Sitting of 31 May 1842

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER. Thomas Hussey, Esq., for Lyme Regis.
BILLS. Public.—2o. New South Wales.
Reported.—Witnesses Indemnity.
3a. and passed: Property Tax.
Private—1o. Charterhouse Hospital Estate.
2o. Liverpool Poor.
Reported.—Britwell Inclosure; Boston Harbour (No. 2); Bruntisland and Granton Pier, Ferry, and Road; Liverpool Borough Court.
3o.and passed:—Camberlang and Muirkirk Roads; Gravesend Terrace Pier; Tadcaster and Ottley Road.

ATTACK ON HER MAJESTY—ADDRESS.
Messengers from the House of Lords, brought down a request for a conference.
The Speaker: I have to acquaint the House, that the Lords desire a conference with this House in the committee room of

1015
their Lordships' House, No. 2, on a subject materially affecting the safety of her Majesty's most sacred person, and the happiness of her people.
Sir R. Peel: I beg to move that this House do agree to the conference as desired by the Lords.
Motion agreed to:—And the messengers informed that the conference was agreed to.
The following Members of the House were appointed on the motion of Sir R. Peel, to manage the conference. Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, Lord Stanley, Viscount Palmerston, Sir James Graham, Viscount Howick, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Baring, Earl of Lincoln, Sir John Hobhouse, Sir Henry Hardinge, Mr. Macaulay, Mr. Williams Wynn, Mr. Ellice, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Mr. Vernon Smith, Sir George Grey, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Thomas Wilde, the Lord Advocate, Lord Ashley, Lord Seymour, Viscount Mahon, Mr. Fox Maule, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Granville Somerset, Sir Thomas Acland, Sir Robert Harry lnglis, Sir George Clerk, Mr. Villiers Stuart, Mr. Sheil, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Charles Wood, Mr. O'Connell, Sir Denham Norreys, Mr. William O'Brien, Colonel Connolly, Mr. Patrick Stewart, Mr. Wilson Patten, Sir George Cockburn, Sir Charles Napier, Sir Matthew Wood, and Mr. Greene.
Conference held, and Sir R. Peel reported,
"That the managers had met the Lords at a conference, which was managed on the part of the Lords by the Lord President of the council; and that the conference was to acquaint this House, that the Lords, in consequence of the recent most atrocious and treasonable attempt on her Majesty's most sacred person, had taken the same into consideration; and had agreed upon an address to be presented to her Majesty thereupon; to which address the Lords desire the concurrence of this House."
Sir R. Peelsaid, I feel it to be my duty to propose that this House should concur in the address which the other House of Parliament has adopted, and I anticipate but one unanimous feeling respecting the proposal which I have to make. Scarcely two years have elapsed since I had the painful duty of seconding the proposal of a similar nature made by the noble Lord,
1016
and it is with mixed feelings of shame and indignation that, after a lapse of two years, I rise now to discharge a similar duty. I should have thought, that the natural feelings and sympathies of human nature would have been protection sufficient against so atrocious a crime. That our young Queen, seeking for innocent recreation from the cares and toils of business, in the presence of her beloved husband, should be a second time exposed in this country to an attempt like this, fills me with feelings of shame and indignation. If the natural feelings of humanity would not have prevented such an attempt, I should have thought that the burst of loyal affections which had been called forth from all classes of her Majesty's subjects by the first attempt, and of indignation and abhorrence against the author of it, would have constituted an additional guarantee to prevent the repetition of such an atrocity. It has not done so. Yesterday evening, a little before six o'clock, as her Majesty was returning home in the company of her beloved husband, having, I believe, taken the precaution that no other female life should be exposed to danger but her own—relying with confidence in the generous loyalty of her people with a determination not to be confined as a prisoner in her own palace. I say yesterday evening, on her Majesty's return to the palace, a shot from a pistol was discharged at the carriage in which her Majesty was sitting, and I have, at least, the satisfaction of stating that the person by whom that pistol was discharged was immediately arrested, and is now in confinement. There is every reason to believe that this crime had been meditated on the preceding day; at least a person, answering in every respect the description of the appearance of the person apprehended for the offence of yesterday, was observed to point a pistol at the carriage in which her Majesty was seated on her return from church, and was heard to express his regret that he had failed in effecting his object. This person so charged has been committed for the offence of high treason, and is now before the judicial tribunals of the country; I shall, therefore, abstain from any further comments on the offence with which he has been charged, but I am sure I shall be justified in anticipating that the country, from one end to the other, will concur

1017
with us in our expression of abhorrence at the crime, and gratitude to Almighty God for the renewed protection of her Majesty from this second attempt on her life, and will offer up an earnest prayer to the same divine Disposer of events, that he will continue to vouchsafe his protection to her, and long preserve a life so justly dear to all her Majesty's subjects. The motion I have to make is, that the House do agree to the Address, (for which see the Lords Report) with the addition of the words, "and the Commons."
Lord John Russellsaid: In rising to second the motion, I am sure that there can be but one feeling as to the motion which the right hon. Gentleman has just made. I am sure that the predominant feeling in this House, and in the country, must be that of gratitude to Almighty God for the preservation of her Majesty's life. In the next place, that there should be a second person found who could meditate and commit a crime so atrocious and so cowardly was most lamentable. The only thing we can now hope is, that this crime has been that of a solitary individual, and that it is not the result of a concerted conspiracy. Of this at least I am sure, that when her Majesty goes abroad among the people for the purpose of taking recreation or exercise, there is not one among her subjects who has less reason to fear an enemy in any single individual of the millions who constitute her subjects. Let us hope, therefore, that this may be the crime of one person, and that the voice of abhorrence and indignation that will arise against him will have the effect of preserving the life it has pleased Almighty God to protect, for many years.
Mr. W. Lascellessaid: I wish to state a fact that has come within my own knowledge. I have learnt that her Majesty having reason to apprehend that an attempt would again be made on her life, with that noble and generous conduct characteristic of her, would not permit her usual female attendant to accompany her. Although this might have been understood from what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet, yet as this noble and generous act was performed with respect to a person nearly and dearly connected with me, I could not help stating the fact to the House.
Motion agreed to nemine contradicente.
The Members forming the committee
1018
to manage the conference, took up the consent of the Commons to the Lords.
House to present the Address on the following day.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that the House would recollect, that when the Sudbury Bill was introduced, the House was informed that some very material evidence as to the practices that had been pursued in that place at the elections was contained in the report of the commissioners on the state of the hand-loom weavers. This report was printed last year, and was in the hands of the Members of the last Parliament, but it was not in the possession of the new Members. He thought, therefore, that that part of the report which related to the subject which he had mentioned should be reprinted. The report itself was very voluminous; it would therefore be necessary, in conformity with the rule of the House, to appoint a committee to select such parts of the evidence as related to the elections in the borough of Sudbury. If the House did not object, he would at once move the appointment of the committee; but if it was objected to he would give notice on the subject. He would suggest that the Sudbury election committee should be re-appointed pro formá for the selection of the evidence. He would also recommend that the same course should be pursued in this case that was followed with respect to similar bills, namely, that copies of the bill should be sent down to the borough. The right hon. Member moved the appointment of the committee.
Motion agreed to Committee to be appointed on the following day.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH FRANCE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Property-tax Bill,
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that before this motion was put, he was anxious to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, relative to one of the most important branches of our manufactures. He had seen it stated in the newspapers, and he had some reason to fear that the statement was true, that the French Government intended to raise the duty on the importation of linens and linen

1019
yarns. He wished to know, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any information as to this statement, as it was a matter which would excite considerable interest in the manufacturing districts. If the case was as had been described, he could not help expressing his regret that at a moment when this country was prepared to pursue a more liberal commercial policy as to the produce of other nations, and especially when commercial negotiations had been carried on for so long a period between this country and France, a step of so hostile a character should be taken by the French Government.
Sir R. Peelreplied, that within the last three or four days, her Majesty's Government had received authentic information on this subject. They had been informed that the minister of France had stated, that the Government had the power by an ordonnance to raise those import duties, and he implied, that such was the intention of the French Government. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that the British Government did not allow a post to leave the country without forwarding a communication on the subject to the French Government, and expressing the deep regret that had been felt on learning the course that it was intended to pursue. This despatch staled what material effect such a proceeding must have on the commercial negotiation between this country and France which had proceeded so far. He could not help stating, that there existed a strong feeling in several parts of France, and especially in the South of France, against the policy of such a proceeding. That portion of that country was most anxious for the favourable termination of the commercial negotiation which had been carried on so long. If this step, however, should unhappily be adopted, it would become the duty of the Government to open communications with other countries of Europe which produced wine, to see whether commercial relations on more favourable terms could not be established. He hoped, and from the best means of forming an opinion on the subject, he believed it would be the case that the wine growers of France would make exertions to induce the French Government to abstain from taking the step alluded to. He could not say more on the subject, but he believed, that the inhabitants of the south of France deeply regretted the course which was proposed to be adopted.
Lord J. Russellagreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the propriety of opening communications with other wine-growing countries with a view to commercial relations. He had no doubt, that this step had been taken from some ill-founded jealousy, or from some erroneous view of commercial policy; but he hoped, that in consequence this country would not depart from their large and enlightened principles, which he was so anxious to see carried out.
Sir R. Peelcould only reply, that the present Government was ready and prepared to maintain the principle on this subject, in which the noble Lord and the late Government went in their commercial negotiations with France.

EAST INDIA COMPANY FINANCE.
An hon. Memberasked, whether the right hon. Baronet was then prepared to answer the question put to him last night by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it might naturally be expected that he had not had much time that day to devote to the subject, but he would proceed to give an answer to the question. A practice had long existed of the East-India Company making advances to the Government for the purpose of carrying on particular affairs. That practice now continued, and the East India Company had recently made advances, and he believed, that he was right in saying, that the East India Government at the present time had made advances to the amount of either 338,000 l. or 340,000 l. What the Government proposed to do was, to make a re-payment of this sum of somewhat less than 400,000 l. to meet the expenses which the East India Company had incurred on behalf of the general Government of the country. Again, on account of the expenditure of the East India Company, in carrying on the war in Affghanistan, the Government intended to make a further advance to the company of two instalments of 200,000 l. each, to meet the expenditure of the company in this country. These advances were made and contemplated for some time, and were only a return for the advances so often made by the East India Company to the Government. The whole sum to be paid to the company would be 800,000 l., of which nearly 400,000 l. would be repayments.
Mr. Humewished to know what part of

1021
the expenditure was to be paid by the British Treasury? He understood, that the East-India Company had made an outlay in consequence of the war in the East, which was to be repaid to them.
Sir R. Peelreplied, that the expenditure for carrying on the war in China was made for this country, and must be repaid to the company. Of course, it was to be understood, that the advance of the company was to be repaid.

DESPATCHES OF SIR A. BURNES.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, that as the observations which he was about to make involved a personal charge against a right the had now stated to the House as to hot). Member of that House, he hoped that he should be listened to. He trusted that the House would recollect that in the third Session of the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman, in his official capacity as President of the Board of Control, laid before Parliament a number of state papers and despatches. The object of these papers was to explain and vindicate the course taken by the Government relative to that portion of India known by the name of Central Asia. The most important of these despatches were those written by a person accredited by the Indian government to the court of Cabool. It appeared, however, that several despatches from that officer to the Government had been printed in India, but they had been suppressed here. Other despatches had been made public, parts of which had been omitted in the papers laid before Parliament. The despatches which had been printed in India were accompanied by a letter written by the late Sir Alexander Burnes. In that letter the writer states that the conduct of the Government, with respect to these despatches, had been a piece of trickery and fraud. He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman why he had adopted such a course with respect to the despatches of a British Minister at a foreign court, as to induce that person to say that the proceeding was a piece of trickery and fraud?
Sir J. Hothouse,in reply to the question of the hon. Member with respect to the letters and despatches alluded to, and as to the reason which had induced him to abstain from laying certain of them before Parliament, would observe that the hon. Member went on the assumption that the papers which had been laid on the Table
1022
of the House purported to contain the whole of the despatches of Sir. A. Burnes. Quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman could not have looked at the book without seeing that they only purported to be extracts; but of the number of letters, which he believed was about thirty-six or a few more, not less than thirty were distinctly described to be extracts. It was never intended to lay the despatches in extenso, of the above individual, before Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman looked into the matter, he would not find a single statement in these despatches which justified him in using the language which the omissions in these despatches. If the hon. Gentleman would have the goodness
to look at the letters of Sir A. Burnes, written in 1837, which contained official opinions as to the best mode of settling; the affairs of Affghanistan, and which referred to the princes on the throne of Cabool and Candahar, and also to the letter of March, 1838, in which he still expressed similar opinions as to those brothers, he would see that there was no wish to conceal, or, as the hon. Member called it, suppress any of these letters which could be safely laid before the House. Omissions, he admitted, there were, and omissions were almost always made in despatches of this nature when laid before Parliament. It was a matter utterly impossible to lay the reports of accredited agents at full length before Parliament, who were sent on delicate missions like that now alluded to. As for any alterations in these despatches, they were only such as were positively called for by a due regard to the public interests. If all despatches were printed as sent to this country, personal offence would often be given in quarters which would lead to the most serious results
Nothing, however, had been omitted which affected the spirit of the despatches. If all despatches of this nature were to be presented to Parliament, but few of a confidential nature, and containing the most important information, would be laid before Parliament. He said this because he knew that confidential agents would be afraid to correspond with the authorities at home, or to give the Government such information as it required. They would not be able to do it, nor be safe in doing it, if there was to be an unreserved communication to Parliament

1023
As to the private letter to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, he thought the gentleman who published that letter had very little regard for the memory of the excellent officer who wrote it. It seemed to him an utter violation of public duty, and a contempt for the usages of private life, for a public functionary to correspond with a person in the exercise of an official charge, and then publish the correspondence. He considered that the late Government had exercised a sound discretion in presenting these papers to the House exactly in the way they had been presented; but if the present Government thought there was any further correspondence which ought to be published for the illustration of this question, they had it in their power to publish it. It would be a matter of extreme indifference to him if they were to present to Parliament all the papers that the Board of Control had ever received or sent out. The hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a notice on the paper for the 26th of June of a motion for the production of the whole correspondence of Sir A. Burnes in 1837, as well as of some of the correspondence of the government of India, on which occasion the hon. Gentleman would have a further opportunity of speaking on the subject.
Conversation at an end.

