Sitting of 21 June 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public 1° Right of Voting (Dublin University); Municipal Corporations (Ireland). 2°Bribery at Elections (No. 2). Considered in Committee, and Reported—Customs. 3° and passed:—Railways. Private.—Reported.—Leicester Small Debts. 3° and passed:—Broomyards Roads.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Barnard, from Cork, for Amendment of the Municipal Corporations Act.—By Sir R. Fergusson, from Londonderry, for the Abolition of Church Patronage (Scotland).—By Mr. Cobden, from Paddock, for further Limiting the Hours of Labour of Young People in Factories.—By Mr. B. Wood, and Mr. Hume, from Freeholders, &c. of the South side of the Metropolis, and from Lambeth, for the Abolition of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Metropolitan Bridges By Mr. Leader, from the Western Literary and Scientific Institution, for relieving such Institutions from the Payment Of Rates and Taxes.—From Kirkburton, and Swansea, against the Mines and Collieries BilL—From the Guardians of the Londonderry Union, for Amendment of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—From the County of Cork, against the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Sheil, from St. James's, Westminster, Weymouth, Melcombe Regis, Bristol, and Liverpool, for the Ballot—From the Company of the undertakers of the Grand Canal, against the Drainage (Ireland) Bill—From William Withain, against the Newfoundland Bill.—From the Guardians of the Walsall Union, to Purchase Food Duty Free.—From the Guardians of Stourbridge, against the New Poor-law.

LIGHT SOVEREIGNS—THE PIQUE.
Sir G. Cockburnstated, that in consequence of what had been stated last night in reference to the alleged payment of the crew of the Pique in light sovereigns, he had since made further inquiries into the matter, and had found that every sovereign that was sent down to Portsmouth to pay off the Pique was previously weighed, and ascertained to be full weight. Two thousand sovereigns were transmitted at the

345
same time for the payment of the Pique's crew and of the dockyard men, and every one of these sovereigns were first proved to be full weight. At Plymouth there had been a few cases in which sailors had been inadvertently partly paid in light sovereigns; but in every instance, on the mistake being pointed out, the deficient sovereign was taken back and a full-weight coin given.

SILVER COINAGE.
Mr. Forster,in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was desirous of putting a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Master of the Mint, in reference to the subject which had just been adverted to. He wished to know whether any measures have been taken, or whether any steps are in progress, for giving the public an increased supply of silver coin. He had been informed this morning, on very excellent authority, that the Bank coffers were nearly drained of silver coin, and that the greatest public inconvenience was to be apprehended from this scarcity. He certainly thought that before the late proclamation was put forth, adequate provision ought to have been made for the increased demand which was sure to ensue upon such a measure. He therefore trusted that measures were in progress for remedying the evil.
Mr. Gladstonehad also heard of the inconvenience which had arisen in reference to the silver currency, but he had not heard that it was likely to lead to any deficiency of the silver coinage itself. The demand for silver coin might be owing to the circumstance that the half-sovereigns having suffered much more in point of weight than the sovereigns, had got into much greater discredit, so that very many people required their change all in silver instead of in half-sovereigns. Means, however, were being taken to remedy the inconvenience.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was not quite satisfactory. The inquiry of his hon. Friend was, whether there was any intention of making an additional issue of silver coin? He could bear evidence to its great scarcity. He had been informed that very morning by his own bankers that there was a very great deficiency of silver.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that if it should be ascertained that the inconvenience was
346
really owing to a deficiency in the silver coinage, means would be taken to remedy it; but he doubted if there were any actual scarcity of silver; for only about four weeks since, complaints had been made by the bankers of a surplus of silver coin.

STADE DUTIES.
Mr. Huttbegged to remind the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, of the promise which he had given some time since, that he would inform him of the result of the measures which the Government had adopted for the settlement of the Stade duties.
Sir R. Peelwould give all the information in his power on the subject at once. The negotiations on the subject, which had been pending for some time, were not yet concluded. He had, within the last few days, had an interview with the envoy of the Hanoverian Government, who stated that the proposition of the British Government could not be accepted by the Hanoverian government. He was not able to give any further information on the subject.

CAPTAIN WARNER'S INVENTION.
Sir C. Napierwished to ask what steps had been taken with regard to Captain Warner's invention? Captain Warner had, he understood, expressed a desire that Lord Hardwicke and Lord Ingestrie should be appointed on the commission to investigate the merits of his invention, and complained that Sir Byam Martin and Sir Howard Douglas had demanded of him that he should make known all his secrets, without having any guarantee given to him that they would not be divulged. Captain Warner further stated that Sir George Murray was fully cognizant of the secret, and that he (Captain Warner) was desirous of unbosoming himself to the right hon. Baronet, and that, after the merits of his invention should have been tested, he would leave the question of compensation entirely in the hands of the right hon. Baronet. He also stated that, if a three-decker were placed before him, he could destroy it immediately, and that he could destroy vessels at six miles' distance, and was ready to make proof of this. He therefore thought that Government ought to ascertain whether Captain Warner was a charlatan, or a man really possessed of the destructive powers he claimed.
Sir K. Peelwas very sorry the gallant

347
Commodore had brought forward this subject. Since the last mention of this subject three weeks ago, applications had been made by several individuals to have personal interviews with him on the subject of destructive inventions, which, they stated, were entitled to the utmost consideration on the part of the state. He did not wish to say anything in disparagement of Captain Warner's invention, but he would give his own version of his transactions with Captain Warner. Shortly after his appointment to office, he had a private opportunity of seeing the extraordinary effects produced by Captain Warner's invention, and he signified that he was willing in the regular authorised way to have experiments made with the discovery; that he thought, however, it rested either with the Admiralty or the Board of Ordnance to judge of the invention, for that he himself was wholly incompetent to form a judgment upon it; that he must remit to the heads of those departments the charge of instituting experiments of this kind. He, therefore, wrote to Sir George Murray, the Master-General of the Ordnance, to request him to name two officers to whom no possible exception could be taken—who had the most professional knowledge and the greatest practical skill in gunnery, and everything respecting the destruction of human life. He had also stated, that thinking it unreasonable that Captain Warner should be put to any expense in the course of conducting the experiments, he would consent that the expense should be borne by the public. He asked, then, the House, whether or not, knowing the number of similar applications that had been made, and might be made, he could have taken any better course? The two gentlemen whom Sir George Murray had appointed for the purpose of making the experiments were Sir Howard Douglas and Sir T. Hastings, and he would appeal to any person conversant with those subjects whether more suitable parties could be selected? Captain Warner had certainly suggested that Lord Hardwicke or some other gentleman should be added, bat he bad objected to this as quite unnecessary. He certainly had not undertaken to pay any sum of money whatever beyond the expense of the experiment; what he said was, let the experiment be made, and we can then judge of the value of it. This was not an experiment, the real value of which could be tested in a small pool of
348
water, and under prepared and advantageous circumstances; experiments must be made on a large scale and under adverse circumstances, so as to enable us to judge what would be the effect of the invention when wind and weather were against it. For the rest, if he were to give way to all the suggestions of all the persons who thought themselves in possession of a valuable discovery, in war, in finance, in commerce, in every possible branch of art and science, there would not be a guinea at the command of the Treasury for any other purpose.

EXPENSE OF THE WAR IN INDIA.
Mr. Mangleswished to ask distinctly whether any advance had been made to the East-India Company, or whether any was contemplated to be made on account of the war in Affghanistan? The right hon. Baronet was reported to have said, that 100,00 l. had been advanced for the purpose of the war in Affghanistan; and the erroneous statement was confirmed by another mistake relative to papers which were laid on the Table by the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury.
Sir R. Peelhoped, that hon. Gentlemen would give him notice of such questions as this, as he could hardly be prepared to answer every question that might be asked at the moment. What he said on the occasion referred to was this, that the operations of the war in Affghanistan required so large an expenditure on the part of the East-India Company, that it would be an inconvenience to them to be too far in advance to the Government on account of the Chinese war—a war carried on at the charge of the public of this country. He intended, therefore, to propose a vote of a sum to the East-India Company on account of the Chinese war expenditure; but he never said that there had been, or would be, an advance on account of the hostilities in Affghanistan.

THE BALLOT.
Mr. Wardrose to bring forward his motion relative to the ballot. He did so with a sincere sense both of the difficulty and of the importance of the task of submitting the question of the ballot for the first time to the consideration of the present House of Commons. When he talked of the difficulty of that task, he did not mean merely the difficulty which he most unaffectedly felt, and which all men of inferior powers must feel, in attempting to en-

349
gage the attention of that House on a question involving so much both of principle and detail, but the additional difficulty of weaning his own mind from the recollections of the admirable ability, the aptitude for illustration, the closeness of reasoning, the high mental and logical power which had been brought to bear on this question by his hon. Friend the late Member for the City of London (Mr. Grote)—a gentleman whom those who knew him must admit to have been an ornament to that House, however much they might differ from him in political opinion—and who had devoted to this question, during the three first Parliaments elected under the Reform Bill, the best efforts of his highly cultivated mind. But, while there was nothing that he so much deprecated as any comparison between the manner in which this question was brought forward by Mr. Grote and by himself, he felt encouraged to follow in the path of his hon. Friend by the recollection that time had brought many to be of his opinion as to the consequences of continuing the system of open voting. What had been disputed ten years ago, could not now be denied. Instead of reasoning on abstract principles, and asking the House to provide a remedy for evils in the existence of which many persons at that time disbelieved, he could now appeal to the acts of the House itself; to the reports of its own committees; to the records of its own proceedings; to the painful and humiliating discussion which had taken up so much of their time, and which showed that the tendency of the open system of voting had been progressing from bad to worse—that its effects were most demoralising and most discreditable to this country in the eyes of the world. Some remedy was indispensable, unless the House was to forfeit the confidence, alienate the respect, and outrage the moral feeling of the country. They were called the Bribery Parliament, and, they deserved the name. Let him profess with the utmost sincerity, in the first instance, that he did not mean to deal with this question in any way as a party question. He looked at it as a question in which both sides of the House were equally interested; and in bringing it forward, he trusted he was actuated by better motives, and animated by better hopes, than he should be if he brought it forward merely with party views. He admitted at once, and at the outset of the argument, that corrupt influences in the late conflict and
350
party struggle had been just as unscrupulously applied by Liberals as by Conservatives. Both parties had acted on the same system. But that system was a bad system, and one which no honest man could pretend to justify on sober reflection, although he might have been tainted with it himself. It. was a system which no well-wisher of his country would defend. He saw with great satisfaction that there was at present a disposition manifested on both sides of the House to look seriously to the dangers which such a system must entail upon the country. He had heard bribery denounced by the leaders on both sides in terms which would seal its fate in six months if those terms were sincere. He had a right to question the sincerity of parties, until he saw them follow up the expression of their opinions by practical remedial measures; and he did consider that the best test of sincerity would be to renounce the power in which the abuse originated. It could be shown that by renouncing that power the abuse could be eradicated—that they could destroy that security which was the basis of the contract between the briber and the bribed; that they could disarm intimidation by taking away from the landlord, the customer, or the employer of labour, the power of ascertaining whether the promises extorted by his threats had been kept or not. He said, therefore, that every man who was sincere in his denunciation of corrupt influences—every man who wished well to his country would concur in the advantage of ridding his party of the contamination of such allies, by adopting a system which would prevent them more effectually than any punishment, because punishment never could be impartially applied, and seldom reached those who were really most guilty. He thought the present time was particularly favourable for this attempt. There was no great party contest going on, the balance of power in that House was not so nicely distributed that the slightest change in the representative machinery would give a decided preponderance to one party or the other. On the contrary, so far as the ordinary calculation of political chances went, the ascendancy of one party was now secure. With common prudence it might be so. He was bound to say that the leader of that party had, on every occasion which bore at all on the subject of the present motion, shown a proper sense of the responsibility of his own situation, and an earnest and

351
sincere desire, he believed, to discharge the duties which it imposed on him. He alluded more particularly to those speeches which had been made by the right hon. Baronet opposite on the Nottingham, Southampton, and Belfast writs. In speaking on the Belfast writ, the observations of the right hon. Baronet expressed so much better than he could do what he believed was the real position of the House with regard to the country, that he might be permitted to recall them to the recollection of the House. The right hon. Baronet said,
"He now thought, considering the extent to which corruption was alleged to have been carried—considering the general impression that prevailed as to the extensive system of bribery that was said to pervade the country —he did think, and he would now state it as his deliberate opinion, that it would not be for the honour or dignity of the House of Commons to interpose technical objections against full inquiry into such practices. He wished to prevent grounds being laid for great and extensive constitutional changes; but he felt perfectly confident, if that House manifested a disposition not to inquire when cases of corruption were brought under its notice, that the means of resisting constitutional changes would be greatly impaired. If Gentlemen proceeded on a different principle—if one party said, 'We will protect our friends,' and another party said, 'We will protect ours,' it would not tend to support the character or credit of the House. For his own part, he gave this public notice, that he would not act on that principle. If parties guilty of bribery, or of a corrupt compromise to get rid of an inquiry into alleged bribery, were brought under the notice of the House, he certainly would not in any way interfere with the proceedings. He gave this notice publicly (but he did not mean to say that there were any parties there who might wish him to act otherwise), that he would not use the influence of office to prevent a full inquiry into any strong primâ facie case of bribery at elections; for he felt, as every man must feel, that such practices had a manifest tendency to diminish the character and dignity of Parliament. He, therefore, most certainly would not exercise the influence of office to prevent the fullest inquiry into any cases of corrupt practices that might be brought before the House."
Looking to his side of the House, there was a similar disposition to recognise the extent of the evil. His noble Friend, the Member for London, had brought in a bill, which he hoped he would succeed in carrying with the full concurrence of both sides of the House. There was still stronger evidence of the nature of the present sys-
352
tem, and of the necessity of applying some remedy to the corruption which prevailed, in the testimony of a noble Lord, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, who had been one of the most formidable enemies of the ballot—he meant the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland. In the last speech in which that noble Lord had delivered his opinion on the question of undue influence at elections, he seemed to him to have completely changed his views. The noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, in his speech in 1837, rested his opposition to the ballot on the fact that there was a striking improvement in the landowners of England generally—that they were less inclined to exercise undue influence over their tenantry—and that we might safely trust to their forbearance the rights of all who were connected with them. But looking at the speech which the noble Lord had delivered at the declaration of the poll at Alnwick, and after the experience of the last election, a singular change seemed to come over the spirit of his dream. He found in that speech the most sweeping charges brought against the whole landed proprietors of the important county which the noble Lord formerly represented, its terms were most unmeasured; and he might say that he never heard from any advocate of the ballot expressions of more cutting censure upon the undue practices and illegitimate influences exercised at that time. He told the noble Lord that he meant to refer to his speech, in which he found charges against the noble Lord opposite of unworthy trickery—promises unscrupulously violated—undue means taken to influence the electors, by two Peers of Parliament, Lord Tankerville and the Duke of Northumberland.
"I challenged (said the noble Lord) my opponents to declare that no tenant, no tradesman, no person employed by them should suffer for the conscientious discharge of his duty. You all saw how that challenge was evaded. … I knew from that moment that the influence of the proprietors would be used in the most unsparing manner against me, and certainly that expectation has not been disappointed. … You are all aware with what extreme absence of all reserve, or concealment, the great power of our neighbour at the Castle has been exercised; but, for that I was prepared. … Even the little miserable pledge, given with respect to certain tenants upon Lord Tankerville's estate, at Wark, had been violated; Lord Ossulston, in person, having been instrumental in inducing these poor men, dependents of his father, to break their solemn promises, upon the plea that they

353
had not been previously informed of his intentions and wishes."
The noble Lord added—
"I presume Lord Ossulston would not break his own word—would not violate his own deliberate promise—but I wish to ask you, where is the distinction between breaking one's own word, and compelling others to break theirs? Does Lord Ossulston imagine that because men happen to be poor and dependent, because they happen to be of a lower rank in life than himself; they are, therefore, insensible to those feelings of honour which ought to exist in the bosom of every honest man?"
He would be satisfied to rest his case for the ballot on the speech of the noble Lord, and he thought he ought to claim his vote on the strength of that speech. He would now merely hand the noble Lord the extracts from his speech which he had been reading, and ask how, after that speech, the noble Lord could refuse to support the present motion with his vote? He came now to the Bribery Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London. The noble Lord admitted as fully as he did the extent of the evil, and the necessity of a remedy. It only remained for the advocates of the ballot to prove the superiority of their remedy. He believed that penal enactments against bribery would not be effectual. We had had such these hundred years. It had been tried in every variety of shape, without success. As to intimidation, the noble Lord himself would admit, from its Protean character, and the endless variety of disguises it assumed, that it could not be reached by any laws whatever. There was no want of stringency in the existing laws, nor was there at former periods, when similar evils were felt. He found the following passage in De Foe's Review, written a hundred and thirty-five years ago.—
"We have lately had two or three acts of Parliament to prevent bribery and corruption at elections. I have already noticed that we have in England the best laws the worst executed of any country in the world. Never was treating, bribing, buying of voices, freedoms, and freeholds, and all the corrupt practices in the world, so open and barefaced, as since these severe laws were enacted."
And in another passage, written in 1708, he says,
"I have seen the possibility, aye, and too much the practice, of men's voting implicitly here for ale, there for influence, here for threats, and there for persuasion. And God knows, I speak it with regret for you all, and
354
for your posterity, it is not an impossible thing to debauch this nation into a choice of thieves, knaves, devils, or anything, comparatively speaking, by the power of various intoxications."
There was little hope of getting rid by the legislative enactment of the noble Lord of practices which were constantly recurring, though constantly denounced, because they were privately connived at, while they were publicly condemned. He would ask any man in that House, did he think that this system could last? Could it continue without producing those effects, which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government himself pointed out in the speech from which he had already quoted? Millions of eyes were fixed at the present time on our electoral system— those of the millions in this country who were excluded from it, because they were told that a property qualification was the best criterion of fitness to exercise the franchise. When they turned their attention to those who possessed the franchise, to whom it was exclusively confided—when they looked to the 10 l. householders, to the 50 l. tenants-at-will, who, according to the theory, should be examples of integrity, disinterestedness, and patriotism, they saw the whole tenantry of England sunk into a state of the lowest slavishness; and amongst the electors of the towns the most wholesale, barefaced, and unblushing profligacy. Since the last election no less than fifty-five petitions have been prevented, complaining of undue returns, and affecting no less than seventy-eight seats. Every man on both sides of the House knew perfectly well that a great many of the very worst cases of corruption escaped notice altogether from the perfect community of guilt. No party had sufficiently clean hands to appear as a petitioner for inquiry. There had been, as he said, fifty-five petitions against seventy-eight seats. Several of these cases had been brought to issue before committees of that House, and upon some of them special reports had been made. What did these reports say? He had made extracts from five of them, which he would read to the House:—
Southampton.—" That James Bruce, Esq commonly called Lord Bruce, and Charles Cecil Martin, Esq., were, by their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the said borough. That the evidence given before your committee, relative to an extensive system of treating, carried on through the means of local associations, the payment of large sums to chairmen and colour-men, many of whom were

355
voters, and the expenditure of a sum of money for the purposes of the election, amounting to nearly 5,000 l., and, therefore, far exceeding the ordinary legal charge, is deserving of the serious consideration of the House."
Ipswich.—Resolved unanimously, "That Rigby Wason, Esq., and George Rennie, Esq., were, by their agents, guilty of bribery at the last election for the borough of Ipswich."— Resolved unanimously, "That this committee are of opinion, from the evidence given before them, that extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Ipswich, and that the issuing of a new writ for the said borough ought to be suspended until the said evidence shall have been taken into consideration by the House."
Sudbury.—"That the committee are of opinion that gross, systematic, and extensive bribery prevailed at the last election for the borough of Sudbury; and they also consider it their duty to express to the House their unanimous opinion that the borough of Sudbury should be disfranchised, and that a new writ ought not to be issued for the said borough,"
Lyme Regis.—"That the committee think it right to inform the House that, although the general charge of bribery alleged in the petition has not been gone into, yet it has appeared in evidence that a corrupt practice has for some years prevailed in the borough of Lyme of lending money upon notes of hand, bills of sale, or other securities, to a considerable portion of a constituency, which did not exceed 280 by the last registration."
Newcastle-under-Lyne.—"That John Quincy Harris, Esq., was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last election. That, from the evidence taken before the committee, it appears that a most objectionable practice has existed for many years, and still prevails in the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyne, of distributing money under the appellation of 'Market money,' 'Dinner money,' or some other local term, to the poorer voters after the election."
The silence of the committees on other cases was no proof of the innocence of the parties concerned, or of the exemption of these boroughs from similar offences, because they had already been compelled by their own sense of justice, and by the demands of public opinion, to refer to a separate committee the cases of Nottingham, Penryn, Reading, Harwich, and Belfast—in all of which, except the last, the committee had reported that the sitting Members had been duly elected; and in the case of Belfast, no proof of bribery had appeared before them. To withdraw a petition was now almost synonimous with a confession of guilt. He believed he could prove, if the House had not already enough of that kind of business on its hands, that all the petitions that
356
had been withdrawn, with one single exception, had been withdrawn by compromise, though they had not attracted the notice of his hon. Friend the Member for Bath: with a single exception, every petition withdrawn had been compromised by a private arrangement, so as to withdraw it from the jurisdiction of the House. They were told, by the way, in extenuation of this practice, that it was an old one—that there were similar cases in the last Parliament— that Norwich was a crying case, in which Members of both parties were concerned. He believed that that was no extenuation of the offence whatever. It was no reason why it should not be inquired into. It did not render bribery less discreditable to the character of that House. This was the evil which they had to grapple with at present. Unless it was checked, it was certain to progress with frightful rapidity. When once a man contaminated his fingers with base bribes, he became morally degraded. The appetite grew by what it fed on, until every check of honour, conscience, and public morality was lost. He fully believed that they must go back to first principles, if they meant to have any principles at all. The first principle of representative Government, as he understood, was, that there should be a free independent right of voting. The voter must be a free agent. He must speak his own sentiments, and not be the tool or mouth-piece of any-body else. The State was bound to secure to the voter the power of recording his own unbiassed will. When he said unbiassed, he did not mean free from the influence of example, of advice, of superior intelligence. These must always have their effect, so long as there were weak minds and strong minds in the world. He meant unbiassed by dictation or corrupt influence of any kind. He did not believe under a system of open voting that there ever could be an unbiassed expression of the feelings of the majority of the electoral body—open voting proceeded on the principle that the feelings of the majority of the electoral body were not to be entrusted—that it must be checked or controlled by some other influence brought to operate upon them—in a word, that the machinery of a popular Government could not be worked by its own inherent power. That opened a very wide field indeed. It opened the whole question relative to the merits of the different kinds of Government. He did not mean to enter

357
into that question at all. He assumed that everybody was satisfied with the representative form. He assumed also that when we talked of representation we meant real representation, and that when we talked of responsibility, we meant real effective responsibility of the executive power to Parliament, and of Parliament to the people. If they did mean that, then the necessary inevitable consequence was that there should be a free and independent right of voting as the basis of the whole superstructure. Look at the dilemma in which they were placed. They began by limiting the franchise, because they said it was necessary to limit it in order that it might be properly used. Then they claimed a right to control those who had the franchise, in order that they might exercise it rightly. Now, if the electoral body were fit to have the franchise at all, the actual opinion of the majority should prevail on the election of representatives. If they were not fit to exercise it, the evil to deal with was in the composition of the electoral body, and not in the freedom of voting. He affirmed that with open voting there never could be a free expression of the majority of the constituencies—one moiety of them would be coerced and the other bought. In both cases, instead of voting according to his better judgment, the elector would be compelled to take the course which was least detrimental to himself. Upon this subject he might refer to the opinion of the hon. Member for Pontefract. The hon. Member had a leaning to corruption in its milder form. He came forward as the friend of the poor man. He hoped he was not taking an undue liberty in attributing to the hon. Member a recent pamphlet on Purity of Elections. So far from disavowing it, the hon. Member had done him the honour to give him a copy himself. The hon. Member appeared in the character of the poor man's friend, and said of the elector:—
"While in the limitation of his views, and in the weakness of his reason, the candidate who discharges his arrears, who places him in a happy and easy state of mind, seems his best friend, and obtains the support of his vote."
The hon. Member believed it possible to put a stop to this species of corruption by legislative aid, but he adds, and not without much truth,—
"There is another evil already existing to a great extent, which any coercive law against
358
bribery would leave in full action, and to which indeed it would give still freer scope. The spirit of political corruption, checked as far as possible in its milder form, would throw all its energy into the shape of intimidation. Here at least is a corruption which confessedly can foil all positive enactment: 'conscience of political rights or the fear of public opinion,' can alone prevent any man from discharging a tenant or a labourer who has voted contrary to his desire, from ceasing to employ a tradesman who has displeased him, from depriving of his charity the opponents of his will. If a million of money went down among the people from the upper classes at the last election, as has been asserted (a sum by the by not twenty times as much as was spent on many a county election in the old time), it must at least have conferred a great deal of material happiness, while the intimidation which should take away any portion of that sum from the comforts of the people, or threatened to do so, could only produce unqualified misery; legislation might diminish the amount given, but it can do nothing with that arbitrarily withheld: the corruption which gives pleasure may perhaps be checked, while the corruption that gives pain goes its way unchallenged."
He thought that the corruption which gave pleasure was quite as pernicious as that which gave pain. He had as strong an objection to head-money at Pontefract as to any kind of intimidation. He thought the advocates of this doctrine were sowing insidiously the seeds of unlimited corruption. It would lead to the destruction of all popular institutions; and he was sorry to see the hon. Member for Pontefract lending to such a doctrine the aid of his talents and the sanction of his name. But then the hon. Member said they might trust, as we understood, to public opinion, to check the abuse. The noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland had said the same thing at one time; but he preferred the speech of the noble Lord at Alnwick, to what he had uttered on a former occasion. He abided by the noble Lord's last speech at Alnwick. He abided by his last sentiments instead of his first, for he himself had no faith in anything in this country—but in the growth of the abuse. But then, if they wanted to know the extent of the abuse of intimidation, they must look to the counties of England. He spoke in the presence of a great many Gentlemen, who knew well what a county election was. They knew well that there was no exaggeration in his saying that almost without an exception, the votes of the tenants were regarded as a portion of the chattels of the estate. No man dared to canvass his neighbour's te-

359
nants. Persons would as soon think of doing so, as of robbing their deer parks, or shooting in their pheasant preserves. When persons heard of a county contest, they reckoned as to the result not by the number of acres in the possession of particular families, not by the peculiar views of the tenants, but by the votes, which in the hands of their tenantry each family could command. When Lord Chandos's motion was carried it was so, on the distinct allegation that they were a most independent class of voters, and as free to exercise their right as any other class in the community. The system was now reduced to such a nicety in the counties, that neutrality was reckoned an offence, they forced the tenants to register first, in order that they might force them to vote afterwards; and it was found that the whole result of an election might turn upon the death of the owner of a large property. He might mention in reference to this, that at the last election for the West Riding of Yorkshire, it was a very memorable contest, and never was there more canvassing, and never greater activity employed in a canvass than upon that occasion. He recollected that at that time there was one little oasis in the desert— there was one spot exempt from all the noise and bustle of a conflict—that was the spot occupied by the tenantry of the late Duke of Leeds. The Duke of Leeds happened to die, as the canvassing began; and nobody ventured to ascertain, for some time, what the opinion of the present Duke of Leeds was likely to be. The tenants, therefore, remained unsolicited, awaiting that impulse which was sure to come from above. It was at this time, and before the sentiments of the Duke of Leeds were ascertained, that he was engaged in his own contest at Sheffield. He was walking one evening in the neighbourhood of that town, in company with a friend, just as the uncertainty was about to terminate. They met a farmer on horseback—the man was a fine burly-looking man; he was as good a specimen of a Yorkshire yeoman as one would wish to see, and a person, it might be supposed, little likely to be influenced by another. This farmer was asked "how it was to go," and what was his answer? "Why, we have got our orders at last. We are all to be Yellows this time." Now, this man happened to be very well disposed to be a Yellow; but if the man were Blue to the backbone, the result would have been the same. Now, no man
360
would venture to affirm that the Duke of Leeds' tenantry were more coerced then those of others. That which was done on the one side was also done on the other. It was assumed at once the subserviency of the tenantry, and no one dreamt of consulting them; and if they looked to the manner in which the electors had voted at the last contest for the West Riding, they would find that, to a man, they had polled for Milton and Morpeth. There was, then, the Wigtonshire election. There the parties were nearly balanced. For upwards of three weeks, Lord Stair was made the object of a series of the bitterest attacks from the Conservative press. It was said to be a shameful, iniquitous, profligate attempt upon their liberties, to buy an estate on which there were no less than thirty votes; that he should do this to get the control of such a number of votes as were to turn the scale at the election. Now it happened that Lord Stair had been in treaty for the purchase of this estate some time before the election, and what was the grievance of which the opposite party so loudly complained—that he had got an estate, on which it was said that promises had been given to Mr. Blair before the estate became the property of Lord Stair. The hardships of the unfortunate tenantry were greatly complained of; because it was said they would be obliged to vote for the gallant officer (Captain Dalrymple) who now represented the county, and was returned but by a majority six. To hear these complaints it might be supposed that coercion—that interference with the tenants were unknown to the opposite ranks. And yet what was the fact? Upon the day of nomination, a very remarkable letter was read at the hustings. It was written by one of the greatest landed proprietors of the county, Mr. Murray, who spoke of the system of coercion exercised by the Tory gentry, and stated that it was not to be equalled in the annals of electioneering profligacy, and that charge he brought to their faces before the whole country. He challenged an answer to his charge, and no man had dared to answer it. The letter which he addressed to the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth was read at the hustings by Mr. Horsman, and he would read it to the House.
"My dear Horsman,—I regret exceedingly that, owing to the second day's polling for this county taking place on the same day that has been fixed for the nomination of the

361
candidates for the county of Wigtown, it will be impossible for me to be present at the latter. It was my intention, but for this unlucky coincidence, to have proposed Captain Dalrymple. I should have done so because I consider him eminently fitted by his station and character to represent the county: but, still more, because I know that he regards with disgust and abhorrence that odious system of intimidation and tyranny by which so many of the Wigtownshire proprietors have attempted to stifle the honest voice of the electors. I consider these attempts to coerce the voters, and to force them to do violence to their conscience, as quite as bad, if not worse, than the proceedings of the slave-dealers on the coast of Africa. It is, in fact, a subornation of perjury, and an effort to insult, degrade, and brutify the constituency."
So, far then, for the counties. He now went to the towns, and they found there substantially the same state of things. They knew through the election petitions sufficient of the bribery in towns; but persons were much mistaken if they supposed that intimidation was confined to the counties. On the contrary, they found the most cruel variety of intimidation exercised on the borough constituency. In the towns every man was known to the other; and the means were diligently employed, with respect to the elector, "how to get at him." The great inquiry, as to the most active agent, was one who knew the different electors, and, to use the phrase, knew how "they were to be got at." It began with the elector at the registration courts—it followed him in his business—it visited him at his lawyer's, and went with him to his banker's—it was to be found with him at his creditor's—it pervaded and perverted every relation of social life. And then, when the election came on, there was the odious personal canvass — there was exclusive dealing—there was the published list of voters, as at Cambridge, the seat of one of their universities—there was the mockery writs for ruin of the honest man, who had voted according to the dictates of his conscience. The book that he now held in his hand, and from which he was unwilling to make any extracts, contained the evidence which was taken before the intimidation committee. He did not want the book, for he had enough of new matter without it; but it would be found to teem with facts such as he described. And was it not, he asked, disgusting, that while they went through the form of those inquiries, while that House was pretending or affecting to disbelieve the facts stated to them,
362
still the strings of the whole machinery of corruption should be held by some five or six members sitting on the two opposite benches—that it was they who chose the candidates who controlled the funds, and who, according to the demands of the constituency to be supplied, pitted them against one another, according to their respective means, and then came back there to boast of their public purity, and to visit with the virtuous indignation of Parliament the unhappy agents who might be detected in the execution of their plans, and to whom their party was indebted for its success. This was the truth, and they all knew it. It was known to both sides; and when they talked of the possible corruption that might exist in America, because they held their Caucuses, he said that they were nothing to equal in power and profligacy the Caucuses which they had established here. The noble Lord on the one side, and the right hon. Baronet on the other, he believed stood aloof from them; but still the Caucuses to which he referred were a part of the machinery of the Government, and persons high in their confidence were employed to work that machinery. He thought that the ballot would break up this system, and nothing else could. They might try legislation, but it was his opinion that bad habits were stronger than the best laws, when there was a perverted morality to sanction the violation of the law. But when the law failed, they would find that did something by giving up the power to do wrong. When the law failed the ballot would slip in, with its silent efficacy, to correct the abuse which the law did not reach. Let them once make the voter aware that secrecy was his safeguard and his right, and that it was given for the purpose of protecting him, and the whole of the mischief would be put an end to. If the publicity of the vote were the ground of reward or punishment, a man would not be punished on suspicion—the tenant would not, could not, be ejected on a mere suspicion; it would not be done, when it could not be proved that he had not complied with his landlord's desire, unless it was that a man wilfully would add oppression to injustice, and he believed it would soon be found impossible to reconcile the consciences of men to the exercise of any such powers. It was his belief that men would cease to exact promises, when they must know that it would lead to no certain result. He was quite aware of the answer that would be

