Sitting of 2 May 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1o. Incumbents Leasing (No. 2); British Possessions Abroad; Ecclesiastical Corporations Leasing (No. 2).
2o Ecclesiastical Residences; Pentonville Prison.
Reported.—Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Exchequer Bills; Victoria Park; Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings.
Private.—1o Glegg's Divorce; Boston Harbour (No. 2);
Boston Harbour (No. 3).
2o. Faversham Navigation; Stourbridge Roads. Reported.—Aberdeenshire Roads; Forth and Clyde Navigation.
3o. and passed;—Ardrossan Harbour; St. Philip's (Bristol) Bridge | Gosport Pier.
PETITIONS PEESENTBD. By Mr. Powell, from Bethnal Green. Hoxton, Camberwell, and Shoreditch, for the Redemption of the Tolls on Waterloo, and the other Bridges. —By Mr. Masterman, from Arundel, and Gateshead, against the Income-tax Bill.—Dy Mr. Hodson Hinde, from Attornies at Preston, and Halifax, for the Repeal of the Duty on their Certificates.—By an hon. Member, from Waterford, against any Reduction of the Duties on Foreign Leather.—By an hon. Member from Moray, and Banff, against Alteration of the Timber Duties.—From sundry places, for Universal
Suffrage.—From Cowbridge, and Cardiff, against the Removal of the Packet Station from Milford.—From Warfield, for Inquiry relative to the Tithe Commutation Act.—By an hon. Member, from Deal, and Walmer, in favour of the proposed Commercial Reforms and Financial Measures.—By an Hon. Member, from Arundel, against the Importation of Foreign Cattle.—From Drumbare, Clonorlee, Ballyjamesduff, Hacketstown, and Haroldstown, against the present system of Education (Ireland).—From Brighton, Upper Chelsea, Tewkesbury, and Reading, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—From the Roman Catholics of Chudleigh, for Equality of Civil Rights.—From Llandudno, against Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Copper.—From Warwick Poor-law Union, for Rating Owners instead of Occupiers of Small Tenements.—From Houghton, for Church Extension.

THE PEOPLE'S CHARTER—PETITION.
[A Petition from the working classes throughout the kingdom, of the presentation of which Mr. Thomas Duncombe had previously given notice, was brought down to the House, by a procession consisting of a vast multitude. Its bulk was so great, that the doors were not wide enough to admit it, and it was necessary to unrol it, to carry it into the House. When unrolled, it spread over a great part of the floor, and rose above the level of the Table.]
Mr. T. Duncombe,in presenting it to
1374
the House, said,—Looking at the vast proportions of this petition—looking, too, at the importance attaching to it, not only from the matter it contains, but from the millions who have signed it, I am quite satisfied, that if I were to ask the House to relax the rules which it has laid down to govern the presentation of petitions, it would grant me the indulgence; but as I have given notice of a motion for to-morrow, that the petition should be taken into the serious consideration of the House, and that those who have signed it, should by their counsel and agents, be heard at the Bar of your House, in support of the allegations which the petition contains, I shall not ask the House to grant me that indulgence, but will keep myself strictly within the limits which have been laid down for the presentation of all petitions. I beg respectfully to offer to the acceptance of this House, a petition signed by 3,315,752 of the industrious classes of this country. The petition proceeds from those upon whose toil, upon whose industry, upon whose affection, and upon whose attachment, I may say, every institution, every law, nay, even the very Government, and the whole property and commerce of the country depend. These persons now most respectfully come before you, to state the manifold grievances under which they are suffering. They state those grievances at some length; I need not now go through them, because I mean to ask your Clerk to read them at the Table. I may state, however, that they attribute the manifold grievances and distresses, which they are now enduring, and have for a considerable length of time endured, to class-legislation and to the misrepresentation of their interests in this House. They state, that for a considerable length of time their interests have been grossly neglected, and that no interests beyond your own, have ever been thought of "within your walls. They are ready to prove this at your Bar. In the first place, they ask you to hear them. They state in their prayer:—
"That they cannot within the limits of this their petition, set forth even a tithe of the many grievances of which they may justly complain; but should your honourable House be pleased to grant your petitioners a hearing, by representatives at the Bar of your honourable House, your petitioners will be enabled to unfold a tale of wrong and suffering—of intolerable injustice—which will create utter astonishment in the minds of all benevolent and good men, that the people of Great Britain and Ireland, have so long quietly endured

1375
their wretched condition, brought upon them, as it has been, by unjust exclusion from political authority, and by the manifold corruptions of class legislation."
This petition proceeds, as I have stated, from 3,315,752 of the industrious classes. I have in my hand, a short analysis of the places in which the greater number of the signatures to the petition were obtained. The list of hamlets and towns from which less than 10,000 signatures were procured, is so very long, that I will not detain the House by reading it. 1 will name those towns only from which more than 10,000 have been obtained. They are these: Manchester, 99,680; Newcastle and districts, 92,000; Glasgow and Lanarkshire, 78,062; Halifax, 36,400; Nottingham, 40,000; Leeds, 41,000; Birmingham, 43,000; Norwich, 21,560; Bolton, 18,500; Leicester, 18,000; Rochdale, 19,600; Loughborough and districts, 10,000; Sal-ford, 19,600; East Riding, Yorkshire, agricultural districts, 14,840; Worcester, 10,000; Merthyr Tydvil and districts, 13,900; Aberdeen, 17,600; Keithly, 11,000; Brighton, 12,700; Bristol, 12,800; Huddersfield, 23,180; Sheffield, 27,200; Scotland, West Midland districts, 18,000; Dunfermline, 16,000; Cheltenham, 10,400; Liverpool, 23,000; Staley. bridge and districts, 10,000; Stockport, 14,000; Macclesfield and suburbs, 10,000; North Lancashire, 52,000; Oldham, 15,000; Ashton, 14,200; Bradford and district, Yorkshire, 45,100; Burnley, and district, 14,000; Preston and district, 24,000; Wigan, 10,000; London and suburbs, 200,000; from 371 other towns, villages, &c.2,154,807—Total, 3,315,752. I believe these to be every one of them bonâ fide signatures. The remedies that the petitioners suggest would be that they should have a voice in the election of representatives; that they should be represented in this House. They complain that at present they are totally and grossly misrepresented; and they pray that, after having heard them, if you should be satisfied with their arguments, you do immediately, without alteration, deduction, or addition, pass into a law the document entitled "The People's Charter;" which embraces the representation of male adults, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, no property qualification, payment of members, and equal electoral districts. And your petitioners, desiring to promote the peace of the United Kingdom, security of property, and prosperity of commerce, seri-
1376
ously and earnestly press this their petition on the attention of your honourable House. I beg leave to move that this petition be brought up and read by the Clerk at the Table.
The petition was read by the Clerk, as follows:—
"TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED.
"The petition of the undersigned people of the United Kingdom,
"Sheweth—That Government originated from, was designed to protect the freedom and promote the happiness of, and ought to be responsible to, the whole people.
"That the only authority on which any body of men can make laws and govern society, is delegation from the people.
"That as Government was designed for the benefit and protection of, and must be obeyed and supported by all, therefore all should be equally represented.
"That any form of Government which fails to effect the purposes for which it was designed, and does not fully and completely represent the whole people, who are compelled to pay taxes to its support and obey the laws resolved upon by it, is unconstitutional, tyrannical, and ought to be amended or resisted.
"That your honourable House, as at present constituted, has not been elected by, and acts irresponsibly of, the people; and hitherto has only represented parties, and benefitted the few, regardless of the miseries, grievances, and petitions of the many. Your honourable House has enacted laws contrary to the expressed wishes of the people, and by unconstitutional means enforced obedience to them, thereby creating an unbearable despotism on the one hand, and degrading slavery on the other.
"That if your honourable House is of opinion that the people of Great Britain and Ireland ought not to be fully represented, your petitioners pray that such opinion may be unequivocally made known, that the people may fully understand what they can or cannot expect from your honourable House; because if such be the decision of your honourable House, your petitioners are of opinion that where representation is denied, taxation ought to be resisted.
"That your petitioners instance, in proof of their assertion, that your honourable House has not been elected by the people; that the population of Great Britain and Ireland is at the present time about twenty-six millions of persons; and that yet, out of this number, little more than nine hundred thousand have been permitted to vote in the recent election of representatives to make laws to govern the whole.
"That the existing state of representation is not only extremely limited and unjust, but

1377
unequally divided, and gives preponderating influence to the landed and monied interests, to the utter ruin of the small-trading and labouring classes.
"That the borough of Guilford, with a population of 3,920 returns to Parliament as many members as the Tower Hamlets, with a population of 300,000; Evesham, with a population of 3,998, elects as many representatives as Manchester, with a population of 200,000; and Buckingham, Evesham, Totness, Guildford, Honiton, and Bridport, with a total population of 23,000, return as many representatives as Manchester, Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Liverpool, Marylebone, and Lambeth, with a population of 1,400,000! these being but a very few instances of the enormous inequalities existing in what is called the representation of this country.
"That bribery, intimidation, corruption, perjury, and riot, prevail at all parliamentary elections, to an extent best understood by the Members of your honourable House.
"That your petitioners complain that they are enormously taxed to pay the interest of what is termed the national debt, a debt amounting at present to 800,000,000l., being only a portion of the enormous amount expended in cruel and expensive wars for the suppression of all liberty, by men not authorised by the people, and who, consequently, had no right to tax posterity for the outrages committed by them upon mankind. And your petitioners loudly complain of the augmentation of that debt, after twenty-six years of almost uninterrupted peace, and whilst poverty and discontent rage over the land.
"That taxation, both general and local, is at this time too enormous to be borne; and in the opinion of your petitioners is contrary to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, wherein it is clearly expressed that no subject shall be compelled to contribute to any tax, talliage, or aid, unless imposed by common consent in Parliament.
"That in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, thousands of people are dying from actual want; and your petitioners, whilst sensible that poverty is the great exciting cause of crime, view with mingled astonishment and alarm the ill provision made for the poor, the aged, and infirm; and likewise perceive, with feelings of indignation, the determination of your honourable House to continue the Poor-law Bill in operation, notwithstanding the many proofs which have been afforded by sad experience of the unconstitutional principal of that bill, of its unchristian character, and of the cruel and murderous effects produced upon the wages of working men, and the lives of the subjects of this realm."
"That your petitioners conceive that bill to be contrary to all previous statutes, opposed to the spirit of the constitution, and an actual violation of the precepts of the Christian re-
1378
ligion; and, therefore, your petitioners look with apprehension to the results which may flow from its continuance.
"That your petitioners would direct the attention of your honourable House to the great disparity existing between the wages of the producing millions, and the salaries of those whose comparative usefulness ought to be questioned, where riches and luxury prevail amongst the rulers, and poverty and starvation amongst the ruled.
"That your petitioners, with all due respect and loyalty, would compare the daily income of the Sovereign Majesty with that of thousands of the working men of this nation; and whilst your petitioners have learned that her Majesty receives daily for her private use the sum of 164 l. 17 s. l0 d., they have also ascertained that many thousands of the families of the labourers are only in the receipt of 3¾d. per head per day.
"That your petitioners have also learned that his royal Highness Prince Albert receives each day the sum of 104l. 2s., whilst thousands have to exist upon 3d. per head per day.
"That your petitioners have also heard with astonishment, that the King of Hanover daily receives 57 l. 10 s. whilst thousands of the tax-payers of this empire live upon 2¾d. per head per day.
" That your petitioners have, with pain and regret, also learned that the Archbishop of Canterbury is daily in the receipt of 52l. 10s. per day, whilst thousands of the poor have to maintain their families upon an income not exceeding 2d. per head per day.
"That notwithstanding the wretched and unparalleled condition of the people, your honourable House has manifested no disposition to curtail the expenses of the State, to diminish taxation, or promote general prosperity.
"That unless immediate remedial measures be adopted, your petitioners fear the increasing distress of the people will lead to results fearful to contemplate; because your petitioners can produce evidence of the gradual decline of wages, at the same time that the constant increase of the national burdens must be apparent to all.
"That your petitioners know that it is the undoubted constitutional right of the people, to meet freely, when, how, and where they choose, in public places, peaceably, in the day, to discuss their grievances, and political or other subjects, or for the purpose of framing discussing, or passing any vote, petition, or remonstrance, upon any subject whatsoever.
"That your petitioners complain that the right has unconstitutionally been infringed; and 500 well disposed persons have been arrested, excessive bail demanded, tried by packed juries, sentenced to imprisonment, and treated as felons of the worst description.
"That an unconstitutional police force is distributed all over the country, at enormous cost, to prevent the due exercise of the peo-