NEWGATE REGULATIONS SYMPATHY WITH CRIMINALS.
Mr. V. Smithwished to put a question to the right hon. Home Secretary of State for the Home Department. It appeared, that on the Sunday before last, on the occasion of the condemned sermon preached before the murderer, Daniel Good, in the chapel of Newgate, a scene had taken place, which, in his opinion, and, he had reason to believe, in that of the public at large, was a highly indecent one. Orders were previously issued by the sheriffs for particular admissions into the chapel to hear the condemned sermon among others, several ladies of some distinction had seats reserved for them and the whole thing was conducted with an appearance of theatrical display which was highly indecorous and improper. He, therefore, wished to ask the right hon. Baronet if, as Secretary for the Home Department, he had any authority to control such exhibitions for the future? and, if he had not this authority, to point out to the House in
1024
what way he thought that means might be taken for preventing the repetition of a scene utterly revolting to all sense of decency.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that as to any direct authority or control, the Secretary of State had none over the civic authorities, in reference to the proceedings in the chapel of Newgate, but he had always found the utmost readiness on the part of those authorities to attend to any suggestions on the part of the Government, which appeared likely to be attended with desirable results. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, and participated fully in his expression of regret at what had taken place on the occasion referred to. He must say, that, in his opinion, the scene which then occurred was altogether calculated to disturb the last moments of the unhappy man who was so soon to fall a just victim to the offended laws of his country, and was in every way little calculated to serve the ends of religion and order. He was sure, however, that the mention which had been made of the subject, and which he would himself communicate to the authorities in the city, would have the effect of preventing any repetition of this very improper scene.
Subject at an end.

INCOME-TAX.
The Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the third reading of the Property-tax Bill read.
Question again put, that the bill be now read a third time,
Mr. Humewished to state his opinion, having not hitherto had much opportunity of doing so, respecting this measure of the right hon. Baronet's Government. With respect to the distress of the country, it appeared at last that the amended Corn law was all the alteration that the right hon. Baronet intended to propose, and that the Income-tax was the other measure which he intended to propose to relieve the distress and difficulties of the country. He must say, that he took a very different view of the measures necessary to meet our present difficulties. In the first place, he thought that the right hon. Baronet had not taken into consideration what had been the causes of the present distress; and, next, he thought it was an error to state, as the right hon. Baronet had done, that the distress was of a temporary nature, and that we might expect, as on many

1025
former occasions when the manufacturers of the country had been distressed by casual circumstances, that we should find the distress pass away. He could not come to the same conclusion. Years had been rolling on, and he had humbly endeavoured to raise a warning voice against the evils which had at length overtaken the country. Then he thought the commercial policy of the right hon. Baronet was another mistake, and he still maintained, as he had always done, that to open our commerce and give facilities for exchange with other countries was the true policy of this country. With respect to this bill, it was his opinion that taxation was already too high and too large for the community to bear, and that every mode of adding to the burden, which an Income-tax certainly would do, would only increase the difficulties with which the country was assailed. The right hon. Baronet had not carried out the principles which it appeared from the public records of their proceedings to which he was obliged to refer, as he was not present in the House when the right hon. Baronet's speech was delivered—he had himself laid down in the opening of his speech on bringing in this bill. The right hon. Baronet laid it down as a principle, that the financial affairs of nations differed but little in the treatment they demanded from the affairs of individuals, and that he thought it right, therefore, to deal with them as he would with his own affairs. Now, this he thought, that the right hon. Baronet had not done, but that, on the contrary, he had violated the pledge then given. The right hon. Baronet had said, that any new measure of taxation at this juncture ought to press as little as possible on the labouring population. How had the right hon. Baronet observed this principle? He contended that this bill, taking as it would at least 4,000,000 l. sterling from the capital of the country, would increase the pressure on that portion of the population. The right hon. Baronet had done nothing to reduce the great expenditure of late years, which he contended had led to the present difficulties of the country. There was another point which it was important that the House should notice. The right hon. Baronet, and all the speakers who had taken part in the debate on the bill, so far as he knew, had gone upon the assumption that the revenue had been falling off for some years back. Nothing of the sort
1026
—.just the reverse was the case; the revenue had been increasing every year. Then what was the cause of the distress? It arose from the want of employment, and the want of means to pay labour. Did the right hon. Baronet intend, by taking 4,000,000 l. from the capital of the country, to be wasted in war and useless expences, to afford relief? Judging from past experience, he should say, that the right hon. Baronet, if he expected to give relief by these means, was very likely to be mistaken. But he thought the right hon. Baronet had not gone to work in the right mode. He knew of no other period of financial difficulty in former times in which the House had not proceeded to inquire what was the state of the revenue and what reductions and retrenchments might be made before they passed any measure, and he thought that in this case also the House ought to have appointed a committee for this purpose. In 1828 a finance committee had been appointed, which, though it only sat, he was sorry to say, for one Session, had done enough to show, that much of the present deficiency might have been met without any new taxes. One mode of relief to which he would have had recourse was the putting legacies of real property on the same footing with personal property with respect to the stamp duty, by which he thought that an increase of nearly 2,000,000 l. would have been made to the revenue. He considered the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the noble Lord would excuse him for saying so—to have been the evil genius of the late Administration, and to have led them from war to war, and to waste million after million in unnecessary expence, to entirely violate all the principles on which the Whig Government came into power, to have left them in the mire in which the right hon. Baronet had found them, and to have led to the imposition of this tax. It was no Queen's letter that could give relief to the present prevailing and general distress; it was only complete free-trade in corn and everything else. He thought, after the clear and admirable exposition of the principles on which trade ought to be carried on in this country, which the right hon. Baronet had given, that he was not acting after his own conviction, but on the opinion of other people. Was it to be supposed, that the small and trifling changes in the tariff could have any effect

1027
in affording employment for the people, and relieving the existing distress? Yet, not with standing the present distress, the right hon. Baronet was about to add 3,000,000 l. to the amount of taxation. What he complained of was, that the right hon. Baronet did not fairly meet the difficulties of the case. Why had he not taken into consideration the 24,000,000 l. of our expenditure, and reduced it instead of adding to it? If a sacrifice were to be made, surely it ought not to be made by the suffering classes of the country. The right hon. Baronet might have curtailed those two great causes of expenditure, the army and the navy. He had in his hand a statement, showing the number of men in arms, in the army, the navy, and the artillery, at several different periods. In 1792, the whole force of seamen and marines in this country, amounted only to 16,000 men; and the army and navy together amounted only to 65,000 men. In 1817, it was determined to come as speedily as possible to a peace establishment, and the large force kept up during the war was reduced to 19,000 seamen, and the army to 92,000 men. In 1822, the army amounted to 68,000 men, and the navy to 21,000, and with the artillery amounted altogether to 97,000 men; but this year, the navy amounted to 42,000 men, the army to 95,600, and the artillery to 8,864, making a total of 146,464 men. Was it, therefore, to be wondered at, that the expenditure of the country was greatly increased, when we had a force of 49,500 more men than we had in 1822, when we supposed ourselves to have a large establishment? The right hon. Baronet had asked, "Would you reduce the naval establishment of the country? "He said," Yes." Owing to the mistaken policy of the late Government, 15,000 men were locked up in Canada, which force had cost the country no less than 5,000,000 l. sterling. The next foolish policy had been to interfere with the affairs of Syria. What had warranted our interference there? In 1821, there were only 12 ships of war in the Mediterranean, whilst at this moment there were 34. The expense of keeping up this armament amounted to 1,000,000 l. a-year. This showed how the public finances had been mismanaged, and that they ought to have had an inquiry how far this immense force was necessary. Upwards of 900,000 l. of this expenditure might have been reduced, and
1028
such a proceeding would have been more calculated to secure the friendship and co-operation of France, than keeping up this enormous force. In almost every branch of the expenditure there might have been a reduction. In order to see the expense of this Don Quixotic expedition on the coast of Syria, he would state to the House the force which had been kept there. In 1839, there were 38 ships of war, carrying 1,272 guns, and 3,940 men; and during parts of the year, there had been 12,000 men on the coast. In 1840, there had been 47 ships of war there and 14,767 men; within 1,300 of the whole naval force of Great Britain, at the period before the great French war began. In 1841, there were 41 ships of war there, and 12,700 men; and now there were 50 ships of war there, and upwards of 15,000 men. Between 2,000 and 3,000 souls had been destroyed in this war, and 7,000,000 l. or 8,000,000 l. sterling spent over it, and what had been the result? At this moment, the Sultan had requested Mehemet Ali to march again into Syria, and take possession of it. There were other items on which he blamed the conduct of the late Government as extravagant. They had paid no attention whatever to economy. They had paid no attention whatever to useless brevets. They had given promotion to a far too many officers in both services. It was a fact, that there were seven naval officers on half-pay for every one employed, and in spite of the recommendation of the committee of 1833 to reduce the army, no less than 585 military officers received promotion during the year 1837. Many of those officers had seen little or no service; but he need scarcely say that, for service very little influenced promotions in these days. The fact was, that no Government in the world—not even the rulers of nations which were purely military—ever thought of making such vast and preposterously useless promotions as we were in the habit of making—promotions, moreover, made in the face of a distressed nation, unable to bear the additional burdens they entailed. He had now shown, that our extra expenditure was entailed on us by the wars in Syria and China, and by the useless brevet promotions of the late Government. He now came to a more important branch of the subject, and was prepared to show the evils of an increased taxation, and the benefit which sometimes

1029
accrued even to the revenue by lessening rather than by augmenting the national burdens. He held in his hand a paper showing the stale of the taxation in this country from 1830 down to the present time. In 1830, the national burden was 52,018,000 l., in 1842 it was 52,465,000 l. so that we were subjected even to more taxation now than when the Tories were in office at the commencement of the reign of William 4th. Now, what occurred in 1830? When Lord Grey's Government came into office such was the cry for a reduction of taxation that the Administration was obliged to yield. In the first four years of their being in power, no less than 8,000,000 l. of taxation was reduced, or rather, 872,000 l. being re-imposed in other forms, there was an actual reduction of 7.280,000 l. Now, the effect of this reduction upon the revenue, was not, probably, what many Members would have expected. In 1833, although 7,000,000 l. of taxation had been taken off, the revenue had only fallen 2,750,000 l., as compared with the revenue of 1830. Nor were the taxes thus taken off, unimportant taxes to the community. On the contrary, they were taxes upon articles entering into every day's consumption. In 1831 there was a repeal of the duty upon cotton, and he was sure his hon. Friends around him would bear him out in saying that the effect of that repeal was, to give elasticity to the cotton printing, and to every branch of the cotton manufacture, their Then there were taken off duties on candles, soap, tiles (chiefly used, he supposed, for agricultural purposes), starch, sweets, spirits, glass, and a variety of other things the result being a total reduction of 2,000,000 1. in the customs duties, 4,000,000 l, in the excise, and 1,500,000 l. nearly in the taxes, thus making up the 7,000,000 l. he had spoken of as reduced. Well, what was the result of this reduction? In 1834 the taxation was 49,000,000 l.; in 1835 about the same; in 1837 it was 51,300,000 l; in 1838, 51,700,000 l.; in 1839,53,000,000 l.; in 1840,53,000,000 l.; in 1841, 54,000,000 l. It was a curious fact that the taxation of the last mentioned year exceeded that of 1834 by no less than 5,000,000 l. It was profligate conduct of the late Government in plunging the nation into war that caused this considerable increase; and let the House recollect too that these 52,000,000 l. were at the present time a greater burden on the in-
1030
dustry of the country than 70,000,000 l. would have been in 1833. In that year trade was better, and the legitimate profits of the merchant were considerably larger than they were now: and yet by the very measure which was now under discussion they were about to add 4,000,000 l. more to the burdens of the people; and those 4,000,000 l. were to be added at a time when trade was so bad and profits were so greatly reduced throughout the country. He could not anticipate how much more they might be reduced, but he had great fears. If the French government carried out the measures which he understood they were about to take, trade would be more depressed still; indeed, he should be afraid to picture the distress which must ensue in the part of the country which he had the honour to represent. He did, therefore, contend that it was scandalous to attempt making such additions to the taxation. Why did they not resort to another step, and reduce the salaries of public officers and the cost of their establishments? Or why did they not endeavour to revive our drooping commerce by making an efficient alteration in the Corn-law? He was appealing to a Christian Legislature, and he did ask on what ground they could refuse to take off the tax upon the chief article of food when they found it absolutely necessary to send round a begging letter from her Majesty imploring contributions for the relief of their poor? Would it not have been better to have given the people cheap food at once than to have made an appeal through the Church the Church which might be said to be at enmity with the people? Unfortunately the whole of the clergy were leagued against the people. The tithe system almost of necessity rendered them the enemies of free-trade. Was there a single clergyman who lifted up his voice against the Corn law? [An hon. Member: Mr. Spencer.] Ay, Mr. Spencer was worthy of honour—he was an exception to the general rule—but let them take the majority, and they would find it otherwise. The whole of the legislation of the country was adverse to the interests of the working classes, and it was a mere mockery of justice that the House of Commons should starve an entire people, by restricting trade on the one hand, and imposing a new tax upon the other, at the same time that no remedy was proposed to meet the distress which