363
given to this—that it would encourage men to break their promises—-that it was immoral and un-English. All pretty phrases, coined to aid corruption in the foul use of bad means to attain the worst ends. But he might answer these questions by asking another—Was it moral for one to vote against his conscience? Was it English that he should be brow-beaten or bribed? The voter cheated the State when he voted for a man that his better judgment disapproved, and was induced to do this influenced by hope, or oppressed by fear. If the State placed a barrier between corrupt influences and the man who had the vote, those who would trench upon the natural rights of their neighbour, and violate the law, could not complain if they were defeated in the bad end they had in view. For himself, he believed that intimidation would be put an end to by the ballot. Let them, then, see how it would act on bribery. No one could make out that he had redeemed his conditions on which the bribe was to be given. They must then come to a wholesale bribery of the members of the constituency, if it were brought into operation at all. Two things, then, must be necessary. First, the constituency must be very small; and next, thoroughly corrupt. There must not be one honest man on either side, or otherwise the system must be exposed at once. As to the size which the constituencies ought to be, that was a matter which he did not mean to mix up with the present discussion; although he had a strong opinion upon it. He believed it to be absurd that the same political power should be given to Harwich and the West Riding. He would admit, then, to his opponent that the constituency must be small, and it must also be corrupt, for the due execution of their plans. He attached some importance to this point, because he was for some time of opinion, that provided they bought the whole of the constituency, bribery would be facilitated by the ballot. Let them admit now that all circumstances concurred in their favour—that the candidate had chosen as his agent an old tactician—a man well acquainted with all the tricks of the day. Let him tell to that man that he bad lodged 3,000 l., that he should have 200 l. and his fee, if be were unfortunate, but that he might dispose of the whole 3,000 l. if he were successful. Now, they must place themselves in the confidence of a great number of persons, who were to receive their 6l. or 8l, for a
364
vote. Let them then suppose that the votes were covered by the number of promises given, they had then to come to a division of the spoil. Let them recollect that they would have no proof of a man's claim beyond his own assertion—they had no check upon him but his conscience— and of 300 voters, they might rest assured of, they would have 500 claimants to satisfy. They dare not reject any one claimant without the fear of being exposed. Even all those who had voted for the defeated party might, and, no doubt, would, come forward as claimants. Let them look to see what check they could have upon their consciences. Let them put a 10^. note upon one side, and a Sudbury conscience on the other, and they would find that the man who held the bribe in one hand and the Bible in the other would be one perfectly ready to come forward and swear he was entitled to the bribe he had not earned; and, in point of fact, double the amount should be paid, in order to buy the whole constituency. A single rejected claim must terminate in making the election void, for the inducement must be public and the distribution easy of proof. It was a mistake to suppose that the House would not retain its jurisdiction in a matter of this kind. In all matters relating to bribery or personation on a large scale —free access to the poll—proper formation of register of votes—the jurisdiction of Parliament must remain the same. Wholesale cases of bribery could be visited by punishment from that House as it was now; and the noble Lord's bill could then be brought into exercise with greater effect than it could now. It was, he knew, fashionable to say that the ballot could not secure secrecy; but the real objection to it was, that it would, and all knew that it would. The efficacy of the ballot was its great recommendation. It would put a stop to intimidation in others, and it would diminish the probability of bribery; but he believed that the ballot would do much more—it would give a healthy tone to opinion. It would make canvassing what it ought to be, the reverse of what it is. It would make it an appeal to the intelligence of the electors, and not to their sordid interests; it would make an honourable communication between man and man, and not by browbeating, by mean cajolery, trickery, and fraud, as it was now. One noble Lord had declared the franchise to be a trust exercised for the benefit of the non-electors, and that it would be unjust

365
to deprive the non-electors of their control over it. Now, if the non-electors not of the upper classes attempted to exercise that control, they could only do it in such numbers—it could be only by that coarse and clumsy intimidation which the law would put down, and very properly so, because it was akin to physical force: while influence which came from above had so many decent pretexts, and so many a specious garb, that it could never be reached or punished, nor prevented of having the opportunity of punishing the elector who had voted according to the dictates of his conscience. He believed that the beneficial influence of non-electors would be more fully exercised if all illegitimate influences were withdrawn. But then, if the argument of the noble Lord were good for anything, it was good for this, that it went to show that there ought to be an extension of the suffrage. It proved that large masses were excluded from the franchise who ought to have the constitutional means of making their influence felt. Then, he said, enlarge the constituency—widen the basis—admit those who were now excluded. Such a change he considered as desirable—such a change he believed to be inevitable. If he did not think the ballot would advance it, he should not be its advocate that night. But then those opposed to the ballot said it would destroy the legitimate influence of property altogether. He believed there was but little foundation for such an assertion. He did not think that one particle of legitimate influence would be lost through the ballot. He believed that character, intelligence, and worldly advantages, where they were wisely and properly used, would retain their influence with the ballot as well as without it. But the whole of the fallacies on this subject were so admirably exposed by one of his own constituents, that he could not refrain from reading a short extract: —
"The higher classes in this country have so long exercised a power over the community by means of the brute force of rank and riches, applied to the hopes and fears of those below them, that they have accustomed themselves to regard it as a salutary and even necessary control. It has relieved them, too, from a great part of the trouble of being intelligent, active, and virtuous. They have found it much easier to arrive at the office of legislator by throwing away a few thousand pounds for a seat, or ejecting a few miserable tenants, than by winning affections through their virtues, or commanding esteem by their superior intelligence and well-directed activity. They
366
dread a change which would annihilate that unjust influence in elections which they have hitherto enjoyed from mere wealth and station; and, apprehending that to maintain themselves on the vantage ground where they have been set down by fortune they would have to task all their faculties, they shrink from the hardship of being useful, and recoil from the labour of thought."
Now, there was no man who knew what numbers of statesmen and orators the English aristocracy had given to the world, who must not say that there were brilliant exceptions to Mr. Bailey's views. The fact was, that the ballot would compel the aristocracy of the country, as a class, to forego adventitious advantages, and to throw themselves, as it was said by the right hon. Baronet that he did, upon the reason and the intelligence of the community. It was, he said, "a consummation most devoutly to be wished." He was not one who would wish to shut out wealth and rank from the legislation of the country. He thought with Mr. Mill, that the business of the Government "was the business of the rich;" but, then, he wished them to arrive at it by fair means; he wished them to raise their own character as well as that of the community, instead of depraving both, which the present system of open voting was now doing. They ought, he said, to change that system, of which it was impossible to exaggerate either its evils or its dangers. He believed that if it were allowed to go on for a few years longer, it would destroy this country, for the system formed the basis of morality, of honesty, and feeling, and it was in principle a huge word of mockery and contempt. It would waste the strength and substance of popular government, and leave them nothing but the semblance and the shell. Who was it, he asked, that gained by it? Was it individuals?—No; for let them look to families that had been beggared by it. Who gained by it? was it patrons?—No. Why, if history taught them anything it taught them this, that nothing was permanent or safe in a rotten system. Why, if there was nothing more noble than a proper object of ambition—if there was nothing more honourable, nothing more lasting, nothing more worthy of affection or respect, than the character of an honest man aiming to be the leader of a free people, and having his command over them, upon their intelligence and public virtues; so there could be nothing more precarious and nothing more fluctg-

367
ating, than that power which was based upon general demoralisation, and dependent upon its caprice. It was to this that all parties were verging, and as the best means which his humble judgment could suggest, he called upon them to renounce the power which was the origin of the abuse, to throw themselves upon then-public merits and their public services, and, standing upon public opinion, to put an end to that odious system, to put an end to the usurpations, to the tyranny, the hypocrisy, the fraud of which open voting was the source, by giving their assent to the motion which he respectfully placed in the hands of the Speaker, "that in all future elections of Members of Parliament the votes should be taken by way of the ballot."
Mr. H. Berkeleyseconded the motion. He would remark upon the extent to which intimidation was carried at elections; the "screw" was unscrupulously applied. It was formed by the agent diving into the proceedings of the voter's life; by instituting strict and searching inquiries into his liabilities, and all his connections in business, and then using the knowledge thus acquired for the purpose of obliging the voter to record his vote against his conscience. In the country, those most subject to the operations of the screw were small freeholders, or those holding property under those little connected with the county. Those persons had an idea, an antiquated notion, that they possessed some little right to vote according to their consciences. But the corn factor acted as the screw upon the corn farmer in the rural districts; the brewer acted in a similar way with respect to the hop grower; but the worst screw of all was the banker's screw. He had taken the trouble of inspecting memorandums contained in the books of Tory agents in various parishes, and he found such entries as the following:—
"Mr. So-and-so. See this man; he works for So-and-so. Has borrowed money on a bill. See the attorney. Is a publican, behind-hand with his brewer. Has borrowed money on a mortgagee. Find out the mortgagee."
Now, was this a manly system? Was it a system which could be supported on the ground that the ballot would introduce unmanly prastices? He now came to the tenantry on large estates. It was true, that they had a high pressure engine of their own, in the shape of a landlord. It
368
was as notorious as the sun at noonday that the landlords of great estates took the votes of their tenants as regularly as they did their rents; and the process of enforcing one was just as summary as that for enforcing the other. If a man was backward in his rent, the landlord distrained him; if he was backward with his vote, the landlord ejected him. The landlord would wink to his steward, "Send my fellows to the poll, and make them vote for Mr. So-and-so." And so the tenantry were sent to the poll with about the same ceremony as they themselves employed in driving their beasts to the next market. The quadruped was sold in open market, and was then doomed to the knife; the biped was driven to the polling-place; and what were polling places in such cases, but mere moral shambles, where the life of the victim, indeed, was safe, but where his liberty of conscience, and consequently his independence and self-esteem, were for ever sacrificed. Yet, in their love for truth, they addressed the poor object of the screw, and showed their consistency, by dubbing him a "free and independent elector." Free! free to do what? To vote as he pleased? He was not. Independent! Independent of whom? Independent of his landlord. They knew it was a farce. The franchise, in these cases, was like the air-drawn dagger of Macbeth, offered to the eye, but impalpable to the grasp. And these men were the boasted yeomanry of England, whom they praised, whom they went out of their way to praise; for let the army estimates. or some such subject come on for consideration, and should some intrepid Member dare to say one word in depreciation of the merits of these men of the yeomanry, either as military or constables, one side of the House would straightway burn with squirarchal indignation, or bristle with yeomanic valour. They denied these men independence: they legislated for them; and this gave cause to the complaints of class, legislation. What was the fear which prevented landlords from giving their tenants free liberty to vote as they should see fit? Did they dread the loss of political influence? That was, he believed, what they dreaded. Unjust and undue influence would of course be lost by the operation of the ballot, but no influence would be lost which ought to be enjoyed. The landlord should stand in loco parentis to his tenantry; but those landlords who

369
entrusted their tenantry to the tender mercies of a steward, let him be as honest as he would, and who only visited his estates for the purpose of shooting a partridge or a pheasant—such a man would always be regarded by his tenants as step children regard a step father. By the operation of the ballot such a man would in a great measure lose his influence, and he deserved to lose it. He considered the hereditary landlord of a body of tenantry as placed in such a position that if he well fulfilled his duties, the performance of those duties would shine back on him and benefit himself. Such a man need never fear the ballot. It was a libel on human nature to say so. Having said so much with respect to county constituencies in general, he would now advert to that which he represented. In the former part of the evening he had presented a petition, numerously signed, from the city which he had the honour of representing. He considered that that petition had been entrusted to him in the way of a brief, and acting on that consideration, he might appeal to the petition to prove some of the allegations which he had been making, as at present existing in the constituency of Bristol. The hon. Gentleman read extracts from the document in question, setting forth that bribery existed in Bristol to such an extent, as called forth the deepest feelings of disgust and indignation in the breast of every honest man, and that the system of intimidation was still more extensively acted upon. First, as regarded bribery at the election in 1837, money to the amount of 5,000 1. was expended by the Tory party in Bristol, and somewhere about 2,500 l. by the Liberals, amounting altogether to a sum of between 7,000 l. and 8,000 l. None of this money ever passed through his hands. He stated this circumstance merely on the authority of hearsay, and if they were to ask his hon. Colleague whether he believed that this money was spent legally and constitutionally, he did not know what his answer might be, but he knew that his own to such a question would be in the negative. He had more evidence as regarded the election of 1841. He held in his hand a bill issued by Mr. William Fripp, dated the 29th of May, 1841. [The hon. Gentleman read the document, which stated that Mr. Fripp declined being put in nomination, because it was made a condition that he would contribute a greater sum of
370
money than was expended by the Tories in 1837.] The hon. Gentleman continued. Upwards of 10,000 l. was required to be paid for the city of Bristol in 1842. They did those things there boldly. Even in the municipal elections of Bristol he had seen printed on the walls in large letters the ominous words "vote for blue—money no object." He did not think that there could be much mistake as to what the 10,000 l. was required for. He now came to the intimidation part of the subject. Here he had a hand-bill issued at Clifton, dated June 29, 1841. This document was distributed at all the hotels of that watering-place as a guide to the visitors in selecting tradesmen, in order to promote exclusive dealing. That was a fact which could not be denied. He had, too, another piece of evidence to lay before the House. He had already referred to the proceedings of agents; and he had here a document for the instruction of these personages, issued by the Conservative Association. It was ruled with ledger lines, and furnished with printed heads for the direction of candidates. Nothing could be more proper than that the names of the voters should be thus laid before the candidate, but here the screw was to be applied, not however, at the discretion of agents, for there were printed directions for its application; but he trusted that such contrivances were peculiar to Bristol. In the first place, there was registered the name of the occupier of the House; next came that of his landlord; next the landlord's residence and principles; next the names of persons likely to have influence with the occupiers, and then a space was set apart for general remarks, relating to his circumstances, &c. Now, he thought that he had made out something of a case in support of the petition which he had presented. He would add but a few words more in regard to his own canvass. When he canvassed the city of Bristol in 1837, neither an easy nor a pleasant task, the principle feature of the canvass struck him as being the number of electors, who expressed themselves interested in the success of the cause for which he appeared, and the evident power which existed in keeping those persons from supporting him at the poll. He would mention the instance of the second or third man whom he visited on his first day's canvass. He had entered the shop of a small tradesman; the owner

371
came forth, and seemed to meet him with the greatest satisfaction, and congratulated him in appearing as a candidate in what he called the "old cause." He then expressed a hope, that he (the voter) would allow his name to be placed upon the list as promising a plumper in his favour. He, however, declined. He then said, "If so, then I presume you will give me one of your votes." The man actually burst into tears, and exclaimed, "I not only cannot vote for you, but I must give both my votes against you." At that moment a gentleman who was with him came into the shop, and seeing how matters stood, took him by the arm and led him away.
"If you stay," (said the gentleman in question), "a moment longer in the shop, John So-and-so will promise you his vote; if he does promise you his vote, he will keep his word, and if he keeps his word, he and his family are ruined for ever."
When such instances came before them could any language be too strong in which to characterize them? For himself, he turned away with honest indignation and blushed to be a man. He glowed with indignation at the way in which honest men were defrauded of that which was their right. He would mention one case more—that of a man, who had reported to him that he had always been compelled not only to vote but to register; and he had complained to his hon. Friend, the Member for Halifax, when he stood for Bristol, that he felt that he should be compelled to vote against him; and in order to prevent this, he contrived to get himself struck off the register. When the next registration time came round the Tory agent came with it, and he said to the person in question, "You put yourself off the register last year — if you do so again it will be visited on you as if you had given your vote for the Liberals, for your landlord is determined that no man shall live under him who does not vote as he orders." This man had used all manner of subterfuges to avoid voting. At one time, he had taken physic, and sent for a doctor to give him some more, which he hoped would make him worse. What was the consequence? On the day of the poll, a Tory doctor was sent to wait on him with a sedan chair, in order to carry him to the poll. The doctor accordingly felt his pulse, pronounced him to be in perfect health, and he was accord-
372
ingly marched off to the poll. He did I not intend to charge these practices as existing solely among the Conservatives; far from it. He did not wish to treat this as a party question, but it so happened that the instances which he had quoted had come under his own notice, and they were all on the Tory side. If his hon. Friend and Colleague were present, and inclined to greet him with a tu quoque, he would willingly meet him. Knowing his character, he was sure he would say nothing but the fact, and if he said that similar practices existed among the Liberals similar to those which he had proved had taken place amongst the Tories, he would say to him "then join with me—let us put down those evils— walk into this lobby, and vote for the ballot."
Captain Layardwould give the motion his warmest support. He believed that honest and conscientious men would use the ballot as a shield to protect themselves from oppression in the conscientious discharge of their duties as electors. They were told of the increase of falsehood which the ballot would give rise to; but had similar arguments proved any stumbling-blocks in the way of recent measures? Did not the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government believe that falsehood and perjury would follow from his own Income-tax? Was it because a man was sometimes foolish enough to make promises, and then wicked enough to break them, that the community were to be deprived of the benefits which would flow from a great measure like the ballot? He feared that the bill of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London would not prevent intimidation, although it might put a check to the progress of bribery; and with these views, he could not but support the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Christie: I should have thought, Sir, that on a question of a measure in favour of which there is certainly a considerable feeling among the public, some of those who are presently in such numbers going to vote against it, would have thought it right to explain the reasons on which their votes will be given. But, Sir, as no one has risen on the other side to answer speeches which, when they go forth, the country will think worthy of some notice, I will venture to rise, and come forth on the same side, in the hope

373
that I may be engaged in not altogether an unprofitable task in clenching the able recital of existing evils addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Bristol, by putting a new one or two of the principal points of the question which has been so clearly, ably, and comprehensively treated by the hon. Member for Sheffield. Now, Sir, first of all, what is it that we propose to do by the ballot; and how is it that we expect to do what we propose to do? The hope and the object of those who support the ballot is, to diminish, to a very great extent, the practice of bribery and intimidation at elections; and I beg the House to mark the word "diminish." We expect to diminish bribery and intimidation. We don't hope entirely to remove them—it belongs to no human expedient to be entirely successful; but we say, that the ballot will diminish these evils to a very great extent; and, being an expedient that will be most simple and direct in its operation, stopping the briber and the intimidator in the doing of the foul deed, instead of waiting till the deed is done, then to punish him, and act on others by example, it will diminish them to a greater extent than any other expedient which can be suggested. Now, Sir, this distinction being observed, there is an end at once, of a very favourite argument with opponents of the ballot, which consists in alleging some mode, often imaginary, but sometimes, I will admit, really probable, in which bribery and intimidation may still be practised, and then exclaiming, what becomes of the efficacy and success of the ballot? For instance, it is said that if the vote cannot be seen as it is given, for a person anxious to punish a voter, there will yet be other ways of coming to something like a knowledge of his vote. Or again, if there is no intimidating or bribing a voter to give the vote you want, you may still intimidate or bribe a man to stay away; now, I say, granting all this, and a great deal more, what does it prove, but that, first, bribery and intimidation will be more difficult of practice with the ballot than without it, else why resort to these clumsy circuitous expedients? And secondly, that the entire removal of these evils is not to be looked for; while at the same time, the ballot may be most efficacious and successful to diminish bribery and intimidation. The diminution, then, of bribery and intimidation, being the object of the
374
ballot, how is this object to be attained by it? Simply in this way. The voter will deposit his voting-card in the box unseen by any one, and may thus elude the intimidator, and foil the briber. I don't say he will, but he may do so. Had the voter promised his vote in deference to a threat, or in return for a bribe, he might keep his promise, but the intimidator or briber could never know that he did, could never know that the threat had not been nugatory, that the money which had been paid had not been thrown away. In this state of necessary uncertainty, as to the result, will threatening and bribing of voters continue undiminished? Will a man, as heretofore, incur the labour and risk the odium of intimidation, when he has no longer the means of securing its efficiency. Will a man give his money for a vote when he cannot see that vote given, and cannot know, except by the assurance of the voter, which, in a case of a man who has taken a bribe will hardly convince, whether the vote has been given to him or not. I say, then, that the ballot will take away the inducements to bribe and intimidate. And now, Sir, I come to consider by anticipation—as by anticipation I am compelled to do it—to to consider one or two objections often brought against the ballot. One of these is, that the franchise is a trust, and that those in whose behalf the trust is conferred, the unrepresented portion of the community, should see the vote given, and control the exercise of the trust. Why, Sir, if the unrepresented portion of the community is not invested with the franchise because it is judged unfit to hold it, what is the consistency and propriety of saying, that this portion is fit to control those who, by reason of superior fitness have the franchise. There is another objection made to the ballot, that of its tendency to encourage lying, and indeed (it is generally put thus) of its doing the good that it is intended to do through the medium of lying, enabling a man to promise his vote one way to his landlord or master, or to a briber, and then, under the protection of the ballot box, vote the other way. Now, Sir, I wish to deal fairly with this objection; and I will therefore say, at once, that I do not at all agree in the answer generally made to it, that the man who would tell the lie, if he voted secretly, would vote under the influence of a threat or a bribe, and give the

375
lie, therefore, to his own opinions, under a system of open voting, and that the unconscientious vote being a lie, no additional harm will come of the ballot. Now, Sir, I say, this is no answer at all; and I say at once, that I can see no comparison between the actual lie in the one case, and the metaphorical lie in the other; and that if I believed no other answer could be given than this, I would at once yield to the objection, and cease to advocate the ballot. But, Sir, let us consider this objection a little more closely. The way in which the ballot is to act, is by rendering threats profitless and bribes to no purpose, by taking away the motives to spend money and exercise the influence of one's position, by removing therefore all occasion for those questions which, if men have bribed, or have threatened, or intend to threaten, it may be very natural for them to put, but which, if they do neither the one nor the other, would be entirely useless, and would not be put; and if questions are not put, lying answers cannot be elicited. And he, by way of another answer to this objection, would say, are corrupt constituencies anxious for the ballot, which they ought to be, if the ballot is merely to give to corruption the additional protection of mendacity? What does Sudbury say? In the extracts which have been lately made from the handloom weavers' report, I find that the ballot is there the most unpopular of topics. [The hon. Member then read an extract, to the effect that a candidate had been damaged at Sudbury by the support of the ballot.] I believe, then, candidly, that the ballot will not do mischief in any proportion to its good, and that it will effectually diminish the evils of intimidation and bribery, which now so widely prevail, and the effects of which are to degrade voters, lower the tone of feeling among persons who resort to these practices, and foil the purpose for which the Reform Bill has bestowed the franchise. And if the ballot will do this, it cannot now surely, Sir, be needful, when every day unfolds to us some new tale of corruption worse than that which went before, to impress upon the House the necessity of adopting it. Rather would I say that, next to giving bread to those who are starving, it is our first duty to stay this moral pestilence which is fast spreading day by day, and which, as it spreads, threatens to destroy all honour, virtue, truth, courage, manliness, among
376
the humbler orders of our society. And I hope I may be forgiven in saying, Sir, that when I had heard the right hon. Baronet opposite; at the head of her Majesty's Government, more than once make his tariff and his Income-tax the reason for postponing investigations into bribery, or declining to undertake legislation upon the subject, which has, in consequence, been undertaken by the noble Lord below me, I have thought—presumptuously it may be, but yet sincerely—I have thought that this was not the course which should be taken by the first Minister of the country on a question more vitally than any other question affecting the morals of the nation, and, as a moral question, requiring his first care. Why talk of the credit of the country, which the Income-tax was to maintain, or of its military renown, which it was to give the means of upholding; or talk, again, of the glory of our commerce and manufactures, which your tariff, without any adaptation to the effect, is yet in some miraculous way to restore? Why, at a time, Sir, when the virtue and morality of the nation are in peril, and those who aspire to power are doing their worst to make slaves and base hirelings of the electoral body, and are perverting those institutions, which were given for freedom's sake, and to elevate those who hold the franchise to the enslaving and debasing of our countrymen— I say, if the measures of the Government were infinitely less exceptionable, and infinitely more likely to do good than they are, must it not occur to every one who sees and trembles at this work of demoralization which is proceeding, that, unless it is stopped—and stopped instantly—all these promises of material prosperity and of fame with other nations, must be at an end; and for a people whose internal elements of greatness have gone, they will be nothing better than so much gilding and tinsel hiding filth and rottenness within. If you will adopt the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield, you will, I believe, indeed serve the cause of morality, while you at the same time vindicate the electoral institutions which we have, and, preparing for their yet wider extension, gives a worthy impulse to the social and political progress of the nation.
Mr. G. Vernon,after a considerable pause, and loud calls for a division, spoke to the following effect: Sir, I had no intention to address the House on this

377
motion, but I think it imperative on me to interpose in order to prevent a division on it in a House so thin as to afford to the country no fair criterion of its opinion. This is the first discussion of it in a new Parliament; and, as I believe the question to have lost ground in this House, I am anxious that no false impression shall go forth on that matter owing to the accidental absence of Members. Under other circumstances I should have remained silent, in the conviction that this subject has been already settled in the mind of the thinking public, not only by its frequent discussion during the last ten years within these walls, but still more by the able pamphlets in which it has been treated since those discussions. I may refer especially to one, the composition of a clever divine, whose reasoning on this subject appeared to me not less remarkable for the cogency of its demonstration, than for effectiveness of its wit. I rose from its perusal satisfied that if the question should be revived in this House, it would be sufficient for any one to refer Members to the argument of that pamphlet, and that having done so, one might address the Mover thus: "Solvuntur risu tabulœ; tu missus abibis." I will briefly notice the prominent topics by which the Members who have preceded me have supported the motion; and especially was I tempted to rise to protest against the remonstrance addressed by the Member for Weymouth, in forcible language, to the First Lord of the Treasury. He has appealed to him not to confine himself to attempts to impart material benefits to the community by his tariff and other measures tending to their physical welfare, but rather to attend to the furtherance of their morality and virtue. Now, it is on this very point of the operation of the ballot on the morality of the people that I should be most desirous of joining issue with its supporters. If there be any means of rendering it effective as an instrument for its proposed end, if its authors should succeed in making the public avail themselves of its alleged protection, it would convert the habits of the electoral class into one continued lie. Cunning would flourish through the land. Let us consider the cases which the Member for Bristol has cited in a seriocomic speech. I hope that the descriptions which he has given from copious means of knowledge of the habits of electors, and of influential parties in the county of
378
Gloucester, are not a fair sample of the practices of other parts of the kingdom. Wherever they prevail they are to be deprecated — but how would the ballot remedy the grievance. Take, first, the case of his poor tradesman. It seems that he was known by his habitual acts and language to be a Whig, and was grieved to be compelled, by the fear of ruin in his business, to vote at the last election for a Tory. Now, if his vote had been cloked by the ballot, no one would doubt that he would have given it according to his professed sentiments, whatever protestation he might make to the contrary in order to save his custom. The result would be, that the custom would be withdrawn by anticipation, and transferred to some tradesman of recognised Tory principles, and thus this tradesman would actually be ruined, and be thereby incapacitated from exercising the franchise at all. He clearly prefers at present the privilege of uttering freely his political opinions, and giving his vote for a Member of Parliament contrary to those opinions. Whatever may be urged as to the political result, at least to the elector himself, this state of things is much more agreeable than the alternative of ruin, or of a life of dissimulation. There is little satisfaction to a man in professing political opinions, or even the exercise of political privileges, if it must remain a matter to which his own conscience alone is privy, and if entertaining those opinions, he is regarded by his neighbours as belonging to the party opposed thereto. Now, as to the landlord. If the stewards at present exert on their behalf so stern a despotism as ha been alleged, and which I do not believe to be true to that extent, such landlords and stewards would not hesitate to adopt the methods which would still be open to them to enforce their political opinions generally in defiance of the ballot. There would arise a deplorable system of spying and watching the conduct and language of the tenants, and only such tenants would be retained or selected as left no doubt of their political tendencies after a jealous scrutiny. I do not say, that I believe that such a result would be general —because I am convinced that the manly spirit of Englishmen would generally repudiate the proffered protection, and would take pride in proclaiming their opinions and their votes—but, even then, there would remain room for painful sus-

379
picion and malevolent insinuation, which would demoralise many more than the few who might reap casual benefit from the disguise. It has been assumed that the influence of the landlord over the tenant is that of coercion. I believe abstract political opinions to be rare in the class of agricultural tenantry; and, on the other hand, the mutual relation being that of benefits received, and of a common interest, the tenantry entertain a feeling of pride in supporting the cause of their landlord, and act willingly in concert with him from the "Esprit de Corps." Now, as to bribery, I will mention a fact which came to my knowledge as to the borough of Sudbury. It was proposed to two gentlemen to become candidates for it on the terms of their paying 3,000 l. a piece on being elected—one of them asked whether a severe contest was expected—he was told that if a contest should arise it would probably cost less, the stipulated sum being in fact a contract price for the entirety of the voters. Thus engagements would be made conditional on the success of the party under the ballot system, in which every voter would become interested in securing his share by supporting the candidate whose credit stood highest on Change. The complaints at present made by tradesmen and others of injury endured in consequence of independent votes must not be received with too implicit faith. They often proceed from jobbers, who hope by representing their loss of one customer of the one party to obtain, perhaps, ten from the other, under the colour of being a martyr to their cause. The Member for Cork county, who professes loudly the doctrine of purity of election, and who has, nevertheless, avowed the expenditure by his friends of 16,000 l. at his first Clare election, must have become well aware on that occasion of the exaggeration and fraud employed by parties alleging loss or injury, and seeking indemnity or compensation. It may be fairly assumed, that as between the great parties which divide opinion in this country, there would be little gain or loss by any of the protecting effects which its advocates augur from the ballot. Possibly, however, some increased strength might be acquired under that system, in any contest between the holders of property and those who possess none, by the democratic party, which I should regard as a mere evil, menacing the framework of our well
380
balanced Constitution. It has been plausibly urged by the hon. Member for Sheffield, that the unrepresented population have no claim to exercise control over the electoral class unless we admit them to be also entitled to share the franchise, and he thus meets the argument against the ballot derived from the responsibility to public opinion which ought to attach to every exercise of a public trust. But it is a very different thing to invest the whole community with the means of acting by opinion, as a constant check, from what would be the result of imparting direct power to the masses. The average operation of opinion in a well-governed population may be right and salutary; while on occasions of excitement, the precipitate and tumultuous exercise of actual power on their part might be inconsistent with the safety of the state. I am, therefore, desirous of seeing the franchise used subject to that controlling influence. The irregular exertion of that influence, whether by intimidation or bribery, is doubtless an evil, but it is an evil less than the universal demoralization which would ensue from the ballot, if it should ever be made effective. I must add, that during this Parliament no demand has been made by any considerable number of petitions to obtain this measure. I do not believe that the people at large desire it. It is a temporary cry raised at every contested election, under the influence of excitement or disappointment. As to the spread of bribery, which is proclaimed as the special reason for renewing the demand for this remedy, I am afraid that its prevalence results from causes incident to human nature, and which lie too deep for acts of Parliament. For the mitigation of this evil I look for the gradual working of public opinion, which I would therefore promote by facilitating discussion instead of introducing dissimulation and distrust; and I expect a material improvement therein from the increased diffusion of education and the consequent elevation of the standard of morality among all classess of the community.
Captain Berkeleyhad been always opposed to the ballot, on the ground that public opinion wag the best corrective of the voter. But when it was notorious that a sense of public duty did not control the voter—since it was equally notorious that he did not vote as he pleased,

