Sitting of 4 April 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public. — 1°. Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
2°. Glass (Excise Duty).
Private.—1°. Castle Hill (Wexford) Docks; Cromer Protection from the Sea; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway and Bury Extension); Lyme Regis Improvement; Southampton and Dorchester Railway; Dunstable and London and Birmingham Railway; Totnes Markets and Waterworks.
2°. Dublin and Drogheda Railway; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Coal Turn; Glasgow and Shotts' Road; Yoker Road; Shaw's Waterworks; Calton and Bridgton Police; Bridgton Municipal and Police; Blackburn Waterworks; Saint Helen's Canal and Railway; Saint Helen's Improvement; Wolverhampton Waterworks; Dundalk and Enniskillen Railway; Waterford and Kilkenny Railway; Lowestoft Railway and Harbour; Stoke-upon-Trent Market; Stokenchurch Road; Glasgow Bridges.
3°. and passed:—Sparrows Herne Road.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Electors of New Woodstock, for Inquiry.—By Colonels Acton, and Verner, Captain Jones, and Messrs. Hamilton, Bateson, and S. O'Brien, from several places, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Dr. Bowring, from Congregation of the Bank Street Unitarian Chapel (Bolton le Moors), in favour of Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill.—By Mr. Colville, from Brailsford and Tickenhall, and Mr. O. Duncombe, from Osmotherly, from several places, for better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sirs T. Acland, E. Filmer, and J. Hanmer, Colonel Acton, Captains
168
Bateson and Plumridge, Dr. Bowring, Messrs. W. E. Gladstone, Brotherton, Cobden, Colville, Denison, Divett, O. Duncombe, T. Duncombe, Farnham, Hindley, Kemble, S. O'Brien, Ord, Palmer, Trotter, and E. Yorke, from an immense number of places (128 Petitions), against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Warrington, in favour of the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Sir E. Filmer, Mr. Mainwaring, and Mr. S. Wortley, from several places, against Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Mr. Beckett, from Leeds, against Importation of Hill Coolies into the Colonies.—By Mr. Banks, Mr. O. Duncombe, Lord G. Somerset, Mr. Sotheron, and Lord Worsley, from a great number of places, for Relief from Taxation on Agriculture.—By Viscount Eastnor, from Farmers frequenting Reigate Market, for Repeal of Malt Duty.—By Mr. C. Buller, from Ann King, of Cripplegate, complaining of Decision respecting Property Tax.—By Mr. Farnham, from several places, in favour of the Allotment System.—By the O'Connor Don, from Killyon and Kilroran, for Repeal of the Charitable Donations and Bequests (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. Grogan, from three ex-Policemen of Dublin, for Alteration of Dublin Police Act.—By Mr. Bankes, from Wimborne and Plandford, for Repeal of the Game Laws.—By Mr. Antrobus, from Samuel Gordon, Esq., for Consideration of his Case.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Prisoners confined in Lancaster Gaol, for Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.—By Sir T. Esmonde, from Wexford, for Alteration of Merchant Seamen's Fund Bill.—By Mr. H. Berkeley, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Holland, and Mr. S. Wortley, from several places, in favour of the Museums of Art Bill.—By Mr. C. Buller, from Liskeard, against Increase of Naval and Military Establishments.—By Sir T. Acland, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Colville, Alderman Copeland, Mr. O. Duncombe, Mr. R. Palmer, and Mr. Sotheron, from several places, against Parochial Settlement Bill.—By Mr. Antrobus and Sir John Lowther, from several places, for Alteration of Physic and Surgery Bill.—By Sir T. Esmonde, from Guardians of the Wexford Union, for Alteration of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—By Mr. C. Bruce, Mr. C. Buller, Mr. Mitcalfe, and Mr. Strutt, from several places, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.—By Mr C. Bruce and Mr. H. Drummond, from several places, for Ameliorating the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Mr. Antrobus, from Newington and Christchurch, for Redemption of Tolls on Waterloo and other Bridges.—By Mr. Cobden, from William Wright, of Stockport, for Inquiry into his Case.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
Mr. Stuart Wortleybegged to ask his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who was Chairman of the Committee of Selection for the Appointment of Railway Committees, when that Committee would make any Report to the House?
Mr. Estcourtsaid, he was glad to have that opportunity of explaining to the House that if blame were to be attached to any quarter for the delay, it certainly did not lie with the Committee over which he had the honour to preside. The 20th of March, the day when the House separated for the recess, was the earliest day on which the Committee of Selection could become possessed of the First Report of the Classification Committee, and before they got that Report it was impossible that they could have taken any steps for the appointment of the Committees on Railways. He hoped the House would

169
not suppose them guilty of any negligence since that Report came before them; and, in proof that they were not negligent, he might say, that if hon. Gentlemen would look to the Votes of the next morning, they would probably find the names of the Gentlemen whom the Committee had already selected published with them.

RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he wished to ask a question of considerable importance with regard to the made of transacting business in that House. When the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill for Scotland was before the House, he was assured that the learned Lord Advocate allowed a clause to be introduced of a very important description, at a very late hour at night, with but a very small attendance of Members present, and without any previous notice of the clause having been given to the House. The clause was to the effect that in every future railway to be constructed in Scotland, the Bill for such railway should contain a clause guaranteeing an indemnity to landed proprietors in Scotland for the loss by any turnpike road which may be affected by that railway. He believed the principle of the clause was one which had excited considerable attention among the public; but without offering any opinion as to the propriety of the clause or otherwise, he thought it was wrong that a Bill of which a Member of the Government had charge, should have a clause of such a nature introduced under the circumstances he had stated, not by the learned Lord himself, but by another Member of the House in his presence, without any previous notice of the clause having been given to the House. He wished to ask the learned Lord Advocate whether the facts were such as he had stated?
The Lord Advocatesaid, it was perfectly correct that in Committee on the Bill in question, at a late hour, and when there was no very large attendance of Members, the clause alluded to had been introduced. But the supporters of the Bill were not to be blamed if the House happened to be thinly attended at the time; and with respect to the clause itself, he had only to say that a similar provision had been introduced into the English Act. The clauses proposed were similar to those in all former Railway
170
Bills, with the exception of one, and he believed on that there was a compromise.

M. MAZZINI.
Sir C. Napierwished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He had seen a letter in the public papers from M. Mazzini, in which he declared positively that he had had nothing to do with signing any warrant or order for the assassination of Emiliani and others, as was stated the other night by the right hon. Gentleman. That letter stated that it was proved before the proper tribunal that such order was a forgery, and that M. Mazzini was not at the place where it was alleged that this order was given. He wished then to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he still maintained this charge against M. Mazzini; and if he did not, whether he would follow the example of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, who made an apology for an unfounded accusation against this individual as publicly as he made the accusation? He believed that no Englishman would tolerate a charge of being an assassin. Now M. Mazzini was a foreigner, and they were as much bound to make reparation to him in case of a wrong as to a native of this country.
Sir J. Grahamregretted that the hon. and gallant Officer had not given him notice of his intention to ask this question. He should have thought that when the gallant Officer considered the nature of the question, that he would have done so. But, as he had not done so, he would at once answer it, and state the impression which had been produced on his mind. He had seen the letter of Mr. Mazzini to which the gallant Officer referred; and last night, incompliance with the wish of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he had laid upon the Table papers and despatches having reference to M. Mazzini between the years 1833 and 1844, and bearing on his statement. The House would recollect that when he made the statement to which the gallant Officer referred, he stated distinctly to the House, and he had fixed the attention of the House to what he then said—he stated that what he had to say with respect to the past conduct of Mazzini, was not founded on official documents, but on the authority of a newspaper circulated in France at the time, and which he then held in his hand, and from which he read

171
a translation. He also stated, which he believed, that Mazzini had threatened to prosecute the Moniteur for the publication of this statement; but he had never proceeded against it for libel. The hon. Member for Finsbury had asked him whether he had ever read an article in the Westminster Review respecting M. Mazzini, in which there was a refutation of the charge against him. It was perfectly true that he had never seen that article. The hon. Member stated that a suit was commenced against another party for the publication of this statement, and the hon. Gentleman also stated that Mazzini did not succeed in his action against the author of this alleged libel. He knew no more than this of the circumstances of the case. He did not mean to say that he entertained a firm conviction that the accusation was well founded; but if he were asked whether he believed it to be unfounded, he could not give such an assurance to the House.

