, and so bring about a mutual state of things by leaving the subject in the hands of those to whom it properly belonged,—namely, the local authorities. In looking through this bill, he observed, that it was not without improvements on the existing law. He might refer particularly to that by which sick persons were entitled to relief wherever they were resident at the time for a period of six weeks, thereby getting rid of the suffering and inconvenience attending the removal of persons to their own parishes. This he looked upon as a great improvement. There were also others, that for instance relating to apprentices, but he would not trouble the House by dwelling on these points. The Poor-law commissioners, whose power it was proposed by this measure to continue, on the one side had been abused and reviled, as having mismanaged and abused the trust confided to them; whilst on the other hand, they had been highly praised for their wise and judicious conduct. He confessed, that he thought the commissioners had been placed in a position involving the performance of very disagreeable duties, but at the same time, he could not but give them every credit for discharging those duties with considerable wisdom, judgment, and good sense. He must object, however, and that in the strongest manner, to the scheme upon which they had constructed the unions. He did not pretend to be so well acquainted as other hon. Members with the particular union which had been so frequently referred to that evening; but when they were told of the abuses which existed in that union, let them not forget that those very abuses were formerly charged upon the old law, and that they were still said to exist to as great an extent as ever under the new system, despite the emendations which that system professed to introduce. The right hon. Baronet must well know that there must be great differences in the execution of the law, from the manner in which different unions were constructed. He must know that size and other circumstances obliged the inhabitants not unfrequently to resort to expedients to get rid of the many inconveniences to which they were subjected. Indeed, the fact itself was admitted in this
164
very bill, for a clause was introduced to divide the districts, and so to obviate the inconveniences at present existing. So far the clause was an admission of the extent of the evil; but, on the other hand, he feared it would prove anything but a remedy for the evil really existing. He would not, however, detain the House any longer. He could entirely wish that, looking to the very imperfect applicability of the Poor-law to a large portion of the country, the Government should re-consider the principles on which they called upon the House to pass the second reading. He also thought it was the duty of the House to look to the period when it might be within its power to restore the administration of local government to its former footing. He did not mean to restore the local administration to the smaller parishes—he did not think that was necessary; but to give a power of local government in cases where such power could be advantageously administered. In fact, in his opinion, local government was one of the safest of our institutions: and nothing should be allowed to interfere extensively with the operation of that salutary system. They might get more accuracy—they might get more punctuality under a central government—but those advantages were, in his opinion, dearly bought by the entire destruction of the habits of self-government which had prevailed for ages among the people, and which they regarded as one of the most important parts of their social policy; and if the House were still to act on the general principle—if they were determined to carry out to their full extent the views embodied in this bill—yet he would plead for his own district—yet he would ask the House to consider the wide and undeniable distinction between that part and other portions of the country to which the system was at first adapted; and yet he would ask them to let him enjoy the hope that the time was not far distant when they might obtain the management of their own concerns.
Colonel Wooddid not exactly comprehend the tenor of the argument used by the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. He understood the hon. and learned Member to state that he did not desire the central commission should be immediately done away with. But the commission terminated on the 31st of July, and therefore if the hon. and learned

165
Gentleman did not want to give this bill a second reading, how would he prevent the commission from expiring? He agreed with the hon. Member that it was not desirable to do away with local jurisdiction, and he also coincided in very much that had fallen from the gallant Officer opposite, though he certainly did not see how he could introduce amendments into the bill if he did not permit it to go into committee. For his own part he thought it would be very advisable to divide the bill, and to pass forthwith the first five clauses, which would continue the powers of the commissioners for a limited time—not so long as five years—and they could then go into the whole of the general question next Session, without any difficulty or chance of obstruction. As it was not the fashion that night to touch upon the details of the measure, he would say nothing more respecting it than that there were many parts of the bill to which he had very strong objections. He objected to the proposed formation of educational establishments. If the Poor-law commissioners were to have any thing to do with schools, they ought already to have erected them in connexion with the union workhouses. Upwards of two millions of money had been expended upon those buildings; and he must say that the commissioners having neglected to build them schools, he thought it was too much to ask that they should be called upon to make a further outlay for such a purpose. Besides, he entirely supported the principle of good parochial schools, somewhat on the plan proposed by Mr. Whitbread in 1806, which had been found to answer every object designed and expected from it. There were other clauses to which he had great objections, particularly that which made the casual poor of one parish chargeable upon the whole union. He felt, however, that this was not the opportunity to discuss these details, and he would, therefore, content himself with saying that, entering his protest against these clauses, he should give his vote for the second reading, with a view to amend the bill in committee.
Mr. Liddelldid not suppose the House would divide that night, but he would take advantage of the opportunity which offered to make a few observations on the bill under consideration. And, first, he must say, that, agreeing with the hon. Member for the West Riding, he yet
166
found it quite impossible to go along with him in his vote. He felt perfectly convinced that time ought to be given to arrange the affairs of the commission, even if they felt inclined to dissolve it, and therefore he should offer no opposition to the second reading of the bill, but would reserve a power to support any amendments he pleased in committee, or to vote against the bill on the third reading, if those amendments were not satisfactory. But apart from this consideration, he should also base his vote on his estimate of the language used by the hon. Member for Knaresborough. It was impossible to hear that hon. Member's speech without feeling that he was perfectly sincere, yet he must say, that he thought be had spoken that night with much more zeal than discretion, and with a good deal of over-wrought feeling. When that hon. Member spoke of Dr. Kay, he could not help remembering the evidence given before the committee on the Poor-law by that gentleman, and he certainly could not find it possible at all to agree with the representation made of him by the hon. Gentleman. That hon. Member had implied, that a delusion had been practised by the commissioners to produce a migration from the agricultural to the manufacturing districts. Now, he could not but think, that at the time that migration took place, the chief cause that operated to induce it was the very natural one of a demand for labour in one district, and a falling off in the means of affording employment in another. Any one who referred to the evidence given before the select committee on the Poor-law in 1838 would find, by referring to Dr. Kay's evidence, at question 4,644, that although it was true, that this migration was attended with much subsequent distress, and that there were many instances of disappointment, yet certainly there was no reason to charge upon the Government, or its agents, any wilful attempt to practise a delusion on the people, He, believed, there was nothing more in this case than happened too often with reference to the Irish labourers who came over to England at harvest time; and although undoubtedly there was a great change of circumstances and situation, and very much suffering was occasioned, yet it was acknowledged, that the results were only in a natural course of events. With respect to the principle of the workhouse

167
test, he entertained many strong objections. He thought that, in the first place, it was impossible that it could at all times be applied in the manufacturing districts, where it was out of the question that relief could be afforded in the workhouse to all the destitute poor. He also felt there was a much better test than any workhouse test or labour test—a test which no Government, or Secretary of State, or party, either in that House or out of the House, would properly apply—he meant the test of character, which could only be applied by those who were on the spot and accustomed to the administration of relief. Certainly, this was one of the proofs of the greater value of the local over the general board, which latter could not by any possibility sympathise so well with the feelings of the locality. The object of the law should be to benefit the poor, the public, and the rate-payer; but if the poor were not so well taken care of, and if the guardians were desirous of getting rid of a perplexing machinery, why should not the power be granted of resolving the unions into the original parochial control, but still under the superintendence of the central board? This was a grievance which remote unions might well complain of, but it might be said, that the particular circumstances of remote unions ought not to be taken into consideration in a general measure. Now, he conceived it to be a principle of the British Constitution, that the more remote the place the stronger right to a hearing. The objection would equally apply to Westmoreland, Cumberland, and North Wales. He was astonished, that no notice was taken in the bill of the objections to which he called the attention of the House, more especially when he remembered the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) in 1841, from which he was led to conclude, that if the right hon. Baronet came into power, he would use his best energies to remedy the evils, the existence of which be then admitted. In this hope he was disappointed. There was one other point, namely, that relating to the bastardy clause. He, admitted, that the provisions of the present bill, were an improvement upon the former, but he objected to that part of the clause which provided, that no order should be made except for relief in the workhouse. With respect to this subject, he had procured a return from a populous town in
168
the northern district of the county which he had the honour to represent, and he found the number of illegitimate children to be as follows:—In 1831, they were seven; in 1832, five; in 1833, seven; but after the New Poor-law passed, the number increased, and in 1839, they were twelve; in 1840, eighteen; and in 1841, they were twenty-two. This was a point upon which he felt deeply, having seen such grievous injuries ensue from it; and he knew fathers who were well to do, absolutely refused any relief to their illegitimate children. He should also oppose any attempt at an arbitrary suppression of the Gilbert Unions, and he was of opinion, that the ingenious arguments used by the right hon. Baronet on this point cut both ways. Though he would not join with the hon. Member for Rochdale in his present motion, he should certainly oppose the clause which related to the Gilbert Unions. He hailed with approbation the proposition for the appointment of district committees, but when the subject came under consideration he would move an extension of their powers.
The House divided, on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question—.Ayes 260; Noes 61: Majority 199.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bruce, Lord E.

A'Court, Capt.

Buck, L. W.

Adderley, C. B.

Buller, C.

Aldam, W.

Buller, E.

Alford, Visct.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Allix, J. P

Bunbury, T.

Bailey, J.

Busfeild, W.

Baillie, Col.

Byng, G.

Baillie, H. J.

Campbell, A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Cardwell, E.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Barnard, E. G.

Charteris, hon. F.

Barneby, J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Barrington, Visct.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Bateson, R.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Christie, W. D.

Beresford, Major

Christopher, R. A.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Clay, Sir W.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Clayton, R. R.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Clerk, Sir G.

Bernal, R.

Olive, hn. R. H.

Bernard, Visct.

Codrington, C. W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Blake, M. J.

Collett, W. R.

Boldero, H. G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Botfield, B.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Courtenay, Lord

Broadley, H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Brodie, W. B.

Craig, W. G.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Cripps, W.

169

Darby, G.

Hussey, T.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dickinson, F. H.

James, W.

Dodd, G.

Jermyn, Earl

Douglas, Sir H

Jocelyn, Visct.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Johnstone, H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Jones, Capt

Duncan, G.

Kemble, H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

East, J. B.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Eaton, R. J.

Langston, J. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lefroy, A.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Legh, G. C.

Ellice, E.

Leicester, Earl of

Eliot, Lord

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Emlyn, Visct.

Lincoln, Earl of

Esmonde, Sir T.

Lindsay, H. H.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Litton, E.

Evans, W.

Lockhart, W.

Farnham, E. B.

Lyall, G.

Fellowes, E.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B

Filmer, Sir E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Flower, Sir J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Follett, Sir W. W

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Ffolliott, J.

Mahon, Visct.

Forbes, W.

Mainwaring, T.

Forster, M.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Manners, Lord J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Marshall, W.

Gibson, T. M.

Martin, J.

Gill, T.

Martin, C. W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Gladstone, T.

Meynell, Capt.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Miles, W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Morgan, O.

Gordon, Lord F.

Mundy, E. M.

Goring, C.

Murray, C. R. S.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Neeld, J

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Granger, T. C.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Greene, T.

O'Brien, C.

Gregory, W. H.

O'Brien, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Grimston, Visct.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Grogan, E.

Ord, W.

Hamilton, W. J.

Packe, C. W.

Harcourt, G. G.

Pakington, J. S.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Hawes, B.

Parker, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Patten, J. W.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Heneage, E.

Peel, J.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Pemberton, T.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Hervey, Lord A.

Philips, G. R.

Hill, Lord M.

Philips, M.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Hogg, J. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Holmes, hon. W. A'Ct.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hope, hon. C.

Ponsonby, hon. C.F.C.

Howard, Lord

Powell, Col.

Howard, P. H.

Praed, W. T.

Howard, Sir R.

Pringle, A.

Hughes, W. B.

Protheroe, E.

Hume, J.

Pusey, P.

170

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Thompson, Ald.

Rashleigh, W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Rice, E. R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Trotter, J.

Round, C. G.

Tufnell, H.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Turner, E.

Rundle, J.

Turnor, C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Russell, Lord J.

Vane, Lord H.

Russell, J. D. W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Villiers, hon. C.

Sandon, Visct.

Vivian, J. H.

Seymour, Lord

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Waddington, H. S.

Sheppard, T.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Shirley, E. J.

Ward, H. G.

Shirley, E. P.

Watson, W. H.

Smith, A.

Wawn, J.T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Welby, G. E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Whitmore, T. C.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Stanley, Lord

Wodehouse, E.

Stanton, W. H.

Wood, B.

Stewart, J.

Wood, Col.

Stuart, Lord J.

Wood, Col. T.

Stuart, W. V.

Wood, G. W.

Stuart, H.

Worsley, Lord

Stock, Serjt.

Wrightson, W. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Strutt, E.

Young, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Baring, H.

Thesiger, F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Attwood, M.

Hardy, J.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Hawkes, T.

Beckett, W

Heathcoat, J.

Bernal, Capt

Henley, J. W.

Bowring, Dr.

Hindley, C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hodgson, F.

Brotherton, J.

Hodgson, R.

Cobden, R.

Hollond, R.

Cochrane, A.

Hornby, J.

Collins, W.

James, Sir W. C.

Colvile, C. R.

Jervis, J.

Dashwood, G. H.

Johnson, Gen.

Denison, E. B.

Knight, F. W.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Lawson, A.

Duke, Sir J.

Leader, J. T.

Duncombe, T.

Marton, G.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Masterman, J.

Escott, B.

Murphy, F. S.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Napier, Sir C.

Feilden, W.

O'Connell, D.

Fielden, J.

O'Connell, J.

Ferrand, W. B.

O'Conor, Don

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Owen, Sir J.

Gore, M.

Pollington, Visct.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Richards, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Walker, R.

Hampden, R.

Wallace, R.

171

Williams, W.

TELLERS.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Crawford, W. S.

Yorke, H. R.

Pechell, Capt.

Main question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

DEAN FOREST ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICTS.
On the motion for the bringing up the report of the resolution to make provision for the amendment of chapels, &c., under the Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts Bill,
Mr. T. Duncombedenounced the bill as one of the grossest ecclesiastical jobs. The House was under great misapprehension as to its real powers and objects, and therefore it was absolutely necessary that some better opportunity should be afforded for discussing its provisions. It was no inducement for him to agree to accelerate the bill that the right hon. Baronet wished to proceed with the Poor-law in committee on Monday next. He did not wish the Poor-law carried; he hoped it would be rejected; indeed, he did not believe that Minister would be able to carry it. The opponents of that bill were determined to resist it clause by clause, and if necessary, line by line. Unless, therefore, right hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to amuse themselves by going into the lobby and returning night after night unceasingly for the next month, they had better at once withdraw the bill. He certainly should oppose the reception of this report unless the right hon. Baronet consented to take the next stage at an early hour in the evening, when a full discussion might be had.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the next stage should be moved before 12 o'clock.
Report received, and instruction to the committee on the bill to make provision accordingly, was agreed to.

DEAN FOREST POOR.
On the motion for the third reading of the Dean Forest Poor Bill,
Mr. G. Berkeley Mr. G. Berkeley moved that it be read a third time that day three months.
The House divided, on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question—Ayes 82; Noes 21: Majority 61.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Bateson, R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Bernard, Visct.

Barneby,

Boldero, H. G.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Brotherton, J.

172

Bruce, Lord E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Jermyn, Earl

Campbell, A.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Christie, W. D.

Legh, G. C.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Leicester, Earl of

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Courtenay, Lord

Lindsay, H. H.

Cripps, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Darby, G.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Denison, E. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Desart, Ear of

Martin, C. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Morgan, O.

Egerton, Sir P.

Morris, D.

Eliot, Lord

Neeld, J.

Escott, B.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Gill, T.

Philips, G. R.

Gladstone, rt. hn.W.E.

Pringle, A.

Gladstone, T.

Rashleigh, W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gore, M.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Sandon, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Greene, T.

Sheppard, T.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grogan, E.

Stanley, Lord

Hamilton, W. J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Stuart, H.

Hawes, B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Henley, J. W.

Trotter, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hindley, C.

Wawn, J. T.

Hodgson, R.

Young, J.

Hornby, J.

Howard, P. H.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Bernal, Capt.

Napier, Sir C.

Blake, M. J.

Parker, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Protheroe, E.

Drax, J. S. W. S. E.

Villiers, hon. C.

Duke, Sir J.

Wallace, R.

Duncombe, T.

Wood, B.

Gibson, T. M.

Worsley, Lord

Hume, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Leader, J. T.

TELLERS.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Berkeley, G.

Martin, J.

Berkley, C.

Bill read a third time and passed.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1°. Public Houses.
3a and passed:—Sugar Duties.
Private.—la. Sudbury Improvement; London and Greenwich Railway.
2a. Thames Haven Dock and Railway Company; York Cathedral; Carlow Roads; Birmingham Free Grammar School Estate; Lord Southampton's Estate.
Reported.—Britwell Salome Inclosure; Kilmington In-closure; Ferrybridge and Boroughbridge Road.
3a and passed:—Church Stretton and Langden Road; Guarantee Society; Market Harborough and Brampton Road; Bolton and West Houghton Road; Hinckley Roads; Leicester and Ashby-de-la-Zouch Road; Holywell Roads; Metropolitan Wood Paving Company; Paterson's Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Wainfled, against the Income-tax.

THE QUEEN'S LETTER—DISTRESS (IRELAND).
Lord Cloncurrybegged to ask of the noble Duke opposite, whether any part of the money collected under the Queen's Letter, would be distributed amongst the people of Ireland?
The Duke of Wellingtonwas unable to answer the question, no notice having been given by the noble Lord of his intention to make the inquiry. He would give the noble Lord the information which
2
he required at the next sitting of the House.
Lord Fitzgeraldthought that the noble Lord, before he repeated his question, should consider its tendency. The inquiry which he made was in effect, whether subscriptions made in England and Wales, to relieve the distresses of the people of this country, should be expended amongst the poor of Ireland. Such a proposition ought to be well considered before it was suggested to the House.
Lord Cloncurrysaid, that subscriptions had been made in Ireland, which had been found to be totally inadequate to supply the wants of the people. Those wants were of the most melancholy description, and were chiefly owing to the income of gentlemen being spent out of the country.