381
he thought be had a fair reason for changing his opinion, and voting as he meant to do. He had voted for the clause in the Reform Bill continuing the freemen, because in most instances he thought they had an inherent right to the franchise; and he supported the 50 l. clause, because he thought those who qualified under it would be likely to act with independence. For these reasons he had voted differently from those with whom he had been in the habit of acting. But those who were more clear-sighted than himself, urged that those clauses would give the greatest possible handle for the ballot, As it was impossible to go back, and as we could not now narrow the franchise, he thought the best corrective of the evils of the present system would be to pass the ballot. One of the results confidently predicted from the passing of the Reform Bill was, that it would abolish bribery. Now he appealed to both sides whether it had any such effect. Whenever a candidate was beaten (whether he happened to be on one side or the other) the exclamation was, "Oh, he must have been returned if it were not for excessive bribery." Though an act of Parliament had been proposed for the purpose of stopping it, it could have no effect in suppressing the evil. He thought the ballot supplied the only means of mitigating, if it did not remove this odious system of corruption. On the midland circuit Lord Abinger said, in allusion to the withdrawal of some actions concerning bribery, "I am sorry for it, as 1 should have been extremely glad to have an opportunity of investigating a practice which has been found to be the abomination of the land." With such an authority to back his change of opinion, he was not ashamed to admit, that his views on the ballot had altered.
Captain Bernalcongratulated the Government on the successful trial of the "silent system" which they had made that night on the Ministerial Benches. The right hon. Member for Dorchester had called the late Government a "shabby" Government; but what could be more shabby than shirking a question which had been brought forward with the ability displayed by the hon. Member for Sheffield? Many respectable persons amongst his constituents were opposed to the ballot; but he justified his opinion in its favour on the ground that it afforded the
382
best means of avoiding the snares of corruption and the threats of intimidation. There was much bad morality promulgated on this subject. It was, that if the Ballot were adopted the consequence must be a breach of faith with the landlords. But nobody now complained of the betrayal of the public trust committed to the voter when he acted in violation of his conscientious conviction. Great intimidation had been exercised towards persons who had voted for him at the last election. Many an honest and independent voter was now suffering from the vengeance of an aristocratic Whig, who was graduating in high Tory principles, and insisted on his right to do what he pleased with his own. To afford protection to persons who were placed in similar circumstances, he would vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Monckton Milnessaid, that if the hon. Member who had just spoken had had more experience in that House, he would have been aware, that it was not the practice for the Members of the Government to rise and address the House at so early a period of the debate. With regard to the question before the House, it had been already so fully discussed, that he thought it unnecessary to occupy the time of the House by many observations, but he trusted he might at the outset be permitted to express his regret at the absence from the House of that hon. Gentleman who had, at a former period, been accustomed regularly to bring this question under the notice of the House with great ability and a calm philosophic demeanour. In reference to certain observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield, in introducing the subject that evening he begged leave most distinctly to deny that he had ever publicly or privately, advocated the sin of bribery; but he did believe that to attempt to eradicate bribery by coercive measures was a superficial proceeding. They might provide means for the easy detection of bribery, and meet it, when detected, by moderate and certain penalties; but the real cure for it lay in the increased intelligence of the people, and their appreciation of political privileges. He contrasted the opinion which prevailed of the corrupt character of the individual Members of that House in Sir R. Walpole's time with the more honourable reputation now enjoyed by the Members of the House of

383
Commons. How had this change come about? It had not been effected by legislative enactments, but by the influence of public opinion, and the spread of a better state of feeling. Much had been said respecting the vast increase of bribery which had manifested itself of late years. He did not believe in this extension of bribery. He believed that a certain amount of money, which had before been expended in the purchase of rotten boroughs, was now applied to electoral purposes. But, taking all that into consideration, he was of opinion that fewer votes had been bought at the last election than at any hard fought electoral struggle in former periods. Intimidation had also been much spoken of; but when, let him ask, had there occurred such instances of the failure of the influence of great and wealthy families as at the last election? Let them look to Yorkshire. There Lord Fitzwilliam, with all his great qualities and wealth, was defeated in his own neighbourhood and among his own people by the contrary torrent of public opinion. Did not a similar case occur in Bedford, while Lord Gainsborough was defeated in Rutlandshire, and the influence of Lord Grey proved unavailing in Northumberland? Those who uttered so much declamation about the intimidation and bribery which they said had been practised, only joined in the cry of the Chartists, who, in a paper he now held in his hand, and which was signed by Mr. Sturge, stigmatized that assembly as a corrupt House of Commons. If the House of Commons had been elected by these unjust and unconstitutional means, the majority of the present Government was not a majority representing the people. But he did not adopt that line of argument, and was not therefore answerable for its consequences. He asked, what was the character of the proceedings which took place in that House night after night? It was nothing but a system of exposure. Nothing was to be kept secret, nothing to be hid, everything was to be exposed to the light of day. He confessed he had not joined with pleasure in this system of exposure. If the reputation of the hon. Member for Bridport suffered by it, he should be sorry, and if the character of the hon. Member for Nottingham should suffer from the exposure which was threatened in his case, he should also regret it. He found no satisfaction in
384
these things. He did not believe that by these means any practical good would be done; but he did think it most extraordinary that while this system of exposure was daily going on, a proposition should now be made to give protection to secret voting. It did seem palpably inconsistent that on the very evening which the noble Lord the Member for London had fixed upon for bringing forward his bill for the better discovery of bribery, the hon. Member for Leeds should make a motion for its better concealment. The hon. Member for Leeds surely must allow, that though the amount of bribery should be diminished under his proposed system of the ballot, yet that the amount left would be more effectually concealed than ever. He believed that the ballot would not afford any efficient remedy against bribery, whilst it would give a very large additional influence to resident landed proprietors. Therefore, in objecting to the present motion, he did not oppose it on any party grounds whatever. The real question was whether or not the ballot would not leave that intimidation, which, after all, must be considered the great corruption with which they had to struggle, unaffected. He feared that as the democratic feeling increased, and republican institutions advanced, in the same proportion intimidation would be found to prevail; and they saw that in America, notwithstanding the existence of the ballot, intimidation was very prevalent. Still, it must be allowed that there might exist a state of things requiring the ballot. He thought that at the elections for Carlow and Cork the ballot might have been of great service; and if the system of intimidation went on increasing, he could not say but that at last he might vote for the ballot himself. If opinions should be persecuted by bodies of men banded together in unions, and individual independence should be lost, then he thought the House of Commons might be induced to adopt the ballot as the lesser evil of the two. He would himself take the ballot as the remedy for an evil for which he could see no other remedy; but he did not believe that at the present moment this exigency had arrived. He held too the hope that the people were advancing in political intelligence and the appreciation of political rights, and that they would learn to value the privilege of their franchise, even at

385
the risk to themselves of some temporary discomfort. He believed that public opinion would make it up to those men who suffered in consequence of the independent exercise of their votes, and that any man who might be considered a martyr would in the end be no loser, and that the injury inflicted on him would at last result in his good; whilst those who had done the injury and carried on a system of intimidation would find that it brought on them nothing but degradation and shame. He was of opinion that if the ballot were established, suspicion would produce very much the same result—though not quite the same—as certain opposition to the will of a superior now produced; for the man who did wrong was not very careful as to the extent of wrong he perpetrated. Believing that there did not exist at present a necessity for so large an organic change as that proposed, that it was not called for by the people, and regarding the ballot in this sense, and this sense only, as un-English, because it would not work harmoniously with the habits and feelings of the people, he should vote against the motion. Were the ballot adopted, it would not, he felt persuaded, meet the expectations of its advocates. Great disgust would be created by its failure; and then some new organic change would be proposed; and they would thus proceed from one change to another, until, at last, they arrived at that state of things when they should not know whether the changes they made were for better or for worse.
Mr. C. Ponsonbyexpressed an opinion that the ballot would be found an effectual cure for the prevalent sin of bribery. Every law which had been passed had proved insufficient to check, much less to eradicate the evil; but the ballot would knock it on the head at once. The people of England were thoroughly satisfied that the representative system was corrupted at its very source. The late exposures left no room for doubt upon that subject. Ought not the house, then, to make an effort to wipe away the stain which attached to it? Let them set an example to the constituency by reforming themselves. The public were not to be deluded by the proceedings relative to bribery which had occurred during the present Session, and which were strongly marked by party feelings. Thus Nottingham was punished on the one hand, whilst
386
Ipswich was allowed to escape on the other. If the House wished to give the people a decided proof of their desire to put a stop to the practices which they were so unanimous in deprecating, they would adopt the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. Byngsaid if he could bring himself to believe that the ballot would be productive of any advantage, he would vote for it; but, in the first place, he thought that the establishment of vote by ballot would essentially alter the character of Englishmen, and would be of no real service to them, because a real Englishman would never conceal his feelings and opinions. We were from our infancy brought up to love the truth—" Magna est Veritas et prevalebit"—and he was certain that an Englishman could not conceal his real opinions. If he were to attempt to do so, he would be in a state of misery for a month before and for months after an election. He would be afraid of opening his lips to his best friends. If the ballot should be established it would put a stop to canvassing. Now, he always liked to come face to face with his constituents, and to account to them for every act of his life. He considered it to be an essential part of his duty to canvass as many of his constituents as possible. Once, upon the occasion of the "No-Popery" cry, a worthy friend, Mr. Alderman Coombe, who always voted with him, would have lost his election, owing to his not having had a full opportunity of explaining his vote upon that important question. Alderman Coombe would certainly have lost his election upon that occasion if his opponent had not got wet feet, caught cold, and died. In consequence of that event they had the advantage of ten days' longer canvass; in the course of which he had an opportunity of satisfying the Dissenters, who were opposed to Alderman Coombe, that they were in the wrong. In the end he and his friend were unanimously elected, and ever since then he had been fonder of canvassing than ever.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid that the hon. Member for Sheffield had brought forward this motion under great advantages after the scenes that had taken place at the last election. The ballot was brought forward as a practical remedy for acknowledged existing evils, and the hon. Members for Bristol and Poole had shown the

387
extent to which those evils did exist. He could easily understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Middlesex on this subject. That hon. Gentleman had long been popular and beloved among his constituents, and well deserved to be. It was easy to understand how an hon. Gentleman under such circumstances should delight in the spontaneous expression of a crowd of electors, but all counties could not boast of a body of electors like those of Middlesex. The ballot, it might be contended, would not be found an effectual remedy against corruption. The remedy for that evil must must be one of a different nature; still he agreed with the hon. Member for Poole, that under the ballot bribery would be of more easy detection than at present; but intimidation was the evil which the ballot would have the effect of destroying; and not only the intimidation of mobs, but also that which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had well described as the more unassailable form of intimidation, namely, that which addressed itself to the pockets of the electors. It was singular that during the present debate no allusion had been made to Ireland, or to the Catholic priesthood of that country, who in all former debates had formed the staple argument of those opposed to the ballot. Now he was ready to admit that undue influence of that kind, where it really existed, could not be guarded against by the ballot. For influence of that sort there must be a different remedy; whether that influence was exercised over the elector by his priest, or over the farmer by holding out the dread that the Pope was to be brought into the country. It was lamentable that such influence could be exercised; but no legislation could apply a remedy. It might seem a paradox to some hon. Members, but he believed that the ballot, instead of leading to the commission of falsehood, would very greatly lessen it, for by taking away the power of ascertaining the way in which an elector had voted, they would to a great extent take away the inducement of inquiring into the manner in which he had voted. In the United States of America the ballot had been found effectual. He had been told of the case of a free negro there, a domestic servant, whose mistress had expressed a determination to prevent Scipio from voting, and for that purpose, on the polling-day, she had set him to
388
bottle some wine by way of keeping him employed. The negro went, nevertheless, and voted, and when questioned on the subject, he said he had been out to get some corks, and while the corks were measuring, he had run and given his vote. They were not now called on to discuss the mechanical part of the question— namely, how the ballot-box should be constructed, though he anticipated no difficulty in that question; but the point under discussion at present was only whether a man's vote should be his own or another's? If it was thought desirable to give greater influence to the wealthier classes, the best way would be to let them exercise that influence directly, by giving them a greater number of votes; but, at all events, let that influence not be given them by allowing them an unfair control over the votes of others. Whatever evils might be connected with the ballot, those of the present system were much greater, and with that conviction upon his mind he should give his support to the motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield.
Lord J. Mannersthought the example of the American negro, cited by the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, was in in no way calculated to demonstrate the advantages of the ballot. He believed that the majority of the constituencies throughout the country were decidedly opposed to the ballot. If the contrary were the case would they not have heaps of petitions in favour of the measure? There was no excitement on the subject in the country—the people did not desire the ballot. This was an insuperable objection to the plan; so likewise was the extreme difficulty of obtaining the sentiments of the constituencies on the subject. The latter could only be effected by open voting, which would resolve the whole question into an absurdity. Was the House prepared to affirm that the constituency of the country was so degraded as not to be trusted with the exercise of their franchise? He hoped not, and therefore be should oppose the motion.
Mr. Shell:It is more than difficult to give freshness and originality to the subject which has been introduced with so much ability by my hon. Friend, and if it were incumbent on those who take a share in its discussion to impart to it that sort of interest which arises from speculations equally novel and refined, I should not have ventured to interpose; but so far

389
from thinking that the ballot offers an appropriate occasion for a display of that dexterity in disputation, from which, if some entertainment, little instruction can be derived, I feel persuaded that a great and simple cause must be damaged far more than it can be promoted by any subtlety of disquisition which may be indulged in its sustainment. Where manifest abuses exist—abuses not only capable of proof, but of which the evidence amounts to demonstration, and arguments founded on indisputable facts can be so readily adduced, political metaphysics ought to be avoided. It is far wiser, in place of straining for ingenuities in favour of the ballot, to revert to those reasons which long-continued evils have long presented to us, and as it is by repealed appeals to their sense of justice, that the opinion of the people of this country is ultimately influenced, as the ballot is to be carried in the same way in which all the great changes of which we have been the witnesses have been accomplished, and as in those signal instances it was necessary again and again, and Session after Session, to urge the same obvious motives for the measures which were pressed with a strenuous reiteration upon the Parliament and the country; so in this important discussion, the circumstance that an argument has been advanced, or a striking fact has been stated before, furnishes no just reason for not again insisting upon it. 1 do not, therefore, hesitate to revert in the outset, although it may have been already mentioned, to what took place in reference to the ballot when the Reform Bill was originally propounded. I attach great importance to the facts which ought to put an end to the dispute regarding what is called the finality of the Reform Bill, in reference to the question before the House. The noble Lord, the Member for London, has been, I think a good deal misrepresented on this head; for some among his supporters have naturally conjectured that he regarded the Reform Bill as a monument where he should "set up his everlasting rest." But I for one never understood the noble Lord to have spoken in the sense ascribed to him. I admit, that if the Members of Earl Grey's Government had entered into an agreement, that not only no ulterior alteration of the franchise should be ever supported by them, but that, in reference to the mode of exercising it, no change should ever be
390
proposed, that compact, no matter how preposterous, might be plausibly relied upon, against those who were parties to it —against any further movement upon their part, it might be pleaded as an estoppel; but it can be proved, by evidence beyond dispute, that as far as the ballot is concerned, no such bargain as has been imputed to the Whig Government was ever thought of; the direct contrary of what has been so frequently insinuated is the truth. A committee of five distinguished men, all of them more or less conspicuous for agitation in the cause of reform, was named by the Government to draw up a plan of reform. A scheme was accordingly framed by them, and the vote by ballot formed a part of it. The measure of which the noble Lord approved in 1831 cannot be of that immoral and debasing character which its antagonists have sometimes represented it to be. My more immediate purpose, however, in referring to a fact announced by the noble Lord himself, is to introduce with greater effect the declaration made by the noble Lord on moving to bring in the Reform Bill, in March, 1841. The report in favour of the ballot was not adopted, but it was agreed, that upon the question, no decision should be formed one way or the other, and that the Reform Bill should be laid before the House without prejudice to the future adoption of the ballot. This was unequivocally declared by the noble Lord in his celebrated speech on moving that bill, which, on account of his great services to the cause of freedom, was so appropriately confided to him. I cannot, conceive, how, after such a declaration, made under such circumstances, by the noble Lord, in language as clear as the English tongue can supply, there can be any doubt as to the question of fact, namely, that the Reform Bill was not in any way to affect the question of ballot. But in the progress of that bill what befel? When the Chandos clause was proposed, Lord Althorp resisted it, declared it to be contrary to the spirit of the Reform Bill, and said that it would furnish a strong argument for the ballot. Thus, it appears, that before the Reform Bill was brought forward the ballot was proposed by certain Members of the Government. When the Reform Bill was brought forward there was an express reservation in favour of the right of thereafter proposing the ballot, and during the discussion of

391
the measure the leader of the House of Commons deliberately stated that a principle had been grafted on the measure which altered its character and afforded good grounds for demanding the ballot. Let us follow the bill to the House of Lords. Lord Grey made this most important statement: —He said that the agricultural interest had already been greatly strengthened by the Reform Bill; that the Chandos clause conferred on that interest an accession of influence which was excessive and undue, and that that clause, not originally contemplated by the Ministry, would furnish strong reasons for the ballot. Well might Lord Grey have said so. He had, in devising the Reform Bill, adhered to his plan of reform brought forward in 1782, and cut the counties of England into sections. This had, it is manifest, the direct tendency to augment the agricultural interest, and to strengthen the influence of individuals in the localities where their property was situated. Lord Grey, however, did not intend that tenants at will, whose subserviency is implied by their designation, should be invested with the franchise; and when he found that this vast addition was made to the local power of the landed gentry in every county in England, he saw, with his habitual perspicacity, that the abuse of that power, thus unexpectedly augmented, would lead to a demand for that mode of exercising the franchise by which that power should be reduced to its proper limits. Lord Grey foretold that the landed interest would acquire, by the Reform Bill thus altered, an injurious power. Let us turn from the prediction to its fulfilment, and from the most illustrious prophet of the consequences of the Chandos clause, to a most distinguished witness to its effects. If an ordinary man had stated in the House of Commons that the result of the Reform Bill was, that when the opinions of a few great proprietors in the section of an English county were known, it was fortunately easy to foresee the inevitable result of the election—that statement would, from its important truth, have attracted notice; but when one of the leading Members of Lord Grey's Administration—when one of the men who had been most conspicuous in advocating the cause of reform in the House of Commons, and whose eloquence was only surpassed by his spirit of fearless adventure in going all lengths for its attainment—
392
when the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire announced with an anomalous triumph, that the counties of England had fallen into the hands of a few nominators, and that, in fact, the spirit of the old close borough system had been extended to the chief agricultural divisions of England, no wonder that an admission made by that eminent person, who thus made an involuntary contribution to the cause of reform, from which he had seceded, should have produced a great and lasting sensation through the entire country. In his address to the electors of London, the noble Lord who represents it, referred to that admission of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire, and dwelt upon the state of things in the English counties, which he described. I confess that when I read the address of my noble Friend, I could not help exclaiming, "Now Lord John must come round to the ballot." Perhaps I was too sanguine, but if to the ballot he has not come round, what remedy is he prepared to apply to the evil, in evidence of which he has thus cited the noble Lord? What is to be done? If nothing is to be done, why was the disastrous truth set forth so conspicuously and prominently in the letter of the noble Lord? Why exhibit the disease? Why disclose the foul distemper? Why conceal the gangrene in the very vitals of our system, unless you are prepared to adopt the only efficient remedy for its cure? I do think that after this admission, to insist upon the fact that there exists an undue influence which it is necessary to control in this country, is almost superfluous. It has been more than once confessed by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-worth that intimidation was carried to a most criminal extent. I recollect that in 1837 it was imputed to him that he had used coercion over his dependents at Tarn-worth, and that with a most honourable indignation he repudiated the charge, and demanded a retractation, which he obtained. I have heard him say in this House, and I believed him, that he abhorred intimidation. What will he do for its repression? You are anxious, honestly anxious, to put a stop to bribery; you have given proof of your honourable solicitude in this regard; and in this useful and honourable wish you have incurred the censures of men, who are more anxious to extend the Church, than the morality of which the

393
Church should furnish the example. But is bribery to be corrected, and is intimidation to be left unchecked and unrestrained? The right hon. Baronet observed that his party were not interested in supporting bribery. Passing by the reasons, let me ask, are his party interested in maintaining intimidation. You will answer—No. Well, will you do something to put a stop to it? You will say, perhaps, that the ballot will not do it. Let us consider whether it will or not, and let ns at the same time consider the objections in a social and moral point of view, which are urged against it. The ballot will not secure secresy. This objection to its inefficiency as a protection, is very much at variance with the allegations of its efficacy, as an instrument of fraud. But by the ballot why should not secrecy be secured? When applied to the purposes of social life, in our clubs, and in various institutions, it gives concealment. I have inquired most particularly into the working of the ballot under Hobhouse's Act in the parish of St. James, and I am assured that those who desire to conceal their votes can do so if they please. The majority of the householders in that parish give their open Parliamentary votes for the Tory candidates, and their secret parochial vote for the Whig candidates; and I this evening presented a most important petition from that parish in favour of the ballot. Pass to other countries—France for example. It is not pretended that the ballot does not meet the object for which it was devised. It is suggested that men who voted by ballot would betray themselves by their rash disclosures. I do not think that secrets, which might well be designated "secrets of the prison-house," from the consequences to which they would lead, would be told. But landlords would act on a conjecture—I cannot think so ill of them. The open vole in defiance of a proprietor is regarded as an insult; the secret vote could hardly be construed into an affront. Under the vote by ballot men would not be stimulated to vengeance by their political associates; they would not be cheered and hallooed on in the work of devastation; and I feel convinced, that under our present system, much of the cruelty that is inflicted, arises from the urgency with which men are invoked by their confederates to make examples of the wretches who dare to resist their will — to turn a whole family out upon the
394
road upon a mere guess would be a frightful proceeding, and one to which few would be sufficiently remorseless to resort. But, Sir, the real, the only substantial objection to the ballot, is grounded on the diminution of the influence which property ought to possess. The legitimate influence of property is one thing, and its despotism is another. I do not think that that rightful influence would be materially impaired. There is in every country, but especially in these countries, where the aristocratic principle prevails so much through all gradations of social life, a natural deference to station and authority, and a tendency in all classes to acquiesce in the wishes of those who stand in a relative superiority in their regard. A man may render himself odious by his misdeeds, and denude himself of the sway which property confers; such a man would have no weight, nor ought he to have it, over his dependents. A violation of the duties of property might incur a forfeiture of its rights, but I cannot bring myself to believe that a good man, who sought his own happiness in the diffusion of felicity, would not exercise over the objects of his bounty the influence with which his virtues ought to be attended. His dependents would resort to him for counsel and for guidance; his example would furnish the light by which their way would be directed, and he would himself derive from the consciousness of that authority, derived from minds so lofty and so pure, a far higher pleasure than he could find in the exercise of a stern and arbitrary domination. But supposing that the influence of property would be to a certain extent diminished by the ballot, are you sure that the influence of property has not been pushed so far beyond its due limits, as soon to endanger itself by the excess to which it has already reached? Before the Reform Bill, the nomination system was carried so far, and had created such an oligarchical interest in the state, that to save the state itself a change was indispensable. In the course of the ten years which have elapsed since the Reform Bill, how many boroughs have fallen into the hands of individual proprietors, and what, formidable abuses arise from the preponderance of large properties in small divisions of intersected counties Every day the evil will increase, and every day the demand for a redress of this signal grievance will become more loud and impera-

395
tive; the feeling of the Parliament, elected under peculiar circumstances and in a moment of re-action, will be at variance with the feeling of the people; the tide, having ebbed to the lowest mark, will flow back again, and sweep away the barriers that were intended to restrain it. If something be not done by those who ought to derive a warning from the past, and beware of the influences of transitory success in producing a vain and self-deceptive exultation, do not in time adopt the measures requisite to correct abuses proved and indisputable, the next requisition for a change, which shall be made, perhaps by an excited people, will be far more formidable than that which we propose, and may lead to consequences by which the worst prognostications may be realised. One, and one only remaining objection to the ballot remains to be noticed. It is said that the morals of the people would be affected by clandestine voting—that it would conduce to the propagation of the most pernicious habits — that falsehood and dissimulation would be its natural results—men would make promises which they had no intention of keeping, and suspicion and mistrust would arise where confidence and reliance now happily pre-rail. I am persuaded that promises spontaneously made, flowing from a free and unbiassed volition, would be observed under the ballot as faithfully as they now are; and with regard to promises purchased from corruption or wrung from fear, they belong to that class of engagements of whose inchoate depravity the profligate performance is the infamous consummation. I am well aware, that generally speaking, citations from the writers of antiquity are little applicable to our system of Government and our code of morality; the opinions of men who lived upward of 2,000 years ago have little weight, but there is a passage with reference to the moral of the ballot, in a speech of the great Athenian, which I have never seen quoted, so forcible and so true, that 1 shall be excused for adverting to it. "If," says Demosthenes, in his speech on the false embassy, addressing an assembly of five hundred judges, who were to vote by ballot,—
"If there he any man here sufficiently unfortunate to have been betrayed into a corrupt engagement to vote against his conscience and his country, let him bear in mind that to the fulfilment of that promise he is not
396
bound—that those with whom he has entered into that profligate undertaking will have no cognizance of its performance, but that there is a divinity above us who will take cognizance of his thoughts, and know whether he shall have fulfilled that duty to his country which is paramount to every other obligation; your vote is secret, you have nothing to apprehend, for safety is secured, to you by the wisest regulation which your lawgivers ever yet laid down."
To all times and to all countries, the principle thus powerfully expressed is appropriate. A dishonourable contract is void, and to the discharge of a great trust impunity should be secured. The franchise, you often tell us is a trust granted, but for whom? If for the proprietor of the soil, if for the benefit of the landlord, if it is in him indeed that the beneficial interest is vested, by all means let the vote be public, and let the real owner of the vote have the fullest opportunity of knowing, with what fidelity the offices of servitude have been performed; but if the franchise is a trust for the benefit of the community, and if the publicity of its exercise conduces to its violation, then in the name of common consistency, do not insist upon our adherence to that system of voting, by which the object you have, or ought to have, most of all at heart, is so manifestly counteracted, nor dwell upon the deception which may be practised through the ballot between those who make these false promises, and those who have no right to demand them, while to the fraud upon the country practised under the system of open voting you seem so reckless. I am a good deal struck with the vast importance which is attached by certain Gentlemen to the public morals at one moment, and their comparative indifference at another. When the ballot is in question they exclaim "Good God! shall we introduce into England a system of voting by which duplicity and dissimulation, and all the base results that follow from them shall be propagated amongst us.?" But let the great Conservative leader propose a measure which he himself acknowledged to be conducive to falsehood and to per. jury and most debasing in its operations, their horror of these immoralities all at once subsides and they seek a refuge from their own consciousness of the inevitable consequences of their proceedings, in the old sophism of authority, that proverbial plea, to which power has a tendency so irrepressible, whenever it is its convenience to have recourse. But there are political

397
as well as fiscal exigencies, and of the favourite plea of her antagonist, let freedom be permitted to avail herself. The ballot has its evils, but it is justified by necessity, and great as these evils may be, they are more than countervailed by the abuses which are incident to our existing system. I am free to acknowledge, that if the public exercise of the franchise were accompanied by that freedom, of which the noble etymology of the word gives us the intimation, I should infinitely prefer the system of open voting, which is more congenial with your habits. I own that an Englishman, who advances with a firm step and a high independent bearing to the hustings, and in the face of his country, gives his honest independent vote for the man in whose public virtue, in whose personal integrity, in whose capacity to serve the State he places an implicit confidence, and if his confidence by his vote gives the public an honourable proof, does present to me, advocate of the ballot as I am, a fine spectacle. Yes, some statesman, for example, the hereditary proprietor of some segment of a mountain, reclaimed by the industrious man from whom it has come down to him, exempt from all tribute, and every incident of dependency, some Cumberland statesman, whose spirit is as free and liberal as the air which he inhales, whose heart beats high with the consciousness of the high trust reposed in him, and of the moral responsibility which attaches to its performance, does present to me, in the uncontrolled and unshackled exercise of the great prerogative of the people, an object to which my admiration is promptly and sincerely given. But turn from Cumberland and its statesmen, to the mournful realities which are offered to you in the land from which I come, and look at the 10 l. voter who has bad the misfortune to pass through the registration court, and who receives from his landlord a summons to attend the hustings, and in a contest between a Liberal and a Tory candidate, to give his vote on one side, all his feelings (feelings like your own) all his national predilections, all his religious emotions, all his personal affections, are enlisted:— perhaps on one side he sees a man whom he has long been accustomed to regard as the deliverer of his country—whom he looks pon as the champion of his creed and of his priesthood—of the land in which be was born, and for which, if there were seed, be would be prompt to die—his eye
398
fills, and his heart grows big, and prayers break from his lips as he beholds him; and on the other side—the side on which he is called upon to vote—he beholds some champion of that stern ascendancy by which his country had long been, trodden under foot, by whom his religion had long been villified, its ministers had long been covered with opprobrium, and the class to which he belongs has long been treated with contumely and disdain; for such a man he is called upon, under a penalty the most fearful, with impending ruin, to give his false and miserable suffrage; trembling, shrinking, cowering, afraid to look his friends and kinsmen in the face, he ascends the hustings, as if it were the scaffold of his conscience, and, with a voice almost inarticulate with emotion, stammers out, when asked for whom he votes—not the name of him whom he loves, and prizes, and honours—but of the man whom he detests, loathes, abhors; for him it is, it is in his favour, that he exercises the great trust, the sanctity of which requires that it should be exercised in the face of the world; for him it is, it is in his favour, that he gives utterance to that, which, to all intents and purposes, is a rank and odious falsehood; but perhaps he resists, perhaps, under the influence of some sentiment, half religious, half heroic, looking martyrdom in the face, he revolts against the horrible tyranny that you would rivet on him, and he votes, wretch that he is, in conformity with the dictates of his conscience, and what he believes to be the ordinance of his religion. Alas for him! a month or two go by, and all that he has in the world is seized; the beast that gives him milk, the horse that drags his plough, the table of his scanty meal, the bed where anguish, and poverty, and oppression were sometimes forgotten—all, all are taken from him, and with Providence for his guide, but with God, I hope, for his avenger, he goes forth with his wife and children upon the world. And this, this is the system which you, and you, but I hope not you (turning to Lord John Russell) are prepared to maintain! This is the system under which what is called a great trust is performed in the eyes of the country; this is the system under which, by the exercise of the great prerogative of freemen, open and undisguised, every British citizen invested with the franchise should feel himself exalted! Oh, fie upon this mockery! and if I can-

399
not say fie upon them, what shall I say of the men who, with these things of a constant and perpetual occurrence staring them in the face, talk to us of the immorality of the ballot, and tell us, forsooth, that it is an un-English proceeding. Un-English! I know the value of that expressive and powerful word. I know the great attributes by which the people of this country are distinguished, and of the phrase which expresses the reverse of these habits, I can appreciate the full and potent signification. Fraud is indeed un-English, and dissimulation, and deception, and duplicity, and double-dealing, and promise-breaking, all, every vice akin to these vile things, are indeed un-English 5 but tyranny, base, abominable tyranny, is un-English; hard-hearted persecution of poor fanatic wretches, is un-English; crouching fear on one side, and ferocious menace and relentless savageness upon the other, are un-English! Of your existing system of voting these are the consequences; and to these evils, monstrous as they are, you owe it to your national character, to truth, to justice, to every consideration, political, social, religious, moral, at once to provide the cure. What shall it be? Public opinion! Public opinion? We have been hearing of it this long time—this many a day we have been hearing of public opinion. In the last ten years and upwards, whenever the ballot has been brought forward, we have been told, that for corruption, for intimidation, for everything, public opinion would supply the cure—that marvellous and wonder-working principle, that sedative of the passions, that minister to the diseases of the mind, that alternative of the heart, was to extinguish cupidity, was to coerce ambition, allay the fears of the slave, mitigate the ferocity of the tyrant, and over all the imperfections of our nature to extend its soft and salutary sway. Well, how has it worked? Public opinion, so far as bribery is concerned, is given up; few, except the Members for the University of Oxford and the University of Dublin, those amiable gentlemen, among whose virtues a peculiar indulgence for Parliamentary frailties are conspicuous, would recommend that Southampton, and Belfast, and the rest of the delinquent boroughs, should be consigned to public opinion. But if for bribery public opinion has lost all its sanative operation, is it in the name of common consistency, for inti-
400
midation, that this specific is to be reserved? Upon bribery, of the two, public opinion would have the greater influence. To bribery there is attached some sort of discredit; but intimidation is not only openly practised, but ostentatiously avowed. Men do not deny, but take pride in it; they applaud themselves, too, for the wholesome severity which they have exercised, and the salutary examples they have made. So, far, indeed, is the principle of intimidation carried, that a regular theory of coercion has been established, and the great patricians of the land compress their notions of their privileges into a phrase, to lay down the dogmas of despotism in some trite saying, and, in some familiar sentence, to propound the aphorisms of domination. When these doctrines are unrecanted in language, and in conduct are unrecalled—when such doctrines are defended, vindicated, and applauded—when they are acted upon to an extent so vast that it is almost difficult to suggest where they have not been applied—how long, how much longer, are we to look to public opinion as the corrective of those evils, which, without the application of some more potent remedy, it is almost an imposture to deplore? Show me a remedy beside the ballot, and I will at once accede to it. Show me any other means by which the tenants of your estates and the retailers of your commerce, and all those whose dependence is so multifariously diversified, can be protected— show me any other means by which a few men of property, confederated in the segment of a divided county, shall be frustrated in conspiring to return your fractional county members—show me any other means by which this new scheme of nomination shall be baffled and defeated—show me any other means by which a few leading gentlemen in the vicinage of almost every agricultural borough shall be foiled in their dictation to those small tradesmen whose vote and interest are demanded in all the forms of peremptory solicitation. Show me this and I give up the ballot. But if you cannot show me this—for the sake of your country, for the sake of your high fame; upon every motive, personal and public; from every consideration, national and individual—pause before you repudiate the means, the only means, by which the spirit of coercion now carried into a system shall be restrained, by which the