1379
ple's rights. And your petitioners are of opinion that the Poor-law Bastiles and the police stations, being co-existent, have originated from the same cause, viz., the increased desire on the part of the irresponsible few to oppress and starve the many.
"That a vast and unconstitutional army is upheld at the public expense, for the purpose of repressing public opinion in the three kingdoms, and likewise to intimidate the millions in the due exercise of those rights and privileges which ought to belong to them.
"That your petitioners complain that the hours of labour, particularly of the factory workers, are protracted beyond the limits of human endurance, and that the wages earned, after unnatural application to toil in heated and unhealthy workshops, are inadequate to sustain the bodily strength, and supply those comforts which are so imperative after an excessive waste of physical energy.
"That your petitioners also direct the attention of your honourable House to the starvation wages of the agricultural labourer, and view with horror and indignation the paltry income of those whose toil gives being to the staple food of this people.
"That your petitioners, deeply deplore the existence of any kind of monopoly in this nation, and whilst they unequivocally condemn the levying of any tax upon the necessaries of life, and upon those articles principally required by the labouring classes, they are also sensible that the abolition of any one monopoly will never unshackle labour from its misery until the people possess that power under which all monopoly and oppression must cease; and your petitioners respectfully mention the existing monopolies of the suffrage, of paper money, of machinery, of land, of the public press, of religious privileges, of the means of travelling and transit, and a host of other evils too numerous to mention, all arising from class legislation, but which your honourable House has always consistently endeavoured to increase instead of diminish.
"That your petitioners are sensible, from the numerous petitions presented to your honourable House, that your honourable House is fully acquainted with the grievances of the working men; and your petitioners pray that the rights and wrongs of labour may be considered, with a view to the protection of the one, and to the removal of the other; because your petitioners are of opinion that it is the worst species of legislation which leaves the grievances of society to be removed only by violence or revolution, both of which may be apprehended if complaints are unattended to and petitions despised.
"That your petitioners complain that upwards of nine millions of pounds per annum are unjustly abstracted from them to maintain a church establishment, from which they principally dissent; and beg to Call the attention of your honourable House to the fact, that this enormous sum is equal to, if it does not ex-
1380
ceed, the cost of upholding Christianity in all parts of the world beside. Your petitioners complain that it is unjust, and not in accordance with the Christian religion, to enforce compulsory support of religious creeds, and expensive church establishments, with which the people do not agree.
"That your petitioners believe all men have a right to worship God as may appear best to their consciences, and that no legislative enactments should interfere between man and his Creator.
"That your petitioners direct the attention of your honourable House to the enormous revenue annually swallowed up by the bishops and the clergy, and entreat you to contrast their deeds with the conduct of the founder of the Christian religion, who denounced worshippers of Mammon, and taught charity, meekness, and brotherly love.
"That your petitioners strongly complain that the people of this kingdom are subject to the rule of irresponsible law-makers, to whom they have given no authority, and are enormously taxed to uphold a corrupt system, to which they have never in person or by representation given their assent.
"That your petitioners maintain that it is the inherent, indubitable, and constitutional right, founded upon the ancient practice of the realm of England, and supported by well approved statutes, of every male inhabitant of the United Kingdom, he being of age and of sound mind, non-convict of crime, and not confined under any judicial process, to exercise the elective franchise in the choice of Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament.
"That your petitioners can prove, that by the ancient customs and statutes of this realm, Parliament should be held once in each year.
"That your petitioners maintain that Members elected to serve in Parliament ought to be the servants of the people, and should, at short and stated intervals, return to their constituencies, to ascertain if their conduct is approved of, and to give the people power to reject all who have not acted honestly and justly.
"That your petitioners complain that possession of property is made the test of men's qualification to sit in Parliament.
"That your petitioners can give proof that such qualification is irrational, unnecessary, and not in accordance with the ancient usages of England.
"That your petitioners complain, that by influence, patronage, and intimidation, there is at present no purity of election; and your petitioners contend for the right of voting by ballot.
"That your petitioners complain that seats in your honourable House are sought for at a most extravagant rate of expense; which proves an enormous degree of fraud and corruption.
"That your petitioners, therefore, contend, that to put an end to secret political traffic, all

1381
representatives should be paid a limited amount for their services.
"That your petitioners complain of the inequality of representation; and contend for the division of the country into equal electoral districts.
"That your petitioners complain of the many grievances borne by the people of Ireland, and contend that they are fully entitled to a repeal of the legislative union.
"That your petitioners have viewed with great indignation the partiality shown to the aristocracy in the courts of justice, and the cruelty of that system of law which deprived Frost, Williams, and Jones, of the benefit of the objection offered by Sir Frederick Pollock during the trial at Monmouth, and which was approved of by a large majority of the judges.
"That your petitioners beg to assure your honourable House that they cannot, within the limits of this their petition, set forth even a tithe of the many grievances of which they may justly complain; but should your honourable House be pleased to grant your petitioners a hearing by representatives at the Bar of your honourable House, your petitioners will be enabled to unfold a tale of wrong and suffering —of intolerable injustice—which will create utter astonishment in the minds of all benevolent and good men, that the people of Great Britain and Ireland have so long quietly endured their wretched condition, brought upon them as it has been by unjust exclusion from political authority, and by the manifold corruptions of class-legislation.
"That your petitioners, therefore, exercising their just constitutional right, demand that your honourable House do remedy the many gross and manifest evils of which your petitioners complain, do immediately, without alteration, deduction, or addition, pass into a law the document entitled 'The People's Charter,' which embraces the representation of male adults, vote by ballot, annual Parliaments, no property qualification, payment of Members, and equal electoral districts.
"And that your petitioners, desiring to promote the peace of the United Kingdom, security of property, and prosperity of commerce, seriously and earnestly press this, their petition, on the attention of your honourable House.
"And your petitioners, &c."
Petition to be printed.

WEST INDIA PACKET STATION.
Mr. Wallace,seeing the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty in his place, wished to inquire whether it were the intention of the Admiralty to make any change in the West-India line of packet station. Considerable delay had taken place with respect to the delivery of letters from the West Indies, and he wished to know whether it were the intention of the Ad-
1382
miralty to take this question into consideration, and whether, if any change were made, Southampton would be one of the new stations.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, the delay arose from accidental circumstances, but it was the intention of the Admiralty to take the question into consideration. A recommendation had been made of certain towns to be made packet stations, and Southampton was one.

CHURCH EXTENSION.
Mr. Haweswished to put a question to the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford. He wished to renew the question he had more than once put as to whether it was the intention of the hon. Baronet, at an early period, to bring under the notice of the House the subject of Church Extension [Cheers].
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that in reply to the question of the hon. Member, and in reply to the cheer with which that question had been received, he would repeat the answer which he had given on a former occasion, that he retained his intention with respect to bringing the subject forward this Session, and he would give ample notice to the hon. Gentleman, and the House, of the time at which he intended to bring it forward.

INCOME-TAX COMMITTEE.
House in committee on the Income-tax Bill.
On clause 3 being proposed,
Mr. Humeobjected to placing the duties under the management of the commissioners of stamps and taxes. The clause would, in his opinion, confer upon them powers of the most objectionable and inquisitorial character. They might, as they in fact did at present, appoint informers and send spies over the whole country. After what had taken place, he did not consider it worth his while to propose amendments, but he thought the powers proposed to be given to the commissioners of stamps ought to be more strictly defined.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the powers of the commissioners would be regulated by the Land Tax Commissioners Act.
Mr. Humesaid, that that would lessen but not remove the evil of which he complained.
Clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.
On the 4th clause being proposed,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had an amendment to make in this clause, in order to give the commissioners of stamps the power of giving notice where the district commissioners should meet, and as to the manner in which the provisions should be carried out.
Mr. Humethought such powers would best be entrusted to the Government, more particularly as regarded the manner of choosing acting commissioners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid n6t think the Government the best party to be entrusted with such powers.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, as a Member of the Government, be responsible for the appointments he might make; but the commissioners of land-tax might be considered as virtually irresponsible for the exercise of their powers. If the right hon. Gentleman had looked as narrowly into this subject as he (Mr. Hume) had done in 1822, he would find that many crying evils existed in regard to these appointments. It was infinitely better that the power of making these appointments should be vested in the head of the Board of Taxes than in a Board of fifty or sixty men appointed by the Members for the county. He objected to the clause as it stood, for it would be productive of a great deal of political partisanship. He knew it was needless for him to bring forward any amendment, for Government had determined that the bill should pass, and he admitted that it was of the utmost importance to the commercial interests that the bill should pass with as little delay as possible. He could not express in too strong terms the injury sustained by the commerce and manufactures of the country in consequence of the uncertainty in which they now were. Until the tariff was settled, the domestic and foreign commerce would, to a certain degree, remain paralysed; and, bad as affairs were, this uncertainty made them a great deal worse. He would not, therefore, propose any amendment of the clause; but he hoped that Government would give every consideration to the suggestion as made by hon. Members, and adopt them whenever they could conscientiously do so.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he had heard with the greatest satisfaction the opinion of the hon. Member for Montrose in respect
1384
to the advantage of their being enabled, at as early a period as they could consistently with their performance of their public duty, to apply themselves to the consideration of the tariff. He thought it right that measures of such importance should undergo the serious consideration of the House. In regard to those motions for adjournment, he had never complained that they offered any unfair obstacle to the progress of the present measure. At the same time, he must say, that during those discussions, he entertained the strongest opinion, formed on the representations made to him, that it was of the utmost importance to settle as soon as they could the commercial state of the country. That uncertainty removed, he thought there was every prospect of increased trade, and a greater demand for labour. Since the hon. Member had admitted that the House had marked its sense of the principle of the present measure, he trusted that hon. Gentlemen opposite would agree with him in thinking that as little delay as possible should take place in regard to the details and machinery of the bill. In regard to the objection urged by the hon. Member against the present clause, he thought it would be liable to great exception, if Government had proposed to supersede the local authorities, and to appoint officers of their own. If the principle recommended by the hon. Member for Montrose was a good one for the present tax, it would also be a good one for the assessed taxes. Now the Government proposed to take the land-tax commissioners as they found them. The bill contained two principles in regard to the collection of the tax. In the first place, the tax would be collected and the scrutiny made by local authorities, but inasmuch as it was said that many parties would object to the scrutiny being made by local authorities, the bill gave them the power of going before the local authorities, if they thought fit to do so, but if they objected to this, they had the option of going before the special commissioners appointed by Government. There would therefore be a local and a Government tribunal, and the party aggrieved could go before either of them. It was more consistent to leave the local tribunals in the hands of the local authorities, and those of the Government in the hands of the Government. If the hon. Member for Montrose was of opinion, that the land-tax commissioners should be