1031
was acknowledged on all hands. Under such circumstances the House would be greatly in fault if it allowed the present bill to pass. If the right hon. Baronet had attended to his suggestions upwards of 3,000,000 l. would be saved to the country, and the public business would be as well done as it is at present. Before now he (Mr. Hume) had suggested that a very considerable saving might be effected by adhering to the principle of non-interference. This suggestion had not been attended to, and the expenditure of the present year had increased by upwards of 4,000,000 l. beyond what it was in 1836. This was in the military and naval expenditure, and he was sure that, from the Chinese war and other causes, it would be found the war expenditure would be 20,000,000 l. He deemed that there had been an expenditure not required by the late Government. [A cry of "Vote of confidence."] It was true that he had given a vote of confidence to the Whigs, because they were not, in his opinion, so bad as the Tories; but now he thought it would have been wise if they had turned out the Whigs three years ago. If he had known that the right hon. Baronet would have come forward with the principles he had lately professed, they might depend upon it, that as far as his efforts went, they should not have been directed to keep that right hon. Baronet so long out of office. But in saying this, he could not but express a hope that the right hon. Baronet would carry his principles into effect. He might suggest that one of the surest means of curing the existing evils was an enlarged reform of Parliament. Nothing but a reduction of taxation, a reduction of expenditure, a free-trade in corn, would give relief to the people. He wished not to be understood as objecting to a property-tax, but what he would desire to see would be a real property-tax, and the removal of taxes to the amount of 6,000,000 l, which now pressed most heavily upon the industry of the country. Why would not the right hon. Baronet grant a committee? Did not the committee on the import duties afford the right hon. Baronet some information which he did not possess before? Why not then have a financial committee fairly composed and inquiries fairly made, with a view to amend the Income-tax, and improve the tariff? Such a committee might be enabled to inquire into the real causes
1032
of the existing distress—to lay the case fully before the country, and endeavour to devise a fitting remedy.
Sir C. Napierwondered that the hon. Member for Montrose should complain of the increase in the naval expenditure in 1837 and 1838, whilst at that time the whole country was crying out because of Russia having twenty-seven sail of the line in the Baltic, and at another period the French had a sufficient force in the West-Indian ports to seize the whole of the islands. If such a calamity had occurred, the hon. Member for Montrose would have been the first to inveigh against the measures by which it had been caused. By this day's paper he perceived that an addition of eight sail of the line had been made to the French naval force, and for his own part he would rather that the right hon. Baronet should, if necessary, make the proposed property-tax 5 per cent, instead of 3, than that the army or navy should be reduced by a single man. He objected, however, to the unequal manner in which the proposed tax would press upon property and upon income, and it was on that ground only he should oppose it; and he also objected to the tariff, because it kept up the duty upon corn, coffee, and sugar, articles which formed so large a portion of the consumption of the poorer classes.
Colonel Wyndhamrepelled, in the strongest Parliamentary language he could use, the aspersions cast by the hon. Member for Montrose upon the aristocracy and the clergy. He had before now heard the same classes attacked by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Nottingham, the hon. Member for Montrose, and an hon. Baronet who sat now on that (the Ministerial side) of the House. These attacks were made in times of violent agitation. They were in the times of Thistle-wood, and who (said the hon. Member, pointing to Members on the Opposition benches) brought him to the scaffold? It was you Gentlemen.
Mr. Curteiswished to know who those were whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman included in such a charge? As regarded the hon. Member for Montrose, he always regarded with admiration that hon. Gentleman's strenuous efforts to enforce a system of economy and save the country from unnecessary burdens.
Mr. F. T. Baringconcurred in the tribute which the hon. Member behind him

1033
had paid to the hon. Member for the Montrose burghs, whose voice he was ready to testify had always been raised to advocate economy, even when other hon. Members called out for lavish expenditure. He wished on this occasion, however, to direct the attention of the House to the principle of the Income-tax. Was it, he would ask, a fair and equal mode of levying the people's money? Would the burden of taxation be laid on in proportion to the ability of individuals to bear it? One great objection to the bill was, that it might actually charge with the tax parties who were in the receipt of no income whatever. A man might have an income arising from sources classed in one schedule of the bill while he was losing on another schedule; but he had no power of setting the gain upon one schedule against the loss which might occur on another. This point had often been adverted to, and he thought it open to great objection. Take the case of a merchant who was the holder of stock, at the same time that he carried on some branch of commerce. Suppose him to receive a dividend of 1,000 l., while he lost several thousands of pounds on his business, he would be charged with the Income-tax on the stock, even though he might remain a loser of 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. on the whole transactions of the year. Again, with respect to the operation of the tax on agricultural estates on which the farms were small, under 300 l. a-year value, they would be relieved from the Income-tax, which would weigh heavily on those on which the farms were large. Another gross injustice was, that terminable annuities were charged at the same rate as those of a permanent nature. He looked with alarm at the different circumstances of the country from what they were when the Income-tax was proposed before. At that time there was no country where capital could be more profitably invested than in this; but now the whole of Europe was open to the capitalist, and the result of a tax upon his profits would be to drive him to other countries. To the mercantile man, too, the investigation under this bill was as strong as it had been under any other. Let them modify the bill as they might, reduce the charge as they pleased, it was that searching investigation which mercantile men felt as the main objection to the measure, and that one from which it was impossible for
1034
them to be relieved, although he would admit, that the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to effect that object. But with regard to the composition for the tax upon the average income of the last three years, it was always admitted that that was abandoning the principle of the bill; for the man who was looking to an increase of income would, by that composition, be relieved from paying upon the actual income he might make, whilst a person whose business was sinking had either to com pound and pay upon the income he was not really in receipt of, or go on paying, upon the income he was making from year to year, and submit to that investigation which to him would be most objectionable. And then as to the moral effect this bill would have upon the trading population of this country. Nothing could be more unfortunate than when the revenue laws were of such a nature that a large and respectable body of the people were in the constant habit, without the slightest scruple, of setting them at large; but he regretted to be obliged to fear, looking at the history of all former Income-tax bills, and the still greater opportunities of evasion that the circumstances of the times afforded, that the result of this investigation would be productive of perjury and fraud to a degree which, if it continued long, would materially injure the character of the British merchant and our working classes. And then a to the injustice of the tax from its inequality. To take a person with a casual and uncertain income and charge him the same as a person who derived an equal amount of income from funded property, which he would leave behind as a provision for his family, was an injustice that hardly existed under any other system of taxation. Or let them take the case of a half-pay officer, who, after devoting himself to the service of his country, had but a life income to support his family. Was it just that such a person should be taxed equally with one who without any labour of his own came into the hereditary possession of the same amount of income? Was it fair, too, in the same manner to tax professional men, who for the course of only a short period were reaping the harvest of that which they had sown night and day for many years? There never was a bill which appeared to have combined in it more inequalities in taxation than the present, and he was proud to say, that to the objec-

1035
tions which had been made to it no answer whatever had been given. The only attempt at an answer was, not that the injustice did not exist, but that it was an injustice 1o which numerous persons were liable. He contended that the bill was full of injustice. He made not that an accusation against the right hon. Gentleman or the Government, but he believed it to be in the nature of the bill, a part of the system which it was impossible to get rid of if they had recourse at all to such a measure; and believing this, that when they came to charge income in this manner they created inequalities greater than in the whole of their taxation put together, he should give his cordial opposition to the third reading of the bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not, in his opinion, very felicitously selected this stage of their proceedings as a fit opportunity to take a review of the objections he had before taken to the bill, with the view to induce the House to reject it. In answer to the first objection of the right hon. Gentleman, he would remind him this was not the first measure of an income or property-tax which had been submitted to the adoption of Parliament, for a property-tax had been deemed expedient by the Government, and adopted by the Legislature in 1803, which was followed in 1806 by a similar measure of finance, proposed by a Ministry of very opposite principles, and of very different public men from the principles of the Government of 1803, or the men who composed that Cabinet. The principle, however, of both these bills had been the same; and a similar measure, with some important improvements, was now brought forward by the present Government, in order to repair our financial difficulties, and to make up the deficit of revenue which had been accumulating for several years past, to the great injury of our trade, and embarrassment of our finances. The necessity for imposing this tax under similar circumstances had been admitted by public men of exalted virtue, and great political integrity, including Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox. Indeed, the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) had expressed himself convinced of the propriety of the principle which he recognised, and which, he said, he would not suffer to be frittered away in this instance, nor allow the bill to be rendered inoperative by quarrelling with
1036
its details. The House had sufficiently displayed its opinion on former occasions as to whether this was a measure called for by the peculiar exigency of the period, and by the necessity there existed to adopt this as a means of providing for the deficit in the revenue. The right hon. Gentleman complained in his speech to-night that the measure in effect is fivefold, and contains so many separate and distinct classes or descriptions of taxation. He had objected to them as so many different laws upon the subject, and as they were not all regulated alike or by the same rule as respected the persons subjected to taxation, the right hon. Gentleman had taken up this as a strong ground of objection, and had therefore charged the promoters of the bill with inconsistency. This necessity for classifying the persons liable to the payment of the tax had been apparent to the original promoters of the first property-tax, and the plan had been adopted in that bill. If this had not been so, he thought no one would have been found to complain more loudly than the right hon. Gentleman, because then all the classes numerated in the five schedules of the bill would have been called upon to account and undergo that stringent investigation of their affairs and circumstances which was now only intended to apply to the class described in schedule D. Even the regulation with respect to the liability of farmers to the extent of half the rent paid for their farms, to which the right hon. Gentleman had objected as forming no proper test of income, was borrowed from the property-tax of 1806. An objection had been taken to the measure, as being a species of armoury to which they ought not to resort except in time of war. If the principle were wrong, why apply it in time of war only, and abandon it in time of peace? The right hon. Gentleman had objected to the principle of taxing the occupiers of land in proportion to the rent; but was not that the principle upon which all taxes upon land were now imposed? In assessing the county-rate, the poor-rate, and all other burdens to which the occupier was subject, was it not the charge made upon the value of the property as tested by the rent paid? That principle had been acted upon in this country for centuries, and was not, as the right hon. Gentleman had assumed, introduced now for the first time; and it had been adopted in the present bill, not

1037
merely as affording the best test of value, but because it would relieve the parties from that close investigation, into their affairs which had been so strongly objected to in regard to the former property tax. The right hon. Gentleman had further objected that this measure of the Government would induce landlords to subdivide their property into small farms, in order to relieve the occupation from this impost. He did not admit, that the measure would produce any such result; neither did he admit, that farming tenants would be anxious to occupy only such farms as would be exempt from the tax, for if they invested their money in any other way, so as to make the whole income more than l50 l.,they would still be liable to the tax; and on the other hand, looking at the advantage which the landlord derived from dividing his land into large farms, and the objections he would naturally entertain to making frequent changes in the limits of the various holdings on his property, he did not believe, that any such effect would be produced as that which the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. The right hon. Gentleman had also repeated the often-urged objection to the levying of any tax upon incomes derived from funded property, and especially upon the inequality of charging the same rate of taxation upon the terminable as upon the permanent annuity. He would not detain the House by entering again into those arguments, for the House had already decided that those objections were without any real foundation. He was prepared to rest his defence upon the arguments which had been previously adduced, and with which the House had by its decision declared it self to be satisfied. The objection to taxing the foreigner who had money invested in the British funds had also been fully answered. Those foreigners who were so circumstanced could withdraw their property from those funds at any moment, and at the present time with advantage to themselves; but to those who, confiding in the security of the British funds, preferred to allow their money still to remain invested in them, it was surely of importance that the national credit should be kept up; and seeing that they were free from those other taxes persons residing in this country were subject to, he did not think this 3 per cent, would induce them to withdraw their property from this coun-
1038
try to invest it in less certain securities elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman had argued also, that the bill was likely to produce a prejudicial effect on the moral feelings of the country, and he had told them (and told them truly, he admitted) that it was a serious objection to any tax, that it would induce ignorant people to commit breaches of the law. But he did not admit that any such effect would result, for this law would operate not so much upon the lower and more ignorant classes, as upon those who were comparatively of the higher orders. For by acting, as far as it was possible to do so, upon the recognised principle that the property of the country should bear the burden it exempted those who had no property, and therefore in his opinion was calculated to prevent those evils which the right hon. Gentleman anticipated from it. But talking of moral effects, what would be the moral effects of the substitutes for this property-tax, supposing the property-tax were not imposed? Would not any increase in the excise or customs duties to the amount necessary to meet the deficiency occasion more numerous and more serious breaches of the law than could ever result from the property-tax? The next objection was to the application of the tax to incomes derived from trades and professions; but the right hon. Gentleman did not object to the clergyman's income being taxed, because that income arose from the land, though held only for life. Land was to be taxed in every shape, and all incomes arising out of land were to be taxed; but incomes of ten times the amount, arising from professions and trades, ought, according to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) to be free from the impost ! The right hon. Gentleman had adverted also to the hardship of taxing the half-pay officer, but the principle of the bill was that all incomes amounting to 150 l a year and upwards, from whatever source derived, should pay the tax; and, although cases of inequality and hardship might arise, still those inequalities would be attended with advantages to the parties which would go far to compensate them. With regard to the investigation which would be required, it was absolutely necessary to prevent fraud, and to protect the honest man, who gave a correct return of his income, that that investigation should be stringent; but in speaking of this part of the measure the