401
enjoyment of the franchise shall be associated with the will, by which the country shall be saved from all the suffering, the affliction, and the debasement with which a general election is now attended; and without which, to a state of things most calamitous and most degrading, there is not a glimpse of hope, not a chance the most remote, that the slightest palliative will be applied.
Sir James Graham:It has been truly remarked by the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, that this is a subject to which eloquence and astuteness could add nothing of freshness, and it must be acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman has implicitly relied upon shortness of memory on the part of those Members who sat in a former Parliament, and the absence of curiosity on the part of those new Members, in abstaining from referring to that useful repository of the proceedings of former days—I mean "Hansard"— for certainly everything in the splendid declamation at the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, is to be found in the speech delivered by the same right hon. Gentleman in 1839. The right hon. Gentleman has observed that this question is to be treated historically, and he referred to what took place when the Reform Act was introduced by the noble Lord, now Member for London. I was anxious to precede the noble Lord on this occasion, in order that if I should fall into any inaccuracy in the statement I have to make, the noble Lord may correct me. The right hon. Gentleman was not accurate in saying that the committee of Lord Grey's Cabinet consisted of five Members. The number of Members was only four, and they were Lord Durham, Lord Dun-cannon, the noble Lord, the Member for London, and myself. The noble Lord, in 1836, declared that he had received the permission of his late Majesty to make a full disclosure of the councils, the secret councils, which had led to the introduction of the Reform Bill. £Lord John Russell: As much as I might think necessary to disclose.] I never received such permission, and am therefore at a disadvantage. I may, however, be permitted to say, that the committee appointed by Earl Grey's Cabinet prepared the measure, not as one which they themselves implicitly and fully recommended, or to which they were individually pledged, but as a scheme to be considered by their Colleagues. If the ballot was a part of that scheme, it was
402
taken in connection with other propositions, and the whole was framed ad referendum; and I repeat that the measure introduced by the noble Lord opposite, the then Paymaster of the Forces, on the part of the Cabinet of Earl Grey, was the measure which, on full deliberation, we unanimously adopted, to which, as a Cabinet we were pledged, and to which we were bound individually and generally to give a firm and unflinching adherence. In 1839 I quoted what it will be again my duty to quote, in order to show what were the opinions of Lord Grey's Cabinet, and even of those Members of it who, before the introduction of the Reform Act, were friendly to the ballot. On no one occasion have 1 ever supported or voted for the ballot. Not so with Lord Althorp, who, before the introduction of the Reform Bill, had voted in favour of the ballot. Observe, then, what was the declared opinion of Lord Althorp upon that question, as a Member of Lord Grey's Government, and subsequent to the introduction of the Reform Bill. On the 25th of April, 1833, Mr. Grote brought forward his motion in favour of the ballot; Lord Althorp opposed it, and in doing so said,
"He appealed to any Gentleman who was in the last Parliament, and who knew the whole proceedings while the Reform Bill was going on, whether the promoters of that measure did not contend, that as far as the representation of the people was concerned, it was to be considered and was proposed as a final measure."
Now, there has been some dispute as to the origin of the word "finality" as applied to the Reform Bill. The noble Lord opposite, the Member for London, has disclaimed it, and this expression used by Lord Althorp is clearly the origin of that term, for the noble Lord went on to say that,
"He had stated this frequently to the House. If he were now to vote in favour of Mr. Grote's motion, he should be acting most inconsistently with everything he had stated during the whole progress of the Reform Bill. He was conscious that he was liable to an attack for inconsistency for the vote he should give" (he had voted for the ballot before, he was now about to vote against it,) "but if he voted the other way he should be liable to a still more merited attack."
an attack, as the noble Lord of course meant, more merited and affecting his personal honour, because during the period of the consideration of the Reform Bill he had invariably maintained the finality of

403
that measure. Now, I do not urge these as binding considerations except upon those who were Members of Lord Grey's Cabinet, but I do contend, that with regard to those individuals the Reform Bill must be considered as a final measure, inasmuch as the ballot was brought under their consideration, and was, after due deliberation, rejected by them. With respect to the opinions of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, I have hitherto agreed entirely in opinion with that noble Lord upon this question, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord adheres to the opinions which he formerly expressed. The noble Lord stands in precisely the same position with respect to this question as myself. I am not aware that the noble Lord has ever supported the ballot—I am not aware that he is now about to vote for it—yet, as far as the pledge involved by his conduct as a Member of Lord Grey's Cabinet binds him, the noble Lord certainly stands in the same position with myself. Now, what are the noble Lord's opinions? He states that he is opposed to the ballot, because so far from thinking it an efficacious remedy for the evil it professes to cure, he believes it to be a serious evil in itself. In that opinion I entirely concur. If I could believe, with the right hon. Member for Poole who spoke in the earlier part of the evening, that by granting the ballot we should be raising a barrier to further change, I would give the ballot my support, although, even then, I should think it open to great objections. But so far from that being the case, it would tend necessarily and unavoidably to induce the greatest possible change—a change as extensive as the Chartists themselves desire. With the right hon. Member for Dungarvon, I have no doubt that the franchise is a trust. The right hon. Member said, that he advisedly termed it a trust, If it be a trust, however, it necessarily involves the exclusion of a large body of the people from the privilege of voting, and were such a trust to be exercised secretly, I say that the great body of the people would speedily overbear that secrecy, and would insist either upon a return to open voting, or else a free participation in the suffrage. Therefore, I agree with those who think that, if we once open the door to ballot, universal suffrage would be the inevitable and necessary consequence, But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvon, said, that the suffrage is a trust which might be exercised in an improper manner from fear of the consequences of its free exercise,
404
and that intimidation might operate on the voter. I confess I am unwilling to refer more pointedly than is necessary to the circumstances of my own position in this House, but the county of Cumberland having been mentioned, and as I am closely connected with one division at least of that county, I may be excused a reference to that part of the right hon. Member's argument. In Cumberland I am possessed I may say of considerable property, and I received the support also of a large body of the landed proprietary of that county. But yet, under the system of open voting, when public feeling ran high, and when my public acts were not sanctioned by the freeholders- these circumstances proved unavailing, and I stand here a remarkable example, not only of the independence of the freeholders, but of the independence of the 50 l. tenants, many of whom gave votes contrary to the principles and opinions of their landlords, and in a manner which I must say was at once bold, fearless, and independent. I repeat, therefore, 1 stand here an example of the independence of the Cumberland tenantry at least. But I must say, that apart from all these circumstances, I am of opinion with the hon. Member for Middlesex, that the whole system of secret voting is inconsistent with the English character. I say that to preserve silence both before and after the election is impossible, and even if a man could preserve such a silence, his own acts must betray him. To carry out appearances he must belong to the wrong club, he must wear the wrong colours, he must drink the wrong toasts, he must profess friendship for the wrong man; in short he must act in discord with himself. All this it is impossible for an Englishman to do with success. If he be an honest man and a firm friend, he will not want the ballot—if he skulks he will not avail himself of it. The only persons to whom the ballot would be valuable would be those dirty hypocritical cowards-men whose faces belie their purpose-men who pretend to be your friends only to deceive and betray you, who flatter you with vain hopes of support which they have no intention to realise; men who talk of intimidation, but seek the opportunity of gratifying their sordid envy, their revenge, and that bitter hatred which, combined with their cowardice, marks them as the most contemptible of mankind. Those are the men who demand a measure that is a mere recipe,ߞ
"To lend to lies the confidence of truth."

405
The ballot is inconsistent with our manners, our habits, our feelings. It is inconsistent with that character which, I am proud to believe belongs to the people of this country. It is inconsistent with our institutions. Some gentlemen have alluded to the United States of America. I remember a passage in a speech of General Jackson in 1835, wherein he said that the American Government is supported by the ballot-box, and not by muskets; and that it is in its essence a Republican institution. In that opinion 1 fully concur. The ballot is republican in its nature, it is republican in its effect; and I am satisfied that, should we introduce the ballot here, not only universal suffrage must follow, but a republic would supersede our mixed form of Government. Agreeing with the noble Lord(Lord J. Russell) "that whilst the storm is brewing around us, while the horizon is black with clouds, it is well not to lift the anchors of the monarchy." I shall give my decided opposition to this motion. I am consistent in my opposition to the ballot. I have stated frankly why I have been and am, thus opposed to it, and why I believe that no circumstances can arise to change my conviction of the necessity for such opposition. Until it shall be my misfortune to despair of the state, and the institutions under which I have been brought up, and which I anxiously seek to preserve, I cannot support the ballot. I have never entertained a stronger or firmer opinion with regard to the danger of such a proposition, and I moat sincerely hope that the present motion will be rejected by a large majority.
Mr. Serjeant Murphysaid, that when he had heard, as he had heard with great regret, the speech delivered that evening by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex, he could not but bethink himself of certain expressions that hon. Member had once used, and more especially that remarkable expression addressed to his constituents, "that the people of England were groaning under the great tyranny of an irresponsible aristocracy." When, too, he heard the cheers with which the hon. Gentleman's speech was received by the other side, he could not but recall to mind how he had been vilified by the party in power how the paper of that party had attacked him treating him with none of the respect due to his venerable age with none of the consideration due to one of his high character and standing. The hon. Gentleman had now a proof before him that the irresponsible
406
aristocracy had prevailed. The unpalatable truth could not be concealed, that in the absence of vote by ballot the indomitable aristocracy had prevailed, and that the people of England were bound hands and feet, and delivered over to them. The people of England had obtained an extended suffrage, they had acquired greater enlightenment, they had secured the Reform Act, and under that act had elected the Ministers of their own opinions, which opinions they had seen no reason to change. He repeated his assertion. The people had seen no reason to change their opinions, and the cause of the change which had occurred was, that a new element was brought into play by the aristocracy-the element of corruption, which swept all honour and honesty away before it. He had been accustomed to give the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester great credit for logical reasoning, but he must say that a more illogical speech than that he had just delivered he had never heard within or without those walls. The right hon. Baronet chose to assume that the ballot was a bad system, because, as he said, he had always viewed it as such. But if the system was so vile as the right hon. Baronet had described it, if it was "mean, dirty, paltry, and cowardly," if its natural tendency was to render man a hypocrite, why, let him ask, was a system so bad recommended by the right hon. Baronet himself in his report as one of the committee to draw up the Reform Bill in 1832? He had tried to address his mind to get the right hon Baronet out of this dilemma, but he defied any man to reconcile the present description of the ballot as base, mean, vicious, and hypocritical, with the recommendation to adopt it which was made at the period of the Reform Bill. Did the right hon. Baronet deny that his report in which he recommended this vile system of ballot was framed ad referendum? He said that he who made the means to secure the end was as bad as he who adopted them; and he asked, if a 20 l. franchise would have answered as a code of morality in 1832, was it in 1842 that 10 l. was to make a difference? The right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, as well as most of the others who changed their opinions with them, were very apt to refer to what they were pleased to call the finality of Lord

407
Grey's Reform Act? But he would ask was this Lord Grey's Reform Act? Was it Lord Grey's act now that it contained the 50 l. tenantry clause, which even Lord Grey himself had described in the House of Peers as an unseemly excrescence? Was it fair, he would ask, to refer to a measure as final which had been so clogged in its progress? No, they could not consider such a measure a final measure. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Dungarvon had shown that it was not a final measure, for he had proved that, throughout the passing of the bill the ballot was contemplated as a possible contingency-that it was contemplated when the treating clause was passed, and he might have looked still further, and have said that it was contemplated as the only remedy whenever it was found that the aristocracy were trenching too closely upon the people's rights.'
Sir J Graham: I think it very desirable that there should be no misapprehension on one point; and I therefore deny that I am bound by any recommendation whatever of the ballot at any time. I have twice stated what I now repeat, that the whole of those measures which were enumerated in a report drawn up by four Members of Lord Grey's Cabinet were points to be submitted for the consideration of that Cabinet, upon the fullest and most distinct understanding that, as Members of the Cabinet, each individual was to have the utmost latitude of discussion in that Cabinet with respect to all the points therein contained.
Mr. O'Connell: And that was a recommendation of a system generating mean, paltry, dirty, and cowardly conduct. Why, no one could tolerate such a system for one moment. No man can be a party to such a recommendation. Does such a system require discussion or argument? Is not conviction immediate? And yet the right hon. Gentleman was conjointly one of the few who recommended it. Oh, but there was to be full discussion, there was to be deliberation, before the ballot was embodied in the scheme. [Mr. Sheil: "Adopted."] Was "adopted" the word-could it be possible? Yes, it was. The words were: "It is suggested that the vote by ballot be adopted." And this was his mean, dirty, paltry, cowardly system. Oh yes; it was easy to use these words; but he wanted to know this,-was it the poor wretch who was forced to give his vote unwillingly, was it the poor individual who
408
was forced to give his vote to support his family that was all this? It might be so; but who made him so? It might be so; but who continued him so? [Cheers.] Ay, he was proud of that ironical cheer. He knew they were not the people to stand between the trembling victim and he who would sacrifice him to his love of wealth. They were not the people to adopt the ballot-an honest system. ["Oh, oh."] Yes, he repeated it -an honest system. Ay, they thought no system honest unless in a commercial point of view, to give their money, and get the full value for it. And had they no compunction at the bribery which prevailed under the system? Had they no horror at the perjury which followed it? He had read to them the other night, when the Newcastle case was discussed, how a father took his son to the polling-booth, and saw him perjure himself, and when asked why he permitted it, replied "So many others were perjuring themselves also." That was their system. That was the system that did not engender aught mean, dirty, paltry, or cowardly. Was it in England that the hideous, horrible, and extensive bribery took place, which had been exposed before the Sudbury Election Committee. They talked of conscience, and refused justice to others who differed from them in faith; but fortunately they were all agreed as to morals; and yet there were those who would not consent to a measure which would take away from the wretch who was willing to be bribed that which gave value to the bribery. There was a plan for doing away with perjury by abolishing bribery, but the very remedy denoted a foregone conclusion, and showed how extensive was the perjury which was thus to be provided against; but still the corrupt voter would remain the same self-degraded wretch, and the same hateful miscreant as he was under the present system. The highest value, however, which he set upon the ballot was, that if the voter was not to be bribed, the question arose how was he to be influenced. He could then only be influenced by the public worth and services of the candidate, and the consequence would be, that in endeavouring to win the suffrage in his behalf, the candidate, instead of endeavouring to corrupt the public by bribing, would recommend himself by his virtues, and become noble, generous, and humane. The discussion taking the shape which it had done spoke

409
in favour of the original principles of the Reform Bill, as it showed that the majority in that House had the modesty, at least, to shun the test of the ballot-box, well knowing what would be the result. The de_ grading effect of the ballot, he meant of the present system, was well known, and, indeed, admitted by all, for none stood up to deny the extent of the bribery which had been alleged, and in the bill of the noble Lord, the Member fur London, that bribery would be stamped in perpetual record.
Lord J. Russell: Having been so directly referred to by the right hon. Baronet, and hon. Gentlemen, could not allow himself to give a silent vote on this motion. With respect to the historical part of the question, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to what took place at the time of the Reform Bill; and he did not know, that the account which he had to give, materially differed from that which had been given by the right hon. Baronet. He would allude only to what were his own opinions and expectations on that occasion. The late Lord Durham, in 1833, in a speech at Gateshead, stated, that there was a committee consisting of four Members of Earl Grey's Government, who had been commissioned to draw up a plan of reform. That statement led to another, which, to the minds of all in any way conversant with the transactions of that period, bore the clear character of having proceeded from some Member of Earl Grey's Government. On this occasion, he thought it necessary to apply to his late Majesty, William 4th, for permission, to make his statement of what had happened as to the Reform Bill, as far as concerned his own character. He received that gracious permission, and some time after made that statement to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded. That statement, as the right hon. Baronet had mentioned, referred to the recommendation made by the committee in question. Now, with respect to these recommendations, they were undoubtedly recommendations, as to various heads of reform, a general outline, which was to be considered by the Cabinet before they were finally adopted. There were two points with respect to which the committee made recommendations which were not adopted by the Cabinet; these were, secret voting and the duration of Parliament. The votes which fie gave previous
410
to that occasion were in conformity and consistency with the votes which he had given ever since,-namely, against the ballot. He entertained an opinion-not an opinion which he acquired after the discussions which had taken place on the questionߞbut an opinion, partly gathered from his own reflections,—partly from the speech made on the subject by Mr. Brougham in the House of Commons, showing, as he thought, that secret voting could not be carried into effect; and there were various reasons, besides, in reference to what he considered likely to be the increase of bribery upon the adoption of the plan. It was considered, however, most desirable to make, if possible, the Reform Bill, when introduced, a final measure; and it seemed to him that, to have these questions of the ballot and the duration of Parliament, to be afterwards debated, would tend to disturb the settlement which was then likely to be made. This was the reason which operated in his mind-not any preference of secret over open voting -to concur in the opinion that the ballot should form part of the outline of the plan. However, the Cabinet, on mature consideration, rejected these two parts of the scheme, and he very willingly consented to propose the Reform Bill without those features. In making his statement, he made a declaration to this effect:—that in the bill there was no provision for the adoption of the ballot, or for shortening the duration of Parliament; that the Government did not consider these subjects were finally disposed of; but that, if hereafter it should be considered that changes in these respects might be usefully adopted, Government would consider themselves at liberty to recommend them. This was the substance of what he then said. It differed, as the right hon. Baronet had shown, from the statement afterwards made by Lord Althorp, who considered that at that moment the Reform Bill was a settlement of the whole question. Now, he did not see that it followed from that statement, either with reference to him, or with reference to any other Member of that Government, that he or they were not at liberty to take any objection to the ballot which they might deem to be a valid objection. He did not understand that any man who had thought it proper to give, not an enthusiastic vote in favour of the ballot, but an assent that the ballot should be taken into considera-

411
tion, as the suggested part of a great scheme of reform, should not be at liberty afterwards to take any objection to it which might occur to his mind, whether derived from the state of the country or from secret voting itself, or from the state of opinion, as to other measures of reform. Hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House seemed to suppose that there was some insuperable bar to his now raising an objection, but he did not himself perceive any sort of reason why he should not object, and why he should not vote according to that objection. The statements that had been made that night respecting the ballot, seemed to him to have this difficulty in them; no doubt the hon. Member who brought forward the proposal, and who had made a very able speech in support of it, considered the line he had taken the most advantageous; but it appeared to him a very great objection that the proposition did not contain the whole plan which those who were favourable to the ballot were disposed to support. This proposal as to the ballot had reference to the electoral body as now constituted. Now he should say, that if the ballot were adopted with the electoral body constituted as at present, the effect would be that in the smaller boroughs wholesale bribery would be committed, and in constituencies of 300 or 400, 250 would be secured by some attorney or agent, and there would be no means of detecting the bribery or tracing it home to the parties. There was another objection, that this plan, which was designed to place the representation on a better footing, would itself be pregnant with dissatisfaction. He could not imagine the country in general satisfied with the secret voting of those who now held the franchise. They had heard from the hon. Member for Montrose, that only one male out of seven had the right to vote for Members of Parliament. This point had been much urged in the House, and still more so amongst the people out of doors. There was a great body of men who called themselves Chartists who advocated what they called the People s Charter, and who, among other things, demanded universal suffrage. If the House were to enact a law, by which one man in seven only had the power of voting, and that power of voting were made secret and irresponsible, would that give satisfaction to the other six? Would it not, on the contrary, be increasing the discontent
412
which now prevailed? That had been the language of the persons referred to at public meetings, in reference to the ballot. Did it exhibit an inclination to accept the ballot? Far from it; the Chartists declined the ballot, if not accompanied by the other measures which they required. He would ask, then, the hon. Gentleman who proposed the ballot, did he think that the adoption of the ballot alone would be sufficient—that the corruption and intimidation, that the various evils which unhappily now prevailed, would be remedied by his proposal? and that, having given the ballot, the House might sit down and rest satisfied that it had accomplished the great and noble scheme of the full, fair, and free representation of the people? The hon. Gentleman could hardly think this. The hon. Gentleman himself was an advocate for an extended suffrage; he did not know to what extent, whether household suffrage, or further; but this, at any rate, was quite perceptible, that the ballot was riot an ultimate plan, but an introduction or preface to something further. He was, then, obliged to say, that if such were the case, he would neither discuss the plan as now before the House, nor could he, of course, discuss the rest of the plan which was kept from the House. What he would say was this: let the House have before it the whole plan, so that they might judge whether it were on the whole, a better plan than the existing representation; let the ballot be part of the plan to be thus proposed, but let it be submitted as part and parcel of the whole scheme, and not a part by itself. Let not the House be seduced into a vote upon the ballot, thinking that therein they were introducing a sound and pure system, and then be told, after they had given the ballot—"You have now only increased the discontent; you have now only given fresh grounds to the great body who are excluded from the representation, to complain of the secret, clandestine, and irresponsible manner in which the franchise is exercised. The extension of the franchise must now follow as a logical, certain, and inevitable result, and you must, therefore, give it." He would be ready to discuss the complete plan when it came before the House; but, in the mean time, he might fairly ask those hon. Gentlemen, who on former occasions had voted for the ballot, as if the ballot were alone sufficient in the present

413
state of the franchise, to pause and inquire, as he did, what were the remaining measures which were to give satisfaction to the people, as to the representation For these reasons, he very much differed from the hon. Member for Poole, who had spoken that evening, and who had expressed himself with great ability and clearness. The hon. Gentleman said, hem was opposed to further changes in the representation, and that he should vote for the ballot, as for a barrier against greater changes. In this view, he could not con. cur with the hon. Gentleman, and he wished that the hon. Gentleman would a little reflect upon the opinions of those who were advocates for the ballot in that House, in connection with those who advocated the extension of the suffrage, arm the extreme doctrines of the Chartists before lie made up his mind, that by von ting for the ballot alone he should be able to impose the barrier which he contemplated, or give the institutions of them country that stability which all had at heart. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last gave the ballot very high character, stating that it would produce a superiority of the moral condition, and make men generous, humane kindly, and noble-minded. These were great recommendations, but he must own he very much doubted the efficacy of the plan; and he was surprised that when the question was brought forward in them House so few of its advocates referred to those countries in which the ballot hat been adopted. With respect to ancient history, the right hon. Baronet opposite on a former occasion, had produced some passages most applicable to this question showing clearly what was the effect, during the Roman history, of secret voting. They all knew that in the later period of Rome secret voting was introduced, and they knew that it was introduced in the most corrupt times of Rome; they knew, too that it could not avert that corruption that it did not make the people noble, minded, generous, and humane; but that on the contrary, the most base, the most cruel, the most bloody period that eve occurred in the history of the civilize world, was contemporaneous with them ballot in Rome. The ballot was in existence in our own times in two great coon tries, in France and in America; now, h had watched several elections in France and he had always found it stated, as a
414
matter of certainty, that the government knew what all the people who held appointments, did at these elections, and which way they voted; and be found complaints made in the chambers that men had been turned out for voting against government; he found government defending itself against these charges; he found various allegations, one way or the other, but he never found any allegations such as he should naturally have expected, to this effect:ߞ"We have in this country secret voting; the ballot is established, and it can never he known which way a man votes; a man cannot be turned out of office for voting this way or that, for we have that machinery and contrivance which makes it impossible to find out how a man has voted." No such allegations as these were to be found in the French press or the French chambers. In the United States of America, too, they had the ballot; and what said Mr. Tickner, the American gentleman who gave his evidence before the intimidation committee? He said that no man's vote was secret in the United States. The adult males were there the sovereign power, and there was no influence of property or institutions to prevent that sovereign power carrying into effect its will, its absolute will. He was not called upon to make any observations as to the superiority of the one form of Government or the other-the republican or the monarchical. But there was one example of the ballot, going with that which agreed with the ballot, which was consistent with it, namely, the universal suffrage of the whole people. He would ask if the ballot had never been found to produce wholesome and salutary effects in other countries, was it likely to produce them in this country? He said with his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, that he could imagine nothing more contrary to the English character than secret voting. He could well imagine that there were, as he was told there were, ingenious persons who had carried to perfection the machinery of the ballot-box—that they could place the voter in a room with a certain contrivance, by which, without the possibility of anybody watching him, or seeing what he did, his vote might be se, cretly taken. He could conceive that the ingenuity of the promoters of the ballot in mechanism might be so far successful. But tell him where was the mechanism that would make Englishmen, English far-

415
mers, and English tradesmen, reserved, cunning, and secret in all their transactions? Let the advocates of the ballot show him, if they could, that contrivance by which the character of Englishmen could be so changed, that landlords would be unable to tell a year before what was likely to be the opinion of his tenant—or how he would throw his vote into the ballot-box. Show him the contrivance which would be such, that in no club, —at no dinner, —in no privacy of domestic life, —and upon no occasion of public excitement, —would the elector betray his sentiments, but that on the day of voting, and on the day of voting alone, he would evince his opinions, and from that time forth, as on every day before, that he should keep them perfectly secret and concealed. This was a thing contrived in a great degree by the Senate of Venice. The Senate of Venice had an ingenious contrivance by which the election of the Doge was effected after eight or ten different votings. Seven electing forty-nine—forty-nine electing five—five electing thirty-six, and so on, in a way which was taken to insure secret voting, and to give as the ultimate result an election without bribery, intimidation, or undue influence of any sort. That might suit the close and reserved character of Venetian senators, but did not suit the character of Englishmen. For his part, he must confess he rejoiced that it did not. If they introduced the ballot-box, and could bring the character of the English people into perfect harmony with the practice of secret voting they might get rid of many evils. They might prevent much intimidation—they might give some check to bribery. But they would introduce a monstrous and gigantic evil, which would far overpower all those good effects —in the loss of that honest, brave, frank English character, which nothing afterwards could ever repair. He had now stated the reasons on which he had acted on former occasions with regard to the ballot. He had stated, with respect to the change now proposed, that he could not imagine it to be the only one which its advocates considered necessary. He had, therefore, asked to have the whole of the plan introduced before voting for any change of this kind. Taking the Ballot also, he said that he doubted its efficacy. He knew no country in which it had produced those excellent and benefi-
416
cial effects which it was said it would produce in this country. In itself it was calculated to produce, if successful, fraud and concealment, most injurious to the character of the people, and he must, therefore, now, as on former occasions, record his decided vote against the motion of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Wakleywas not surprised at the cheers—ironical he presumed—which had been so plentifully bestowed on the noble Lord from the other side, just as the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had been so loudly cheered from the Opposition side. The noble Lord and right hon. Baronet had taken precisely the same course on this occasion as they had done in 1831, when, as members of the committee to whom the Cabinet intrusted the preparation of a plan of reform, they agreed in recommending to Lord Grey's Government, that the ballot should be one of the provisions of the measure. He could not consider, under these circumstances, that the ballot was fairly treated. Such conduct was calculated to exemplify the character of our public men, and show to the people of this country how recklessly, how thoughtlessly, and how dishonestly public men could make a recommendation at one time, which they could as recklessly abandon at another. This was not a fortunate or commendable example. He regretted it for the character of that House, he regretted it for the character of the country. It must be supposed, that the recommendation was either heartlessly or dishonestly meant. He did not believe it was dishonestly meant, and therefore he would maintain, that the greatest and most important measures affecting the rights and character of the people, were often brought forward by public men holding responsible offices, without due examination and reflection. That inference was perfectly just, after the confessions of the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. He was placed in rather a disagreeable position with reference to the ballot. The only argument against the ballot which the noble Lord had brought, was, that it would inevitably lead to other changes, the most important of which would be the extension of the suffrages. His conviction was directly the reverse. He sincerely believed, after the most mature examination of this question in all its bearings, that if the ballot were granted to the present constituencies, there would

417
be no extension of the suffrage. The effect of that measure would be to give to those constituencies a monopoly of the privilege of voting in secret. At present, public opinion had its influence over the voter, whose conduct was watched by the non-elector. Give the Ballot, and that influence would be removed. If, then, you proposed any extension of the suffrage, to whom would it be given? To persons beneath the electors in wealth, and whose numbers would completely swamp their influence. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated the proportion of electors to the unrepresented to be as one to seven. Did the House believe, then, if they gave to the present electors the privilege of voting in secret, free from any control, that they would consent to swamp their own votes, and make their privilege valueless, by letting in the multitude of the disfranchised? Look at the case of France, in which the Chamber of Deputies represented the electoral body, but not the people. It would be so in England with the Ballot and limited suffrage. There never had been such gross and unblushing corruption in this country as at the last general election—there had been equal dishonesty on both sides⁁there had been no difference in the conduct of the two parties. He asked the House, then, would they give to dealers in corruption the privilege of voting away their country for money? He (Mr. Wakley) was of opinion that any constituency which had shown the slightest symptoms of dishonesty ought not to have the ballot. It ought to be a shield of protection only to the honest and conscientious voter. He thought the motion had never on any occasion been brought forward under more unfavourable circumstances. Millions of the people would say, if you are disposed to give us the ballot, first give us the suffrage. That was the opinion he had always entertained, and consequently, although he should vote for the motion, if the ballot were carried, and if he could not succeed in connecting with it an extension of the suffrage, he begged leave to assure the House that no person would give it a more hearty, consistent, or determined opposition than he should.
Lord Worsley(amidst much noise) was understood to say that intimidation and corruption were practised by both sides; that a system of secret voting would place the real power of voting in the proper hands, instead of giving it to the landlords;
418
and that having well considered the subject, he should give his support to the motion.
Mr. Hard, in reply, contended that all the statements and arguments he had urged in support of his motion remained unanswered. The noble Lord the Member for London seemed to consider ballot as but one step, and that it was mainly advocated as a measure likely to lead to something ulterior. He admitted that one-half of those who would vote for his proposition would not consider the ballot as final; but all he would say was, that this was the most beneficial proposal of a change which the present circumstances of the country would admit, and if it did not prove a complete cure for bribery and intimidation, it would at least go a great way in preventing it.
The House divided:-Ayes 157; Noes 290;-Majority 133.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Aldam, W.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Anson, hon. Col.

Easthope, Sir J.

Bannerman, A.

Ellice, E.

Barnard, E. G.

Ellis, W.

Bellew, R. M.

Elphinstone, H.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Evans, W.

Bernal, Capt.

Ewart, W.

Bernal R.

Farrell, D. H.

Blake, M.

Ferguson, Col.

Blake, M. J.

Fielden, J.

Blake, Sir V.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bowring, Dr.

Gibson, T. M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Gordon, Lord F.

Brodie, W. B.

Gore, hon. R.

Brotherton, J.

Granger, T. C.

Browne, R. D.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Bryan, G.

Guest, Sir J.

Buller, C.

Hall, Sir B.

Busfeild, W.

Harris, J. Q.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hastie, A.

Callaghan, D.

Hawes, B.

Chapman, B.

Hill, Lord M.

Christie, W. D.

Hindley, C.

Clay, Sir W.

Hollond, R.

Clive, E. B.

Horsman, E.

Cobden, R.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Collins, W.

Howard, hon. H.

Craig, W. G.

Hume, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Humphery, Ald.

Currie, R.

Hutt, W.

Dalrymple, Capt.

James, W.

Dennistoun, J.

Johnson, Gen.

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

Langston, J. H.

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

Langton, W. G.

Duke, Sir J.

Layard, Capt.

Duncan, Visct.

Leader, J. T.

Duncan, G.

Listowel, Earl of

Duncombe, T.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

419

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Rundle, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Russell, Lord E.

Marjoribanks, S.

Scholefield, J.

Marshall, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Marsland, H.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Martin, J.

Sheil, rt. ho. R. L.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Smith, J. A.

Mitcalfe, H.

Somers, J. P.

Mitchell, T. A.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Morris, D.

Standish, C.

Murphy, F. S.

Stewart, P. M.

Murray, A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Napier, Sir C.

Stuart, W. V.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

O'Brien, C.

Strutt, E.

O'Brien, J.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Connell, D.

Thornely, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Towneley, J.

O'Connell, J.

Tnoubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connor, Don

Tufnell, H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Tuite, H. M.

Ord, W.

Villiers, hon. C.

Oswald, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Paget, Col.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Paget, Lord A.

Wakley, T.

Parker, J.

Walker, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Wall, C. B.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wallace, R.

Philips, M.

Watson, W. H.

Plumridge, Capt.

Wawn, J. T.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A.C.

Westenra, Hon. J.

Ponsonby, hon. J. G.

Wilde, Sir T.

Protheroe, E.

Williams, W.

Pryse, P.

Wood, B.