1385
abolished, that was a subject for general consideration, but not one to be effected under a temporary act. He very much doubted whether they could constitutionally abolish altogether those privileges which the counties had of assessing themselves, and of collecting the tax by means of local authorities. He would, however, reserve his opinion on that point, but he could not acquiesce in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose, and he hoped he had said enough to convince him that it was not desirable.
Mr. Laboucherequite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose in regard to proceeding with as little delay as possible, in the settlement of this question. He could not help thinking, however, that a great deal of misapprehension prevailed on that subject, not only among Members of that House, but also, and to a still greater extent, among those out of doors. The hon. Member had talked as if there had been delay in the consideration of the tariff. Now, not one single day, not one single hour, had been lost, for the tariff, in the form which Government meant to propose it, was not even yet on the Table of the House. It was right he should remind the House of this. The discussion on the Income-tax could not have delayed the tariff. Having agreed to the principle of the Income-tax, he had no wish to see that principle broken in upon, but it was rather hard to put a sort of duresse on the House, and to deny to hon. Members who differed from him in opinion the liberty of bringing forward whatever amendments in the details of the measure they might feel it their duty to propose, merely on the assertion that it would produce great public evil. Government might be perfectly justified in taking all the time they had to consider the tariff, but it ought to be recollected that the House were not even now in a condition to debate the tariff. If the right hon. Gentleman really considered that the delay of the tariff was so great an evil to the commerce of the country, that it ought to be avoided, he should have introduced the tariff before he proceeded further with the Income-tax; but if, as he had stated, the right hon. Gentleman considered that the Income-tax ought to be decided before the House proceeded to discuss the tariff, he had no right to turn round upon them (the Opposition), and charge them with the mischief which
1386
might result from the necessary delay occasioned by the consideration of the former measure. No doubt Government were right in taking time to consider the whole of the details of the tariff before they brought it forward, but, until they had it before them, the House could not possibly be in a condition to discuss it, nor were they to be held answerable for any delay that had occurred in the settlement of the question. He would take this opportunity of asking the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he could give the House any idea of what would be the probable expense of the machinery by which the provisions of the Income-tax were proposed to be carried out? He thought it was highly desirable, that they should have some information upon this point before they proceeded to the third reading of the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not give any such account as that required by the right hon. Gentleman, nor should he be enabled to do so until he had some knowledge of the number of special commissioners it might be necessary to appoint, to give the right hon. Gentleman the necessary information, but he had no doubt he should be enabled to do so before the time stated by the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir R. Peelwas sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would not, on consideration, charge him with the intention to impose upon the House any such duresse as that to which he had referred. He should not even have alluded to the delay that had taken place but that the hon. Member for Montrose had, under the influence of a sense of public duty, stated the necessity of discussing the proposed alterations in the tariff with as little delay as possible. He said, at once, that he had heard that declaration of the hon. Member with satisfaction, and admitted, that it was of the highest importance to the commercial interests of the country that they should be enabled to take time for the full consideration of the tariff; and that at as early a period as possible, consistent with their due consideration, the question should be settled. He did not by that imply, that any hon. Member had interposed or wished to interpose any unnecessary delay, and to relieve the mind of the hon. Gentleman he was prepared to declare that the interval that had elapsed since the introduction of the tariff had had this advantage, that it had en-

1387
abled the Government to hold intercourse with and receive communications from persons connected with commerce, who would be affected by the proposed alterations, and the information so obtained had been found most valuable in completing the tariff, There were three or four calculations which were not yet concluded; but he might say, that the measure was so far completed, that they should be prepared to enter into the discussion of it as soon as the report of the committee upon the Income-tax should have passed.
Mr. Humeasked why the consideration of the tariff could not be commenced tomorrow, without waiting for the report of the present committee?
Mr. Blewitthoped, that no unnecessary delay was attributed to him. He appealed to every hon. Member of that House, whether there had been any thing in his conduct dishonourable or ungentlemauly? If that were admitted, he must beg to say, that when he proposed the adjournment of the debate the other night, he did so from the belief, that the subject required further consideration, and that, in point of constitutional practice, the tariff ought to be considered before the Income-tax. Having made that observation, he hoped he would be considered as having made his peace with the House.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he did not mean to make any complaint relative to the course which had been taken in former discussions. He was sure that the hon. Member had acted solely from his sense of public duty, and not for the purpose of interposing any other obstruction.
Mr. B. Woodwished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Government had taken into their consideration the proposition which he had made on a former evening, that a party should be allowed to set off his losses under one schedule, against his gains under another. He thought it would be better that the subject should be taken up by the Government than by any individual Member.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the time for bringing up the clause of the hon. Gentleman had not yet arrived. The proper occasion for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House would be after the bill had gone through committee. For his own part he had only to say, that he adhered to his promise, and had given it his fullest consideration, and he was
1388
bound to say, that he had found such objections to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, that it would be exceedingly difficult for him (Sir R. Peel) to give to it his sanction. The Government were of opinion, after maturely considering the matter, that the proposal would give opportunities for the commission of the most extensive frauds, and it was for the purpose of guarding against that inconvenience that they had introduced the bill in its present shape.
Mr. Wardsaid, that he wished to know in what stage of the proceedings the discussion of the point might be expected to take place. It was one clearly entitled to the consideration of the House. The question, in his opinion, was simply this; whether a man should pay a tax upon that income which he had, or upon that income which he had not.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he should give the hon. Gentleman a fair opportunity of submitting his proposal to the House should the Government decline to adopt it.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
A great number of the following clauses were agreed to.
In rule 3, clause 60,
"For estimating the lands, tenements, hereditaments, or heritages, hereinafter mentioned, which are not to be charged according to the preceding rule,"
Mr. Gillproposed to omit the following words:—
"The annual value of all the properties hereinafter described shall be understood to be the full amount for one year, or the average amount for one year, of the profits received therefrom within the respective time herein limited,"
For the purpose of inserting
"That the annual value of properties hereinafter described shall be computed at the rate of 5l. for every 100 l. of all capital engaged in such property."
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the amendment, which he thought would be much more injurious than the original proposition. Besides, it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of capital employed in many descriptions of work.
Mr. Gillwithdrew his amendment, expressing his intention to propose a clause on the bringing up of the report.
Rule No. 3 agreed to.
The rule No. 5, relative to par-

1389
ticular deductions from schedule A, was then put.
Mr. Mackenzieproposed to allow a deduction for payments to schoolmasters, for manses, and for the repairs of churches in Scotland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not disposed to accede to the deduction, on the ground that the landlord received a greater rent if he paid the sums, which were paid by the tenant in England.
Mr. E, Butterthought the Scotchman had a right to this deduction.
Amendment negatived.
On rule 6, the allowances to be made in respect of the duties in schedule A,
Mr. W. Turnerproposed to exempt all literary and scientific institutions,
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not feel disposed to extend the allowances to the property of these institutions.
Mr. G. W. Woodwished to know why the Mechanics' Institutions in large towns should not have the same exemptions as the schools for the higher classes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought that these institutions were not, in the strict sense of the word, schools.
Mr. G. W. Woodknew at least one institution in which a large subscription had been raised for the purpose of schools.
Mr. Hawesenquired whether proprietary schools, and public buildings occupied only for scientific purposes, would be exempted? And he suggested the postponement of this part of the clause. If proprietary schools were not exempted, he saw no reason why the universities should be exempted, and would divide the House against the clause.
Mr. Gillthought it would be a hardship on subscription schools if endowed schools were allowed an exclusive exemption.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, no part of the colleges was exempted which was occupied by the students; the exemption only embraced the halls and gardens. Proprietary schools frequently gave a profit to the parties.
Mr. Laboucherecontended, that the numerous buildings devoted to the education of the humbler classes had an equal claim on attention. There was a difficulty in drawing a line. The question was of such importance that he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take it into consideration, or give some sound and valid reason for not assenting to it. He agreed
1390
that proprietary schools, which were a matter of speculation, would not be properly exempted; but any Building used for education ought to be exempt, whether devoted to the education of the higher or the humbler classes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the exemption was limited in the same degree as exemption from the assessed taxes. His apprehension was, that by giving way to exemption you might make such an inroad on taxation that he thought it right to adhere to those previously-recognised exemptions. He would take the subject into consideration.
Mr. G. W. Woodwas pleased to hear that promise, and would not press his amendment.
Mr. W. S. O'Briensuggested a postponement of this rule; for he was sure that, after the speech of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth, the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the exemption. If any one would support him, he would move the postponement.
Mr. Escottthought, that the almost gratuitous education of large numbers of the poorer classes in the large schools, and the fact that in the smaller schools a profit was made by such education being imparted, ought not to be forgotten in the consideration of this question.
Mr. P. Howardthought the exemption should only extend to almshouses and hospitals, but if they went one step beyond that, then the exemption as regarded public schools should be full and general, instead of confining it, as the right hon. Gentleman proposed, to particular instances.
Mr. Humebegged to inquire whether the London University was exempt under this clause?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered in the affirmative; the exemption, of course, only applying, provided there was no residence in it.
Mr. Fox Maulewould be glad to be informed whether schools, of royal foundation, such as the Charter-house, and Christ's-hospital, were exempt?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not at present prepared to answer the question.
Rule No. 6 agreed to.
On clause 87, which enacts the rules for assessing and charging the duties under schedule C, and provides, that thoe

1391
"duties shall extend to all public annuities whatever, payable in Great Britain, out of any public revenue in Great Britain or elsewhere, and to all dividends and shares thereof, which shall become payable after the 5th day of April, 1842," except certain exceptions.
Mr. Hawesbegged to call the attention of the committee to the circumstances that a great portion of shares and dividends were payable in a half-yearly proportion in July. According to the present clause, all such dividends and shares would pay a quarter of a year's proportion of tax which they were not justly called upon to pay, as the act did not come into operation till the 5th of April. He, therefore, thought that the quota payable on such shares and dividends ought to be calculated only for the quarter of the year from April to July.
Sir G. Clerksaid, the landed proprietor was precisely in the same position with respect to his rents, as the proprietor of dividends and shares.
Mr. Humesaid, that in order to bring the matter in a practical way before the committee, he would move, to add the following words:—
"Provided always, that when any annuities, dividends, or shares of annuities, shall be payable half yearly or yearly, such annuities, dividends, or shares of annuities shall be apportioned, and the amount shall be charge-able only upon so much of such annuities, dividends, or shares of annuities as shall have accrued after the 5th day of April."
The hon. Gentleman added, that he thought the same principle should be applied to the rents of land.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the hon. Gentleman were to carry his amendment, the bill, which as it now stood, would expire in April, 1845, must be extended to July, 1845, in order to meet the cases of dividends then due and payable; great inconvenience must arise from any such course, and he must, therefore, oppose the amendment.
The Committee divided on the question that the words be inserted:—Ayes 84; Noes 159:—Majority 75.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Bowring, Dr.

Aldam, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Barclay, D.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Browne, R. D.

Barnard, E. G.