1039
right hon. Gentleman had altogether omitted to notice the facilities which were afforded for composition where parties chose to avail themselves of them. On a former evening, a question had been put to him as to the probable charge of levying this tax, and he had been most anxious to lay upon the Table of the House an estimate of the expense before the bill came into operation, but not being able to say how many special commissioners it might be necessary to appoint, it was difficult from that and other similar circumstances to calculate accurately beforehand the probable cost of collection. He would, however, state the result of the best estimate he had been enabled to form. The expense of collecting the Income-tax of 1815 had been 300,000 l.; the cost of collection of the tax now about to be imposed, he had every reason to think, would not be expected to amount to one-half of that sum. He was not able to form a correct estimate of the amount that would be required to meet the expenses of collectors, clerks, and other persons that must necessarily be employed. The establishment for collecting the old property-tax cost 117,998 l.; but the House was aware, from the provisions of this bill, that it was intended to give to the commissioners of assessed taxes the collection of the property-tax; and, by the best calculations he could make, he believed that 30,000 l. added to the cost of the present establishment for collecting the assessed taxes, would cover the additional cost of collecting the property-tax. But, in making that estimate, he had thought it right to ascertain the number of officers at present employed, and to call upon the superannuated officers to furnish their names and ages, in order that those whose ages would permit them might be employed in collecting the property-tax, and the public saved from the consequences of their superannuation. It was by that means he hoped to reduce the actual cost of the establishment for collecting the tax within the limits which he had stated to the House. He thought, therefore, he might confidently assure the House that the cost of collection, establishment, and collateral charges would not amount to one-half the sum which the former property-tax cost. With respect to the two propositions which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, for exempting certain classes of individuals from the opera-
1040
tion of this tax, nothing would give him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) greater satisfaction than to acquiesce in a proposition of the kind. He had given the subject the greatest attention, and he found that were he to agree to his right hon. Friend's first propositions, to make 150 l. per annum the starting point, from which the tax should begin to apply; by which arrangement a person with an income of 200 l. a year would have to pay the tax upon the last 50 l. only; no less than 33,500,000 l. of income would be exempted from the property-tax; and were he to agree to the second proposition, he found that upwards of 27,000,000 l. of income would be exempted. Therefore, if he were to exempt incomes to this extent the consequence would be, that a higher amount must be paid by others. He, therefore, regretted that he could not consent to the propositions of his hon. Friend. It was not necessary for him to trouble the House further. He could not doubt that the House would adopt the present measure. The opinion of the country had been taken, and he was happy to say, that it was with the Government. The country had not been taken by surprise: it had been, from the first stage to the last, admonished of all the possible objections to which ingenuity could suggest that this measure was liable. Everything that had taken place proved that the country sympathised with the Government on the necessity for this measure so far as the number of petitions could speak the feeling of the country. He believed that there had been less petitions presented against his measure than against the toll on Waterloo-bridge. He trusted that the House would confirm the opinion of their constituents and the people at large, and that by means of the tax now proposed and carried to its last stage, they should be able to repair the state of their finances and to give that relief to the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country which all concurred in believing to be necessary.
Mr. Manglessaid, that the right hon. Baronet had alluded to the embarrassed state of the finances of the East-India Company as one of the reasons for the imposition of a Property-tax. The right hon. Baronet merely interjected the statement, and left others to draw their inferences. [Sir R. Peel: I merely spoke of the excess of expenditure over income.]

1041
That was the case mostly with countries which were at war. The right hon. Baronet had depreciated the resources of our Indian empire for party purposes, which was a course unworthy of any Statesman. He contended, that the state of the finances of India did not warrant the assertion that they were in a state of embarrassment. In 1805 and 1806, the revenue of India was only about 13,000,000 l., whereas in 1841 and 1842, it was above 20,000,000 l., being an increase of more than 7,000,000 l. The Indian debt in 1841 and 1842, amounted to 34,194,000 l, not a rupee of which paid more than 5 per cent, interest, while the larger portion of it paid only 4 per cent. During the administration of the Marquess Wellesley, the interest of that debt was 8, 9, and even 12 per cent., and the whole amount was greater than at present. The revenue was not now so deficient as the right hon. Baronet repesented it. The right hon. Baronet was not justified in bringing forward the Income-tax on the ground of the embarrassed state of the finances of India. He opposed the tax as unjust and unnecessary, and as a serious injury, both to the morals and prosperity of the people. It was totally unwarranted either by the circumstances of England or India.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that though his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had done justice to his motives in the course taken with regard to his suggestion to make the operation of the tax commence at 150 l., he had not dwelt upon the results that would follow from the adoption of that suggestion. His right hon. Friend had overlooked the point of his suggestion, which related to the effect which the adoption of the suggestion would have upon the feelings of the public, and of those on whom the tax was to be levied. It would have removed one great temptation for violating the dictates of conscience and honour, and concealing or understating the amount of revenue. He did not affirm, that it was unjust to levy 4l. 7s. 6d. on incomes amounting to 150 l., but when the income of 149 l. was exempt, and that of 150 l. liable to it, there was a temptation to understate it in the case of persons possessing the latter. Persons who possessed 200 l., and would willingly pay the tax on the surplus over 150 l., might be very unwilling to do so on the whole sum. He
1042
did not think that so much larger a sum could be collected under the bill as it stood as was expected, or that the loss which his right hon. Friend feared would have taken place had the alteration been made. They should deal with men as they were, not as they ought to be, and diminish the temptation to palter with conscience and honour. His right hon. Friend had made no allusion to the third suggestion he had thrown out that of applying a sliding-scale according to the amount of income. He gave his right hon. Friends in the Government credit for being actuated by the best motives towards the country, and as in the present state of the House it was impossible practically to obtain a vote on it, he should not trouble them any further, though he could not help expressing his conviction, that had his proposal been acted on, it would have tended to reconcile the majority of those who would now try to evade or resist the tax.
Mr. Villierssaid, he had risen after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of an observation that he had made. [Cries of" Divide."] If the Friends of the right hon. Gentleman were so anxious to divide, be would have done well not to have made the observation; for it was one certainly calculated to provoke reply. The right hon. Gentleman declared, that the country having had time to reflect upon this bill, expressed in consequence the warmest sympathy with the Government. Now, as he had the misfortune, together with many around him, to represent sections of the country where no such sympathy was known, and as it was his ill-fortune to know that they were suffering the severest privations, and extremely dissatisfied with the measure, he would not suffer his silence to be construed into an admission of so extraordinary a statement. They had, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, been taking time to reflect upon the measure, and they now better understood the purpose for which it was proposed, and the nature of those other proposals which were said to be compensatory for the evil it would inflict, and he believed, that the conclusion to which the people generally had arrived was, that this measure was, financially speaking, wrong, that it was politically most unwise, and atrociously unjust. As a measure of finance, as a means of supplying the deficiency, he had great

1043
doubts if it would be successful; he doubted very much whether, when the revenue declined, being collected from indirect taxation, and dependent on the expenditure of the people, you could super add direct taxes and collect all you intended. You may collect as much as you expect, from the direct source, but inasmuch as the indirect taxes fall off", from the inability of the people to consume the articles that are taxed, I question whether, by imposing a fresh tax, you do not add to that inability, and that your whole revenue will be yet deficient. It is difficult to speak with confidence on these subjects, but it is more reasonable to expect this than the contrary. Again he thought it was justly deemed unwise at this moment of general embarrassment and depression to expose the productive classes to all the pain and inconvenience incidental to this tax, and most unjust if it is imposed with the view to save those whose protection has caused the deficiency. And here it was, that he grounded his dissatisfaction with the whole scheme of the right hon. Baronet. This tax was imposed without any inquiry into the cause of the deficiency, without any admission of the real causes of the decline of our finances and our commerce, and consequently no remedy proposed or in prospect, that any man can believe or expect has their revival in view. He said a statesman in his position ought duly to have inquired, and fully to have explained the present anomalous and critical condition of this country. There was a twofold deficiency to account for—not only that which falls short immediately of the expenditure, but that deficiency which if seen in the revenue not increasing, for it must be remembered in this country the greater part of their taxes were in the nature of poll-taxes taxes upon what the great mass of the population do, or want to, consume; and yet, while the population is increasing, the revenue is declining. He said there was but one way to account for that, which was, that the condition of the people was deteriorating; and he should believe, till it was disproved, that their condition was so declining, owing to the laws which they persisted in maintaining, which interrupted their commerce with the world, and enhanced the cost of their food. Laws which were attended with this twofold cruelty, that they diminished
1044
the demand for their labour, and, by enhancing the cost of food, lowered the value of that labour; and that, too, combined with a continual increase of population augmenting the competition for labour—all combining to lower the reward for labour. That was the case; and it was wonderful that such a cause existed, that the necessary consequence should be perceived in the diminished power of the people to consume those articles which they were accustomed to tax for revenue? What, then, he asked, should a wise and prudent statesman have done; but seeing this fully to have admitted it, and applied himself boldly and ably to meet the evil; and how should he have done it? He ought to have seen how he could have extended the trade with those countries which were sure of supplying our wants, with whom mutual interchange would have been mutually beneficial, thus to have secured fresh and instant demand for our labour, while he ought to have studied how he could have improved the condition of the home consumer. By this means he would have alleviated distress, and increased the revenue legitimately and beneficially, and the Government well knew—as every man who has given thought or consideration to our condition at home and relations abroad well knew—that this could have been and would be effected. Where could we extend our trade instantly and usefully. Why, with the United States and the Brazils, in a manner to give instant demand for labour. And how could they put the home consumer in better condition? Why, by instantly reducing the cost, by increasing the quantity and necessaries of life, which would have the immediate effect of setting free a fund for the consumption of manufactures on other products than food; and yet is there a man hardy enough to say that there is a prospect, this year at least, of this being the result from any measure that has been proposed? Yet this is no speculative result that he said might follow; it is matter of experience, on which they might calculate with certainty; it has been so invariably, when food is low instantly is there a large demand for manufactures, when it rises there is an immense sum withdrawn from the consumption of manufactures. He was, he knew, admitting then what hon. Gentlemen opposite repeated so often in

1045
all their debates, namely, that the manufacturers depended upon the home trade for their best customers. It was true. They did depend upon them, and they could not suffer without the manufacturers feeling it; that was what they were suffering from then. The sum is immense that the people expend in food in this country, and that cannot rise or fall without being felt in every branch of industry. If hon. Gentlemen would inquire, as it was their duty to do, with patience into these matters, they would see that they were capable of demonstration, and they would learn the extent of the mischief they were doing by raising artificially the cost of food. The right hon. Baronet quoted a pamphlet the other night to support some view he was taking, and as he had deemed it a sufficient authority, he would refer to it also; it was Mr. Greg's pamphlet, in which he had gone into the calculation of what had been withdrawn annually for the last three or four years from manufactures to be consumed in food. And, if he remembered rightly, that gentleman had shown that, between 1835 and any of the years since 1838, the people had been spending nearly 25,000,000 l. more for bread, and 35,000,000 l. more for other articles of necessary consumption, simply owing to the enhanced cost of the articles, which is occasioned by restrictive laws. Why, what an enormous sum is this to be withdrawn from a market, and what proportion will all the charity subscriptions bear to it? Can it be wondered at, then, when the trade is gradually declining with old customers abroad, and the trade so sesiously impaired at home, that the people should be unable to consume your exciseable articles, and that the revenue should decline? How could it be otherwise? And will any man in his senses say how this further tax is to remedy these evils?—how it is to repair the resources of the country?—or, indeed, permanently increase the revenue? He had a right, then, to complain that nothing was done to meet fairly or fully the alarming state in which the country was; for alarming every man of sense must admit it; and he complained the more, because he believed the Government well knew all these things. It was not as if they denied them; they had made extraordinary admissions this year. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dorchester dis-
1046
tinctly admitted that the working classes were worse off now than they had been. He traced the evil to the cause, and concluded that the time was come when the cost of the necessaries of life must be diminished. The noble Lord at the head of the Board of Trade, in bringing forward the Corn Bill, conjured their Lordships to remember that the people were increasing, but the subsistence of the country did not keep pace with the population, and prayed them to avert in time the frightful evil that would result from it. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade the other night rebuked an advocate of restrictive duties by admitting that, in truth, they ought long since to have been removed, and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, going farther than the rest, declared that the community ought to exchange the fruits of their labour wherever they could at best advantage, and has repeatedly this Session declared the importance of relieving the distress of the working people, and the immense importance of reducing the high cost of living in this country; and yet what is done to accomplish all this? Is there a prospect of any necessary being cheaper, or of trade being better? What is there certain but the privation which this Income-tax will submit all classes of the people to? For no honest man, of any intelligence, can believe that the exemption professed to be in favour of the poor will benefit them, or that they will escape the injury which it will inflict on others. It was only yesterday that a witness in a committee of this House, in describing the condition of the manufacturing districts, said, that bad as the working people were off at present, they expected to be worse when the Income-tax came into operation, for the masters had declared that whatever they lost by the tax they must take out in the wages; that their profit was as low as would allow them to use their capital, and that they must suspend their works if they did not reduce wages, and, as the man said, the Income-tax will be worse for the poor man than the truck system. Was he not right, then, in saying that this tax would be an unmitigated evil to all classes? He did not want much evidence to convince him that whatever diminished the capital of the country when trade was bad, must diminish the fund for the employment of labour, and make that trade worse. Be-