Pulsford, R.

Wood, Sir M.

Ramsbottom, J.

Worsley, Lord

Redington, T. N.

Yorke, H. R.

Rice, E. R.

Ricardo, J. L.

TELLERS.

Roche, E. B.

Berkeley, H. F.

Roebuck, J. A.

Ward, H. G.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bateson, R.

Acland, T D.

Beckett, W.

A'Court, Capt.

Bell, M.

Adderley, C. B.

Benett, J.

Alford, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Allix, J. P.

Beresford, Maj.

Antrobus, E.

Blackburne, J. I.

Arbuthnott, hn. H.

Blakemore, R.

Archdall, Capt.

Bodkin, W. H.

Arkwright, G.

Boldero, H. G.

Ashley, Lord

Botfield, B.

Astell, W.

Bradshaw, J.

Bagge, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Bagot, hon. W.

Broadley, H.

Bailey, J.

Broadwood, H.

Bailey, J. jun.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Baillie, Col.

Browne, hon. W.

Baillie, H J.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Baird, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bankes, G.

Buck, L W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Buller, E.

Barneby, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Barrington, Visct.

Bunbury, T.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

420

Byng, G.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Campbell, Sir H.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Campbell, A.

Gore, M.

Cardwell, E.

Gore, W. O.

Cartwright, W. R.

Goring, C.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Chapman, A.

Granby, Marquis of

Charteris, hon. F.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Chelsea, Visct.

Greenall, P.

Chetwode Sir J.

Greene, T.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Gregory, W. H.

Christopher, R. A.

Grimsditch, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Grimston, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Grogan, E.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Halford, H.

Cochrane, A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hampden, R.

Codrington, C. W.

Hammer, Sir J.

Colborne, hn. W.N.R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Collett, W. R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Colvile, C. R.

Hardy, J.

Conolly, Cot.

Hawkes, T.

Corry, right hon. H.

Hayes, Sir E.

Courtenay, Lord

Heathcote, G. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Cresswell, B.

Heneage, E.

Cripps, W.

Henley, J. W.

Darner, hon. Col.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Darby, G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Hervey, Lord A.

Denison, J. E.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Denison, E. B.

Hodgson, F.

Desart, Earl of

Hodgson, R.

Dick, Q.

Hogg, J. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Houldsworth, T.

Dodd, G.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Douglas, Sir H.

Hope, hon. C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Howard, hon. C.W.G.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Howard, Lord

Dugdale, W. S.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Howard, P. H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Howick, Visct.

East, J. B.

Hughes, W. B.

Eastnor, Visct.

Hussey, T.

Eaton, R. J.

Ingestre, Visct.

Egerton, W. T.

James, Sir W. C.

Egerton, Sir P.

Jermyn, Earl

Eliot, Lord

Jocelyn, Visct.

Escott, B.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Johnstone, H.

Farnham, E. B.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Fellowes, E.

Jones, Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Kemble, H.

Feilden, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Ferrand, W. B.

Knight, H. G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Knight, F. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Fitzwilliam, hn. G. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Flower, Sir J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Ffolliott, J.

Lawson, A.

Forbes, W.

Lefroy, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Legh, G. C.

Gaskell, J. Miles

Leicester. Earl of,

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Gladstone, T.

Lennox, Lord A.

421

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lincoln, Earl of

Russell, Lord J.

Lindsay, H. H.

Russell, C.

Lockhart, W.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Lowther, J. H.

Sanderson, R.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Sandon, Visct.

Lyall, G.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Seymour, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Maclean, D.

Shirley, E. J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Mahon, Visct.

Smith, A.

Mainwaring, T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Smyth, Sir II.

Manners, Lord J.

Smythe, hon. G.

March, Earl of

Sotheron, T, H. S.

Marsham, Visct.

Stanley, Lord

Martin, C. W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Martin, T. B.

Stewart, J.

Marton, G.

Stuart, H.

Masterman, J.

Sturt, H. C.

Meynell, Capt.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Miles, P. W. S.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Miles, W.

Taylor, T. E.

Miles, R. M.

Thesiger, F.

Mundy, E. M.

Thornhill, G.

Murray, C. R. S.

Towline, G.

Need, J

Trench, Sir F. W

Neeld, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Neville, R.

Trotter, J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Turner, E.

Norreys, Lord

Tumor, C.

Northland, Visct.

Vane, Lord H.

O'Brien, A. S.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Ossulston, Lord

Verner, Col.

Packe, C. W.

Vernon, G. H.

Waddington, J. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

Palmer, R.

Vivian, J. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Waddington, H.

Patten, J. W.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Welby, G. E.

Peel, J.

Whitmore, T. C.

Pemberton, T.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Pigot, Sir R.

Williams, T. P.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wilshere, W.

Polhill, F.

Wood, C.

Praed, W. T.

Wood, Col. T.

Pringle, A.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Pusey, P.

Wrightson, W. B.

Rashleigh, W.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Young, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Richards, R.

TELLERS.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, H.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Fremantle, Sir T.

House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.— 1a. Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Dean Forest Poor; Assessed Taxes Composition.
2a. Public Houses.
Private.—1a. Bromyard Roads; Deptford Pier. 2ª. Sudbury Improvement; Tadcaster and Otley Road. Reported.—Duke of Cleveland's Estate; Burntisland and Granton Pier; Carlow Roads.
3a. and passed:—Coward's Divorce; Vere's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Provost and Magistrates of Aberdeen, Proprietors of Salmon Fisheries in the Dee and Don, and Sea Coast in the vicinity of Messrs. Hogarth & Co., Tacksmen of various Fisheries, against the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.—From Freeholders and others of St. Briavel's, against the Dean Forest Poor Bill.—By Lord Kenyon, from Inhabitants of Liverpool, and by the Marquess of Salisbury, from the Mayor and Magistrates of Liverpool, in favour of the Liverpool Improvement Bill; and by Lord Brougham, from Inhabitants of Liverpool, against the Bill.— By the Archbishop of Armagh, from Clergy of the Dioceses of Armagh, Elphin, Kilmore, Ferns, Leghlin, Ossory, and from Inhabitants of Clones, Clonmore, Killurin, Ballyscullion, Glanely, Shancho, Errigle, Corrowdore, Camersjuxta, Bann, and Lower Badony, in favour of the Church Education Society (Ireland).—From Londonderry, for the Repeal of Patronage in the Scotch Church.—From Hammersmith Institution, to Exempt Literary and Scientific Institutions from Payment of Taxes.—By the Earl of Clarendon, from Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope, for a Representative Government in that Colony.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Archbishop of Armaghpresented petitions from
272
the bishops and clergy of the diocese of Lismore and other dioceses, against the system of national education in Ireland, and praying that Government support might be given to the Church (of England) Education Society in Ireland. The petition from Lismore was signed by the bishop and seventy-three of the clergy; that from Elphin was signed by forty-one out of forty-eight of the clergy. The whole four had the signatures of 441 clergymen. He must bear his testimony to the respectability of the Church Education Society, and to its great and increasing utility. There were not fewer than 1,200 schools belonging to it, giving instruction to 70,000 scholars, of whom more than 20,000 were Roman Catholics. He hoped that a society possessing so many claims to support might receive some aid out of the public funds.
The Marquess of Downshirefully concurred in what had fallen from the most rev. Prelate as to the great respectability and utility of this society. He was friendly to education on sound principles wherever given, but he would not support a society which acted on any exclusive plan as to the admission of scholars; but he was happy to find that no such exclusive system was practised in this society, in which, out of 70,000 scholars, more than one-fourth were Roman Catholics. He was of opinion, that support should be given to this society out of the public funds.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid:—In pursuance of the notice I gave, I rise to present the petition which has been forwarded to me from the Cape of Good Hope. I beg to inform your Lordships that it is signed by more than 600 persons, and that it was agreed to at one of the largest meetings, as I have been given to understand, ever held at Cape Town. This petition appears to me well worthy the consideration of your Lordships and of her Majesty's Government, both on account of the number and respectability of the petitioners, and the fact that a similar petition to the Queen in Council has been sent home with the favourable recommendation of the governor, but also on account of the great capabilities and growing importance of the colony, which will, I am sure, incline your Lordships and the Government favourably to consider any measure that the inhabitants may think conducive to their interests. The population at the Cape of Good Hope is estimated

273
to exceed 180,000; and when we look at the geographical position of the colony, situated as it is half way between Europe and India, within twenty days' sail from Rio de Janeiro and other of the South American States, with the markets of the Indian seas open to the colony, all of which require the large quantities of provisions that the Cape of Good Hope has the means of furnishing —when we consider its importance as a naval and military station, and that our ships can at all times be supplied there abundantly and cheaper than in any other country, there can be no doubt that the colony is most valuable to us, and that we are bound to neglect nothing that can promote its prosperity. Its capabilities and productive powers are notorious, but some idea may be formed of them by the success of the settlers in the eastern province called Albany, where, not more than twenty years ago, a few poor English emigrants established themselves, and the country was at that time described to be unfit for the permanent residence of man or beast; but by industry and enterprise they have created a flourishing settlement, and last year I understand they exported to this country upwards of a million pounds of merino wool. The inhabitants, however, are not satisfied with the form of government under which they live; and a general conviction prevails among them that if they had had the management of their own affairs during the last twenty years, they would have been in a much more flourishing condition than they are at present, and they are strengthened in this opinion by the complete success which has attended the recent establishment of municipal institutions among them. These have been productive of much economy and local improvement, and they consequently think that the general interests of the community would be promoted by giving the people some influence in the management of their own affairs. Whether it will be expedient to comply with their wishes upon this subject it is of course for her Majesty's Government to determine. I think that wherever there exists a colony of Englishmen well settled they should always have free and liberal institutions; entrusting to them the management of their own affairs is the best safeguard against that jealousy of the interference of the mother country and discontent at being governed from a distance, which are always the feelings most rife in a colony; it gives the colonists confidence in themselves; it calls forth men of superior abilities among them, and it
274
makes them feel that the money they are compelled to pay in the shape of taxes is expended properly and in a manner beneficial to themselves, or if not that they are responsible and have only themselves to blame for it. These were the principles acted upon by the late Government and from which her Majesty's present Ministers do not seem disposed to depart, for I have the satisfaction of knowing that a bill brought into the House of Commons last year by my noble Friend the late Secretary of the Colonies, for giving a representative system to New South Wales, has been adopted and again introduced by the noble Lord now at the head of that department. There are causes, however, which may properly induce the Government at home to pause before they grant a representative system to a colony, and among them are the fact of mixed races existing in such a colony; its having an extended continental frontier, and having to deal with the aborigines residing both within and beyond that frontier; the party spirit and jealousy always to a certain extent existing between mixed races may be still more excited in a representative assembly, and become dangerous, as in Canada between the French and English races; a desire usually exists in such an assembly to extend the territory of the colony, and the mother country is in danger of being involved in the expense and trouble of their border quarrels, and you can never be sure that at the hands of such an assembly the aborigines will receive that consideration and kind treatment which it is the duty of the mother country to secure to them. I am bound to admit that all these circumstances exist at the Cape of Good Hope, but I do not think them conclusive against the benefits of some form of representation being extended to that colony, for both the Dutch and English races desire it—both are convinced that it would add to the general prosperity and be for their common good, and by that means tend to promote harmony between the races. There does not appear, at present at least, any desire on the part of either English or Dutch to extend the frontier, for the territory they now possess is infinitely greater than they have the means of cultivating, and so far from there being any disposition to maltreat the natives there appears to be a good understanding between them and the British subjects resident near the borders. Nevertheless, her Majesty's Government may not think it expedient to grant the prayer

275
of this petition to its full extent, but I think they will admit it is not to be wondered at that a large, intelligent, thriving community like that at the Cape of Good Hope should be discontented with their present form of Government, which consists of a legislative council composed of a majority of official persons and a minority of Unofficial persons, chosen by the Governor, who very naturally selects those whom he thinks most likely to be subservient to his wishes. It is not unreasonable that such a system should be looked upon as one which prevents the people from having any voice in the Government, and excludes them from all management of their own affairs. The bill to which I just now alluded for giving a representative system to New South Wales, which is before the House of Commons, provides for the establishment of a Legislative Council, of whom twelve are to be appointed by the Queen, and eighteen are to be elected by the people, which council is to have power to add to its members in the same proportion—it provides that the council shall be held once every year, and that its duration shall be five years, and that all taxes and rates shall be appropriated to the public service of the colony; it moreover provides for local government by district councils which are to be elective. If this bill shall, as I hope it will, receive the sanction of Parliament, and become law, I think the inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope will have cause for complaint if some such benefits are not extended to them, and that they are consequently looked upon as less trustworthy and less competent to manage their own affairs than her Majesty's subjects in New South Wales. I, of Coarse, don't ask my noble Friends to give any decision upon this subject, but 1 trust the petition will be taken into the favourable consideration of her Majesty's Government.
The Earl of Riponsaid, that the Government had received a petition from the Cape of Good Hope similar to that which had just been presented by his noble relation. It had been, forwarded by the Governor, and was, as had been said by his noble Friend, signed by the most respectable inhabitants of the colony, who all seemed to agree that a representative form of government was the best, and ought to The established in the colony. It was hardly necessary for him to assure his noble Friend and their Lordships, that her Majesty's Government were anxious for the welfare of the Cape of Good Hope, and in the abstract could not object to a form of govern-
276
ment under which this country had so greatly prospered; but, as his noble Friend himself had admitted, there were difficulties in the way of such concessions, in consequence of divisions amongst the colonists themselves. These divisions arose partly from difference of origin, and partly from difference of habit, arising from that origin; but such as they were they constituted great difficulties in granting a representative form of government. Indeed, the plan sent home by the colonists was deficient in its detail, and would not, if followed out, give them the form of government which they desired, namely, one analogous to that of Great Britain; for it was proposed that all the Members should be elected, and all should sit in one House. This was not the principle of the plan proposed for New South Wales, in which there was to fee a legislative assembly and a council, many of the members of which were to be named by the Government. When he stated this, let him add, that her Majesty's Government were not insensible to the merits of this important subject, and would give it their best attention.
Lord Brougham,had he known that his noble Friend was about to bring forward this question, would have asked hint to postpone it to some more convenient time for discussion. As it was introduced, however, he would say one or two words on it. He was opposed, on principle, to the grant of a representative form of government to any colony where the races were so mixed that the legislative power would be concentrated in one race, and where it was probable that it would be often used to the oppresssion of the other. On this principle he would oppose any measure for extending the forms, it could not, for the present, be the principles, of the British Constitution to the Cape of Good Hope. His noble Friend had admitted that one of the difficulties Standing in the way of such a measure was the mixture of various races in the colony. In that he fully concurred. But there were others which had always been considered decisive against such a measure. Besides the argument of the various races, where the white, or European race, did not constitute the majority, the extension of the British constitution Was more nominal than real; and if, as in the case of the Cape of Good Hope, there should be, as was the fact, about one-third of the population of European descent, and if the slaves, or what was

277
nearly the same thing, those who were recently slaves and were how free men of colour, amounted to double that, it would increase the force of the reasons why for some time to come their Lordships should not give to that colony a representative form of government. He had often, during the existence of slavery in our colonies, contended for this principle. Applications were constantly made by the white population of Trinidad for a representative form of government, somewhat analogous to our own, but the application Was as often refused; and he was one of these who joined in that refusal, on the ground that the legislative power in the hands of one party or race, would not be Used for the protection of the other. When the proper time should arrive—when the whole body of the colonists were fit for such a change— that is, when the coloured people, the bulk of the inhabitants, could share in the franchise, then would he most heartily join in any measure for effecting the change; but he would oppose a measure which Would tend materially, in the present circumstances, to oppress a portion of the colonists.
Lord Howdenwas glad that the attention of Government had been called to the subject. He could by no means concur in the argument of the noble and learned Lord for refusing a constitution to the Cape of Good Hope, because that colony had imported slaves. This, it should be considered, was not the fault of the colony. It was the fault of the period during which slavery and slave-trading were openly carried on throughout the empire. It was, therefore, most unjust that this colony should be made to suffer, and have the mark of Cain placed on its brow, for an offence which could not be imputed to it more than to others, to which no such punishment was awarded. Under all the circumstances of the case he would give the prayer of this petition his most cordial support. The colony had many claims upon our consideration; but one she possessed in a high degree, namely, that not one of our colonies was more cordially attacked to the mother country. Another reason why he thought the Cape of Good Hope deserved a constitution was this— that it had so used the powers conferred on it with respect to municipal institutions, as to show that it was fully adequate to the task of self-government.
Petition read and laid on the Table.

IRISH MAGISTRACY.
The Marquess of Clanricardewould take the opportunity of asking a question of the noble Duke opposite, to which he thought the noble Duke would have no difficulty in giving an answer. It was in reference to the re-appointment of Mr. St. George to the magistracy of the county of Galway. About six years ago, the Irish government, at the head of which his noble Friend, the Marquess of Normanby then Was, took some steps which had displeased the magistracy of this county, and Mr. St. George, in consequence, wrote a letter, the effect of which was, that the noble Marquess caused him to be removed from the commission of the peace. Lately, the Magistrates had met together, and a considerable number of them had addressed a memorial to the Government, which they had begged him to forward to the Lord-lieutenant, requesting that Mr. St. George might be re-appointed. He knew the gentleman himself, and he knew that he was a most worthy, excellent person, fully qualified in every respect to perform the functions of a magistrate, and he believed that it was very desirable that be should re-assume his position in the commission of the peace. He had written to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, forwarding the memorial of the gentlemen of the county to which he had already alluded, and expressing his own Opinion that it would be convenient to accede to this proposition. In doing so, he had abstained altogether from making any remark upon the letter originally written by Mr. St. George. The Lord Chancellor did not think it right to act on his recommendation, or on that of his brother magistrates, inquired into the case, and having referred to the original letter, the Lord Chancellor thought it right that that Gentleman should express his regret for what had happened, and Wrote to him to intimate that such was his opinion. In this letter the Lord Chancellor expressed himself towards Mr. St. George in the most Courteous manner. The sentiments expressed in this communication were subsequently conveyed to Mr. St. George, but that gentleman declined to express any regret for what had passed before, or to withdraw anything which he had written. He had forwarded this reply to the Lord Chancellor, and had supposed that the matter was at an end. He had, therefore, been a little surprised to read in the newspapers an intimation by the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, that the Government had subsequently re-

279
appointed Mr. St. George to the magistracy. He was at a loss to understand how it was that this result had been brought about, and whether it were attributable to the exertions of one of the newspapers which was looked upon as the organ of the high Tory party in Dublin, the Evening Mail, in which he had seen a very well written article on the subject, he could not, of course, say. The step which was taken, however, he thought, must in some sort justify the letter which had been originally written. He therefore begged to inquire of the noble Duke whether it were true, that Mr. St. George had been restored to the commission of the peace, and whether the noble Duke had any objection to make known the communications which had passed on this subject between the Irish government and Mr. St. George, or between the Lord Chancellor and Mr. St. George, or the Lord Chancellor and the Irish government?
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that in answer to the first question of the noble Marquess, he begged to state, that Mr. St. George had been restored to the commission of the peace. The noble Marquess had, so far as he knew, correctly stated the circumstances of this case. Five years ago, Mr. St. George was dismissed from the magistracy, in consequence of his writing a letter to the Lord-lieutenant upon an act performed by him in the exercise of the authority of his office. The noble Marquess had omitted to advert to this letter, but he could not otherwise than say that, in his opinion, the noble Lord at the head of the Irish government could not have done otherwise than desire that Mr. St. George might be dismissed from his office. The noble Marquess had stated truly, that he and other magistrates of the county—and, he believed, a large proportion of the gentlemen of the county—had expressed a desire that Mr. St. George should be restored to the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor thought proper, before he acquiesced in the application, to inquire into the circumstances attending his removal from office; and, having done so, he had thought it necessary to consider well, and to consult with others whether it would be expedient that he should be restored. Upon such consultation, he determined to restore him, and after a certain time, he was restored. There was a correspondence upon the subject, but he could not say that he considered it expedient to lay that correspondence on the Table of the
280
House. If the noble Marquess thought proper to move for those papers, he might give notice of a motion, and the Government would take the subject into their consideration, and he would give the noble Marquess an answer whether the papers could be produced or not. In the meantime, he must say, that it appeared to him that the re-appointment of this gentleman to the magistracy had given universal satisfaction to the country, and that most undoubtedly that re-appointment was not to be attributed to any desire to gratify the editor of any newspaper in Dublin. It was admitted, that the removal of Mr. St. George was a very proper step, and when his restoration did not take place until five years after that removal occurred, he thought that it might be perceived, that it was not attributable to any other cause than that, which was founded upon the length of time during which he had been out of the commission.
The Marquess of Clanricardewould not move for any papers in reference to this transaction; but he must say, that the answer of the noble Duke was far from satisfactory. From that answer, it rather appeared that the restoration of Mr. St. George had resulted more from what had appeared in the newspaper than from any other cause. He had applied for the restoration of Mr. St. George, but had failed. The editor of the newspaper had made something like an application in public, whether he had also applied in private or not he could not say, but the editor had succeeded. It was undoubtedly very satisfactory that Mr. St. George should be restored; but he must say, that if the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that there should be a retractation of something which had been said before, and that retractation was refused, it was singular that the request for his re-instatement, which bad been previously refused, should be now acceded to.

THE TIPPERARY SPECIAL COMMISSION.
The Marquess of Clanricardewould take this opportunity of saying a few words in reference to what had passed the other evening with regard to the special commission issued for the trial of prisoners in Tipperary. That was a subject on which he had asked a question in the hope of getting some information, but he found that those noble Lords who had desired to set him right, had been themselves wrong. He was now informed that it would have

281
given rise to a great deal of confusion, if the assizes had been changed, so as to allow the trial of the prisoners for this county to take place first, and that at the same time there must have been some loss of time in adopting that course. He should like to know when the assizes were likely to take place at Clonmel, and when the special commission was to be opened at that place.
Lord Fitzgeraldmight perhaps be permitted to notice both points to which the noble Marquess had alluded. First, with respect to the re-appointment of Mr. St. George. He agreed with the noble Marquess in expressing his regret that his restoration to the position which he had previously held had not taken place upon the interposition of the noble Marquess, but he was sure that no blame was due to the learned and distinguished Lord Chancellor, who had been anxious to institute a full inquiry before he took upon himself to act at all in the affair. He believed that Mr. St. George himself had never applied to be re-instated, that he had never complained of the step which had been taken, but that the application for his restoration to the list of magistrates had been the act of his friends. He believed that a man more competent to the discharge of the magisterial duties, or who would more honourably, usefully, or patriotically fulfil them, could not be found in that or in any other country. With respect to the question of the special commission, when the noble Marquess had first brought this subject under the notice of the House, neither he nor any other noble Lord was prepared to give him an answer, and to say exactly when the assizes for Nenagh or Clonmel would commence. It would be satisfactory to the House now to learn that no delay would take place by reason of the issuing of the special commission. The special commission had been issued on the 10th of June, and it was determined that it should be opened at Clonmel on the 28th of the present month. The assizes at this place, according to their regular course, would not commence until the 28th of July, so that there would be a saving of one month. But it was not merely upon the time which would be saved, upon which the Government would rest their defence of the special commission. Every one who was acquainted with Ireland would acknowledge how important it was in that country that crime should be speedily followed by
282
punishment, and it was not unimportant therefore that the Government should take the earliest possible measures to bring the guilty to justice, when they had reason to suppose that they really had the guilty in custody. In the present case, too, intimidation prevailed to a great extent. Murders had been committed, the whole frame of society was shook, and the delay of a month or a week was, in the consideration of the Government, of the highest importance. But there were other points also which it was important to consider. If the trial of these persons had taken place at the ordinary assizes for the North Riding of the county of Tipperary, the jurors for that Riding alone would be summoned upon their trial; but under the special commission this arrangement would not prevail, but the jurors of the whole county would be called upon to attend. It was besides highly desirable that the trial should take place at Clonmel, a large and populous town, removed from the scene of intimidation, where witnesses had been threatened with violence, and even murder. There was only one other circumstance to which he would refer. The noble Marquess had characterised this commission the other night, rather hastily he thought, as an unprecedented job—[The Marquess of Clanricarde had said, that it had been so designated.] Then, the noble Marquess had not used the expression as conveying his own views: but only the assertion of a newspaper that this was a gross job, and he should be the less sparing in his answer to the suggestion. He declared that the charge was grossly unfounded and unjust, and from whatever source it proceeded, he had no hesitation in denying its truth. A job for whom? Was it for the judges? They were the judges of the land; the two eminent individuals who held the respective positions of the two chief justices of Ireland. It could not be said, then, that they were to profit by it. Was it for the law officers of the Crown? His noble Friend well knew that no law officers were taken down on a special commission without heavy fees; but what was the position of these gentlemen? —that, in order to go down to the special commission, they must give up the circuit, and they were now placed, therefore, in no better position than that in which they would have otherwise stood. He believed that his noble Friend would not be sorry to receive this explanation.
Subject at an end.

INCOME (PROPERTY) TAX
The Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the third reading of the Income-tax Bill was read.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that having moved the adjournment of this debate the other evening, in opposition to the majority of noble Lords, and knowing very well how incapable he was to explain to their Lordships what he deemed to be the grounds upon which this measure ought to be rejected, he owned that he should have felt much embarrassed in the position in which he now stood if it were not that the more he considered the matter—the more reflection he was able to give to the speeches by which the bill had been, supported, the more he felt himself strengthened in the conviction that their Lordships, should not allow this measure to pass into a Jaw, The argument that it was too late in the Session for their Lordships to throw put the measure, was one which ought not for one moment to prevail, Their Lordships were not there merely, to register the edicts of the other House of Parliament; and if they were, to reject, this bill, there would, he abundance of time for a new measure, There was no reason why an. entirely new, provision should not be made to meet the financial difficulties of the country, He was sure that no such argument would be used by any of their Lordships; but that independent of all such considerations their Lordships would exercise their deliberate judgment with respect to this measure. It was difficult for him to say anything in opposition to it which had not been said much better before. If he wanted to show their Lordships that this bill would be extremely injurious in its effects upon trade —that it was vexations in its spirit—odious to the people—degrading to their charactepr—repugnant to their feelings, he should read to their Lordships the petition presented to their Lordships' House in 1816 from the merchants of London, or the petition which he had had the honour to present from Finsbury in the course of the present Session. If he wanted to show this, he should in the best manner, tread to their Lordships the speeches which had been delivered against such a proposition by Members of that and the other House of Parliament, some of them Members of her Majesty's present Ministry. But the evils of this system of taxation had not been denied, and there-
284
fore he should not dwell upon them; but if the arguments against a Property-tax were agreed to be great and stringent— and no one had attempted to deny that they were—he could not help saying that all the evils and bad characteristics of such a tax were to be found in this bill, in their grossest and most aggravated form. He must admit, that, the other evening, something had been said, in favour of an Income-tax; but that was not said by any Member pf her Majesty's Government, but by a noble Friend of his, who was not now in his place (Viscount Melbourne), and as that noble Viscount was the only individual who had spoken in favour of the measure, but had voted against it, he must notice his arguments. What the noble Viscount had said was, that the bill would produce money; and that argument had been taken up by the noble Duke, who said that the Government wanted money; that this measure would produce money; and that that afforded a reason for passing this bill. But the noble Viscount had found. put that this tax ought to have been relied on more; and that the country had rejected it somewhat hastily, in 1816, And the noble Viscount had gone further, and by an illustration—a classical illustration —of his own position, when he was at the head of her Majesty's, late Government, certainly left it to be inferred that he him-self would, if possible, have proposed some such bill to the country. This was the first time that either in or out of the House he had ever heard that such an opinion was entertained by the noble Viscount while he held the position to, which he had alluded. His noble Friend, however, was not in the House, and he would not say much that he had intended, he would only remark that his noble Friend did not declare this to be a bad bill, he only said he would vote against it because he had got a bill of his own. He did not vote against it because he had a choice of evils, but because, to use a French phrase, there was un embarras de richesses. The only substantial plea for this bill advanced by his noble Friend was that solely relied upon by her Majesty's Ministers, the plea of necessity. The only plea that justified her Majesty's Ministers was that upon which his noble Friend likewise relied. He thought that her Majesty's Government ought to have proved that a necessity existed; they had declined this, they had done no such thing. Instead of

285
proving this necessity, the speech of his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (the Earl of Ripon), proved that so far from there being any necessity, they had to go out of their way to create a necessity for justifying the Parliament in imposing this tax upon the country. If an immediate necessity actually existed, he would not say that he would oppose an Income-tax. He was free to admit that although there were great evils in a property tax and an Income-tax, still he might vote for such a tax. If they showed him that the safety, the honour, or the credit of the country required an Income-tax, odious as it was he would vote for it. Nay, if they showed him that, for the extension and the opening of our commerce, and that the carrying out those measures which would really relieve the springs of industry, it would be necessary that the enactment of an Income-tax should be taken into consideration, he would not be unwilling to enter into that consideration. Nay more; if her Majesty's Ministers had proposed to Parliament any great and permanent plan of finance, of which a direct taxation on the property of the country should form a, material part, he would not be unwilling to apply himself to the consideration whether an Income-tax could not be devised which would press equally on all incomes, and by which the evils contained in the present bill would be removed. Still he saw a great objection to any mode of levying money by direct, taxation, and he thought there would be much danger, in a financial point of view, in supplying a large portion of the revenue by such a mode. He contended, however, that her Majesty's Government had this year done no such thing, and that the necessity for this tax was not in any way proved. His noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade had put the necessity of the Income-tax upon three grounds:—First, he said it was necessary to equalize the income of the country and the expenditure; secondly, that it was necessary, for the purpose of revising that heterogeneous mass of import duties commonly called the tariff; and, thirdly, it was necessary, because it was impossible to find any tax less objectionable and equally efficient at the present moment. In his opinion, throughout the views of her Majesty's Ministers there was a great pervading error. In the first place the Government
286
had exaggerated, or, rather, over-estimated the financial difficulties in which we were placed; and in the next place they underestimated the powers of the trading, commercial, and social interests which were bound up with these difficulties. His noble Friend, in applying himself to the first point, had discussed almost entirely the expenditure of the country. He hoped his noble Friend had exaggerated those expenses, or the difficulty of having them speedily reduced. Very slight mention was made of the resources of the country. He had said nothing of the reason why the income had not equalled the expenditure. His noble Friend did touch upon the loss by the reduction of the Post-office duties, and had said that Parliament had engaged to make it good—an engagement which, the noble Duke added, had not been performed; and had then touched very lightly on the addition of 5 per cent, on the customs, and 10 per cent, on the assessed taxes. His noble Friend should have shown why these taxes had failed. That, he said, was an essential point for their consideration. The votes had failed to make good the deficiency in the Post-office duties, either on account of some sudden or unforeseen cause, or because the Ministers who had proposed these taxes, the opposition who had readily accepted them, and the Parliament which had voted them, had acted in very great error. This point was particularly necessary to be considered, if they looked forward to the glimmering of a hope that the tax would be temporary. He said that it was impossible to entertain the glimmering of this hope, unless they examined why the taxes imposed to make good the Post-office deficiency had not answered the intended purpose. The cause for our difficulties which was mainly urged was the state of America. If that were the cause, it ought to have been by this time somewhat surmounted. If it were said, as his noble Friends behind him said, that these difficulties arose from the Corn-laws, taken in conjunction with bad harvests, the cause would still be liable to a recurrence. If there were a gradual decline of our commerce and manufactures, as a noble Friend of his connected with Yorkshire (Earl Fitzwilliam) asserted, he then said that our embarrassments were more serious, and that they ought to enter deeply into the subject; and that in the mean time it was impossible for noble

