Sitting of 14 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Dean Forest Encroachment; Indemnity; Land Tax Commissioners Names; Night Poaching Prevention.
Reported.—Teachers of Schools (Ireland); 3½ per Cent. Annuities; 3½ per Cent. Annuities (1818); Consolidated Fund (8,000,000 l.).
Private.—1°. Liverpool Fire Prevention; Manchester Stipendiary Magistrates; Manchester Improvement; Manchester Police; Coventry, Lammas, etc. Lands; South Eastern Railway; Leeds and Selby Railway Purchase (No. 2); Maryport and Carlisle Railway; Chester and Holyhead Railway; Eastern Union Railway.
Reported.—Rochdale Gas; Bury Inclosure; Ramsay Inclosure; Lancaster and Carlisle Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Pickford & Co., and others, respecting Conveyance of Goods by Railway.—By Lord Sandon, from Ludlow, and 3 other places, against Union of Sees of St. Asaph ant Liangor,—From Samuel
990
Gordon, complaining of Injuries.—From Thomas Callan, for Increase of Grant for Public Works (Ireland).—By Lord Ossulston, from West Real, and 33 other places, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws.—By Lord Worsley, from Dent, and 3 other places, in favour of the Commons Inclosure Bill.—By Sir W. Clay, from Shoreditch, and Fordingbridge Union, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Borthwick, Mr. Aldam, and Mr. Hardy, from Bristol, for Reduction of Duty on Articles used for Cooper's Work.—From Tunstall, for Remission of Sentence on Joseph Cappur.—By Lord Mahon, from Hertford, for Repeal of Tax on Coals received into the Port of London.—By Mr. Ainsworth, from Boltonle-Moors, for Repeal of Duties on Raw Cotton.—From Penryn, and Falmouth, for the Suppression of Duelling.—From Glasgow University, against Repeal of Statutes imposing Religious Tests upon Professors.

THE CAMDEN TOWN DUEL.
Mr. W. O. Stanleysaid, that with the permission of the House, he wished to correct a misstatement which he had been led into with reference to the unfortunate duel between Lieutenant Munro and Colonel Lynar Fawcett. He then stated that he had heard it reported that on Friday, the day between sending the challenge, and the date of the duel, Lieutenant Munro or his second had consulted some of the officers of his own regiment. Since then he had received a letter from Mrs. Munro, which he would read with the permission of the House:—
"51 Cambridge Terrace, Hyde Park.
"Sir,—Observing in The Times of to-day a letter from yourself regarding the late melancholy duel, reflecting upon any advice offered to my most unfortunate husband from his brother officers, allow me to assure you that not one officer still holding a commission in our regiment was consulted on Friday, and the truth is this—that one officer of thirty years' standing was consulted, likewise a gentleman of much experience in such affairs. This gentleman consulted during the day, a general officer, and Lieutenant Munro consulted three military friends not in his own regiment, who all were of opinion that there was no other course to be adopted but the one he followed.
"I still linger in England to defend my unfortunate husband's case as far as in my power and I again beg to assure you that there is not the slightest blame to be attached to any of the officers of the Royal Horse Guards.
"By publishing this letter in answer to yours of this day, to do justice to the officers of the Blues in this lamentable occurrence, you will greatly oblige,
"Sir, your obedient servant,
"ELIZA MUNRO."
"W. O. Stanley, Esq., M.P."

THE AFFAIRS OF GREECE.
Mr. Cochranerose, pursuant to notice, to move for copy of correspondence, or extracts from correspondence, between Her Majesty's

991
Government and Sir E. Lyons, or the Courts of France and Russia, relative to the Affairs of Greece. He said, that since he had last the honour of calling the attention of the House to the condition of the kingdom of Greece, that country must have acquired fresh claims to their consideration; the occurrences of the last six months had exercised so important an influence upon her destinies, had so strikingly developed the character of the people and the resources which they possessed, that he was sure the House would pardon him for making a few observations upon events of such vast moment to a nation in whose welfare we ought to take the first interest, inasmuch as we were the first to recognise her independent existence. It was because that kingdom was the creation of the three protecting powers—because England had always taken so active a part in promoting her welfare, that he was anxious to learn what course Her Majesty's Government was prepared to adopt in our future diplomatic relations with that country. Prior to the 15th of September last Greece was suffering from all the evils incidental to a petty despotism—the energies of the people were depressed—the internal administration of the country was enfeebled—privileges the most dear to all the inhabitants—her municipal privileges—were trampled under foot—the Constitution so solemnly guaranteed by the protecting powers was denied to them; in the meanwhile, the Executive, blindly relying upon foreign aid and mercenary troops, took no precaution against the coming storm, while those who were best acquainted with the character of the people, who, like the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), had witnessed their gallant exertions, their indomitable perseverance during many years of unparalleled privation, could only anticipate a renewal of those scenes of horror which had already devastated that rich and fertile country. But upon the 15th of September, the people so long depressed—so broken—some thought so dispirited—rose like one man. No act of bloodshed—almost no act of violence—was committed. The Constitution was proclaimed—it was nobly accepted by the King. It was accepted by the Representatives of France and England, who, in this, anticipated the wishes of their respective Governments. And here he trusted he should be permitted to pay what he was sure the House—what he was sure Her Majesty's Government—
992
would consider only a just tribute to the merits of that gallant officer, who was at present Minister at the Court of Greece, appointed by the noble Viscount opposite, and confirmed in that appointment by the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of the Government. That gallant Officer had won golden opinions from all political classes, and he (Mr. Cochrane) was assured from many sources, that it was the common feeling at Athens, that to the able counsels, to the wise and conciliating policy of Sir Edmund Lyons, the country was indebted for seeing many evils averted which threatened it—and to the confirmation of that good understanding between M. Piscatory and himself, without which the future would, indeed, be fraught with danger. But he must appeal in that House against the term revolution, which had been applied to this unanimous expression of the national will. When the Assembly first met, one Deputy rose and said, "Those who make revolutions against the King and the Throne should be prepared to justify them;" but the Assembly replied with one voice, "It is not a revolution—it is not even a reform—we have asserted the truth." He thought that the House would agree with him, that all the circumstances attending this great assertion of principles were calculated to win admiration. The elections took place unaccompanied by any of those acts of violence which he was afraid were not uncommon on similar occasions, even in this country; and with the exception of one slight movement at Athens at the latter end of October, occasioned by some misinterpretation of an order from the Palace, nothing occurred to disturb the public tranquillity. The House should not forget the difficulties with which a constitutional Government so newly organized had to contend. The conflicting views and interests of parties—the small factions which, incapable of public spirit, could not be controlled by public opinion—the very ignorance of those forms which seemed so simple and were so easily understood when the representation of the people had been long established he thought that when all this was fairly considered, they must marvel at the tranquillity which had so universally prevailed, and believe that a nation so capable of appreciating the blessings of good government would be the last to compromise its existence. But there must always be in every state a certain number of individuals to whom anarchy was power, and who dreaded nothing more

993
than the establishment of institutions, with all their guards and securities—such a party existed in Greece. Besides the House would not forget that in that country certain conflicting influences had been always operating. England, France, and Russia, each had their party, and these parties were represented in Greece respectively by MM. Mavrocordato, Coletti, and Metaxa. The Russian was the most powerful, and possessed eighty votes in the chamber—England and France together 102, and the republicans, under M. Riga Palamides, could command forty-five votes. To show the perfect cordiality which prevailed between France and England on the subject of Grecian Affairs, the House, would perhaps, permit him to quote one or two extracts from the despatches of M. Guizot and Lord Aberdeen. Extracts of the former appeared in the Journal des Debats—and M. Guizot said,
"Now that these events are accomplished, it only remains for us to restrain them within due limits, and to regulate their consequences; the King may, perhaps, be tempted, and even among those who have not sustained his cause in the hour of danger, there may be found many who will advise him to adopt a very different course—who will counsel him to withdraw all he has promised, to overthrow all he has accepted; but such conduct we ate profoundly convinced would he as imprudent as it must be considered dishonourable. The King will assuredly have many opportunities of exercising over the future Constitution of the State a legitimate influence—let him employ them without hesitation, without any arrières pensées—let him endeavour to uphold the monarchial rights, and all those conditions which are essential to a constitutional Government. If, on the other hand, King Otho should endeavour to retrace the past, to withdraw the concessions he has made—if he should enter upon a course of hesitation, secrecy, and duplicity—it is then we shall fear for him many trials, more bitter than those which he has experienced, and, for Greece, dangers more fatal than those from which she has escaped. MM. Colletti and Mavrocordato will unite their endeavours to establish a constitution in that country at once free and monarchial, and it is probable that this monarchial Constitution will be owing to the cordial understanding between the two Powers.
Lord Aberdeen writing to Sir E. Lyons, in November 29, said,—
"The King of Bavaria is desirous that the royal power should be established on a solid basis, so that the democratic principle should not be unduly extended; and that all unjust attempts against the throne should be averted. The French Ambassador concurs with us upon
994
those principles, without which the Government of his Majesty cannot possibly establish a constitutional government, which will possess the elements of power and duration. It is the duty of the protecting Powers to watch over the progress and the fulfilment of the constitution. * * * This is, therefore, the manner in which her Majesty's Government desire that you, in conjunction with that of France, induce the leaders of the Greek nation to adopt that course which all men regard as the only sure means of confirming the new state of things; but at the same time you will miss no opportunity of impressing upon the King the necessity not merely of fulfilling his promises to the people, but also of avoiding every act and expression which could awaken a suspicion in the minds of his subjects; inevitable mischief would result from such conduct. On the other hand, you will use all your endeavours to prove the mischievous theories of the extension of democratic principles."
It was, however, much to be lamented that Russia had never fairly accepted the revolution which had been accomplished, and that M. Metaxa, who represented the interests of that country, had latterly thrown some obstacles in the way of MM. Mavrocordato and Colletti. His object was, to direct the attention of Her Majesty's Government to some articles of the proposed constitution adopted by the State, but not yet ratified by tile King, which, he much feared, would, if ratified, be fatal to the stability of the Throne, and the prosperity of the country. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government meant to support the ratification. What did Greece require? A free constitution capable of aiding the natural developement of her resources—of securing the rights of her citizens—of putting a check upon the caprices of her rulers—for this the events of the 15th of September were accomplished. And they had been most loyally and frankly accepted by the King. Would Greece now leave the straight path into which she had entered? He trusted, he believed not—but for this what was required? Above all else, a Senate, if not hereditary, at least, nominated for life by the King, as a natural counterpoise to the Chamber, elected by the people. The Assembly might well be accused of want of due reflection, if, with the example of France and England before their eyes, and surrounded by governments purely monarchical, they should not be contented with the same amount of liberty as reigned in the constitutional governments of Europe. He would now merely glance at

995
those articles of the constitution which had been adopted by the Assembly, but which he fondly trusted the good sense of the people would prevent their insisting upon. The 39th Article of the proposed constitution enacted that each successor to the throne of Greece, must be a member of the Greek Church. Now this was to fly in the face of the allied Powers, and to act in direct violation of the original Treaty, by which the throne was vested—in the event of failure of direct heirs, to the present King—in the house of Bavaria; and this would include his Majesty's brother, who was a Roman Catholic, and on whom the throne was entailed. Besides, it was directly opposed to the 37th Article of their own constitution, which reproduced the 8th Article of the Treaty in 1832, relative to the succession. He regretted much to see, by the papers which had arrived yesterday, that this 39th Article was adopted unanimously. But he did think the Assembly should be satisfied with an engagement from the King for himself and his children, and merely express the national wish that his successors should be members of the Greek Church. The 34th Article voted the Civil List for ten years only. But the 71st Article was the most objectionable of any, by which the Senate was nominated for ten years; and this was directly opposed to the opinion of France and England, and, if ratified, must infallibly sow the seeds of constant agitation and intrigue, and of anarchy, in that country. There were several other points of minor importance, but with these he would not trouble the House; the confirmation of the articles he had cited must prove fatal to the stability of the Government, and without such stability there could be no prospect of the revival of prosperity. He thought, therefore, that it was incumbent upon the allied Powers to urge, in the strongest manner, upon the National Assembly the danger of the course into which they were rushing. The circumstances of the Greek nation having obtained a constitution for themselves did not place them beyond the protection of the three Powers. This nation was only in the position it should have occupied in 1832, and it would be a most unjust policy in us not to use all our exertions to prevent a settlement which must lead ultimately to acts of outrage and violence. Any feeling in the Assembly opposed to a fair constitution, by which the legitimate powers were to be obtained for each part of the State, was
996
the more to be lamented, from the circumstance that his Majesty had since the 15th of September in no degree been wanting to the State. When he had the honour of seeing Prince Wallerstein in Paris, the Prince assured him that both his Majesty, King Otho, as well as the King of Bavaria, were resolved to fulfil the conditions entered into on the 15th of September, and honestly and cordially admit the new order of things. In answer to the address presented to his Majesty by the National Assembly, his Majesty thus expressed himself:—
"I receive with much pleasure this address. The assurance which it conveys to me, that my own sentiments are in accordance with yours gives me the deepest satisfaction. In this manner we shall happily accomplish the great work of giving a constitutional government to Greece, and thus I do not doubt that we all understand the 15th of September."
It was not towards a Sovereign, who, whatever his previous faults, had now acted with so much honesty, that the nation should be wanting in reliance and faith. He did not believe his Majesty would fail in his duty. He would feign trust the Assembly would not fail in theirs; but it would be necessary for all who really had the welfare of their country at heart, boldly to follow enlightened patriotic men like M. Mavrocordato and Colletti. There were some, he feared, who supported the new Government, but were too much disposed to await events and see what course the world would take. But it was with the State as it was with religion—"He that is not with me is against me." Before he sat down, perhaps the House would permit him to make one comment upon some remarks which had fallen a few nights previously from the hon. Member for Pontefract. The hon. Member had accused him of inconsistency, because he advocated at one and the same time principles of legitimacy in old countries, and a constitutional Government in Greece. Inconsistency was a strange charge for the hon. Member to bring against any man—but in his case it was absurd. What! because he clung to hereditary descent, because he did not believe in the doctrine that kings ruled by the will of the people. In the first place, from a religious feeling; secondly, because he thought the principle of legitimacy was not only a security for our peace and happiness, but also secured us in our constitutional privileges. Nay, more; though he believed a despotism the govern-