MAYNOOTH.
Mr. Villierswished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on what day he proposed to proceed with his measure respecting Maynooth. He did so in consequence of a communication from a numerous body of Dissenters, who had met that morning on this subject, and who wished their opinion to be expressed, that they were anxious that the Bill should not proceed further for a fortnight or three weeks.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that in consequence of the Resolution which was agreed to in Committee last night, and which was afterwards reported to the House, Mr. Greene was ordered to bring in a Bill founded on that Resolution. The Bill, which had already been prepared, was then presented, and read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday next. On that day it was his intention to move the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Cumming Brucewas desired by a large religious community to express their anxious hope that all further proceedings would be stopped until the Bill had been before the country for a longer time.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
Sir G. Greywished to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department a question respecting a Bill on the subject of Charitable Trusts. At the commencement of
172
the Session, in answer to a question put by him, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to introduce a measure on the subject, without delay, into the other House. Two months of the Session had now elapsed, and no Bill on the subject had been introduced; he therefore wished to know when this Bill would be introduced?
Sir James Grahamreplied, that he had seen the draft of the proposed Bill, and he hoped that it would be shortly produced.

LORD ASHBURTON— THE WASHINGTON TREATY.
Lord J. Russell: I beg to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, and in doing so, I must preface it with a very few observations on a matter personal to myself. Within the last two hours I have seen a statement, purporting to have been made by Lord Ashburton, with respect to a speech I made in this House. Allow me to say, in the first place, that with Lord Ashburton I have always lived in habits of intimacy and friendship; that friendship began when we were both of the same opinion in politics, and the difference of political opinion which took place has never interrupted the cordiality with which we have always lived together whenever it has been my good fortune to meet Lord Ashburton; and nothing could be further from my wish in the discharge of a public duty than to do anything unkind to the noble Lord. But in the course of a discussion on the Navy Estimates, quite unexpectedly by me, there arose a conversation, which begun with the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) near me, with respect to the Treaty made by Lord Ashburton. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the First Lord of the Treasury, having taunted my noble Friend and myself with the ill result of the discussion that had taken place on that subject, I referred to the matter, which I conceived to be accurately stated by me as my recollection served. Now, Lord Ashburton is said to have declared that what I stated must have been entirely a dream and a delusion on my part. It is necessary I should repeal what my statement was to the House. I said that some time before the present Government came into office, seeing that the negotiations had not reached a point at which it was likely that either party would recede from its pretensions, I thought it was

173
advisable that there should be some arrangement made by which the forces of the two countries should occupy a certain position—that a provisional boundary should be agreed upon between the two countries; I instructed Lord Sydenham to endeavour to form some such agreement, and I did so in concurrence with my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton; that Lord Sydenham had informed me in his answer that he could not obtain from Mr. Webster terms other than those by which that part of the Madawaska Settlement on the right bank of the St. John should be evacuated; and I signified the approbation of Government to his refusal to carry on the negotiation on those terms. It is quite clear that Lord Ashburton thought I had alluded to a diplomatic negotiation for a permanent settlement of boundary; whereas I thought it was quite clear that I alluded to a provisional arrangement to be made by the Governor of Canada by means of Mr. Fox, our Minister at Washington. If it had been a diplomatic arrangement, instructions would have been given by my noble Friend near me, instead of myself. So far as to the misunderstanding which Lord Ashburton had of the nature of the transaction; but as to the matter of fact, all I wish is, that the Under Secretary for the Colonies will produce any papers there may be on that subject—any instructions I gave to Lord Sydenham, and his answer to me with regard to the Madawaska Settlement; and if there should be, as I believe there were, any instructions to Lord Sydenham approving of his conduct in that respect, they should also be produced. As I have already said, I spoke at the moment from memory, and not expecting any discussion on the point; but that I should have been totally mistaken on the whole of this transaction—that I should have given no instructions for the formation of such a temporary arrangement—and that Lord Sydenham should not have made that objection, seems to me impossible. I wish the hon. Gentleman to have the goodness to look for and to produce any papers that may be at the Colonial Office on this subject. I cannot think that the production of those papers would give rise to any further discussion.
Mr. Hopewould look for the despatches to which the noble Lord referred, and there would be no objection to their
174
production. At the same time, he might state to the noble Lord that the result of his researches yesterday was, that the noble Lord had been in error in supposing that he returned the answer stated to Lord Sydenham. He did not mean to say that the correspondence between the Foreign Office and Mr. Fox was not to the same effect as had been stated by the noble Lord; he only meant to say that he had not discovered any such despatch from the noble Lord to Lord Sydenham.
Lord J. Russell: What the hon. Gentleman has stated implies that a correspondence took place with respect to this provisional arrangement between Mr. Fox and the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hope: Yes.
Mr. Humeobserved, that it was quite obvious, from what had been stated by a noble Lord elsewhere, that he was in possession of five despatches on this subject, which had not been laid on the Table of that House. He hoped the whole would be produced.
Sir R. Peelhad no objection to produce these despatches, if it were found that no inconvenience would result to the Public Service. But as the matters in dispute had been settled by negotiation between this country and the United States, he did not see any public object that could be served by the production now of despatches relating to the very eager and grave contentions which took place during the pendency of the disputes. But whatever was necessary for the satisfaction of the noble Lord should be produced.
Viscount Palmerstondid not think that the answer which the right hon. Baronet had given to his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose on the subject of the extracts from the despatches which had been read by Lord Ashburton in another place was altogether satisfactory. He did not know exactly the extracts to which his hon. Friend had alluded; but from what he had heard he understood that Lord Ashburton had read, in his place in the House of Lords, some extracts from certain despatches, for the purpose of showing that some statement that had been made by a Member of that House was erroneous. Now he would assume this to be the fact; and he would ask, when did Lord Ashburton get these despatches which were written to or from him? He must have procured them either as a ne-