1047
lieving, then, as he did, that this tax will aggravate every evil under which they were then suffering, and believing in no immediate benefit likely to arise from any of what are called the" remedial measures" that had been proposed, and feeling sure that instant relief might be given by just and wise legislation, he should have deserted his duty to his constituents if he had not risen then cordially to denounce this bill on its third reading.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, the lion. Member for Guildford had impugned his statement with respect to the finances of India. The hon. Gentleman's statement, however, was most monstrous. He had stated the amount of the revenue of India, but he had not stated the cost of collecting, which was 15 per cent. The hon. Member for Guildford had stated the amount of the revenue of India at 20,000,000 l., while the real revenue, arising from taxation and territorial income, was 15,200,000 l. The hon. Gentleman had admitted, that the expenditure was 19,000,000 l., and as the real revenue was only 15,200,000 l., the excess of expenditure over revenue, was nearly 4,000,000 l. There had been, for a number of years, a surplus revenue in India, amounting, on an average, to about 2,500,000 l. per annum; for the last three years, on the most moderate calculation, there had been an average annual deficit of 2,500,000 l. Three years ago, a surplus to the amount of 10,000,000 l. had accumulated in the Indian treasury, but of that sum, every rupee had now disappeared. An attempt had been made to raise a loan, and the hon. Gentleman had referred to this measure in a tone of triumph. That loan had now been open for nine months: it was opened for a sum of 4,000,000 l., and of that sum, 2,700,000 l. only had been raised, and the loan was already at 3 discount. A statement had been placed in his hands which showed, that the 4 per cent loan of 1832–1833 was at 15 to 16 per cent, discount; and the 4 per cent, loan of 1835 and 1836 was at 19 to 20 per cent, discount. He considered the subject of Indian finance, a most important question, and it was desirable, that its condition should be clearly understood. The right hon. Baronet had stated, that he had authorised the temporary advance of 500,000 l. to the Indian government; and it was well known, that that government had no
1048
money in this country, and that they were unable to obtain a loan in India. The disordered state of Indian finance, was, he conceived, attributable, in a great degree, to the war which existed in that country, which had tended to increase the financial embarrassment.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, it had been asserted, that the labouring classes would not be affected by the Income tax, but he contended, that its pressure must ultimately fall upon upon these classes. He considered the adoption of this tax a most unjust measure, and that it would operate most oppressively; and if the measures proposed by the late Government had been adopted, there would have been no necessity to have recourse to it. It had been said, that a tax upon the raw material was injurious to trade, but the Income-tax would prove equally injurious. The lax would press with peculiar hardship upon persons whose income was about 160 l. a-year, and who would have to pay a sum of 5l. out of that income.
House divided:—Ayes 255; Noes 149: Majority 106.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T, D.

Bramston, T. W.

A'Court, Capt.

Broadley, H.

Ackers, J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Acton, Col.

Bruce, Lord E.

Adare, Visct.

Buck, L. W.

Adderley, C. B.

Buckley, E.

Allix, J. P.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Antrobus, E.

Bunbury, T.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Arkwright, G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Ashley, Lord

Campbell, Sir H.

Bagot, hon. W.

Cardwell, E.

Bailey, J.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Bailey, J. jun.

Charteris, hon. F.

Baillie, Col.

Chelsea, Visct.

Baillie, H. J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Baird, W.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Baldwin, B.

Christmas, W.

Balfour, J. M.

Chute, W. L. W.

Bankes, G.

Clayton, R. R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Barneby, J.

Clive, hon, R. H.

Barrington, Visct.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Codrington, C. W.

Beckett, W.

Collett, W. R.

Bell, M.

Colvile, C. R.

Beresford, Major

Compton, H. C.

Bernard, Visct.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Blackburne, J. I.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Blakemore, R.

Courtenay, Lord

Bodkin, W. H.

Cresswell, B.

Boldero, H. G.

Cripps, W.

Botfield, B.

Darner, hon. Col.

Bradshaw, J.

Darby, G.

1049

Dawnay, hn. W. H.

Jones, Capt.

Denison, E. B.

Kelburne, Visct.

Dickinson, F. H.

Kemble, Henry

D'Israeli, B.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Douglas, Sir H.

Knight, H. G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Law, hon. C. E.

Duffield, T.

Lawson, A.

Dugdale, W. S.

Lefroy, A.

Duncombebe, hon. A.

Legh, G. C.

Duneombe, hon. O.

Liddell, hon. H. T

East, J. B.

Lincoln, Earl of

Eastnor, Visct.

Lindsay, H. H.

Eaton. R. J.

Litton, E.

Egerton, Lord F.

Lockhart, W.

Eliot, Lord

Long, W.

Emlyn, Visct.

Lopes, Sir ft.

Escott, B.

Lowther, J. H.

Farnham, E. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Fellowes, E.

Lyall, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Lygon, hon. General

Ffolliott, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Fuller, A. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

M'Geachy, F. A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Mahon, Visct.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Mainwaring, T.

Godson, R.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Manners, Lord J.

Gore, M.

March, Earl of

Gore, W. O.

Marsham, Visct.

Goring, C.

Martin, C. W.

Goulburn. rt. hon. H.

Master, T. W. C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Masterman, J.

Granby, Marquess of

Meynell, Capt.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Miles, W.

Greenall, P.

Morgan, O.

Greene, T.

Morgan, C.

Grogan, E.

Mundy, E. M.

Halford, H.

Muntz, G. F.

Hamilton, J. H.

Murray, C. R. S.

Hamilton, W. J.

Neeld, J.

Hampden, R.

Neville, R.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Newport, Visct.

Harcourt, G. G.

Newry, Visct.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sit H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Norreys, Lord

Henley, J. W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Ossulston, Lord

Herbert, hon. S.

Owen, Sir J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Paget, Lord W.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Pakington, J. S.

Hinde, J. H.

Palmer, R.

Hodgson, F.

Patten, J. W.

Hodgson, R.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Holmes, hn. W. A.'Ct.

Peel, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Pemberton, T.

Hope, A.

Pigot, Sir R.

Hornby, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hughes, W. B.

Polhill, F.

Hussey, T.

Pollington, Visct.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Pollock, Sir F.

Jackson, J. D.

Price, R.

Jermyn, Earl

Pringle, A.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Pusey, P.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Johnstone, H.

Rashleigh, W.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Reade, W. M.

1050

Reid, Sir J. R.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Repton, G. W. J.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Richards, R.

Thornhill, G.

Rolleston, Col.

Tollemache, J.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tomline, G.

Round, C. G.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Round, J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Trollope, Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Trotter, J.

Russell, J. D. W.

Tumor, C.

Ryder, hon. G.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Sanderson, R.

Verner, Col.

Sandon, Visct.

Vesey, hon. T.

Scott, hon. F.

Vivian, J. E.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Waddington, H. S.

Seeppard, T.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Shirley, E. J.

Welby, G. E.

Shirley, E. P.

Whitmore, T. C.

Smith, A.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Smyth, Sir H.

Wodehouse, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wood, Col.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Wood, Col. T.

Stanley, Lord

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Stanley, E.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Stewart, J.

Young, J.

Stuart, H.

TELLERS.

Sturt, H. C.

Baring, H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fremantle, Sir. T.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Ainsworth, P.

Craig, W. G.

Aldam, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Anson, hon. Col.

Curteis, H. B.

Bannerman, A.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Barclay, D.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Drax, J. S. W. E.

Barnard, E. G.

Duncan, Visct.

Bell, J.

Duncan, G.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Duncombe, T.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Dundas, Admiral

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Dundas, D.

Bernal, R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Bernal, Capt.

Evans, W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Ferguson, Col.

Blake, M.

Fielden, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Bowring, Dr.

Forster, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Gill, T.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, Lord F.

Browne, R. D.

Granger, T. C.

Browne, hon. W.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G:

Buller, C.

Guest, Sir J.

Buller, E.

Hall, Sir B.

Busfeild, W.

Hastie, A.

Byng, G.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Callaghan, D.

Hayter, W. G.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Heathcoat, J.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Heneage, E.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Heron, Sir R.

Chapman, B.

Hollond, R.

Christie, W. D.

Horsman, E.

Clay, Sir W.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Clements, Visct.

Howard, hn. J. K.

Clive, E. B.

Howard, Lord

Cobden, R,

Howick, Visct.

1051

Hume, J.

Roche, E. B.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

Rumbold, C. E.

Hutt, w.

Russell, Lord J.

James, W.

Russell, Lord E.

Johnstone, A.

Scholefield, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Langston, J. H.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Layard, Capt.

Smith, B.

Leader, J. T.

Smith, rt hn. R. V.

Leveson, Lord

Somers, J. P.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Mangles, R. D.

Stanton, W. H.

Marjoribanks, S.

Stewart, P. M.

Marsland, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Martin, J.

Stuart, W. V.

Mitcalfe, H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Morris, D.

Strutt, E.

Morison, General

Tancred, H. W.

Murphy, F. S.

Thornely, T.

Murray, A.

Traill, G.

Napier, Sir C.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Turner, E.

O'Brien, C.

Villiers, hon. C.

O'Connell, M.

Vivian, J. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

O'Connell, J.

Wakley, T.

Ord, W

Wall, C. B.

Paget, Col.

Watson, W. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Parker, J.

Wemyss, Capt.

Pechell, Capt.

Williams, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Philips, G. R.

Wood, B.

Philips, M.

Wood, C.

Phillpotts, J.

Wood, G. W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Worsley, Lord

Protheroe, E.

Wrightson, W. B.

Pryse, P.

TELLERS.

Redington, T. N.

Hill, Lord M.

Rice, E. R.

Tufnell, H.

Bill read a third time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought up a clause to exempt literary and scientific institutions, from the operation of the tax.
Mr. G. W. Woodsaid, he feared the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would not effect the end desired. He moved to insert the words," or any part of any building."
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the insertion of the words, on the ground that they would open a wide field for fraud.
The House divided on the question, that the proposed words be inserted:—Ayes 96; Noes 199: Majority 103.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bernal, Capt.

Aldam, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Barclay, D.

Brotherton, J.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Bernal, R.

Busfeild, W.

1052

Callaghan, D.

Martin, J.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

Mitcalfe, H.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Morris, D.

Chapman, B.

Murray, A.

Christie, W. D.

Napier, Sir C.

Cobden, R.

O'Brien, C.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

O'Connell, J.

Craig, W. G.

Paget, Col.

Crawford, W. S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Curteis, H. B.

Parker, J.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Pechell, Capt.

Douglas, Sir H.

Philips, G. R.

Duncan, Visct.

Philips, M.

Duncan, G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

Protheroe, E.

Dundas, Admiral

Pryse, P.

Dundas, D.

Pulsford, R.

Ebrington, Visct.

Redington, T. N.

Evans, W.

Ricardo, J L.

Fielden, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Forster, M.

Russell, Lord E.

Gill, T.

Scholefield, J.

Gordon, Lord F.

Shiel, rt. hn. R. L.

Greenaway, C.

Smith, J. A.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Hastie, A.

Stewart, P. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Stuart, Lord J.

Heneage, E.

Stuart, W. V.

Holland, R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Horsham, E.

Strutt, E.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Thornely, T.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Tufnell, H.

Howard, P. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Hume, J.

Wakley, T.

Hutt, W.

Watson, W. H.

James, W.

Wawn, J. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wilshere, W.

Langston, J. H.

Wood, B.

Layard, Capt.

Worsley, Lord

Leveson, Lord

Wrightson, W. B.

Mangles, R. D.

TELLERS.

Marjoribanks, S.

Hill, Lord M.

Marsland, H.

Wood, G. W.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Beresford, Capt.

Acland, T. D.

Bernard, Visct.

A'Court, Capt.

Blackburne, J. J.

Acton, Col.

Blakemore, R.

Allix, J.P.

Bodkin, W. H.

Antrobus, E.

Boldero, H. G.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Botfield, B.

Arkwright, G.

Bramston, T. W.

Ashley, Lord

Broadley, H.

Bagot, hon. W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Bailey, J.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bailey, J. jun.

Buckley, E.

Baillie, Col.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baird, W.

Bunbury, T.

Baldwin, B.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Bankes, G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Campbell, Sir H.

Barneby, J.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Chelsea, Visct.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Chute, W. L. R.

1053

Clayton, R. R.

Jones, Capt.

Clerk, Sir G,

Kemble, H.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Knatchbull, right hon.

Cochran, A.

Sir E.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Knight, H. G.

Collett, W. R.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Colvile, C. R.

Law, hon. C. E.

Compton, H. C.