Browne, hon. W.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Busfeild, W.

Bernal, R.

Carew, hon. R. S.

1392

Chapman, B.

Muntz, G. F.

Christie, W. D.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

O'Brien, W. S.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dennistoun, J.

Palmerston, Visct.

Duncau, Visct.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ellis, W.

Ponsonby, hon. J. G.

Evans, W.

Power, J.

Fielden, J.

Rice, E. R.

Fitzroy, Lord

Rundle, J.

Forster, M.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Fox, C. R.

Seymour, Lord

Gill, T.

Smith, B.

Gore, hon. R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Granger, T. C.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thorneley, T

Heneage, E.

Turner, E.

Hill, Lord M.

Villiers, hon. C.

Howard, Lord

Vivian, hon. Major

Howard, P. H.

Wakley, T.

Hutt, W.

Wall, C. B.

Jervis, J.

Wallace, R.

Kemble, H.

Wawn, J. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Williams, W.

Langston, J. H.

Wilshire, W.

Layard, Capt.

Winnington, Sir T.

Mackenzie, T.

Wood, B.

Martin, J.

Wood, G. W.

Masterman, J.

Worsley, Lord

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Yorke, H. R.

Mitcalfe, H.

Mitchell, T, A.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Hume, J.

Morrison, J.

Humphrey, Mr. Aid.

List of the NOES.

A'Court, Capt.

Chapman, A.

Ackers, J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Adare, Visct.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Adderley, C. B.

Christopher, R. A.

Allix, J. P.

Chute, W. L. W.

Antrobus, E.

Clerk, Sir G.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Cockburn, rt hn. Sir G.

Arkwright, G.

Collett, W. R.

Bailey, J.

Colvile, C. R.

Bailey, J. jun.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Baillie, Col.

Courtenay, Lord

Baldwin, B.

Cripps, W.

Bankes, G.

Darby, G.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Bell, M.

Denison, E. B.

Beresford, Capt.

Dickinson, F. H.

Blackburne, J. J.

D'Israeli, B.

Bodkin, W. H.

Douglas, Sir H.

Boldero, H. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Borthwick, P.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Botfield, B.

Dowdeswell, W.

Bramston, T. W.

Drummond, H. H.

Broadley, H.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Bruce, Lord E.

Du Pre, C. G.

Buckley, E.

East, J. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Egerton, W. T.

Bunbury, T.

Egerton, Sir P.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Eliot, Lord

1393

Escott, B.

Morgan, O.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Morgan, C.

Fellowes, E.

Mundy, E. M.

Feilden, W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Packe, C. W.

Fleming, J. W.

Patten, J. W.

Ffolliott, J.

Peel, J.

Forbes, W.

Pemberton, T.

Forrester, hn. G. C. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fuller, A. E.

Polhill, F.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pollock, Sir F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Praed, W. T.

Godson, R.

Pringle, A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pusey, P.

Goring, C.

Reade, W. M.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Greenall, P.

Richards, R.

Grimston, Visct.

Rolleston, Col.

Grogan, E.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Halford, H.

Round, C. T.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Round, J.

Hamilton, W. J.

Rous, hon. Gapt.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hardy, J.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Hayes, Sir E.

Sandon, Visct.

Henley, J. W.

Scott, hon. F.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Sheppard, T.

Hodgson, R.

Shirley, Evelyn J.

Hope, hon. C.

Shirley, E. P.

Hornby, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Smith, A.

Jackson, J. D.

Smollett, A.

Johnson, W. G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Jones, Capt.

Stanley, E.

Knatchbull, rt. h. Sir E.

Stewart, J.

Knight, H. G.

Stuart, H.

Knight, F. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Knightley, Sir C.

Tennent, J. E.

Law, hon. C. E.

Thesiger, F.

Lawson, A.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Lefroy, A.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Legh, G. C.

Trotter, J.

Leicester, Earl of

Vesey, hon. T.

Lockhart, W.

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Waddington, H. S.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Welby, G. E.

Marsham, Visct.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Master, T. W. C.

Young, J.

Meynell, Capt.

TELLERS.

Miles, W.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Baring, H.

On the 39th line of the second rule of the clause, exempting the trustees for repairs of chapels of the Established Church,—
Mr. F. Maulemoved, for the purpose of exempting Dissenters, to add the words "and other places of public worship."
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the amendment.
Mr. Humeasked the right hon. Baronet whether this was dealing out equal justice to all parties? Were Roman Catholics
1394
and Presbyterians to be subject to this, and not members of the Established Church?
Amendment withdrawn, on the understanding that its principle was to be taken into consideration by the Government.
Rule agreed to.
After rule 3, in schedule C, had been disposed of,
Mr. Baringmoved as an addition to the exemptions under the rules—
"The annuities, dividends, and shares bonâ fide belonging to any person not being a subject of her Majesty, and not being resident in Great Britain, or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, during such time as the same shall continue the property of such person, and such person shall not be resident in Great Britain, or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, as aforesaid; provided that such annuities, dividends, or shares, shall have been bonâfide the property of such persons on the 22nd day of April, 1842, and shall be duly claimed and ascertained in the manner hereinafter mentioned."
This species of property, the right hon. Gentleman said, was always exempted in every Income-tax. Mr. Pitt exempted it on the ground that such a tax would be a breach of public faith, and likewise because he did not think it right, or that he had the power, to tax foreigners residing abroad, as it would not be taxing income but the funds, and the exemption continued through the whole of Mr. Pitt's Administration. Mr. Addington made similar exemptions upon similar grounds; and in 1806, when a further addition was about to be made to the Income-tax, a motion made by Sir P. Francis, for taxing the property of foreigners in the British funds, was resisted by Mr. Fox. That statesman considered such a proposition a shameful confiscation, involving a flagrant breach of faith, so that, let the revenue resulting from it be what it might, he should think it his duty to reject it. Lord H. Petty concurred entirely in that opinion. It also appeared that Mr. Rose, the Secretary of the Treasury under Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Huskisson agreed in the propriety of exempting these fundholders from taxation. They had the authority of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, Mr. Fox, Lord Grenville, Lord Bexley, Lord Lansdowne, Lord Liverpool, and Mr. Perceval in favour of the principle of the motion he now submitted to the consideration of the committee. The foreign holders had advanced their money under an implied

1395
contract resulting from an uniform practice during twenty years of war, and the declarations of various Ministers of the Crown. The right hon. Baronet opposite had argued that some change of circumstances had taken place, which now made a difference in the case. But in his opinion, the case was even now stronger in favour of the proposition he was making. If it was thought prudent to exempt the foreign fundholder during twenty years of war, when it was reasonable to suppose he would he the party least favoured, why should they now, in a time of peace, when friendly relations existed, act contrary to those expectations, which their previous uniform course of proceeding had naturally excited! The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued, in reference to the terminable annuities, that it was no breach of faith to tax them, because on all occasions they had been taxed in the same way as the permanent funds. He would turn this argument against the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, and would contend that they had no right to tax the foreign fund-holder, because their previous practice was calculated to make him believe that he would be exempt. How had the right hon. Gentleman opposite acted in the case of Exchequer-bills? That was an actual bargain under an act of Parliament, and on the face of an Exchequer-bill itself 100 l. was lent on condition that at the end of the year that sum should be returned or a new bill given. Now, in 1829, the right hon. Gentleman bad occasion to fund Exchequer-bills. They were then at 30s. premium, and the right hon. Gentleman gave that premium to the party holding the bills. He was asked upon what ground he did so, and his answer was that he had given the premium on account of good faith, and upon the understanding on which the bill was given. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he now considered the foreign holder in the same manner as he then considered the home holder? In the former case, the parties had had no previous notice that they would be there- after liable to the imposition of a property-tax; on the contrary, every notice, every argument, and every expectation there could be was this:—that foreign holders would not be dealt with differently from the manner in which they had been dealt with by every Minister of the Crown hitherto, and by every act of Parliament
1396
brought in by any Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the foreign holder had no right to complain, because the funds had risen since the present Government came into office; but that was no argument in favour of this imposition of the tax, but was rather a reason why the foreign holder should complain of the party who held the Government before. It was not a fair answer to say that, by exempting foreign holders the Government would be liable to be cheated; but, after all, they were likely to be cheated of only a comparatively small sum. He argued this question, however, as one of public faith and of bargain; and he would venture to ask the committee whether, even if there were a doubt upon this question, if he had not satisfactorily proved to the House that the implied bargain was, that these parties should be relieved from the Income-tax— it was not better, considering the assembly that were dealing with them, and the great interests of the country, to let the scale fall on the side of public faith rather than to take what they might even consider themselves in justice entitled to take, and to give up this small sum of money than to doubt and hesitate on the case? The right hon. Gentleman in conclusion said, that he should urge no argument founded upon the obligations which they were under to keep inviolate the public faith. He would not insult the House by dwelling on such a topic.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas sure the House would agree with him when he said that upon the present occasion there was no necessity for his making any lengthened reply, as he had already gone through the exhausting process of defending the details of the measure through all the clauses. The right hon. Gentleman who just sat down had concluded his speech by an observation, from which it would seem that he took for granted it was utterly unnecessary for him to support his motion by any argument, as there could be no doubt whatever that to reject his amendment would be a breach of faith. Now, it was to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman should have avoided that topic, for it appeared to him an exceedingly difficult thing to prove that the bill involved any breach of faith whatever. There was no distinction drawn in the loan acts between the cases of foreigners and of native-born subjects. The rule was made to apply equally to all, and,

1397
if he understood anything of good faith as applied to these transactions, he should say that the question of good faith was to be decided by reference to the original loan acts, and most assuredly every one of them applied equally to all men, whether British subjects or aliens. In 1798 Mr. Pitt argued the question upon grounds totally different from those now taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. He never took any distinction between foreigners and British subjects in reference to funded property, as far as good faith was concerned, nor did he ever appear to imagine it possible that any one would think of attempting to establish a difference between them on that ground. He exempted foreigners from payment of Income-tax on grounds which had reference to the peculiar state of public credit at the time. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to induce the House to attach some importance to the expectations entertained by foreigners on this subject. He attached no weight to these expectations. The right hon. Gentleman did not profess to satisfy them. His proposal of exemption was limited to foreigners who now had funded property, and who were resident in foreign possessions. Now, he would put the ease of a foreigner living in the Isle of Bourbon, for example, he would not be subject to the tax. The moment he transferred himself to a British colony he instantly found himself under the tax. It appeared to him that no principle could be more calculated than that was to discourage persons of property from settling in our colonies, nor any practice more impolitic or unjust. He begged the House to turn its attention to the form of the right hon. Gentleman's amendment. It was proposed by this amendment that the rule should apply to all who had property in the funds on the 22nd of April in the present year. If a man then were to die on the 33rd, his heir would have no claim to the exemption. On the injustice of that be thought it unnecessary to trouble the House with any observations. The Income-tax Bill of 1806, brought in by Mr. Pitt, distinctly stated, that every person residing within the kingdom of Great Britain, whether foreigner or native born, should pay a portion of his annual receipts towards the necessities of the State, and the present bill did nothing more than affirm the same principle. With respect to the case cited by the right hon. Gentleman of the Government having voluntarily
1398
assented to pay the premium of 30s. per cent. upon the Exchequer-bills paid off in 1829, all he would say was, that, without entertaining any particular recollection of the facts of that transaction, he would affirm, upon a general knowledge of the circumstances, that the Government acted in the manner described in consequence of the premium upon Exchequer-bills having been taken advantage of, and realised by the Treasury in their issue, and consequently the Government felt bound to repay that additional amount on their stipulated contract price when the same issue of bills was called in, and this was, he apprehended, the reason given at the time for that proceeding. On the whole, therefore, not deeming the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently supported, or adequately borne out by his arguments, he could adopt no other course than that which he had already intimated it to be his intention to do—namely, to oppose it by a simple negative.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he had entertained a very strong opinion upon this question when his right hon. Friend resumed his seat, but after the arguments of the Finance Minister of the Crown, he must say that the opinion he held before was still stronger. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that he did not find in Mr. Pitt's speeches any statement that it was not lawful to tax foreigners. Why? It was not necessary for Mr. Pitt to make such a statement, for every act that was brought forward expressly excluded foreigners. But had the right hon. Gentleman met the argument of his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth? When Sir Philip Francis, in 1806, proposed to include foreigners within the scope of the Income-tax, Mr. Fox said it would not only be bad policy, but a breach of good faith so scandalous in its nature that nothing should induce him to be a party to it And what course did Mr. Huskisson, Lord Castlereagh, and Mr. Canning pursue? Did they differ from Mr. Fox? If they did, it was extraordinary that they should not have said so. Let any man read the debates of 1806, and he could not fail to come to the conclusion that, in the opinion of Lord Grenville's Administration, consistently with good faith, it was not possible to apply the principle of the Income-tax to those foreigners who held property in the English funds. This was the first time that any