175
gotiator, in which case they would be his own despatches, either written by him or sent to him, or they were despatches which had been obtained from the Foreign Office, or they were despatches which had been laid before Parliament. If they were despatches which had been laid before Parliament, he had nothing more to say. The noble Lord had a perfect right to use them. If the despatches were his own—were despatches which had come into his power as a negotiator, having been either written by him or to him; if these despatches had been furnished to him by the Government, then he would say, that, in the first case, he had no right to read his own despatches without having obtained permission of the Government; and if he had obtained that permission, or if they had been furnished to him by the Foreign Office, then it was the invariable practice of Parliament to lay such despatches on the Table, in order that Parliament might know what they contained, instead of being only made acquainted with them merely by extracts read in Parliament. The right hon. Baronet would see that it was not sufficient to say that the despatches merely related to a question which had been settled. The question was not in reality as to anything that had passed in the negotiations between the United States and this country; but it was to see if certain statements made in that House by persons formerly holding official situations were or were not erroneous, and whether or not those statements had been made for the purposes of deceiving.
Sir R. Peelhad not understood the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose. When the noble Lord referred to these papers he was not aware that the noble Lord had referred to documents read elsewhere before he gave an answer. When he said that the papers asked for by the noble Lord should be produced, it must be considered that he meant, if there was no public objection, for he personally had no objection.
Mr. Humehad spoken of despatches which had been referred to by a noble Lord in another place, and which had not been laid before that House. It was only fair that they should be laid on the Table.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he would on a future day state whether the despatches could
176
be produced as to the returns alluded to by the noble Lord.

BRAZILS.
Mr. Milner Gibsonwished to ask a question of some importance of the right hon. Baronet on the subject of the present state of our relations with the Brazils. It was well known that our commercial Treaty with that country expired in the month of November last. Under the provisions of the Treaty British subjects residing in the Brazils were entitled to certain privileges, which were not possessed by the Brazilians, in reference to the disposal of their property by will, the English Consul taking care that in the event of the death of a British subject his property went to his heirs. The commercial Treaty expired in November last; and it was the general opinion that the privileges which had been enjoyed by British subjects had expired with it. A case had recently arisen in which considerable alarm had been felt as to the disposal of the property of British subjects dying in the Brazils, or dying in this country, and leaving property in the Brazils. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, first, if the Government had taken the matter into their consideration? Secondly, if Mr. Hamilton had made any communication to them on this subject? And thirdly, if he could hold out any hopes that the same privileges would be continued to British subjects in the Brazils which they had enjoyed previously to the expiration of the Treaty?
Sir R. Peelreplied, that it often happened that the merchants of Liverpool and Manchester received earlier intelligence of matters of this nature than was received by the Foreign Office. The Government had not received any account of the transaction to which the hon. Gentleman referred; but he would make this general statement, that by the Treaty which expired in 1844, on the death of any British subject in the Brazils the administration of his effects devolved upon the British Consul, and not upon the Brazilian authorities. Her Majesty's Government had made a proposition to the Brazilian Government on the subject of the Treaty, and that stipulation was a part of the proposal which they had made.