Lefroy, A.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Courtenay, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Cripps, W.

Lindsay, H. H.

Darby, G.

Litton, E.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Lockhart, W.

Denison, E. B.

Long, W.

Dick, Q.

Lopes, Sir R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lyall, G.

Douglas, J.D. S.

Lygon, hon. General

Duffield, T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Malier, V.

East, J. B.

Mainwaring, T.

Eastnor, Visct.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Eaton, R. J.

March, Earl of

Eliot, Lord

Marsham, Visct.

Escott, B.

Martin, C. W.

Farnham, E. B.

Master, T. W. C.

Fellowes, E.

Masterman, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Meynell, Capt.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Morgan, O.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Morgan, C.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Munday, E. M.

Godson, R.

Neeld, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Neville, R.

Gore, M.

Newport, Visct.

Gore, W. O.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Goring, C.

Northland, Visct.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H

O'Brien, A. S.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Owen, Sir J.

Greenall, P.

Paget, Lord W.

Greene, T.

Pakington, J. S.

Grimsditch, T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Grogan, E.

Peel, J.

Halford, H.

Pemberton, T.

Hamilton, J. H.

Pigot, Sir R.

Hamilton, W. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Polhill, F.

Harcourt, G. G.

Pollington, Visct.

Hardinge, rt. hn, Sir H..

Pollock, Sir F.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Pringle, A.

Henley, J. W.

Rashleigh, W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Reade, W. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Repton, G. W. J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Richards, R.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Rolleston, Col.

Hinde, J. H.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Hodgson, F.

Round, C. G.

Holmes, hon. W. A'Ct.

Round, J.

Hornby, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Hughes, W. B.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Hussey, T.

Sanderson, R.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sandon, Visct.

Jackson, J. D.

Scott, hon. F.

Jermyn, Earl

Sheppard, T

Johnstone, Sir J.

Shirley, E. J.

Johnstone, H.

Shirley, E. P.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G, H

Somerset, Lord G.

1054

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Vesey, hon. T.

Stanley, Lord

Waddington, H. S.

Stewart, J.

Welby, G. E.

Stuart, H.

Whitmore, T. C.

Sturt, H. C.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Williams, T. P.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Wood, Col.

Thompson, Mr. A

Wortley, hon. J. S,

Tomline, G.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Young, J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Trotter, J.

TELLERS.

Tumor, C.

Baring, H.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Other amendments agreed to.
On the question, "that this bill do pass,"
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that he had given notice of his intention, when the report on this bill was brought up, to move a clause to the effect, that the payment of the tax this bill imposed, should not be an essential ingredient for the registration of electors, and he had received a promise, that such a clause should be inserted. He did not, however, see it in the hill, as printed, since the report.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that a clause almost in the words the hon. Gentleman had himself suggested was incorporated in the bill, though it did not appear in the printed copy.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he was perfectly satisfied with that assurance on the part of the right hon.
Gentleman, Bill passed.

CAPTAIN MANBY.
Sir C. Napiermoved, that the petition of Captain Manby, respecting his plan for saving lives from shipwreck, be referred to a select committee.
Sir R. Peelwas afraid, the attention of the House had not been sufficiently attracted to this petition, probably under the impression, that the debate on the third reading of the Property-tax Bill would have occupied more time. It would have been better, he thought, that this petition should have been referred to the Board of Admiralty, before submitting it to a committee of the House of Commons. A public department would, in his opinion, investigate a subject of this nature better and more satisfactorily than a committee could do. The motion ought not to be acceded to with out consideration, because there were various other inventors preferring claims—Mr. Warmer among others—who might desire a similar

1055
indulgence; if this were permitted, and demands to a great extent might thus be made on the public money. Then the secrecy which was described to be necessary by some of these inventors, perhaps, might run some risk before a committee of the House. He did not wish to establish such a precedent in matters of this nature, and he thought, that at any rate it would be better under all the circumstances to postpone the consideration of the motion until another day, but he was inclined to think, that the still better course would be to submit the matter to the Board of Admiralty in the first instance.
Sir G. Cockburnrecommended the withdrawal of the petition.
Mr. Humewished to know, whether the matter had already been under the consideration of the Admiralty? He did not recollect any instance of a committee having been appointed until the proper department had considered the matter.
Captain Pechellthought, the motion ought not to be postponed unless the right hon. Baronet gave an assurance that the matter should be submitted to the Admiralty.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he wanted time to read the petition, and if it should appear to him, on reading it, that any public advantage would result from an investigation of the plan, he should recommend the Board of Admiralty to try the experiment. But he must say, that if the House of Commons was to sanction the principle that experiments of inventions of this kind should be made at the public expense, he hardly knew how far they might involve themselves in expense. Any one who had ever been in a public situation could testify that almost every day three or four letters came to them by the post from inventors stating that they were too poor to institute the necessary experiments, and asking that they might be undertaken at the public charge, a request involving, in many instances, an expenditure of 300 l. or 400 l.
Sir C. Napiersaid, that if the right hon. Baronet would give him an assurance that the plan should be submitted to the proper authorities, he would consent to withdraw the petition.
Sir R. Peelsaid, on looking to the petition, he found, from a paragraph near the commencement, that a part of Captain Manby's plan embraced the improve-
1056
ment of the harbours on the eastern coast by the removal of sand bars, &c. Now, he knew what the improvement of sand bars was, and he really thought that it was necessary that he should go through the petition before they agreed to a motion of this kind. He hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would consent to a postponement, that he might see whether the matter was one which he could refer to the Board of Admiralty.
Sir C. Napierassented.
Debate adjourned to Thursday.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2a. Incumbents Leasing (H. C.)
3a. Roasted Malt; Pentonville Prison.
Received the Royal Assent.—Excise Duties Compounds; Ecclesiastical Residences; Queen's Prison; Dublin Police; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Clerkenwell Improvement.
2a. Tyne Fisheries; Market Harborough and Brampton Roads; Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal; Yate Inclosure; Toxteth Park Paving and Sewerage; Holywell Roads.
3a. and passed:—Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway; Charterhouse Estate; Bristol and Gloucester Railway; Slug Roads; Forth and Clyde Navigation.
Reported.—Sir F. Bathurst's Estate; St. Phillip's Bridge (Bristol); Faversham Navigation; Great North of England Railway; Cwm Celyn and Blaina Iron Company.
Received the Royal Assent.—Saundersfoot Railway; London and Blackwall Railway; Bristol Floating Dock; Ellesmere and Chester Canal; Gosport Pier; Equitable Gas; Kirkintilloch Roads; Aberdeenshire Roads; Huish Champflower Inclosure; Glegg's Divorce; Bates's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Bakers of Newry, against the Practice of Working on the Sabbath.—From Attornies and Solicitors of Bury, for Relief from the Payment of the Certificate Duty.—From William Johnston, for Preventing Railway Travelling on the Sabbath.

ATTACK ON HER MAJESTY—ADDRESS.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: Your Lordships must have heard with sorrow and indignation, the reports circulated of an attempt having been made last evening upon the life of her Majesty. It falls to my lot, on the part of her Majesty's Government, to inform your Lordships that such an attempt was last evening made on her Majesty's life as she was returning in her carriage, accompanied by his Royal Highness the Prince Consort, to her palace of Buckingham House, which attempt, by the blessing of Divine Providence, failed. It was made by a person stationed within a short distance of her Majesty's carriage, who fired a pistol at her Majesty. Her Majesty, as I have stated, by the blessing of Divine Providence, escaped unhurt. The person who committed this act—this atrocious act, I will call it—was immediately taken into custody, and his crime is now undergoing the usual course of legal inquiry, and in due form, he will be brought to justice. I avoid entering into the details of this painful transaction; I confine myself simply to the performance of the duty of stating
996
the fact to your Lordships, and of moving your Lordships to concur in presenting to her Majesty an address of congratulation upon the occasion of this atrocious and treasonable attempt upon the life of her Majesty, which, by the interposition of Divine Providence, was defeated. I will, therefore, now propose, that such an address be agreed to, and I will afterwards move, that it be communicated to the House of Commons in a conference, for the management of which, Members of that House will be appointed. I recommend that the address should be in the following terms:—
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN;
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords spiritual and temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to approach your Majesty's Throne, to express our abhorrence of the late treasonable attempt against your Majesty's sacred person, and our heartfelt congratulations to your Majesty and to our country on your Majesty's happy preservation from the danger to which your Majesty has been exposed. Attached to your Majesty by every sentiment of loyalty, by a sense of the benefits we derive from your Majesty's just and mild Government, we acknowledge with gratitude and humility the merciful interposition of Divine Providence which has been manifested on this occasion; and we make our earnest prayer to Almighty God, that he will confer on your Majesty every blessing, and continue to watch over and guard a life so justly dear to us."
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, I hardly know whether it be excusable in me for a single moment to prevent the adoption of a proceeding which must meet with the universal concurrence of this House; but in the absence of a noble Friend of mine, who I am sure would have been present on this occasion if he had not been at such a distance from London as prevented his becoming apprised of the event to which the attention of your Lordships has been directed, I trust I may be permitted merely to say, that every sentence uttered by the noble Duke on this sorrowful occasion, must find an echo in every one of your Lordships' bosoms. There can be but one feeling; there can be no hesitation; there can scarcely be a thought or the possibility of doubt as to the fit course of proceeding to be adopted; and it is quite a sufficient ground for that proceeding, that the noble Duke has stated a fact of so grave and so melancholy a nature as that which has become but too well known to your Lordships and to the

997
country. It is far from my wish, or my intention in the present stage, to put any further question on the subject to the noble Duke; to ask. for information in the present state of the inquiry would be improper, and if required, it would be most expediently withheld. At the same time, with the feelings I entertain, it is impossible for one to avoid adding a hope, that after giving way to the feeling which prompts your Lordships immediately to go up to the throne, with the expression of the warm and deep sentiments common to us all, you will hereafter feel it your duty as legislators, not to stop here, but when you have contemplated the source, whatever it may be, of this extraordinary crime, to direct your attention, if it can be usefully so bestowed, to the causes which may have led to that which is as great a phenomenon in human nature, if we look to the absence of all motive, as it is the greatest of crimes, if we look to the character of the consequences which might unhappily, but happily did not, follow the attempt. At present, however, there can be but one feeling in the House, and we ought not to lose a moment in recording and giving effect to that feeling. I beg leave, therefore, to second the motion of the noble Duke.
The Duke of Wellingtonmoved, that a committee be appointed to draw up an address to her Majesty.
Lord Portman: My Lords, I beg your Lordships will allow me to interpose for a single moment, in order to state a fact which will tend to increase, if any fact can, the sentiments of gratitude to the Almighty, and of affection and admiration for her Majesty, which we all feel, and are about to express in the address proposed by the noble Duke. Her Majesty, my Lords, relying with full confidence on the protection of the Almighty, to shield her from any danger to which she might be exposed, mindful of the safety of those engaged in her Majesty's service, and probably thinking that the ladies who generally accompany her in her afternoon drives might yesterday run some risk, abstained from commanding the attendance of any of them. Whatever danger was to be encountered, her Majesty seemed to have resolved that no other lady than herself should be exposed to it. As an individual, my Lords, whose nearest and dearest relative is in waiting on her Majesty, and who might, but for her Majesty's magnanimous
998
determination, have on that occasion been placed in a situation of peril, your Lordships will, I hope, think it not unbecoming in me to have mentioned a circumstance which is so truly ennobling to her Majesty, and which must render her still dearer not only to those amongst us whose relatives are in her service, but, I may venture to add, to all her subjects.
Lord Brougham:On the subject of the proposed address there can be but one feeling in doors and out of doors; but I beg to have it distinctly understood that it is my deliberate opinion, in reference to what fell from my noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that the law of England, as it at present stands, is abundantly sufficient to repress such atrocities, and by condign punishment to prevent a repetition of them.
The Marquess of Lansdowne:I did not mean to refer to the necessity of any new legislative enactment, but merely to say that all the circumstances connected with this crime should be minutely probed and made known for the satisfaction of the public mind.
Lord Brougham: I am not to understand my noble Friend, hen, to contemplate any change in the criminal law in consequence of this melancholy and atrocious event.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Certainly not.
The question that a committee be appointed to prepare an address to her Majesty carried, and the committee named, the Peers forming it retired for the purpose of drawing up the address, and the House adjourned during pleasure.
In a few minutes the committee, headed by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, returned to the House, and the Lord Chancellor resumed his seat on the woolsack.
The Duke of Cambridgesaid, that he had been authorised by the committee of their Lordships to propose the address to her Majesty, which was precisely in the terms previously read by the Duke of Wellington.
The Earl of Shaftesburymoved that it be communicated to the House of Commons, as the concurrence of that House desired.
Question carried.
The following noble Lords were appointed to communicate the address in a conference with the Commons:—
The Lord President of the Council; the

999
Lord Privy Seal; the Duke of Richmond; the Duke of Wellington; the Marquess of Lansdowne; the Marquess of Normanby, and the Bishop of London.
Conference held, and
Lord Wharncliffereported, that the Peers appointed had met the managers on behalf of the Commons, and had placed in the hands of Sir Robert Peel the address to the Queen to which their Lordships had agreed.
Shortly afterwards, Sir Robert Peel and others brought up from the Commons the assent of that House to the address voted by the Lords to her Majesty.
On the motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury the joint address was ordered to be presented to her Majesty by the whole House, and that the Lords with white staves wait upon her Majesty to know her Majesty's pleasure when she would receive the address. It was subsequently announced that her Majesty would receive the address at three o'clock on the following day.