INCOME (PROPERTY) TAX.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that before the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Property Tax Bill was proposed, he would beg to put one or two questions on matters of detail, to which he thought answers would be desirable. He found that in

3
schedule B of this bill the duties assessed on income were different from those assessed under any of the other schedules. Schedules A, C, and D required a duty of 7d. in the pound, but in schedule B, which referred to lands, &c. in England and Scotland, 3½d. in the pound was to be taken on the former, and 2½d. in the pound on the latter. He desired to know on what principle these schedules had been framed, and what was the reason why a distinction had been drawn between England and Scotland?
The Earl of Riponsaid, that under the old law, passed in 1806, but continued in operation down to the end of the war, the charges on tenants' lands had been less than those on the landlord's income. The tenant's profit was supposed to be two-thirds the amount of that of the landlord; but in this bill it had been placed at one-half the rent, because the former estimate had been considered to be too high. In answer to the second question of the noble Earl, he had to say, that in England the tenant, in addition to his rent, paid the tithes and rates, but in Scotland these charges were paid by the landlord; in consequence of this circumstance, the rent was higher in a proportionate degree in Scotland than in England, and therefore the assessment was lower in its amount in the former than in the latter place.
The Earl of Radnor:Then the reason why this new system had been adopted, was because it was not exactly the same as that which had existed under the former Act.
The Order of the Day for the third reading of the Income Tax Bill was read.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that it was now his duty to address their Lordships, and to state to them the grounds upon which her Majesty's Government had felt themselves called upon to propose to Parliament a measure for the imposition of a tax upon income; and he had to express his sincere personal regret that he should have been in any way the cause of the postponement of the explanation of this measure until this period of the proceedings, and more especially on account of the interest which their Lordships must take in a measure of so much importance, and so materially affecting the people of this country. The measure was one which was undoubtedly open to many grave objections, and while in the opinion of many persons it was altogether unjustifiable, was certainly, ac-
4
cording to his view, justifiable only on the ground of the strongest necessity. He feared he might be compelled, in the course of what he had to state to their Lordships, to draw more largely upon their attention than it was at any time agreeable to him, or than he had any right to expect their Lordships would willingly grant. He would endeavour to compress what he had to state within the narrowest compass, by treating the subject as a matter of business, and by endeavouring to avoid, and he hoped successfully, the introduction of any topic likely to lead their Lordships from the immediate subject of the bill itself which was now under consideration. The first thing which it was his duty to bring before their Lordships was the actual state and condition of our finances, that being the basis upon which he placed the case of necessity which he should endeavour to make out. It appeared by documents on the Table of Parliament, that for the last five years there had been a successively increasing deficiency in the revenue of the country in each year, as compared with that which preceded it. The total amount of this deficiency, in the course of five years, was no less than 7,308,000 l., and that had been incurred in the following-ratio. On the first of these years, ending the 5th April, 1838, the deficiency was 1,428,000 l.; in the following year it was 430,000 l.; then, 1,457,000 l.; then, 1,851,000 l.; and in the year just passed, ending 5th April, 1842, it had amounted to 2,139,000 l. The deficiency, their Lordships would observe, had been larger during the last two years than in any of those which preceded it, and to such an extent had this deficiency increased, that it exceeded that of the three years which were antecedent. During the last two years, the deficiency was 3,990,000 l., while in the three antecedent years it had reached 3,315,000 l. only, This alone, he confessed, made out to him a most unsatisfactory position for the finances of the country, particularly when he considered the circumstances in which the country had been placed, and in which it still continued to be placed, since the commencement of this habitual deficiency of its income compared to its expenditure, as he thought it must be called. The unsatisfactory state of our finances was greatly enhanced by the position in which we stood at present with respect to our pros-

5
pects for the future. First, with respect to the year in progress, we could not anticipate any reduction of expenditure; on the contrary, it would be found impossible to meet the necessities of the present year ending April 1843, without adding materially to the deficiency which already existed. It appeared that the revenue which the Government might calculate upon in the present year could not be taken at more than 48,350,00 l., whereas the expenditure, reduced as far as circumstances would permit, for he believed that no statement of any undue or unnecessary expense being incurred had been made, would not be less than 50,944,000 l. The deficiency, therefore, in the receipt, as compared with the expenditure, was not less than 2,594,000 l.; and if that sum were added to the deficiency which had already arisen in antecedent years, it would be found that in April, 1843, there would have existed a successive deficiency amounting in the whole to no less than 9,902,000 l. In order that their Lordships might be enabled fully to estimate the importance of this deficiency, he might, perhaps, be permitted to point out some circumstances connected with our expenditure, as regarded those items of our expenditure to which it was attributable. This deficiency had not arisen in consequence of any reduction in the amount of our revenue, because the revenue in 1842 had been greater than that of any of the antecedent years, in which a deficiency had arisen. That increase, there was no doubt, was occasioned by the additional taxation of 1840, which did not fully realise the expectations which had been formed of it, but which did produce a very considerable increase in the amount of revenue. In the current year her Majesty's Government had thought themselves justified—not taking a too sanguine view of affairs, but upon a fair consideration only of the position of the country—in expecting that the amount of the revenue would be extended to 48,350,000 l.—a sum rather I exceeding that of the last year, as their Lordships would perceive. It did not appear, therefore, that the deficiency which existed had been occasioned by positive defalcation, but that it had resulted entirely from the increased expenditure of the country: and what he wished to draw under their Lordships' notice was, that part of the expenditure which had occasioned this enormous increase in the
6
demand for taxes. It was not from the increase of the charge by reason of the funded or the unfunded debt of the country that this expenditure had occurred, because in the year ending April, 1843, the sum required in respect of the public debt of the country would be much less than in any antecedent year, but it had arisen entirely from those great sources of public expenditure which were necessary for maintaining the honour, the character, and the interests, if not the safety of the State; those great items of expenditure which were requisite in respect of our military establishments. Let their Lordships see the extent to which these branches of our expenditure had increased. In the first of the years to which he had referred, that was in 1838, the actual charge of the army, navy, and ordnance, amounted to 12,827,000 l. In the following year the charge for the same items had arisen to 13,273,000 l., and to that was to be added the sum of 500,000 l., which had been called for in consequence of the disturbed state of Canada, a sum which was not included in the general vote, but taken as a separate sum, though it was applicable to the same species of service, and originated in causes with which that service was connected. Adding this amount of 500,000 l. to that previously referred to, the total amount granted in this year would be found to be 13,773,000 l, to be appropriated to the military service of the country. In the following year a sum for expenditure in the North American colonies was again called for; the ordinary expenditure of the army, navy, and ordnance amounted to 13,763,000 l., a sum greater than that called for in the previous year, and to this was to be added a sum of 715,000 l. granted to defray the expenses in Canada, making a total of 14,478,000 l. In the following year the sum first demanded of Parliament was 14,012,000 l.—the Canadian grant was 480,000 l., and now commenced a new charge in respect of the military operations carried on in China. The amount paid in that year (1841) on account of the China expedition, was 150,000 l.; and adding these two sums to the ordinary military expenses of the country, the total sum was 14,647,000 l. In the year ending April, 1842, the ordinary expenses of the army, navy, and ordnance, were 14,705,000 l.—an amount exceeding that of the ordinary and the extraordinary charges

7
of the previous year, and of each of the antecedent years. In the course of that year the Canadian operations required an expenditure of 220,000 l., and the Chinese expedition called for 423,000 l., and this being added to the previously mentioned sum of 14,705,000 l., raised the whole military charge of the country for the year just past to no less a sum than 15,348,000 l. Now the estimate of the present year went on, he must say, progressively increasing. For the ordinary military expenses of the country a sum of 15,440,000 l. was called for, and to this were to be added 108,000 l. on account of Canada, and 800,000 l. on account of China, making in the whole 16,348,000 l. for our naval and military expenditure. If their Lordships compared this sum with the amount required at the commencement of the period, when this habitual and regular deficiency began to occur, they would find that there was an increase of no less than 3,521,0002 l. He was not going, and he was sure their Lordships would not expect him to enter into a discussion of the circumstances which had occasioned this expenditure. Parliament had sanctioned it, and whatever opinion any individual might have formed of the circumstances which had occurred, a conviction prevailed, he believed universally throughout both Houses of Parliament, that the slate of things was such that the expenditure could not have been avoided; but, though at first, there had appeared to be some reason to hope that this was a charge transient only in its nature, and that the country might look forward to its being shortly removed, unfortunately experience had shown that any such hopes were delusive, and that the expenses of the country were increasing instead of diminishing. It had been felt that, although the amount of expenses in any succeeding year could not be well ascertained, yet that he would be sanguine who flattered himself with the hope that any material diminution of the necessary expenditure which had arisen would take place, and therefore it was, that the Government felt themselves bound to consider the actual state of our finances as quite incompatible and inconsistent with the notion that the present monetary arrangements of the country could be continued. It was impossible to call those operations in North America, or on the coast of Syria, and those going on in China, of no importance, They might
8
not be operations of a character so important and so glorious in their results as those which they had been accustomed to see twenty-five years ago; yet they were wars—they were operations which occasioned the expenditure of war, and for that expenditure Parliament was as much bound to provide, as if the country were in a state of war with nations nearer to her. For his own part, he was unable to comprehend the distinction which some persons had attempted to draw, that because we were not engaged in warfare with some European powers, we were to consider ourselves to be in a state of peace. With respect to China, he thought that there were no grounds for believing that even after we had got rid of the operation in that part of the world—after we had disposed of those sums of money which bad been provided for the use of the expedition in the present year—after the war which was now carried on bad been determined, there would be no more to be paid in the next year. He believed, that even when this should be done, an additional 700,000 l. would be required to wind up the business of the expedition, and any one who knew anything of the character of the Chinese, and the peculiarity of their disposition, must be aware, that, however they might appear to yield to foreign powers, no apparent termination of hostilities or settlement of existing differences could be looked upon as a real and decisive conclusion of this affair. Looking, therefore, at these items of additional expenditure arising from causes, which, without entering into criticisms as to the mode in which the business had been conducted by the Government of this country, he thought that there was sufficient ground for a belief that the expenses which must be incurred were entirely beyond the control of Parliament. It might have been imagined, and the belief was entertained at the commencement of the present year, that the affairs of Canada would shortly cease to call for the intervention of the British Government; but the causes for additional expenditure still existed, and though a sum of 108,000 l. only was required this year, who was to say, that in another year the charge under this head would altogether cease? But, as he had already stated to the House, the Government was now left with a total deficit of nearly 10,000,000 l. There was no certainty that this deficiency would be re-

9
moved by any fortunate concurrence of events, and that, in his opinion, was the basis on which the argument of the necessity of imposing this new tax should stand. This necessity might be said to be composed of three elements. First, the equalization of the receipts of the country with its expenditure. Secondly, the necessity of endeavouring to revise upon some system the heterogeneous mass of our import duties; and, thirdly, the impossibility, as it appeared to him, of devising any other mode of meeting the exigency of the time, which should be equally efficacious, and should not be more liable to specific objection than the Income-tax. Their Lordships must know the immense importance of equalising the revenue, and expenditure of the country, and of the certainty of meeting the deficiency by some efficient plan. But if their Lordships had any doubt upon this point—if they determined that this was an unimportant principle, they would find, that they would be cast adrift, and thrown into a position of the greatest uncertainty and danger, and that at last they would be driven to resort to a measure such as that to which he now asked their assent. The question of the necessity of equalising the revenue, and the expenditure was one which he thought was hardly necessary to argue; no one had doubted the importance of it, and no one who was at all conversant with matters of this kind had expressed any opinion other than that it was most desirable at all times to maintain this principle, and especially when the country was not encumbered with the pressure of an universal war. He could quote great names for this proposition, but he disliked such argumenta ad hominem, and he would only have recourse to two acts of Parliament to establish his position. The first of these acts was passed for the purpose of reducing the postage duties. He was not going to enter into the question of the policy or impolicy of that act, but it was so strongly felt by Parliament, when it was proposed to give the public the benefit of that reduction—to give up 1,200,000 l. of the public revenues, that a paragraph was inserted in the preamble by which Parliament pledged itself that it would make good any loss that might be sustained in consequence of the provisions of the act being carried into operation. He could not give a stronger proof of what Parliament had felt necessary to be done,
10
except the actual provision by Parliament of the sum requisite to meet the loss. It might have been wiser to have done so at once, but the recognition of the importance of the principle was sufficient for his present purpose, But in the year 1841 a still more decisive proof was given by Parliament of what they had felt to be the necessity of the case under a similar state of things, because they had proceeded in that year to redeem the pledge which had been previously given. Having pledged themselves to make good the deficiency occasioned by the loss of postage, Parliament proceeded to impose new taxes for the purpose of supplying that loss, and granted new taxes also in order to meet the general deficiency of revenue. In 1840, the deficiency being 2,232,000 l., Parliament proceeded to grant new taxes calculated to produce 2,337,000 l., with the distinct object of equalizing the revenue with the expenditure of the country. But he was wasting the time of their Lordships in arguing a self-evident proposition, and he was satisfied that no one would argue against the first proposition, which he had put forward as one of the elements of the necessity which governed this case. But on looking at the state of the revenue of the country, they had to determine whether there was not something in the position of our fiscal regulations, as regarded the duties on the import of foreign commodities, to which it was necessary that the Government should apply itself, with a view to its revision. Any one, who had attended at all to subjects of this nature, must know that the existing scale of import duties on foreign commodities was founded on no principle whatever. This had arisen from causes which were more or less accidental. During the pressure of the long war, which ended in 1815, when it was necessary to have recourse to every means of raising supplies for the purpose of paying the interest on loans, amongst other methods resorted to was one which had a peculiar effect, that of raising the Customs' duties 10, 20, and even in one case, in 1812, he believed, as much as 25 per cent., without any reference whatever to the price of the article taxed. Thus it came to pass, that the import duties on foreign articles were far higher than those which were originally contemplated to be imposed. Their Lordships would find, if they looked at the amount of the import duties, that the relation which the duty

11
upon each article bore to the price was extremely variable. Sometimes it was wholly prohibitive, although it was not so intended. Sometimes, indeed, it was great, as it was meant to produce a revenue from articles of general consumption, but in other cases it was large for no such purpose. The effects produced by many duties were very different from what was at the time sought, and they could not have been looked upon as permanent duties. Indeed, some of these duties were confessedly of a temporary nature; it was not intended that they should continue after the war; but in consequence of the exigencies of the country immediately after the war, these duties had been converted from temporary into permanent imposts. He was sure that their Lordships would not think that the Government had done more than their duty under the circumstances, if they had applied themselves to this important subject. He did not venture to say, that they had done what was perfectly satisfactory to all the members of the community. They were dealing with many articles, many interests were involved, and it would be in vain to hope that all would be satisfied. He had himself had much experience in these matters, and he had found much more difficulty in taking off a tax than in imposing a new one. The repeal of a tax created much more uneasiness and alarm than the proposal for a new tax. No one, however, would say, that the Government had not done its duty when they had endeavoured to lay the foundation of a better arrangement and promote an adjustment of those duties on the import of foreign articles. Then it was quite clear that it was impossible to carry these operations into effect without incurring in the first period of the change a considerable loss to the revenue, because he confessed that he could not agree with those who thought that there was necessarily at the very time of the reduction of duty such an increase of consumption as would raise the same amount of duty. Although in consequence of the reduction of duties there was an increase of consumption, particularly if the duty bore a large proportion to the value of the article, still it appeared from the document which he had before him that five, six, or seven years elapsed before the reduction of duty was attended with such an increase of consumption as would make up for the loss of revenue which the reduction was calculated to produce; and
12
therefore, although these reductions were wise things in themselves, and were attended with beneficial consequences, as regarded our foreign customers, the consumers at home, and ultimately with regard to the revenue itself; still they would be an unjust basis on which to found any plan to meet such an exigency as the present. When the Government thought it right to propose to Parliament a great reduction of duty on many articles in the tariff, they did not deem it proper to assume that these reductions would be unattended by a considerable loss to the revenue; and therefore, in estimating the mode in which they should meet the present case, they had to consider, first, what would be the amount of the deficiency supposing no alteration in the duties took place; and secondly, what would be the amount of the deficiency supposing the duties were considerably lowered. The estimated deficiency of the revenue for the present year was 2,574,0002 l., supposing no reduction of duties whatever had taken place. The estimated loss in consequence of the alterations in the tariff were considerable. The estimated loss from several small articles, to the number of 750 would be 270,000 l. On coffee the loss would be 170,000 l.; on timber it would be 600,000 l.; the loss from the repeal of certain export duties would be 100,000 l., and the loss from certain other duties 70,000 l.: making the whole deficiency in the revenue, including the estimated deficiency in the year, 3,780,000 l. That was the sum for which, in accordance with the plan submitted by the Government to Parliament, and on the assumptions he had made, it was necessary to provide some additional scheme of taxation. It was calculated, first, that the Income-tax would produce, in round numbers, 3,750,000 l.; secondly, that certain additional stamp-duties in Ireland would produce 160,000 l.; thirdly, that the extra duty on spirits in Ireland would produce 250,000 l.; and, lastly, the export duty on coals was estimated at 200,000 l., but, in consequence of some modifications it had since undergone, the whole produce was calculated at 160,000 l. The whole produce of the new scheme of taxation was expected to be 4,320,000 l. If from that were deducted the first estimated deficiency of 2,570,000 l., there would leave a surplus of 1,750,000 l.; from that surplus, however, was to be deducted the losses on

13
the tariff, and they would leave a surplus, after meeting both cases, of 520,000 l. It might be said, that it was unnecessary to make such an arrangement of our taxation as that the Government should not have even that small surplus; but there were many considerations which rendered such a surplus not only desirable, but necessary. Their Lordships might recollect that the Government was now engaged in negociations with foreign powers for regulating the intercourse between this country and them for the common interest of all. If these arrangements were acceded to by the foreign powers, they would all involve a reduction of duty on certain articles in which there had not been any reduction in the tariff. The surplus would enable the Government to meet such contingencies as these. He now came to the third element of the case of necessity which he was endeavouring to establish before them. It was to be found in what, he confessed, appeared to him to be the impossibility of devising any other plan which would at once be equally effectual and equally certain, and which would not be more liable to objection than the plan of the Government. Their Lordships were aware that, with the exception of the 10 per cent, levied in 1840 on the assessed taxes, the per centage of 5 per cent, on the customs and excise did not realize the expectations of those who had made the proposal to Parliament. Their Lordships would therefore consider that a sufficient ground for believing that a recourse to anything like that plan now would prove an entire failure. He knew, however, it might be said, seeing the amount of the reduction of taxation which had taken place since the year 1815—the war-time—that they might have recourse to the re-imposition of some tax which had been taken off, and which might raise the revenue required, without imposing any new taxes. He thought, on the contrary, that nothing would be attended with so much difficulty as the adoption of such a proposal. He would simply point out some of the items of taxation which had been reduced since the war, to show that no recourse could be had to them to meet the present necessities of the country. The documents laid upon their Lordships' Table presented a clear view of the case. Undoubtedly a person who only took a casual view of their contents, would say, "Here is one resource to which you may
14
apply yourselves without the aid of new taxation." It might be said, that here was a mine from which they might dig, and not only make up the present deficiency, but also find a surplus. It appeared that the amount of custom-duties reduced since the war in 1815 amounted to no less a sum than 9,170,000 l.; in the meantime however, Parliament, under the pressure of necessities, not the same as the present, had re-imposed some, amounting to 3,746.000 l., leaving a positive reduction of 5,444,000 l. If their Lordships saw these deductions, and the principle on which they had been made by successive Governments, they would be convinced that the attempt to raise enough to meet the present deficiency, by re-imposing the customs' duties, would be the vainest expectation in the world, and would only be productive of the greatest possible difficulty and injury. It would be contrary to the principle on which the Government was itself going in the tariff, if they caused a re-imposition of many of the duties taken off since the time of the war. Let them take the first, then, the duty on cotton wool, the most important article, the raw material of the greatest manufacture of this country, from which so many millions derive their support. The duty had been reduced first 222,000 l., it was further reduced 472,000 l., and then still further 190,000 l. In successive periods it had been reduced 1,024,000 l., although at intervals some had been re-imposed, but the total deduction since the war was 604,000 l. They might undoubtedly re-impose that tax, they might say that it had been borne before, and could be borne again. But if they did reimpose it, he was sure that they would be striking a fatal blow at a most important branch of our manufactures, and he could not give a better proof that this would be its inevitable effect, than by stating that no more urgent representations had been made to the Government than those to take off the remaining duty; and he was ready to admit, that no consideration but the amount of the revenue would justify the Government in retaining that duty a single moment. It was perfectly impossible to defend it upon any other ground. The next article in the list of duties repealed was the tax repealed in 1822 on the tonnage of shipping, both outwards and homewards. Nothing could be worse than such a duty. Foreign ships and

15
tonnage were rapidly increasing, and the only mode by which we could give any assistance to our own was by the reduction of the taxation. No one, he was sure, would say that this was a duty that ought to be re-imposed. The next article on which the duty was reduced was also a raw material. The article on barilla had been reduced at three several times to the ultimate amount of 121,000 l. Why had these reductions been made at these three several periods? Because the first reductions were not considered by the manufacturers to be enough. The new tariff would reduce this to a merely nominal duty. There were many other items of the kind, with which he need not trouble the House. He believed that no one would consider it safe, in reference to our intercourse with foreign countries—in reference to the progress of manufactures in other countries, and in reference to the opposition opening against us there, to re-impose any of the duties which had been taken off the raw material. At two several periods the duty on coals had been taken off: there was the coasting duty on coals, amounting to 900,000 l., and an additional duty on coals coming into this country, duties imposed only on that part of the community which resided near the sea shore, and amounting together to 1,100,000 l. These duties had been taken off most wisely. He had been the instrument of taking off the first, and he believed his noble Friend at the Table (Lord Monteagle) had been the means of repealing the other. Then the duty which had been taken off silk at several periods, amounted to 500,000 l. or 600,000 l. Would they tell him to re-impose the duty on silk? They could not put a higher duty on the raw material, and keep up the competition with foreign countries without causing ruin to the industrious parties connected with our silk manufactures by a tax which it had been the policy of successive Governments year by year down to the present time, to reduce, as fast as circumstances would permit. If they went through all the articles of the customs in which reduction had been made, he was satisfied that they could not get upon any intelligible principle, or with any justice, a sum of 100,000 l. Next, with reference to the Excise duties. Would they have recourse to the excise? They had reduced the excise duties since the war by a sum of 14,000,000 l. They had re-imposed 4,000,000 l., but the total reduc-
16
tion since 1815 had been 10,000,000 l. If any noble Lord was prepared to say, that they ought to re-impose any part of the malt-tax which had been taken off", he should be surprised. He was sure, that it would be a most impolitic tax, and he was satisfied, that it would be most unwise. He had frequently heard suggestions thrown out, that some duties should be imposed, but he had not heard one proposed to reimpose the malt tax. Several representations had been made to Parliament to take off that part which remained. He had concurred with those who had resisted these motions, because, although he considered the malt-tax an objectionable tax, it was quite clear that the revenue could not bear the sacrifice; but it did not follow because he opposed a total repeal, he ought to support an increase which he was satisfied would be just neither to the grower nor to the consumer. The duty on salt had been repealed, it produced 1,500,000 l. He recollected the representations which were made in the House of Commons against this tax. It was the subject of many inquiries, and it was perfectly demonstrated, that if it were a hard tax upon all, it was a tax which pressed with particular hardship upon poor persons. After the long battles which generally took place upon these taxes, it was ultimately taken off; and considering that England was the only country in Europe where the poor man could eat salt without paying a tax, he would be the very last person who would deprive his countrymen of that distinction. The tax upon leather produced 700,000 l., and it had been taken off at two separate periods. He had heard it said, that the public derived no benefit from the reduction, and that the duty might be re-imposed without injury. He entertained considerable doubts whether the public had derived no advantage from the reduction of duty upon leather. He did not say, that they had fully derived the advantage which all might have hoped. There were few measures on which the sanguine minds of men did not anticipate greater benefit than could possibly be obtained. But when it existed it was a very hard tax. The duty was levied according to the weight, and it therefore pressed heavily on the poor, because they paid a greater proportion on their articles, which were heavy, than the rich man whose shoes were light. Every one knew, that there had been a great reduction in the