BUENOS AYRES.
Mr. Ewartwas desirous of making an inquiry on a subject on which he had troubled the right hon

177
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) before. It related to the existing state of discord between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video. His object was twofold: that British persons and British property might be protected, and that peace and commerce in that quarter of South America should be restored. He had been informed, on authority which he could trust, that the present state of affairs in the River Plate was an aggravation of the past. In the first place, the partial blockade of Monte Video had been declared a general blockade. In the next place, the commerce of the River Plate was closed to foreign vessels. Our ships could not proceed up the River Plate to Paraguay. Next, a duty had been levied, which virtually fell on foreign shipping at Buenos Ayres. On the vessels now there it might amount to several thousand pounds sterling. He understood also that the English and Scottish schools had been closed by the act of the Buenos Ayrean Government. The Scottish and English children were compelled to resort, if they went to any school, to the Buenos Ayrean schools. Lastly, the children of British subjects had been naturalized as Buenos Ayreans; consequently they were denaturalized as British subjects. His question, therefore, to the right hon. Baronet was, whether, under such circumstances, there existed (as he would not doubt there did) ample means for the protection of British persons and property in the River Plate, and whether there continued to be a prospect that this important quarter of the world would be speedily reopened to the commerce of Great Britain and of the world?
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that this was a most important question, and he could not say much more than he said on the former occasion when he was questioned on the subject. The English Minister had proceeded to Buenos Ayres; and he, with the Minister of France, would exercise all their influence to put an end to the war in those countries. He believed that the Representatives of England and France would adopt such steps as would insure the restoration of tranquillity. With respect to the protection of British property, there was now, or there would shortly be, a British force in the River Plate of six ships of war; this force would be sufficient to protect British property. With respect to the schools, the
178
hon. Gentleman must have much more recent information on the subject than any that had reached the Government. They had not received any recent communication from the British Minister on the subject. As he understood the matter, last year an edict was issued by the Governor of Buenos Ayres, which professed to regulate the schools there; and the question now put to him was, whether certain British and Scotch schools in connexion with the British and Scotch churches there, were subject to this edict. The only answer which he considered necessary was, that the British and Scotch subjects of Her Majesty at Buenos Ayres had a right to have schools for the education of their children. If any such edict for the putting down those schools had been issued, the hon. Member might depend upon it that effective remonstrances would be adopted by the Government to get it rescinded. Of course, however, the Government could not interfere unless it appeared that the Buenos Ayrean Government trespassed on the rights of British subjects. The last question of the hon. Gentleman was also one of importance. It was as to the naturalization of the children of British subjects at Buenos Ayres. It appeared that the general law was this—That the son or grandson of a British subject born abroad was also a British subject. But he could not deny that children born in a Foreign State were not also subjects of that State. Such was the law in this country, for the children of foreigners born in Her Majesty's dominions were British subjects. If the children of British residents at Buenos Ayres were born out of that State, the authorities there had no right to make them Buenos Ayrean subjects. If, however, the children of British subjects were born at Buenos Ayres, and continued to reside there, they obtained the rights of citizenship in that place; but with those rights they also had imposed upon them the burdens and duties of citizens and were liable to the law of Buenos Ayres.

THE OREGON TERRITORY.
Lord John Russellsaid: I do not think that it is necessary for me to make any apology to the House for calling its attention to the important subject of which I have given notice; but I must apologize for the very imperfect manner in which I feel that I shall discharge the duty which I have under-