997
ment best adapted to Russia, was he, on that account, blind to the fact that a republicanism was suited to America? Was he, on that account, incapable of appreciating the vast blessings of constitutional government? and was he to be accused of inconsistency because he would vindicate our national faith by obtaining such privileges for Greece? and thus fulfil the conditions entered into with that country when she accepted King Otho? They must remember, that institutions adapted for one country, another was not ripe for; another, perhaps, too ripe; and he was but a shallow reasoner who would apply the same principles to all nations and to all climes. We could but use our best endeavours to obtain that great end, for which each citizen sacrificed a part of his national liberty. We must scatter in his path as many flowers as we could gather, so that he might rind, in the happiness and the enjoyment of life, some consolation for the shortness of its duration. Might it be thus with Greece! In this spirit he had again ventured to bring her case before the consideration of the House, which he trusted would sympathise with him in the expression of his warm congratulations for the past, and in the fond anticipations with which he regarded the future. The hon. Member concluded by reading the terms of his Motion as stated above.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Gentleman's Motion was, "for correspondence, or extracts of any correspondence, between Her Majesty's Government and Sir Edmund Lyons, or the Courts of France and Russia, relative to the recent events in Greece." With that Motion he was not prepared substantially to disagree; but he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would permit Her Majesty's Government to exercise a very large discretion in withholding such portions of the correspondence, which, as responsible Ministers of the Crown, they might think it advisable, for the interests of the State, and from the duties they had to perform, not to produce. The question of the principle and details of the constitution of Greece was at present under discussion by the constituted authorities of that country; and the Government of England had united with that of France in offering some advice upon the general principles connected with the formation of such a constitution. He thought the House and the hon. Gentleman would give the two
998
Governments credit, at least for good intentions, when he said that those instructions and that advice had been influenced by the purest motives and the sincerest wishes to establish in Greece a popular representative and constitutional government, combined, at the same time, with such institutions as should secure the existence of a limited monarchy. He thought that the correspondence which he meant to lay before the House would fully prove the truth of this assertion. But he should feel exceedingly unwilling to lay before the House at present any correspondence with regard to the details which are now under consideration. He thought we ought to be very cautious how we dictated to a free people any thing with reference to their government. He thought that the mode in which the National Assembly and the constituted authorities of Greece were proceeding, was calculated to inspire and was deserving, of public confidence, and that we could better depend on those institutions which might be established by their own free-will, after full deliberation, and free discussion—he thought that institutions so established would be more likely to be permanent than if they should appear to have been unduly influenced by the dictation, or even the advice of foreign powers. He would mention one single circumstance to show how important it was for him, in the position in which he stood, not to be premature in offering opinions or communicating papers with respect to the matters, now under discussion in Greece. If the hon. Gentleman had at four o'clock to-day, (it was a little after five when Sir R. Peel said this) asked him what was the decision of the National Assembly of Greece as to one of the points under discussion, namely, the duration of the tenure of office by members of the Council, he should not have been able to inform him. He was now, however, able to say, that accounts had been received from Greece in the course of the present day reporting the result of the discussion on that measure. A division had taken place upon it, in which the number were equal, ninety-eight being for the limitation to ten years, and ninety-eight for its extension during life. Another division however, was expected on the next day, which might have a material bearing on the question. Now, he thought the House would see, that while this subject was abso-

999
lutely under the consideration of the constituted authorities of Greece, it would be extremely unwise for the British House of Commons to enter into any debate or discussion upon it. He, therefore, deprecated the continuance of the discussion on the present occasion; there would be plenty of opportunities for free discussion and the free expression of opinion, without prejudicing the subject by a premature consideration of it. As he had before said, he would be happy to give the hon. Member the communications made at the commencement of the proceedings—communications which he was satisfied would show the dispositions of the British and French Governments, and satisfy the House that they had done that which was becoming in them, and calculated to induce the constituted authorities in Greece to secure the blessings of free institutions, together with a limited monarchy. With respect to what the hon. Gentleman had said on the subject of the loan, he (Sir R. Peel) must be excused for at present declining to answer. Whatever might have been felt at one time as to the expediency of insisting on the repayment of the loan, he felt that the House would agree with him that those considerations would not apply to a people who were passing through such a crisis in their affairs as that which was taking place in Greece, and he trusted the House would rest assured that every attempt would be made, on the part of the Government, to reconcile the duty which they owed to this country as the guardians of the public purse, with what they felt due to a country placed in such a position as that which Greece now occupied. In conclusion, he begged to inform the hon. Gentleman, that in the course of a week or ten days he would be prepared to lay on the Table such portions of the public correspondence on the subject of Greece as it would be consistent with his duty to give.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that undoubtedly the answer of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridport was more encouraging and satisfactory than the state of the Treasury Benches when the hon. Gentleman began his speech would have led the House to expect. [Sir R. Peel: How so?] Because there was nobody present on those Benches. But he thought, under the circumstances,
1000
that the statement of the right hon. Baronet was satisfactory in regard to the Motion. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give the papers asked for by the hon. Gentleman, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was justified in claiming to exercise a discretion as to the selection which he should make of Papers forming part of a correspondence still going on, and involving points of great delicacy, affecting the feelings of another and an independent nation, in regard to the details of the constitution they had under deliberation. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would give as large a selection from the correspondence as he could consistently with the present position of the affair, and the feelings of the people of Greece in regard to it. He concurred with the hon. Member for Bridport that the change which had lately taken place in Greece did not amount to a revolution, but was only a measure taken for the assertion and maintenance of rights which had been conceded to the Greek nation by Treaty; therefore, the manifestation made by the Greek nation, could not with propriety be called a revolution. Their conduct during that event, in his opinion, did them the highest honour. Persons had been in the habit of saying that the Greeks had been so many centuries under slavery and oppression, that they were not yet fitted for the enjoyment of a constitutional form of government. The event had proved how undeserving they were of that opinion. Greece had by her acts given a convincing disproof to such notions, and had afforded an evidence of the soundness of the position that all nations were fitted for the enjoyment of a constitutional Government if it were given to them; and for his part he believed that if any nation should be found not fit for constitutional Government, the best way to fit such nation for it would be to give it them; but if nations were to wait until the enemies of popular institutions pronounced them fitted to receive them, he feared they would have to wait long enough. Nothing could be more honourable to the Greek nation than the mode in which they had brought about the establishment of their constitution; and he thought, also, that the conduct of the King of Greece, during this trying state of things, had been infinitely honourable to him. Many people had thought, knowing the repugnance which he had evinced to a popular constitution,

1001
that His Majesty would have endeavoured to have escaped from the practical adoption of that constitution which had been forced upon him; but, on the contrary, he appeared to have acted throughout with the utmost sincerity and good faith in so fulfilling the engagements which he had entered into with the Greek nation in September last. He sincerely hoped, that both His Majesty and the Greek people would continue to follow up what was then done in the same spirit. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that great delicacy and discretion ought to be exercised by the Governments of France and England in any advice they might think it right to offer to the Greek nation in regard to the details of their constitution. Although he admitted that they might advise, yet the utmost forbearance in advising ought to be shown. But he agreed with the hon. Member for Bridport, that the attention of those Governments ought to be directed to that article in the Greek constitution which provided that the Sovereign should be of the Greek religion. It was settled by the Treaty of 1832, that if the succession should fail in the line of King Otho, the Crown should pass to his younger brother Leopold, and to his male descendants. Now, these princes would of course be of the Catholic religion, and, therefore, this article of the constitution would, in such a case, become incompatible with the Treaty of 1832. He trusted he should not be told that this incompatibility might be got over by the adoption of the Greek religion by the Catholic successor to the Throne of Greece. He trusted that neither England, nor France, nor the Greek people, would expect that a person brought up in one religion, should change it merely to mount a throne. Upon this ground it would be inconsistent with the treaties by which the succession to the Throne of Greece was regulated to ratify that article of the constitution. But there was another objection to this article, collateral and contingent; for if all the branches of the House of Bavaria should fail, and if that article which required the Sovereign to be of the Greek Church should remain in force, where would the Greeks be obliged to go to find a successor to the Throne? They would be driven to the Royal Family of Russia, one of the three parties to the alliance by which the independence of Greece was established and it was a fundamental condition of that alliance that neither of the three Royal Families should
1002
give a sovereign to the Throne of that country. It was one of the fundamental principles upon which the union of the three contracting parties was based, that Greece should be made independent of all and each of these three Powers; therefore it was another objection to this article of the constitution, that it would in a possible contingency drive the Greeks to choose a successor from the Family of one of the contracting parties to the Treaty. He trusted, therefore, the Governments of England and France would use the influence they were entitled to exercise to obtain a modification, of this article. He was glad to hear the testimony that had been borne by the hon. Member for Bridport to the conduct of that distinguished officer and diplomatist, Sir Edmund Lyons. Throughout all the transactions in which that officer had been engaged in Greece, his conduct had been equally honourable to himself and advantageous to the country. He felt particularly gratified at this, because that gallant officer had been appointed to this diplomatic post by the Government to which he had had the honour to belong, and they had appointed him, he was aware, under considerable responsibility. Though Sir E. Lyons had previously distinguished himself as an able naval officer, he had never before been engaged in the diplomatic service. He was glad that the result of that appointment had justified the opinion of the Government as to the gallant officer's abilities, and that he had acted not only to the satisfaction of the Government which had appointed him, but also to that of their successors. In conclusion, he could only again say that be was glad that the right hon. Baronet had agreed to give the papers moved for, and he thought that the hon. Member would exercise a sound discretion in leaving the Government to make such a fair selection as they considered might be presented to the House, without detriment to the interests of the public service.
Sir R. Peelbegged, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, to say a few words in explanation. He trusted that the House would not draw any inference from his silence on particular points of the Greek constitution. The religion of the successor to the throne of that country was a point that had not escaped the attention of the Government. It. had occupied its full consideration, but he believed the noble Lord would concur with

1003
him in considering it to be one of those points upon which it would be unwise to enter into a discussion at the present moment. He was sorry that he had not been present at the commencement of the speech of the hon. Member for Bridport, or he should have been happy to have borne his testimony to the admirable conduct of Sir Edmund Lyons, in the important duties which had been entrusted to him. The noble Lord took credit to himself, and justly so, for the appointment of Sir Edmund Lyons; but he hoped that the noble Lord would admit that the present Government was entitled to some credit for having retained in office that gallant officer, and reposed in him that full and entire confidence to which he was entitled. It was an honour to the profession to which he belonged that the gallant officer had discharged his duties with such discretion, fidelity, and ability.
Sir Howard Douglasentirely concurred with his right hon. Friend, the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government, that it was extremely unwise for the British House of Commons to enter into any debate or discussion upon the details of the proposed Constitution of Greece, whilst that subject was under the consideration of the constituted authorities of that kingdom; and, though possessed of ample materials, he (Sir H. Douglas) would reserve himself for future discussions upon the affairs of Greece, and abstain from giving any opinion in detail as to the merits and tendencies of the new Constitution, until it shall have been completed. All he would say in the mean time was, that he entertained no very favourable expectations of a wholesome result from a movement which had commenced with one of those military pronunciementos of which we have lately heard so much, and which have produced such disastrous effects elsewhere. He (Sir H. Douglas) would therefore confine his observations to one most important, and most decisive circumstance, which entirely forbade every expectation that the present movement in Greece would effectuate what the Greek people fought for in their revolution, and which the whole civilized world desired they might accomplish, namely, their entire and absolute independence, spiritual as well as temporal. He (Sir H. Douglas) concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton in the opinion he expressed, and the apprehensions he entertained, as to the probable
1004
consequences of that article of the Greek Constitution, which provided that all future sovereigns of Greece should be of the Greek religion. But the noble Lord did not refer his objections to what was, in fact, a primary and a decisive step in that direction, leading inevitably to the result which, in the event of King Otho having no children, the noble Lord had indicated; and which, taken altogether, he (Sir H. Douglas) had a very strong impression exhibited what the main spring was, of the action of those, who had been mainly instrumental in bringing about the late movement at Athens. The great object of the Greek people in their memorable revolution, and for the accomplishment of which the civilized world felt most anxious for their success, was, that they might not only acquire political independence, but their complete spiritual separation from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This was accordingly provided for, at the elevation of King Otho to the throne of Greece, by solemn acts, copies of which he (Sir H. Douglas) held in his hand, namely, Protocols of the meetings of the Prelates, convoked at Nauplia, for the purpose of declaring the entire independence of the Church of Greece; and a solemn act, decree, and proclamation, of the entire independence of the Hellenic Church, the first article of which declares, that the Orthodox Eastern Apostolic Church of the Kingdom of Greece acknowledge no Spiritual Head, but the Founder of the Christian faith, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Now the second article of the proposed Constitution, rescinds that declaratory act, so far as to declare, that the Greek Church, instead of acknowledging no Spiritual Head but our Saviour Jesus Christ, is inseparably united with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople. The noble Lord must be well aware of the serious inconvenience and dangers that have resulted, and must result from the Spiritual influence of the Patriarch of Constantinople, in connection with certain temporal Powers, extending over and interfering with the internal affairs of independent states. When the Ionian Islands came under British protection, it was a great omission not to separate the Ionian Church from the Spiritual Dominion of the Patriarch of Constantinople, as effected with respect to Greece, by the documents to which he (Sir H. Douglas) had referred. And he would prove the dangers that must result to Greece from the alteration now proposed, according to the new Greek Constitution, by adverting to the serious and

1005
dangerous interferences of the late Patriarch of Constantinople with the internal affairs of the Ionian Islands, and the obstructions thus interposed to the improvements and ameliorations in the laws and internal affairs of the Ionian Islands, proceeding under British Administration. So dangerous did the intrigues of the Patriarch become, from the exercise of this spiritual influence, under that of the temporal Powers with which it was connected, that the noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, found it absolutely necessary to instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, a noble and distinguished personage, of whom he (Sir H. Douglas) would speak in terms of the highest respect and regard, and with a strong sense of the ability and vigour of that noble Lord's conduct, to demand the deposition of the Patriarch, as the only way of averting the very serious evils that must have ensued, had that influence not been effectually counteracted. So, unquestionably, will it be, if that influence does not remain effectually excluded from interfering in the affairs of Greece. And he would fearlessly say, that all the blood which has been shed in the cause of Greek freedom, will have been shed in vain; all the expectations entertained by the British people in particular—all the great objects of the Powers which mainly brought about the independence of Greece, will be disappointed, if the Church of Greece he restored, in any degree, to spiritual subjection to the Patriarch of the Turkish capital. The noble Lord had clearly pointed out what would happen, in the event of King Otho dying without an heir, or the Crown becoming vacant. The proposed Constitution provides another vehicle for facilitating this, by the article, which, in such events, makes the monarchy elective; and, as the noble Lord has well said, there is but one royal family, from which a Prince could be selected, in whose person and persuasions all these foreboding Articles, relating to religion, in the new Constitution, may be accomplished.
Sir R. H. Ingliscertainly thought it was desirable, that the Church of Greece should be entirely independent; but he did not think it was convenient that the House should discuss the details of the Greek constitution at a moment when they were under deliberation by the constituted authorities in that country, He could not agree with the noble Lord the Member for
1006
Tiverton, in the sweeping proposition which he had enunciated, that in any country whatever, even China or Japan, it was only necessary to introduce free institutions in order to fit the people for their enjoyment. He thought this was a proposition which, coming from the authority which it did, should not be tacitly assented to by the House. He thought, that without previous cultivation and preparation, the sudden introduction of free institutions amongst nations generally would only lead to increased barbarism, and eventually to actual anarchy. With respect to the appointment of Sir Edmund Lyons, looking at the conduct of that gallant officer, which had been most excellent throughout, he was prepared to say that no appointment had ever been made by the noble Lord which was so wholly unobjectionable. In his opinion, Sir Edmund Lyons was entitled to represent England and its interests, not only on account of the diplomatic abilities which he had displayed, but from his having throughout united the high character of an English gentleman with that of an eminent officer. The noble Lord had said that Greece was entitled to claim a constitution. More than that, the King himself had ten years ago promised to give a constitution, and it was by virtue of that pledge he continued to govern that fine and glorious country. Yet he believed that a grosser system of tyranny had been exercised in that country during those ten years than in any other country in Europe for a century. He would not stop to inquire whether what had happened on the 15th of September were worthy of the name of a revolution, but it was of such a nature as to recommend anything even bearing that name to him. He could not go along with his gallant Friend near him (Sir H. Douglas) in saying that it was merely a military movement. He believed the revolution was prepared by the scarcely endurable despotism of the King, and that the soldiers shared, but did not lead the feeling of the country.
Sir H. Douglasexplained, that what he said was, that the movement in Greece, commenced with a military pronunciemento; and he thought no good could come of that. The gallant General concurred most cordially, in the respect and esteem, in which Sir Edmund Lyons was most deservedly held.
Mr. Cochrane,in reply, said that he did not for a moment imagine that the absence of the right hon. Gentleman at