1399
doubt had been thrown upon the accuracy of that conclusion by a Minister of the Crown; and he thought it unfortunate for the country that we should appear less scrupulous with regard to our public credit than heretofore. He would not charge the proposers of this measure with laxity of principle; but he could not help thinking that they had adopted the clause without due consideration, and he therefore hoped that if they saw any reason to doubt the propriety of persisting in their present course, they would, as the defenders of the honour of this country, frankly avow it, and rescue the country from a position which he conceived to be one of very considerable danger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to have mistaken the facts of the case; he said that no objection was made to taxing foreigners residing in this country. Under the acts of Mr. Pitt and Lord Lansdowne they were taxed. But then Mr. Fox drew this distinction, that foreigners residing in this country, enjoying the protection of its Government and its laws, were bound to pay their share of the expense of keeping up that protection. To tax foreigners who were not resident here, but who derived their incomes from our funds, would be to tax the funds; but to tax foreigners resident in this country was fair, because they had an identity of interest. He could not help calling the attention of the committee to a petition which had been presented by one of the Members for the city of London, which was signed by some of the most eminent mercantile firms, whose names were known all over the world as the representatives of British enterprise and honour. He would read a few of the signatures—"Smith, Payne, and Smith; Robarts and Co.; Stone and Co.; Glyn, Hallifax, and Co.; Overend, Gurney, and Co.; Reid, Irving, and Co.;" two Members of that House, who were present, he hoped, to support the prayer of the petition, in which it was stated that this proposal on the part of the Government was contrary to public faith. Then there were Messrs. Barclay and Co., and he might go on to mention twenty or thirty other names of the principal houses in the city. Let the House then pause before they consented to adopt a proposition of which those petitioners spoke in the following emphatic terms:—
"Your petitioners have learned with great regret that it is proposed in a bill now under the consideration of your hon. House to au-
1400
thorize a deduction of 7d. from every pound sterling payable to foreigners in the shape of dividends and annuities from the public funds of this country, and your petitioners respectfully submit to your hon. House that such a deduction is contrary to the public engagements entered into by this country, and opposed to its uniform custom and practice; and that if adopted it will be a tax upon the debt of the country, and not a tax upon incomes fairly liable, and therefore it will be a violation of public faith, inasmuch as a less dividend will be paid than was contracted to be paid."
He had argued the question hitherto simply as one of public faith. Speaking in that House upon such a subject, he was almost ashamed to have recourse to arguments of a lower description; yet he felt bound to ask her Majesty's Ministers, whether it were really for the interest of this country—this country, which, with reference to other countries, was to be regarded as a great creditor country—to hold out these novel maxims upon the subject of public faith. There were states and countries—and he feared that recent experience had shown that the tone of public feeling throughout the world upon these subjects was not altogether what it ought to be—there were states and countries, in the funds of which our fellow subjects had a deep interest, and in which it might be that the citizens of those countries had themselves a similar interest, but in which the chief part of the national debt consisted almost entirely of funds belonging to foreigners, and principally, he feared, to Englishmen. Were her Majesty's Ministers quite sure that the Chancellors of the Exchequer of those countries might not consider it a very convenient source of revenue to levy a considerable impost upon those funds? He ought to hesitate before he set an example which was likely to be followed in such a manner. One word more, and he would have done. All he asked them was to consider how the clause would practically work. They proposed to tax the funds of foreigners, he would suppose, to the extent of 10 per cent.; they would tax the funds as funds, and as the foreigner might be a resident in his native or some other foreign state, which state would, of course, tax his property in the funds, not because they were funds, but because they were income. He would thus be taxed 10 per cent. on his funds in England as funds, and 10 per cent. because they were income. He had stated this as an instance of the hardship which might be expected, in order that

1401
the subject might be well considered. He regretted that Government had adopted a course which was entirely novel in the legislation of this country, different from any which their predecessors had adopted, and which he feared would lead to consequences the most serious to this country. Under these circumstances he earnestly entreated the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on whose character and reputation great reliance was placed, and who had a deeper interest in this subject than any other man in the House or in the country—he entreated the right hon. Baronet to consider whether it would really be consulting his own character, the honour of the House, or the interests of the country, in persisting in the course which he had adopted.
Sir JR. Peelsaid, that he was quite ready to take the advice of the hon. Member, and consider maturely whether it would not be better for his own character, as well as for the character of the House and country, to exempt foreigners not subjects of Great Britain from the tax which was now proposed. He was quite ready to consider that question. Let the House consider what the amount was which they expected to gain from this source. It was calculated that the sum would be between 10,000 l.and 20,000 l.Really, that sum was so trifling, that if they should be induced to commit an act of the slightest injustice towards any body of men, it would hardly have been worth while to do so for so small an amount. The principal arguments which had been advanced by the two hon. Members who had addressed the House in favour of the motion had been based on the former practice of Parliament, and the dicta of Mr. Fox. Now, what were the dicta of Mr. Fox? He, Mr. Fox, said, it would be inconsistent with the principles upon which Parliamentary representation subsisted to give to the Crown the property of foreigners, in addition to that derived from those whom we represent; and how could her Majesty thank her good and loyal subjects for their benevolence, when the grant would not be wholly from themselves, but partly from foreigners? Mr. Fox said, that we could not tax foreigners who were not subjects of Great Britain. What did the bill say on this subject? He would refer to schedule D. It says—
"Upon the annual profits or gains, arising or accruing to any person residing in Great
1402
Britain, for any kind of property whatever, whether situated in Great Britain or elsewhere, upon any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, whether the same shall be respectively carried on in Great Britain or elsewhere, there shall be charged yearly for every 20s. of the amount of such profits or gains, the sum of 7d."
He thought it would appear clear, from what he had just read to the House, that they had acted upon the constitutional doctrines of Mr. Fox. Foreigners were not exempt from this tax imposed on all mortgaged property. If they had property invested in railroad speculations, the profits were deducted from the expenses; but if they held property in the British funds, then it was said they ought to be exempted from the payment of any deduction, and to tax their property under these circumstances was declared to be a great and flagrant act of injustice. This was to be the only exception, it was only to be viewed as unjust when applied to money invested by foreigners in the English funds. On what account, he would ask, was it so unjust? Did the public records or acts of Parliament make any distinction between British subjects and foreigners? There was no clause in any act of Parliament to exempt foreigners from any of the responsibilities or privileges which result from loans granted to the State. The British funds were as open to the foreigner as to the subjects of this country; they were, in fact, open to the whole world, and every individual, without any distinction of country, may derive all the protection which the British funds offered. It was well known, that the English funds bad lately been advancing, and although he had no doubt, that several circumstances had contributed to that event, still it was a fact, that since the Income-tax had been proposed for the adoption of Parliament, the funds had risen 4 per cent. Now, what was the fact with reference to the English funds? The foreigner had the advantage of relieving himself if he thought proper by removing his money from the British funds under certainly very favourable circumstances. He had the option of doing so at this time, if he wished to escape the Income, tax. The foreigner saw a disposition on the part of Government to increase the value of funded property, not by having recourse to fresh loans, but by making a great sacrifice to meet the financial embarrassments of the State. It did appear

1403
unjust to him, that the foreigner should derive the sole advantage which resulted from this national sacrifice, and should not contribute his share towards the exigencies of the country. He thought the natural consequences of not incurring any additional public debt would be considerably to enhance the public credit. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. F. Baring) would exempt all foreigners not being resident in any part of her Majesty's dominions from this tax He would like to know whether foreigners resident in any of our colonial possessions, in the Cape of Good Hope or in Canada, were to be exempted? What constituted residence, according to the opinion of the right hon. Member, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said,—
"The annuities, dividends, and shares bonâ belonging to any person not being a subject of her Majesty, and not being resident in Great Britain or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, during such time as the same shall continue the property of such person, and such person shall not be resident in Great Britain or elsewhere within the dominions of her Majesty, as aforesaid; provided that such annuities, dividends, or shares, shall have been bonâ fide the property of such persons on the 22nd of April, 1842, and shall be duly claimed and ascertained in the manner hereinafter mentioned".
Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox exempted foreigners from the tax during the war upon political and prudential reasons, and totally without relation to any abstract considerations of justice. He was quite aware that the sum to be derived from the taxation of stock held by foreigners would be very inconsiderable, but he also felt that there was no valid claim for exemption. A full consideration of justice to all had led him to impose a tax upon all. The foreigner had purchased into our funds because of the security which it offered him—that property was now more Valuable in consequence of the sacrifices which the people of England was about to make, and it would be very unfair that he should go wholly free from taxation while the Englishman bore it patiently.
Mr. Humecould not vote with the right hon. Gentleman on his side of the House, because he had assigned a reason why the foreigner should escape while the Englishman was taxed. The law which created the debt made the same bargain with all. The condition was, that every man who took a portion of the loan should be ex-
1404
empted from all expenses of transfer or other tax at the Bank of England, and from all charges at all times. The reason why he objected to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman was, because he did not make it general. There was no distinction made in the contract. The British public had forfeited their faith with the public creditor, and, that being the case, he could see no reason why the foreigner should be exempted while the Englishman was made to pay. The only question in his opinion was, whether the present exigency was of sufficient magnitude to justify a violation of the public faith; in his opinion it certainly was not. Admitting that to be the case, however, he saw no reason for making a distinction between the foreigner and the Englishman.
Mr. Mastermansaid, that although the petition alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite was signed undoubtedly by a great number of the mercantile community of the City of London, still to his knowledge there were a large number also who had not signed. For his own part, he would assert, that if he thought the proposition of the right hon. Baronet calculated to defraud the foreigner by subjecting him to the same tax as the British subject, he would not give it his support. He, however, did not view the matter in this light, and he asked any hon. Gentleman in that House whether the foreigner did not hold that property with the idea that it was held on the same security as that of the British subject?
Mr. Hawessaid, that a parallel had been instituted between the foreigner holding shares and the foreigner who held property in the English funds; but there was a wide distinction between the two cases. The railway shareholder invested his property in a speculation, and was in the situation of a proprietor. The holder of funded property, on the contrary, stood in the position of a creditor, and there was consequently a material difference between the two; but he would remind the right hon. Baronet, that in former bills this property was always respected. He had lent money to the British Government upon the faith of British acts of Parliament, he could not now be taxed by such a bill as this without affecting the honour and the credit of the country.
Mr. Baringreplied. He said that he was of opinion with Mr. Fox that it was a breach of public faith to tax the foreign fund-

1405
holder. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him, with regard to evidence; why he would prove it in the same way as it had been proved when argued under former acts of Parliament, and it would be just as easy to prove evidence in this instance as it was in the case of the Irish landlords resident in this country.
The committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Baring be added—Ayes 40: Noes 203; Majority 163.