17
price of heavy shoes since the duty had been taken off. Beside, if they recurred to the excise duties, they must re-impose those embarrassing regulations and contrivances by which the duty could be collected. They must impose restrictions upon trade, which were absolutely necessary with the duty; but they would be a great impediment to the manufacturers, and if their Lordships would inquire into the operation of excise regulations in any manufacture, he thought they would not hesitate to admit, that high excise duties on any article were a great evil. Any ground, therefore, on which they could re-impose the duty on leather, was to him wholly unintelligible. He next came to spirits. There had been reductions of the duty on spirits. The duty had been constantly fluctuating, and it had been many times raised, the present Government had put an extra duty of Is. on some spirits. In increasing the duties on spirits they were always in danger of lending themselves to the encouragement of smuggling; and what they proposed now was, not to try an experiment—they had to fill up the deficiency by means that would do it; and they could not run any risk of failure. He therefore thought it right, and absolutely necessary, not to attempt to supply the deficiency by imposing any higher duty upon spirits. Another duty had been repealed—the duty on printed cottons. This was, perhaps the most absurd duty that had ever been imposed; as there was a great exportation from this country of printed cottons a drawback was allowed. It was not possible to lay the duty on that consumed at home, without levying it upon all, and, therefore, to derive a clear sum to the revenue of 525,000 l., a tax was levied amounting to upwards of 2,000,000 l. No one, he believed, would think of re-imposing that tax. During the last few years the duty on glass, on soap, and on paper, had been lowered, giving up 1,000,000 l. more. It might be said, re-impose these duties. They had all the machinery for its collection, for they had not taken off all the duty, but only half. Still having recently taken off this duty because the interest of those different trades required it, it would only create great confusion in an extensive branch of business, if they now re-imposed duties which they had so lately reduced. He, therefore, thought that large as the reduction of the duties in the excise had
18
been since the war, they would not now be able to derive an increased revenue by re-imposing them, of upwards of 100,000 l., any more than they would from the customs. Then with reference to the stamps. The first stamp duty which he found to have been taken off was 180,000 l., arising from certain duties on law proceedings. What were these duties, in substance, but a tax upon justice. They had been objected to in every possible way, and the necessity of taking them off was urged by every one who knew the value of cheap justice. He then came to the duties on advertisements, which had been reduced by a sum of 1,471,000 l. Why were they taken off? Because the duties were so high that the number of advertisements was decreasing instead of increasing. The duty was thus manifestly too high. Although the loss to the revenue had not been entirely made up, yet the practice of advertising had increased, and the whole of the reduction had not been a total loss to the revenue, and this increase they would lose if they re-imposed the duty. There was also a sum of 391,000 l. given up in 1836 by the reduction of the tax upon newspapers, and he must take the liberty of doubting whether the House of Commons would re-impose that tax. He was sure that noble Lords opposite would not think of anything of the kind, because the reduction had taken place in their time, and they had given good reasons for it. As a measure of finance, they had stated, as was the fact, that the number of newspapers would increase, and that the total loss to the revenue would not be equal to what it would be if there had been no equivalent, and consequential increase in the circulation. It might, indeed, be said—"Well, after all, you are very right in this; you ought not to raise the duty on advertisements; but look at the assessed taxes. Here is a great resource. You have taken off a large amount since the war. You have taken off 5,180,000*.; but after the re-charges the net amount was 4,942,000 l. There you may fill up your gap. You have abundant space there to make any alteration you please with respect to your fiscal relations with foreign countries. Here you may make up all that you require." And so they would as regarded the sum repealed, but he doubted much whether they were very sure of getting again the whole of that sum; for if they re-impose

19
a tax to make this amount, they must catch those who resided at home, and who made no alteration in their establishment, but they could not catch those who by either process would escape payment. They did two years ago add 10 per cent. to these assessed taxes. The increase was cheerfully submitted to; he believed that there were no particular complaints, except as to the new survey, and it had produced the money anticipated, 300,000 l. or 400,000 l. But it did not follow that if they re-imposed the whole, they would be equally successful. The present amount was 2,500,000 l., and they would be adding just 200 l. per cent This would be looked upon as a grievous burden, and he did not think that raising such an amount would be at all palatable to the country or just in itself. They would have to re-impose the house-tax, which a few years ago had been taken off. The house-tax pressed heavily not only on the rich, who were able to bear it, but also upon those in the middle and lower classes of life, and they should not have recourse to that. If they revived the whole they would create the greatest possible hardship. In the year 1825 he had had the honour of proposing in the other House of Parliament a reduction of two items of the assessed taxes, which appeared to him to be founded on a just principle, and which he was sure were calculated to give relief to those who were least able to bear the tax. He had proposed in that year to release from the house-tax all houses rated at less than 10 l. a year. At that period there were 527,000 houses charged with the duty, and the effect of his plan was to release 171,000 houses altogether from the payment of the house-tax, and that of the lower class of houses. If there was any one point on which the poor people of this country suffered more than another, it was in the wretchedness of their lodgings; even those who were relieved from the tax in 1835 were very badly off, and it would be revolting to every proper feeling towards that class on which taxation must press, and a grievous addition to the difficulties under which they were struggling if they re-imposed this tax. So again, in 1830, there were 635,000 houses relieved from the payment of the window duty, because houses had not more than seven windows. There again his last observations fully applied, He knew it might be said, "You can make these exemptions in favour of all
20
the houses of the poor, and put the assessed taxes exclusively upon those who were rich and better able to bear them." The assessed taxes, however, were imposts which parties might easily avoid, and exactly in proportion as they had facilities of diminishing their establishments, or withdrawing themselves from the country, the re-imposition of those taxes would fail to produce the revenue required. It appeared to him then, as regarded those taxes which had been repealed, in reference to sound principle, and with a due consideration to the interests of all classes, with a due consideration to sound principles of commerce, and with regard to the real interests of the revenue, that he had said enough to show their Lordships that they could not re-impose those duties, and thus provide satisfactorily for the exigencies of the country. It might be said, that there were other resources—resources derived, not from imposing, but from lowering taxes; and the resolutions to be moved by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had reference to those resources. Among these was a reduction of the duty on corn; but their Lordships had been so recently called upon to discuss that subject, and to establish a new system, that they would hardly be prepared now to overturn that system and to adopt a new one, which regarded corn as a portion of a fiscal arrangement. He submitted that corn ought never to form an element in any fiscal plan, and that it would be a most unsafe and unwise policy to rely upon what must necessarily be a very fluctuating duty as a source of revenue to meet an avowed deficiency. There were two other articles contemplated in the resolution of his noble Friend—timber and sugar. He did not know by what process it might be proposed to raise additional revenue by an alteration of the duty on timber, excepting in as far as a great reduction of duty might be followed by a great increased consumption. Increased consumption might diminish loss, but would not in any assignable time yield an increased revenue. He could only suppose, therefore, that the motion of his noble Friend had reference to the arrangement proposed last year; that arrangement contemplated in the outset an increase of revenue by doubling the duty on Canadian timber. No doubt, if the double duty did not diminish the quantity imported, the result would be an augmented revenue.

21
The amount of duty must be compared with the price of the article; 10s. per load was no less than 18 per cent on the value of the article, and it was not to be forgotten that timber was a raw material of the first necessity, and of universal consumption. To double that duty would, of course, raise it to 36 per cent; and to say, that as a measure of finance this course should be taken for the purpose of increasing the revenue, seemed to him (the Earl of Ripon) little short of preposterous. It had also been proposed to reduce the duty on Baltic timber from 55 s. to 50 s. Now 5s. was no less than 115 per cent upon the value of the raw material. To reduce that duty 5s., would obviously be doing no good; and he could not discover how any sum worth speaking of could thus be obtained to make good the existing deficiency. If Canadian timber were excluded, and Baltic timber with the higher duty substituted, not only would the consumption be diminished, but the change would be attended with the utmost hardship to the consumer. Then, as to sugar, that was an article from which it was supposed a great revenue might be raised. He presumed, that what his noble Friend intended to suggest was what had been recommended elsewhere—a reduction of the duty on British sugar from 24s. to 20 s., and on foreign sugar from 63 s. to 30 s. Hence it was imagined, that a great addition might be made to the revenue, and to the comforts of the lower orders. It was quite clear, that a small reduction of duty would be of no benefit to the consumer; and what would be the effect of the proposed alteration? The immediate effect would be to diminish the revenue one-sixth. In 1841, the net revenue from sugar was 5,114,000 l., and the loss of one-sixth would be 852,000 l. The assumption, however, must be not only that there would be no loss, but that there would be a gain of 700,000 l., making a difference in the whole of more than 1,500,000 l. The reduction of price to the consumer would not be ½ per lb., so that the benefit to him would, in fact, be nothing; and consequently, there would be little or no increase of consumption. What, then, would be the result of the reduction of duty on foreign sugar from 63 s. to 30 s.? Upon that, it was evident, reliance must be placed for raising the 1,500,000 l. The consumption of sugar in the last year was equivalent to about 24½lbs. per head upon
22
the whole population of Great Britain, not including Ireland; and the average price, exclusive of duty, was 37 s. l½d. per cwt. He would take the years 1830, 1831, and 1832, when the price of sugar was considerably lower than at present. In 1830, the price of sugar was 24 s. 1l d., the duty 27s., and the price, therefore, including the duty, 51 s. ll d. In 1831, the price was 23 d. 8d., the duty 24 s., and the price, with the duty, 47 d. 8d. In 1832, the price was 27 s. 8d., the duty 24 s., and the price, including the duty, 51 s. 8d. Thus, the average price to the consumer during the three years, was 50 s. 5d., and the consumption was at the rate of 25½lbs. per head. If Parliament were to make the reduction of from 24 s. to 20 s. upon British sugar, and of from 63 s. to 30 s. upon foreign sugar, and if it would reduce the price down to the average of the year 1830, 1831, and 1832, it might be anticipated that the increase of consumption would bring the revenue to a level with those years when the price was comparatively much lower. But what would be the fact? The additional consumption of 1l. per head would amount to 8,328 tons, and taking half the revenue to be produced by British, and half by foreign sugar, the total would be 218,714 l. to meet the actual deficiency of 852,000 l., an assumed increase of 700,000 l. He feared that he had not made this complicated point very intelligible, but their Lordships would see enough to convince them that the projected alteration could not give anything like the requisite amount of revenue. It might be said, that he had underrated the increased consumption; but taking it to be quadruple his calculation, still there must remain a considerable deficiency. He had thus stated the grounds on which it appeared to him, that there was no mode by which the existing deficiency in the revenue could be certainly supplied but by an Income-tax. Nobody could deny, that by an Income-tax the money would be obtained. No person could escape from the payment of it, either by going abroad, or by reducing his establishment, as in the case of the assessed taxes. Neither could any man assert that any other scheme would, with-out fail, accomplish the end in view. He was fully sensible of the objections to the plan, and they had never been denied nor undervalued. It had been admitted by Ministers elsewhere, and he was ready to

23
admit it now, that this was an expedient only to be justified by strong necessity; but he could not but think, that that necessity was to be found in the present circumstances of the country; in the state of her finances, in the uncertainty of those finances, and in the position which she politically occupied. There was no question that it was fit to make a great effort once for all to meet the exigency, and therefore, in spite of all objections to the Income-tax—in spite of all temptations held out by other schemes more palateable, and in some senses more plausible, he was of opinion that their Lordships would do well to follow the example of the other House of Parliament, by passing the bill upon the Table as the most efficient means of supplying the public necessity, and meeting that exigency which, if it were not met, would expose the country to the greatest possible evils. He did not know whether their Lordships expected him to enter into an explanation of any of the details of the measure; most of its provisions were not new, but some modifications of the old plan had been introduced. One of these was the exemption of incomes under 15 l.; another was an alteration as to rent-charges upon tenants; a third, the obtaining the amount of income on trades and professions from an average of three years. These were new provisions, and obvious improvements. The bill was divided into schedules, and it was calculated that the produce would be as follows:—

Schedule A

£1,600,000

Schedule B

150,000

Schedule C

646,000

Schedule D

1,220,000

Schedule E

155,000

£3,771,000

If their Lordships concurred in this measure, however onerous or objectionable on some accounts it might be, he was sure that they would never have to reproach themselves. Taking the whole scheme, not only as regarded the revenue, but the trade and manufactures of the country, to which a new spring and impulse would be given, while the consumer was essentially benefitted, he was confident that it would operate most advantageously, and that ere long all parties would be convinced, that the only safe and effectual course had been pursued,
24
warranted by the condition of the revenue, the state of the country, and the impossibility of supplying the deficiency from any other source to which a Government would be authorised to apply. His Lordship concluded by moving that the bill be read a third time.
The Marquess of Lansdownerose to discharge what he considered to be his duty, by moving an amendment. The noble Marquess adverted to his intention to have brought it forward on a previous day, if he had not been prevented by an accidental circumstance. The bill had thus reached its present advanced stage in little more than a week, and it was not his wish now, nor had it been his wish at any time, needlessly to obstruct its progress. All he wanted was an opportunity of calmly considering the subject, and of recording his own opinion and that of his noble Friends. He was glad to be able in the outset to state his concurrence in all that the noble Earl had, somewhat unnecessarily, though clearly said, on the expediency and importance of making the revenue equal the expenditure. To that doctrine he entirely subscribed, and no form of resolutions too solemn or precise could be brought forward, embodying that object, in which he would not heartily concur. He thought it most material to be understood, not only in the House, but in the country, and in the face of the whole world, that there existed on all sides a determination to raise that amount of revenue which was necessary to sustain the public establishments, without having recourse to an increase of the national debt. He came, however, to the question, whether the means proposed for accomplishing this end were the best that could be adopted. Premising that he was not prepared to say, that the establishments of the country could be reduced in order to accommodate them to the deficient amount of revenue: on the contrary, he believed that the expense of the establishments this year did not exceed the expense of last year, and he was glad to find that the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) and his friends considered those establishments sufficient for the maintenance of the character, honour, and interests of the empire. He would not enter into a discussion with his noble Friend, because there was no material point of difference between them as to the degree in which the exigencies which

25
had created the necessity for this increased revenue, were to be considered temporary. He was not, on the one hand, so sanguine as to suppose that they could be terminated at an early moment; nor was he, on the other hand, so desponding as to apprehend that the various questions could not be speedily settled, and settled in such a manner as at no remote period to produce a diminution of the public establishments; but he was ready to go the length of saying that there hung over them a sufficient degree of uncertainty to make it the duty of Parliament to look at the actual deficiency as something to be provided for without any immediate prospect of diminution. He, therefore, took the deficit as he found it; but there he stopped: he took the deficit as arising from a comparison of the existing expenditure and the existing revenue, and would not enter into the question how far it might be proper to change the present system of taxation altogether, and to substitute an Income-tax for it. That was a separate, and in some points of view an alarming question, because there was no saying how far the change might be carried. From the moment the noble Earl laid down the principle that it was desirable to get rid of taxes by imposing an Income-tax, there was no knowing to what length he might be disposed to go. His noble Friend had gone through various points and arguments connected with taxation, and had adverted to the extreme inconvenience of putting on taxes which had once been repealed; but by the exercise of the same ingenuity he might have pointed out millions of taxes equally disagreeable, for which the Income-tax might be a substitute. He might have introduced the taxes upon houses or horses, or any others which it was inconvenient to pay, and might have said, "Here is an Income-tax, a remedy and a substitute for all these." If so, what became of the proposed period of three years, during which the Income-tax was only to continue? What security was there that it would be limited to the present exigency? It might possibly produce a great and a beneficial change, but let their Lordships recollect that it involved an alteration of the whole system of taxation. This question he was not now prepared to discuss, and he limited the remedy to the existing deficiency. He would, therefore, take the question as the noble Earl had first put it—how was it fit
26
to provide for the present deficiency of about two millions and a half? It would, he apprehended, stand to reason at all times, that when Parliament was called upon to supply a deficit, it ought first to endeavour, if possible, to do so by such a regulation of existing taxes as shall not interfere with, but increase the comforts of the community. If it could be accomplished in that mode, that mode ought to be tried, and Parliament had no right until then to lay an additional shilling on the people. He said so at all times, but especially at the present moment, when so much distress prevailed, and regarding which two of his noble Friends had made statements that he feared were not exaggerated. If means could be found which would increase the comforts of the poor, not only without diminution, but with addition to the revenue, that was the first source to which a wise statesman would look. In the second place, under this feeling, Parliament ought to adopt that species of direct taxation which was least unpalatable to the country, which least affected public prosperity, and in its result was least burdensome. He thus came to the question, how far these considerations applied to the Income-tax? The bill was upon the Table; its form was voluminous; it gave great powers, various in extent and different in application; it was the firstborn of the budget—a gigantic offspring, of mighty strength, and in many respects, as was admitted, most objectionable in its details. There was one quality belonging to the principle of an Income-tax which he willingly admitted to exist to the whole extent which his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) had stated: it was an efficacious tax. It was sure to extract the money out of the pockets of the subject. It had one quality in common with the lancet—that blood was sure to follow, be the consequences what they might to the feelings and constitution of the patient. The object was answered, for the money was paid. Now, that was a quality which he admitted an Income-tax to possess, and it was its sole recommendation. He said its sole recommendation, because he did not think it any recommendation of the system the argument which he had heard elsewhere urged, but which his noble Friend had not condescended to use—and he was glad his noble Friend had not—that an Income-tax was a tax affecting only the higher and middling classes of the

27
community, and not the lower. Their Lordships had heard it said, "What magnanimity!ߞwe are going to tax ourselves; we, indeed, shall feel the tax, and we are quite prepared to bear it, but nobody else will be affected by it!" So far from according with this boast, he was of opinion that if there was a tax which more than any other went to affect the interests of the lower orders, which diverted the application of that capital which set labour in motion, it was an Income-tax. It would be quite true that the poor would not suffer from an Income-tax, were the consequences of it merely that the man who paid it ate less meat, drank less porter, or consumed less bread. But they all knew that every man of capital would, in his own person, consume exactly the same portion as before; but what else would he do to meet the demand of the tax? He would abstract it from his savingsߞthose savings which went to make the national purse and national capital; or, if he were not a saving man, then, according to his station in life, were he a gentleman, a rich shopkeeper, or manufacturer, he would make a considerable diminution in the number of persons in his employment, which would thus deprive them of their means of subsistence. Therefore, the sole merit of an Income-tax was the efficacy and certainty with which it took the money out of the pockets of the people. This, he admitted, had always been, and always would be, its great recommendation. It was a merit he had occasion to observe in it, when, at an early period of his life, he supported the continuance of that tax under the pressure of a war, and of the immense difficulties that were then bearing upon the resources and vitals of the country. But to compare that exigency to the present state of things was like comparing a mountain to a mole-hill. Upon that very question of exigency his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) had bestowed some pains, and had endeavoured to show that we were at the present moment in a state of war, and that there was no material difference in the circumstances of the country. Now, if this argument were worth anything, it might have been urged at any time, because he apprehended that there was scarcely a period during the last thirty years when some chieftain or other, or some power in some portion of the globe was not in a state of hostility with this country. But an argument founded upon such a circumstance could hardly be
28
sustained in justification of an Income-tax; while he could conceive this country to be in a state of peace with all the world, and yet internal pressure on its resources to be so great as to justify a Government in bringing forward such a measure. But to bring forward this vast and gigantic power, which might be most wisely used to meet a deficit of twenty or thirty millions, with all its objectionable machinery, for the purpose of meeting a deficit of merely two millions and a half, was a total misapplication of a power so great and important. It reminded him of a circumstance which once happened to a noble Friend of his who had an elephant sent to him from the East Indies. This elephant was for some time allowed to walk in the gardens. After some time it occurred to the gardener that the elephant might be turned to some useful account, and after the exercise of great ingenuity the huge creature was taught to water the garden and make a little bank in the pleasure-ground. No doubt he did very great service upon a very small scale, and did it too with zeal, power, and efficacy; but nobody thought that his noble friend would have employed an elephant of such large powers with a large establishment of keepers, and all the inconveniences of maintaining him in the garden, for the purpose of enabling him to execute this very trifling duty. All these instances must be judged of not only by their efficacy, but by their adaptation to the ends required. It was upon that ground that he objected to and disputed the propriety of the application of the Income-tax to the present emergency of the country. He would not trouble their Lordships by going into details of the working of this tax. It must be taken as a whole. It was a machinery extremely cumbrous and extremely inconvenient; the act contained a variety of powers which no man could wish to see lodged in the hands of any Government, except in a case of absolute necessity. He admitted to its fullest extent, that if such a tax were necessary, the powers the act gave were also necessary. He was against almost all the amendments that had been proposed to be introduced into the machinery of the measure; because he held that it was not possible to make such a tax as this agreeable. He, therefore, did not object, that the Minister, whose measure it was, had not attempted to do that