1007
the commencement of his observations had arisen from any disregard of the interests of Greece; but he at the same time regretted that the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the whole of his speech, as there were some other points which he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have replied to. But, at all events, he was delighted to find that the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to that article of the Constitution which referred to the religion of the successors to the throne of Greece, and also that he bore such ample and honourable testimony to the ability of Sir E. Lyons, who, he believed had not once left Athens since his appointment by the noble Viscount, now nearly ten years since. The gallant Officer behind him (Sir H. Douglas) had called this a military movement in Greece. It was, on the contrary, the unanimous movement of a free people. As for what the gallant Officer said about waiting for the ratification of the Constitution by the King—however valuable the gallant Officer's opinion might be—it would never be too late for him to give it. He regretted his right hon. Friend near him (Sir R. Inglis) had alluded to the King's past conduct, Whatever that might have been, he had behaved admirably since he had accepted the Constitution. As for the loan, he thought every possible delay should be given to the nation under the circumstances of the case. He did not think it necessary to divide for the papers, as the right hon. Gentleman had promised to exercise a large discretion. He trusted the term "large" applied to the number of the papers which were to be laid on the Table.
Motion, as qualified by Sir It. Peel, agreed to.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION IN THE LEVANT.
Mr. Monckton Milnesrose pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the present state of Criminal Jurisdiction over British subjects within the dominions of the Porte. Within these dominions a considerable number of British subjects resided; Maltese and Ionians principally, and a few Englishmen. The Maltese being totally dependent on the coasting trade they carried on with the Levant and the opposite coast of Africa, the consequence was that many of them had settled in and formed a large portion of the population, of Smyrna, Beyrout, Constantinople,
1008
Tunis, Tripoli, and Alexandria. There were no means of calculating accurately the number of Franks resident in those places; but he believed he was not overstating the fact when he said that in Alexandria alone there were 2,000 Maltese British subjects; 2,000 in Constantinople, and 1,500 in Smyrna; and such was the anomalous state of the law, that murder or any other crime might be committed by any of these people almost with impunity, for there were no means of bringing them to punishment. We had, in fact, thrown this large number of British subjects into the dominions of the Porte without providing any consular code of laws for their government, and for the punishment of crime. It might be supposed they were subject to the laws of the country in which they resided, but that was not the case, and certainly when they remembered that the Turkish law was almost purely ecclesiastical, and regulated by the Koran, it would be most unfair and unjust to commit Christian settlers to its jurisdiction. Accordingly from the time of Charlemagne downwards, in every treaty entered into with the Porte and Christian countries, it had been expressly provided that the Christian subjects of those countries should be independent of the Turkish law; and in all our treaties with the Porte we had insisted on the abstraction of our subjects from the jurisdiction of the Turkish tribunals. But though we had insisted upon this, and on vesting in criminal cases the whole jurisdiction in the Consul of the Christian nation to which the Christian criminal belonged, strange to say we had left our own Consul without the power of taking cognizance of such crimes. On the contrary, when the Consuls had exercised some authority, and imprisoned refractory seamen, they were threatened with proceedings in this country for false imprisonment. And in some instances these Consuls felt it necessary to remain voluntary exiles from their country, fearing the liability which, for having interfered to repress or punish crime in British subjects residing in their respective consulates, they were subject by the law as it now stood. He would state an instance of the defective state of the law. A very atrocious murder had been committed at Smyrna by a Maltese upon a Dutch woman. Application was made to the British Consul to bring the criminal to justice, and he wrote to the Foreign Office for instructions. The case was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and they reported that, as the law

1009
stood, the only mode of dealing with the culprit was to send him to England to be tried at the Central Criminal Court. To do this, it was necessary not only to bring the guilty party, but several witnesses to substantiate the case against him; and the House would see that to bring that man to trial for his offence, must have cost a very large sum to the country. Again, in the case of any injury being inflicted by an Englishman on a Turkish subject—though, according to the letter of the stipulations of certain treaties, he might be given up to be judged by the Ottoman courts, those stipulations were overruled in practice, and under no circumstances of criminal cases were English subjects submitted to the jurisdiction of the Ottoman courts, at least in the countries immediately under the jurisdiction of the Sultan. For a long period this was the anomalous position of the law; but in the course of the last Session of Parliament a Bill had been passed which gave to the Government full powers of remedying the evil, if they chose. He alluded to the Foreign Jurisdiction Bill. Lord Aberdeen, in writing to the Consuls in the Levant in reference to that Bill, informed them that by it they were relieved from those consequences in this country, on account of acts done by them in imprisoning refractory seamen, to which they had been previously subject; but giving no instructions—no suggestions to govern them as to the future, and providing no remedy for those great evils which he had described. He would mention another case as showing the insufficiency of the powers with which the Consuls were vested, in regard to lesser criminal matters. Mr. Larkin, the Consul at Alexandria, had informed him that on his return to that place, after a short absence, he found that one of his servants, a Maltese, had during his absence sold all his wine and plate. The man had not absconded, and upon being threatened, told Mr. Larkin that he knew very well that he could do no more than get the consul to imprison him for a week or two below in his dining-room. As he had said, the Government, knowing the necessity of the case, obtained a Bill from Parliament last year, and had subsequently issued an Order in Council informing the authorities that that Bill had passed, but they had taken no steps to carry out the objects in view, and had left an evil, which was a disgrace to any Christian country, precisely in the state in which they had found it. Under these
1010
circumstances he felt it to be his duty to move an Address to the Crown upon the subject, and he hoped the House would show its sense of the evil, and its conviction that a remedy should be applied without delay, by agreeing to the Motion with which he would now conclude—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty representing to Her Majesty the present anomalous state of Criminal Jurisdiction over British subjects within the dominions of the Porte, and praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to establish with as little delay as possible, some such Jurisdiction as shall protect the lives and property of Her Subjects in those countries, and remedy the lawless disorder resulting from the absence of any such Jurisdiction."
Mr. G. W. Hopesaid, as he had brought in the Bill to which his hon. Friend had referred, perhaps he should be the best able to reply to his observations. He concurred with his hon. Friend as to the evils which had formerly existed, but those evils the Bill of last year had been brought forward to remedy. His hon. Friend had not noticed the fact that, notwithstanding the complexity of the Maltese law, there was yet a jurisdiction which could take cognizance of criminal acts, known by the name of the Custom of the Levant. That custom had been for a long time in operation in the East; it was known and recognised. The only doubt was as to its legality—and that custom had been legalised by the Bill of last year, and by the Orders in Council which, in consequence of that Act, were issued on the 2nd of October. That Custom in future would be legalised by the Order in Council, so that this branch of the complaint was completely met. The next complaint was, the expense incurred in bringing criminals here, the necessity of obtaining voluntary witnesses, and of paying their expenses; and his hon. Friend, alluding to a particular case, asked why provision had not been made for trying that criminal at Malta? But no such provision could have appeared necessary till the case arose. And when his hon. Friend asked what was legalised, his answer was, that what was legalised was well known, and it might as well be asked of him what was the common law of England. The code of the Levant was a similar code to the common law code of England; and it did not follow that because it could not be strictly defined here, that those who were accustomed to administer it did not understand it. It extended not only to civil but

1011
to criminal cases, and came daily before the Consuls abroad. His hon. Friend did not see why this law should not have been codified, and why the full machinery of Government should not have been put into play to carry it out, as soon as the Act to which he had referred passed. But the fact was, that questions of great technical difficulty had arisen—questions which had been referred to the law officers of successive Governments,—and there was the greatest difficulty in reconciling the maintenance of the liberties of British subjects, combined with a due control over their excesses and their crimes in all parts of the world, with the very summary jurisdiction exercised by the Oriental and despotic States, and by some barbarous nations; and the only way occasionally to deal with it appeared to be to place the parties under the absolute control of the Representative of the Crown. The powers of the Consuls and the powers which the House had entrusted to the Government must be exercised with the greatest responsibility. It would be extremely difficult for that House to legislate on the question—it was equally difficult for the Government then to issue Orders in Council which were to stand in the place of legislation; and until Parliament had lately granted very extensive powers to the Crown, it was difficult to take any step at all. After obtaining those powers, before hastily and in ignorance proceeding to legislate, it was requisite to obtain a full statement of the laws and customs prevailing in the various parts of the world which would be affected by that Act. His hon. Friend complained that no legislation had taken place; but he did not, and could not, complain that the materials necessary to found that legislation had not been asked for. The Government had taken the only safe step, by requiring and obtaining full information as to the laws and customs already existing without which they could not draw up any code, or legislate with any effect.
Dr. Bowringobserved, that according to the confession of the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, the state of things in the Levant at the present time was most unsatisfactory. Nothing could be less defined than the "customary law" which prevailed in the Levant. The customary laws of one locality differed widely from those of another. Those of Smyrna were as different from those of Alexandria as those of Alexandria were from the laws of Aleppo. The administration of these
1012
laws in each locality differed more widely still. Some Consuls had doubts as to their powers, were perplexed and embarrassed in the administration of their authority, feared to give due protection, and left the complaints of British subjects entirely without redress; whilst, in other cases, Consuls exercised their power with a most despotic and an almost intolerable authority. What was really wanting was a code, a simple code of laws, and an easily accessible Court of Judicature. He had understood that the Government intended to send out a Commissioner to inquire into the state of the regulations and laws at present subsisting, and he much regretted that they had not put that intention into execution. He thought it would be advisable to carry out that plan in order to obtain the best information, and he again strongly urged that no time should be lost in establishing some sort of judicial jurisdiction.
Sir Robert Peelapprehended that there was no real difference between his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and the Government upon the subject before the House. He considered the state of the law relative to British subjects in the Levant to be most unsatisfactory. But he must say that he believed that one of the chief causes of the difficulty in providing a remedy had been that tenderness which a British Minister must ever feel as to interfering with the forms of our criminal jurisprudence. They were not in this respect dealing with British subjects, in the strictest sense of the word, but with Maltese and Ionians, who had been included in the term, and who were not bound—and this much increased the enormity of the evil—by those moral considerations which generally influenced British subjects, strictly so called. The crimes committed were frequently of the most atrocious character, and cases often occurred in which the severest penalties of the law should have been inflicted. There had, indeed, been crimes committed by British subjects in the ports of the Levant which would have fully justified the infliction of capital punishment. But, to give proper effect to such punishment, it should be inflicted on the spot where the crime had been committed. The trial ought also to take place there; but he thought that a British Government was justified in pausing before they committed to a Consul—to one man—frequently un-

1013
acquainted with legal subjects, and without the aid of a Jury, the absolute power of passing sentence of death. That was one of the difficulties which did for a long time, and which did still exist. In the case of a murder committed at Rhodes, where was the use of bringing the criminal to Malta, and trying and executing him there? The execution ought to take place where the crime was committed; it added to the repugnance which they naturally felt at running a man up to the yard-arm, at a place distant from that in which the crime was perpetrated, and long after its commission, when they reflected that the example would not produce that benefit which might, under other circumstances, be expected to arise from it. Let them depend upon it, too, that if any single act of possible injustice should be committed in the name of the law, the example of the Government of England in tolerating such a system would be productive of the most prejudicial effects. It would induce other Governments to act upon the same principle, and to discard those securities for human life which the English law was careful to throw around the prisoner. But he was willing to admit that the subject required consideration, and he could state as a fact that two days after the Bill referred to became law, his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary addressed a despatch to Sir Stratford Canning, enumerating the objects to be considered in the appointment of Assessors to aid the Consuls at different parts in the execution of their duties; stating the various difficulties which presented themselves, and which it was yet necessary to overcome, and requesting him to give his opinion upon various matters connected with the subject. As no answer was for some time received to that despatch a second was sent, and in the course of a few weeks at farthest from the present time he apprehended that they would receive from that most intelligent and competent judge, who had himself frequently represented the unsatisfactory state of the law at present, that answer to the communications made to him which might be most important, as enabling them to decide upon the course the most proper to be adopted. He deprecated undue haste in acting with reference to this matter. Ample consideration would be given by Government to the subject; but it was better to use great deliberation in the formation of a code re-
1014
ducing to enactment that which depended on custom and usage. But by acting with too much precipitation, they would be afterwards compelled to make changes in any regulations which might be introduced. He hoped that he had said enough to show that the subject had occupied the attention of Her Majesty's Government. They were deeply sensible of the extent of the evil, and when they could frame such a code as it might be suitable and fitting that this great country should establish, his hon. Friend near him and hon. Gentlemen opposite might depend upon it that no time would be suffered to elapse ere it was put into execution.
Viscount Palmerstonagreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the great importance of the subject, and he could say, in corroboration of the right hon. Baronet, that if no satisfactory arrangement had been made by the late Government, it was not in consequence of the subject not having occupied their most anxious attention. They had referred it to their law-officers, who bestowed upon it their most deliberate consideration, but they were unable to suggest any practical measure which the Government thought it expedient to adopt. When the law-officers were asked to form a code for the guidance of consuls in the Levant, they replied that this would be to codify the laws of England. It was a Herculean task, which, if undertaken at all, should be undertaken for the use of the kingdom at large. The right hon. Baronet had stated one great difficulty incidental to this matter—the impolicy of executing a criminal at a distance from the place where his offence was committed. By so doing all that was advantageous in capital punishment was lost—the very grounds on which its expediency was founded disappeared. The capital sentence of the law was not inflicted so much as a punishment to the individual, as for a warning to deter others. And if a culprit were to be executed at a great distance from the place where he committed his crime, and in another country, almost all the benefit of example would be lost. Well, then, again—there was a great difficulty as respected trial. It was very difficult, in most instances, to establish upon the spot where the offence was committed a Tribunal satisfactory to our notions of justice. A Jury could not always be empannelled, nor could a Judge be found possessed of sufficient legal knowledge. As to the remedy proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for

1015
Pontefract—namely, that the trial should be conducted by means of affidavits—a practice adopted in numerous continental countries—that a man should be tried for his life at Malta upon affidavits made by witnesses who were remaining at Smyrna—that was a proceeding so utterly repugnant to the practice and notions of this country, that he was sure the British public would never acquiesce in the infliction of capital punishment in pursuance of a condemnation founded upon such evidence. By such a course of procedure, they would divest the accused person of the security afforded by the viva voce examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Then, again, as to persons having held consular offices, who were stated to be kept out of the country by apprehensions of prosecution for false imprisonment, he must say, although he was only speaking from recollection, that he believed there had been cases in which the powers of consuls had been exerted in a somewhat arbitrary manner, in which imprisonment had been inflicted, when the circumstances had not justified its imposition; and if he was not mistaken, it was the apprehension of legal proceedings for such overstrained exercise of power, that prevented the individuals alluded to from returning to this country; and even if the power of the consuls were to be better defined and legalized, still in any case of an excessive and unjustifiable exercise of such power, the functionary so misconducting himself would be liable to answer for acts before a tribunal of this country. He must admit, that the whole subject was environed by difficulties; but he thought that the Government had taken the right course in relation to them. The power which Parliament had given the Government was the most expedient mode of coming to a good arrangement, and he thought that the steps which they had taken were in the right direction. The House must feel obliged to the hon. Member for introducing the subject to their notice, but he must say, that Government was not justly chargeable with undue delay. It seemed to him, that they had acted with that prudence and circumspection which the importance and the difficulty of the subject required. He hoped that the inquiries which they had instituted would lead to some satisfactory arrangement.
Mr. M. Milnesreplied, that with reference to what had been said as to punishing offenders without all the formalities of the English law, he thought that was better
1016
than to allow crime to remain unpunished. Great objections had been made to the system of trial by affidavit, but other nations had adopted it; and if Englishmen did not approve of it, the Maltese had no objection. When he regarded the kind manner in which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had taken the suggestions which he had thrown out, and the satisfactory reasons which he had given for the delay which had taken place in carrying the Bill passed last Session into practice, he would not press the Motion to a division.
Sir R. Peelremarked, that although they might be entitled to try a Maltese at Malta, according to the laws existing there, yet he would not try a Maltese at Smyrna by a new and different system. He should protest against making any distinction between an English and a Maltese offender. It would be no answer to say that the Maltese had no objection to be hanged on affidavit. He should not consider it worthy of a Government to establish such a distinction, in foreign jurisdiction, between a Maltese and an Englishman.
Motion withdrawn.