179
taken, on account of the difficulties connected with the subject, which is at once intricate and obscure. It is not my intention or wish to call in question the general foreign policy of the Government, or the policy which they may have adopted in this particular question which I intend to bring under the consideration of the House. I asked, in a former Session of Parliament—I think two years ago — a question as to the state of the negotiations between this country and the United States with respect to Oregon. The hon. and learned Member for Bath also asked a question on this subject during the present Session; and I understood that he intended to bring the subject before the House, if he had not felt that he might embarrass the Government by so doing. I should have pursued the same course as the hon. Gentleman, had it not been for the inaugural address of the new President of the United States, which appears to me to take the question out of the ordinary course of diplomatic relations, and to require some notice on the part of Members of this House. If this question had been left to be negotiated by the Executive Government of this country, and the Executive Government of the United States, whatever might be the degree of confidence which I repose in the foreign policy of the present Administration, I never would have interfered; but should have waited until the conclusion of the negotiations before I gave any opinion as to any Treaty or Convention made by the authority of the Government of this country. But, if I am not totally mistaken, the President of the United States has adopted a course entirely new—a course which, if not met by something unusual on our part, threatens to embarrass all intercourse between the Executive Departments of nations. It leaves general questions between nations to be decided by the popular addresses of the head of the Government, and by popular action of the people under that Government, irrespective of all considerations which should induce the two Governments to preserve relations of peace and amity, and settle every question of difference between them, on the one hand with regard to national honour and dignity, and with regard, on the other, to the preservation of the rights of the subjects under their rule. I must first mention—although it is a subject to which I intend to make no more than a passing allusion—that this same Message, amongst
180
other subjects, alludes to a vast increase of the territory of the United States — it alludes to the annexation of Texas; but I shall say nothing of the extent of that country, and of its limits and boundaries, for they are still left undefined, and may yet be carried forward far beyond what are at present understood to be the limits of the independent State of Mexico. It covers at all events a vast extent of territory of a most fruitful soil, and fertile in the production of cotton, and all the other descriptions of produce which are usually to be found in those climates—an extent of rich country to be cultivated, as no doubt it will be, by slave labour, and extending, as it will, over a large area of that portion of the globe. I allude to this subject in passing in order to show that the present policy of the Government of the United States tends towards territorial aggrandizement; and this, let me here remark, is a course of policy in direct contradiction of the policy which was declared to be that of the United States by Mr. Webster when he was Secretary. He declared that, in his opinion the true policy of the United States was to increase her strength and power, not by territorial agrandizement or advantages, but by a cultivation of the resources which were possessed by her in the immense territory already included in the United States. I believe that such a policy as that contained in the declaration of Mr. Webster would be not only more likely to preserve peace with Foreign Powers, but also to advance the interests of his own country. That policy, however, has been now evidently departed from. I do not know what course Her Majesty's Government will take with respect to that altered policy; but from the answer of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society, I understand that communications have been sent to the United States, to Mexico, and to Texas, on the subject, I suppose, of what is part of the now declared policy of the United States. The next portion of the Message to which I will call the attention of the House is as follows:—The President, after observing—
"I shall, on the broad principle which formed the basis and produced the adoption of our Constitution, and not in any narrow spirit of sectional policy, endeavour by all constitutional, honourable, and appropriate means, to consummate the expressed will of the people and Government of the United States, by the re-annexation of Texas to our Union at the earliest practicable period;"

181
goes on to state in another paragraph certain views with respect to the Oregon Territory, and that paragraph I feel it necessary to read:—
"Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain, by all constitutional means, the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is clear and unquestionable; and already are our people preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children. But eighty years ago our population was confined on the West by the ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period, within the lifetime, I might say, of some of my hearers, our people, increasing to many millions, have filled the Eastern valley of the Mississipi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its head springs, and are already engaged in establishing the blessings of self-government in valleys of which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongs the duly of protecting them adequately, wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction of our laws, and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them, in the distant regions which they have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the States, of which the formation in that part of our territory cannot be long delayed, within the sphere of our Federative Union. In the meantime, every obligation imposed by treaty or conventional stipulations, should be sacredly respected."
Now here we have in the first place an assertion that the claim of the United States to this territory is "clear and unquestionable;" and in the next place, we have the assertion that its title to the territory was perfected by emigration and settlement on the part of the United States; and, thirdly, we have the assertion that before a very long time the institutions of the United States will be extended to the Territory of Oregon, and that a new State, forming part of the Federal Union, will be established in that territory. After this appeal to the people of the United States on the subject of the Oregon Territory, I wish—indeed, I feel myself compelled to do so—to call the attention of this House and this country to the real state of the question, and to how far the President of the United States is justified in declaring that the right of the United States to that territory is "clear and unquestionable;" and how far he is justified in declaring the intention which he has announced, without the sanction of those treaties and conventions which are usually the bonds of peace between inde-
182
pendent States. Before discussing this question, I must tresspass for a short time on the attention of the House, in order to inquire into the usual modes by which the right to every territory has been hitherto maintained and established, and the manner in which such questions have been settled. With respect to uninhabited territories, in the first place, there may be a title by ancient discovery — in the second place, there may be a title by treaty or convention—and, in the third place, there may be a title by discovery, and an ancient or recent perfection of the title by settlement and occupation. With regard to those various modes of establishing a right to a territory, I shall now address myself to the claims of the United States to the Oregon territory, so far as I can gather them from Reports made by Committees of the House of Representatives so long ago as the years 1825 and 1826, and from all that I have since seen put forward on the subject. In the first place, with regard to the claim founded on ancient discovery, it appears that the United States claim all the rights which may be derived in that way from the discoveries of the Spaniards. If I were to go into that question, I should say at once that a claim founded on discoveries at the end of the sixteenth century—that merely visiting a coast, landing for a few hours at a particular portion of it, and which title was not in any way perfected by occupation or settlement for more than two centuries afterwards—that neither on the part of this country or the United States could such a title be maintained to be effectual. If I were of a different opinion on this subject—if I thought otherwise than I do with respect to such a title—I would discuss the question of how far the President of the United States could maintain such a title; and I think I could show by a tenable argument that this country had a title on the ground of ancient discovery; and that the discoveries of Sir Francis Drake in 1578, as compared with the discoveries of Juan de Fuca, and other Spaniards, in 1592, and the commencement of the seventeenth century, would establish that title on the part of England. Sir Francis Drake went at that time as far north as the latitude of 48; and although I am not, as I before observed, going into the question of that title, I think I could show that we should be able, without farther evidence, to make a valid claim to a title founded on that claim of ancient discovery. The next description of title to