29
which was an unattainable object—that of endeavouring to make it meet every possible case and instance in which an amendment, or mitigation, or modification of the tax might be proposed. But the objections which he entertained against the tax, and which made him think that nothing but a case of absolute necessity should induce their Lordships to adopt it were these:—First, it was essentially an unequal tax. Even in respect to land—the most prominent and get-at-able species of property that existed—it was not really and justly equal. Everybody knew the different circumstances under which estates were let. With respect to some lands great reductions were made from the rent on account of the great expenditure of capital for embankments, for draining, and a variety of circumstances which determined the real amount of the value to be very different from the nominal amount of its value. But if it was unequal with respect to the landlord's property, ten times more unequal was it with respect to the tenant; for the charge upon him was entirely undetermined by the amount of the rent he paid. The tenant in one part of England, or in different parts of the same county, came into his farm without much capital, depending entirety upon making his rent out of the prolific nature of the land itself. In another part of the country great capital was required to be expended upon the land, for which, of course, he was entitled to a return in the shape of profit; while in many parts of the north of England, and in Scotland, a tenant having a long lease expended half the value of the fee-simple in cultivating the farm for the first few years, depending upon being remunerated by the increased profits during the remainder of his term. And yet upon this increase of profits the valuator under this Income-tax Act might come and take back, in the shape of a tax, that which he had laid out in the shape of capital. Nothing could be more unequal—nothing more unjust. But let their Lordships go a step further; let them go to trades and professions. There again the inequality was more gross than ever. But he would not advert to this part of the subject further, because his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had, on a former occasion, most eloquently dwelt upon the peculiar circumstances of those who in a state of bad health, and of declining age, and finding their professional
30
earnings were escaping from their reach, were, nevertheless, by the rigid rule laid down—and he admitted necessarily laid down—obliged to pay the fullest amount on their earliest returns, without having the poor consolation of enabling them to explain their case, because that very explanation would be injurious to them, and deprive them of the benefit which their former reputation had obtained for them. These were briefly his objections to this tax—objections which were inevitable, and from which, from the very nature of the tax, those who had the working of it could not relieve it. What, then, he would ask, was the character of that tax which all admitted could not be adapted to the feelings and situations of the persons who had it to pay? A tax which, if they had it at all, they must have it founded upon a principle of inequality and injustice. There was one more objection to this tax, which was of so obvious a nature that he need hardly dwell upon it, but to which he was sure their Lord-ships' feelings would readily respond. He meant its inquisitorial nature—a power which ought not to be submitted to, except under a great and obvious necessity. The feeling which made any inquisitorial tax repugnant to the habits of the people of this country was one which he respected and which he considered essentially allied to the national character; and he never wished to see the day when the people of England would submit to the imposition of a tax which, beyond anything that existed in any country, was felt to be in opposition to their private habits and circumstances. He would now proceed to show, and, if possible, convince their Lordships, that nothing but an absolute necessity ought to induce their Lordships to adopt this tax. He would advert to the subjects which he thought would have been preferable—subjects of taxation, or of financial arrangement, either by making reductions or alterations in the duty, and which would have the effect at the same time of relieving the people and of increasing the revenue. Several of those had been more or less under their Lordships' notice. He proposed shortly to advert to them, and more particularly to the articles of corn and sugar. He would not invite their Lordships to a discussion of the general theory of the Corn-laws, or of the state of the corn-trade in this country; but the principle of protection being

31
adopted, and there being no immediate prospect of that principle being abandoned, he confessed after what he had heard from his noble Friend and others, he could not conceive upon what ground it was expedient that if that protection was to be afforded to the producer why the duty raised should not be productive to the revenue. The object of the duty seemed to be this, that it should affect the consumer, but be of no benefit to the country. On the contrary, he thought that any duty which made food dearer to the consumer, should be, as far as possible, compensated by making that duty contribute to the revenue of the State. To some extent, those who paid the tax would in another way derive a benefit from it. But the Legislature did exactly the reverse. They told the consumer,—"We have taxed your bread, but, mind you, we have done it in a way in which you never will be the better for it." True, his noble Friend had said that this Income-tax was not to be a permanent financial measure; but, though it should only exist for two or three years, yet there could be no conceivable reason why, during that time, the duty on corn should not be made to contribute to the revenue. Suppose the duty of 8s. a quarter, proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of last year, had been imposed upon foreign corn, a sufficient quantity of corn was introduced into the country during that period that would have produced 500,000 l. beyond the 700,000 l. amount of duty which was actually received. This would have contributed to a certain amount towards the deficit for the existing year. He now came to the question of sugar: and here he must say, that if ever there appeared to have been created by the bounty of Providence an article made to be subservient, not in one, but in every degree, to the wants of the community in which they lived, it was the article of sugar—an article which, not being produced in this country, justified a certain taxation being imposed upon its admission, and which was at once supplied from many parts of the world, might be taxed without peculiarly favouring or pressing upon any particular part; while that supply was so large that it would enable them, after taxing it, to see it furnished in such abundance as would meet the constant and increasing desire of the people for that article of subsistence, complying at the same
32
time with the call of the Legislature for additional revenue. That supply, however, the Legislature had been induced to limit, if not altogether to deprive the people of. It was impossible to conceive how hardly the present law pressed upon the poor cottager and mechanic, who found himself daily deprived by the increasing price of this sole luxury—if that could be called a luxury which was become a necessity, nearly as much so as any article of produce. Their Lordships would be surprised to find that by their laws they had reduced the average consumption of sugar by the poor to a less amount than was allowed to convicts in their gaols. The average consumption of the poor was, for the last few years, 15 lbs. and 28–100ths.; while the allowance to convicts was more than 22 lbs. By a report of a gentleman who had inquired into the condition of the labouring population, it was stated that every member of a poor man's family formerly consumed sugar-now it was only had to sweeten the food of a sick child. All this diminution was the result of a tax upon the consumption of an article which their Lordships were calling upon the people to accustom themselves to, and the use of which was connected with temperance and virtue, and calculated to elicit the warmest approbation of their Lordships. Yes—with their lips they approved, but by their legislation they discouraged them. The result would be, that the people would be drawn back to their former habits of improper indulgence from which the circumstances of the times appeared peculiarly favourable entirely to emancipate them. His noble Friend would, no doubt, argue that the present bill was to contribute to the revenue, which the reduction of the duty on sugar would not do. Now, he believed, that if there was any one thing more certain than another, than any speculation connected with negotiations or schemes of conquest, or aggrandisement of power, it was this, that they might build upon a certainty that large masses of persons would step forward to take off a supply of any article which had become one of necessity to them when that supply was within their reach. Air did not rush with more certainty into a vacant space, water did not flow more unerringly to its level, than the disposition to consume any article of luxury or necessity arose the moment the price was so

33
low as to make the means of the people adequate to meet that desire. They were not without the most positive proof of this. By accidental circumstances, the price of sugar, in the year 1837, fell 6s. What was the consequence? The very next year, upwards of 400,000 cwt. of sugar beyond the preceding year was consumed in this country. The same occurred in the analogous case of coffee. The increase of consumption always followed a decrease of price. They could not have more positive evidence upon that subject than what was furnished by Messrs. Martineau and Co., two eminent dealers in sugars, and who had had much experience in the fluctuation of the sugar markets in this country. They stated, that when the price was once brought down to 60 s. per cwt., they always found a proportionate increase of demand; but when it was be low 60 s., there was no limit to the increased demand. But what was the effect of legislation? It had always kept the price above 60 s. Now, the calculation of his right hon. Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, was, that there might, with as much certainty as anything could be predicated on such a subject, have been expected an increase of revenue to the amount of 400,000 l. or 500,000 l. by the diminution in the price of sugar. His noble Friend opposite, (the Earl of Ripon) had adverted only to colonial sugar, but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer included foreign sugar. He did not, however, calculate upon a positive increase by each individual, notwithstanding the increased desire to consume the article. Looking at the increase of population alone during the last ten years, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he were allowed to bring up the consumption for each individual to the amount it was ten years since, he should realise the additional amount of revenue he had already mentioned. There never was, in his opinion, a clearer case—financially speaking, politically speaking, and above all, morally and humanely speaking—than that by making a diminution by law in the price of sugar you would relieve the public, by bringing within their reach an article which formed a necessary element of consumption with them, and make up a large amount of the deficit which was admitted to exist. He, however, did not wish to do this by an equalization of duties. It was not necessary to do so for
34
any of the purposes he had stated. More than that, he did not think they were called upon to do it with respect to the colonies themselves. They had paid a large sum to the colonists: for that he rejoiced; It would be a lasting honour to this country. If the price already paid for the emancipation of the negroes was insufficient, let more be given; but do not continue to punish the people of this country, and keep them in a state of privation out of a supposed regard for the colonies. They, after all, could not supply this country with sugar sufficient to meet the demand. If, during the last eight or ten years' experience they had not been able to maintain themselves against competition, their Lordships ought not to sacrifice the people of England to that supposed exigency. The colonies were now rapidly changing their condition. They had, in many instances, altered their system of cultivation. It had been most satisfactorily stated to him that a free population was able to compete with a slave population. An eminent colonist of Trinidad had lately stated that it was an heretical opinion to maintain the contrary. There was no necessity, therefore, to confine their measures to the exclusive views which some persons entertained on this subject. He was exceedingly glad that his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) had abstained from alluding to one argument which had been urged elsewhere. It did his noble Friend honour. It had been contended, in another place, that however expedient it might be, that the people of this country should have a greater quantity of sugar—however expedient it might be that we should have a more extended commerce—however desirable it might be that by means of a sugar trade the revenue of the country should be increased—we ought not to enter into any commerce with those views while a state of slavery existed in any country where sugar was produced. What the reason for that was he knew not. What there was in existing circumstances and what there was at the present time, as a ground for abstaining from commercial intercourse, he knew not. Nor could he understand the sort of conscience which flitted over the budget—which now appeared, and which now disappeared—which now showed itself, and now again altogether withdrew. For was not the budget made up of articles manufactured by slave-labour? Let their Lordships

35
fancy the sort of dialogue which might be carried on between an English Ambassador and a foreign Minister, if the arguments of these very sensitive people were listened to, and their policy acted upon. Of course the English Ambassador would commence by expressing his opinion of the value and importance of commercial intercourse between his country and the country which the Minister was representing. But he then would proceed to descant upon the horrors of slavery, and would wind up his harangue by declaring that his country could not enter into commercial intercourse with a State which tolerated such horrors. What, then, would the Minister say? He, of course, would naturally say, "Oh, then, you won't take our cotton?" "Oh, yes, we will take your cotton, because we have cotton-merchants, and they require it." "But, then, you will not take our sugar at all for any purpose?" "Oh, yes, we will take your sugar, because we have refiners, and it is only when the article gets into general consumption, and increases the comforts of the lower orders, that we raise the objection of its being the produce of slave-labour." This must be the sort of dialogue carried on between the parties; and the South American or Brazilian Minister, though he bad not studied in the schools and was no profound logician, would be able to understand such arguments as these. Though he did not know the details of our budget, and was not aware that the only foreign sugar which entered into the English market—that of Cuba—employed the greatest amount of slave-labour, yet he would be surprised at the consistency of the greatest, wisest nation of the earth. But, in saying what he had said, their Lordships must not think him indifferent to the great object of effecting the emancipation, or, rather, of seeing effected, the emancipation of all the slaves throughout the world. But, that great object was not to be accomplished by threats of that description. It only could be gained by the moral example which England should set the other nations of the earth; and by showing to them the efficacy of free-labour. If other Governments applied to them their own arguments, what would their Lordships, what would the Government, what would the public say? Within the last year had occurred—within the last few weeks they bad heard, for the
36
first time, of atrocities and cruelties committed within this land, which equalled, if they did not exceed, the worst horrors of the worst of slavery. Such practices had been resorted to within the mines and collieries of England as might teach a hateful lesson of brutality to the most practised slave-traders. And yet, what would their Lordships think, if the French government directed the ambassador of that country to communicate to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, that France could not continue any commercial intercourse with England unless she no longer allowed and promised, under a certificate signed by the Count de St. Aulaire, to allow her own children to creep with manacles through her collieries and her mines. What indignation would their Lordships feel, and justly feel, at such an attempt to interfere with the social system of another country? and yet that was the course which they themselves recommended—that was the course which they themselves adopted. That was not the way to accomplish their object—that was not the way to put down slavery in foreign lands. The only way was to show to foreign governments and to foreign people the blessed advantages of their own beneficient sway. If a homily upon the horrors of the slave-trade were issued from the Foreign Office, and that homily were accompanied by a statement of the fact, that free-labour had been proved to be more effective than slave-labour, the homily would do no good; but the practical illustration would do every thing. He thought, that he had stated sufficient to show that no time ought to be lost in effecting a change; and he hoped that the change, if made, would relieve the country from her present embarrassments. Almost exhausted, he would with brevity allude for an instant to the article of timber. The plan which had last year been proposed by his right hon. Friend, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, had formerly been advocated and supported by his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Ripon) and other Members of her Majesty's Government. If they had consented to that proposal, and had taken Norway timber, which always regulated the price of the timber trade, they would not only benefit the consumer by obtaining the article cheaper, but a saving would have been gained to the revenue of not less than 600,000 l. Taking it by

37
itself, he admitted, that the proposed change of the Government was better than the existing duties. It was better to take away the duty altogether than allow it to remain as it at present was. But they might, at the same time, have benefitted the consumer and relieved the embarrassments of the country. They ought to have considered her present situation, and the benefit of a total remission of duty ought to have been postponed for more prosperous times. If they had availed themselves of all the means in their power of increasing the revenue, and had still found a deficit remaining, the deficit which they then would have had to supply would have been a very different thing from the deficit which they now had to supply, and for the smaller deficit—if any at all had existed—he would willingly have consented to the Income-tax. But he at all times preferred a tax which was self imposed—not by that meaning imposed by the representatives of the people, but imposed by the people themselves individually, in deciding for themselves what articles they ought or they ought not to consume. Holding these opinions, he had brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, and in doing so he had not referred to the popularity or to the unpopularity of the measure for the sake of bringing any charge against her Majesty's Government. Many of the measures which the Government had introduced he approved of, and not only he, but those with whom be generally acted. This was proved by the support which they had given to the Ministerial proposal with regard to corn when that measure was being attacked and resisted by the friends and supporters of the Government. On other measures of finance he expressed his own individual opinion, and was alone responsible for the motion which he now begged to submit to their Lordships. The noble Marquess concluded by moving,
"That while this House is unwilling to obstruct the progress of measures calculated to supply the present deficiency of the public income, and make it fully adequate to meet the public charges, it cannot refrain from recording its opinion, that a judicious alteration of the duties affecting corn, sugar, and timber would have greatly diminished the amount of additional taxation required by the exigencies of the State, and would, at the same time, from its effect in increasing the comforts of all classes, and lessening the privations of the great body of the people, together with such
38
additions as might have been obtained from some other sources, have been preferable to a tax upon income, in the present circumstances of the country."
Lord Colchesterwished to offer a few remarks upon the subject of sugar, which had been adverted to by the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had adverted to the high price of that article, and to the great denial of comfort which was in consequence imposed upon the lower classes. The great object of the noble Marquess was increased consumption; but that object could not, according to the noble Marquess, be obtained, unless a very considerable reduction were made in the duty on foreign sugar. It was upon this point of the noble Marquess' speech to which he was anxious to speak. The noble Marquess assumed that our own colonies and our own possessions beyond sea could not produce a sufficient quantity of sugar to meet the consumption of this country, supposing that consumption were brought up to the standard of former years. The noble Marquess had referred to a communication from a high authority in Trinidad, showing the absurdity of the statement that so large a quantity of sugar could not be produced by free-labour as by slave-labour. He was quite ready to admit the proposition of the noble Marquess as confined to sugar raised in British India, or in those foreign countries where no fresh importation of slaves could take place; and he held in his hand a letter from a gentleman residing in Barbadoes confirming the noble Lord in this respect, and stating that he (the writer) wished it was more generally understood in England that the falling-of if in the produce of sugar in the West-India islands, during the last four or five years, had been occasioned not by the transition from slave to free-labour, but by the droughts which, during those years, had prevailed in those countries, and that there was no doubt that the produce would be as great in future years as it had ever been. The equalization of the duties upon rum and sugar the produce of the East and West Indies would also contribute materially to increase the supply; and he for one entertained no doubt that there would be an importation of sugar from our own possessions more than sufficient for the consumption of this country, at a price of not more than 60 s. per cwt., and that without any such alteration in the duty upon foreign sugar as had been

39
suggested by the noble Marquess, and which he believed would have the effect, not of increasing but of lessening the revenue. With regard to the competition between free-labour and slave-labour, he wished further to observe, that with those countries in which slave-labour was not extinct, and in which a continued importation of slaves took place, as was the case with the Brazils and Cuba, it was impossible for free-labour to compete, for in those countries the question was merely as to the quantity of sugar which could be raised within a certain time without any reference to the sacrifice of human life in the cultivation of that sugar. It was said, that it was necessary to afford facilities for the introduction of Brazilian sugar in order to preserve that market for our manufactures, but we had no security that they would take our manufactures in exchange for their produce. It was well known that the ships which took supplies from the United States into our West-India colonies, took away in exchange for those supplies, not the sugar the produce of those islands, but gold, with which they proceeded to Cuba and there purchased their sugar. The same thing might happen with the Brazils, they might take gold from us for their sugar, and go to France or to Belgium and purchase what they wanted.
Lord Broughamwas desirous of taking that early opportunity of stating to their Lordships the views which he still entertained, and which the reflections of the last two months since he brought the subject before the House, had tended to con. firm, upon this most interesting and important question, interesting not only to the Government and to the finances of the country, but to the comfort and well-being of the people; and he was the more anxious to take that early opportunity of doing so, having the misfortune to differ in some points from his noble Friend who had so recently addressed the House; for he felt, that he should not do justice to his noble Friend, or to his own opinion, if he did not at the earliest possible moment, endeavour to remove the impression which the speech of his noble Friend must have made upon their Lordships, with respect to those points on which it was his misfortune to differ from him. It formed no subject of difference, that his noble Friend should have expressed again on that, as both of them had expressed on
40
other occasions—the strongest—in his noble Friend, the almost invincible, and in his altogether invincible—repugnance to this impost. He agreed with his noble Friend, in all his comments upon the inequality of its tendency—its inability faithfully and effectually to perform its office of abstracting money from the pockets of the community—abstracting, as it did, unequally, unjustly, and oppressively, and above all, he agreed with his noble Friend in the opinion he had expressed of the inquisitorial—necessarily inquisitorial, he admitted—nature of such an impost; and there was one inequality which his noble Friend had omitted to consider, which more than all the rest gave him a repugnance to such a measure; that was its great power for all purposes—not merely like the elephant to which his noble Friend had referred, with a proboscis so sensitive, that it could pick up a needle, but that it was also equal to the tearing up of a tree, or the splitting of a rock—it was a weapon so powerful, that he could not consent to place it in the hands of any Government, as a regular and permanent financial resource. It was a resource to be confined to times of extreme exigency, a resource the employment of which absolute necessity alone could justify; but as a means of ordinary revenue, it was open to all the most serious objections, that could be urged against such a weapon. Whether the Government were one which he distrusted, or whether it were one in which he reposed the most entire confidence, it should not with his con-sent have in its hands a power which would enable it by the mere stroke of a pen at any time, to raise any sum of money it might please to demand, and to impose any amount of tax which it might consider the people could bear—to increase, merely by the turning of a screw, in this well-contrived engine, 100,000 l. or 200,OOO l. to 10,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l. or more. He repeated, that this was a power—a temptation to extravagance—which he would entrust to no Government, except in a case of overwhelming and absolute necessity. Let their Lordships remember what had occurred in reference to the former property-tax. On Monday, the 18th March, 1816, the property-tax was destroyed, though to his noble Friend, it was a matter of almost vital importance to enact it again in any terms, and to any amount, however small, as a permanent or regular branch of financial resource. They had previously to that memorable vote been told by another