List of the AYES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Christie, W. D.

Pechell, Capt.

Craig, W. G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ebrington, Visct.

Power, J.

Gill, T.

Pulsford, R.

Gordon, Lord F.

Rice, E. R.

Gore, hon. R.

Rundle, J.

Granger, T. C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Hawes, B.

Smith, B.

Hill, Lord M.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hollond, R.

Strutt, E.

Howard, hn. C. W.G.

Tancred, H. W.

Howard, Lord

Thorneley, T.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Tufnell, H.

Howick, Visct.

Wilshere, W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Wood, B.

Mangles, R. D.

Wood, G. W,

Marshall, W.

Martin, J.

TELLERS.

Murphy, F. S.

O,Ferrall, M.

O'Brien, W. S.

Smith, J. A.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Bramston, T. W,

Adderley, C. B.

Broadley, H.

Ainsworth, P.

Browne, hon. W.

Aldam, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Allix, J. P.

Buckley, E.

Antrobus, E.

Bunbury, T.

Begot, hon. W.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Bailey, J. jun.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Baillie, Col.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Baldwin, B.

Charteris, hon. F.

Balfour, J. M.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bankes, G.

Clayton, R. R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clements, H. J.

Barrington, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Beckett, W.

Colvile, C. R.

Beresford, Capt.

Compton, H. C.

Beresford, Major

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bernard, Visct.

Courtenay, Lord

Blackburne, J. I.

Cripps, W.

Bodkin, W. H.

Damer, hon. Col.

Boldero, H. G.

Darby, G.

Borthwick, P.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Botfield, B.

Denison, E. B.

Bowring, Dr.

Dickinson, F. H.

Bradshaw, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

1406

Douglas, J. D. S.

Lefroy, A.

Douro, Marquess of

Legh, G. C.

Dowdeswell, W.

Leicester, Earl of

Drummond, H. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Duncan, G.

Lockhart, W.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Lowther, J. H.

East, J. B.

Mackenzie, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Egerton, Sir P.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Eliot, Lord

Mainwaring, T.

Escott, B.

Marsham, Visct.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Masterman, J.

Evans, W.

Meynell, Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Miles, P. W. S.

Feilden, W.

Miles, W.

Feilden, J.

Mitcalfe, M.

Filmer, Sir E.

Mitchell, T. A.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Fleming, J. W.

Morgan, O.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Morgan, C.

Ffolliott, J.

Morris, D.

Forbes, W.

Neeld, J.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Newry, Visct.

Forster, M.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Norreys, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Northland, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

O'Brien, A. S.

Gore, M.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Gore, W. R. O.

Paget, Lord A.

Goring, C.

Patten, J. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Peel, J.

Greenall, P.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grimston, Visct.

Polhill, F.

Grogan, E.

Pollington, Visct.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hamilton, J.

Praed, W. T.

Hamilton, W. J.

Pringle, A.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Rashleigh, W.

Hayes, Sir E.

Reade, W. M.

Heathcote, G. J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Henley, J. W.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Round, J.

Herbert, hon. S.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.

Sandon, Visct.

Hope, hon. C.

Scott, hon. F.

Hope, A.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Howard, P. H.

Sheppard, T.

Hume, J.

Shirley, E. J.

Hutt, W.

Shirley, E. P.

Ingestre, Visct.

Sibthorp, Col.

Jackson, J. D.

Smollett, A.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Somerset, Lord G.

Johnson, W. G.

Stanley, Lord

Johnstone, Sir J.

Stanton, W. H.

Johnstone, H.

Stewart, J.

Jones, Capt.

Stuart, H.

Kelburne, Visct.

Sturt, H. C.

Kemble, H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Sir E.

Tennent, J. E.

Knight, F. W.

Thesiger, F.

Knightley, Sir C.

Tollemache, hn. F. J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Trench. Sir F. W.

Lawson, A.

Trotter, J.

1407

Turner, E.

Williams, W.

Turnor, C.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Verner, Col.

Wodehouse, E.

Vesey, hon. T.

Wood, Col. T.

Vivian, J. E.

Worsley, Lord

Waddington, H. S.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Wakley, T.

Young, J.

Wallace, R.

Wawn, J. T.

TELLERS.

Welby, G. E.

Baring, H.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Fremantle, Sir T.

House resumed. The Committee to sit again.

ALTERATIONS IN THE TARIFF.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), who had been compelled to quit the House in consequence of domestic affliction, had requested him to propose a motion of which the noble Lord had given notice. He begged, therefore, to move for a statement of the differences in the resolutions of Customs duties intended to be proposed by Sir R. Peel, laid on the Table of the House on the 11th day of March last, and the resolutions on the same subject laid on the Table on the 11th day of April last. It was, he believed, the intention of his noble Friend to have defended himself from imputations which had been attempted to be cast on. the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, of having by their conduct impeded in some degree the progress of the measures of Government with respect to the tariff. He thought it would be convenient if, during the discussions on the tariff, the House could have before them at one view the two proposals made by Government. He hoped the House would agree to the motion, which he was perfectly ready to put in any other form to meet the wishes of the right hon. Baronet.
The Speakersaid, there was an informality in the notice of the noble Lord. Certain papers moved for by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) were referred to in the motion as having been "laid on the Table of the House." Those documents had not yet come before that House;
1408
they had merely been brought before a committee of the House.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, in consequence of this informality he would withdraw the motion. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Baronet would furnish the information he asked for to the House without any motion being made on the subject.
Sir E. Peelsaid, the alterations which had been made in the proposed tariff had been entirely made in consequence of a sense of justice, where it appeared that there were good grounds for making them, and he did not at all oppose the proposed alterations being laid before the House, The last edition of the tariff had been prepared in two columns, the tariff of last year showing the amount of duty imposed, and what that duty had produced in one, and the proposed tariff in another. If he understood the motion of the noble Lord, it was to have the tariff as at first proposed, and the tariff with the alterations that had been since made, laid on the Table together. The best paper he could produce for the satisfaction of the noble Lord would be to produce the first copy of the tariff and the last copy of it, printed in two columns, and these papers, with the existing tariff, he thought would supply every information. But whatever information was desired he was quite ready to afford.
Mr. Laboucherecould have very little doubt but that this would meet his noble Friend's wishes. He thought it advisable to know what the alterations in the intentions of the Government were.
Motion withdrawn.

LEGALITY OF WARRANTS.
On the motion of the Solicitor-general a select committee was appointed to inquire into the practice of this House with regard to the summoning of witnesses to attend election committees, and to report whether any and what alteration in the law upon this subject is required.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Timber Ships; Soap
Duties Drawback.
Private.—1a. Samuel Stillman Gair's Naturalization;
Ardrossan Harbour; St. Philip's (Bristol) Bridge.
2a. Buckland Inclosure; Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne,
and Manchester Railway; Huish Champflower Inclosure;
Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road.
Reported.—Bates's Naturalization; Bolton and Preston
Railway; (specially) Cheltenham and Great Western
Union Railway.
3a. and passed:—Glegg's Divorce; Ormesby Inclosure;
Stanhope and Tyne Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, from Roman Catholics in Whitehaven, Chepstow, Chudleigh, and other places, for a measure to secure Religious Instruction to the Catholics in the Army and Navy.—By the Duke of Rutland, and Lord Monteagle, from Rutland, Norwich, and Carmarthen, against Alteration of the Corn-laws, against the Income-tax, and Tariff.—From Waltham, in Leicestershire, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest—From the Boards of Guardians of Alstonefield, Blore, Swinsese, Calton, Stanton, Ermdon, and other places, for Alteration of the New Poor-law Amendment Act.

BAPTISTS' AFFIRMATIONS.
Lord Den-mansaid, it was his intention to have Moved the second reading of the bill to enable persons belonging to the sect called Baptists to substitute affirmations for oaths, but since the bill had been laid upon the Table he had found that strong objections were entertained against making the measure applicable to that sect alone. He had been frequently asked
1358
why this privilege should be granted to Baptists, and not to other sects who might entertain the same scruples in regard to the taking of an oath. Upon principle he had found great difficulty in answering that question. His reason, however, for introducing so limited a provision had been a deference to the opinion that had been expressed by their Lordships on a former occasion. He could not, however, abandon an object which he conceived to be of great importance to the due administration of justice, and he felt it is duty to state to the House that in a few days he should introduce a measure by which he would endeavour to include the case of all Christian men who entertained scruples similar to those which he had purposed to provide for in the case of the Baptists; and he trusted, that when the bill was before their Lordships, he should not be met with the objection that there was no security that the parties belonged to any particular sect at all. At the same time, if their Lordships objected to make the measure general, he still thought that the Baptists were entitled to the relief they sought, and the bill in its present shape might be again resorted to. He might take this opportunity of stating, that the petition of the large and respectable body with whom he had been in communication was not on behalf of themselves only, but of all those who entertained similar scruples. They did not seek for an exclusive privilege. He begged leave to withdraw the present bill and in a few days he would call their Lordships' attention to the general question.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord Brougham: My Lords, I rise to move that your Lordships do send a message to the other House of Parliament to ask for the communication from them of the reports of their committees upon three elections, the merits of which had been referred to those committees to try. The votes of the other House show, that the committees have made their reports, and also that the House of Commons has ordered the printing of the minutes of those committees. The minutes of evidence have been specially reported to that House, and I wish to ask for the communication of those reports and minutes so received. I feel that it is the more necessary for me to call your Lordships' attention to the subject matter of these reports, in consequence of a notice which I gave last Session, and which I