DUELLING.
Mr. Turnerrose for the purpose of moving the following resolution:—"That Duelling is immoral in its tendency; that it brings into contempt the laws of the country; is contrary to divine command; and ought to be abolished." He most sincerely regretted that the Government had not given to the question he put to them some time ago such an answer as would have rendered this Motion unnecessary. He had, indeed, hoped, from what had passed in another place, when a noble Lord moved an Address to Her Majesty in answer to Her Most Gracious Speech, that the Government would have taken this subject under its own protection, and have brought in a measure for the effectual suppression of Duelling. In 1713, in consequence of the Duel between the Duke of Hamilton and Lord Mohun, which had proved fatal to both, a Bill was brought into that House to restrain such contests; but, although it was recommended by Her Majesty, it was lost on the second reading, and no other measure had been introduced. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government on a former occasion told the House that be was disposed to do everything to suppress the practice; but he (Mr. Turner) very much lamented that the right hon. Baronet, with the great power he

1017
possessed, had stopped short of doing the good which he had the means of effecting. The new regulations which had been mentioned referred only to the army; but civilians ought to be dealt with as strictly as officers in Her Majesty's service, and he hoped that there would not be much difficulty in so simplifying the law as to make it understood, and consequently obeyed. He was not aware of any law upon the Statute-book, or any document under the sanction of the Government, certainly none under Scriptural sanction, which said that Duelling was lawful in any shape; and, therefore, if authority could not be found for its toleration in society, then, as a Christian House of Commons, they were bound to look out for some remedy against it. It was said the other day by an hon. Member, that Duelling had been created by public opinion, and that public opinion would destroy it; but public opinion was a plant of very slow growth. Any Act, however, of the present Government would not have the same difficulty to contend with, it would be quick and effectual, and greatly would it tend to the honour of the Government to bring in a law, brief in its object and positive in its effect. He should not despair of seeing the Government propose a measure that would be satisfactory to the country. What did that eminent writer Paley say on the practice of Duelling?—
"Murder is forbidden; and wherever human life is deliberately taken away, otherwise than by public authority, there is murder. The value and security of human life make this rule necessary; for I do not see what other idea or definition of murder can be admitted, which will not let in so much private violence as to render society a scene of peril and bloodshed."
That was language the force of which all the eloquence of the right hon. Baronet would not be able to remove. There was a curious document in reference to this subject, which he would just mention to the House; it was a document written by Colonel Thomas, dated the evening before the Duel in which his life was sacrificed. He said,—
"He was seriously opposed to duelling; it neither proved a man a gentleman nor brave; nor did it give satisfaction for insult; almost any man could raise physical courage enough to fight a duel, but few, alas! possessed sufficient moral courage to stem the tide of public scorn."
Turn wherever they might, and read
1018
whatever they would, nothing stared them in the face but the extent of this great calamity. In the churchyard of the little village of Charmouth, in Dorsetshire, there was a tombstone raised to the memory of an officer, who, after having been preserved through eighteen engagements in the service of his country, had fallen the victim of Duelling. But means had of late been taken to abate the practice, and the public who were not perhaps so fully aware of the fact as they should be, ought to know that there was a society which had done great honour to itself, because it was composed of officers of high rank in the Army and Navy, and civilians also of high station, instituted for the purpose of suppressing Duelling. This Society was composed a short time since, of 349 members; among these gentlemen, were 13 Admirals, 67 Field-officers, 36 Captains in the Army, 32 Captains in the Navy, 17 Lieutenants in the Navy, 31 Noblemen, 141 civilians, 16 Members of that House, and, he regretted to state, only one Clergyman of the Church of England. The noble Lord (Lord R. Grosvenor) informed him that the Clergy had not joined the Society for particular reasons. Such a Society ought not to be, and could not be, long hid from public notice; but he had conversed on this subject with twenty Members of this House who were ignorant of the existence of such an Association, and he believed that very few hon. Gentlemen were aware of its establishment. The gentlemen who composed that Association were eminent for their high moral character. Hon. Gentlemen would readily admit that such men as the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir H. Inglis), who were not now present, the noble Member for Chester (Lord R. Grosvenor), and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Cowper), who had the manliness to state the other evening in that House, that nothing would induce him to accept a challenge—would not connect themselves with any association whose object was not most praiseworthy and beneficial. He was aware that the authorities which might be brought against him, in support of the practice of duelling, were such as would have great weight in some quarters; but he would make a statement of facts which could not be controverted. It had been stated by Her Majesty's Government, that they found it extremely difficult to frame a law for the suppression of the prac-

1019
tice of Duelling; but it had not been difficult in former times, and in other countries, to abate this nuisance. Measures had been taken in other countries which, if adopted in this, would sooner or later, and he believed very speedily, put an end to the practice. If in this country a duellist were convicted of murder, the punishment inflicted by our laws was, he conceived, far too severe; and, in consequence of this excess of punishment, Juries were very unwilling to convict parties of such offences. Not many years ago capital punishments were abolished in the case of an offence then very common in this country: he alluded to forgery. A very strong feeling was manifested by the nation against the application of so severe a punishment to offences of that class; capital punishment was abolished, and a much milder punishment was substituted. He thought a similar course might be very advantageously adopted with respect to Duelling. He conceived, that not only ought parties to be punished who engaged in such encounters, when a fatal result ensued, but that provision should be made for the punishment of all persons who sent or accepted challenges. He had strong reason for believing that the general feeling of the people of this country was favourable to the entire abolition of the punishment of death in cases of fatal duels; and he conceived that a measure to effect this object would be attended with most salutary effects. Juries would no longer hesitate as to the verdict they should return; Judges would be relieved from the painful duty which, in cases of this nature, they might now be called upon to perform, and which to them must be extremely distressing; and offences of this kind would be certain to meet a just measure of punishment. He wished that Her Majesty's Government would take this question into their most serious consideration—whether an alteration of the severe punishment now attached to Duelling, might not be most beneficial. He would venture to assert, that a course which, in the case of forgery, had tended to a material diminution of offences of that class, would effect the same results in the case of Duelling. His opinion was, that when convictions took place for Duelling, the capital punishment should not be imposed, except where parties fought without seconds, and then he conceived the extreme punishment would be justifiable. The public at large had a duty to perform with relation to this subject; and, unless
1020
they took some means to put the Government in possession of their sentiments on the question, it was next to impossible for the exertions of hon. Gentlemen in that House to be successful. He did not allude exclusively to the religious communities; for one great advantage in mooting this question was, that it was entirely unconnected with sectarian or party feeling. But he would call the attention of the House to the nature of the laws which had been enacted in other countries for the suppression of Duelling. By the law of Switzerland, any person who killed another in a duel, became liable for the debts of the deceased. He was sanguine enough to believe that, in high life, in this country, even the adoption of such a law as this would produce a most excellent effect. The law of Switzerland also provided that an action should he for damages against the nearest of kin. In 1752, the Emperor Joseph—and to this he called the special attention of the right hon. and gallant Officer (Sir H. Hardinge)—declared, "I will not suffer Duelling in my army; I despise the maxims of those who pretend to justify it, and who kill each other in cold blood." These observations referred to a case in which two officers had fought a duel; and the Emperor proceeded—"Let a court-martial try these officers, and examine the subject of their quarrel; and let him who is guilty submit to his fate, and to the rigour of the law. I am resolved this barbarous practice shall be suppressed and punished, should it cost me half my officers," It was somewhat extraordinary that the right hon. and gallant Officer had applied to the practice of Duelling the very same term that was used by the Emperor—he had characterised it as a "barbarous" practice. He found it stated that, many years ago, Duelling was denounced in France as "a detestable custom, introduced by the Devil for the destruction of soul and body." He was sure no individual would contend, in the face of that House, or of any other great national society, that this language might not with equal propriety be adopted now. In France Duelling was prohibited; the goods of duellists were confiscated, and they were excluded from Christian burial. Why were such regulations made against the practice? Because it was regarded in its true light—as cold-blooded and deliberate murder. His conviction was, judging from history, that imprisonment and exclusion from Government offices had ever been found the

1021
most effectual means of preventing the practice of Duelling. Two Proclamations had been issued in this country on the subject—one in the reign of Queen Anne, and the other by James I. The latter proclamation elicited the opinion of the eminent Lord Bacon on the subject of Duelling—an opinion which he thought would command the respect and attention of those Members of Her Majesty's Government who were present on this occasion. Lord Bacon said:—
"I must acknowledge that I learn out of the King's last Proclamation the most prudent and best-advised remedy for this offence that the wit of man can devise. This offence, my Lords (addressing the Lords of the Star Chamber) is grounded upon a false conceit of honour, and therefore it should be punished in the same kind. The fountain of honour is the King; to be deprived of his favour, and to be banished from the Royal presence would be a fit punishment."
He believed, though he should be unsuccessful in his Motion, there was a growing feeling on the subject of Duelling prevalent in the country, which would eventually demand the attention of Parliament to some legislative measures for its prevention. But if he might judge from the present appearance of the respective sides of the House, he thought he would be able to carry his resolution. If he did succeed it was his intention to propose a short Bill, which he hoped would provide a remedy for the evil of which he complained. He might state, that he had received many hundreds of letters on this subject and he had selected one from a distinguished officer holding high rank in Her Majesty's service—another from a civilian—and a third, he believed from a clergyman. As he had been favoured with so many letters, he had been unable to acknowledge their receipt in a formal manner. The writer of the first letter to which he had referred had not given his name; but he believed he was acquainted with the handwriting, and if his supposition was correct, a braver and better man than the writer did not exist. That writer said, as one of his constituents, and as an officer in the Navy, that he was a decided opponent to the practice of duelling. The writer begged him to push the Government on this subject, in order to induce it to consent to the abolition of the practice. His correspondent also suggested, that the Government should issue a public notice to the Army and Navy, to the effect that any
1022
officer taking part hereafter in a duel, either as a principal or as a second, should be removed from Her Majesty's service, and that if he persisted in fighting a duel, and should fall, no pension should be granted to his widow. Once issue such an order, and there would be an end to the practice, and he did nor think that any officer would be found who would for the sake of gratifying a spirit of revenge run the risk of depriving his widow of that pension to which she would, under other circumstances, be entitled. He had avoided, until he had read the sentiments of the correspondent whose letter he had just laid before the House, alluding even indirectly to the case of Mrs. Fawcett, who had been deprived of her pension in consequence of her husband having been killed in a duel with Lieutenant Munro. On that subject he must state to the House that he cordially agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland the other evening. He trusted that the circumstances which had been stated to the House with reference to the condition of Lieutenant Munro would have the effect, in mitigating public opinion with regard to that individual. Another correspondent urged him to push Her Majesty's Government on the subject—to urge them to take a comprehensive view of the matter. The writer said—
"Why not promulgate a notice to the effect that any person, either as a principal or as a second, would be considered ineligible to hold any office in the Army, Navy, Colonial, Foreign, Home Department, Horse Guards, Admiralty, and (he thought the writer said most wisely) the Privy Council?"
Persons high in station and in society had sanctioned the practice of Duelling. He wanted no more than that common justice should be done to the cause he was advocating. He believed that many who had formerly sanctioned the practice of Duelling regretted, as much as he did, the imperious necessity that had compelled them to send or accept a challenge and fight a duel. It had long been his opinion that the public press of this country ought to advocate the abolition of the practice of Duelling. He held in his hand rather a singular document with regard to the press of this country. Before he made use of any argument deduced from the article in question he must state that many hon. Gentlemen appeared to he of opinion that the practice of Duelling Was fast drawing to a close in this country. He at one time was disposed

1023
to entertain the same opinion; but he found upon examination that such was not the fact. He was compelled to go back again to the reign of George III. He found that during the reign of that Monarch no less than 172 duels had been fought; out of the 172 how many did the House imagine were convicted upon trial? At that period, as at the present moment, the feeling of Juries and Judges were in favour of the parties who suffered. Of the 172 persons who fought 91 were killed, and two persons only were subjected to punishment. They were executed. Had the persons who fought been punished by being transported for a period of 14, 17, 21 years, or for life, much good might have resulted. At the present moment the nominal punishment was positively a premium on the practice of Duelling. It encouraged it in every possible shape and degree. In fact, Juries went so far as to sympathize with the parties who fought duels. They certainly went through the ordeal of a trial, but they were not convicted for the offence. If guilty, the parties escaped in consequence of the asperity of the law. During the year 1838, four duels were fought in this country, and four in 1839. It would be found that the average number of duels during the last three years was greater than what had occurred in the reign of George III. In the year 1838, an article on the subject of duelling appeared in the Standard newspaper, having reference to a particular case that occurred at that period. The writer of the article to which he referred, said, "that there existed no necessity for sanctioning the practice of Duelling,—that a person who killed another in a Duel was as much guilty of murder as the highwayman who took away the life of a fellow-creature, and the law made no distinction between the two cases." The writer of the article in the Standard asked, with very good sense, "Is this tyranny to be endured?" He did not believe that the Standard went so far now on the subject of duelling as it did formerly when that article appeared. It went now halfway on the subject—in fact, as far as the Government went—but not so far as he wished to go. Before he sat down he considered it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to what Earl Fortescue had done in reference to the suppression of Duelling during the time that distinguished nobleman held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That noble Earl issued an important document on the subject. It
1024
went much further than the Government appeared disposed to go, if he judged of the intention of Government by the contemplated alteration in the articles of war. He should not be doing his duty to the noble Earl if he refrained from bringing the document under the consideration of the House—that document which had become a matter of history in this country. A particular circumstance had called Earl Fortescue's attention to the question of duelling, and that noble Earl, by command of the Government, and as the Representative of Her Majesty, on the authority of the Crown, issued on the occasion the document referred to. He had no doubt that the right hon. and noble Lord opposite would find the document in the office to which he had access. The hon. Gentleman read the proclamation, which set forth that, from circumstances which had recently been brought before the Lord Lieutenant, it was his desire that it should be signified to Her Majesty's forces in Ireland, that it was the Lord Lieutenant's firm determination to punish with immediate dismissal any officer who should give or accept, or be concerned, either directly or indirectly in giving a challenge, under any pretext or under any provocation whatsoever. Now, he asked, was it possible, after this condemnation of the practice by Her Majesty's late Representative in Ireland, that it could be sanctioned by the present Government, the conservators of the peace of the country? Unless he had put a wrong construction on this Proclamation, the meaning of the noble Earl was, that the officers over whom he had control were not to fight duels, and not to accept challenges; and that accepting a challenge would disqualify the party from holding office under Government. He would again allude to the letter of Lieutenant Munro, and he would declare that Lieutenant Munro's language in that letter was such as made him (Mr. Turner) believe, that scarcely any punishment which a jury of his countrymen could have inflicted would have surpassed what he was now undergoing; for he thought that his letter manifested his feelings to be most acute. He thought that letter was calculated to bring over the sympathies of the country very much in Lieutenant Munro's favour. Lieutenant Munro had attempted, and very nearly, he believed, succeeded in convincing the House that he was not the great criminal that had been supposed, and under these circumstances he put it to the