41
noble Friend of his, the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, then Secretary at War, that his army estimates were reduced to the lowest possible amount, and that consistently with the safety of the State, no further reduction could be made—that they had reached the maximum of economy, and had brought down the army to its minimum. On the 18th of March, the property-tax was rejected; and on the 22nd down came his noble Friend and put off his estimates—and the next week, or the week after, came the new set of estimates, framed in accordance with the new measure of parliamentary liberality, and the consequently altered state of the feeling of the Government. And so would it be again, whatever means of expenditure were at the disposal of the Government, they would spend up to them—the Government should always be kept on short allowance, and its expenditure would always be regulated by the strict watch which was maintained over it by Parliament. When, however, the question was—he would not say national bankruptcy—but when it was between the discredit of the country—going on with a continuing deficit in the revenue year after year—a deficit not diminishing but increasing with each year, and that so clearly and so surely, that the deficit of the year ending in April in each of the two last years, was greater than the deficit of the year ending in January—then it was that Parliament was imperatively called upon, and was absolutely bound, if it did not desert altogether the duty it owed to the country, to exert its power and put an end to a state of things thus going on from bad to worse, and from worse to worst of all—and which, if not stopped in time, must finish with something which might, without any figure of speech, be called an approach to a state of national insolvency. In the propriety of devising a remedy, all, he believed, were agreed. His noble Friend near him had complained that his noble Friend opposite had exhausted himself in demonstrating a number of propositions which all were prepared to grant him. To be sure no man would propose to re-enact the salt-tax, or that still worse tax, the tax on printed cotton goods. The question then being, how they were to meet the deficiency in the public revenue, and a growing deficiency, amounting, according to one estimate, to 3,000,000 l., and according to the lowest estimate, of 2,500,000 l.; and which 2,500,000 l., if
42
correct, must not be understood as the whole amount of deficiency for the year—for it must be remembered that a very large increase of expenditure would be occasioned by the operations in the east, even if those operations were as successful as the most sanguine of their Lordships could expect—this deficit having to be met, the question was, whether the plan of his noble Friend near him, or the Government proposition of an Income-tax, was the fittest to be adopted—all admitting that an Income-tax was the worst, if the other were possible. His noble Friend's plan was that of the Government of last year, only varied a little as to the sugar duties, which plan was brought forward with a view to commercial legislation, not revenue, and in all respects except as to the sugar duties, appeared to him and others as being calculated to produce a great improvement in our commercial code. But a different view of that plan must be taken when brought forward as a measure of finance alone; for in that case, however good it might be in other respects, if it would not meet the financial difficulty it was not sufficient to prevent their having recourse to an Income-tax. He had already stated that an Income-tax could be justified only by the most urgent necessity, but if his noble Friends behind him had always entertained the same uncompromising hostility to an Income-tax which he entertained to it, and which now induced his noble Friend to prefer any other tax to it, those noble Friends would have adopted a different course in dealing with the proposition; for the obvious course in that case would have been, when the Government proposed their plan, to have resisted it at once, and to have allowed not one single instant to elapse ere they announced their uncompromising hostility to such a plan. But was that the course taken by his noble Friends? Did they oppose this measure when it was first brought forward? By no means: it was brought forward on Friday, the 11th of March; and it was one whole week before they could make up their minds to oppose it at all. That was a fact; nay, when it was brought forward a noble Friend of his (Lord J. Russell) avowed, that although there might be a difference of opinion, and time might be required in order to make up their minds upon the detail of the Government plan, yet that, as a whole, all parties must clearly admit that it was a great plan, worthy of the Ministers of a great coun-

43
try. But was the Income-tax no part of that great plan? Was it no material portion—was it a mere trifle,—and a thing to be passed over without even a word? His noble Friends could not dispute the accuracy of his quotation; for he could assure them those were the words in which the opposition to the measure were expressed; and he was never more surprised in his life, for, remembering the feeling always entertained towards this tax, he at least expected that not one moment would be lost to cry out against the abuse of it and its details, and to regard it as an enormity, to be palliated only by the extreme urgency of the necessity, and to endeavour, by all possible means, to reduce its mischief within the smallest possible compass. But the general approval of the Ministerial plan as a great measure, worthy of the Ministers of a great empire and nation, was all the resistance that was offered; and not even a protest was made against the plan until a week had elapsed from the moment of its being proposed. However, on Monday, the 14th of March, an opportunity was given to his noble Friends to reconsider their rash admission of the preceding Friday; and he took the liberty of coming to that House, and in his place moving a set of resolutions upon this whole question. Now it might not be necessary for his noble Friends to agree to all his resolutions; they might take a totally different view of the first of them, in which a statement was made of the evils of the tax, and an assertion that nothing but absolute necessity could justify its imposition; they might differ from that, and hold that no necessity could justify its imposition; or they might deny another of the propositions, which averred the existence of that necessity, and state, as his noble Friend had done to-night, that it was not necessary, inasmuch as there were o her means of providing for the deficit, without having recourse to this tax. They might agree with or dissent from the other proposition that he brought before their Lordships, stating the necessity of altering the tax as it had been formerly laid on, and making it more equal upon various kinds of income. But the propositions were laid on the Table on Monday, and the consideration of them put off at the request of one noble Lord and another until the Thursday following. Time was therefore given to his noble Friends to have at length made up their minds whether the Income-tax was to be opposed or
44
not; but even on the Thursday, when the debate was brought forward, and when the statement, of which his noble Friend (Lord Lansdowne) had spoken in terms of far too great commendation, was made by him to their Lordships in moving the resolutions—even then his noble Friends had not made up their minds on the subject, for they were not prepared to announce any opposition whatever, and his resolutions were of course negatived without a division. Now, something happened on that day, or early the next day, which showed that there was an appearance of some agitation in the city upon one question connected with the Income-tax. A meeting had been held of bank proprietors on the subject of terminable annuities, and the very great inequality of this tax was pointed out as one of the most crying evils, and to which the most serious objections existed—namely, that terminable annuities were taxed to the same amount with perpetual annuities and other permanent property. That feeling had been expressed in the city, and even then his noble Friends were not prepared to form their opposition; for if they had been, excitement would not have been wanting to produce it in that House. Although the agitation in the city produced no effect here, it was announced the night afterwards in the other House, that there was an intention to advance an opposition to the measure. But, notwithstanding all the arguments which his noble Friend had now brought forward, and so eloquently supported, and the reasons he had given against this tax, he had still avowed his intention not to throw' any obstacles in the way of the passing of this bill. Therefore, he could not help thinking that the difference between him and his noble Friend on this subject was not, in reality, so great as it seemed to be, and that he did not entertain a much greater aversion to this tax than himself, holding it as he did, in as great abhorrence as it was possible to hold any measure, provided a possibility existed of avoiding the imposition of it. Now then they came to the question of the existence of that possibility, and the first thing proposed by his noble Friend (Lord Lansdowne) was a tax upon bread. 1,700,000 l. was to be raised, leaving only a deficit of 800,000 l., and to make up that sum every person must think that a measure of this sort was out of the question. Was there any chance of raising that sum by the tax proposed by his noble Friend? He would at

45
once declare that he was here at issue with his noble Friend, for he did not regard the measures of last year as anything like measures of finance, and it was utterly impossible any one could entertain a contrary opinion after considering of what they consisted. In the first place, there was a tax of 8s. fixed duly upon corn. It was said, that 900,000 l. would arise from that tax; but how was it to arise? Provided there was a certain quantity of grain imported in the year, so much duty per quarter was to be levied upon it, but if there were no grain imported there would be no levy of money and no duty received. Then what became of the 900,000 l.? But he did not want to have the chance of obtaining revenue—not a ticket as it were in the finance lottery, giving a beneficial chance of having 800,000 l. or 900,000 l., or of not having it, according to circumstances. He did not wish to run the chance of having 900,000 l. this year, and 500,000 l. next year, and perhaps 300,000 l. another year, and nothing at all the year after. The deficit in the revenue was not a matter of chance, it was always pressing upon them whether the seasons were good or bad, and it was to supply that deficit that they were now reduced to the necessity of finding out a means of taxation not contingent, not accidental, not of the hap-hazard kind, which might either be great, or middle-sized, or little, or nothing at all, according to the circumstances of the year. And what were those circumstances?—anything very steady, anything very much to be relied upon, anything very safely and securely to be looked forward to by statesmen intrusted with the most delicate, difficult, and important part of a nation's concerns,—the management of her finances, the support of her credit? No, it was something neither more nor less steady, nor more nor less to be relied upon, than the proverbially steady, fixed, calculable winds, and rain, and storm, and floods—in one word, the weather of the year in this kingdom. Come a bad season, and they had the importation; come a moderate season, and they had little or nothing imported; come a good season, and they had absolutely nothing imported at all; and with all that jeopardy, and the supply failing when, perhaps, they wanted it most, they were asked to build upon this foundation their hopes of a permanent, steady, and regular supply of nearly 1,000,000 l. sterling. Then there was another thing to
46
be taken into the account. When there was a bad season here, and grain and food were dear, corn would, no doubt, be imported, and the 8s. duty be levied, and thus the revenue supplied; but was there nothing to set-off against that? It was just in a year of such a sort that the excise was likely to be deficient, because the higher the price of food the less able were the poor to indulge in those articles which formed the subject of the excise duties, and accordingly in that year when they had the greatest chance of receiving a supply to the revenue by the fixed duty on foreign grain imported came the deficit in the supply of the excise, and they must set-off that deficit against the paltry sum that the impost would bring of a duty on the importation of foreign corn. When, therefore, there was a chance of one portion of the revenue being benefitted there was a certainty of a deficit and a greater in another portion, He and several of his noble Friends had, however, contended that they had no right to lay on this tax, because it was a tax upon the food of the people, and to all intents and purposes a bread-tax—a poll-tax laid upon the rich and poor equally, for all were equal consumers of food. Yet they were now called upon to take it and to rely upon it as a permanent, constant, habitual portion of the revenue. Now he had said, that the measures of last year, with a view to commercial legislation, appeared to him to be very considerable improvements. He preferred the fixed duty of 8s. to the former state of the law, and he thought the sliding-scale would be no improvement upon the fixed duty, but as a measure of finance he fairly stated his opinion, that he did not think it was originally intended as such. And in support of that opinion, he would quote the remarkable words of a right hon. Friend of his,—words of which any one might envy the eloquence, and no one could surpass the candour—
"That the Government of last year brought forward the measure of the Corn-laws urged by the importunity of their friends and goaded by the taunts of their adversaries."
The words were not his—he did not trench upon that ground—tractent fabrilia fabri—but they fully bore out his opinion that the Corn-laws were not brought forward as a measure of finance. He would now come to the second proposition as regarded the sugar duties. He cared not whether they took it as these duties were originally proposed—namely, 24 s. a cwt.,

47
or as the proposal had been now modified—36 s. was to be the duty on foreign sugar, reduced from 63 s.; there was the same per centage of differential duty. Now precisely the same principle applied to the sugar duties as to the timber duties when the protecting duty was reduced from 150 to 100 per cent.—namely, by taking off 5s. from the duty on Baltic timber, and adding 10 s. on Canada timber, or rather increasing it from 11s. 6d. to 21 s. 6d. He entirely differed from the view taken by his noble Friend (Lord Lansdowne) with respect to the sugar duty, and wished to enter his protest against the opinion his noble Friend had pronounced before their Lordships, unless his noble Friend confined that opinion to the question of slavery, and of slavery alone, as contradistinguished from the slave-trade. [Lord Lansdowne had made the distinction, and stated that he did not allude to the slave-trade but to slavery.] He was certain that he and his noble Friend could not entertain different opinions on that subject, but he thought the admission entirely disposed of the argument with regard to the sugar duties. They were now to reduce the duty on our own colonial sugar to 20 s., and on foreign colonial sugar the duty was to be reduced from 63 s. to 30 s., taking off 33 s.; and it was expected, that the protecting duty being no longer 162 per cent., but SO per cent., a large amount of foreign colonial sugar would be imported into this country. Now, he should show to the satisfaction of his noble Friend and the House that the refusal to equalize the. sugar duties was not made to protect the colonies, but to afford protection to the African negroes against the African slave-trade. It was mighty well and easy to talk of commodities, and of importations, and of duties, and of lowering the foreign duty, and of keeping our colonial sugar at the same rate, and by a differential duty increasing the amount imported, and of adding to the comforts of the people, and giving them what before was not within their reach—all these were fine smooth phrases; but if the House looked beneath the surface—if they paused, and asked the meaning of all this, and what lurked beneath these expressions depicting the smiling aspect of increased produce, and larger consumption of the whole people, they would find that it was meant that some 20,000 or 30,000 or it might he 40,000 unhappy Africans were to be instantly taken from Africa, and sent forward through all the horrors of the middle passage to culti-
48
vate Cuba and the Brazils. That was the meaning of this plan of finance. It was not a remote or a contingent, but the absolute and inevitable result of a change of duty. This was no question of preference of slave-grown sugar over free-grown sugar. If it was he should agree with what his noble Friend had stated to their Lordships. He might lament, but he could not help other nations cultivating their fields by slave labour. But those who knew anything of West-Indian affairs must be aware that there was a wide difference in the condition of the unhappy cultivator of sugar and that of the producer, even of coffee and cotton, much more of corn. The slave-trade was no institution—it was not to be ranked with any institutions of any country. It violated the laws of nature as well as nations, and instigated one nation against the other. If the duty was lowered, and our ports opened, the demand for Cuba and Brazilian labour would cause, as a matter of necessity, negroes to any amount to be poured into those colonies and that kingdom for the purpose of supplying the demand which we should thus occasion. He held it to be an inevitable consequence, that the instant the duty on sugar was lowered, 40,000 or 50,000 negroes would be taken from Africa to endure all the horrors of the middle passage and be hurried away to the West-Indian colonies. Every additional hogshead meant and caused an addition to the slave-trade. On a former occasion, he stated his objections to the present bill, and if he should not be exhausting their Lordships, he would repeat a few of them; although he was afraid, that under the existing system, any attempt to make any alterations in the bill in that House would be hopeless. If their Lordships would look carefully into the arrangements of the bill, they would be convinced, that there were matters involved, which although it might be vain to think of altering in that House, might not only be advantageously altered, but must be, to allow the measure to work. There were portions of the bill relating to the levying of the tax, which he was satisfied, when their Lordships had calmly applied their minds to them, would be found to require alteration. But that House could not alter them—it was too late—and there was no alternative between adopting the bill as it stood in this respect, or throwing it out. This fact showed how expedient it was that the House should have come to some

49
understanding on these matters, as he had formerly moved, and that it should be suggested to the other House to relax in their exercise of that high privilege which they claimed in all their proceedings relating to money. He would now name one or two of his objections. The first part of the bill, and the foundation of the whole measure, provided for the appointment of commissioners—those who were called commissioners for general purposes—who had in the first instance to work the measure, though certainly, as the bill stood, in a way most unintelligible. But he begged to assure his noble Friend, that in his observations he did not wish to act invidiously towards the authors or framers of the bill. His observations would have reference to a more general and a higher principle, one which was essential to the fit performance of the legislative functions of the two Houses. Now, the land-tax commissioners were to meet, and to set down in writing the names of such of the commissioners appointed as should be qualified to act as required by the bill, and to set down the names of those persons chosen to act. Any seven of the whole number—not less than seven, and in no case less than three of the persons set down in order—were required to take upon themselves the execution of the act. Now, let it be observed, that if on any exigency a mandamus was to be issued, or indictment preferred against a commissioner refusing to act, how was he, amongst three, or seven, or thirty-four, to know that it was against him that they were directed? And how was the name of the person to be ascertained? Again, if a person were absent, there was no notice provided, and the clerk was not called upon to deliver any. So that being absent from the meeting, he was to have no notice from the clerk, and yet was liable to be moved against by mandamus, and indicted for failing to take on himself the duties. It went on—
"Provided always, that where seven persons qualified to act as herein required shall be chosen to act for any district, no other person shall interfere as a commissioner."
What if there were only three? The 6th clause was,
"And be it enacted, that in case there shall not be a sufficient number of commissioners chosen."—
They might be chosen to act as commissioners, and it was not said by whom they
50
were to be chosen. Then came the 8th section, and the requisition was still more stringent. It was,
"It shall be lawful for the commissioners appointed to execute the said Land-tax Act, being respectively qualified as directed, and they and every one of them, not in any case exceeding the number of seven, are hereby strictly enjoined and required to take on themselves forthwith the execution of this act;"—
or notice of such neglect and want of appointment was to be given to their clerk, with no provision that the clerk was to give them notice. So that they were strictly enjoined to find that they were any persons not less than seven; and they were strictly enjoined to act upon a notice, which they were not to receive themselves, but which another person, who was not to communicate it to them, was alone to receive. As to courts of justice, the 30th clause provided, that the Lord High Chancellor, the judges, and the principal officer, or officers of each court, or public department of office, civil, judicial, criminal, or ecclesiastical, should respectively have authority to appoint commissioners. How was that to be executed? Was it the Chancellor, or Chief Justice, or the Chief Justice and one of the masters, or the Chancellor and Chief Justice, and principal officer or officers? So that if they happened to be sitting the clerk of the rules might come and say, "Why don't you admit me to your council; I have as good a right to appoint as any of you." The commissioners were treated as if they would decline acting, but no effectual provision was made for that event. It was assumed, that nobody would like to execute the powers of this act, whereas he thought there would be found too great a disposition to execute some of its powers. Without its being specified where they were to meet, a provision was made by which any two or more of the commissioners for general or special purposes, or any other commissioners, were to be enabled to execute all instruments, to do all acts, and execute every power. Any two commissioners might act. There was no provision who were the persons to be present. What was the consequence? He went and he claimed an exemption of two; they refused to give it. He went to another two—any two might execute the I power—and they signed a certificate which was binding on the commissioners

51
for special purposes; they were to issue a warrant which was binding on the receiver-general of the taxes, and he was to honour the warrant and pay the money according to the certificate. Therefore, having been refused exemption by the general body of the commissioners, any two of the commissioners was entitled, by the 191st section, to give the exemption. The last circumstance to which he wished to call their attention (he had passed over many), related to persons in the situation of trustees, agents, guardians of infants, committees of lunatics. They were all, by the 44th clause, entitled to deduct from the means of the infant, cestui que trust, principal in the care of agent, or lunatic, coming into their hands, whatever sums they had been assessed at, and they were indemnified. But then came the 61st, 165th, and other sections, by force of which, if a person had not been so assessed as to enable him to deduct, he was to be entitled, after the expiration of a year, to obtain a certificate, and to be repaid the money which he should have advanced. The guardian of the infant, or committee of the lunatic, might go and claim at the expiration of the year: they received the warrant and certificate of the commissioner; they went with the warrant of the special commissioner to the receiver of taxes, the receiver was bound to pay them the money, and there was not one title of requisition calling on them to account for the money to the estate for which they were guardian or trustee. If they put the interest into their own pocket, they had absolute and complete indemnity whatever sums they had been allowed. The 166th section was worth attending to with this view. It was,
"Whoever shall fraudulently be guilty of any fraud or contrivance in making any such claim, or obtaining any such exemption, or whoever shall fraudulently conceal 'or' (not 'and') untruly declare any income."
Not fraudulently, not falsely, but untruly, in optimâ fide, believing it to be so,
"Shall be fined 20 l. and pay the duty chargeable, making 35,l."
That was if he was the principal; but how was the accessory to be dealt with? He who aided or abetted in this untrue declaration was fined 50 l. The same observation as to the division of the bill into two parts, which he had already made, applied to the only other matter to which he would call their attention, viz.—those parts of
52
the bill relating to oaths. There was schedule F, containing five forms of oaths, to be taken by various functionaries and officers. Of late years great improvement had been made in bills which had passed through their Lordships' House, by reducing the number of oaths as far as possible, and substituting declarations for oaths, wherever it could effectually and safely be done. He had no doubt that if this bill could have been divided, that schedule would have been entirely changed; that oaths would have been struck out, and declarations substituted. Last of all, the examination of persons on oaths which was provided for in the 124th section, and all that exacerbation of the mischief, and all that was odious and intolerable, might have been left out. He particularly alluded to the 125th section,
"That it should be lawful for the commissioners to summon any person whom they might think likely to be able to give them evidence respecting the assessment to be made, to appear before them and to be examined respecting the assessment made on any other person."
Neighbours, friends, relatives—all but one excepted class, viz., agents or confidential trustees—might be called before the commissioners and examined into their whole circumstances and mode of living. The conclusion was lame and impotent, for by paying 20 l a man might avoid all examination. Some persons would rather undergo the examination than pay the penalty. He made no doubt that some persons in every neighbourhood would be found too ready to lend themselves to the inquiries of the commissioners, and to give all the information which they had, or thought they had, respecting the affairs of their neighbours. But solicitors might be examined as to the amount of money they had paid to counsel. Correspondents of merchants might be examined as to all that passed between them and their mercantile correspondents. Consignees of merchants in the same way might be examined as to the most delicate affairs of their consigners; tradesmen, as to the affairs of their customers; customers, as to their expenditure, payments, when they paid their last accounts, how much money was due, how much debt there was of A B in the books of C D. There was no confidential trust between a customer and a tradesman, therefore these parties were not protected. A banker was not a trustee; he was merely in the nature