1359
believe met with the concurrence, generally speaking, of this House, that I should move this Session for the appointment of a committee to consider the bribery laws— to consider whether the practices which have lately prevailed were in violation of those laws, and to consider of measures which might be fitting to adopt for the purpose of better enforcing them. I am frequently asked why, in redemption of the pledge I then gave, I have not hitherto called the attention of your Lordships to this subject. My answer is, that I then stated, until progress should be made by the other House in the various election petitions which appeared by the votes to be pending, and which were to be taken into consideration this Session, it would be inexpedient to enter upon the inquiry. Chiefly for this reason, while the inquiries were carried on before these committees alio intuitu, I deemed it improper to enter upon the inquiry here. Already, however, great progress has been made in these inquiries, and it appears that in three cases committees have reported generally against the places where the election has been had. It appears that in one of these instances, namely Ipswich, there is a general report that bribery has prevailed — that in another, namely Sudbury, there is not only a general report of bribery having prevailed, but a strong and, I believe, 1 may accurately add, an unanimous recommendation by the committee to effect the disfranchisement of the borough on account of the grossness of the bribery and of its universality. I must call the attention of your Lordships to the great importance and gravity of this question. It is in contemplation to discuss the propriety of the disfranchisement of boroughs, in consequence of the prevalence of male-practices. I must now, therefore, remind your Lordships of the very remarkable circumstance which took place in this House, as connected with this question, some years ago, namely, in the year 1834. A bill reached your Lordships from the other House, laying down a general course of procedure in all such cases, constituting a particular form in which Parliament should proceed, with a view to the disfranchisement of a borough, when a charge of general bribery was made. It is necessary that your Lordships' attention should be called betimes to this subject, because we know well that the course of proceeding in Parliament has, generally
1360
speaking, been this—that while we in this House have for the first three or four months of the Session little or no legislative business to transact, towards the end of one sitting there comes up from the other House an overwhelming bulk of measures of the greatest importance, the discussion of which, and the decision upon which is of necessity crowded into the space of a few weeks, and indeed, I should speak more exactly, if I said of a few days. When, therefore, I see notices in the House of Commons that such a measure as the disfranchisement of a borough is likely to be adopted on account of bribery, and when I know that these measures, all teeming as they are with interest, will come up to us late in the Session, and on the very eve of Parliament being prorogued, I think I have said enough to satisfy your Lordships that the sooner you direct your attention to the subject generally the more expedient for the country, and the better for the due discharge of your Lordships' public duties. Let me, then, proceed to remind your Lordships of what took place in this respect and with this view in the year 1834. The House of Commons then sent up to your Lordships a bill which had passed through their House apparently without any very great attention having been paid to the details— which had passed through that House without any very great attention having been paid to the inevitable consequence of passing that measure; for it amounted to this, that if a charge of general bribery should be made before the Commons, and if a committee, chosen as the old election committees were under the former act of Parliament, should be empannelled to discuss the charge, and should report that, in their opinion, the charge was true—then, not by a bill, not with all those safeguards against mistakes, which are provided by the various stages of a bill, but simply and only by two votes, one in the one House of Parliament, and the other in the other House, and then by a joint address to the Crown from the two Houses, the disfranchisement of the borough should at once be effected. I had then the honour of occupying that seat, now so much more worthily filled by my noble and learned Friend, and I at once said it was impossible such a bill should receive the concurrence of this House, for it would come to this, that by the power of a majority on the side of the party in power, all the great boroughs in England

1361
might, by a single vote of the House on each, be disfranchised in a day. My noble Friend opposite (Duke of Wellington), and my noble Friend now occupying the high situation of Governor-general of India, concurred in the view I took, that it was impossible for your Lordships to entertain a measure of that kind. The noble Duke then considered the subject, and made a suggestion of the greatest value, and of the very highest importance; and he requested me to aid him in putting that suggestion in a legislative form. 1 accordingly prepared a set of clauses by way of amendment or alteration of the bill on my noble Friend's plan, but with some additions. For this I claim not the least credit to myself, for the principle was my noble Friend's, not mine; and ninety-nine parts out of every 100 of what was valuable belonged to him. The clauses thus framed which I suggested were re-referred to a select committee up stairs, which sat day after day discussing them. Some material alterations were made in the course of those discussions, and the clauses were ultimately adopted by the committee, reported to this House, and agreed to by your Lordships with an unanimity that was singular upon a subject so likely to excite diversity of opinion, and singular as considered with reference to a subject of so much importance. I believe, that every one of the clauses was adopted by the select committee without a division, and they were likewise agreed to in this House without a division. The whole being passed, the bill, as thus amended, was returned to the other House. In that shape it was rather a new bill than an amended bill, I admit. It was on that account exposed to the same objection that I had originally taken to the measure as sent up from the House of Commons, that by a single vote interests of such magnitude were to be disposed of: for by the parliamentary form of proceeding the Lords' amendments would have been agreed to by a single vote of the other House, and the bill would have received the royal assent and become law with the usual discussions in all the stages. I could not therefore complain, that the House of Commons postponed the consideration of the bill for that Session, on the ground that it was a totally new measure; but I will venture to say, that at the time those amendments were taken into consideration in that House, no objection was started to the plan suggested by my noble Friend,
1362
framed by me, adopted by the select committee, agreed to by your Lordships, and by you sent to the other House. No objection was taken to the principle. The measure was merely postponed. I deeply lament, that that postponement has continued up to the present time, and I would fain hope, from the attention given by the other House to the measure, thus framed and remitted to them, that some such proposal will now be brought under their consideration. It was a large as well as a salutary measure. It was a measure of great novelty in parliamentary proceedings. I think it was framed upon the soundest principle, and I believe, that the adoption of the principle would work a great and important good. It appointed, that as often as a charge of general bribery should be made against a place, the matter of that charge should be referred to a committee—but a committee consisting of Members of both Houses of Parliament; a joint committee of twelve, seven of them being commoners and five being Peers, to form as it were a jury for the trial of the question. But this was not all. The jury was to sit and try the case under a presiding judge, that judge being one of the judges of England, and not a Member of either House of Parliament. And to that remedy, in my clear and firm opinion will Parliament in the end be obliged to come, after they shall have perhaps made one or two more experiments to carry on such enquiries within their own body, without other assistance, and after those new experiments shall have in the future, as they already have in the past, and up to this hour, signally failed. It was then provided, that sitting under the presidency of the judge—that judge to rule all questions of law, and to dispose of all questions of evidence subject to an appeal to the other judges of Westminster-hall, and a return being made of their opinion, affirming or reversing as the case might be, the first judgment—a special verdict should then be found by this court, consisting of the judge and mixed jury, and that the verdict, setting forth all the facts, should be returned as a record to both Houses of Parliament, and should be conclusive and binding on both Houses, as to all the facts of the case, in whatsoever proceedings either House might think fit to institute against the borough in respect of the charge. Then a bill was to be brought in, and that bill was to run the course of all other legislative measures: it was to be read a first,

1363
second, and third time, to be committed and reported, end passed. All the safeguards were to be observed and kept in the case of that particular bill as in the case of all other bills, but the facts of the case were to be concluded by the return of the judge and parliamentary jury, and upon those facts the act of the Legislature was to be grounded and passed. After once more expressing my opinion of the importance and value of that measure, I hare now to mention why, in another point of view, I feel it to be necessary that your Lordships at present should attend to this matter. We have been called upon for our assent two several times within the last few years to bills sent up from the other House to regulate the proceedings of committees on controverted elections. These bills more affect the other House than your Lordships. The Crown and the Peers have the least immediate, the least near, and the least direct interest in these matters. The Crown and Peers, however, have that interest which renders the consent of both necessary to an enactment. Much discussion took place upon the passing of that act. My noble and learned Friend who proposed it in this House, with his usual ability and distinctness, with that clearness and that force with which he always states his case, brought before your Lordships the whole matter, and obtained your unanimous concurrence. He then stated the grounds upon which a change, and a great change, in the law of election petitions was deemed desirable by the other House. Two years after, or it might have been in the year immediately following, some alteration was made. I agreed with my noble and learned Friend that this measure was an improvement in the law as it stood. I thought with him that the measure was well devised, and there was every ground to hope for good effects resulting from it. It is natural that we who were the friends of that measure—it is becoming that you who adopted it on our recommendation— should look to its working with a view to ascertain whether we were wrong in the expectations we then formed, and then raised, with a view to ascertain whether experience has, told in its favour—with a view to discover whether it has been acted up to—with a view to discover whether it has had fair play—with a view to ascertain whether the fault, if fault there be, were with us, who expected good things from the bill if we should pass it, or in those who were to work out the measure, and whose working
1364
it differently from what they have done possibly might have produced the results we had a right to expect. Therefore it is that I think it becomes your Lordships to see what has been done under the bill, to which at the desire of the other House you gave consent. Again, another measure passed last Session at the desire of the House of Commons. That House sent up a bill which, setting forth in the preamble that the existing law was not sufficient against bribery at election, laid down, in four several sections, new plans for the purpose of more effectually preventing it. Three out of four of those sections proved to be of such a nature, to be liable to such innumerable objections, to be so inconsistent with themselves, to be so repugnant to all principle, and so opposed to the fundamental rights of the people, to be so utterly at variance with the sacred rules which guide the administration of justice, that I found no difficulty in prevailing upon your Lordships to reject those three enactments. But the fourth section stood upon different grounds. It appeared to be well contrived for its purpose, and to be a contrast to the merits or rather demerits, of the others. Accordingly, after due consideration, and some hesitation on the part of a noble and learned Friend of mine, whom I now see in his place (Lord Abinger), we passed it and it became the law of the land. It is, of course, natural that we who last Session passed that measure, with a view to the elections which were then immediately afterwards to take place, and it is also expedient, that we should see how that measure has worked, and above all how the House of Commons, who sent up the measure, to part of which we gave our consent, but from the residue with held our concurrence, have acted under that measure. I think it is in vain to deny, upon the proceedings which the votes of the other House of Parliament show, that both these measures have been at least unfortunate in their fate in that House; that unhappily—I speak with all deference and respect for the other House— that unhappily certain opinions have prevailed, and certain views been entertained and acted upon, which have not tended to give to the measure which your Lordships, at the desire of the House of Commons, assented to, a reasonable chance of producing any very considerable good, or perhaps I ought more correctly to say, of producing any part, however small, of that benefit which it was fondly hoped the measure

1365
would realize. The plan which we were desired to consider, which my noble aud learned Friend discussed with me, and which, upon mature consideration, became law at our instigation—the plan chalked out by the other House, and sent up to your Lordships, consisted of the appointment, at the beginning of each Session, of six Members of that House, who were to form a committee of selection. These six Members were to choose, in the first place, a panel of chairmen; and in the next place, to choose in each particular instance six Members to form a committee, which six Members, sitting under one of the chairmen, were to dispose of the merits of an election petition. This is, in short, the measure that we agreed to, and from which I think we bad a right to expect great improvement in the former election practice. The manner in which the House of Commons in its wisdom thought fit to act under this bill, is as follows:— The Speaker—I now speak from the votes—the Speaker names six members as a committee of selection. The votes of the House of Commons give us now an opportunity of ascertaining the course which the Members of that House think it their duty to pursue. It has pleased the House of Commons of late years to print, as a part of their votes, the names of all the Members who vote in each division. This is a great, and many think, a salutary innovation upon the practice of former times; some look upon it as a hurtful one, but that is a question upon which I will not now stop to enter. The names of all Members that vote on each division are printed, and their constituents, and your Lordships, and the world at large, have thus the means of knowing, on the face of the votes themselves, how every Member of the House of Commons votes on every separate occasion. From this practice there necessarily follows a classification of Members—for, if you find on those votes the same Members always voting together, you naturally conclude there is some peculiarity distinguishing them, some diversity whereby they may be known from others and classed in an order of arrangement. When you see that the same Members are always recorded as voting for the measures propounded by the Government of the day, and that other Members as invariably vote against the measures so propounded, it is not without foundation that an opinion gets abroad
1366
that there is such a thing as party, and that party considerations influence the votes of the other House. Now, I find that the Speaker, called upon to name those six Members as a committee of selection, chooses three Members who are always found ranged among supporters of the Government, and three Members who are as invariably found ranged among its opponents; and to leave no doubt that it is with some such view that the arrangement is made, the names on this committee of selection are placed alternatively; the first is a Government Member, the second an opposition Member, the third a Government Member, the fourth an opposition Member, the fifth a Government Member, and the sixth an opposition Member. This committee of elisors, as our ancestors would have designated them, are then called on to elect six Members to form the election committee, and in this they proceed on the same principle on which the selection of themselves was made. Fifteen committees have already been chosen, and I find that each consists of three ministerial and three opposition Members, also chosen alternately—the first a ministerial, the second an opposition Member, the third again a ministerial Member, and so on; and that no doubt may remain, to prevent even the possibility of a doubt, for what purpose, and with what view the choice is made, twelve chairmen are selected, not alternately indeed, but on the same principle as the committees themselves, namely, six ministerial and six opposition Members are chosen as chairmen. The consequence of all this is, that each committee is composed of four members of the one party, and of three of the other party; and you have thus a court of justice of the highest order, a court of judicature appointed to consider questions of the highest importance — questions, compared with which ninety-nine cases in a hundred, nay, 999 cases in every thousand, of those disposed of before our judges and juries by the common law of the land sink into utter insignificance, whether we consider the gravity of the stake, or the vehemence excited by party spirit. A court of judicature is formed with four judges belonging to one party, and three to the other, all solemnly sworn, well and truly, upon their sacred oaths, to try the merits of the petition before them. I cannot help regarding this as a most astounding course. What is it more or less than to say that they suspect that I those men act, not according to their oaths