287
Lords opposite to hold out any hope of I relieving the country from the tax they now placed upon them. Although he did not disagree to the proposition laid down by the noble Earl, that the income and expenditure of the country ought to be equal, yet if ever there was a time when they ought not to overlay the resources of the country, when taxation ought to be imposed most carefully, when they should not lay imposts on profits or expenditure —if ever there was a time when, according to an expression which had been much in vogue, they should leave the money in the pockets of the people to fructify, it was the present moment. He came now to the second point on which the necessity for this tax was declared—the revision of that heterogeneous mass of import duties commonly called the tariff. He was somewhat surprised at the view just now taken by the Government of these duties. It was remarkable that the present Ministers of the Crown, who had held high office before, should have found out the real nature of the tariff at that particular moment. When he saw men who had been long eminent in public stations, who had held offices which must have forced upon them the consideration of questions of finance and of commerce, and particularly of these duties, so long in being awakened to the real character of those duties, and to the necessity of legislation, it was not too much to say, that their conduct rather strengthened the views of the late Government than went the other way—that they were in favour of the policy they had so long maintained, and that they had now adopted these measures to create a necessity for the Income-tax. His noble Friend had called this a heterogeneous mass of legislation, and had declared that it was founded on no intelligible principle. He thought, however, that no one would venture to take up the new tariff when it should come before the House, and say, that it was consistent with any one principle whatsoever. He would not at present enter into the tariff, they would upon the proper occasion have enough to do when the tariff was before them. When he said this, however, he did not defend the old tariff. He said that tariff for tariff he infinitely preferred the new. But, then, if he were asked whether he would have preferred that the old tariff should have remained a little longer—and a little longer
288
only could it have remained with indirect taxation, or the new tariff with the Income-tax, he would then say, that he would have preferred submitting to the old tariff a little longer. All the good he saw in the new tariff was, the principle on which its introduction had been founded, and the speeches it had drawn forth, which did not appear to him to originate so much with the new tariff as in the measures of the old Government. But as they had got the announcement of the principle, and these speeches, he would not object to the postponement of the new tariff for one year, provided they could avoid a tax which they so much dreaded. When he looked at the tariff and the report of the committee on import duties, he found that the measures adopted by the Government were the very reverse of some of the recommendations. It was true, that if they lowered the duties from which a large revenue was derived, they could not expect an increase of revenue till after the lapse of a considerable interval of time. If they could expect such a sudden increase they would reduce the matter to the couplet in the old song:—
"My revenue is great, because it is so small, Then it had been greater had you none at all!"
In the tariff there were differential duties, and protective duties; and if they re-arranged the differential duties and decreased the protective duties, they would be able to increase the revenue. He said that the whole system of the new tariff was a system of protection and of large differential duties. He knew that all protection could not be taken away, but they might still avoid much difficulty and ensure a more satisfactory state of things. Instead of this the Government had done the very reverse. He said more; if, in consequence of the present distress, particular interests were called upon to make sacrifices, they ought to be the great protected interests for which the country had made such sacrifices, and had submitted to such a large amount of taxation, whether they were colonial or domestic. He, therefore, said, that the second element on which his noble Friend founded the justice of this tax wholly failed, although he admitted, that a tariff founded upon sound principles might have done much to alleviate the necessity of the Income-tax. He came next to the third point in his noble Friend's (the Earl of

289
Ripon's) argument, which, as he thought, involved the whole question, and in which his noble Friend said, that it was impossible to find any articles which would produce as much money, and which would not be more injurious. His noble Friend went over the repealed duties on the several articles of raw material, and had asked whether they would re-impose any of these. His noble Friend had raised a host of shadows, and had cut them down very valiantly. His noble Friend had touched very gently on some which he might have dwelt upon. He had said little of the wine duties and assessed taxes. But noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House were not called upon to specify from what sources the money could be derived. He did not want the authority of Sir Robert Peel to say, that they were not bound to find him a budget. He found, however, that the amount of taxes repealed or reduced since 1821 was 23,181,060 l., of which had been re-imposed 1,023,81 l l., leaving upwards of 22,000,000 l. of taxes repealed since 1821. There was also the Excise—on the Customs he did not rely. It was not by taking out a single article and arguing upon it that the noble Earl could show that no more money could be raised. There was no tax which could be selected against which somebody could not raise objections. In 1819 the noble Lord opposite (Lord Bexley), who preceded the noble Earl in the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, had increased the revenue, and yet had not imposed the Income-tax. And three years afterwards, in 1822, the noble Earl had repealed two millions of taxes; in 1823 he repealed four millions, and in 1825 he repealed a million and a half more. This showed that the additional taxation then imposed had not impaired the resources of the country. He asked, therefore, why the resources of the country could not now bear a resort to the same means as well as they did in 1819? That was what his noble Friend refused to tell—when prosperity was regained before the fresh taxes were repealed. It was true, that when Parliament imposed an additional duty of 5 per cent, on the Customs, and 10 per cent. on the assessed taxes, the produce of the Customs had not answered expectation, but the assessed taxes had been more productive than had been anticipated. That measure, therefore, could not be looked upon as an entire
290
failure. It would not be said that out of the 22,000,000 l. of duties repealed, it was impossible to raise two and a half or three millions by resorting to some of those repealed duties. The real necessities for which they were to provide was only two and a half or three millions of money. It was impossible to say that no tax could be found to provide this sum which would not press more heavily upon the country than an Income-tax. He said, then, that his noble Friend had on every point failed to prove the necessity of an Income-tax. Still the Government said, and it was fair to say, that an Income-tax was not only to provide for this deficiency, but also to enable them to couple with it a reduction of taxation, and that, taking the whole together, the country would benefit by a reduction of duties. He objected to the whole plan. He said that this attempt to relieve the distress of the country was contemptible. He said that the proposed relief was ridiculous in relation to the largeness of the distress; and that for this relief, small as it was, a tax was to be put upon the country which was vexatious and injurious, and to his mind ill adapted to the present circumstances of the country. To take, however, the entire plan. The Government found a deficiency in the income of two and a half millions, and the first thing they did was to throw away 600,00 l/. by giving up the timber duties. He said that this proposal was wholly unjustifiable in the present state of the revenue. He did not deny that a reduction of the timber duties would be productive of considerable advantage; but when this advantage was put into competition with the evil of an Income-tax, it was nothing. The Government did not give cheap and good timber; they gave the country cheap timber, but they gave it bad timber. It was true that they would let in some Baltic timber, on which the duty was now almost prohibitive, but the principal was still protection; they kept up high differential duties. If they wanted a direct trade with the Baltic, why did they not leave on the 8s. duty? He asked where would be the advantage to the community now? If this were a moment when trade was going on profitably, and when many houses were building, the reduction of the duties on timber might be important, but at the present moment houses were falling to decay, and workshops were deserted, and the only houses to which the

291
poor could look were the workhouses. The only way in which the reduction of the duties could do good to this country was by opening the trade, and this the Government had refused to do. They chose rather to keep up the differential duties. Nay, some of her Majesty's Ministers had, elsewhere, taken credit to themselves and said that the persons connected with Canada were quite content with the proposed change. [Lord Fitzgerald: They are not satisfied.] It had been so stated in that place, and the statement had been eagerly caught up. The Government had also reduced the duty upon coffee. Taken by itself and abstractedly, this was a good thing; but when for this reduction, the country was to have the Income-tax, the sacrifice was too great. He did not wish to discuss the budget proposed by his noble Friend near him, but it was impossible to hear of the duty on coffee being reduced and not to revert to the duties upon sugar. The duties on sugar were kept up, although the reduction of them would have been a far greater boon than the reduction of the coffee duties, and would have materially increased consumption. The great argument used last year was, "We cannot let in foreign sugar because we cannot encourage slave-grown sugar." Although he would be as happy as any one to see the abolition of slavery throughout the world, and would assist that abolition to the utmost of his power, still he did not think that such a doctrine ought to be introduced into our system of taxation, and at any rate her Majesty's Government had wholly abandoned that argument, when they permitted coffee to come into this country from the Brazils and from Cuba. In reducing the duty on coffee they would have acted infinitely wiser if they had made no differential duties in favour of our East Indian possessions, and had allowed the coffee to come direct from the Brazils and from Cuba with the imposition of an additional duty, less than the cost of the voyage round by the Cape of Good Hope. The whole amount of the reduction of the coffee duties was only 170,000 l., and for that there was no necessity to impose an Income-tax! but he objected to the reduction as being badly carried into effect. A word or two before he concluded upon the promised surplus. His noble Friend had stated that it would amount to half a million; and supposing it not to be very much under-estimated,
292
how was it to be applied? His noble Friend had stated that it was wanted to carry on pending negotiations with foreign countries. He would like to hear what were the negotiations which were in such a condition as to need that expenditure; and it seemed to him that it would have been much more becoming if Ministers had simply taken a vote, that any deficiency to be thus occasioned would be made good. The country ought not to be called upon to provide half a million, at a time when it was not at all likely to be wanted. But if it were not wanted for negotiations, it seemed that it would be wanted for the purpose of reducing other taxes. If it were to be so applied, what chance was there of ever getting rid of the Income-tax? Was it not, in fact, the grossest deception to say that the Income-tax should determine in three years, when everything showed that it would then be quite as much wanted as now? If it did not expire in three years, the bill upon the Table would become part of the permanent taxation of the country, and to that he must feel the greatest possible objection. Sure he was that the country would never consent to it, and nothing could be worse than to commence such a system, if it were not meant to persevere in it. A noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) on Friday had made it matter of complaint, and with reason, that Ireland was not included in the measure. Ireland was to be permanently taxed to the extent of 400,000 l. a year, while in England, according to the showing of Ministers, the evil was only to be of three years' continuance. If, however, it was not really intended that the Income-tax should expire (and he for one could not see how that was possible) the two countries might be considered pretty much on an equality. He entreated the House to consider what a compound of injustice the bill amounted to: the powers of the commissioners were so tyrannical as absolutely to be inconsistent with the principles of free government. He had presented a petition from persons who had experienced the working of the old Income-tax, but it was impossible that that could have been worse than some of the provisions of the present bill. Could any injustice be more crying than that persons in mercantile pursuits were to pay the tax not upon their profits of last year, but on the average of the three last years? Thus, at a time when busi-

293
ness was least advantageous, when, in truth, to many it was ruinous, they were required not to pay upon their actual incomes, but upon their receipts when trade had not so seriously declined. He might detain their Lordships all night by pointing out the manifold injustice of the measure, but he Would only advert to a few others. A noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) on a former night had spoken of the present as a landed Parliament, and had intimated that good care would therefore be taken of the land. Certainly it seemed as if in this bill landed proprietors had paid due regard to their own property and interests, and, in order to save themselves, had taxed more severely the rest of the community.
The Duke of Richmond: The noble Marquess had misunderstood what had fallen from him. He could not, with any justice, have stated that the present Government had paid the slightest attention to the wishes of the landed interest.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas prepared to show to what extent the landed interest had been benefitted at the expense of the rest of her Majesty's subjects. For this purpose he would take the figures of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, from which it appeared that the income derived from land, and including tithes, was 82,796,000 l., the amount of tax to be derived from it was calculated at 1,127,000 l. The income derived from other sources was supposed to be 114,426,000 l., and the tax from it was calculated at 2,470,000 l. Thus it was admitted that 114,000,000 l. paid more than double the amount of tax obtained from 82,000,000 l., and the injustice therefore was evident. He had said early in the evening that he thought it a perfect fallacy to suppose that the people were not aware of the Operation of the bill, and of the mode in which it would affect their interests, and Ministers in framing it had taken care to throw a sop to the lower classes which contained in itself a very dangerous principle. All incomes not amounting to 150 l. were exempted. The noble Earl, in introducing the measure, had stated the fact, but he had not attempted to support the provision by one word of reasoning. It would be said, however, that the bill of 1806 contained a similar exemption; but that was no answer, because the circumstances were entirely different: what might be just in
294
1806 might be the height of injustice in 1842. The exemption then was of incomes under 60 l.; but war prices then prevailed for all the necessaries of life, and the currency was depreciated so that 60 l. then could hardly be considered more than a quarter of 150 l. now. Supposing the bill to continue, as he feared it would, for a long period, what security on earth was there that in case of pressure the tax might not be raised to 6 per cent., and the exemption raised to incomes of 250 l.? In time, it might be raised to 10 per cent., or even to 20 per cent., and then incomes of 500 l. might be exempted. This was the dangerous principle involved in the tax and in the mode in which it was imposed. Whether Ministers had or had not remembered their friends of the landed interest, they had certainly remembered their friends the Chartists, and this most dangerous principle had been apparently adopted in order to secure their good graces. He was sorry to have troubled the House at so much length; but he objected to the whole scheme. As a measure of relief it would be trifling, inefficient, and even contemptible; while, as a tax, it would weigh most oppressively on the income and capital of the country; this, to, at a moment when, instead of taxing profits, modes ought to have been found to induce capitalists to employ their money in trade and speculation. It had been asserted that the measure had had the effect of keeping up the credit of the country. True it was that the price of the funds was high, but any man who considered that a proof of prosperity would be most grossly mistaken. He believed that the funds were kept up by the fact that capitalists were afraid to embark their money in any speculative adventure. He was convinced that the Ministerial scheme, instead of relieving distress, would increase it; the truth was, that Ministers had only considered how they could raise a certain sum, regardless of the consequences to the country, and of the perils to which it would be exposed. The noble Marquess concluded by moving, that the bill be read a third time on that day three months.
The Earl of Wicklowobserved, that what had fallen from him on a former night had been incorrectly reported. He had been represented to have said that Government, in not applying the bill to Ireland, had been guilty of an insult to

295
that country, and remarks had been made, founded upon the error, which might be of some consequence when they reached the other side of the water. He had never said any such thing, and he had never imputed any such intention to Ministers. He was convinced that they had given the fullest consideration to the subject, and that they would have extended the bill to Ireland if they had thought the country fit for it. They had not done so, and he was satisfied that they were right. What he had said was, that he was extremely sorry it was not so extended, because it showed that the deliberate opinion of Ministers was, that Ireland was not fit to bear it, while it was in fact subjected to nearly as great an amount of taxation as if the Income-tax had been applied to it. The operation of the whole measure would affect that country as much as if Ireland had had to bear the Income-tax. He therefore repeated his regret that the Income-tax had not been found a fit tax to be applied to Ireland.
Earl Stanhopeobjected strongly to some of the financial measures of the late Administration, which he considered not only injurious to the landed interest, but destructive to our North American colonies. To such measures he would prefer even the Income-tax, odious, unjust, and inquisitorial as it was. When the tariff should be brought before the House he should think it his duty to move its rejection, although it had been the fashion to say that that and the Income-tax were to be looked upon as one measure. It had been stated that the tariff would afford so much relief in the cheapness of various articles of consumption, that really the Income-tax would not be felt. Had he not long ceased to be surprised at anything said or done, he should have been astonished at the boldness of such an assertion. But if the tariff were connected with the Income-tax, it seemed to him that the new Corn-law was quite as intimately involved; since landlords would find that the new Corn-law would put so much money into their pockets that they could well afford the small deduction of 3 per cent. Much had been said of the existing deficiency, but he did not attribute it entirely to the depressed state of trade. It was, in his opinion, to be traced to the mismangement of the late Administration. Year by year they had continued a reckless reduction of taxes, and that course must in time lead
296
to defalcation. Perhaps the first experiment of this kind by the late Ministers was the notable Penny Postage scheme, recommended by Mr. Rowland Hill, who had had very good reason to rejoice in the adoption of it. The country, however, had suffered, inasmuch as it cost it a revenue of not less than 1,200,000 l. A deficiency having- been found, the natural remedy would seem to be the re-imposition of certain taxes, the removal of which had not afforded the relief expected. He was not one of the provincial Chancellors of the Exchequer who had been treated with so much contempt elsewhere; on the contrary, he had never offered advice to any Minister under the conviction that it would not be followed, and perhaps not even received. Were he to recommend a course, he would suggest that a well-regulated house-tax ought to have been adopted, exempting houses occupied by the lower classes—and governed by the number of windows, increasing in proportion to that number. Next, he would have proposed a modified increase of the assessed taxes; relieving those who kept one manservant, one horse, or one carriage, and augmenting the burden upon those who could afford to keep many servants, horses, and carriages. Instead of objecting to the exemption of incomes under 150 l., although he might be called Chartist, or worse, he would have carried it further. In the third place, he would have raised the postage to two-pence; and, lastly, he should have considered it extremely judicious to have placed an additional duty on French wines, which were solely consumed by those who could well afford to pay. It might be said that an Income-tax was most convenient, because it might be raised to any amount, and because there could be no evasion; but the mere fact that it had not been recommended by former Governments, excepting under extraordinary circumstances, and for a limited time, showed that it was liable to the strongest objections. Pro tanto it might be said to amount to a confiscation of property; for where was the difference between depriving a man of 10 or 20 per cent, of his income, and taking away 10 or 20 per cent. of his property? No man had attempted to deny the inquisitorial nature of the Income-tax, and the power entrusted to the commissioners was as unlimited as it was arbitrary. Its inquisitorial character was destructive of that con-

297
fidence which was essential in a commercial country. But he especially entreated their Lordships to reflect upon the effect of this inquisitorial tax upon the middle classes, hitherto the best and foremost supporters of our national institutions. Was there such general prosperity and happiness throughout the empire that Ministers feared no disturbance of the public peace, and could afford to alienate the affections of those who were most sincerely attached to social order? The Income-tax was to be imposed because former taxes had been repealed, but had they been repealed because they were unproductive, or because they could be dispensed with? Not many years ago a much heavier weight of taxation had been borne, not only without suffering, but without murmuring: then, however, the country had a currency commensurate to its wants. The subject of the currency was not foreign to the question before their Lordships; for if they should be engaged in war, and endeavoured to raise a revenue adequate to the expenditure, either by direct or indirect taxation, so long as that measure called Peel's bill continued in existence, they would attempt to effect that which was utterly impracticable. The first effect of an expensive war would be to blow that bill to atoms; and if the Bank of England should not be restricted by an order in council, the Bank of England would restrict itself, for it would be utterly unable to make its payments. He knew that these opinions were unpopular in their Lordships' House. He remembered well what was said of them by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham); but it was his full and firm conviction that the opinion of the late Sir Robert Peel would sooner or later be verified. He had learned from certain information that the opinion the late Sir Robert Peel gave his son was this—"You never can carry that bill (meaning the bill for the resumption of cash payments) into full operation without ruining and revolutionizing this country." He should consider an Income-tax, notwithstanding the numerous and weighty objections which might be justly urged against it, to have at least one merit, if it did possess that advantage, which had been sometimes ascribed to it—that of taxing the rich, and not the poor. But he believed the result would be found, that it taxed the poor through the rich; and to that point he was anxious to call
298
their Lordships' attention. This alone was to him a sufficient reason for opposing the tax. Had not their Lordships observed in all quarters the reductions about to be made in private establishments? Was it not obvious, that when they imposed a tax upon any consumable article, they might or not diminish the amount of production; they might or not increase the amount of revenue to be derived from it, but that at least they did not by necessary consequence diminish the amount of labour; but that when they imposed an Income-tax, they obliged every prudent person whose income did not much exceed his usual expenditure to form for himself a new budget, to review all his pecuniary affairs, and to consider what reductions he could make; and what would be the effect of the curtailment of that expenditure at a time like the present, and in the circumstances in which the country was now placed? How much would it increase and aggravate the present distress, of which the immediate and proximate cause, whatever might be the ultimate cause, was an insufficiency of employment and remuneration of labour. With respect to that distress, differing as he did with regard to the causes of it from noble Lords opposite, he fully and entirely concurred with them, that it was a subject which immediately and imperatively demanded the serious consideration of Parliament. Not an instant of time should be lost in applying an efficient and adequate remedy. The continuance of that distress was most afflicting and alarming. The consequences of that distress also, and at no distant period, could be nothing less than anarchy throughout the land. There was another consideration which ought to weigh deeply on their Lordships' minds; they ought to husband in time of peace, and not exhaust wholly, or in part, those resources which were applicable only in a state of war. He knew it would be said, and it was unfortunately too true, that they were not at present entirely in a state of peace; that hostilities were now being carried on in China and in Affghanistan. He would upon this occasion say nothing of the extreme impolicy, of the flagrant injustice of the war they were now waging in China—a war commenced without any attempt at negotiation, and without even the formality of a declaration of war; and continued without even the consent of Parliament being obtained. He was aware

299
that they all read a proclamation in the Gazette that letters of mark and reprisals were issued, but was any message sent to the Mouse of Commons? Why did he mention this? Not in order to renew a discussion upon the subject, but because the consent of Parliament not having been obtained for that war, he did not think that Parliament could be justly or reasonably required to make good any expenses that had been incurred. But suppose the contrary had been the case, still for a temporary object, for so inconsiderable a matter in point of expense, though not in regard to its ultimate consequences, he thought other means might have been devised to defray the charge. If they were to exhaust in a time of peace those resources which ought to be reserved for a time of war, in what position would they be placed with respect to the other powers of Europe? What must be the direct and necessary consequence but to invite insult, aggression, and attack? What was another consequence that might result? He alluded to the evils and embarrassments to which this country might be exposed, if foreigners, who had property in the English funds, should be induced, in consequence of the Income-tax, to withdraw their capital? The effect it would produce must necessarily be very prejudicial. He had not ascertained the exact amount of capital so invested, but it was supposed to be between 12,000,000 l. and 14,000,000 l. If this were to be suddenly abstracted, it would so far diminish the amount of bullion in the Bank of England, and derange the whole circulation of the country. It would withdraw a large amount of capital, paralyse the energies and industry of the people, and tend to produce numerous bankruptcies throughout the land. He considered, therefore, this measure, for the reasons he had stated, to be pregnant with evil. But he would even yet allow that it was the least mischievous measure which had been proposed by the present Government. He should support the amendment of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde), although he differed from him in several respects. He was anxious to bear his testimony to the ability and judgment and extensive knowledge with which the noble Marquess had enforced his views. He felt the extreme impolicy of the present measure. It was not required by the exigency of the country, and could only
300
tend to aggravate the present distress under which the nation was suffering.
Lord Beaumontsaid, that he would fain throw himself on the indulgence of the House while he stated to their Lordships his opinions on the question, for, although he had been contented to give a silent vote on a former evening against the resolution moved by the noble Marquess, because that resolution contained principles and embodied doctrines of free-trade to which he could never subscribe, he felt unwilling on the present occasion to give an unqualified support to the Government measure. It was not to the principle of an Income-tax that he objected; it was not the necessity of its imposition that he denied; but his motives for qualifying his vote in its favour were the incorrect grounds on which it had been attempted to found it, the false reasoning with which its proposers had defended it, and the ruinous tendency of the measures with which it was surrounded and accompanied. As to the necessity of this or some equally efficient tax, he believed they were all agreed, for both sides of the House had admitted that it was incumbent on the Government, and absolutely necessary for the country to equalize the income with the expenditure of the State. Looking at the aspect of affairs not only here but on the continent, or more properly speaking, not only in Europe but throughout the world, no Minister would be justified in evading the immediate consideration of our financial difficulties, or of allowing any longer the annual increase of the deficit to continue. If noble Lords paid any attention to the periodical press of the continent, or took the trouble to read the numerous pamphlets with which political writers inundated France and Germany, they could not fail to observe that all these scribblers dwelt upon the state of our finance as the most important feature of our approaching decline, and pointed to the deficit in our revenue as the gangrene that was eating into the vitals of the country. Anxious as many of these authors are to run down our resources and anticipate our fall, they already calculate the slow degrees by which our financial embarrassment is destined to advance, and eagerly fix the period when it shall have arrived at such a height, that no Government will be able to raise a revenue equal to our expenditure. Under these circumstances it must be admitted that the moment is arrived when it becomes absolutely necessary that some effectual

301
means should be adopted which would meet the present deficit, and remove the injurious impression such a state of our finances has naturally created abroad. The only question that remains is the choice of the measure which is to produce the desired effect. Until the noble Earl who spoke last proposed his scheme of finance, the only measure which had been brought forward or even alluded to, besides that of an Income-tax, was the one embodied in the resolution of the noble Marquess, which professed to raise the revenue by means of alterations in the customs' duties on sugar, timber, and corn. He (Lord Beaumont) would not question the calculations of the noble Marquess, nor throw out a doubt as to the realization of the noble Marquess's anticipations; but it should be remembered that all revenue, raised by means of the customs, depends upon the reciprocity of trade between this and other countries, and that reciprocity of trade depends upon the maintenance of peace; and that, therefore, a revenue raised from such a source, would not impress foreign nations with a belief in the unexhausted condition of our own internal resources, but rather with the conviction that our means to meet any danger was consequent on our commercial relations with them, and liable to be interrupted by the interruption of peace. On this ground he would have objected to the noble Marquess's proposition; and even if no other motive existed, he would have considered this circumstance as sufficient reason for opposing any measure which attempted to apply a permanent remedy to an existing deficiency by means of simply altering our customs' duties. But he (Lord Beaumont) had higher grounds for objecting to raising the revenue from that source, namely, that by adopting such a course they must completely abandon the principle of protection. In this respect he must acknowledge that the late Government were consistent—when they proposed to alter the customs' duties they boldly abandoned the principle of protection. A tariff must be adjusted on one of two principles—either for the purpose of protection or revenue. They must either raise duties so high as to protect home produce from foreign competition, or relax them so low as to increase the revenue from them by an increase of consumption. The present Government did neither; they threw away protection, and yet did not attempt to increase the revenue by increasing the
302
foreign trade. They had adopted the bad part of the policy of their predecessors in office, without availing themselves of the counteracting good which accompanied it —that is to say, they threw away protection, and did not raise revenue by their alterations in the customs' duties tariff. But this was not all; for they not only abandoned protection, and neglected the opportunity of increasing the revenue from the customs, but actually added to the existing deficit, and thus increased the difficulty they were called upon to meet. There might have been reasonable expectations of supplying the deficiency in the revenue by the late Government's proposed alterations of the customs, and those expectations were naturally put forward as the grounds on which they argued the necessity of a change; but what was the course adopted by the present Government? They first made the deficit much greater than they found it, and then pleaded that deficit as a necessity for the imposition of an Income-tax. As had been clearly shown by the noble Marquess, they created the necessity of an Income-tax, and were themselves the authors of the evil, which, by its imposition, they expected to remove. But he (Lord Beaumont) would like to know on what data they calculated the actual loss the alterations of the customs was expected to inflict on the revenue, because, to all the questions put, either in their Lordships' House or elsewhere, as to the probable sum which would be derived from the diminished duties on corn, cattle, timber, &c., either the most contradictory answers had been given, or no answer at all. On one occasion they were told that it was as impossible to estimate the probable returns of the customs'-house, by considering the operations of the tariff, as it was to tell the name of a ship's captain by merely knowing the height of the vessel's mast, and the degree of longitude in which she was sailing. Again, when the agriculturists complained of the injury they would sustain by the importation of foreign cattle, they were told that no foreign calves had as yet been born, and no cattle could be brought in,—in fact, that the alteration of the tariff would make no difference; but when any person complained of the Income-tax, he was told that the price of meat, bread, and other agricultural produce would be so much reduced, that the weight of the Income-tax would be fully compensated for by the diminished expense of living. If the last answer was

303
true, fatal must be the effect upon the great agricultural interests of the country, for prices must be reduced to the amount of the tax paid by the consumers, and thus the whole of the additional burden would be defrayed by the land. The Government had often complained that the measures of their predecessors were merely experiments, but in this respect the present Ministers far outstript the former Government, for they not only made experiments in corn and timber, but in all the three or four hundred articles named in the new tariff. With respect to the limitation of time, he agreed in what had been so clearly stated and ably argued by the noble Marquess, that it was a fallacy to limit the duration of this tax to the term of three years, for what prospect had they of such an overflowing Exchequer at the end of three years as to entitle them to calculate on the repeal of it at the termination of that period? Did they rely on the increase of our commerce and the improvement of our trade with foreign countries? Did they look for an increase of our linen trade with France, or was it in America that they anticipated a more friendly tariff? Had Mr. Tyler improved on the commercial system of Mr. Clay, or had not Mr. Clay retreated rather than advanced in the march of free-trade principles. Had he not even gone so far as to assert, that free-trade was a chimera, and totally inapplicable to the civilised society of the United States. Neither in France or America could they therefore anticipate the abandonment of the present protecting duties, and the adoption of a more favourable tariff. To what country, then, did they look for this increase of trade. They would scarcely say to Russia, and he did not think they could expect much from the Prussian League in Germany. What was their trade with the emperor's dominions? In return for the hides, hemp, and tallow imported from Russia, they exported to that country so small a quantity of manufactured goods, that, in real value, the imports exceeded by an enormous sum the exports. Was it then in the Levant, on the shores of the Black Sea, or in the vast regions of Central Asia that they looked for an extension of their trade? Their power was dead in the East—they had no longer a paramount influence there. At the dictation of Russia the Dardanelles were closed against their steamships, in the Black Sea they had no flag—already the Russian name had gained the ascendancy
304
—sending her best generals to conquer Circassia, encircling the shores of the Euxine, and effacing our influence in Western Asia by the instrumentality of Persia. Was it then in Central Asia that they expected to extend their field of commercial enterprise? There they had, indeed, attempted to establish political relations, but with so little success, that the British name was hated throughout the land, and the British troops driven back beyond the frontier. They could not maintain political relations with those countries, and without political influence it was impossible to maintain any great commercial intercourse. Where then were they to derive the means which would enable the Government to abandon this tax at the end of three years? It could not be from the increase of revenue consequent on a great extension of their foreign trade. Was it, then, he would ask, from an anticipated diminution of the public expenditure? Had any one pointed out in what quarter or in what way further economy could be introduced into the public establishments? The army was already reduced to the lowest point proposed, and it was not safe, in the present state of European affairs, to put their navy on a less efficient footing. Had it not been clearly shown, that their ordinary expenditure must remain the same at the termination of the three years duration of the Income-tax as it was at the commencement of that period? And yet Government boasted that it would enable them to take off other taxes. So, indeed, it might, if the revenue from it exceeded the deficit now in the Exchequer, but if they availed themselves of the surplus to remove other taxes the first year, and even repeated the experiment the second year, what would be the consequence the third year, when, according to law, the Income-tax must cease, and the source of their surplus, as well as the source of a portion of their necessary revenue, would be suddenly cut off? They would be obliged to supply the deficiency by the re-imposition of the very taxes they had the two previous years taken off, or ask for a renewal and continuation of this: for, under no circumstances, could any plan of economy be suggested that would supply the loss which the termination of this tax would inevitably occasion. It was a mockery to talk of this tax as merely a temporary imposition, for having once raised the machinery necessary to carry it into effect, there was every inducement to

305
continue it, and as the noble Viscount lately at the head of her Majesty's Government, had candidly acknowledged, it was so effectual, and at the same time so easy an instrument in the hands of a Minister, that he doubted the willingness of any Government; that once experienced its advantages, to take it off. The noble Viscount had admirably descanted on the facilities it afforded to a minister, and he (Lord Beaumont) feared that the noble Viscount had read a lesson to those who knew well how to better the instruction. It was the duty of Government, at least to show on what grounds they calculated their ability, at the end of three years, to repeal the Income-tax, or what course they intended to pursue, if driven by outward pressure to adopt such a measure. They held out no hopes—they spoke of no chance of a diminished expenditure—no commissions were to be dropped — no offices to be destroyed, nor was there any prospect that local taxation would be so lightened as to enable the people to bear more easily the burdens of the State. Their legislation on the contrary tended to increase rather than diminish local expenses, as for instance, their lately adopted measure to limit the jurisdiction of justices which would swell the county rate by removing so many cases to assizes which now were tried at Sessions. In no way, therefore, could he discover any just grounds for the promise held out by Government, that they would, at the end of three years, take off this as well as other taxes, and he candidly confessed, that in giving his vote for this bill, he felt he was supporting not a temporary but a permanent tax. To the principle of that tax, however, he had not objected—he was willing to concede that it even had advantages. It caught all who could pay, the niggardly rich could not escape it, and it only weighed in proportion on the comparatively poor. It did not control expenditure, as the assessed and other taxes did, which often by taxing certain articles of luxury induced the wealthy to spend their money in other objects of fancy which had escaped the burden of a tax. A tax upon windows or upon houses, interfered with a healthy system of ventilation, and crampt the genius of architecture, while an Income-tax deducted so much from the spending capital of the individual, and left him to lay out the surplus in whatever manner he liked. To tax merely articles of luxury, was eventually to tax the labour which
306
produced them, and if they looked to the history of some other countries, they would find the misery which always followed the imposition of sumptuary laws. The noble Earl who spoke last, had said, that a portion of the expenses lately incurred were of a temporary nature, and did not require the enactment of a new tax, for being the mere consequences of our wars in the east, they ought, like all former war expenditure, to be met by a loan. But to this proposal he (Lord Beaumont) would never consent, nor would he be a party to any measure by which the expenses of our present proceedings in the east should be added by way of loan to the national debt. Had the wars alluded to, been wars of defence—wars to preserve either the country's independence, or the nation's honour wars such as that memorable war which had been brought to a glorious conclusion by the genius of the noble Duke now present—a war unparalleled in history, both for its glory and its importance—if such had been the nature of their present wars, he would then have allowed that posterity might have been justly taxed with the expenses incurred, for in such a war, not only we who live to-day, but our children, and our children's children, are deeply interested; and the Legislature would have a just right to leave to them, as a fair legacy, a portion of the expenses entailed on the country, because without such a war, neither they nor their children would have existed as a nation. But to compare a war like that— a war glorious in the annals of the country, with the wars in which this country was now engaged—to compare the late European war, to which he could not allude without emotion, because he was speaking in the presence of the greatest actor who performed in the greatest drama the world ever witnessed—to compare such a contest as that with what he would not hesitate to pronounce their unholy wars—their unconstitutional wars—their disastrous wars, now carried on without principle or success in Central Asia and in China—to make a comparison of this description was of all fallacies the grossest that ever was attempted to be sustained in argument. No; let us have done as soon as we can with such wars—let us, as the noble Duke said the other night, pay the bill, and efface it, if we can, from the volume of our country's history, this, the greatest blot that ever stained its pages. He would not follow the noble Earl into the currency question, but merely remark how hardly