53
of a shopkeeper who kept a shop, and the banker might be called before the commissioners and examined touching the nature of the account; the son might be examined as to the father, the father as to the son; and all this the commissioners not only might, but were somewhat in duly bound to undertake as often as there was any doubt on their minds respecting the accuracy or fulness of the disclosures. Now, having the opinion which he had already expressed of the absolute and unavoidable necessity of this measure—being quite aware that pass it must—for what purpose did he urge these observations? Not in the light of hopelessly objecting to the measure, not to prevail upon their Lordships to do that which it would be hopeless, even if he felt that there was not a necessity for passing it, to prevail upon them in this stage to do—viz., reject it; but for the purpose of again reminding this House of the consequences of the rule being so rigorously adhered to which excluded the revision and correction in this House of the most important legislative acts that came up from the other House of Parliament He said that it was no self laudation in this House, or in a Member of this House, to assert, which he most confidently did, that in this House, by its constitution, by the manner in which its business was transacted, by the manner in which it was composed, having within its walls not only the statesmen who adorned this country, and who had so long and so eminently served it, not only men of all other professions—if he might speak of a statesman as carrying on a profession—but the sages of the law as well as statesmen—the judges who presided in the tribunals of the country, who were best versed in its laws—the House itself being a high judicial body as well as a branch of Parliament—that in a place of an aspect like this all the arrangements of the bill could be more accurately, more safely, more fruitfully sifted and corrected by their Lordships than by the other House, And what precious advantage was thrown away, what great risk of error was incurred, what constant pitfalls were laid by the other House of Parliament to surround and beset its own steps in legislation, by insisting on their Lordships' positive and absolute exclusion from all share in perfecting by correction the most important measures. He had no more doubt, than that he was now addressing their Lordships, that if these and other clauses,
54
to which he had taken leave to direct their attention, had been embodied in a separate bill, or if they had been suffered to enter into an examination of those which they had not the power of examining, the result would have been very different although he could not say that it would have had the effect of making this measure much better or much more palatable; for when he looked at the mass he Was disposed to agree with his noble Friend's character of it, who shrunk back with honor at its huge bulk—at the hideous aspect of its arrangements—at the odious nature of its details, to which he might add its darkness and obscurity, in all the particulars to which he had directed their attention.
"Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum."
They would, however, have purged the measure of some of its defects—they would have cleared it of its obvious errors, and made it more certain to raise the revenue required. If passed in its present form it would not be sanctioned—it would not long be tolerated by the people of this country.
Viscount Melbourne:In the consideration of this measure, I must say, that I entirely agree in the observations of my noble and learned Friend which he made at the commencement of the address to your Lordships, which he has just concluded, and that is with respect to the paramount importance of this measure. It is a question of very great importance—of much greater importance, in my opinion, than any which has been submitted to your Lordships for many years—years which I must say have not been unfruitful in great and important measures. It is a question which involves not only the means of meeting the present difficulties of our financial position, but which involves also the future stability, the future power, the future security, the future dignity of this country; and I should say that, considering all the questions which have been submitted to your Lordships' attention since the great question of reform in the representative system in Parliament was carried, there is no one which does not sink into comparative insignificance when compared with that now before your Lordships' House. It is a question, therefore, into which no party feeling should be allowed to enter, and with regard to which no consideration of any former or pre-conceived, or pre-delivered, sentiments should

55
have any weight—which should be considered on its own grounds with reference to the existing circumstances of the times, and of the country, and with a view to the present advantage and well-being of this great community. Therefore, I shall take leave to consider this case, I trust not at too great length, but in doing so I must trespass upon your attention so far as to consider it in some degree in a general point of view. My noble and learned Friend who has last spoken is himself in rather an awkward position in reference to this question—at least, if I may judge from the vigorous struggles which he made to clear himself from the position of difficulty in which he stood. My noble Friend was a great leader of the Opposition to this tax in the year 1816—he was its most active opponent—he covered it then with invective, and he now comes forward under the character of a supporter of this measure, and in that capacity he seems to experience some little difficulty. In the former case, he covered the measure with the utmost invective, but he gave it his opposition—he persists now in his invective, but he gives the measure his support. I cannot help thinking that he has a little overdone this matter in the way of invective, and he should have deliberated a little before he gave this character which he has given it, both in the resolutions which he proposed to this House on a former evening and in the speech which he has made to-night, because, if it is indeed so frightful and odious a measure as he has described it—if it is the monstrum horrendum which he has pictured it to be, I do not think he has made out a case which justifies him in giving it his support. I have the misfortune not entirely to concur with my noble and learned Friend in either view which he has taken of this tax at either period of his life. I do not feel so certain as he does that he rendered so great a service to his country in successfully opposing the Income-tax in 1816 as he seems to suppose; nor do I now see the complete necessity which he states for this bill; nor the entire insufficiency of those other measures which were proposed when I had the honour to hold office, instead of this tax, so as to justify him in the support which he is giving to this bill. In the resolutions which the noble Lord laid on the Table of the House he did not state the opinion which has been generally stated, that this tax ought not to be
56
imposed in time of peace, and that it should be entirely reserved for times of war. My noble Friend has stated his proposition in a manner in which I more fully and completely agree. He states that it is a tax which should not be imposed except in times of very great emergency; but I do not see that that is a peculiarity which belongs to this tax. No tax should be imposed except in times of very great emergency—no duty which greatly affects the price of any article of consumption, and therefore affects the community at large—no tax which affects the price of any commodity necessary for supplying the wants of the people should be imposed, unless there should be an absolute necessity for its imposition; and as it should not be imposed, so should it not be continued one day beyond the time for which it is absolutely requisite. But, it will be said that there is a great difference between the emergencies of peace and those of war. The greatest difficulties which have ever befallen nations, however, have fallen on them in times of profound peace. We all know very well that the great rebellion—the insurrection in England which terminated in the overthrow of the throne of this country, befel us not only in the time of profound peace, but at a time of the utmost general commercial prosperity. The great Revolution of our own time—the greatest calamity which ever befel the world—the revolution of France, fell on that country, not at the moment of war, but at a time of triumph, when circumstances had arisen which had been most humiliating to this country, and had given to France a position in Europe which she had never before enjoyed. And your Lordships must recollect that a calamity of this description is more likely to occur in time of peace than during a war; there are two great causes likely to produce financial difficulties—great expenditure of that which should be appropriated to the payment of your debts; secondly, the abuses of the times of peace—the abuses of credit and over-speculation, which often produce consequences as serious as those of war; but these calamities, in his opinion, were much more likely to fall on a nation, and generally did so, more decisively and more severely in the time of peace, than at a period when the country may be engaged in hostilities with another nation. It has been considered so from ancient times, and it has been stated by ancient poets that war had been often sought for, to get rid of the

57
consequences of a long protracted peace. With regard to many of the objections raised by my noble and learned Friend to this bill, I entirely concur. I think that this is a tax which has many advantages, and many disadvantages. It is no small point in its favour, I think, that it effects its object, and that it will raise that amount of revenue which it professes to be able to raise, but whether it raises it by means which are so good as to be altogether safe, is a question which remains to be discussed. It cannot be denied that it is a duty which, above all others, is the cheapest of collection, and that it puts more money into the Treasury in proportion to the expense of its collection than any other tax which has yet been devised. That certainly is not the case in reference to all its details, because the cost of collecting the 2½ per cent, is as great as that of the collection of 10 per cent.; but at the same time I think, that compared with any other duty, it is preferable as regards the expenditure of public money at which it can be levied. It is undeniable, also, in my view, that this is a tax which falls on the poor with very great weight. Though it is actually, and in point of fact, paid by the rich, yet in effect it falls upon those who depend upon the rich for support, and whose means of support are, therefore, diminished in proportion to the reduction of the income of their superiors. Impression in matters of this sort is undoubtedly of great importance, and upon that view the adoption of this tax is perhaps, an important and a desirable measure, It is a tax which will be paid by persons of property—they do not appear to feel it, and so also the poor will not perceptibly experience the immediate inconvenience. But I do not view this as being by any means a proof of the goodness of the measure. It has been said of the present Prime Minister of this country, that he did not deceive the people, but that he stood by while the people deceived themselves. I do not say whether that is true or not, but it is very well expressed; and I can easily see what was meant by it. And while people rest under an erroneous impression of what will be the consequences of a certain act, I hardly think it right that such an advantage should be taken of them. People in this case would say, that this tax falls upon persons of property, and at first that appears to be a matter which recommends it, and would produce a feeling in its favour. And I admit that it is an infirmity of the
58
measure that it presses with great apparent equality on all classes; but after all its unpopularity consists in its equality. Its inequality is the argument raised against it, but its equality the certainty that every one will have to pay, is the cause of its great unpopularity, and at the same time I do not mean to say that it is not liable to very considerable objection. It is impossible to deny that it possesses an inquisitorial character, and that that is a matter which is extremely unfavourable under the existing circumstances of the country; and what I think is a very strong objection to the tax at this moment is, the very strong and bitter feeling of political hostility which it will inevitably engender. Is it possible to suppose, when we see what influence is put in motion, what bitter hostility may exist between man and man on political subjects, that the powers entrusted to the commissioners under this bill, will not be made use of for such purposes. But another great objection to it is, that it will have an unquestionable tendency to drive capital out of the country, which is the only means by which it can escape the operation of the law. There are other objections which have been urged to your Lordships, but to which I do not attach any very great weight. It is said, that the calculations upon which the measure has been introduced to Parliament have been wrongly framed—that you do not want so much money—that under this bill more will be realised than is wanted. But these are complaints which, if they turn out to be well founded, may be very easily remedied. You have nothing to do but to reduce some other taxes, and I think that you need never be afraid that any Government will be otherwise than most anxious to take every opportunity of reducing the burdens upon the people. In the present state of the country, there is no Government which is not anxious to seize every opportunity of reducing the amount of taxation. But it is said, that the tax is one which will engender extravagance, and reference has been made to the year 1816, when the repeal of this tax produced a largely diminished estimate. This certainly was the fact; but the reduced estimate certainly did not stand long, as my noble Friend must recollect, for it was found to be totally inadequate to meet the exigencies and the wants of the country. But I own I am not apprehensive of any danger likely to arise from this source of mischief. If

59
the Government are extravagant, the House of Commons has the remedy in its own hands—it has only not to recommend that which is extravagant. I fear extravagance, certainly; but it is not the extravagance of Government, but it is that of the fancy of hon. Members of Parliament, of caprice, of taste; and 1 am not afraid of the extravagance of the Treasury, provided it is only left to itself; and it has no external purpose to drive it beyond the point to which it would go of its own accord. I cannot help thinking that my position on this question is more happy than that of my noble and learned Friend. 1 stand on this question in a position more unencumbered than my noble and learned Friend, because the first vote which I ever gave in Parliament was in support of the motion of my noble Friend, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for increasing the amount of the tax upon income by 10 per cent. When this matter was discussed in 1816, I was not in Parliament, and therefore having expressed no opinion by my vote at that period, I am, of course, free to take any line of proceeding upon the present occasion which may seem right. I must say, that I do not feel the general objections to this measure so strongly as it is felt by many other persons; but I do not think it prudent or wise to adopt this measure on the present occasion, and under existing circumstances, and in the present state of the temper and feelings of this country, I am very well aware, and have always been so, that the system of finance on which the Government of the country was conducted by my noble Friend, Earl Grey, was not according to strict principle. In that system we trusted too much to the surplus, and by that means imposed fresh burdens on the Consolidated Fund, without taking means to reinforce it by any fresh taxes. I was always aware, that we were not acting according to strict principles, but there are positions of the country in which a departure from principle is the right principle, and that was a view which always governed me in reference to the particular period to which I referred. 1 think that at that time the country was not equal to such an exertion as that which it is now called upon to make, and that it was safer to introduce the measures which were then introduced, and to trust to time and to the events which were then in progress, rather than to force so strong a measure on the country as that which is now proposed. And that is still my opin-
60
ion; and it is so on the ground that we introduced those measures which have been already frequently stated to your Lordships. I do believe that it was probable that those measures would have answered the financial purposes of the country—that they would have raised the amount of revenue which was required, and I beg leave distinctly to assure my noble and learned Friend, that they were introduced for financial purposes, and for financial purposes only with a view to meet the difficulties of the country; and, however it may sound to my noble and learned Friend, or to the House, I beg leave to say, that I have no objection whatever to the levying of duties for the purpose of raising a revenue on the importation of foreign corn. I think that corn is a fair and legitimate subject for taxation, and 1 see no reason why it should not be taxed, and why a revenue should not be raised from it. From the wants of the country there is reason to believe, that the revenue would be not entirely of a certain character, but a great deal more certain than has been referred to by my noble and learned Friend; and although the trade in foreign corn should partake of that fluctuation and uncertainty which belongs to all other foreign trades, I see no reason why revenue should not be levied from it merely on account of its uncertainty. You calculate at present on the revenue to be derived from corn, and I do not see why, because the corn-trade is subject to fluctuation and uncertainty, you should not raise as much revenue from that commodity as you can by a fair import duty, even though that revenue should fluctuate from year to year. Considering the nature of this measure—considering the prejudice which prevails against it, I say, that it is not, in my opinion, wise or prudent to impose this tax on the country until you have first tried every other means of meeting the existing deficiency. You have not shown to the country that those measures were insufficient for the purpose. I think that the emergency is not sufficient—that the peril is not sufficiently imminent—that the case is not sufficiently strong to justify the adoption of such a measure, and I think that you are throwing away and perilling that which may be hereafter of great advantage. If I am asked why I did not propose this measure to the country in 1841, when I held a high position in the Government, I should say as Solon said, when he was asked whether he had given the

61
Athenians the best laws possible, "No, but I have given them the best they can bear." And I beg leave to express my opinion that it would have been better if you had adopted the measures which were proposed, and which you might have adopted, though you did not do so. We proposed those measures distinctly to the country, and the country decided against them, as we say. You say that they did not decide against the measures or their principles, but against the men who proposed them. That is what has been said a hundred times, but we cannot admit it; but we think that we are still at liberty to consider that decision to be not against those measures, and therefore you might have adopted them. But if all those measures are rejected; if you determine upon pursuing this course, and by this strong measure to raise the revenue, so that it shall equal the expenditure of the country; I say, remember you must persevere in it. You cannot recede from it—you cannot go back again—you cannot abandon it—you must go forward with it—you cannot recede from it with honour or with safety, and though 1 do not think it either wise or prudent that the measure should be now adopted, yet I beg leave to have it understood that I do not pledge myself not to support the present Government, or any future Government while it may maintain this tax, or even the extended operation of this bill.
The Duke of Wellington:I will not now enter into a discussion before your Lordships whether or not the country, in deciding against the measures of the noble Viscount who has just sat down, decided against the propositions of the noble Viscount, or against the men who made them. My desire is to support this measure on its own grounds, and not to consider the merits of men who do not propose this measure, but who proposed other measures, which I certainly think ought not to have been proposed, and which undoubtedly ought not now to be carried, because I am thoroughly convinced that those measures are not inadequate to answer the purposes or to meet the necessities which now render your Lordships' interference necessary. I agree with the noble Viscount that this is a totally different question from that of the year 1816. I think that it has been proved clearly by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) that this is a measure which is absolutely necessary, in order to enable Parliament to meet the deficiency of the
62
revenue for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the country. The noble Viscount has stated that he thinks that the course might have been taken of laying a duty on corn, upon sugar, and upon timber. At least this is certain, that the produce of the duty on corn would have been, very uncertain; but what we want is certainty. We have a certain deficiency to meet, and a certain expenditure to provide for, and we require a certain revenue in order to provide the means of defraying those charges. It is quite obvious that in certain seasons it is possible that no corn might be imported, and that in other seasons very large quantities of corn might be introduced into this country; and no reliance could be placed on the amount of revenue to be expected at one period. In respect of the duty on sugar, my noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon), and my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), have both stated the objections which rest on-financial grounds against the alteration proposed upon the importation of foreign sugar; and the noble and learned Lord has stated other objections referable to the slave-trade, which I have always felt to be very strong objections against the alteration of these duties. I have taken a very simple view of this question. It is this. The Government of this country have entered into treaties for putting an end to the slave-trade with the governments of the Brazils and of Spain, which treaties have not been strictly carried into execution; a circumstance which I know from my having been called upon to treat on the subject at different congresses at which I have been engaged. We know that large numbers of slaves are exported from Africa—I believe up to this very moment, and I do think that wherever the Government of this country makes such arrangements as we have made, or such concessions to foreign powers as to lower the duties upon foreign sugar, those concessions ought to be used for the purpose of protecting the system of preventing the slave-trade. Advantage ought to be taken of those concessions, in order to obtain those objects; and I say that these duties ought not to be lowered until such concessions shall be made as will give us a tolerable certainty that the treaties relating to the slave-trade will be strictly carried into execution; and I say that this should be done more especially because I believe that the future demand for sugar in this country can be supplied by

63
her Majesty's colonies within the tropics. If, then, my Lords, that should be the case, I say that, considering the sacrifices which were made by our colonies and by the West-India proprietors, eight or ten years ago, and considering also the description of engagements which were entered into with them at that period, that the existing system should not be altered, these facts should induce your Lordships to consider well the subject before they should consent to alter the duties upon foreign sugar imposed in this country. Then, my Lords, that being the case, and it being admitted on all sides that there is no other resource, that the experiment has been tried of levying a per centage on the customs and excise, and also on the assessed taxes, that the former has failed entirely, and the last has succeeded only partially, I do conceive that the necessity has been clearly made out for the adoption of another course; and I say further, that no other course could be adopted than the measure at present under your Lordships' consideration. The noble Marquess who spoke in the early part of the evening stated that this tax is to be justified solely on the ground of the deficiency of the revenue to provide for the expenditure of the country; but, my Lords, begging your Lordships' pardon, if this tax levies a larger sum than is necessary to provide for the expenditure and the public service of the country, there surely can be no reason why the overplus should not be applied to relieve the country from other taxes which fall heavily upon the resources of the country, and from which it was desirable that the country should be relieved, in order to benefit the commerce, the manufactures, and the other interests of the country. I do not mean to say, my Lords, as the noble Viscount opposite has said, that the tax should be continued in order to procure such a surplus. No, my Lords, but the tax being levied for the purpose of supplying a deficiency in the revenue to defray the expenses of the country, it is reasonable and right that the overplus should be applied towards the deficiency which must be the consequence of a repeal of the duties which press on the chief interests of the country, and to that purpose it is intended to apply that overplus. The noble Viscount has stated what is perfectly true—that the Government having adopted this measure, must adhere to it so long as it is necessary; and I sincerely trust that this Government,
64
if your Lordships will adopt this bill, will maintain this measure as long as it is absolutely necessary, and not one hour longer. I have said, that this tax is to be applied to the repeal of certain taxes, but it is to be expected, that when taxes are modified or repealed, the revenue will then become productive, and that the Government will thus be able to repeal this tax, not only because a necessity for it no longer exists, but because the increased revenue to be received from this relief from taxation, will enable us to come to Parliament and propose the repeal of this tax. It is impossible for us to do what the noble Viscount did, indeed we have not the means to do it. He came down to Parliament with a revenue already labouring under a deficiency, and he proposed to repeal the Post-office duties. By the measure there was lost 1,600,000 l. on the year's revenue, and in the preamble of the bill which carried that measure into effect, there was a promise that the revenue should be made good. There was an attempt to make it good, but the promise remains unperformed to this day; and you cannot expect us to take the example of the noble Viscount, repealing such burdens as ought to be repealed, and then taking our chance of making up the amount of the public service as the noble Viscount, did when he repealed the Post-office duties, and trusted to a promise in an act of Parliament that the amount should be made good to the public service. My Lords, I have already stated that I hope the Government will retain this tax as long as it is necessary. I can answer for myself, and I believe I can also answer for my Colleagues, that nothing but necessity could have induced us to propose such a tax. We are perfectly aware of all the inconveniences that must result from it—we are perfectly aware of the provisions of the act of Parliament upon your Lordships' Table—we are perfectly aware of the odious powers with which these commissioners and others must be trusted—and we can reconcile it to ourselves only by the necessity of the case. The country must feel also the necessity of the case. Your Lordships must feel it. We have been now for several years engaged in operations involving great expense in all parts of the world. I will not say, my Lords, that we have been at war, but I believe we have been at something as like war, if it be not war, as anything could well be. I have had lately opportunities of giving my consideration to the measures