THE BISHOP OF CANADA.
Lord Howdensaid, that seeing the right rev. Prelate to whom was officially confided the spiritual welfare of our colonies in his place, he would take the liberty of asking him a question. He would not detain their Lordships long, but he thought that many of their Lordships would be somewhat surprised at the statement which he was going to make, and which appeared to be rather a tradition of the middle ages than an occurrence which had taken place in a British colony hardly a year ago. An officer of rank in her Majesty's army died at Quebec, while he was serving with his regiment in Canada. He was well acquainted with that officer, who was long a brother officer of his, and it was in his power to speak of his irreproachable character and uniformly good conduct. After his decease the officers of his regiment, anxious that, in a distant and he might say a foreign land, some testimonial might remain of their regard to his memory, caused a tablet to be engraven, merely inscribing upon it a few words, stating the circumstances of his death, and the respect and affection of his brother officers, which he carried with him to the grave. This testimonial—a very innocent one he should have thought—being completed, the friends of the deceased wished to place it in the church of the city, and they applied pro formâ to the colonial bishop for leave to do
1000
so. This permission was refused. What were the reasons for refusing it he knew not, but he did think it would be difficult to find any justifiable reason whatever under any possible circumstances for offering insult to the dead. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to the fact that this officer was born of parents belonging to the church of England; he was baptized and brought up according to the rites of that church; he was accustomed to attend divine service with the officers and men of his regiment, and he was not aware that there was any occurrence upon record which could justify any inquisitorial surmise that that gallant officer did not die in that persuasion. He would ask the right rev. Prelate, first of all, whether the statement he had made were correct? and if so, then he would ask whether the conduct of the colonial bishop had met with the confirmation and approval of his spiritual superior at home?
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the noble Lord having had the kindness to communicate to him his intention to ask this question, he was prepared to answer, though he did not admit that a bishop was responsible to their Lordships, much less to any one Member of their Lordships" House, for any regulations he might think fit to establish for the government of his diocese, and the administration of the rites of his church. The noble Lord had fallen into an error in describing him in having the superintendence of the spiritual affairs of the colonies. He had nothing whatever to do with it, except with respect to those colonies which did not enjoy the advantage of episcopal superintendence. The spiritual government of those colonies had been considered to fall upon the Bishop of London; but the province of Canada had its own bishop, and was in no way subject to his jurisdiction, interference, or control. Any communication that might have been made to him by the right rev. prelate of Canada had been made to him merely as a brother prelate, in consequence of personal friendship, and not from any supposed subjection on the part of the Bishop of Quebec to him as his ecclesiastical superior. For any acts of misconduct or abuse, the Bishop of Quebec was answerable to the Primate of all England, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It did so happen that the circumstances of this case had been communicated to him by the right rev. Prelate. With respect to the question of the noble Lord, whe-

1001
ther the circumstances of the case as he had stated them were true, he believed that the noble Lord's statement was strictly in accordance with the truth as to the facts of the case, but not as to the inference drawn from them; because nothing was further from the mind of his right rev. Friend than to offer a gratuitous insult to the memory of any gentleman, or to do anything that should be painful to the feelings of the friends of any deceased person. In August, 1840, and some time before the death of this officer, the Bishop of Quebec, having had for a considerable time the subject under consideration, thought it desirable to establish some new regulations with regard to the permission given thenceforth for the erection of tablets within the walls of the church. This was a matter upon which the Bishop had power to act as he pleased. No person had a common law right to erect a monument in the church without the consent of the bishop. In August, 1840, the bishop addressed to the clergy of his diocese a letter, stating that the question having fallen under his notice, whether it would not be proper to establish certain restrictions in his diocese relative to the admission of monuments to be erected within the walls of the church, he had given the subject the best consideration in his power, and had come to the resolution to adopt two regulations—first, that no monument should be put up within the walls of any church in the diocese, if the inscription thereon was not first approved of by the clergyman who had charge of the spot; and secondly, that the privilege of erecting any such monument should be confined to the case of persons who had been communicants of the church. Shortly after these regulations were made, it unfortunately happened that the gallant Officer, whose case had been introduced to their Lordships, died, and his was the first instance of an application being made for permission to erect a tablet after the regulations had been framed. Thus the bishop had his regulations very soon put to the test, and the right rev. Prelate did not, on the application being made to him, see any reason, looking at the circumstances of the case, to make an exception to those rules in favour of the gallant Officer. This was the simple state of the case, and he was not aware that it was necessary for him to add anything to it. He thought it was not competent for their Lordships to judge from what was the practice in
1002
this country, as to what it was expedient should be done in a province circumstanced like Canada. But it was well known that, even with regard to this country, the right of prohibition was one frequently exercised. Their Lordships all knew that the dean and chapter of Westminster had thought fit to refuse the erection of monuments in memory of certain persons, who, as far as their literary acquirements were concerned, were fit persons to have that honour paid to their memories. The present case was not, therefore, without precedent. But were it so, that would have nothing to do with the question of the bishop's undoubted right to establish such a regulation. If indeed the bishop had, after the death of this officer, framed these regulations with special reference to his case, then there would have been soma ground for censure. He would just advert before sitting down to the circumstance which had led to these regulations. They had been framed in consequence of a tablet having been erected, without the bishop's permission, in memory of a person who was of a notoriously profligate character, and, in consequence of the notice passed upon him by the inscription on that monument, became the subject of painful remark among the members of the congregation. He did not wish to enter more particularly into the case; but if anything should be said to make it necessary, he could adduce the words of the Bishop of Quebec himself in justification of his conduct; but he trusted he had stated enough to show that these regulations were framed by him on good grounds, and that, seeing no peculiar circumstances in the gallant Officer's case, he did not feel himself justified in receding from them.
Lord Howdenhad taken considerable pains to put himself right in respect of the facts of the case, but it often happened, that the greatest efforts to do so failed. He would leave it to their Lordships to decide upon the validity of the explanation given by the right rev. Prelate. He at all events thought their Lordships would agree with him, that these regulations were neither politic, nor perhaps quite in harmony with what was called the mild spirit of the Church of England.
Lord Brougham:I listened with very great interest and with some anxiety to the explanation of the right rev. Prelate, and when I consider the ability of that right rev. Prelate, I can have but one feel-

1003
ing and one opinion with respect to the case which he has defended. The defence was, 1 have no manner of doubt, as powerful as the nature of the case permitted; but that defence, notwithstanding the ability of the right rev. Prelate, appears to me to have been feeble in the extreme. I can only explain that feebleness of defence in such hands from the badness of the case. My Lords, I rejoice that we have not such regulations in this country as the Canadians appear to lie under in their spiritual concerns. I rejoice that St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey are under other and belter—more judicious—more charitable—and more liberal superintendence. I will go into no particulars, but of this 1 am absolutely certain, that if, instead of the most rev. Prelate, (the Archbishop of Canterbury), whose ability, whose admirable judgment, whose constant and charitable forbearance, where forbearance is consistent with his duty—if instead of the right rev. Prelate to whom I am now replying, and who exercises his high functions with all those attributes which I have humbly taken leave to ascribe to his superior, we had had a provincial superintendence of the erection of monuments in St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey, many of those marbles which adorn the inside of those great national structures would not now have been found to grace their walls. And when I advert to the only precedent which the right rev. Prelate has been able to cite on behalf of his absent brother, I must needs add, that that precedent is the very one which ought to have been selected by the Bishop of Quebec in order not to follow it.
The Bishop of Londonhad certainly thought, that the tone he had adopted on this occasion, confining himself, as he had done, simply and strictly to a statement of facts, would have precluded the animadversions which had fallen from the noble and learned Lord. He had thought, and he still was of opinion, that a simple statement of the facts was a sufficient defence of the right rev. Prelate, because those facts showed most clearly, that it was from no want of charity that he had been led to make those regulations, but from what he considered at least to be a due regard to the just interests of the church under his superintendence. He did not hold, that where no personal feel-
1004
ings entered into the conduct of men there any want of charity could be imputed. After what the noble and learned Lord had said, it became an act of justice on his part to go a little farther, and to state, that although he might have considerable difficulty, looking to the circumstances of society in this country at the present moment, in framing regulations in contravention of long-established custom, yet he approved of the conduct of the Bishop of Quebec in making the regulations which had given occasion to this discussion, supposing the circumstances of the case to be such as he had stated them to be. And he must go further still, by saying, that if the noble and learned Lord grounded his attack on the right rev. Prelate upon the unquestionable facility with regard to the monuments erected in our churches, he, on the contrary, looked rather with shame at the fact, and pleaded guilty to the accusation, rather than adopt the fact as a ground of attack upon the right rev. Prelate for not having adopted that course. He thought the regulations of the Bishop of Quebec were more consistent with the spirit and regulations of our Church. He never could go into a church without feeling a sense of shame at seeing monumental inscriptions in memory of persons who, neither by their lives nor their deaths, showed that they valued the high privilege of being members of that Church. In this country he was aware it might be difficult to prevent this practice, but if the Bishop of Quebec thought it possible in what might almost be called a nascent church and an infant congregation, to establish those regulations, he would say that the right rev. Prelate had done it in strict accordance with the legal discipline of the Church, and also in strict accordance with the most genuine Christian charity. It was a violation of Christian charity to extend posthumous religious honours in our churches to those who had lived without God in the world, or to those who had not been baptised in the faith, and been efficient and constant communicants of the Church. He should not have ventured to hold this language had the point in question the least reference to the person in whose memory the tablet was required to be elected. It was a general regulation, and, looking entirely at the principles of our Church, it was a wise and charitable regulation; and he

1005
again insisted upon it, that it was strictly consistent with the policy of our Church, and the dictates of pure Christian charity. Having said thus much, he felt bound to mention one instance which had more immediately led to these regulations, and which, he believed, would have led him under similar circumstances, to have acted as the Bishop of Quebec had done. The right rev. Prelate here read a statement prepared by the Bishop of Quebec, which set forth the case of an officer having had a monument erected to his memory in a church at Montreal, with an inscription stating that this gentleman "had died as he had lived, a gallant soldier and an honourable man," although it was notorious that he had been killed in a duel, arising out of a supposed intrigue with some lady.
Lord Brougham:I hope the right rev. Prelate will forgive me for reminding him, that I made no attack upon him. He rose to defend himself, as I understood him to say, against an attack which I had made upon him. An attack upon the right rev. Prelate! To the utmost of my humble ability, I endeavoured to pronounce a panegyric upon him. I appeal to noble Lords—I appeal to the right rev. Prelate himself, for he heard me—he listened to me—and I venture to say, he does not forget one single word I said—I appeal to the right rev. Prelate himself, whether I did not speak in language diametrically opposite to the very appearance of an attack upon him? To have been told, therefore, that I had made an attack upon him, when, on the contrary, the whole gist of my argument was, that the speech of the right rev. Prelate, with all his talent, having proved insufficient to make out a better case for his absent brother, was to me an absolute demonstration of the badness of that case. However, bad as he first left it, I do not think the right rev. Prelate has mended the case in his reply; but I think he has worsened it, and that most considerably. What is the only instance which he says had given rise to this rule? It is the instance of an officer killed in a duel—in the commission of a great offence; I entirely agree with the right rev. Prelate—a duel arising out of an immorality—[Lord Denman: A suspected immorality.] A suspected immorality in his private life; which observation of my noble Friend, the Lord Chief Justice, induces me to step aside, for one moment,
1006
to enter my protest (and I do it with all humility towards the right rev. Prelate, especially upon such a subject), against the gloss which he has furnished, upon what he called the charity of the Christian religion. "How," says he, "could there be any want of charity, when there was no private or personal feeling upon the matter? "But I have always understood, that charity is that which thinketh no evil, whether of those we know, or of strangers; and now it turns out, that because a man was" suspected" of an immoral course of life, and afterwards fell in a duel, where, undoubtedly, no question can exist, it turns out that it was deemed fit, not to visit him, but to visit the commuunity, and more particularly, the profession to which he belonged, with this general rule—what? that all persons who die in the commission of an unlawful act, shall be excluded from having marbles erected to their memory, within the walls of the cathedral?—that all persons, whose lives are immoral, shall, after their decease, be deprived of the honour of a monument in the cathedral?—that all persons who are even suspected of immorality in private life, shall be excluded? No such thing; a rule of that sort would have some application to the case, and might be supposed to have been drawn from the particular instance cited in its defence. But it is no such rule—it is a rule, that all persons who are not communicants,—whether their lives have been moral or not—whether their lives have been suspected of immorality or not—whether those suspicions of immorality have been grounded or groundless—whether they have fallen in a duel or not, but that those who have been communicants, be their crimes what they may, which led to their death—be their lives as immoral as they may, which preceded their decease—or if they died by a duel the day before, and up to that day were ever so immoral—may all be buried within our cathedrals, and have monuments erected to their memory notwithstanding; and after, and in spite of this rule, drawn from that one instance, and for the purpose of preventing its repetition.
The Bishop of Londonwas not anxious to have the last word, but he wished to observe, that the rule laid down by the Bishop of Quebec, was one which did not impose the invidious task of inquiring into the character of the deceased. He had

1007
taken the simple test, which ought to be the test and broad line—that of living within, or living without the pale of the Church. He must say, as a Minister of that Church, that while, not the rites of religion, but the honours of religion, were refused to those who in their lives refused to comply with its most sacred injunctions, there was no want of Christian charity. The rites of Christian burial were not denied, only the posthumous honour of a monument.
The Earl of Gallowaydid not wish to detract from the force of the observations of the right rev. Prelate, by the admixture of any remarks of his own; neither would he make any remark upon the case mentioned by the noble Lord (Lord Howden), but that it might not go forth, that no one rose to support the views of the right rev. Prelate, he begged to say, at the risk of being deemed uncharitable, a bigot, and an enthusiast, that in his very heart, he concurred in every observation, that had fallen from that right rev. Prelate.
Conversation ended.