1025
Government, whether some act—which he was sure would be well received by the public—could not be devised which would give something like comfort to both these parties—he meant Lieutenant Munro and the widow of Colonel Fawcett? He would pass an act of oblivion on all matters of this kind that up to the date of the act had taken place. He would grant the widow her pension as an act of grace, and not as an act of right. The country had seen an Act passed, and that lately, where the circumstances of the parties were taken into consideration, to relieve those parties from the penalties they had incurred. Why should not some law of the like nature be passed, which would embrace both these cases? and when that was done then let them alter the law, and make the punishment not only certain, but let that punishment, whatever it were, quickly follow the offence. If that were done, as he was sanguine enough to think sooner or later would be done, the law would be an honour to the Government, which should pass it, and a credit to the House of Commons who supported and sanctioned it.
Mr. Ewartseconded the Motion. It appeared to him there was a necessity for practical legislation on this subject. Judging from the maxims which were delivered in general by hon. Members who had spoken on it, there was hardly one, he thought, who would deny the evil of the practice. In fact, the expression of opinion had been so general, that it amounted to a resolution of the House to put down Duelling. Waving all vain declamation, he wished to state the question, which was, as he conceived—could they put an end to this practice they all detested? He had endeavoured to glean from what had fallen from the hon. Mover what the punishment was which he intended to establish, and he gathered that the hon. Mover would enact the punishment of transportation in general, retaining, however, capital punishment for one species of Duelling, viz., in the case of Duels without seconds. In that, he must say, he differed from the hon. Gentleman, because he was one of those who were against all capital punishments whatever. But, besides that, he doubted whether there was justice in the hon. Gentleman's plan. The law of England considered manslaughter as a less crime than murder, the latter being accompanied by circumstances of malice and forethought, of which the former was
1026
divested. The truth was, the man who went out with seconds after a deliberation of two or three days, perhaps, committed a greater crime than he who hastily went out to fight, on the exasperation of the moment, without seconds. Seconds did not diminish the crime. He differed, therefore, from the hon. Gentleman on this point, and he thought the remedy would not come up to public opinion on this subject. Besides, its effect would be to increase and extend capital punishments; for he believed that since the case of Colonel Campbell in 1808 no execution for Duelling had taken place. With respect to the sentiments of Her Majesty's Ministers, he understood that they had reflected maturely on the question. They had stated so. He would ask them, therefore, whether it were not possible to put down the Crime of Duelling by inflicting a proper punishment, inflicting no punishment however equivalent to capital punishment? For his part he would venture to introduce a Bill to inflict a punishment of from two years imprisonment to fourteen years' transportation, at the discretion of the fudge. He believed that would agree with public opinion, and it was manifest that they wanted sonic punishment which would accord with the present state of public feeling; but before he (and he believed other Members) could take any practical step in the matter, he wished to ascertain what were the intentions of the Government; and he thought, that from the statements of the Government the other night, the House had a right to claim some information of their intentions.
Mr. Cowpersaid the subject branched into two divisions, the moral and the practical, and it was to the latter only that he wished to address himself, namely, the possibility of Legislation. The hon. Members who had moved and seconded this Motion seemed to think that legislation could only act by punishing. He could not help thinking, that legislation might do more; for, could they look to this practice, which all admitted to he wrong, to be absurd, to fail of attaining its proper object—the prevention of insult, and inquire why it had continued so long in this and other countries, and not be satisfied that it was owing to some deficiency on the part of the law? He considered the blame of duelling to rest not so much with the individuals, as with the state if the law. The practice

1027
arose in barbarous times, when men were so rude and unskilful in the sifting of evidence, that they could not in a dispute discover who was right and who wrong and in their ignorance they turned to their superstitions, and appealed to the sword to point out where lay the right. The root of the evil consisted in the law leaving one class of offences utterly unprovided for by any regulation whatever; for, with regard to offences against the honour, the law provided no adequate protection whatever. It would not do to try and get over this by pretending that these insults and offences against the honour were no injuries at all. There certainly were very grave injuries of this kind for which the Law Courts provided no adequate redress. It was true, that a number of very trivial offences were brought under a cognizance of the arbiters of honour, but there were also very grave offences publicly proclaimed, imputations of base motives, false aspersions, unjust attempts to bring contempt upon character, which it was hard to expect a man to receive with impunity, and for which the law ought, in his opinion, to provide some remedy and redress; so that the injured party might disprove what was false, and reinstate himself in public opinion. The law, if it could be so styled, of honour, failed in the great object of all law, for it did not distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, but punished both alike. Courts of honour had been a subject of ridicule, be was aware, but they had been established, nevertheless, with good effect in some countries of Europe. In Russia no officer of the army would fight a duel, because the punishment was so severe; and in Bavaria and Prussia officers had recourse to the court of honour. He might state the opinion of Blackstone on this subject, who, after stating, that by law, killing in a duel was murder, both in the principal and second, went on to say,
"Yet it requires such a degree of passive valour to combat the dread of even undeserved contempt, arising from the false notions of honour too generally received in Europe, that the strongest prohibitions and penalties of the law, will never be entirely effectual to eradicate this unhappy custom, till a method be found out of compelling the original aggressor to make some other satisfaction to the affronted party which the world shall esteem equally reputable as that which is now given at the hazard of the life and fortune, as well of the person insulted as of him who bath given the insult."
So that Blackstone contemplated the pos-
1028
sibility of establishing a tribunal which should give satisfaction in a true, a just, and reasonable sense and not that empty and miserable satisfaction which was attained by a man exposing his life and that of another. Duelling he believed, seldom took place now from revenge; parties were reluctantly compelled to go out, generally from fear, from the dread of society, and of being degraded if they listened to their conscience and their better feelings, and refused to imbrue their hands in the blood of their fellow-creatures; but if another alternative were given, if a court were constituted which would ascertain which party was in the wrong, and give a proper satisfaction to the injured, gentlemen might resort to it. Such a tribunal might enjoin the sort of apology which the party in the wrong ought to make, and so the injured party would have a real remedy. Whatever apology the necessity of the case might require, the Court could dictate the nature and terms of such apology, and that might be made public. Where the injury lies in being lowered in public estimation the adequate remedy consists in restoring the sufferer to the position to which he is fairly entitled, in general estimation. Some such measures as those, could, he thought, be adopted if the Government really wished to put an end to the practice. If they were to legislate, it required the talents and knowledge of a Government to enable them to do so, and he hoped that they would bring those talents and that knowledge to bear upon the question in an effectual manner. Persons appointed to decide questions relating to affairs of honour might be selected as nearly as possible from the same station in society with the parties concerned: and they would, therefore, be enabled to appreciate the feelings of those, respecting whose cases they might be called upon to adjudicate. It would then be likely that the judgments of such Courts would prove satisfactory. The principle of arbitration was one acknowledged in some cases, and he did not see why that principle should not be applied by law so as to become a substitute for duelling.
Sir R. Peelsaid.—The hon. Member opposite proposes that the House should pass a resolution to the effect, that Duelling is immoral in its tendency; that it brings into contempt the laws of the country; that it is contrary to the Divine command; and that it ought to be abolished. This is the resolution which the hon. Member has submitted to the House. Now, I really

1029
think that the House ought to pause before they proceed to deal with a question of this kind by means of a resolution. It appears to me that it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent if we were to take upon ourselves the office of interpreting the Divine commands. It might be a very compendious way of getting over a difficulty, but it is not the way in which I think that the House ought to encounter matters of this kind. We may by legislation prohibit any practice which we think ought to be prohibited, but I object to taking the initiative in the matter by means of a resolution; for unless this resolution should prove effectual, the consequence of adopting it would be to disparage the authority of the House, and to lower the influence of Parliament in public estimation. Suppose that we should agree to this resolution, how are we to enforce it? Suppose that the public totally disregard it, what means have we of making it obeyed? I am aware it has been said that the Crown ought to interpose its authority for the purpose of putting an end to this practice. I beg the House for a moment to consider the extent to which that authority reaches. In a matter of this kind the Crown can only exercise its influence over a very small portion of the community. The great mass of mankind are beyond the control of the Crown, and for this House to make a demand upon the Executive Government calling upon them to put down Duelling by such powers as we possess, would, I think, amount to a very noxious precedent; and it would be equally objectionable to call on us to pass any measure which we possess no reasonable prospect of being able to carry into practical effect. But, above and beyond all this, I must deprecate any proposition, the object of which may be to denounce certain Acts by means of resolutions. I have not forgotten that the hon. Member told the House that if we agreed to his resolution, he would then bring in a Bill for the purpose of carrying into full effect the principle set forth in the Motion; but I want to know why be need preface his intended piece of legislation by any resolution whatever? If the legislation of the hon. Member were calculated to be effectual, then his resolution is unnecessary. On the other hand, if he succeed in carrying his resolution, and does not prove successful with his measure of legislation, the House will find
1030
itself placed in a very awkward position; for there would stand the Motion without any means of giving it effect. Thus, whatever way we take the matter, neither the House nor the public would be any gainers. In making these observations, I am at the same time quite prepared to admit that the subject now brought before the House is one which is, in all respects, entitled to the most serious consideration. I quite agree, that if a legislative remedy can be devised, it is the duty of Parliament to lose no time in applying it. The hon. Member has told as that at some future time he will introduce a Bill for the purpose of giving effect to the principles and views which he has just stated to the House. I can only say that if he should do so, I shall not cast any impediment in the way of his introducing a Bill of that kind, of course reserving to myself a discretionary power of considering and deciding upon the proposed measure so soon as it comes regularly under the consideration of the House; but whenever the hon. Member asks for leave to bring in a Bill on the subject to which he has this evening called the attention of the House, I shall readily vote for the Motion for leave; but upon the nature of the hon. Gentleman's legislation must depend his chance of ultimate success. If the views of the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect, there should be two enactments, according to one of which there could be no capital punishment unless the parties engaged in a duel fought without seconds. See, now, the extreme difficulty of dealing with such a case. To declare that there should be one punishment for one species of Duelling, and another for a different kind of the same offence, would, in my opinion, appear like giving an implied sanction to that description of crime to which the lighter punishment was assigned. To this I must object, for I should be afraid of giving any such sanction to the practice. If the good sense and moral feeling of the community be opposed to Duelling, I do not think we ought to give it even an implied encouragement by any measures of legislation. This part of the question is really surrounded with difficulties that are almost insuperable. Suppose that two Gentlemen have had some cause of a quarrel—that they give way to their feelings—that in the heat of passion they fight without seconds—these persons, according to the hon. Member, might to be

1031
subjected to a certain punishment greater than those who after quarrelling go home, deliberate over the causes of their dispute, select seconds, and then go out to carry their hostile intentions into effect. I am sure that the present feeling of society on this subject would be decidedly opposed to inflicting the severe punishment upon the less deliberate offence. What, for example, would be thought of the case of Lord Byron and Mr. Chaworth? What would the public think if they saw a certain description of Duelling mentioned in an Act of Parliament in certain terms, which Act must be drawn up technically and construed literally? The inference that the public would draw from this must be, that Parliament gave a sort of sanction to the one sort of Duelling and not to the other. As to one of the propositions made by the hon. Member, namely, that the surviving party should pay the debts of him who lost his life in the encounter, it was one which he felt assured the House would never for a moment entertain. The persons who sought to make a reputation by Duelling formed a race of men now extinct; a more pestilent class never existed, but the good sense and good feeling of society at large had extinguished them. The contempt and disgust with which their real cowardice was viewed had driven them from all intercourse with any respectable class; but if they now existed, or were again to arise, they would, in endeavouring to raise their reputation as duellists—supposing the measure of the hon. Gentleman to succeed—select those persons for their antagonists of whose solvency they felt perfectly assured. I need scarcely add, that every consideration of this kind must diminish the confidence which we might otherwise place in the proposed measures of the hon. Gentleman. Amongst other matters it was now proposed to establish a court of honour. I do say there would be great difficulty in giving a legal sanction to any thing of that sort, and I very much doubt whether such a court could obtain reparation for wounded honour as readily as it might be obtained from the good feeling of the offending parties. I think it probable that the cases in which it failed would be more numerous than those in which it succeeded. I am sure that in the present state of society more instances of honourable reparation would arise from the generous feelings of the parties themselves than from
1032
any intervention of courts of honour. There were in ancient times courts of honour and courts of chivalry, but I hardly think the revival of them would accomplish the object which the hon. Member has in view; and I think I may now say that there exists a general feeling in favour of the position that there is more true courage and far less humiliation in giving than in refusing honourable amends. I will imagine the provocation given in a case of this sort to be of the grossest kind. I will suppose that there has been a threat of personal chastisement—that a whip has been held up in a menacing attitude—that there is an appeal to a court of honour—that the party who has given the provocation refuses to make the apology which the court has directed—that the court has inflicted upon him, we will say, fine or imprisonment—all this may go a certain length, but if public opinion be adverse to it the success of any such measure can never be complete. Believing all this—believing that courts of honour, like juries, would be very much under the influence of public opinion—believing that men like those who had already set the law of the land at defiance would not submit to courts of honour—believing that though the punishment of transportation might be enacted, its beneficial effect would be doubtful—believing that the fear of conviction, and even the fear of transportation, would not deter some parties; and, finally, that in too many instances the persons accused would rely too confidently on public sympathy, I must vote against the Motion of the hon. Member. I rely much less upon legislation than I do upon public opinion—than I do, for example, upon the influence of the 360 Gentlemen, including admirals, general officers, and other eminent persons possessing the nicest sense of honour, who have denounced the principle and practice of Duelling—who have declared that challenges ought neither be given nor accepted. Those are the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government have thought it right to abstain from proposing any measure on the subject; but that will not prevent my giving to any Bill that the hon. Gentleman thought proper to introduce the fairest and most dispassionate consideration. There now is an evident indication that public opinion begins to discourage Duelling. I fear to check the flow of such a feeling. The subject has