183
which we come is that founded on treaties and conventions; and here I will, before I proceed further, state what I conceive to be the position of the Oregon Territory. It may be considered to be the territory which extends east and west between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, and which extends north and south between latitude 42 and latitude 54. So far as I can ascertain this large territory does not appear to have been a subject of stipulation between any of the countries of Europe until late in the last century. It is said, I believe, by the Americans, that the Treaty of Utrecht referred to the territory; but I have found nothing, either in that Treaty, or in the history of the negotiations which preceded it, to show that it was so mentioned. It has been said, on the part of America, that the Treaty of 1763, at the Peace of Paris, gave to France or Spain, to one or the other—for it has been put variously by American claimants—all the territory to the west of the Mississipi. I have carefully read all the negotiations, which took place previously to the Peace of Paris, as well as the Treaty itself, made in 1763. I have recently had occasion to read the Despatches of the Duke of Bedford and the Due de Choiseul with respect to that Treaty; and it appears to my mind quite clear, from all those documents, and from the Articles of the Treaty which was afterwards agreed to, that the only question at that time between France and England was the settlement of the Territories of Canada and Louisiana. The whole of Canada was given by that Treaty to England—the Territory of Louisiana was given to France, with the exception of Mobile, part of the Territory of Mississipi, and New Orleans. There was also a stipulation with respect to a district between the Mississipi and the Iroquois in the Treaty; but in no part of the Treaty itself, or the Despatches which preceded it, is there any reference to the countries beyond the Rocky Mountains as a territory to which either country had a claim. The only question then to consider, in order to ascertain if the Oregon Territory was included in that Treaty, was whether Louisiana included any of the territory to the west of the Rocky Mountains. In an able pamphlet, written by Mr. Falconer, an extract from the Instructions of Louis XIV. to Monsieur Crozat is given; and from those instructions it does not appear that Louisiana extended at that period so far as the Rocky Mountains—it extended
184
to the countries washed by the Mississipi, the Missouri, and the Ohio; and it was placed under the authority of the French Governor General of Canada. That is the description given by Louis XIV. in his instructions; and it does not appear from them that Louisiana comprised any territory extending beyond live Rocky Mountains; nor does the Treaty of 1763, either in express terms or by implication, refer to any place beyond the Rocky Mountains. We come at a subsequent period to claims which are made, not from ancient discovery, or under any Treaty between France and England, settling the title to Canada or Louisiana, or to any of the provinces on the Atlantic side of the great chain of mountains, but from the discoveries of navigation, and settlements made in consequence of those discoveries upon the coast of the Pacific. In 1789, a question arose with regard to the settlement of Nootka Sound, which was held by English subjects, and which settlement was disturbed and destroyed by the Spaniards, under Captain Martinez. The English Government, on that occasion, demanded redress; and the result of that demand on the part of England was, that the redress which was demanded was given; the settlers were restored to their possession at Nootka Sound, and a Treaty was agreed upon with regard to the future occupation of that district. The claims of England and Spain to settle in that district were defined and agreed to by that Treaty; and I find in Hertzlett's Commercial Treaties, that the 5th Article of the Treaty to which I am now referring, which was signed at the Escurial on the 28th of October, 1790, secured those rights. By the 5th Article of that Treaty, it was agreed, that—
"In all other parts of the north-western coasts of North America, or of the islands adjacent, situated to the north of the parts of the said territory already occupied by Spain, wherever the subjects of either of the two Powers shall have made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of the other shall have free access, and carry on their trading without disturbance or molestation."
Now, that Article shows clearly that all the part north of the part of the coast occupied by Spain, was a part which was subject to be settled by either Power, and that no separate jurisdiction was claimed by England or Spain over the portion of the country to the north of that part of the coast. Spain was allowed to carry on trade in the dis-