NEWGATE REGULATIONS.—SYMPATHY WITH CRIMINALS.
The Marquess of Clanricarde,in rising to move for a copy of the regulations observed in the gaol of Newgate with regard to criminals after condemnation for capital offences, said that he did not pretend to any particular qualification for bringing this case before their Lordship; at the same time, he did not think it necessary to make any apology, because he was about to bring under their Lordships' notice a case which he considered to have been shameful, disgusting, and profane, and one which, if it were allowed to pass without any notice, might well cast a stain upon the manners and condition of the lower orders of society. He wished the subject had been taken up by some right rev. Prelate, because he conceived it was not only an act of justice to our feelings as civilized persons, but that it involved, in a great degree, the profanation of the house of worship, the reprehension of which would come well from such authority. He held in his hand an extract from the Times, of Monday the 23d of May, from which he would read a few passages:—
"Yesterday a great number of respectable persons of both sexes were admitted, by orders from the sheriffs, to the chapel in Newgate, in which the rev. Mr. Carver (the ordinary) read divine service, and preached a sermon adapted
1008
to the awful condition of Daniel Good, who has been ordered to be executed this morning. Before half-past nine o'clock the common door of admission to the gaol was blocked up by the multitude, and at ten o'clock all were accommodated in the most satisfactory manner in the different parts of the chapel allotted to visitors. At about that hour the Lady Mayoress and some of her ladyship's friends entered the governor's pew. The body of the chapel was furnished with benches and chairs by the direction of the governor; so that, although we never recollect to have seen the chapel so numerously attended, every individual in it was provided with a seat. Immediately before the service commenced, the general-mass of the prisoners confined in Newgate entered, and took their seats within the railings on each side of the building, attended by turnkeys, and then Good was led in by two of the officers of the establishment, and placed in a chair in the midst of the congregation by the governor. His appearance indicated extreme mental suffering. He clasped this hands together sometimes, and sometimes he raised them up and pressed them against his breast in great agony, the tears streaming from his eyes whilst he endeavoured to catch a glimpse of some old acquaintance or friend amongst the surrounding multitude. So strong was the expression of horror in his face and demeanour, that a respectable female, who was prompted by the curiosity which will induce even persons of the weakest nerves to witness the 'condemned sermon' once in their lives, shrieked and fainted. The culprit looked with evident anxiety towards the spot from which the alarm proceeded; but, finding that a stranger was the cause of it, he seemed to retire within the awful circle of his own meditations, and to struggle with feelings beyond the power of any human being to describe. The service was interrupted for some moments by this incident, and the Ordinary did not proceed until the lady who had ventured to try the experiment of abiding the presence of so dreadful an offender was carried away from the scene,"
Then came a description of the service and of the conduct of the culprit, which he did not think it necessary to read. The article went on to say,
"During the first part of the service it was considered necessary to give him a glass of cold water, by which he was, or seemed to be, relieved. The Ordinary took his text from the General Epistle of James, chapter 1, verse 15. 'Then when lust hath conceived, it bring eth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bring eth forth death.' With a great deal of power he addressed himself, after many general observations upon the consequences of indulging the passion to which it was acknowledged the convict was the slave, to the miserable wretch himself who was so soon to be separated from kindred and acquaintance in this I world for ever. He called upon the mur-

1009
derer, convicted as that murderer had been upon the clearest testimony, to make an avowal of his guilt, as the only reparation now in his power to offer for the transgression of the laws of his country and of humanity. Good repeated the shake of the head, and the upward motion of the hands and eyes upon being thus solemnly invited to make a salutary confession, in order, no doubt, to impress upon the congregation that his defence was founded in truth; and when the service was concluded he raised up his hands once more, and said, 'Oh! God bless you all.' He was then conducted back to his room. He did not appear in the prison dress, his wish to attend chapel in his own clothes having been complied with."
He could not refrain from expressing the indignation and disgust with which he had read that statement. He was justified in saying that there could hardly be found in the history of barbarous nations, in the records of violence and bloodshed, or in the sacrifices committed in remote ages, an exhibition of a more degrading and disgusting kind than that which this audience had assembled to witness for the mere sake of gratifying a morbid and depraved appetite. In those remote ages, persons assembled merely to witness the physical sufferings of the individual, but here the man was dressed out and brought into this assembly in order that they might witness not his physical, but his mental sufferings. Yet this was an exhibition which was called a numerous assembly of most respectable persons of both sexes. He begged their Lordships to observe that the criminal was not—as he imagined he would have been—put into a closet or pew apart from the congregation, where he might have indulged in his meditations undisturbed by the gaze of those whom morbid curiosity had drawn to the scene. On the contrary, it appeared that the criminal was purposely dressed for the occasion; he was led into the middle of the congregation, to a place where every person had a good view, and where all were accommodated with seats. This was the sort of Sunday pastime which took place in one of the chapels of this metropolis, and over which a Christian minister was called to preside. He did not blame the clergyman—he had a duty to perform, and he was, perhaps, the only individual present for whom pity could be felt. He did not wish to blame any particular person, because he did not know where the blame rested, not being aware what changes had been made in the regu-
1010
lation of the prisons in reference to this point. He had looked into several reports of the inspectors of prisons, but he had found nothing to guide him in the matter. He thought, however, that some notice ought to be taken of the practice, in order to prevent the recurrence of it. In making this motion, he wished to guard himself against being supposed as having any particular sympathy with the unfortunate criminal, or as pronouncing any opinion on the publicity of execution. Not knowing the prison regulations, of course he spoke liable to correction, when he said that he thought the allowing Good to take off the prison dress, and appear in one of his own, was against the spirit of all such regulations. The prison dress was a mark of degradation, and whether it was at the criminal's desire, or against his wish, that it was exchanged for a private dress, in either case the exchange ought not to have been made. The object of granting some delay previous to execution, was to enable the culprit to make his peace with the offended Deity, and to devote some hours or days to receiving the comforts of religion. But if a man was to be visited and brought out and exposed, as the criminal Good had been, how could his thoughts take the direction which it was the end of religious instruction to produce? From the statement which he had read, it would be seen that during the whole time of the service the attention of the criminal was devoted to observing the audience, and the effect produced on them. This was surely contrary to the spirit of the law. The case was different as to executions. He thought the utmost publicity ought to be given to executions; and even this was to be justified only by the belief that such publicity tended to prevent crime by the awe which it inspired. The sheriff, therefore, was perfectly justified in acting acccording to the law, in making executions public, but the law never allowed any church or chapel to be desecrated by an exhibition of the criminal during divine service. He would not trouble their Lordships further on this matter, because he had brought the subject forward merely for information. If any inconvenience should result from granting the information, he would at once withdraw the motion, but he hoped it would be agreed to in order that their Lordships might mark their sense of what bad taken place, so as to prevent the re-

1011
currence of the practice on some future occasion. He begged to move for a copy of the regulations observed in the gaol of Newgate, with regard to criminals after condemnation for capital offences.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that having called the attention of their Lordships to a similar subject four years since, he rose to offer his thanks to the noble Lord for having brought this subject under the consideration of the House. It appeared to him, that the placing of the criminal in the midst of the congregation was a most reprehensible act, and of all means the least calculated to excite the sympathy of those about him; for what man could see an individual criminal, though he might be suffering under all the terrors of a guilty conscience, and not for the moment feel some degree of sympathy for the man, though others might suppose the sympathy was for the criminal. He objected to the practice on another ground. It was wrong to the criminal himself to bring him in, and thus induce him to act a part, to induce him to bring his hypocrisy forward, and to stifle the feelings natural to his situation. It would be far better if he were permitted to remain in a solitary cell, and there to endeavour to make his peace with his Creator. He knew, that his hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would do his utmost to prevent the recurrence of these scenes, but, at the same time, if, on inspection of the person regulations, it should be found, that the Secretary of State has not the power to furnish this, he feared unless some change took place in public opinion that some legislative enactment would be necessary to prevent the recurrence of an exhibition which was wrong to the criminal, and injurious to the public.
Lord Wharncliffeentirely concurred in the opinions expressed by the noble Lord opposite, and he felt exceedingly glad that the subject had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships, because he had to state, as far as Government was concerned, that they had no share in the exhibition alluded to. He agreed with what had been said as to the effect which such a display had on the criminal who was the subject of it, and who was made to pander to the morbid passion of those individuals. He thought that from the moment the person was condemned to death, up to the time of his execution, he ought to be left as much as possible in
1012
solitude; that he ought to have no communication, except with the ministers of religion; and that he should be at liberty to receive the sacrament, but beyond that, he should be kept by himself, and not exposed to the morbid curiosity of those around him.
The Marquess of Normanbymerely rose to confirm what had fallen from his noble Friend who had just sat down, as to the Government having no share in this transaction. It was known to every one who had filled the office of Secretary of State, that the government of the gaol of Newgate was exclusively in the corporation of London, as represented by the sheriff. During the time that he had held the office of Secretary of State, no instance exactly similar to the present one occurred; but he was obliged to interfere in reference to another practice which very improperly prevailed at the time that of making an exhibition of the criminal in the previous stages of his confinement. He was obliged on one or two occasions to send for the sheriff, and represent to him that though he was aware he had no authority to interfere, yet if such practices were continued, he should feel it his duty to call the attention of Parliament to the subject. He was happy to say, that he met with every co operation from the gentleman who at that time filled the office of sheriff, in checking the practice, as long as his authority existed. He hoped that the present motion would not be without its effect on the civic authorities, and that the practices complained of would not be allowed to recur.
The Marquess of Lansdownecould not help joining his voice in this matter. There was one view, in addition to those which had been taken, which he was anxious to impress on the attention of the House. Although it was indispensable, for the sake of example, that executions should be public, still there was no necessity for making public the last few moments of the life of the unhappy individual. These ought to be left to the criminal himself. The notice taken of the criminal when introduced into the crowded chapel could not be a matter of indifference to him; for though to some minds this would be an aggravation of the punishment, yet to others it would prove a source of morbid gratification. He believed that many crimes, particularly in latter years, had been committed, or attempted to be com-

1013
mitted, from a morbid appetite for notoriety, created, in a great measure, by criminals being exhibited to those, he would not say mischievous or wicked, but to those most injudicious persons whose ill-constituted minds could derive a vicious sort of pleasure from such an exhibition. All this tended to create an opinion in the criminal that he was an object of interest; and it was, no doubt, the source, the motive for the committal of some of the most horrid outrages that disgraced humanity in this or in any other country. He trusted something would be done to prevent the recurrence of so disgraceful a practice, and he was glad the noble Lord had brought the question under the consideration of the House, because the present discussion would not, he thought, be without its effect.
Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY TRAVELLING.
Lord Gallowaysaid, he was interrupted last night in presenting the petition which he now held in his hand. It was a petition from Edinburgh against railway travelling on Sunday. In the discussion which had taken place on the subject of Sunday travelling on canals, the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) said he should give the subject his consideration with the view of applying some remedy. He thought the subject of railway travelling on the Sunday equally deserving the attention of Government.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that the answer which he gave the noble Lord who brought forward the motion relating to canal travelling on the Sunday was, that Government could not undertake to introduce any measure on the subject this Session; but that if the noble Lord brought in a bill, he would give him his best assistance. The noble Lord who presented the present petition was not, perhaps, aware that the committee which sat last year on the subject of canal travelling on the Sunday had reference to the boatmen employed on the canals. If they were to put a stop to one sort of Sunday travelling, they would be obliged to stop Sunday travelling of every kind. He knew there was a strong feeling in Scotland against the practice, and perhaps that feeling was founded on praiseworthy motives, but he could not help thinking that it was carried to excess. Government was not prepared to legislate on the subject, because they were not pre-
1014
pared to say to the people of England that Sunday was a day on which no one should be allowed to travel.
Lord Gallowaysaid, that he had given no opinion as to Sunday travelling, but he had felt it to be his duty to present the petition. He was not an advocate for extreme legislation on any subject, more particularly on a subject of this sort, because he did not think it possible to make men religious by act of Parliament.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that having moved for the committee last year on the subject of canal travelling on the Sunday, he drew a clear distinction between travelling on canals and on railroads. In moving for the committee, he stated that no part of it would have reference to railroads, and that no report could be expected from it which would in any way interfere with the perfect freedom of railway travelling on Sunday.
Lord Campbellconcurred in the views taken by the noble Lords opposite. He rejoiced excedingly at the manner in which the Sunday was generally observed in Scotland; but, at the same time, he must say, that he thought the horror expressed in some parts of Scotland against railway travelling on a Sunday was extravagant in the extreme, and had no foundation either in reason or Scripture. He hoped that feeling would subside, and that that country would continue to enjoy the advantages of that rational religion for which it had so long been famed.
Adjourned.