1033
been very carefully considered by the advisers of the Crown. They have done everything in their power to discourage Duelling in the naval and military branches of the public service, by issuing certain new regulations on the subject, and I must say that I doubt the expediency of interfering further at present. I have no objection that the hon. Member should try his hand at legislating on the subject; but I must deprecate any attempt to pass a resolution such as that which has now been proposed to the House.
Lord R. Grosvenorsaid, that formerly the feeling in society was, that a man who refused to send a message after having been insulted was degraded, but he did not think that such was the feeling now. Almost every man who had spoken upon the subject in Parliament, expressed opinions condemnatory of the practice of Duelling. With respect to the nature of the punishment, he thought it was impossible to put a duellist in the same class as a murderer; by doing so, the law was rendered inoperative. This was a subject peculiarly fitting to be dealt with by the Government. A private individual was deterred from bringing it forward because his motives might be misconstrued. He thought it inconsistent to establish a rule affecting the Army without making it equally applicable to the Navy and to the persons employed in the civil departments of the country. To leave the law in its present state, with respect to the rest of the community was impossible. He would willingly leave the matter to the influence of increased civilization. If it was said that a man was no longer to have recourse to Duelling to vindicate his honour, then the Legislature was bound to provide some other means by which he might do so, and protect himself from insult. He did not entertain the same opinion that the right hon. Baronet had expressed, as to the difficulty of devising suitable punishments. Transportation did not seem to him to be necessary in the case of duelling. The punishment should be consonant to public feeling—privation of commissions in the Army and Navy, and dismissal from official service of persons holding office under Government, and this privation and dismissal for a certain period, would, in his opinion, be perfectly agreeable to public opinion.
Mr. Humedid not agree with the right
1034
hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that a resolution of the House was an irregular mode of proceeding, although it might be followed up by any legislative measure. Nothing was so common as to do so. A resolution often preceded the introduction of a Bill. In his opinion, the present state of society did not admit of legislation upon this subject. Duelling was a custom which could not be changed by legislative enactments. Still the house might, with great propriety, pass a resolution expressive of its opinion against this barbarous practice. It would by degrees, strengthen the hands of Government to put it down. No one declared his approbation of the practice. If Her Majesty, who had intimated her anxiety to put an end to the practice in the Army and Navy, were to issue a single ordinance, declaring that no individual in society, whatever his rank might be should be admissible to office, or received in any public capacity or at court if guilty of sending or accepting a challenge to fight a duel. Let such an ordinance be passed, and that would effectually put an end to the practice.
Mr. Plumptresaid, it was not his practice to put out resolutions as feelers of the opinion of the House as to the success of a Bill. He thought the practice of Duelling was not only criminal in its tendency, but criminal in itself. He would express his condemnation of Duelling, by dividing with the hon. Mover of the Question.
Mr. Warburtonhoped the hon. Member would withdraw the resolution. He had already received, from the expression of the opinions of hon. Gentlemen, a sufficient condemnation of the practice, and all the objections that could possibly have been made against the resolution had been urged against it. He had been told, that according to the existing law, they could not have a stronger condemnation of the practice than was now inflicted. What possible object, therefore, could be gained by pressing the resolution? In order to save the House from appearing by their Motion in any way to express approbation of Duelling, he should move the previous Question.
Mr. Brothertonhoped that the resolution would be withdrawn. It would be establishing a very dangerous precedent for the House to approve what would be against the Divine commands. And he agreed, that the practice of Duelling was only to

1035
be put down by public opinion. There was a growing feeling against it. Duelling, capital punishments, and war, would disappear when Christian nations became nations of Christians. But he could not force people to adopt religious principles of action. He desired, however, to encourage public opinion favourable to humanity. True courage consisted in not being afraid of being thought afraid. If the Legislature interfered at all, unquestionably it should be, not by Resolution but by Bill. The defect of the present law was, that only if duels proved fatal they were punishable. Why, should it not be law that if any one fought a duel, fatal or not he should be liable to prosecution? Then the very provoking to a Duel should be criminally punishable; and certainly the law was never put in motion against those who did not happen to injure their opponents in duels.
Sir T. D. Aclandadded his request for the withdrawal of this highly inconvenient resolution. He frankly confessed that he could not negative it in any part of it as a proposition. Duelling undoubtedly was the crime, which, by some unhappy fatality, was allowed to exist, as if to brand by its barbarity, the character of an age and of a country so highly civilized, and to present a melancholy proof of the imperfection of our nature, in the inability of the noblest spirits among us to cast off a usage so cherished—still the last lamentable relic of a barbarous age. There was unquestionably, an insuperable bar to legislation; and whichever way the division went, if a division were persisted in, it would in its result be injurious to the cause all had at heart—the suppression of the odious usage. It would be most unfortunate by such an injudicious course to run the risk of giving the slightest check to the improved feeling of society on the subject. The law had done, it appeared, all it could. The difficulty was in getting society to put it into execution. The most honourable and estimable man—however grossly or wantonly insulted—would hardly have the moral firmness to go into a court of justice and expose his antagonist's conduct, encountering the obloquy attaching to such an appeal to another authority than that of a man's own sense of honour. The thing to be most desired, was the discouraging the preparatory steps in the progress of these unhappy affairs. Let sonic secondary
1036
punishment such as would really be inflicted, be imposed on those who sent, received, or carried challenges. At present it was alike unfortunate and unfair that society was quite passive during the progress of cases which served, though leading in themselves to no fatal results, to foster the feeling and perpetuate the practice of Duelling, society was silent while this custom was cherishing and continuing the apparent necessity for violating the law—so long as no fatal consummation was produced. But when some fatality occurred in some case, perhaps of far less malice, far less of revengeful feeling than others, but accompanied with circumstances of horror, then society rose up in alarm and in execration; and probably, under such circumstances, a man, animated by motives infinitely less malicious than those of others, who, not having succeeded in killing their antagonists, escaped almost unblamed, would hardly find a fair trial. Perhaps it would have a beneficial effect to exclude from the highest, the purest. and the most dignified presence in the land, those who had been concerned in duels fatal or otherwise. At all events, every man should sincerely assist in the discountenancing of this dreadful crime; and with that motive he had caused his name to be inscribed among those who had borne public testimony against the practice.
Mr. Turnerdeclared, that while he consented to withdraw his resolutions he did so with the determination, in the event of the Government not undertaking the task, of proposing a measure to the House on the subject, the responsibility of which however, he deemed would more appropriately be assumed by the Government than by any individual Member.
Motion withdrawn.

PROBATE AND LEGACY DUTIES.
Mr. Elpkinstone: Sir, I rise, in pursuance of the notice which I have given, to ask the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering the statutes which impose taxes upon the right of succession to personal property after death, in the hope that the House will see not only the propriety but the justice of imposing similar taxes on real estate. The House is probably aware, that, as the law now stands, the personal property of every person who dies worth more than 20 l. is

1037
subject to two taxes, called Probate Duty and Legacy Duty. Probate Duty is an ad valorem tax imposed on the whole personal property of the deceased, which may be situated in any part of the United Kingdom, at the time of his death; and this is payable, in all cases, whatever may be the manner in which the personal property is left, whether the property be left to a near relation or to a stranger in blood. Legacy Duty is a second tax on personal property, in addition to the Probate Duty, which is levied on the party who receives the benefit. The amount of this duty varies according to the degree of relationship of the legatee to the deceased, and widows are exempt from its operation. Legacy Duties fall with great severity on strangers in blood, and in the case of natural children, who in the eye of the law are strangers in blood, are peculiarly severe. Administration Duties (which are the duties levied when there is no will) are of the same nature as Probate Duties, and are imposed on precisely the same description of property as Probate Duties. The rate, however, of Administration Duty is higher per cent. than the Probate Duty. I think this distinction is wrong in principle, because it does appear to be unjust that a widow or children are to pay a heavier tax to the state merely because the husband, either by accident or design, has preferred that his property should be divided according to the known order of law. There is this distinction between Legacy and Probate Duty, that while. Probate Duty is never in any case charged on real estate, nor on any interest arising out of land, nor on land directed to be sold, Legacy Duty is, in certain cases, under provisions of 45 George Ill., c. 48, payable upon annuities charged on land, or on land directed to be sold. Land itself, however, whether it be left as a whole in one estate, to one person, or whether it be divided into different farms and left to different persons, is not liable to the Legacy Duty. With this trifling distinction between these taxes, however, the House may take it as the general rule, that while personal property is in all cases subject to these heavy taxes, real property, be it freehold or be it copyhold, is entirely exempt. Now, I must say, that I think this exemption in favour of freehold and copy-hold property is most unjust to manufacturers and traders, to the great mass of
1038
the people, and to all the owners of personal property. This act of injustice has also given rise to the injurious imputation that, inasmuch as the majority of the two Houses of Parliament consist of the owners of real property, this exemption has been made by the Legislature on private, and not on public grounds. The present Legacy Duty was originally imposed as a war tax; and when Mr. Pitt introduced the existing Act, in 1796, he intended to apply its provision to realty as well as to personalty; and, though the landed interest were too strong even for that powerful Minister, it is perfectly well known that he stated, over and over again, that lauded property ought not to be exempted from burthens to which personal property is subjected. Mr. Pitt said (Hansard XXXII., p. 658), in introducing the Legacy Bill—
"In a war for protection of property, it was just and equitable that property should bear the burthen. It was in the nature of things that landed property was the most permanent; it was fit that it should contribute accordingly. The Legacy Duty, was not, however, to be confined to any species of property; it was to include both lauded and personal."
Mr. Pitt afterwards divided his Bill into two parts; the one relating to personalty, and the other to realty. The Bill for personal property passed the Commons without difficulty, and became the existing Act—36 George III., c, 52; but the Bill for realty was opposed at every stage by the landed Gentry of that day, and, after several very close divisions (in one of which the numbers were equal, and the Speaker was obliged to give a casting vote), Mr. Pitt carried the Bill by only one vote. On the following day he came down to the House of Commons, and reluctantly yielded to necessity, and, contrary to his own conviction of what was right, withdrew the Bill. The exemption which the law has given to real property is in many cases absurd, as well as unjust. Leaseholds for years are considered as personal property, and, therefore, are liable to probate duty; leaseholds for lives are real estate, and therefore not liable. There are towns in the north of England, in the borough of Sunderland, for instance, in which in one part the houses are held on leases for years, and are consequently exempt; in the other part the houses are on leases for lives, and consequently liable. On what principle of common sense or of

1039
justice are the inhabitants of one part of a borough to be liable to a tax from which the inhabitants of another part of the same borough, are to be exempt? I ask, on what principle of justice can you possibly defend these mere legal distinctions? Why is the inheritor of a large property in a town, consisting of leaseholds, to be liable to taxation, when the inheritor of a copy-hold estate is to be exempt? The sum paid annually by the owners of personal property is enormous. I find that, in the year ending January, 1844, the State received about two-and-a-quarter millions of money from the personal property of the United Kingdom; and the capital which produced this large revenue, and which in passing from the dead to the living became liable to this heavy amount of taxation, was no less than 43,000,000 l.

Return of amount of Duty on Legacies, Probates, Administrations, and Testamentary Inventories for the year ending January 5, 1844:—

Legacies.

Probates Administrations, and Testamentary Inventories.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

England and Wales

1,114,871

6

6

879,367

5

0

Scotland

86,977

18

6

53,413

0

0

Ireland

39,034

17

3½

66,184

10

1

United Kingdom

1,240,804

2

3½

998,964

15

1

Total legacies and probates, &c., in United Kingdom, 2,239,768 l. 17 s. 4½d.

And since the year 1797, it appears, by the papers now on your Table, that the immense sum of 66,835,959 l. has been yielded by these taxes.

Total amount of Duty received since 1797 on Legacies Probates, Administrations, and Testamentary Inventories:—

Legacies.

Probates, Administrations, & Testamentary Inventories.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

England

34,392,977

1

3

27,244,687

17

2

Scotland

2,037,524

19

0

1,390,696

10

2

Ireland

714,250

18

1

1,055,821

18

0¾

37,144,152

18

4

29,691,206

5

4¾

Total

£66,835,959 3s. 8¾d.

I have little doubt but that, if Legacy and Probate Duties were imposed on real property, an income nearly as large as that derived from personal property would be obtained with the greatest ease and
1040
facility. In the absence of precise information, there are various ways of making this estimate. Mr. Gwynne, late Comptroller of the Legacy Duties, whose opinion is entitled to the highest consideration, estimated that about one-thirtieth of the whole personal property in the Kingdom is annually subject to the Probate and Legacy Duties. Sir Robert Peel, when he introduced the Income Tax, in 1843 assumed the annual rent of land to be 39,400,000 l. Taking this at twenty-five years' purchase would make the value of real property to be 985,000,000 l.; and then, applying Mr. Gwynne's principle, you would have a capital of about 33,000,000 l. of real property annually subject to Probate and Legacy Duty. The capital of personal property which was subject to these duties in 1843 was 43,000,000 l. This produced to the revenue, as I have already stated, about 2,250,000 l. It is, therefore, only fair to estimate that land of the value of 33,000,000 l. would, at the very least, produce 1,500,000 l. as revenue for the use of the State. There is another mode of making this estimate. It appears by the accurate tables of Mr. Porter, in his able work, The Progress of the Nation, there are about 46,000,000 of acres of cultivated land in the United Kingdom.*
If we consider the large rents that are obtained near towns, in all probability the rental of these 46,000,000 acres cannot average less than 1l. per acre. If this estimate of the rental be nearer the truth than that of the right hon. Baronet, as I suspect it is, it would give us a larger revenue (if Probate and Legacy Duties were imposed on land) than is now derived from personal property. The House will bear in mind, that these estimates must be under the mark, as I have not taken into account freehold houses and other real property, which are now exempt. Whether, however, these calculations are too much or too little, it is clear that a very large revenue may be obtained for public purposes, and that land is now unjustly exempt from the payment of a heavy tax to which other property is liable. How unjust it is, how unfair it is, that while the property of a merchant who dies, leaving but a bare provision for his family, is subject to a heavy Probate Duty, the family of the
*See Table (as note) following page,

1041
rich landed proprietor, who dies possessed of freehold land and freehold houses to the amount, perhaps, of 1,000,000 l., is not called upon to pay one farthing; and the distinction between the property of a landed proprietor and of the manufacturer, is the more galling from this circumstance, that the very same land which, while it remains the property of the landed gentleman, is not liable to Probate Duty, becomes chargeable with this heavy tax the moment it is bought with partnership capital for the purposes of the trade of the manufacturer, because it is then considered to be personal property. On what principle of fairness does this House enact, that when a freehold estate is bequeathed by a rich proprietor to his rich heir, that this valuable inheritance is not to be charged with Legacy Duty, but that when the very same estate is devised to be sold in order to provide for the wants of a family, it is then to become subject to this Legacy Duty? The hardship on the middle classes is the greater in the case I have just mentioned, because in nine cases out of ten, where an estate is devised to be sold, it becomes liable to the Auction Duty, and in every case to a Conveyance Duty, from both of which taxes the heir-at-law escapes. If any distinction ought to be made as to the payment of Legacy Duty between land devised to be sold, and on land not devised to be sold, it ought to be in favour of the former, as land devised to be sold becomes liable to the two duties I have just named. A tax upon the transfer of landed property after death has, from the earliest time, been usual in all civilised countries. We all have read in history that by the Julian law imposed by Augustus Cæsar, a very large revenue, under the name of the twentieth penny, vicesima pars hereditatis, was derived from a tax of this nature on

Arable and Gardens.