65
which have been carried into execution during the last few years, and I certainly did consider these as measures of war; they have entailed upon the country the expenses of war, and we are now called upon to discharge the bill. We have had a deficiency for various years, amounting to 10,000,000 l. sterling, there is a deficiency of 2,500,000 l. on this year, and I believe, that if the accounts were examined very closely, the amount would be even more. But that amount is necessary to enable us to perform the public service. We are exactly in the situation of persons who have incurred a great debt, and who are called upon to pay the bill. I hope we shall pay the bill, and that we shall restore the country to a satisfactory state, and to prosperity. I say, again, my Lords, that nothing but a strong sense of the necessity of the case, and that there was no other course which we could take to produce such a revenue as would enable us to meet the difficulties of the country, or to do what is necessary for its prosperity, would have induced us to propose such a measure, and it will not last one moment longer than it shall be absolutely necessary.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he was very unwilling to protract the debate, but when their Lordships considered the position in which the question now stood, he trusted he should be allowed to make a few remarks. This was the most important measure which had come before Parliament since the passing of the Reform Bill, and this was the only occasion on which an opportunity bad been afforded for its consideration. Their Lordships had now, as on a second reading, to consider the principle of the bill; they had now, as in committee, to examine its details, and also with respect to its having passed through committee; and in addition to this they had to consider it with reference to the proposition of the noble Marquess opposite; and yet considering that only four individuals had yet had the opportunity of addressing the House, their Lordships seemed dissatisfied at having the debate carried on at a quarter past eleven o'clock. If their Lordships were desirous of adjourning the debate, no one would be more ready to agree to that course, but he presumed that it was their Lordships' desire to conclude the discussion to-night, and therefore it would be an act of injustice to say, that those who felt an interest in the subject, and wished
66
to deliver an opinion thereon, should be deprived of so doing. Their Lordships were all agreed that if a proper substitute could have been found, this measure ought not to have been introduced. It was admitted that only one substitute could be proposed. His noble Friend in introducing the measure had taken a view of all the taxes which had been repealed since the war, and not one had been pointed out as a fit substitute for the present measure; and there only remained for consideration the substitute proposed by the noble Marquess opposite. His noble and learned Friend had shown that the proposition of the late Government could not have been effectual, and had intimated that they never intended to carry out their measure. Their conduct was certainly open to great suspicion. The measures which they submitted to Parliament were of a most important nature; they were measures likely to effect a great change in the finance and commerce of the country; and it was not until their tenure of office became precarious that they thought of bringing forward those measures. If they entertained any intention of passing such measures, they surely ought to have introduced them in the Queen's Speech at the commencement of the Session. Under these circumstances, was it likely their Lordships would reject the present measure, for the purpose of substituting that proposed by the noble Marquess? He thought their Lordships could come to no other conclusion than that the bill was absolutely necessary. He thought, however, that some parts of it were extremely objectionable. Many persons were of opinion that a tax of this nature ought only to be considered as a war tax, but he thought it peculiarly applicable to a time of peace. It was the only tax which could touch those who preferred other countries to this, and this was one of the redeeming qualities of the bill. His object in now addressing their Lordships was to obtain some information with respect to the operation of this bill in Ireland. No notice had been taken in either House of its application to that country. It professed not to extend to Ireland, but to be entirely confined to Great Britain; and yet in its operation it appeared to him to contain some of the most objectionable provisions, which would materially affect Ireland. He regretted exceedingly that her Majesty's

67
Ministers had not considered it expedient! come to a division, and 1 should not have to extend its operations to Ireland, because that showed, that it was their deliberate opinion that Ireland was not fit to bear the tax. At the same time other taxation had been imposed on Ireland to nearly as great an amount as if she had been subjected to the Income-tax. It was injurious, in his opinion, to that part of the empire, that it should be supposed to be unable to contribute its fair proportion to the exigencies of the State. When it was necessary to impose a burden on the country, that portion of the empire ought not to be exempt. The exemption, however, having been made, he was anxious to take this opportunity of ascertaining from her Majesty's Ministers the manner in which its operation would extend to that country. By the provisions of the bill all individuals not Members of Parliament, who reside for more than six months in this country, are required to pay the tax. All Members of Parliament were exempted who reside in this country during the Session of Parliament, and forty days before, and forty after. These provisions were copied from the Assessed-tax Act, the 52nd George 3rd; but he did not think that the provisions of that Act could be fairly and justly applied in the present case. It appeared that Irish proprietors, residing more than six months in this country, would have to pay the tax; but if they should leave this country and reside abroad, how were they to be affected? He saw no machinery in the bill compelling them to pay; and it was, therefore, a bonus on the Irish proprietor to live abroad. The mode of taking the average for three years would have the effect of exempting some persons and throwing an unjust burden on others. He believed that a large portion of the income of that country would be subject to this taxation, although it appeared to be exempt. The stamp duty would also fall very heavily on that portion of the empire. He believed the spirit duty to be a good principle of taxation; but he certainly did not anticipate that the amount calculated on by the Government would be realised by it. He would not detain their Lordships longer than to say, that he should have felt great gratification if it had been considered expedient to extend the operation of this measure to Ireland.
The Earl of Clarendon:I can well understand the impatience of the House to
68
come to a division, and I should not have thought of addressing your Lordships at this late hour were it not for the attacks which have been so unsparingly made upon the late Government—to these I am desirous of offering some reply, and I appeal to the justice of the House to grant me a hearing. I must, however, in the first place, say, that I learned with great satisfaction from the speech of my noble Friend (the President of the Board of Trade), that he brings no charge of extravagance against the late Government, and that it is not upon their mismanagement that he has founded any argument to induce your Lordships to consent to an Income-tax for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the revenue. It may, indeed, have suited the purposes of party to attribute this deficiency to mismanagement, but when we bear in mind the rebellion in Canada, and the enormous expense it entailed; the war with China, and the outlay which that occasioned; three successive bad harvests, with all their attendant misfortunes—the dearness of provisions, the export of bullion, and the pressure upon every kind of commercial transactions; then the bankruptcy of the United States, and the stagnation of our trade with that country, diminishing as it did the power of consumption of the whole of the manufacturing classes and their means of contributing to the revenue—an event alone sufficient, as my noble Friend (the President of the Council) told us the other evening, to account for the universal distress so often deplored in this House. When all these events coming in conjunction are considered, the only wonder is, that the deficiency in the revenue is not greater, and I know not one cause that produced it which can fairly be attributed to mismanagement, except it be the reduction of postage upon letters; that great experiment has not yet been fully tried, but whatever be its result I am convinced that the whole country is satisfied with its having been made, and that the loss of revenue it may occasion will never be grudged; but, looking at the nature of the circumstances to which I have just alluded, the late Government were justified in regarding them as temporary, and in meeting them with expedients suited to temporary circumstances, without imposing fresh burdens upon the people. When, however, last year there appeared no prospect of a favourable change, the Government felt bound to.

69
consider the best means of equalizing our income and expenditure, and I do not feel guilty of betraying any secret when I say that every scheme of direct taxation was fully considered and deliberately rejected, for it was thought that such means should only be resorted to as a last resource or in an extreme emergency, and would be unjustifiable until we had endeavoured to raise revenue by lowering the duties upon articles of general consumption. This scheme has been treated with ridicule and contempt, (though I think it will not be so again, after the speech of my noble Friend near me) (Lord Lansdowne,) and various articles upon which duties had been reduced have been alluded to, to prove that although consumption increased, the revenue rarely, if ever, recovered its former amount; and I admit this is to a certain extent true. I still further admit that it would have been to the last degree injudicious, it would have been unwarrantable in any Government when about to raise such an increased revenue as the public service rendered necessary, to reckon upon obtaining it by the reduction of ordinary duties; but this was not the scheme of the late Government. Their intention was to leave untouched those duties that were productive of revenue, but to increase consumption and consequently revenue by lowering the duties which acted as prohibitions upon articles of the same kind, and there can be no more doubt that such a course would have produced the results anticipated from it than there can be that differential duties are necessarily unavoidably injurious to the revenue. The differential duties on the same commodities may be both too low or both too high, or one may be excessive and the other too low, or one may be of the proper amount and the other above or below it, but I will defy any one to prove that both can be equally productive, for it is impossible that duties differing widely in amount on commodities similar in kind can each be imposed in the manner which would produce the largest amount of revenue. Neither are they intended to do so, the one set of duties is for revenue, the other is for protection, and the operation of the latter is to exclude from consumption commodities that would produce revenue. These were the duties which the late Government intended to reduce, with perfect confidence as to the result; and their first measure,
70
as it was that of the present Government, had reference to corn and probably upon the same ground, that it was necessary to begin grappling with the greatest mono poly of all. Upon corn my right hon. Friend (the late Chancellor of the Exchequer) estimated that he should get 900,000 l., but if all the different sorts of corn entered for home consumption last year had paid the duties proposed, the revenue would have amounted to upwards of 1,100,000 l. instead of 575,000 l. which was received, and that without the least rise in price or the least injury to the consumer. With respect to sugar and timber, the other two principal articles in the budget of last year, I will not again go over the calculations by which my noble Friend near me (Lord Lansdowne) has so ably proved the fair ness with which the increased amount of revenue was estimated, but I will only ob serve that Mr. Baring, in calculating that by a reduction of duty upon foreign sugar he should receive 700,000 l. beyond the revenue of the preceding year, had every reason to believe, that he was greatly under the mark, he would probably have been more correct if he had calculated upon double the amount, for such I know was the opinion of one of the most able, enlightened, and experienced men who ever served the public, I mean Mr. Deacon Hume, and this year his opinions may be appealed to without fear of being told that they are absurd, and that his evidence be fore the Import Duties' Committee and the report of that committee, were the most fanciful and mischievous that ever emanated from men not yet in Bedlam, and I repeat that Mr. Hume's opinion was that Mr. Baring's plan, with respect to sugar, would be infinitely more productive than he had calculated upon. My noble Friend near me has shown upon what grounds Mr. Baring calculated he should raise an additional revenue of 600,000 l. on timber, and be it remembered that in order to do so he adopted precisely the principle recommended by a committee of the House of Commons, of which Mr. Wallace was the Chairman, and my noble Friend opposite (Lord Ripon) was a member, and that principle was to diminish the differential duties between Baltic and Canadian timber, by lowering the duty on Baltic and raising it on Canadian; this proved to be a sound principle, it increased both consumption and revenue, and by

71
extending it still further the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had the best founded expectations of raising the sum he estimated. The budget, then, was not the contemptible bubble it has been represented to be, and looking at the revenue that would have been collected upon corn, sugar, and timber, I say that if the measures of the late Government bad been permitted to pass, a certain amount of deficiency might this year still have existed, but it would have been nothing that could not have been supplied from other sources, and nothing assuredly that could have justified a recurrence to the odious tax we are now called upon to submit to. But it was said at the time, and the noble Earl opposite (Lord Wicklow) has this night again made the unfounded charge, that our plans were a deception, and that they were brought forward recklesly and without the smallest expectation of their being carried, and my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) has not thought it beneath him to state that some official person (who that person may be 1 know not) is reported to have said that we were goaded by our friends and taunted by our enemies into the adoption of these measures. I really am ashamed of replying to accusations so offensive to the honour of gentlemen and to calumnies so degrading to those, who aspired to merit the confidence of their Sovereign and the country. I meet them, however, with an indignant denial, and in justification of that denial, I will place it upon grounds honourable to our opponents. There was not a man in the late Government, who doubted last year more than any man in the country can doubt this year what were the opinions of the right hon. Baronet now at the head of her Majesty's Government, for although his speeches, may sometimes conceal his thoughts and intentions, we felt as certain in the month of March 1841, as he has given us cause to do in March 1842, that he must be opposed to the commercial system by which this country has been so long oppressed. That with his great talents and knowledge, with his untiring attention to public affairs and all that is passing around us both at home and abroad, that he must long since have been convinced, that our system of excessive and unreasonable protection was paralysing our national resources, and was
72
destructive of our national prosperity—we did, therefore, entertain a hope—and that hope, though ill founded as it turned out, was reasonable, that in our attempt to reform this pernicious system, we should have had the support of the right hon. Baronet, and of that great party which so devotedly follows him wherever, be it backwards or be it forwards, that it may suit him to lead them—we saw no reason to doubt that that party would act as the Whigs did upon the Catholic question, who might then have addressed the Crown and said, that though they approved of the measure they had no confidence in the men who brought it forward, and could not consent to leave its management to those who had passed their whole lives in opposing Catholic emancipation. That party might have acted as the Whigs did when Mr. Huskisson first brought forward his measure of commercial reform, and when it would have been open to them to take advantage of the indignation with which those measures were viewed by a large portion of his own party, and the unpopularity the Government brought upon itself. They might have acted as the opposition did only a few nights ago, when had they joined in supporting the motion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire the most important, indeed, I may say, the only beneficial provision of the tariff would have been lost—but, whatever may have been the mistakes of the late Government, they made none so great as upon the occasion of the Budget, in reckoning upon the support of their opponents. They were, I admit it, miserably mistaken—when the Budget became known every base, and dishonourable motive was attributed to its authors, every misrepresentation was resorted to in order to excite the fears and the prejudices, and to stimulate the resentment of every class in the community,—commercial, agricultural, and manufacturing—their success was complete—my Lords, I am heartly glad of it, it might have been better for the revenue, and consequently for the country, as my hon. Friend near me has so clearly shown. If our measures had been carried, it would doubtless have been more satisfactory to the liberal party, but I do not believe it would have been better for the principles we advocated nor have materially advanced the cause of commercial reform. For

73
those objects, those great and important objects in comparison with which the miserable strife of party sinks into insignificance, every thing has turned out as their most cordial well-wishers could desire. The deficiency in the revenue was of great service, for the necessities of the country enabled the late Government to make the first attack upon those powerful and protected interests, which had so long (though I blame them not for it) and so grievously injured the country—the dissolution of Parliament upon matters so vitally interesting was useful, for it induced the people to discuss, and brought them to understand the questions—and above all the misrepresentations, and the calumnies with which our measures and their authors were assailed—above all they were useful, for they brought the Conservative party into power—holding the principles I do. Convinced as I am, that to our commerce and manufactures, we owe our greatness; and that upon their prosperity or decline, depend our maintaining the proudest position ever occupied by a nation, or our sinking to the level of a third rate power, believing this, I viewed with satisfaction the advent of our opponents to power, for I well knew, that no government, whether Whig, Tory, or Radical could long maintain itself, in defiance of the wishes and in disregard of the wants of the country—we have arrived at a period when more employment for our industry, and fresh markets for our produce, are imperiously demanded by our necessities. They must be found, we cannot do without them, upon them depend the food of our people, the tranquility of our country, the safety of our institutions—these are not party questions, they are national questions, and no government can now dare to disregard them, but the difficulties, or the ease which any government may have in dealing with them, must depend on the support they can reckon upon, and, as I believe, that every step in that direction taken by the liberal party, would be met with fierce and determined resistance, and as I knew, that every measure having commercial emancipation for its object proposed by the party now in power, would have the unflinching support of their political opponents. I rejoiced at the change of administration, and what has been the result? Why, that her Majesty's Ministers have
74
been imitating the measures they last year thwarted, they have been advocating the principles they denounced, and their friends have missed no opportunity of proclaiming, both in and out of Parliament, that they voted against their conviction, and supported the Government solely from political motives. No one, however sanguine his expectations might be—who remembers the language held last year upon these subjects, could have hoped, that within a twelvemonth they would have made the progress they have, but he now cannot doubt, that our whole system of protection is crumbling before the assaults that have been daily made upon it for the last three months by the Government. True, it is, that we have not yet got much beyond the recognition of error, and the announcement of sound principle, and that their application has been rigidly confined to small things; but the announcement upon the highest authority, will go forth throughout the length and breadth of the land, and the "people will take care, that the application shall become general—when it is admitted, that the means of subsistence do not keep pace with the growth of our population, that a wider era must be given to our markets; that pressure must be taken from off the springs of industry; and that henceforward property, and not poverty, must contribute to the exigencies of the State. When such maxims as these are admitted, it is clear that we are in a way to abandon that system, under which the Government of this country for centuries past has interfered with, and clogged, and misdirected the industry of the people. If these maxims were fairly carried out—carried out as the Government has the power of doing, and that for the temporary sacrifices such a course would entail we were told we must submit to an Income-tax—I, for one, should consider that tax more tolerable than I now do; but when we are told that the tariff must reconcile people to it, it becomes necessary to examine upon what principle that tariff proceeds, and in what manner the surplus revenue we are about to raise by such obnoxious means, is to be applied. The deficiency, as I understand my noble Friend opposite, is 2,500,000 l., and that it will probably be 3,000,000 l. To cover it, 4,300,000 l. is to be raised by a tax on income—3,000,000 l. for the public ser-

75
vice, and 1,300,000 l. to be employed in the reduction of duties. Now the main principle which appears to rule in the tariff is the establishing heavy differential duties between the produce of our colonies and of other countries. I think this is an unfortunate departure from the system now in existence, which was only to protect some of the articles most important to our colonies; but by the tariff it is sought to increase differential duties, or, in other words, protection where it exists, and to create it where it is unknown; and 1 believe it is unfortunate, because there is no saying how much of the inconvenience and distress under which our trade is now suffering, that may not be attributed to this vicious system. Under it the people of England are unnecessarily taxed, and the colonies are injured, by causing them to direct their capital and industry into channels not natural, and giving them interests in trades bolstered up by artificial means and monopoly. I admit that the system has prevailed too long to be suddenly changed; but in now carrying it out further than has ever yet been attempted, the Government will find they are laying the grounds for greater embarrassments, already great enough, both in our relations with our colonies and with foreign countries. We next find, that most of the principal articles of consumption are left untouched. I will say nothing of corn, not only because it does not form part of the tariff, but because that question has been disposed of by Parliament, and 1 only allude to it because the new law is one item in the catalogue of benefits upon which the Government relies for reconciling people to the Income-tax, and I am firmly convinced that under this law the people will not have corn cheaper this year than they had last; and that this article—this first and greatest necessary of life—is therefore left untouched. Wine and brandy are untouched, tobacco is untouched, tea is untouched, butter and cheese are untouched, and, above all, no alteration is made in the duties on sugar. I admit the benefit of removing the prohibition on provisions, which I think may prevent a further rise in their prices. I admit the benefit of the reduction on the timber duties, though the sacrifice of revenue is, I think, unnecessarily great. For these boons the country is grateful to the Government; but looking at the tariff
76
as a whole, it is absurd to talk of it as any compensation for the Income-tax. The mere absence of alteration on the sugar duties in the tariff, prevents its being any compensation: for if those duties were properly modified, nothing would be easier than to demonstrate that the Income-tax is unnecessary. I acknowledge the difficulty in which the Government is placed upon this subject; I acknowledge that, having last year when in opposition given their support to what was considered a very dextrous party manœuvre, it would be too bad, or, rather, it would be too soon, to turn round upon themselves, and in 1842 call that expedient which in 1841 they denounced as flagitious. Never did a party manœuvre, however, more completely bring with it its own chastisement, for what embarrassments would have been spared to the Government if they had now been free to deal with the sugar question, knowing as they must that the motion carried in the House of Commons last year was a mere mockery of common sense. They must have felt, that if we were sincere in adopting such means for putting a stop to slavery, we should have been prepared to prohibit, not only the sugar, but all the cotton, all the tobacco, all the coffee, all the rice, all the bullion, which are the produce of slave-labour, and at once put an end to the employment of 5,000,000 of the manufacturing classes in this country. We should have been prepared to stop all trade with the Brazils, for a large portion of our exports (between 3,000,000 l. and 4,000,000 l.) to that country, are paid for by bills on Hamburgh and other places on the continent indebted to the Brazils for the sugar they import. In short, we should have been prepared to pass a law of non-intercourse with half the civilized world. How comes it also, if we are resolved to check slave-labour, that we tolerate in this country, and under our very noses here in London, the enormous business carried on in the refinery of foreign slave-grown sugar? How comes it that the West Indians last year, so clamorous against the iniquitous measure of the Government for encouraging slave-labour, never consume an ounce of their own sugar, but import from this country, for their own use, foreign slave-grown sugar, refined in England? Were any of these anomalies noticed last year? Was any disposition