1367
but according to considerations of party? There must be suspicion, for nothing less can account for such a system of choice. But if you promulgate an opinion that you believe men capable of such offences—if you begin by blasting their characters, you go more than half way towards verifying your suspicion. I do not, of course, apply my remarks to such men as these; but in the case of other men, if they are once marked out as suspected, they will generally be prone to earn the wages after paying the price; they will not be suspected for nothing. I should have liked to hare seen skilful and learned men placed in the chair of these committees, and when I gave my vote for the bill I expected that such men would have been selected. I expected to see the committees presided over by gentlemen belonging to the profession of the law and distinguished by their legal knowledge. Is the House of Commons to derive no benefit from the copia peritorum—from the presence within its walls of the most skilful members of the profession? Yet, I cannot find in the lists of these committees any chairmen whose names are known in Westminster-hall. There may be among them men who are known there, but then they must have been known there before my time, or must have become known since my time. It might be a loss to so many eminent men were they chosen to preside over committees of the House of Commons; but if they felt they had a public duty to discharge, I am persuaded they would be the last men to refuse to discharge that duty. I now come to another question. In how many cases has the decision been according to, and in how many cases has it been contrary to, the party politics of the majority? There have been ten cases of contested elections, which have led to the unseating of the sitting Members. I know it is an opinion in Westminster-hall, that if a case is to be tried by a prejudiced judge, it is better that it should be tried by one judge than by seven. As the case now stands, the party that has an adversary in the chairman knows that that adversary is backed by three other political adversaries; whereas, if that chairman sat alone, he would be likely to feel a heavier degree of responsibility, and would be more likely to give the case a full and impartial hearing. I throw out this merely as an opinion entertained in Westminster-hall, and come now to the question I have asked, as to the result of these selections.
1368
There have been ten committees on contested elections that have ended in unseating the sitting Members, and in seating the petitioners. I apply again to the test of the votes of the House of Commons to ascertain in how many cases the decision has been according to, and in how many cases it has been contrary to, the politics of the majority. In nine cases out of ten, has the decision been according to the politics of the majority. I have no doubt that in all those cases the committees came to a conscientious judgment; I do not for an instant suspect that the politics of the majority interfered in any one case with the decision of the committee. For aught I know the committees may in every instance have been unanimous in their decision—there may not have been a single division among them; but it has often been said, and it cannot be too often repeated, not only should justice be pure, but she should also be unsuspected, and I would ask' any man who calmly considers the structure of those courts of justice, the manner in which each of them is studiously formed with a view to the party affections of the judges, the fact that the judges are themselves parties to the actions they have to try, and that in nine cases out of ten the decisions have been according to the party views of the majority—I would ask those who have calmly reflected on the recorded votes of the House of Commons, whether the decisions to which these committees have come, can do otherwise than create, I will not say a doubt, but at least some hesitation as to the perfect purity of the tribunals? In these committees it has been customary, time out of mind to deliberate with closed doors. I do not object to that, but the committees have now gone a step further; because they have concealed their votes when the House has published the lists of its decisions. They give their decisions publicly, but without letting it be known how the different Members of the court have voted. They may, in every instance, have been unanimous, or they may have decided every case by the narrowest majority of four to three, according to their party politics. Nor do they assign any reasons for their judgment. It would be some check upon the committee, if, as a matter of course, the minutes of all their proceedings were printed, and made known. The judges of the land do not hold it to be inconsistent with their duty, or beneath

1369
their dignity, to let their countrymen know on what grounds they form their judgment; the judges do not think it inconsistent with their duty, or below their dignity, to assign reasons for their judgment, for it is on reason that they expect the authority of their decisions to rest. Not so these committees, with three party men on one side, and three party men on the other, and with a party chairman to preside over them. Though in each question that comes before them some party interest is involved, that is some interest of them, the judges, they wrap themselves and the motives of their decisions in mystery, and would deem it derogatory to their dignity if they were to let the world know how they have voted, or if they were to give any reason for the manner in which they have voted. This system, I have not the least doubt, is one that cannot last. It will become necessary that these cases be dealt with judicially, by tribunals composed of persons unconnected with party. So long as the judges continue to be Members of the other House of Parliament, so long it will be absolutely necessary that this anomaly should continue—namely, that we shall have a court, all the judges of which are parties in the cause, yet against whose judgment there is no appeal. My Lords, I have no hesitation in stating it as my opinion, that this must be the result of all experiments having for their object to leave the decision of these cases to a committee of the House of Commons; and to those who say that the House of Commons will never part with their jurisdiction in such matters, I would answer that this remark might have been made previously to the year 1770; but since that year, when the Grenville Act was passed, an act that was perhaps one of the greatest improvements ever made in legislation, the assertion is no longer to be admitted. That very Grenville Act took away the jurisdiction from the House of Commons, and vested it in a separate court—a court of which, it is true, the Members were all to be Members of the House of Commons; but the House of Commons itself from that time parted entirely with its jurisdiction. I have thought it my duty to call the attention of your Lordships to these matters, and, through your Lordships, the attention of the other House of Parliament. One thing more must be stated. By the act which governs these committees, they were called on to report
1370
whether the sitting member or the candidate had any knowledge of the acts of bribery charged against his agents. Now, we have had three or four cases—at any rate we have had two—in which general bribery is declared to have prevailed, and in both cases the sitting members have been unseated, but no statement has been made as to whether the members or the candidates had or had not any knowledge of the bribery practised on their behalf. I will not now detain your Lordships longer on this subject, but I affirm that it will become the duty of your Lordships, as guardians of the purity of Parliament, as guardians of the existence of our mixed constitution—I say it will become your absolute and bounden duty to prosecute this inquiry, and to investigate the profligate bribery and corruption that have prevailed; and with this view I shall now conclude by moving,—
"That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to request a communication of the evidence taken before the Sudbury, the Ipswich, and the Great Marlow election committees."
The Lord Chancellorsaid, having been aware that his noble and learned Friend was about to bring his motion before their Lordships, he thought it his duty to make some inquiries in another quarter, the result of which led him to imagine that the noble and learned Lord was not likely to get anything by his motion. He hoped that he had said enough, without entering into particulars, to induce his noble and learned Friend to withdraw his motion.
Lord Broughamreferred to a similar message sent to the House of Commons in 1837 as a sufficient precedent to justify the present motion. The noble and learned Lord was understood to intimate, however, that he should not persevere with his motion after what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellorhad made inquiry on the subject, and he believed it was not likely that an answer would be given to the message proposed, such as would please the noble and learned Lord, or forward the object he had in view.
The Earl of Wicklowcould not understand how they were to discuss and deliberate on any measure sent to them from the other House for correcting these evils which had been so ably detailed by his noble and learned Friend, unless they were in possession of the information upon which that measure was founded. He

1371
trusted, if any such measure should be sent to them from the other House, that his noble and learned Friend would bring forward his motion again.
Viscount Canterburysaid, that his noble and learned Friend, in taking the report of the committee in reference to fictitious votes in the year 1837, asked for by that House, as a precedent for his present motion, must recollect that that committee had been appointed with the view of getting information upon which legislative proceedings were to be taken. He quite agreed with what his noble and learned Friend stated respecting the Grenville Act; and that the House of Commons could not interfere in those election committees by suggestion, by instruction, by commentary upon their course of proceeding, or in any way whatever. It was true there were special cases in which a motion has been submitted by a committee to the House, and there the matter has been before the House. The minutes of the committee have then been before the House with a view to some legislative proceeding, which it was the opinion of the committee itself should be resorted to; but the House has never concurred in such a motion without an express intention of proceeding in that particular case by legislative proceeding. Then, if the House of Commons proceeded to disfranchise, or to deal in any other way with a corrupt borough, that could only be done by a legislative measure, and such a measure must come up to that House, and with it all the information of which the House of Commons was in possession with relation to it. The same thing took place with respect to the report on fictitious votes. The committee were instructed to give information to the House of Commons as to the existence of the practice, and with a view to a legislative cure. It was clear that that House must concur, or the cure could not be effected. His noble and learned Friend had said, that it might be a useful check upon the proceedings of election committees if their minutes were always laid before the House, and were accessible to the country. It might be so, but before that could be done there must be an alteration of the act of Parliament for that purpose. The House of Commons felt great jealousy and delicacy about interfering with the powers of its committees given by act of Parliament; and he was thoroughly convinced, judging from an experience of no short duration whilst he had the honour
1372
of filling the Chair of the House of Commons, that, if a message was sent by this House to the House of Commons, it would receive a most civil reply, stating, that the House would send an answer by messengers of its own, but he was thoroughly persuaded that, whatever might be the duration of the Session, they would never find time to despatch their messengers. He thought that the matter of the message which his noble and learned Friend meant should be sent was utterly insignificant in comparison with the magnitude of the statement he had made, in great part of which he entirely concurred; but he did not think, if they got no further answer to the message, that his noble and learned Friend would find that he had advanced one single step in the great undertaking which, he rejoiced to hear, his noble and learned Friend had loaded himself with. He thought, in a matter of such immense public importance, if only confined to the great evil which, as his noble and learned Friend had said, was demoralizing the people, who were led to think that if it produced no danger to them there was no positive harm in it, that it was a sort of equitable juggle; he thought that any thing that could remedy so great an evil was important. But in checking this evil, his noble and learned Friend knew the great jealousy of the House of Commons as to their privileges, and as to their right to be judge of their own law, and nothing would be more wise than, in any thing which this House might do, to carry the House of Commons with it in such a great and beneficial measure. He should, therefore, deeply regret if any step should be taken which might excite a feeling of jealousy in the other House, or in any way break in upon the cordiality subsisting between the two Houses—than which, nothing would help his noble and learned Friend more through the rugged path he would have to travel. He, therefore, strongly urged him not to press his motion.
Lord Broughamsaid, that no authority could be higher than that of his noble Friend who had just spoken j but in this case a legislative proceeding had commenced. "We report bribery," said the committee, "and we recommend you to disfranchise the borough." A legislative proceeding had, therefore, commenced. The noble Viscount, however, said, "Wait till the bill comes here." But that was not done in the fictitious votes case. He was inclined to believe that at the time

1373
the Commons sent up to their Lordships the report upon fictitious votes, no intention had been announced of introducing a legislative measure on that subject. Certain it is that the report of that committee in 1887, was committed by the Commons one week after it had been made. However, he should yield to the opinions of others, and not press his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
House adjourned.