Meadows, Pastures and Marshes.

Total cultivated.

Wastes capable of Improvement.

Wastes not capable of Improvement.

Total acres in United Kingdom.

Acres.

Acres.

Acres.

Acres.

Acres.

Acres.

England

10,252,800

13,379,200

25,632,000

3,454,000

3,256,400

32,342,000

Wales

890,570

2,226,430

3,117,000

530,000

1,105,000

4,752,000

Scotland

2,493,950

2,771,050

5,265,000

5,950,000

8,523,930

19,738,930

Ireland

5,389,040

6,736,240

12,125,280

4,900,000

2,416,664

19,441,944

British Isles

109,630

274,060

383,690

166,000

569,469

1,119,159

Totals

19,135,990

27,386,980

46,522,970

15,000,000

15,871,063

77,394,433

succession to real property. A similar tax is at this clay levied in Holland, Belgium, France, Switzerland, Italy, and in some parts of Germany. I trust that the period is not distant when either a similar tax will be levied in the United Kingdom, or else that you will consent to take off those duties on personal property; they ought either to be levied both on realty and on personalty,—on both or on neither. In looking through the older Acts of Parliament on this subject, I have been struck with the anxiety the landowners have shown at all periods of our history to benefit themselves at the expense of others. There is a singular example of this in 2nd of Henry VIII. c. 5. Before this Act was passed (which is entitled "Fees for Probates") land directed to be sold was considered as personal property, and liable to a probate fee; but by this Act land directed to be sold is exempted from paying a probate fee, and this exemption continues to the present day as such land (though subject to Legacy Duty) is not subject to Probate Duty. When this question was last discussed in the House, in April, 1842, while no one ventured to object to the justice of the principle for which I contend—namely, that of treating every species of property (whether real or personal) on a footing of equality—two specious objections were urged: the one relating to the burthens to which landed property is subject, in consequence of the Stamp Duties; and the other, that a Probate Duty on landed property would be easily evaded by putting the property into trust. With the indulgence of the House, I wish to make a few remarks respecting both these objections. In the first place, I find on inquiry (though there are no accurate accounts), from competent persons, that out of 1,600,000 l. received for Stamp

1043
Duties on Deeds, not above 400,000 l. can by any possibility be considered to be paid by land (which is now exempt from Probate Duty), either in the shape of duties on conveyances, mortgages, settlements of landed property or leases of farms, or other matters relating to realty; the remaining 1,200,000 l. are paid entirely by transactions relating to personal property, such as personal bonds, leases of houses in towns, mortgages of leasehold houses, and settlements of funded property, and other personal deeds of a similar nature. I also find in all the Stamp Duties relating to real property, that the principle is to favour the rich man and to make the poor man pay more than his fair proportion. Take the case of a mortgage—if a small farmer is in distress, and desirous to borrow 50 l. on mortgage of his small patrimony, he has to pay a Stamp Duty of 1l. A wealthy landlord, with a large estate, wishes to borrow 20,000 l. for the purpose of improving his property and adding to his income, he has to pay, not a duty of 400 l., which he ought to do if he paid at the same rate per cent. as the yeoman, but a Stamp Duty of only 20 l.; so that in this case the rich man contributes 380 l. less to the exigencies of the State than he ought to do. The same principle (though not to the same extent) pervades the duty on conveyances. The Stamp Duty on conveying a small property of 20 l. is 10 s.—the Stamp Duty on conveying a large property of the value of 100,000 l. is only 1,000 l. instead of 2,500 l. as it ought to be if the Stamp on large property were in proportion to the Stamp on small. When a merchant under the right hon. Baronet's Tariff imports a large quantity of goods, this House does not enact that the wealthy merchant of Liverpool or of Bristol is to pay a smaller amount of Import Duty than the humble tradesman; on the contrary, this House, with perfect fairness, puts the large importer and the small importer on a footing of perfect equality, and makes each person pay at the same rate for the goods he imports. Then, if you act on this just principle in respect to trade and commerce, I want to know why are you to act on a different principle with regard to land? The greater part of conveyances in the course of the year are conveyances of small properties near towns, which belong to the middle classes; there can consequently be no doubt but the greater part of those
1044
very conveyance duties, for which a claim is now made upon us by the landowners, are paid by the middle classes, and not by the inheritors of large landed property. However, I am ready to admit, that these Stamp Duties on the conveyance of landed property are injurious to the landed interest—that they tend to lessen the value of their estates by increasing the expense and difficulty of selling their property. It was suggested by the late Mr. Tyrrel and by Mr. Stewart, the eminent conveyancers, that these duties on the alienation of land should be altogether abolished, and that, instead, a Probate Duty should be imposed. I am ready to adopt their suggestion. I can only say that, if the House agree with my proposition, I should willingly vote to relieve the landed interest from this 400,000 l., though I believe that the bulk even of this 400,000 l. falls on the middle classes and on the small proprietors in the neighbourhood of towns. It was urged in the last debate by several hon. Members, that a Probate Duty on landed property would be easily evaded by means of putting it into trust, and that by this means the large estates would escape. This difficulty, however, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer were really in earnest, might easily be avoided. At present, as the law now stands, personal property under trust, under certain circumstances, escapes Probate Duty; but it would be very easy to enact that, whenever the cestuique trust (that is to say, the person who has the beneficial interest) dies, that the tax should be levied on the next cestuique trust entering into the enjoyment of the beneficial interest, whether the interest were derived from personalty or realty. Sir, I have purposely, on the present occasion, confined the Motion now before the House to Probate Duties, with the view of preventing the House being misled by any of the specious arguments which were used on a former occasion relating to the Legacy Duties. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by taking advantage of the fact that, in particular cases, certain interests arising out of land are liable to Legacy Duty, endeavoured, by confounding Probate and Legacy Duty, to induce the House to believe that land is liable both to Probate and Legacy Duty, and that owners of real estate do, in a large degree, contribute to those taxes. Such,

1045
however, is not the fact, and I defy the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman to show that, either land itself, or that any interest arising out of land (be it freehold or copyhold), is, in any single instance, liable to Probate Duty. Sir, I trust I have stated enough to the House to induce it to agree to this Motion. The people of England are lovers of fair play and honesty, and they cannot understand on what principle of justice Parliament imposes a heavy tax on the hard-earned savings of the working man, which he may have laid by for the support of his widow and infant children, when the property of the rich proprietor, which passes to the heir-at-law, utterly and entirely escapes taxation. I now beg to move,
"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, on an early day, for the purpose of taking into consideration the Acts 36 Geo. III., c. 52; 45 Geo. HI. c. 28; 48 Geo. III. c. 149; and 55 Geo. III. c. 184, with the view of imposing the same amount of Probate Duty on real estate as is now in similar cases imposed on personal property; and, likewise, of considering the expediency of imposing a Probate Duty in all cases on the death of the cestuique trust (whether the trust property be realty or personalty); in order to substitute such proposed Probate Duty on real estate for some of those taxes which now press most heavily on the productive industry of the people."
Mr. Trelawnysaid: I rise for the purpose of seconding this motion. It appears to me that, considering the vast extent of the landed wealth of this country—a wealth not depending upon the industry of the landed class, but upon the abundance of our capital and the extent of our population—considering that immense portions of the soil of this country are in the possession of persons who can afford to contribute a small additional per centage to public necessities—considering that it was the intention of Mr. Pitt to extend to land the liability to which he had already subjected personal property; and, lastly, considering that the burthens borne by other classes are far greater in proportion to those sustained by land than those borne by the same classes in the most powerful continental states, the claim of exemption from Probate and Legacy Duties
1046
supported without injustice to the public at large. Much has been said, in rather vague language, about the exclusive burthens on land, and a Committee of inquiry set up by territorial proprietors cannot be into the subject was some time since proposed; but it was refused by Parliament, not, as malicious people say, because alarm was felt that the unreality of such burdens would be demonstrated, but solely from a modest apprehension on the part of landowners lest, on their full disclosure, the public should be induced to force upon them the acceptance of a largely increased protective duty on corn. Generosity, forsooth, is sometimes so pressing and imperative, that the most rigid disinterestedness can with difficulty repel it, and landlords dreaded being placed in a position in which, inspired by virtuous horror of the very semblance of legislation for a class (a horror which especially influenced their conduct with regard to the Gaming Penalties Bill), they would be forced to assume an ungracious demeanour towards a liberal and truly considerate public. And, yet, so much doubt of the existence of such burthens seems to have been felt in a landlords' Parliament, that a Committee of inquiry on the subject was refused lest the public should be convinced of their unreality. For my part, I believe that in general the only great exclusive burthen on land consists of the impolicy of the occupant. However, it is alleged that these exclusive burthens exist. What are they represented to be? Say some the charges on alienation, and expenses, such as marriage settlements for example. I thought marriage settlements had been represented to be the ground of protective duties on corn—they will, indeed, bear double duty, if they are also made the excuse for exempting land from the charges upon the descent of property in general. But, allowing the plea, let any one examine the list of charges on the transfer of personalty, and the expenses upon entering the learned professions, which ultimately fall on the public, and see if there is not an ample set-off against the alleged exclusive burthens referred to. Why, if a poor tradesman wants to borrow 50 l. by way of mortgage, it costs him in stamp duty 1l. whilst, if a large landowner wants 20,000 l., the stamp duty only costs him 20 l. whereas, to be proportionate, it ought to be 400 l. It has been said that

1047
tithe is a burthen on land. What! when property was acquired subject to the liability? The portion of the value of land which becomes tithe is public property, and would certainly never, under any circumstances, return to the pockets of the landowners. Is the highway rate a burthen on land? Certainly not, unless we admit that carts, and ploughs, and other means of enhancing the value of land are really the instruments of its depreciation. Besides, is not the manufacturer compelled to invest large sums in the appliances of his art? Are not his gains uncertain, his speculations hazardous: May not the accident of a moment—circumstance so seemingly trivial as the smallest alteration in the price of some commodity, frustrate the hopes of a life of care and anxiety? It should be remembered, too, that the landlords have exempted themselves from tolls for some of their own purposes, while the great high-roads which so much enhance the value of the land they approach were opened by possessors of capital, now represented by the holders of turnpike-trust securities. Then, as to poor and county rates, these make out no case for exempting land from the duties in question. House property, the bulk of which is said to be leasehold, and, therefore, personalty, together with mills and factories, has paid during the last century more than half what land has paid. At present, too, the charge on county rates is partly borne by the public in the payments made to the Consolidated Fund. But, even had this not been the case, where would have been the rent of land but for that increase of population, which, while it has increased the charge on land, has also increased a hundredfold the means of bearing it. But are church rates exclusive burthens on land? No; owners of house property are represented to pay two-fifths of the amount of those rates, that is, their full share, when we consider the proportion which the value of house property bears to the value of land. With respect to the land-tax, we all know how this country has been treated by self-elected legislators. We all know that feudal rights involved feudal services, which were commuted for certain payments to the public purse, intended to be proportioned to the value of land at the time being; whereas, in fact, the land-tax remains in the position in which it was
1048
settled in 1692, without having advanced, as it should have done, with the increasing value of land since that time. Talk of the special burthens on land! I would ask—and that at the risk of incurring the odium which most deservedly attaches to those who basely appeal to popular passions for private ends—what are the burthens on the labouring classes? How much will the toil of the labourer purchase for him? If he want a pound of tobacco, he must give for it an amount of labour which, were there no duty, would procure him nine pounds. If he want a hundred weight of foreign sugar, he must give, in addition to its price in the market of the world, fifteen days of severe toil, any three of which would kill a Member of this House, and all this over and above so much of the price he pays for coffee, corn, and other articles, as depends upon protective or other duties leviable on their importation. Not only must the labourer work all day, but he must reflect that two-thirds of his labour is wasted to the world—for this is always the case where the market for a particular commodity is only sustained by protective duties. The whole wealth of the state—the whole sum of its enjoyments, is not thus increased but diminished. To the reflecting labourer it cannot but occur, that he might as well, during two-thirds of his period of endurance, and as far as the wealth of society is concerned, climb the tread-mill for the diversion of his employers, as apply his labour in the false directions frequently assigned to him. He must say, within himself, "I could bear this if it benefited my employers; but why exact the pound of flesh when no use can be made of it?" The only intelligible motive of legislators—legislators!—in matters affecting trade, would seem to be a mere design (putting the ends of production out of the question) to keep labour out of mischief. Pity labour cannot now and then return the compliment! Take a large and economical view of all this, and what does it amount to? Simply to this—that the state (in other words, the landed interest—for it may truly say l'etat, c'est moi), even when its conduct is most innocent—whilst it acts with the purest intentions, yet acts as if it intended to make the labouring classes work as long and hard as possible with the least possible return in the shape of food, clothes, and comfort,

1049
and then flippantly expends on improper projects the little their labour is allowed to raise. However, heavy as the duties on commodities are, whether we speak of the Excise or Customs, they, and not land, support the immense and almost incredible burthens of this country. Let any one examine the items of the public revenue, and he cannot fail to be satisfied of this. Why, sir, so exorbitant are the duties on commodities, and so long have they operated, that there is good reason to fear that hereafter, when they are removed, the people will have lost all taste for the articles taxed, and have forgotten how to use them, from their want of practice. With regard to corn, the only wonder is (especially when we consider how well protectionists reason in general) that they do not carry out their principle of enhancing prices by shortening supply, to its logical consequences, by limiting by law the quantity of acres to be cultivated—or following the famous precedent of certain Dutch colonists, by occasionally destroying a portion of the produce in order to raise the price of the rest! Sir, the last time this subject was discussed, the motion then made was resisted on grounds of repugnance to taxation in general—a part of that mere "ignorant impatience" (as it has been so well designated) which distinguishes some people at the bare mention of a tax, however valuable its purpose. It was said, "We are not going to heap up new burthens upon those which already depress the resources of the country." But how does this very natural antipathy affect the question? Why, the very reason a bur-then is unbearable often is its unskilful apportionment. If taxation has reached an intolerable limit, and if public security admit of it, reduce all the taxes, but do not render the aggregate less bearable by refusing an equitable adjustment of the portions of which it is composed. Again, the Legacy Duty was called a particularly offensive one; I see no reason for so regarding it. On the contrary, abatement from an unexpected sum received is less felt than from a sum upon the full enjoyment of which a man has calculated, and from the loss of a portion of which he might derive much temporary inconvenience. But, even if it can be justly regarded as peculiarly offensive, whilst this objection might be good ground for with-
1050
drawing its operation from personal, it is no reason, when it is levied on personal, for refusing to extend it to real property. It cannot be denied that there is one great advantage in a Legacy Duty, that it cannot be avoided. Indirect taxation may be evaded by non-consumption of the articles taxed. Indirect taxation, too, has the inconvenience of disconcerting mercantile speculation, while a Legacy Duty draws from the fountain head, and partakes of the qualities of a property-tax without its objectionable circumstances, and more especially its inquisitorial character. In a speech of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, on a former occasion, that right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that a Motion of this sort implied only this—that real property should be subject to the Probate and Legacy Duties upon the same conditions as those upon which personal property was based; that personal property, the subject of settlement, was then exempted from those duties; and, consequently, that if the Motion were carried, and if the conditions on which it was founded were strictly adhered to, all large estates in the country, which were the subject of settlement, would be likewise exempted. But has this argument any force on examination? It is proposed to approximate to an uniformity in one branch of taxation by rendering a new class of property liable to a certain tax. The objection is, that absolute uniformity is unattainable. It is evident that the plea is logically inadequate, and has merely the effect of mystifying what is a little too plain to be pleasing. In every country care should be taken that no law should discourage, beyond what may be absolutely necessary, the influx of capital. The slightest unfairness towards the holders of moveable property re-acts upon the wealth of the State; and that, whether moveable property consists of labour or goods. And it follows from this, and from the fact that any diminution of the wealth and population of the country must operate in lowering the value of land, that the most perfect generosity towards other classes is the true policy of the holders of stationary wealth. It appears that one solid reason for taxing land in the way proposed is, that it would offer to the public some compensation for the disadvantage it suffers from the pertinacious maintenance