77
shown to remedy them? Not so, indeed, because the measure suited a party object, and because last year the time was not yet arrived for running down such a monopoly as that possessed by the West-Indians, a monopoly which, since 1834, the year of emancipation, has cost this country in sugar—i. e., between the price paid for sugar from the West Indies, and the price at which it might have been obtained from other parts—upwards of 20,000,000 l. sterling, more than double the sacrifice made by this country, nobly and to its immortal honour, for the emancipation of every slave throughout the colonies. I believe that that great experiment has been completely successful, and that the productiveness of free-labour over that obtained by compulsion, is now beyond all doubt. Indeed, if I remember rightly, it was declared by the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Government, to be the most successful experiment that has ever been made in civilized society; but it is indispensable that we should prove this to be the case, if we wish our example to be followed. Foreign nations are eagerly watching the financial, caring comparatively little about the benevolent results of the experiment, and if they find it affirmed by Parliament that a protection of 50 per cent, is insufficient, and that 150 per cent, is necessary to render sugar worth raising, they will look upon it as a virtual admission of our failure; and if we tell them that when they have set their negroes free they will have to pay 37 s. a cwt. instead of 22 s. as they now do, what chance is there that they will be induced to follow our example? Our disinterested and generous philanthropy has been misunderstood by them; it is every where attributed to a selfish desire on our part to ruin the prosperity of slave-holding colonies, and to bring them down to the level of our own, which they assert are exhausted and unproductive. Our untiring exertions and enormous sacrifices in the cause of humanity not only expose us to the most odious calumnies against our national good faith, but threaten at this moment to embroil us with Spain, with Portugal, with the Brazils, with France, and with the United States, to destroy our trade with our best customers, and to expose us to the calamities of war; all which this country would, I am sure, willingly submit to, if our efforts had been, or were
78
likely to be, successful; but it is unfortunately but too true, that all our exertions, all our sacrifices of life and money, all we have done ourselves, and all we have induced other powers to do, have not in the smallest degree diminished the slave-trade, but have immeasurably increased its horrors. All we have yet succeeded in doing is to make the slave-trade a smuggling one. We have raised the price of the slave, and thereby made the trade more profitable; but we have not limited the demand, nor can we prevent the supply being fully equal to it. If, then, we have only been able to aggravate the horrors of the trade—if our exclusion of foreign sugar has neither put a stop to it nor to slavery, why surely it is time to try some other system, and not obstinately to persevere in that which, however painful the admission may be, must be admitted to have failed. The late Government was blamed for not making arrangements to abolish the slave-trade with the governments of Spain and the Brazils before we proposed to reduce the duties on their sugars, and I gather from the debates in another place, that her Majesty's present Ministers are negotiating with those governments in the hope, I suppose, of obtaining from them something that will justify an attack upon the West-Indian monopoly next year, but I believe that all such negotiations will fail, because those governments consider, that their slave cultivation gives them so decided an advantage over us that the abandonment of it would not be compensated by the benefit they might derive from our lowering the duties upon their produce, and to this opinion they will adhere; until we demonstrate the success of our experiment by proving, that in the West Indies, as in every other part of the world, the free labour is a cheaper instrument of production than the slave. This can only be done by relieving the West-Indians from the enormous burdens which our restrictions inflict upon their commerce, by letting them freely obtain all they want wherever they best can, and by withdrawing from them in return the monopoly which experience has shown to be injurious, both to the economy and extent of their cultivation; for under this monopoly, knowing that they can command the exorbitant prices of the English market, and being without the stimulus of competition, they have hitherto not reconciled them-

79
selves to emancipation, and they still bring; up questions of rent and wages with their labourers, who, on the other hand, have learned to combine and to establish a monopoly against their employers. Thus, if the negroes have exclusive command of the labour market in the colonies, and the planters have a monopoly of the sugar market in England, where the price rises in proportion to the diminished production, (a state of things leading to every species of extravagance and diminishing every motive to improvement), the cultivation of the colonies must come to speedy ruin, while we here in England are paying for all this mismanagement, as well as for the heavy mortgages and past extravagance of the West-Indian proprietors, which prevent their laying out the necessary amount of capital and resorting to the best modes of cultivation; whereas, if both planters and labourers were thrown on their own resources—if both believed that they had but their own economy and industry to look to, the results would be the same as in every other case of a similar kind. These are the grounds upon which I think that the continuance of the present duties on sugar is alone sufficient reason against the Income-tax, and I would willingly place the necessity and the expediency of it, and upon this issue to the country, and let the people of England judge whether the vain hope of extinguishing slavery in foreign countries is a sufficient ground for depriving them of a cheap necessary, and for imposing upon them a heavy burden, which in its character will be so inquisitorial, and in its operation so cruel and unequal. I would have begged permission to offer a few remarks upon the measure to which your Lordships are now called upon to give your assent, but I feel that I have already trespassed too long upon the patience of the House. And I will therefore conclude, by thanking your Lordships for the attention extended to me.
Lord Broughamvindicated the expressions he had used or rather quoted regarding the budget of the late Government, which had been described by one of themselves as the course they were driven to by "the importunities of their friends and the taunts of their enemies." These were the expressions themselves had used.
The Earl of Clarendoninsisted that those expressions were uncalled for.
Lord Wharncliffedenied the justice of the accusation which had been made
80
against her Majesty's present Ministers, of opposing the measures of the late Government for the purpose of obtaining office, and then adopting them when they had succeeded in obtaining their places. He referred the noble Lord who had made the accusation to what took place in their Lordships' and the other House of Parliament. What occurred in the other House when the budget of the late Government was brought forward? Did the party now in power deny the advantages which the country would derive from the removal of commercial restrictions? They did no such thing. If his noble Friend would refer to the resolutions passed at the time, he would find a declaration to the effect that, however good these measures might be of themselves, the persons who brought them forward did not sufficiently possess the confidence of the country to carry them into execution. Why? Because they had brought themselves into such a state that they had no power whatever. They were sometimes in minorities, and when they had succeeded in obtaining majorities, they had been so small that they carried no weight with them. They were in the hands of persons who had objects of their own to gain, wherefore it had been said that they were composed of squeezeable materials. This was the cause of their fall. He agreed with the noble Viscount opposite in the opinion that the worst of all governments was a Government which remained in office without the power of carrying their measures. How stood the case? A large deficiency, increasing from year to year, existed beyond a doubt, which must be met by measures of some kind. Noble Lords opposite proposed to apply a remedy by trying experiments. They proposed to remedy it by altering the sliding-scale in corn to a fixed duty, by an experiment in the sugar duties, and, thirdly, by an experiment in the timber duties. The present Government also thought that, by a reduction of duties, they would confer a benefit on commerce; but they said to the country, "It is your duty first to supply the deficiency. You have a considerable debt to pay before you can venture on experiments," and therefore proposed the Income-tax—a tax to which he did not deny that grave objections existed. At the same time it could not be denied that it had its merits, for there was not a tax on which they could with such certainty reckon for raising any

81
sum which might be required. He agreed with all who had spoken in the opinion, that unless an adequate emergency could be satisfactorily proved, this tax was unjustifiable. Her Majesty's present Government were satisfied that the measures of the late Government would fail in their object, and they had therefore had recourse to the measure now before the House. With respect to corn, a fixed duty must fail from the uncertainty of the seasons; but, in addition to this, the proposition of the late Government would have increased the uncertainty by taking off the duty when corn rose to a certain price; for it had been admitted by a noble Lord—a distinguished member of that Government—that in that case, it would have been impossible to maintain the duty. The noble Earl and the noble Marquess in arguing this question confined their observations to slave-working states; but it should not be forgotten that, in order to furnish the necessary supply of sugar from slave-holding states, encouragement must necessarily be given to slave importation. But were there no other parts of the world which furnished sugar besides the West Indies and slave-holding states? Did not the East Indies furnish sugar? Their produce was raised by free-labour. It was only lately that they had introduced a measure with a view to encourage their trade, at which they were now called upon to strike a blow. With respect to timber, he did not deny that the Government, instead of gaining revenue, had sacrificed it; but they had conferred a boon on the consumer. He had no doubt that these measures would have the effect which the Government anticipated—the country would hereafter rejoice at the imposition of the present tax.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid it had been objected to the fixed duty on corn that it could not be maintained in the event of excessive high price; but this, he maintained, was the case with respect to other taxes. He objected to the Government proposition with respect to timber, as calculated to introduce bad timber, where good timber had hitherto been employed. A boon might have been conferred on the consumer without so reckless a sacrifice of revenue, and without the necessity of resorting to an Income-tax. He would not allow himself to be drawn into an expression of opinion upon
82
the merits of the Income-tax on the present occasion, looking upon the discussion as a comparison between the relative merits of the two budgets.
Lord Lytteltoncould not vote for the resolutions of his noble Friend the Marquess of Lansdowne, which were to be considered not as asserting a principle in reference to taxation generally, but in reference to taxation at this particular time, and under existing circumstances. Assuming that those circumstances justified the imposition of new taxes, he considered that the tax proposed would press less upon the working classes than any other. He was aware that it had been stated that the proposed tax would not press at all on those classes; it was clear, however, to him, that it would take from the means of employing labour to some extent, but that was an objection which was applicable to every tax. So far as his noble Friend's resolution referred to the articles corn, sugar, and timber, he agreed with his noble Friend as to the first of those articles though he doubted its practicability as a source of revenue. With regard to sugar he did not agree with the views of the late Government, not on commercial grounds, but upon the grounds which had been so well stated by his noble and learned Friend. With respect to the latter article timber, he supported the policy of the present Government.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he did not mean to avail himself of the privilege which he possessed of asking their Lordships to listen to him in reply, but he wished to offer one or two words in explanation of what had been said in the course of the debate. He had been described as an uncompromising opponent of an Income-tax. He certainly was not an uncompromising opponent of an Income-tax to the extent of saying that under no circumstances could an Income-tax be necessary in this country. He objected to it at present, because they had to deal with merely a limited exigency. The noble and learned Lord had asked why he, objecting so strongly to an Income-tax, had not opposed the bill on the first reading. He freely confessed that it was because he could not hope to induce their Lordships to send, or rather not to send, down to the other House a bill providing for the supplies of the year, and in the month of June to impose on the other

83
House the task of reconsidering all the financial system of the country. In reference to another remark of the noble and learned Lord, he had to state that he had never said that the slave-trade ought not to be a constant object of solicitude to his country, but he had said, that they could never expect to do anything towards its extinction by mere paper concessions, and that it was not to negotiations that they must look for the extinction of that trade, but to the example which they held out, founded on the interests of mankind in substituting free for slave-labour in their own colonies. He had heard with great satisfaction the manly declaration of the noble Lord opposite, that it was not against the principles, but against the persons composing the late Government that the vote of last year was taken. The noble Lord had now candidly and honestly declared that the vote was taken against persons, and not against principles; but how was it that this had not been clearly expressed, and manfully stated on the hustings at the late general election? There it was uniformly stated that the war was against the most detestable principles, but not against persons.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that he took the liberty of saying that the vote was taken against the principles, and not the persons of the late Government. When he moved the amendment on the occasion alluded to, he distinctly stated, that it was on account of the measures which Government had proposed that he could not put confidence in the Government.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question—Contents 112; Not-Contents 52: Majority 60.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor.

Abercorn

ARCHBISHOPS.

Hertford

Canterbury.

Downshire

Armagh

Exeter

DUKES.

Londonderry

Beaufort

EARLS.

Rutland

Devon

Buccleugh

Essex

Argyll

Shaftesbury

Newcastle

Jersey

Wellington

Eglinton

Buckingham

Home

Cleveland.

Haddington

MARQUESSES.

Galloway

Huntley

Dalhousie

Salisbury

Aberdeen

84

Dunmore

Canning

Orkney

Canterbury

Hopetoun

Lowther

Dartmouth

BISHOPS.

Aylesford

London

Warwick

Bangor

Delawarr

Rochester

Bathurst

Llandaff

Digby

Oxford

Beverley

Gloucester

Mansfield

LORDS.

Liverpool

De Ros

Cadogan

Clinton

Malmesbury

Beaumont

Clanwilliam

Willoughby de Broke

Mount Cashell

Colville

Enniskillen

Sondes

Wicklow

Boston

Lucan

Carteret

Bandon

Kenyon

Rosslyn

Braybrooke

Chichester

Lyttelton

Wilton

Bayning

Powis

Bolton

Manvers

Blayney

Verulam

Crofton

Brownlow

Redesdale

St. German's

Rivers

Bradford

Sandys

Beauchamp

Prudhoe

Glengall

Colchester

Sheffield

Glenlyon

Eldon

Ravensworth

Somers

Delamere

Stradbroke

Forester

Dunraven

Bexley

Cawdor

De Tabley

Ripon

Wharncliffe

VISCOUNTS.

Brougham

Sydney

Fitzgerald

Hood

Tenterden

Midleton

Heytesbury

Gage

Abinger

Hawarden

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Minto

Norfolk

Radnor

Sutherland

Rosebery

MARQUESSES.

Scarborough

Clanricarde

Yarborough.

Headfort

Zetland

Lansdowne

VISCOUNTS.

Westminster

Duncannon.

EARLS.

Melbourne

Belfast

BARONS.

Bruce

Bateman

Burlington

Belhaven

Charlemont

Camoys

Clarendon

Campbell

Effingham

Cloncurry

Errol

Colborne

Fortescue

Cottenham

Leitrim

De Freyne

Lovelace

Denman

85

Dunally

Poltimore

Foley

Saye and Sele

Godolphin

Strafford

Hatherton

Stuart de Rothesay

Kinnaird

Sudeley

Leigh

Wenlock

Lovat

Wrottesley

Monteagle

BISHOPS.

Montfort

Durham

Mostyn

Ely

PAIRED OFF.

Duke of Cambridge

Earl Fitzhardinge

Marquess of Bute

Earl of Carlisle

Marquess of Ely

Duke of Hamilton

Earl of Sandwich

Earl Cowper

Earl of Morton

Lord Portman

Earl of Moray

Lord Stanley of Alderley

Earl of Kinnoul

Duke of Leinster

Earl of Cornwallis

Lord Sherborne

Earl of Clare

Duke of Devonshire

Viscount Strangford

Bishop of Norwich

Lord Northwich

Bishop of Derry

Lord Carbery

Lord Talbot of Malahide

Lord Maryborough

Lord Methuen

Lord Stuart de Rothesay

Lord Dinorben

Lord Templemore

Duke of Somerset

Question put, that the bill be now read a third time,
The Marquess of Clanricardewould move, that the debate be adjourned to Tuesday next. If their Lordships persisted in passing so important a measure as this without any discussion of its principle, he would ask whether it was likely to incline the other House of Parliament to accede to the proposition which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had made, that their Lordships should be empowered to consider well in detail all those measures sent up to them by the other House, which, at present, they were not allowed to discuss. This bill had been pronounced, on good authority, to be the most important bill that had been laid before Parliament since the reform of the representation; and yet upon such a bill as this their Lordships were content to take one solitary debate for all its provisions, and all the great principles it contained, and in one evening they were ready to despatch all the important matters it involved. It was a measure that went to alter the whole fiscal system of the country; and yet, at twenty minutes after one o'clock in the morning,, their Lordships were called upon to debate its principle. He should certainly divide the House upon the question; and he now begged
86
leave to move that this debate be adjourned till Tuesday next.
Lord Kinnairdconsidered that there should be a distinct debate on the third reading, and he understood the noble Duke to assent to that arrangement.
The Duke of Wellington: No, no—no such thing. What he stated was that the noble Lord would have an opportunity, if he thought proper, to state his opinions upon the third reading; but he did not express any assent to postpone the third reading for that purpose. He had been prepared to go into the question on Monday, and again on Tuesday. He then proposed that the committee should be on Thursday, and it was in consequence appointed, it being understood that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) should bring on his amendment this night.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that the noble Duke had very accurately stated all the proceedings that had taken place; still the bill went through the committee in a very hasty manner, and he certainly understood that when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) said that he should take the sense of the House upon the question whether the bill do pass, the noble Duke said he should have no objection to take the discussion of the principle at a future stage.
The Duke of Wellingtonmust repeat, that he gave notice that the third reading would take place on Friday, and it was so entered on the order book. He might have been misunderstood by the noble Earl.
The Marquess of Clanricardeshould certainly take the sense of the House upon his motion for adjournment. This bill had been hurried through the House in a manner most unprecedented. He would defy any noble Lord to show that any bill of this sort and consequence had ever been hastened through its stages in the way this bill had been. They were now, at half-past one o'clock, called upon to discuss the principle of the bill. Those who had attended the debate on the amendment proposed by the Marquess of Lansdowne, had been in their places eight hours and a half, while the majority of those whom he had now the honour to address had been very differently employed. Was that the manner in which a great and important financial measure should be disposed of by their Lordships? He should persist in his amendment, and he considered it

87
would be the height of indecency if the Ministers opposed it, merely because they were a majority. They had taunted his noble Friends with not having a majority, and now that the noble Lords opposite had a majority, they were now willing to pass a measure of this description, no matter how little or how much deliberation had been bestowed upon it.
The Duke of Wellingtonrepeated, that he had not been the cause of the bill not having been debated. He had been ready to discuss it on Monday, on Tuesday, and on Thursday. He had been every day in his place, and if their Lordships were willing he was ready to go on with the discussion now. He should certainly adhere to his motion, that the bill be now read a third time.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that nobody had reproached the noble Duke for want of attention. They all knew perfectly well how attentive the noble Duke was in the House, and how constant he was in watching all the business that was carried on. It was not the noble Duke's fault that the bill was not debated last Friday. But it so happened that the motion of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had occupied the whole night, and he would ask their Lordships whether it was reasonable to suffer so important a bill to pass without any real debate.
Viscount Melbourne: As far as he was concerned he had no wish for further debate. He had said all he wished to say; but, as many noble Lords were, it was alleged, anxious to speak, he put it to the Ministers of the Crown, whether it would not be more becoming to adjourn the debate for the purpose of hearing their opinions. Many noble Lords had not so much experience in the House of Commons as he had; but if they had, they would be aware, that it was possible for a small minority to carry a question of adjournment even against a larger majority than he now saw opposite.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought, he had some reason to complain, that he was not allowed to proceed. He was quite aware, that a minority had the power of adjourning these proceedings, and he had no personal feelings as to postponing the debate to Tuesday or to any other day; but he must remind their Lordships, that it was essential, in his opinion, to the public service, that the bill should be proceeded with that night.
The Duke of Newcastlewas so opposed to the bill that he should certainly support any motion for adjournment.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the debate be adjourned till next Tuesday:—Contents 55; Not-contents 186:—Majority 131.
On the question being again put,
Lord Denman, as we understood, said, he was not aware that the postponement of the bill would be productive of so great public inconvenience. He had remained in the House for the purpose of resisting the measure.
The Duke of Wellingtoncharacterised the proceeding as quite unusual.
The Earl of Radnorsuggested, that the House should sit to-morrow or on Monday. He was only anxious that a discussion should be had upon the principle of the bill, and would move the adjournment of the debate.
The Duke of Wellington: I am not in the habit of saying what I do not mean. The noble Duke then assured the House that it would be productive of great public inconvenience if the bill did not pass to-morrow. A commission was prepared to come down tomorrow to give the Royal assent to the bill. A great variety of arrangements had been made pending the passing of this measure, and which could not be carried into effect until it had passed. If their Lordships chose to take another division on the question of adjournment, he could not help it; he would only say, that whatever was the practice in another place, he had never deemed that course to be the practice of their Lordships.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the great public inconvenience turned out to be, that a royal commission had been appointed for to-morrow, and so the House was to be treated in this manner, and to be allowed only one discussion, whether they wished to reject the bill or not. Was it fair, at two o'clock in the morning, to call upon their Lordships to enter upon a long discussion? If the noble Duke would look to the records of the House, he would find that the course of moving adjournments was not unprecedented in that House, for it had been resorted to when Ministers had used an overwhelming majority in a manner which was thought unbecoming in them as Members of Parliament towards their fellow subjects.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had represented to the House, on the part of the Government, the great inconvenience of postponement, and if after that their Lordships chose to persist, he could not help it; he knew perfectly well he must submit. The measure was in their hands; they might do as they pleased with it.
Lord Campbellsaid, that there were many noble Lords who wished to deliver their sentiments. The practice of the other House in a similar case was to adjourn the debate as a matter of course, and he did not see why a different rule should prevail in that House.
Lord Fitzgeraldcontended, that the principle of the bill had been discussed in the present debate, and he would appeal to the public whether that had not been the case equally as much as if the resolution of the noble Marquess had not been proposed? If the hour was inconvenient to noble Lords, who was to blame? Had not much time been consumed in these motions for adjournment?
Lord Redesdalesaid, that the Reform Bill was divided upon between seven and eight in the morning, so that four hours remained for discussion.
The Lord Chancellorthen put the question that the debate be adjourned till Tuesday.
Their Lordships again divided:—Contents 36; Not-contents 159:—Majority 123.
Question again put that the bill be read a third time,
Lord Kenyanasking, whether the noble Earl (Earl of Radnor) intended to persist in this course, and whether he thought it was decent, after the declaration by the first Minister of the Crown in that House, that the postponement would occasion serious public inconvenience.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, he did consider it decent to persevere, and that it would be indecent to allow the third reading to be taken at that hour of the morning. The noble Earl moved that the debate be adjourned to Monday.
After a few words from Lord Fitzgerald and the Marquess of Clanricarde, Earl Radnor's amendment was withdrawn, and the debate adjourned to Tuesday.
House adjourned at three o'clock.