307
the changes alluded to now pressed upon those landowners who had encumbered their estates in the time of a depreciated money, and were now called upon to pay all their burdens in a gold currency. After alluding to some other points, the noble Lord concluded by saying, that if his noble Friend had not forced the Corn-laws into his amendment, he might have been inclined to have supported him, but now he was left no choice but to vote with Government. The noble Marquess would not leave the Corn question alone, but by forcing it in every where, had destroyed the effect of his argument. If he voted for the amendment, he was voting against the Corn-laws; and though there was much he disliked in the manner in which the Government measure had been brought forward, he would support it as the least bad of the two propositions submitted to their choice. He had, however, felt it to be his duty to qualify his vote, and having done so by the observations he had made, it only remained for him to thank their Lordships for the patience and attention with which they had listened to him.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, he was anxious to address to the House a few observations with reference to the measure then under their Lordships' consideration, as well as to the amendment which had been proposed by the noble Marquess opposite. He did not rise then particularly to reply to the speech of the noble Lord who had just resumed his seat—not that he felt any intense gratitude to the noble Lord for the vote which he had expressed his intention to give, or for the reasons which he had that night advanced for the course which he was about to pursue. After so many of their Lordships had addressed the House it might be considered wanting in respect, if he or some other noble Friend near him did not rise for the purpose of stating the reasons which had induced her Majesty's Government to prepare the measure then under discussion. He would first address himself to one or two observations which fell from the noble Lord who had last addressed their Lordships. If he (Lord Fitzgerald) were not previously disposed to support the measure of the Government, the speech of the noble Lord would have convinced him of the necessity of an Income-tax. The noble Lord told the House that even at the end of three years there was little hope that the Government would he able
308
so far to reduce the establishments of the country as to permit them to repeal the engagements which they had entered into for the repeal of this tax. But the tax had been proposed for three years for the purpose of affording the Parliament an opportunity of reviewing the whole financial state of the country, and he did not think it would be in the power of the present or of any other Government to withhold from Parliament the opportunity of making that review. The noble Lord had drawn a terrific picture of the state of our foreign relations, and had stated that he saw no prospect of such a state of things as would permit the repeal of the tax now proposed, and the noble Lord protested against the war in which this country was now engaged in the east. If in proposing this tax the Government had been found vindicating that war either in its origin or in its policy—if the present Government were responsible for the embarrassments in which the country was placed—then the arguments of the noble Lord might have been quite relevant in their application; but such was the case. Now, supposing the war in the east to be as the noble Lord characterised it—unholy, oppressive, and unjust—were the Government to neglect their duty? It was their duty to maintain the interest and the honour of the country, both in their internal as well as in their home policy; and he thought it would be unbecoming in Government, if at a time when they were called on to meet difficulties of this kind, they mixed up this question with party interests, or made any allusion to the circumstances which had produced the present necessity, except such allusions as they were called on to make to justify Parliament in submitting to the sacrifice proposed. The noble Lord further proceeded in his review of their foreign relations, and stated that he did not see anything in the state of their relations with the United States to lead him to believe that there would be any increase in our commercial resources or any improvement in our financial condition. He did not share in the despondency of the noble Lord on that point. He did not share in that despondency, and if he had he would have been slow to express anything like despair. Recollecting that the people of England and the people of the United States claimed a common origin, that they spoke the same language, that

309
they had similar institutions—all of which circumstances, far more than national interests, bound nations together—he felt some hesitation in assenting to the opinion of the noble Lord that there was no prospect of an improvement in the commercial relations of the two countries. He trusted that the long pending differences between the two countries would be speedily settled. He trusted that those differences would, by the moderation, good sense, and ability of the noble Lord who had undertaken the mission to the United States, be brought to a satisfactory conclusion; and judging even from the imperfect news which had recently been received in reference to the negotiation, he did think that the prospect was rather a more cheering one than that in which the noble Lord indulged. The noble Lord had also alluded to Russia; but what connection the fact of Russia having the command of the Dardanelles or of the Black Sea had with the Property-tax now under consideration, he was at a loss to conceive. The noble Lord also said, that he saw no prospect of the extension of our commerce with Asia. The noble Lord would, however, permit him to express a different opinion. He could not look to the restoration of peace in Central Asia without contemplating the extensive markets which would be opened up for the produce of this country. He saw in the opening of the navigation of the great rivers in Central Asia, the herald and harbinger of great commercial improvement, with all the advantages which would result to Asia from a commercial intercourse with a civilized country. He would now address himself to the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope). He would not undertake to reconcile the differences in the speeches of noble Lords on this question. It was not for him tantas componere lites—nor was it necessary for him to answer all those speeches, because each afforded the best answer to the other. But really he had not heard from the noble Earl any argument against the principle of the bill except that which all admitted, namely, that the tax was unequal, oppressive, and inquisitorial. These were strong objections, but against them he could only place the opinion of the noble Marquess opposite who moved the amendment, and who admitted that Government were bound to supply the deficiency, and to maintain the establishments of the country. So far, then, the
310
speech of the noble Marquess and that of the noble Earl might be allowed to pair off together. But in proposing this tax they were not bound to discuss every other proposal of taxation. The noble Earl near him (Earl Stanhope), who seemed to feel sorely the allusions made to provincial Chancellors of the Exchequer, stated that he was disposed to supply the annual deficiency of two millions and a half by a renewal of the house-tax, and by increasing the assessed taxes. He left that proposal to the public, and he would ask them to compare it with the proposition of the Government. He did not know whether the noble Lord proposed to restore those taxes to the extent they were repealed by Lord Althorp, or to their whole extent; but to whatever extent the noble Earl proposed to restore them, he would leave it to the public to judge whether it would be for their benefit if these taxes were re-imposed. The noble Earl said he could conceive no objection to such a tax—a tax free from objection was certainly a novelty, and the noble Earl proposed that a large class of the lower rented houses should be exempted from its operation, and that only the larger houses should be liable. But had it never occurred to the noble Earl, that there might be means of evading this tax? Had it never occurred to him that the larger proprietors might exempt themselves from the tax by shutting up their houses? The noble Earl would not do so; he was so much of a patriot that he would in such circumstances rather enlarge than diminish his establishment; but would others follow the noble Earl's example? He was afraid they would not, and he could not therefore consider such a tax altogether free from objection. He would now say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde). The noble Marquess was most eager and ardent the other night that this discussion should be adjourned, because, the noble Marquess said, he was anxious to discuss the principle and details of the bill, and because the discussion on Friday night had been confined exclusively to the resolutions proposed by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) in reference to the financial proposals of the late Government. Now, he thought, and others thought, that a great part of that discussion was on the principle and on the details of the bill. The speech of

311
the noble Viscount, the head of the late I Government, was exclusively directed to the principle of the bill; and he was glad that he had the sanction of the noble Viscount for a tax which he described as having been most unfairly treated and condemned as unjust, and as one which he himself was not prepared to say ought not to be resorted to. Excepting a single sentence at the conclusion of the noble Viscount's speech, not one word fell from him touching the resolutions proposed by the noble Marquess opposite, or in defence of the propositions which his own Government had brought forward. Such was the speech of the noble Viscount, and a great part of the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), not now in the House, was directed, not only to the resolution of the noble Marquess, which he discussed at great length and with great power, but also the details and the principle of the bill. The noble Lord also stated that they were entitled to treat the bill as if it was in committee, and went into a long examination and reprobation of particular clauses of the act. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde), notwithstanding he had expressed his great anxiety to discuss the principle of the bill, had to-night made a speech, three-fourths of which were applicable, not to that which he was anxious to discuss, but to the resolutions of the tariff, and to the commercial policy of the Government. He did not complain of that, and the noble Marquess was perfectly justified in saying that it was impossible to consider the two subjects separately. But did it not occur to the noble Lord that they were just as inseparable on Friday night as they were now. There were some other parts of his noble Friend's speech to which he now wished to draw the attention of their Lordships. His noble Friend, after having replied to the speech of the noble Viscount (Viscount Melbourne), applied himself to reply to a speech made by his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Ripon) on the other evening, and set out by saying that he was not opposed to the principle of this tax or its general policy. The noble Marquess, it was true, guarded himself against particular clauses and provisions of the tax, but made that general admission, provided the necessity existed for its establishment. The noble Marquess, however, contended that the necessity was not established, and charged the Government
312
with creating the necessity for a justification of the measure they had proposed. He afterwards explained the meaning of the words "creating the necessity" by stating that the Government had exaggerated the financial difficulties of the country, and called upon the country to provide for them as if they were unexaggerated. Now he would ask their Lordships, and every man who had attended to the de bates on the subject, for it was impossible to say that the question now came before them for the first time, whether the financial difficulties had been exaggerated or not by the Government, whose duty it was to call the attention of the Legislature to this important matter? and in order to consider the question of exaggeration, be begged the House to look at the facts of the case. They found that in six years a growing deficiency had existed, and that in the course of these six years the deficiency had amounted to the sum of 10,000,000 l. sterling, which had been added to the national debt in times which had been described by the noble Lord as times of profound peace; and times of peace they might certainly be called as compared with the days of those great struggles when recourse was had to similar financial measures. But they had not then, as now, a deficiency, at the end of six years, which amounted to the sum of 6,000,000 l. to be added to the national debt, and a deficiency of 2,500,000 l. still to be provided for. He knew not what was meant by creating a necessity, or overstating and exaggerating the deficiency. He thought it would be rather difficult to exaggerate it. He could conceive no state of things more precarious than the present, and nothing more likely to excite great public alarm, to affect the public credit of the country, or be more inconsistent with those high and resolute principles of financial administration on which this country in times of great difficulty had always acted. His noble Friend had not stated how he would supply this admitted deficiency—as, although he had called it an exaggerated deficiency, he did not mean to question the figures, or deny the truth of the deficiency as stated by the Government. He had not heard, with the exception of a recurrence to the proposition of last year, any alternative proposed; and it was an extraordinary thing that this measure, which the Government had proposed from a perfect conviction of the

313
deep financial difficulties in which the country was placed, had not only not been opposed on its introduction, but had remained unopposed for several days. Public attention was not called to it either by the public, Parliament, or the press. That part of the subject had been dwelt upon by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) on the former evening, and at the last stage which the bill had to pass through, it was charged on the Government that they had created the necessity on which they meant to found this tax, which was characterised as a mere pretence on the part of the Government, to get into their hands a convenient fical instrument to use hereafter, notwithstanding the assurances and pledges they had given to Parliament. It was a little remarkable, however, to observe, that the proposition when laid before Parliament did not receive that strong opposition which it now appeared to experience; for some of those who concurred in opinions with the noble Lord opposite, and with his Colleagues, might be found at different times and in other places vindicating the principle of a property-tax,—in fact, advocating that very measure which the noble Lord had denounced as so unequal, so inquisitorial, and so uncalled for. They were to be found advocating this very tax, not as a measure of taxation to cover any particular deficiency, or supplying any temporary necessity, but arguing for its expediency on the very grounds on which their successors now brought it forward. He could refer to the recorded opinion of Lord Al-thorp, when Chancellor of the Exchequer. The same opinion had been expressed by Mr. Poulett Thomson, when President of the Board of Trade. He also found, not certainly in a debate, but in a less perishable record—in a printed and published form—the opinion of the late Lord Congleton recorded more than once in favour of such a tax. The lamented noble Lord had advocated the tax as a sure means of relieving the working classes, and of lightening the burdens on the productive sources of national industry. Under these circumstances, he was surprised to find that so many noble Lords indulged in denunciations of this measure of her Majesty's Government at this moment, and more especially when he recollected that for a whole week no particular indignation had been exhibited, so as to lead to the inference that the proposition would be
314
treated with so much warmth as noble Lords now bestowed upon it. In stating the amount of the deficiency—an amount not disputed—which led to the expediency of the present measure, the question naturally embraced other branches of legislation, which mainly affected public credit. It was necessary not only to advert to the deficiency in our own revenue, but to allude to the deficiency in our Indian finances. He did not mean to say that, because of the embarrassed state of our finances in India, that it was necessary to propose a measure of relief which the noble Lord opposite had admitted was an economical and a certain source of revenue. He did not rest the necessity for this measure alone on the embarrassments of the Indian finances, but he felt that, in alluding to the subject of our financial situation, it was quite impossible to keep wholly out of view the embarrassments of so important a portion of our empire. He found that, in the year 1836, about the same period when the deficiency commenced in this country, that there was a net surplus available to the Government for the internal improvements of the empire of 1,500,00 l.. in the Indian finances. Now, without taking into account any increased expenditure owing to war and to the necessity for an augmentation of the military establishments, there at the present time existed, in place of a surplus of of 1,500,000 l. a deficiency of 2,500,000 l.. Now was it at a time like this, with 10,000,000 deficiency in six years, and 2,500,000 l. of deficiency in the Indian revenue, was it now, he asked, under these circumstances, and in that place, that Government could be charged with exaggerating the financial difficulties of the country, and so presuming on this exaggeration as to make it a pretext for their present fiscal proposition? Did the House go with him, or with the noble Lord opposite, in the pictures which had been respectively drawn of the financial situation of the country 1 He thought it was not necessary, at least not desirable, and he should be the last man to wish such a thing to go so far, as to attempt to fix upon the late Administration the difficulties which the present Government had to contend with. But willing as he was to avoid this, and feeling the necessity for an examination into the exact state of affairs, he was bound to ask the House to look at the situation of the country when the Ministry

315
were called to office. Did he charge the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle), who, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced a measure for the reduction of the postage, with having caused this deficiency; or did he impute the deficiency to the noble Lord On account of that measure? He knew, and his noble Friend would recollect, that when he introduced his proposition he gave notice to the House, that he would not, without first receiving a pledge that the deficiency caused by this speculation, if he might call it so, should be supplied —that, in fact, if Parliament refused to give this pledge he would decline to bring forward the proposition. At that time the deficiency in the revenue was somewhere about 800,000 l. or 900,000 l. His noble Friend did not attempt to conceal the position of the country at that time—he Stated it manfully; but he contemplated an advantage from his proposed alteration in the postage which, in a financial point of view, had certainly not been realised. His noble Friend had, in fact, been coerced into the measure by the force of public opinion, and by a combination of parties which left him but little alternative. Add the loss from the Post-office to the deficiency then existing, and then see how near they came to the present deficiency. The net revenue from postage, including foreign and inland, was about 1,500,000 l. [Lord Monteagle: Very near 1,700,000 l.] Then, if this sum, 1,700,000 l. were added to the deficiency in 1836 of 900,000 l., the sum total would exactly account for the present deficiency. It had been said that the Post-office still yielded 400,000 l. to the revenue, but the noble Lord opposite knew better. The packet establishment cost 400,000 l., so in fact there was no revenue whatever derived from the Post-office. He considered that the question as to the policy of a revenue from the Post-office was gone by. It was admitted that it might be used as a source of revenue, but it was contended that revenue ought not to be the first object. But he would leave that question, and come to the circumstances under which his noble Friend had introduced his resolution relative to the penny-postage, and the distinct assurance he required from Parliament to supply the deficiency. would the noble Lord oppose the Government when they were attempting to supply the present deficiency? would he not rather give them his support when about to
316
supply that deficiency, which if he were now in office he would not allow his pledge to sleep, but he would make it his duty to call on Parliament to supply the deficiency? The noble Lord ought not, and could not, have permitted his pledge to sleep when the deficiency occurred, for to attempt to compensate it by a recurrence to the old rates of postage would be impossible, and, if possible, ought not to be attempted. He said the country would willingly allow the alteration. He himself was desirous that the experiment should have a fair, and he would add, a successful trial. Now, with respect to other points urged against the tax, he dissented from that one which gave the preference to the financial policy of the late Administration. He was of opinion, that in the course of three years, if both systems could be in operation, that the preference would be given to the propositions of the present Government; and he founded his opinion on the spirit with which the Government proposals had been received. He did not wish to use too strong a term; but, judging from the sentiments which appeared to prevail, he was of opinion that the public had given the proposition its support. He did not find any very strong manifestations of adverse public feeling. He found no strong or insuperable objections to the scheme either in the debates or the votes in Parliament—he found that the whole number of petitions presented to Parliament on the subject against the tax was 130, having 9,000 signatures. He found that after the tax had been proposed, after the time had been afforded by the recess for its thorough consideration, after the House of Commons had relaxed a rule—he rejoiced at the circumstance— which prohibited petitions from being received on any subject relating to taxation when under discussion—he found that the whole number of petitions presented to the House of Commons against the tax was 130. Now he was willing to admit that the petitions had not been got up as some petitions were, but that they truly represented the sentiments of the petitioners, and that the signatures were bonâ fide signatures; yet as he had personally examined some of the signatures he could not help remarking that if the writers really possessed all the comforts which 150 l. a year, or above, was calculated to afford, that their education could not have been carefully attended to. He had se-

317
lected a few of the petitions of those who objected not to the principle of a Property-tax, but to particular parts. He found the sensibility of these petitioners only excited when the tax affected themselves. This was all the opposition which the tax met with. The whole number of petitions against the tax was 130. Such was the feeling of the people towards a tax which had that night been denounced by his noble Friend near him (Earl Stanhope), and by the noble Lords opposite, as one so monstrous in its character, so fatal in its consequences, so subversive of every right of Englishmen, so interfering with the liberty of every man, so affecting public credit, that it ought not to be entertained for an hour, but to be repudiated at once by the House, even though the only alternative left should be to adopt the financial scheme of his noble Friend near him. But when he thus adverted to the comparative absence of petitions upon this subject, let it not be supposed that he or any man connected with the Government endeavoured to defend the proposition upon the ground of its being acceptable to the people. He did no such thing. He denied not the inconvenience of its inquisitorial character. He denied not the inequality of its operation. He lamented the manner in which it fell upon property of different descriptions—upon property that was permanent, and upon property that was not permanent. He lamented the necessity for extending it to professions and trades upon the same scale as it was applied to permanent and solid income. Let it not be supposed that he endeavoured to defend these inconveniences and inequalities. But he believed that the people of this country, although aware of these evils, were still reconciled to bear the infliction of them, on account of the public exigency which pressed upon the State. He believed that the first feeling of the public of this country was the necessity of maintaining the public credit of England. He believed that the first principle of an Englishman in public matters, as well as in private affairs, was to maintain the inviolability of his word and his faith. He believed that as long as that was the animating principle of the public of this country, they would be reconciled to greater inconveniences, greater hardships, and greater inequalities than any that would be imposed by this tax; knowing, as they did, that there was
318
no tax that could by possibility be proposed, the operation of which would not, in some respects, be unequal. To say that a tax was an unequal tax was only to state that which was an objection to all taxation. He purposely passed by the arguments advanced by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) upon the subjects of sugar and coffee, conceiving that they applied rather to the debate of the other evening than to the question then under the consideration of the House. The short answer to these arguments was, that there was no parallel between the cultivation of sugar and coffee. If nothing but coffee were produced in Cuba and Brazil there would be no necessity for the importation of a single additional slave into those countries; but increase the demand for their sugar, and it was impossible to say that the horrors of the slave-trade would not be revived to an extent at which humanity shuddered. He came now to that part of his noble Friend's argument which related to the exemption of Ireland from the Property-tax. He could not share with his noble Friend in the regrets he had expressed upon that point. He believed that there never had been an occasion in which the interference of Parliament for the exemption of Ireland from a tax of this nature had been hailed with greater satisfaction than the present. It was to be remarked that the exemption of Ireland applied only to a particular tax— it was not a general exemption. The amount of tax which Ireland would pay for income derived from land, or for other income derived from sources described in the schedules of the bill, would not, in fact amount to so much as the estimated produce of the other taxes to which she was to be subjected. And under what circumstances did Ireland escape this exemption from the Property-tax? The Legislature was precluded, by the provisions of the Act of Union, from laying any tax upon Ireland which was not imposed upon Great Britain, or from levying a higher duty upon any article in Ireland than was imposed upon the same article in Great Britain. There remained then, for any financial operation in Ireland, only those subjects of taxation which were liable to tax in this country. The state of Ireland, the condition of her society, the circumstances in which she was placed, rendered her peculiarly unfit for the application of an Income-tax. Such being the

319
case, he would ask, where there were sources of taxation yielding revenue in this country, but as yet untouched in Ireland—and where there was the choice of means by which the supply of revenue from Ireland should be contributed — whether it were a blame to the Government that they had considered the social and political circumstances by which that country was so remarkably distinguished from England—whether it was a blame to the Government that, instead of requiring a Property-lax which Ireland had never paid, they had resorted to those unexhausted sources of taxation which, yielding revenue in this country, were properly subject to the operation of fiscal laws in Ireland? He believed that Government had acted rightly and prudently in this respect, and that they would have acted neither with wisdom nor prudence if they had attempted to create in Ireland a new machinery for the collection of a tax to which that country had never yet been subject. He thought that his noble Friend's argument to have justice done to Ireland in respect to the Income-tax would not be responded to in that country. There were many points in the speech of his noble Friend, and in the speeches of other noble Lords delivered on that and the former occasion, to which he should be unwilling under any circumstances to advert in detail, but he really thought at present their Lordships would rather complain if he led them now into a repetition of the arguments which had been adduced in reply, or if he prolonged the debate in a manner which he himself thought would be unnecessary. He should, therefore, not trespass longer upon their attention. He thanked them for the indulgence he had received in the course of the observations he had felt it his duty to address to their Lordships on the part of the Government who had presented this proposition to them, and he would not delay them from coming to the vote which he anticipated they would deliver. He believed that decision would be to affirm by a great majority their approbation of the course pursued by the Government. He knew not whether that was doubted, but if it was, then with great confidence he declared he believed the result of their discussions would be an expression of approbation by a great majority of their Lordships in favour of the proposition of the Government. They had made that
320
proposition in the confidence that it would receive such approbation. They had made it in the belief, in which they had not been disappointed, that the country would receive without repugnance the measure which was now submitted to their Lordships for their assent. They had made it in the belief and the confidence—which had been confirmed by the result—that it would receive the approbation also of a large majority of the representatives of the people in the other House of Parliament. They had believed, and they still believed, that in the difficulties of the country—in the face of augmenting difficulties—with large establishments to sustain, and with the prospect, perhaps, of augmented establishments—they still believed that the country would rather support those who presented to it what had been called by one of their political opponents an honest and a bold measure, rather than those who would propose what had been called the speculative chance of a revenue, or transitory or uncertain schemes of temporary finance. He would not believe that in that House, where their Lordships enjoyed hereditary rents, and which comprised so large a proportion of those who inherited great possessions—he would not believe that the appeal which had been made to the possessors of that property would not be responded to in a satisfactory manner. He had perfect confidence, that in the same spirit with which our ancestors had acted in times of greater difficulty, and which called for greater sacrifices, but still times of financial difficulty, their Lordships would not shrink from the duty which was imposed] upon them by the present circumstances of the country, but would affirm by their votes a measure which had received the sanction of so large a majority of the representatives of the people.
Lord Monteaglehaving been personally alluded to in the course of the debate, hoped to be pardoned if he took the opportunity of explaining the views which he took of the question under consideration. He frankly admitted the pledge which he had forced upon the other House of Parliament at the time of the reduction of the postage duties. By that pledge he acknowledged himself bound. In the spirit of that pledge he was prepared to act. Even independent of that pledge, he should conceive himself bound to assist, by all just means, in making up the difference

321
between the income and expenditure of the country. But surely his noble Friend would not contend, that because he had given such a pledge, he was therefore bound to give his assent to the general proposition now under the consideration of the House. Surely his noble Friend would not contend that because he had been a party to the reduction of a particular tax to the extent of 1,200,000 l., therefore he was to be a party to the imposition of another tax to the extent of 4,000,000 l. a-year. The proposal for the imposition of a tax upon property was not new—it had been submitted to Parliament as a substitute for other taxes year after year—it had been advanced with much pertinacity, and advocated with much ingenuity; but he had always been opposed to it, and had always resisted it. When his noble Friend (Lord Fitzgerald) adverted to the revenue formerly derived from the Post-office, and stated that the whole of the revenue had disappeared, his noble Friend was labouring under a very great mistake. The expense of the packet service, which was said to swallow up the whole of the revenue now derived from the Post-office, had no more to do with the penny postage than the expense of the war in Affghanistan or China. It was as distinct from the Post-office as the expense of the army or navy. The great packet communication between Great Britain and the British North American colonies was undertaken upon much higher principles than any connected with mere considerations of revenue. It was felt by the Government of Lord Melbourne, that it was not wise to allow the only rapid mode of communication between the British possessions in North America and the mother country to be dependent upon the means afforded by the United States. Means were accordingly taken to establish a line of communication of our own. He admitted, that this was not done except at a very heavy expense; but it was not right to place that expense to the account of the Post-office. His noble Friend (Lord Fitzgerald), not venturing to say, that the Property-tax was a popular proposition, yet insinuated, from the smallness of the number of petitions that had been presented against it, that it was not so unpalatable to the country as its opponents in the Legislature would have their Lordships believe. But let his noble Friend look
322
back to the experience of the year 1806, and judge from the public opinion then expressed, what the popular expression of feeling might next year be. Let him remember what were the complaints in 1806, when the Property-tax had actually come into operation—when the Property-tax was understood—when its unequal pressure upon certain interests was felt-when men were really suffering from its operation. His noble Friend might depend upon it, that at the end of another year, it would not be in his power to found a defence of the Property-tax upon the ground of the smallness of the number of petitions presented against it. But why had the number of petitions been so few? This question opened a serious chapter in its history. He concurred with his noble Friend in thinking, that the exemptions from the operation of the Income-tax were made in the wrong direction; Ministers exempted certain classes of persons in respect to the amount of their income, and refused to exempt classes of persons by reason of the nature of their income. By this mode of exemption they swept away a larger amount of taxable property than was ever before exempted from the imposition of an Income-tax, while, at the same time, they brought within the network of their tax several descriptions of property, which hitherto had never been subject to such an impost. He lamented, nay, he 'almost blushed, to say, that it included the I property of foreigners, which, up to this period, had never been touched. Looking at the number and the class of persons! exempted from the tax, and who, by that exemption, would enjoy almost an immunity from any taxation whatever, he must say, that never, within his experience, had so great an inducement, so great a bribe been held out by a Government to secure in the silence and the acquiescence, if not the entire support of a large portion of the community. He would take the liberty of | briefly stating to what extent the exemptions would extend. A short time since J he had moved for a paper now upon their Lordships' Table, showing the number of persons receiving dividends for stock and annuities. From that paper, it appeared,! that there were 282,326 dividend warrants issued annually. How many of these did their Lordships suppose exceeded 150 l.? Only 13,968. Out of the 282,326 to whom dividends were paid out of the public funds, there were only 13,968

323
whose incomes exceeded 150 l. a-year. What wonder, then, that there should be an absence of petitions? In 1801 the exemption was limited to income under 60 l. a-year. At that time the assessable property in the kingdom was estimated at 80,600,000 l. By the nearest calculation he could make, the persons included in that assessment holding property between the two fixed amounts of 60 l. and 150 l., were, in fact, the possessors of 20,000,000 l., or one-fourth of the whole of the assessable property of the kingdom. The exemption, under the present bill, of so large a portion of the community, naturally accounted for the silence to which his noble Friend had adverted with so much apparent satisfaction. In the course of the debate many authorities had been cited against the view which he took of this question. He had been asked how he and his noble Friends who thought with him could make up their minds to take a course which was opposed to the authority of some of the greatest names of their own party? The authority of the late Lord Sydenham and of the late Lord Congleton had been referred to as very favourable to the imposition of an income-tax. He would appeal to an authority who was now living—he would refer to the authority of that venerable nobleman who was at the head of the Government of this country when the momentous war in which the country had been some years engaged ceased, and who came down to the other House and asked for the immediate repeal of this tax. He alluded to Lord Sidmouth, who, at the conclusion of the peace in 1802, then stated that nothing should induce him to recommend the continuance of the Property-tax after the war had ceased. Lord Sidmouth said,
"It is my intention to propose a repeal of the tax on income. I am desirous that the sentiments I entertain towards that measure he perfectly understood. As a war-tax I am persuaded that it was a legitimate source of revenue; but I have ever considered it in no other light than a war-tax, inapplicable to a time of peace."
And again Lord Sidmouth said, on the 5th of April, 1802—
"I recommend that the burden of the Income-tax should not be allowed to rest on the shoulders of the public in time of peace, because it should be reserved for the important occasions which he trusted would not soon recur. He thought it worthy of the credit and the character of the country to look for-
324
ward to such a resource in the fearful event of being obliged to struggle for our honour and independence."
He then proposed to substitute new taxes to the amount of 4,000,000 l. on malt, hops, and beer. That venerable nobleman then stated, that he thought any tax in time of peace was better than a Property-tax. Such were his opinions now. This was not the only opinion that he could quote in support of his argument. He could refer to the opinion of one who took an active part in the debates on this tax in 1816. He found at that period Lord Ashburton thus described this tax:—
"Lord Ashburton said, all the good he could say of the Property-tax was, that it was dead, for all the opprobrious epithets heaped upon it seemed only to come up to its deserts. He would rather be summoned before a bench of bishops to be questioned on points of doctrine, than appear before the tax commissioners to give an account of his goods and chattels."
He would appeal, then, to the opinion of Lord Ashburton, who at that time was the most eminent merchant in Europe. He then used the playful expressions which he had quoted, because the tax had then been repealed; but their Lordships might depend upon it if the tax had been continued he would have used much stronger and harsher language on the subject. But it might be said that these were by-gone instances; but he would take the liberty of adverting to an authority which had been referred to by his noble Friend opposite, and to whom his noble Friend might look up with more confidence, but certainly not with greater respect than he did. When a proposition was made in 1833 for a repeal of the malt-tax and the introduction of a Property-tax, the right hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded said,
"He thought that the noble Lord had done well in not proposing an income or Property-tax. Nothing but a case of extreme necessity could justify parliament in subjecting the people of this country in a time of peace to the inquisitorial process which must be resorted to in order to render that impost productive, and to have recourse to such machinery for the purpose of raising 2 or 3 per cent., would be most unwise With respect to a tax on property, as distinguished from a tax on income, he very much doubted whether it would promote the interest of the labouring classes, because it would diminish the funds at present appropriated to the encouragement of industry and the promotion of labour, and it would ul-

325
timately he found that the tax did not affect the person who paid it so much as the labourer, by diminishing his means of employment. The application of the tax to Ireland would be attended with extreme difficulty. He really believed that this circumstance formed the main obstacle to the establishment of the tax. It could hardly be contended that if a Property-tax were established, Ireland should be exempted from its operation. He wished to see Ireland as much favoured as possible, consistent with justice. But to impose a Property-tax on England and Scotland, and to exempt Ireland from its operation, would, in his opinion, however unpopular that opinion might be, be exceedingly unjust."
There was a surplus revenue then, but the argument would not be affected on that account, as he would show presently. They then came to the year 1840—the lamentable year 1840—when his misdeeds produced, according to the allegations of some, such an immense deficiency. In that year a proposition was made to meet the deficiency that existed, and his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer did not propose a Property-tax for that purpose, nor was it done by authorities on the other side to whom he could refer. His noble Friend opposite would see, on referring to the case, that in those days of deficiency such a proposition or such a plan did not exist in the minds of persons well qualified to judge on this subject, who declared that a Property-tax, levied for the purpose of making up a deficiency of two or three millions, would be unjust. On the occasion to which he referred Sir Robert Peel said,
"There being about 2,500,000 l. to be raised, to attempt to raise that small sum by a Property-tax, or a tax on general consumption, would not be advisable, and therefore, on the whole, he gave the preference to the plan of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer."
Now, this authority against raising so small a revenue from such a source of income, the noble Lord was aware, was the present First Lord of the Treasury. He did not mention this in an invidious manner, nor did he intend to do more so than in referring to the opinions of Lord Spencer, Lord Congleton, or Lord Sydenham. He did not, however, believe -that these authorities would have small weight with their Lordships. He, however, would take the liberty of saying that the circumstances which had produced this deficiency in the revenue had no reference whatever
326
to it. He believed that there was no cause of complaint as to there being a falling off in the resources of the country. But what were the grievances gone over in the review that had been made of the recent financial measures of this country. So complaining of the mode in which they had been dealt with, he would at once say that he believed that been treated in a liberal and candid spirit, but still there was one and a prominent fallacy put forward, of which he had a right to complain—namely, when it was so constantly said that there was a deficiency of 10,000,000 l. to deal with. He would appeal to the House, when he had shown what were really the facts of the case, whether this was a just ground to ask the country to submit to the imposition of the Income-tax. The truth was, that in the present case they had only to deal with the deficiency of the year, for the past deficiencies had already been supplied, and made up by finance means. If noble Lords would look to papers on the Table they would find many instances of deficient revenue in years previous to the present Government coming into office. For instance, in the year 1826, he found a deficiency of 645,000 l., and in 1827, a deficiency of 826,000 l. In subsequent years, he found the following to be the state of the surplus and deficiency:—

SURPLUS AND DEFICIENCY FROM 1831 to 1841.