1051
of the Corn Law by the landed interest. The plan ought to be eagerly caught at by such landlords as are already convinced of the unsoundness of protective duties, and yet entertain a very natural dislike openly to surrender positions, once deemed so strong, as a graceful opportunity of contributing to the aid of those resources their unfortunate policy so materially impairs. And with regard to those landlords who affirm that the sliding-scale enhances the value of their property, who still repose faith in the saving virtues of protection, with what consistency could they refuse to add to the public income a small fraction of that wealth which they maintain protection has created, and protection will maintain? They admit they are exclusively enriched by protection. Can they grudge a fraction of their confessedly factitious wealth to insure the confidence of the public creditor, the security of the State, the conservation of their own order, privileges, and power? If protective duties are a source of wealth, why should it not contribute its quota to public wants? If, on the contrary, these duties are illusory or impoverishing, why not abolish them? Landlords may take which side of the disjunction they please, but one or the other follows from their own admissions. In conclusion, Sir, I must beg seriously to remind the House that it has a character to earn with the country. Its disinterestedness has been impugned, and it is incumbent upon it to take care that the charge receive from its conduct on this occasion a complete triumphant refutation. We must not forget the immense preponderance of landlords in this House; and though it may be admitted throughout the country that the protective measures, so many forms of which have, for considerably above a century, exercised the ingenuity of this House, have been discussed and passed under the influence of considerations of the interest of the public at large; yet, if it appear on inquiry that there are several cases in which there remain on the statute book laws bearing evident marks of favour and interest, and that interest, unfortunately, the interest of the preponderant class in this House, very natural suspicions of the singleness and purity of our views will prevail in the public mind, and possibly be the occasion of irresistible demands of organic constitutional change.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the Motion which the hon. Gentleman had submitted to the House, was one, he believed, that found no precedent on the Journals of that House, and one on which it might fairly be questioned whether a Motion of that nature could properly be made without (we understood the right hon. Gentleman to say) the consent of the Crown. He, therefore, noticed this in the first instance, because he thought it essential that the House should be guarded in the course of this proceeding how far they infringed upon the essential privileges of the Government. It was only in consideration of this resolution stating rather what the House should do on a future occasion, than what it was prepared to do at the instant, that he thought it admitted of his entering into a discussion which, under other circumstances, he should have thought had better be avoided; and, in discussing it, he would reserve the question of its being conformable to the rules or precedents of that House, upon which he had considerable doubt. As this subject had been twice discussed by him in the course of recent Sessions of Parliament, the House would expect as little novelty in the reply he was about to offer, as in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had introduced it; but, with respect to the point of form, it would be desirable that the House should have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair.
The Speakersaid, the rule of the House was, that no Motion for a grant of public money could be put from the Chair without the previous consent of the Crown. The preposition, however, of the hon. Member was not of that description, but must be considered as a Duty or Tax to be imposed for the Service of the year. Now, such a Duty ought to be voted in a Committee of Ways and Means, and not in a Committee of the whole House; and it ought not to be proposed unless it could be shewn that the public exigencies required it. He could not call to mind any precedent exactly in point. But, although he was not prepared to say that it was such a Motion as could not be put from the Chair, it was, however, clearly an irregular Motion, and which, not being in conformity with the Rules of the House, the House ought not to entertain.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,

1053
he was extremely unwilling to place the House in the situation of having an irregular motion submitted to it, and discussed on a future occasion; and probably the better course would be (with every willingness to enter into the discussion) that it should he adjourned, to see how far the precedents, as regarded the business of the House, would affect this Motion. He would suggest, therefore, that the Motion should be postponed to some future day.
Mr. Elphinstonewould consent most willingly.
Mr. Humethought this was a matter of considerable importance, as involving a declaration, that the House was not now competent to enter into the discussion of the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it a novel course. As the case was put it was simply this—that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on an early day. It happened every day that it was moved that certain Acts should be read, and that the House should go into Committee to consider them on an early day. The objection taken as to the Committee of Ways and Means might be such, because he supposed that his hon. Friend would propose the abatement of other taxes in proportion to the amount he proposed to raise in this way. The subject had been four or five times discussed in that House, and he had twice moved a resolution to the effect that this duty should be imposed instead of other taxes which the Government were about to lay on—that was a perfectly legitimate course. But he was only supposing the house should go into Committee upon the question whether the House should not consider if they would prefer one tax to another. Having agreed to the imposition of certain duties, it would be wrong for them to add additional taxation; but it would be perfectly right for them to consider whether they should not have substituted one tax instead of another. He thought that was quite right, and he hoped the day was not distant when he should see the House resolving itself into a Committee to consider not only this tax but others. The taxes of the country were most unequal. The rich were favoured whilst the poor were oppressed; and the time he hoped was coming when all other taxes would be considered before a Committee of the House. There never was a tax
1054
which showed to the country more of class legislation than this. The House ought to know, that the taxation upon real and personal property was at first embodied in one Bill, but it was divided into two Bills, after considerable discussion. He had it from the individual who drew up the Bill during the Government of Mr. Pitt, that he took it from the model of Holland.
Sir R. Peelrose to order. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to discuss the policy of the Stamp Duties; and the question before the [louse was, whether or not the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Elphinstone) was competent to make the Motion in the particular form in which he had brought it before the House. It was of very great importance that the House should adhere to established rules. It might be said that this was an unpopular tax, but it did riot diminish the danger of the precedent, because they selected a particular tax which they said was unpopular, and departed from the original rule. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might take advantage of such a precedent and impose burthens on the people without going through the regular form. He thought it most important that they should adhere to established rules with respect to the taxation of the country; to depart from the rules would be unwise, but to depart from them by evasion, would be worse than all; the evasion would soon become the rule for future action, and he hoped, therefore, in the first instance, in such matters as these, they would let their Motions be in conformity with the rules of the House.
Mr. Humethought the right hon. Baronet had no right to call him to order. No man in that House was more anxious than he was to maintain the forms of the House. Although there were thirteen opportunities which every Member of the House had to oppose any motion, he defended so great a safeguard. He would concur with the right hon. Baronet, that they should not attempt in any way to evade the established rules of the House; but he thought this was an attempt to smother and get rid of a Motion of importance, and he was proceeding to state why it ought to be discussed, when the right hon. Baronet rose to order; but if they were to have another opportunity of discussing the question, he would be the last man to wish to detain the House by

1055
entering at greater length upon the subject then.
Mr. F. T. Baringthought that the House ought not to decide the question without due consideration. What the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated was quite true. There were certain rules with respect to taxation, to which it was extremely desirable the House should adhere. But let it not be understood that the discussion of this subject was thereby wholly stopped. The hon. Gentleman might have committed some irregularity in his mode of proceeding, but he had no doubt he would be able to bring the subject under the consideration of the House on a future occasion.
Mr. Elphinstonesaid, he was the last person who would wish to make a bad precedent. He would, therefore, propose that the right hon. Baronet should fix seme day next week when this subject might be fully and fairly discussed.
Mr. Warburtonthought it better that his hon. relative (Mr. Elphinstone) should move the adjournment of the discussion, and it was but fair that the Government should give him another night for it. His Motion was far more regular than a Motion on a former occasion, when there was a similar discussion—he meant in 1842. The Motion on that occasion was for imposing a Legacy Duty on the succession to real estates, of the same amount as on personal property, and that was more open to an objection, upon a matter of form, than the Motion of his hon. relative, for it proposed that whatever duty was raised upon the one should be raised upon the other; but his hon. relative proposed that they should retain the amount that was now paid on personal property, and impose the like rate on real property. The manner in which his hon. relative had worded his Motion was different; and he thought there could be no objection to an adjournment of the discussion.
The Speakersaid, he had then the volume of the Journal of the House before him, which contained a report of the proceedings of the House when the duty was imposed; and it appeared that the Probate Duties imposed by the Acts of Parliament referred to in the hon. Member's proposition were originally voted in Committee of Ways and Means. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to read the Resolution from the Journal, and added that it was highly desirable that the House should pause be-
1056
fore it established any new precedent with regard to Motions of this description.
Motion withdrawn.

POSTAGE STAMPS.
Mr. Wallace,in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice on the subject of Postage Stamps, begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the Treasury Minutes, a copy of which had been laid on the Table of the House that very day. It would be seen from that Minute, that there were four different ways in which stamped paper was proposed to be used in the Penny Postage system. The forthcoming half-sheets was the third way of making use of the Postage Stamps, but the most important and most useful mode had not yet been carried into effect. The Resolution No. 4, in the Treasury Minute of 26th December, 1839, provided that Stamps should be struck on paper of any description which the public might choose to send to the Stamp Office for that purpose. That mode would afford additional facilities to business. A great number of persons engaged in paper-making and the stationery business had waited upon him and complained of the exclusive employment of Mr. Dickinson's peculiar paper for envelopes, and of the new form in which it was said that paper was coming forward. He disclaimed having had anything to do with bringing out the half-sheets; but he approved of the whole sheets which had been denied. Half-sheets would not gibe any advantage to the productive classes, especially the working classes; it would but continue that monopoly to the richer classes which they received by his peculiar paper being stamped at Somerset House for the special purpose of making envelopes. He believed the plan would fail; and he called upon Government to apply the fourth minute. There were various ways in which the expenditure at Somerset House might be much better applied than now. One of them would be to give an additional per centage for issuing labels attached to paper by stationers and paper dealers in large or small towns. A vast quantity of small Paper Stamps would thus be used, and the object of increased facility of distribution effected. He begged to move,—
"That full effect be given to the Act, commonly called the Penny Postage Act, by the issue of postage free stamped paper, without

1057
restriction as to size or quality—in addition to the use of labels, postage free envelopes, and prepayments at post-offices, as at present."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion. If he was not mistaken, the Treasury Minute to which the hon. Gentleman referred recommended, not that stamped paper should be issued in the first instance, but that simple Label Stamps should be issued, which Could be affixed to the paper by the person making use of it. It was very doubtful whether there would be any advantage given to the public by the adoption of the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, equal to the inconvenience to which it would give rise. There was every disposition on the part of the Post Office authorities to accommodate the public; but they did not think it would be advisable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member.
Captain Bernalcould not allow that opportunity to pass without adverting to the objection which was entertained by his constituents, many of whom were paper-makers, to the issue of half-sheets of stamped paper. He could not understand why the hon. Member for Greenock was so anxious to press this matter on the Government. In his opinion, its only effect would be to create a new monopoly in the hands of particular individuals. The public were perfectly satisfied with Dickenson's stamped envelopes, and he hoped he should receive some assurance that it was not intended to issue the stamped half-sheets to any great extent.
Mr. F. T. Baringsaid, that when the late Government had come to consider a proposal for issuing stamped paper, they had found that the plan would give rise to great opportunities for forgery. They had felt greatly alarmed in consequence, and had declined to carry that plan into operation. He was sure that if the system were adopted, forgery might easily take place; in fact, there would be nothing to act as a discouragement to forgery, but the smallness of the sum to be paid. He did not think that the public were much inconvenienced by the present arrangements.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the Treasury had felt the full force of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman. They had felt that it would be impossible to adopt the system of having stamped sheets of paper generally circulated all over the country
1058
without running great risks of forgery. He believed, too, that some inconvenience might arise to the poor from the use of stamped paper, as they could not recover the penny for the paper on which they might have written, in case they should not, after the writing, think proper to avail themselves of it. As Mr. Dickenson's paper had already been used to some extent, he had consented to a proposal of allowing stamped half-sheets to be issued instead of being cut up into envelopes. The experiment, however, would be on a very small scale. With reference to the present motion, he would only add that, although many suggestions were received at the Treasury from various quarters, relative to improvements in the Penny Postage, the hon. Member for Greenock was the only person who advocated the issue of stamped sheets of paper.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that as the sense of the House seemed to be opposed to his Motion, he should not press it to a division.
Motion withdrawn.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS.
Sir G. Clerkmoved the second reading of the Land Tax Commissioners Names Bill.
Lord Worsleysaid, he entertained a strong opinion as to the desirableness of avoiding, wherever it was possible, the putting of clergymen on the Commission of the Peace, but he had a much stronger objection to their being appointed as Land Tax Commissioners. In the list sent to him, he found there had been seventeen new names, ten of which were clergymen, and he wished to know from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department whether it was competent for him (Lord Worsley), as a Member of Parliament, to put a Veto on that list. He did not wish to do anything invidious, nor had he any objection to the individuals referred to, but he thought persons might be found better qualified than clergymen for discharging the duties devolving on the Land Tax Commissioners.
Sir J. Grahamwas not quite prepared to answer the question of the noble Lord; but, speaking from recollection, be (Sir. J. Graham) believed the Members for the county had no Veto on those lists, but were merely the channels of communicating them to the House of Commons, with whom the ultimate decision rested.
Mr. Humethought the clergy had

1059
enough to do, without mixing themselves up with secular transactions, and, if he had the power, he should strike out their names when the Bill was in Committee.
Sir J. Grahamdid not believe clergymen were ambitious, or desirous of such an appointment; but it was for the interest of the public that they should act. Hitherto the fact of a gentleman being a clergyman was not regarded as a disqualification.
Motion agreed to.

IRISH NAVAL OFFICERS.
Mr. Frenchmoved for the a return of the names of all persons appointed to command vessels in Her Majesty's service, from the 1st day of October, 1841, to the 1st day of March, 1844, specifying whether each person so appointed be a native of England, Ireland, or Scotland. During that period, he said upwards of 100 appointments had taken place of persons commanding vessels in Her Majesty's service, and but one Irishman had been appointed. The late Government, who had been accused of favouring their political friends, never pursued such a line of conduct as this. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet at head of the Government would not sanction any intentional exclusion of Irishmen.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, it was impossible to comply with the demand of the hon. Member for Roscommon, because it was not the nationality of the persons appointed, but their fitness for office, with which the Admiralty had to do. There was no means, therefore, of complying with the request of the hon. Member; but if he confined his Motion to "a return of the names of all persons appointed to of command vessels in Her Majesty's service from the 1st day of October, 1841, to the 1st day of March, 1844," leaving out the specification he had not the slightest objection to furnish that return.
Mr. Shawwas quite sure First Lord of the Admiralty could not be suspected of being prejudiced against Irishmen.
Return, omitting the specification, ordered.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Private.—1a. Edward's Estate; Nugent's Naturalization.
3a. and passed:—Schuster's Naturalization.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lords Prudhoe, Sondes, and Feversham, from Malton, Canterbury, and an immense number of other places, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.