Surplus.

Deficiency.

£.

£.

1831

698,857

1832

614,000

1833

1,513,000

1834

1,608,000

1835

1,620,000

1836

2,130,000

1837

655,000

1838

345,000

1839

1,512,000

1840

1,593,000

1841

2,101,000

Excess of income over expenditure in ten years, from 1831 to 1840

2,685,000

Or in eleven years, to January, 1842

584,000

It appeared, then, that in the course of three years, there was as much deficiency to provide for as they now were called upon in the present year to make up by

327
means of an Income-tax. He was quite willing to strike a balance with his noble Friend opposite on this point. He believed that he had shown that the danger of the country, in consequence of our financial embarrassments, had been erroneously described to be most alarming. And if he had shown that this embarrassment had been exaggerated he had shown that they were not justified in imposing an Income-tax. It was apparent from the statement which he had made, that from the year 1833 to 1841, there had been repeatedly a deficient revenue, but this had not arisen from the falling off in the former revenue, but from the great, and he would say, wise reduction, that had been made in taxation by the Government, of which the noble Duke opposite was the head. That reduction had amounted to upwards of 3,000,000 l. a year, and the greatest deficiency in any year, from 1831 to 1841, had been only 2,600,000 l. The result, no doubt, of this, and the subsequent reduction in taxation that had been made, undoubtedly was, that during this period, the Government had not paid off so much of the debt as might appear to some to be expedient, but taking the whole in come for the time he had just stated, there would be a surplus as compared with the whole of the deficiency. It had been said, for the purpose of argument, that the Government had been driven to the Income-tax because all other sources of taxation had been exhausted. Do not let that sound go forth to the enemies of your country. If a Minister of the Crown said, that he had exhausted all the financial resources of the country, and that he could not with expectation of success resort to the Excise, or the Customs, or the stamps, or the assessed taxes, he would say that never was there such a groundless and unfounded declaration made. He trusted in God that there was not an enemy of England to hear such a declaration from a Minister of England, that he could not raise further supplies by the common means of taxation in this country, for all that could be procured from these sources had been already raised; and that therefore, it became necessary to resort to direct taxation. And how had this been resorted to, after what had taken place in this country, and which must be known to every one? Was the great growth of capital that had taken place within these last few years to be entirely
328
overlooked. Was it to be forgotten that they had repealed 40,000,000 l. of taxes since 1815; and were they now to be told that there were no means of restoring public credit but by resorting to a Property-tax? There was, he asserted, no ground for believing that the statement that he had alluded to could at all justify the resorting to such a step. But it should also be recollected that the circumstances which led to our financial deficiencies arose from causes with which, he was sure, that neither their Lordships nor the country would quarrel. He would quote, as clearly as he could, the details which involved a matter of figures—he was aware that it might be tedious, but, as he was dealing with the credit of the country, he trusted that the House would give him its attention. He considered it to be the duty of every Member of their Lordships' House to state fairly the facts of the case, and, in doing so, he thought that he could show that we were in a situation to meet our difficulties with a light heart. If he could succeed in making out this case, he was sure that their Lordships would not think that he had occupied too much of their time. During the interval of time which he had referred to a few months ago, several mighty financial operations were undertaken, and when they talked of a deficiency in their finances, they should recollect that it was not altogether attributable to the falling off in the revenue, or to the increase of our expenditure. He asserted that the income of this country had not fallen off, but had sustained itself. Taking, then, the period which he had previously alluded to, namely, from 1831 to 1841, it would be found that the income of the country had sustained itself, although there undoubtedly had been some increase of expenditure. It should be remembered, in the first place, that during this period they had added to the national debt not less than 20,000,000 l. for the purpose of getting rid of the curse of slavery in our colonies. You had added by this means a sum which was more than the amount of the deficiency. By another financial operation also, with which his noble Friend (the Earl of Ripon) was perfectly conversant, but which might have escaped the attention of other noble Lords, an addition had been made to our expenditure. During the period, then, which he had just mentioned, there had been a gradual and increasing change of the per-

329
manent debt into terminable annuities. This he considered a sensible and most just mode of reducing the burden of our debt. This system had gone on increasing from year to year to the present time; but just as much as it had gone on increasing, it held out the prospect of an ultimate falling off. Compare the state of the debt in 1831 and 1841, and it would be found that there had been an increase in the charge, in consequence of the transference of permanent into terminable annuities, to no less an amount than 782,000 l. a year. Could this charge be put down under the head of a financial deficiency, when the charge was incurred for the purpose of resorting to the safest and best means of reducing the national debt? He had mentioned this additional charge, excluding the loan for the abolition of slavery, and only taking into account the transference of the present debt into life annuities. But over and above all this charge there had, taking the average of years from 1828 to 1831, been an annual surplus of 142,000 l. The following, he believed, would be a tolerably accurate account of the state of our debt, regarding it in the which light he had just pointed out:—

COMPARATIVE STATE OF DEBT IN 1828, 1831, 1841.

Funded Unredeemed

Annuities

Total Charge Unredeemed Debt

January 5, 1888

777,476,000

2,610,000

28,389,000

1831

757,486,000

3,597,000

27,674,000

1841

766,371,000

4,114,000

28,566,000

Excess of 1841

9,000,000

817,000

872.000

The same account, excluding Slave Loan £20,000,000.

£631,000

Interest.

101,000

Long Annuity.

£732,000

5th January, 1828

777,476,000

2,610,000

28,389,000

1831

757,486,000

3,297,000

27,674,000

1841

746,200,000

4,012,000

27,816,000

11,000,000

1,285,000

142,000

less.

more.

more.

The same Account, converting Terminable into Perpetual Annuities, and excluding Slave Loan.

January 5,1828

822,000,000

27,365,000

January 5,1831

811,000,000

26,258,000

January 5, 1841

793,000,000

25,464,000

Diminution in 1841 below 1831

18,000,000

Annual Charge

794,000

Diminution in 1841 below 1828

29,000,000

Annual Charge

1,901,000

330

FUNDED AND UNFUNDED DEBT, AND CONVERTING TRRMINABLE INTO PERPETUAL ANNUITIES.

1828

850,325,000

28,203,000

1831

838,549,000

26,880,000

1841

837,52,000

(including slave-loan)

26,909,000

1841

815,957,000

(excluding slave loan)

26,223,000

Diminution form 1831 to 1841

1,028,000

Increased charge

£29,000

After providing for slave loan of £20,000,000.

This, he thought was a species of expense of which the country had no right to complain. Undoubtedly the slave-loan must be considered a charge, but the other, if additional charge it could be called, was one which must end in the diminution of the amount of the debt. If his noble Friend would call for the returns of the terminable annuities that would fall in between this time and 1860, he would see what a great falling off in the amount of charge would take place at that time. At present the state of the matter, as compared with 1831, was as follows:—

PERPETUAL AND TERMINABLE ANNUITIES COMPARED.

1831—

Terminable annuities

£3,297,000

Equivalent in perpetual annuities

1,882,000

Excess of annual charge.

£1,415,000

1841—

Terminable annuities

£4,114,000

Equivalent in perpetual annuities

1,710,000

Excess of annual charge.

£2,404,000

Excess of annual charge in 1831

£1,415,000

Excess of annual charge in 1841

2,404,000

Increased annual charge in 1841

£909,000

In addition to this there had also been a great reduction in the unfunded debt. He had to apologize to the House for troubling it with these details, but, in taking into account the amount of the deficiency, as it was called, it was necessary to do so, to show that this financial deficiency was not so great as it had been described. He must now proceed to refer to the savings' banks, because his noble Friend on the opposite side of the House, in the observations which he had made on the subject, altogether misapprehended the matter. On a former occasion when this subject was under discussion he had taken no part in the debate, but he would now endeavour to explain what had taken

331
place in the financial arrangement which had been so much adverted to. The acts of Parliament respecting savings banks expressly provided with respect to the deposits and interest, and as to the mode in which they should be invested. The funds from the savings banks might be invested, at the pleasure of the commissioners, either in the funded or the unfunded debt. The commissioners also had power under the recent act to direct that the money belonging to savings' banks, invested in Exchequer-bills, might be funded in stock. The clauses of the two acts were as follows:—
"Savings' Banks, act 9, Geo. 4th, c. 92, sec. 15. The said commissioners of the national debt shall cause all the monies paid into the Banks of England and Ireland to be invested from time to time in the purchase of bank annuities, or Exchequer-bills; and the interest which shall arise from time to time, and become due thereon, shall in like manner be invested in the purchase of Government annuities, or Exchequer-bills, Sec. 50. The said commissioners are empowered to lay out the whole or any part of the monies standing in their names in the purchase of Exchequer bills held by the Bank, or by the public; and the commissioners shall be entitled to receive for any such sums laid out by them in Exchequer-bills such an amount of 3 per cents, consols, or reduced, as the same sums would have produced if laid out at the quarterly average price. Sec. 51. Certificate of Treasury; 52. Annuities chargeable on consolidated fund; 53 Exchequer bills to be cancelled; 54. Stock may be sold for purchase of Exchequer bills. Vict., sess. 2, c. 9, sec. 1: And whereas a large amount of the Exchequer bills so outstanding are now held by the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, on account of savings' banks, and may be funded under the provisions of an act passed in the 9th Geo. 4th, c. 92, and it is unnecessary to make provisions for paying off the same."
This was a power which could not be abused; for, independent of efficient checks, a return stating all the circumstances of each transaction of this kind was laid before Parliament every Session. He believed that there was nothing in the state of the debt to lead to alarm. As for the alleged 10,000,000 l. deficiency, it was a mere bubble, about which, at the same time, much had been and much might be said in the course of debate. He thought, therefore, that he had shown that there was nothing in the present state of things which called for this extreme measure; and, above all, that it was not the only measure that could be resorted to, to sup-
332
ply the deficiency. His first proposition was, that our financial situation was not quite so had as it had been represented; and, in the second place, he would endeavour to show that the Income-tax was not quite so good as it had been described by his noble Friend. Nothing, in his mind, could be so preposterous as to tax men in equal degree who received the same amount of annuity from a terminable as from a permanent source. Again, there was a portion of England where large farms were common. For instance, in Northumberland, where the farms were of great size, and where they would be taxed; but these in many parts of England would entirely escape. Would not one of the operations of this tax then be, to lead to the divisions of these large farms with the view to avoid taxation, and thus drive capital into channels where it would not otherwise flow? Was it an immaterial matter, he would ask, to interfere in this way with such an important class as the tenantry of this country. It might appear very paradoxical, but he felt in these evils some consolation, for from the existence of these evils, he derived the best hopes of getting rid of the tax altogether. He recollected his late noble Friend, Lord Congleton, often used to say, that when a law was brought forward to interfere with the public liberty, he would rather have it above the mark than below it, for if "it interfered, with constitutional rights, the sooner they were likely to get rid of it. He thought, therefore, that after a short experience, the injustice, the absurdity, and all the other faults of the Income-tax would operate as so many inducements to make it go to the place where all bad laws ultimately went. This was a measure that; should only be resorted to at a period of national conflict, when the enemies were at our gates, or what was much better—as the noble Duke well knew was the better way to carry on war—when we went to attack the enemy at his own gates. The noble Lord had made some allusions to the want of opposition to the tax, but he would tell the noble Lord that he might depend upon it that it was not quite so unpopular as it was likely to be when persons were called upon to pay it. Having excepted, as he had shown, a large portion of the population from the payment of the tax, it was supposed that a great deal of the opposition of the tax would be

333
got rid of. It was asserted by persons connected with the Chartists out of doors, that the object of the Legislature should be to make the wealthy contribute in all cases to the exigencies of the States Now he recollected in the House of Commons, a few years ago, a gentleman well known, who was supposed to represent these extreme opinions—he meant the late Mr. Hunt. That gentleman said one sentence which completely dispelled this fallacy. He said, that to raise millions, you must, tax millions. The present bill, however, was to tax the few, and was to relieve the millions. His noble Friend opposite, who was a Member of Lord Grey's Government, must recollect the difficulties they bad to contend with at that period with respect to some direct taxes. The argument of the noble Duke went to the extent of saying, that if there was any surplus from this tax, it might be devoted to the removal of taxes which were unpopular. He would ask, whether public credit should be allowed to act on this point. He objected, above all, to the moral effect of this tax. If all other objections were obviated, the frauds and evasions which it gave rise to, must make it a most objectionable impost. It would operate as a bounty in many instances to the commission of frauds, and it would hold out a premium to men to act against their consciences. On this point, he would appeal to a work written by a valuable public servant, he meant the late Mr. Lowry, the former comptroller of the property-tax. That gentleman stated, that the frauds and evasions in that tax under the head of lands and houses, amounted to one-seventh. This was a most important item, for it was not possible to conceal either lands or houses, and the evasions there could, only take place on the value, and not on the substance. He now came to another description of property, he alluded to the public funds. They had the assistance of the Bank in getting their returns before it paid dividends, but still Mr. Lowry showed, that the evasions made amounted to from to 1 -5th. With respect to the class of profits and professions, he should like to know how they could get an accurate return of them. The deductions under this head must necessarily be enormous, and the gentleman he had alluded to put the evasions down as one half. By the return of the receipts under the property-tax, from 1803 to
334
1814, it appeared, that in the first year, the amount assessed was 75 3-5ths millions, and in the last year, 1814, not less than 132 millions. Fraud, to a great extent, was found in all these returns, and that showed their Lordships that the tax brought forward by her Majesty's Government as a means of preserving the credit of the country would do more to destroy the public character and the public faith than any other measure which could be suggested. When the property-tax was proposed, at a former period, there was a war and a depreciated currency, which gave some degree of prosperity to trade, but now this was not so, and such a tax would be doubly mischievous. It was said, that it was a tax which affected the holder of property, whether he remained in this country or went abroad; but what if he took his property with him? Did it not afford him a premium for doing that, and making the most he could of his wealth in another land. When the Income-tax was formerly imposed, there was a depreciating currency and war, which increased consumption, and produced prosperity in some degree; this was not now the case. They were driving at the opposite side of the wedge. Formerly, the capitalist could not escape the tax; now, he might go away and take his property with him. Formerly, there was no public credit in other countries, nor any manufacturing prosperity. It was not so now. If they took the manufacture of stockings, for instance, at Nottingham and its vicinity; that was a branch of manufacture in which foreign competition was great, and the stocking manufacturers of Saxony were running us very close. What would be the effect of this tax on the stocking manufacturer of Nottingham? The effect would be, that be would carry his capital abroad, and establish manufactories there. It was assumed that the Income-tax was a good remedy for the existing deficiency, but he thought that so far from there being a surplus revenue derived from this source of taxation, he should be able to show that there would be an actual deficit. The budget imposed a Property-tax—it called Hercules forth to put his arm to the waggon, and did not get it out of the rut after all. Their Lordships knew that by the last estimates which had been laid before Parliament, the deficiency of the revenue was 3,000,000 l, To meet this deficit there was the Income-tax, the new coal duty,

335
and the new arrangements with regard to Ireland. He believed that from Irish spirits not one 6d. could be expected to be raised, The Government had proposed to take a duty of 4s. per ton upon coal exported, and this it was expected would produce200,000 l. That calculation showed an expectation that there would be 1,000,000 tons of coal annually exported. The present amount of exports exceeded 1,500,000, and the amount was, therefore, expected to be reduced by one-third. The loss of freight and other expenses upon this reduced exportation would amount to 450,000 l.; so that there would be a loss of revenue arising upon this sum, both in respect of the coal owner and the shipper, which would go far to show an absolute deficit on this item. Taking, therefore, the returns from Irish spirits and from coal as amounting to nothing, the account would then stand, that the sum which might be expected to be realised from the Income-tax was 3,700,000 l., and from Irish stamp duties 160,000 l., making a total of 3,860,000 l. The amount of duties to be repealed was 1,210,000 l., and deducting this from the net income, the result was only 2,650,000 l. The deficit, however, was 3,000,000 l., and thus there was an actual deficiency in the revenue raised by this extraordinary tax of 350,000 l. With regard to the nature of the tax itself, he thought that the Government had acted rightly with a view to their own popularity, but looking at the interests of the country, to the protection of industry, he thought that the volunteer budget of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) who had suggested the re-imposition of assessed taxes, would have been more likely to produce satisfactory results. To what, he asked, was the state of the country to be attributed? The public revenue had increased, no doubt, but not in the proportion which the country had a right to expect. If any one looked to the question dispassionately and calmly, he might trace the distress of the country to two great causes. One was the disorganization of our foreign trade by reason of the state of America; and he believed that if they turned to their Customs' returns, they would find that the main deficiency was altogether connected with the produce of America; and he believed in his conscience that the whole of the difficulties which had proceeded from this source would have been averted, if means had
336
been taken by which the raw agricultural produce of that country might have been received in payment. But beyond this was another infinitely greater cause of distress—the diminished power of consumption in the people of this country. Even if they gave up all other causes, they would have no difficulty in seeing that it was the diminished power of consuming exciseable commodities at home which had led to a great deal of the loss of income. There was a calculation published which had been made upon the authority of Mr. Lloyd, and which formed a part of the report of the commissioners on the hand-loom weavers, which showed the prices paid in 1835, 1839, 1840, and 1841, for wheat, oats, and barley. It was as follows:—

"1835—

qrs.

s.

£

Wheat

12,000,000

at 40

24,000,000

Oats

3,000,000

at 22

3,300,000

Barley

9,000,000

at 30

13,500,000

40,800,000

"1839, 1840, 1841—

Wheat

12,000,000

at 58

40,800,000

Oats

3,000,000

at 25

3,750,000

Barley

9,000,000

at 37

16,650,000

61,200,000

Excess of cost £20,400,000."

What was the effect of drawing 20,000,000 l. from other sources, and spending it in this article of consumption? It was to diminish the revenue and the trade of the country, and to cramp and fetter our manufactures. He would take also a comparison of the expenses of twelve families in Manchester between 1836 and 1841. The amount of income which they were compelled to pay in 1836 was 54 per cent., in 1841 it was 89 per cent.; and the result of this was, that they had less to lay out in exciseable articles. He would not further trouble their Lordships upon this subject, upon which their Lordships had already extended great indulgence to him. He would only end by saying, that he could assure the House that, in opposing this Income-tax, he had done so precisely upon the same principle on which he had opposed it when he had bad the honour of being a Minister himself, and on no other principle whatever. He should oppose it under all circumstances, as being an unwise, an unjust, and inefficient measure.
The Earl of Riponwas very ready to do justice to the ability with which the noble

337
Lord who had just sat down had stated his views of this measure, but he thought that, after all, the question in reality resolved itself into the very point on which it had been discussed on Friday night. The arguments of the noble Marquess, of the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope), and of the noble Lord who last spoke, all resolved themselves into this that there was not a case made out to furnish a ground for the imposition of this tax. It was not disputed that from the very nature of things a Property-tax must be liable to very grave objection; he had stated so the other evening. He had stated that it was only to be justified by the pressure of strong necessity, and he had then proceeded to show the grounds on which the affirmation of the existence of that necessity depended. He could not help thinking that his noble Friend had failed to show that no such necessity existed. The noble Lord had carefully and properly avoided volunteering a budget, though he had expressed an opinion in favour of that suggested by the noble Earl: but he could not help thinking that if the Government adopted that scheme they should be adopting a course liable in itself to very grave objections, and liable to this particular objection, that it would not effect the purpose which was to be had in view. What if Parliament should re-impose the house-tax, and the duty of 50 per cent, upon horses and carriages and servants, which had been taken off in 1823. If by such means they could be sure that they would derive the sum which they wanted, he must say that he thought that would be a preferable mode of taxation. But the amount which would be obtained, according to the calculations when these taxes were last paid, would not produce anything like the sum required. By the house-tax, as it stood in 1833, they would gain about 1,200,000 l; and by the taxes on horses, carriages, and servants, which had been removed in 1823, they would not obtain more than 500,000 l. or 600,000 l., assuming that the re-imposition of a much larger amount of taxation in these items would not prevent the employment of horses, carriages, and servants to a considerable extent. But the force of this necessity had been contested by his noble Friend who had last spoken, and he had argued that if everything had been left alone, all would have come right, He did not, for his own part,
338
doubt this for a moment; he did not at all despair of the powers of the country. But there was a deficiency now actually existing which must be met. Everybody repudiated the idea of borrowing money—of raising funds by way of loan, and there was no other alternative but that the Government must apply itself to find some source of Revenue from which they could derive sufficient to meet their necessities. A great part of the speech of his noble Friend had been in vindication, although such a vindication was quite uncalled for, of his own financial administration; and he had striven to show that no acts of his had called for this bill. He had alluded to the great addition to the debt of the country occasioned by the expenditure of 20,000,000 l. in purchasing the freedom of slaves in the West Indies, and he had said that he had not attended sufficiently to the progress of the revenue. He certainly thought that he had given it full attention, and he had stated to the House that the deficiency was not, in fact, occasioned by the diminution of the revenue, because the revenue had increased, but by the great increase, within the last seven years, of the expenditure of the country, in respect of that portion of our expenditure over which Parliament exercised an annual control—he meant the naval and military service of the country. And he had shown that on this item alone the increase between the first year, where the gradually growing deficiency in the revenue had commenced, and the present year, had been no less than 3,500,000 l. Why, if this were so, this did constitute a case, which in the first of these years no one had contemplated, but which had now assumed the character of a permanent deficit: and until they could show that the eases of deficit would be diminished, they could not calculate with any certainty upon the deficit itself being removed. If they re-imposed these taxes upon articles, and, upon the duties on Customs and Excise, they would, he thought, be overturning the great principle of commercial and fiscal relief, which had been the object of the Government during the last twenty years. That would not be a wise course to adopt: it would be much safer to view the inconvenience, the odium of this bill—of remedying the existing difficulties by the adoption of the means which were proposed by this measure than by all at once upsetting everything which

339
they had been endeavouring to do for the purpose of relieving the spring of manufacturing prosperity. The prosperity of the revenue depended upon giving as much relief in that quarter as was possible. The noble Marquess had suggested that a new light seemed to have broken in upon the Government on this question; but he could only say, for his part, that he had always expressed and endeavoured to act upon a principle in favour of what was called free-trade; and though he was not prepared to give up the principle of free-trade-—and he knew no one who was prepared to give it up altogether—he had always thought it necessary to reduce the whole system of the fiscal duties of the country, for the purpose of bringing about a more active communication with other parts of the world. He did not believe that the commercial and mercantile world entertained an opinion adverse to the tariff. He had beard many persons say that they believed that it would be one of the most useful measures which could be devised, and he thought that the noble Marquess had treated the measure in a way which it did not deserve. When that measure came up from the other House of Parliament, he thought that he should be able to show that it rested upon a sound position, such as should regulate the commercial interests of the country.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the motion:—Contents 99; Not-Contents 28: —Majority 71.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKE.

Jersey

Cambridge

Eglintoun

ARCHBISHOPS.

Moray

Canterbury.

Home

Armagh

Haddington

Lord Chancellor.

Galloway

DUKES.

Dalhousie

Richmond

Aberdeen

Buccleugh

Dunmore

Wellington

Aylesford

Buckingham

Warwick

Cleveland.

Delawarr

MARQUESSES

Bathurst

Salisbury

Beverley

Abercorn

Mansfield

Downshire

Liverpool

Exeter

Malmesbury

Londonderry

Clanwilliam

Ailesbury

Wicklow

EARLS.

Lucan

Devon

Bandon

Sandwich

Rosslyn

Shaftesbury

Powis

340

Charleville

LORDS.

Manvers

De Ros

Verulam

Clinton

Brownlow

Beaumont

St. German's

Colville

Bradford

Boston

Beauchamp

Walsingham

Glengall

Kenyon

Eldon

Bayning

Somers

Bolton

Stradbroke

Northwick

Dunraven

Blayney

Cawdor

Carbery

Ripon

Crofton

VISCOUNTS.

Redesdale

Sydney

Sandys

Hood

Rivers

Midleton

Prudhoe

Gage

Colchester

Hawarden

Ravensworth

Canning

Delamere

Canterbury

Forester

Lowther

Bexley

BISHOPS,

De Tabley

Lincoln

Wharncliffe

Bangor

Fitzgerald

Rochester

Stuart de Rothesay

Llandaff

Heytesbury

Chester

Templemore

Gloucester

Seaton

Chichester

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

MARQUESS.

BARONS.

Clanricarde

Campbell

Cloncurry

EARLS.

Colborne

Cowper

Camoys

Clarendon

Cottenham

Gosford

Carrington

Lovelace

Denman

Morley

Dunally

Radnor

Kinnaird

Scarborough

Lilford

Stanhope

Monteagle

Zetland

Mostyn

VISCOUNT.

Stuart de Decies

Duncannon.

Sudeley

Stafford

BISHOP.

Western

Norwich

Wrottesley

PAIRED OFF.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Marquis of Huntley

Lord Stanley of Alderley

Marquess of Bute

Lord De Freyne

Marquess of Ely

Duke of Hamilton

Earl of Kinnoul

Lord Lovat

Earl Cornwallis

Lord Sherborne

Earl of Mountcashell

Lord Bateman

Earl of Clare

Duke of Devonshire

Earl of Wilton

Lord Foley

Earl of Clancarty

Marquess of Headfort

Bishop of London

Lord Dinorben

Lord Sondes

Lord Hastings

341

FOR.

AGAINST.

Lord Braybrooke

Earl Fitzhardinge

Lord Wynford

Lord Talbot of Malahide

Lord de L'Isle

Earl of Belfast

Bill read a third time and passed.
Their Lordships adjourned.
The following Protests mere entered.
DISSENTIENT—I. Because this bill, though entitled "Property-tax," is in truth a tax on income; and I consider any tax on income objectionable, as being—
1. Unjust, inasmuch as it taxes to the same amount equal yearly incomes of really unequal value.
2. Inquisitorial, and necessarily requiring for its due collection such scrutiny into the affairs of individuals as is abhorrent from the feelings of Englishmen in all cases, and in many, especially in those of persons concerned in trade, inconvenient, and highly injurious.
3. Demoralizing, because in divers cases it requires the oaths of parties to be made in direct opposition to their pecuniary interests, and holds out temptation to perjury and fraud.
4. Impolitic, as forcibly diverting a portion of the profits of trade from productive, to the support of unproductive labour; and
5. Because I believe that the allegation that a tax on income affects the rich only, and not the poor, is altogether erroneous; and that every tax falls, sooner or later, on the poorer classes of the people, and none more immediately than a direct tax imposed on the incomes of the employers of labour.
II. Because several of the provisions of this bill appear to me absurd and unnecessarily unjust and impolitic.
1. By this hill, while all the incomes enumerated in the schedules A, C, D, and E, though of greatly varying value, are assessed at 7d. in the pound, incomes arising from the occupation of lands are assessed in schedule B only at 3½d, and in some cases at 2½d., in the pound. The grounds of this distinction have not been explained; but the consequence must necessarily be, that it gives an undue advantage to capital employed in agricultural pursuits, and tends to raise to an unnatural level the rent paid for the occupation and use of land.
2. The profits of tenants, occupiers of land, are measured by the rent due to the respective landlords—a test, as it appears to me, assumed capriciously without any assignable reason, and the consequence of which must be, first— that a tenant, who pays a low and inadequate rent, will have the further benefit of being assessed at a low rent on his income, while the tenant oppressed by a high rent will have to bear the additional burden of a heavy tax; and secondly, that in cases where long leases of lands have been granted at low rents, in consideration of capital expended on permanent improvements, the landlord will be assessed on an income which he does not re-
342
ceive, and the tenant deprived of the opportunity to replace his capital; the tendency of this provision is, to prevent the outlay of capital on permanent agricultural improvements.
3. Traders are required to return their incomes on the average of their profits for the three last years, so that the man whose business is declining, will have, in aggravation of his losses, to pay more than his due proportion of the tax; but he whose business is thriving will have the further advantage of paying less than his proper share.
4. In this bill I find no provisions by which a man who is possessed of property, and who is also engaged in trade, may deduct the losses (if any should occur) accruing in the one case from the income arising in the other; so that he may be, in the balance of the whole, a loser, and yet he called upon to pay a tax on income, though he has none.
5. By the third rule of the first case of the rules for ascertaining the duties contained in the schedule (D), it is expressly enacted that, "in estimating the balance of profits and gains chargeable under schedule (D), or for the purpose of assessing the duty thereon," no allowance or deduction shall be made for, inter alia, any "sum employed, or intended to be employed, as capital in such trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern," or "for any capital employed in improvement of premises occupied for the purposes of such trade," &c. Thus the provisions of this act are directly calculated, and seem studiously drawn up, to prevent any increase of trade or manufacture, either by extending the operations of the one, or by improvement in machinery and mode of carrying on the other.
6. This being a tax upon income, and not upon the public debt, I hold it to be equally unjust and impolitic to withhold from foreigners such portions of the interest of that debt as is due to them by this country, and for the full payment of which the faith of Parliament is pledged. In the case of British subjects the Legislature has the power to tax their incomes, from whatever source arising, and thus when those incomes are derived in the whole or in part from the interest of the public debt, it has a right to claim a portion of that interest. But to withhold from foreigners, whose incomes are beyond the control of the British Legislature, a portion of the interest due for money actually lent by them to this country on the faith of Parliament, appears to me an act of sheer dishonesty. The impolicy of such a proceeding appears to me equally great whether I consider the alarm which it may cause in the mind of the foreign fund- holder, lest on some future occasion of pres sing difficulty the whole may be confiscated, or view the proceeding as an example to other Governments for dealing with, and appropriating to themselves, funds belonging to British subjects in their hands.
III. Because I fear the financial difficulties to

343
meet which it is alleged that the tax is imposed, will be aggravated by it. The difficulties arising, as I believe mainly, if not wholly, from the depressed state of commerce and manufactures, which has now prevailed for more than four years, it seems to follow, as a matter of course, that the best remedy would be to remove the burdens which press most severely upon them; Experience shows that the taking off of taxes does not of necessity diminish the revenue by the amount of the duties repealed. And there are many taxes which weigh very heavily on the springs of industry, more especially the duty on the importation of corn. Much, therefore, might, I think, be done by relaxation of taxation; much also by modification of certain differential duties on foreign and colonial produce, which, while they impose heavy duties on the consumer, in no degree benefit the public revenue. But the withering influence of this tax must increase the depression of all the industrious classes, and aggravate the difficulties of the country.
IV. Because I see reason to apprehend that the object proposed to be effected by this bill will not be obtained. The imposition of the Income-tax is justified on the ground of the necessity of raising, with certainty, within the year, a sum of money sufficient to make good the existing deficiency of the revenue. This tax may yield the estimated sum, but it can hardly be expected that there will not be a compensating, and probably nearly equal, falling off in some other quarter, so that, on the whole, the proposed advantage will not be gained.
V. Because this tax, by aggravating the distress, will increase the causes of the necessity now urged for its imposition, and its continuance and re-enactment at the time it is now destined to expire will thus be rendered still more necessary. Cause and effect will reciprocally act on each other, and all hope of being rid of this impost, and of seeing the restoration of commercial prosperity, will be lost, and the first fatal step will have been taken towards permanently undermining the resources and destroying the wealth and power of the country.

RADNOR,

DUNCANNON,

ZETLAND,

SOMERHILL,

KINNAIRD AND ROSSIE,

GOSFOED,

CAMPBELL,

MONTEAGLE (of Brandon),

CLONCURRY,

CLARENDON.

And for all the reasons, except that which relates to foreigners holding stock.
DENMAN.
Protest against the Third Reading of the Income-tax Bill.
Dissentient,

1. Because an Income-tax is justly odious from its inquisitorial nature, as well as from the inequality of its pressure, and ought not to be imposed except in a case of great emergency, such as does not at present exist.

344

2. Because an Income-tax may occasion a very considerable curtailment of private expenditure, and may thus extend and aggravate the present distress, which has arisen from an insufficient employment and remuneration of labour.

3. Because an Income-tax ought to be reserved as a resource for war when the expenditure is unavoidably such as could not be otherwise defrayed.

4. Because an Income-tax, when imposed in order to supply a deficiency in the revenue, and not to meet the exigencies of an expensive war, must convey to foreign powers a very unfavourable and injurious impression with respect to the sources of this country.

5. Because an Income-tax is not required by the deficiency of the revenue, for which a provision might have been made by imposing again some of those taxes, the repeal of which had occasioned that deficiency, but had not afforded the relief that was expected.

STANHOPE.