185
trict to the west of the British settlements; but she was allowed no jurisdiction over the subjects of England in those settlements; and the only part which was left indefinite by the Treaty was, the part of the coast occupied by Spain. It does not appear that at the period of the Treaty there were any settlements to the north of latitude 40 in the occupation of Spain, or at the Columbia River, or Nootka Sound, or in any of the districts adjacent to the Columbia River. Such, then, is the state of the Treaties between Great Britain and Spain on that subject; and it is manifest that it remained open to Great Britain or Spain to perfect their discoveries on the coast by making such settlements as they thought proper. It appears that Captain Vancouver was sent out by the British Government after the settlement, and that he was ordered to discover the line of coast and to take possession of certain parts which were laid down in his instructions; and we come now to another part of the claims of the United States. The United States put in a claim to this territory on the ground of discovery, and that is founded on transactions which I shall proceed now to relate. It appears that a merchant vessel, called the Columbia, the commander, named Grey, discovered an inlet, which he supposed to be the inlet of a river, and that he spent some days there in May, 1792, those days having been spent partly at anchor, and partly in endeavouring to ascertain the limits of the bay which he discovered. After a few days spent in that manner, the vessel again sailed into the Pacific Ocean; and I think it is very clear that the commander of the merchant vessel, Captain Grey, thought he was mistaken in supposing that he found the inlet of a river, and having endeavoured to penetrate the river, he was obliged to return, after a few days, without having discovered the river. Shortly after Captain Grey left the coast and sailed into the Pacific, Captain Vancouver arrived at the inlet, and sent his lieutenant, Mr. Broughton, to explore the river. Lieutenant Broughton was more successful than Mr. Grey, and he discovered the entrance of the Columbia river, and went up ninety or one hundred miles—he remained several days in making his explorations, and having discovered the territories on the banks of the river, he returned to the ship. Captain Vancouver then took possession of the territory, and the coasts adjacent to Nootka Sound, in the name of His Majesty the King of England. And
186
here we have something like a valid title established on the principle of taking possession of the territory, not by the casual visit of a merchant vessel, but by an officer in the uniform of his Majesty the King of England. The possession was thus taken for the purpose of occupation and settlement. These, then, are the most important transactions which took place with respect to the title to this territory. There are other transactions, however, on which the Committee of the House of Representatives founded a claim; and these are not, in my opinion, sufficient to sustain a valid title. It appears that France, in 1803, made a cession of Louisiana, and that all the rights which France possessed in Louisiana passed with that cession to the United States. There was a subsequent Treaty, in 1819, by which the Floridas were given up to the United States, and that all the rights which Spain possessed in connexion with that territory were also given up. But I must here remark, that unless France or Spain had rights over a territory in America, they could not give them up by a Treaty. It is manifest that no cession could give up to the United States, on the part of France or Spain, a right which neither of these countries possessed. It is stated in a pamphlet which I have here, and which is an American publication, that the purchase of Louisiana included all the lands on the east side of the Mississipi not then belonging to the United States, as far as the great chain of mountains which divide the waters running into the Pacific, and those falling into the Atlantic Ocean; and from the said chain to the Pacific Ocean, between the territory claimed by Great Britain on the one side, and Spain on the other. To this I say, that unless Lousiana did include any part of that territory to the west of the Rocky Mountains, there can be no valid claim. But Louisiana never did include any such territory; therefore this article is useless. But suppose it were a valid article, it would only give them the territory between what was claimed by Great Britain on the one side, and by Spain on the other. It does not say "to what Great Britain has made good her claim, or which is acknowledged to be hers;" but only "that part which is claimed by Great Britain." With regard to that cession by Spain, I should think it could only be a cession of any rights which Spain may have held under a convention with Great Britain relative to Nootka Sound. That was a convention between

187
Spain on the one side, and Great Britain on the other. The two Powers afterwards went to war; and it has been said I know by some, arguing, I believe, on the part of the United States, that that war took away any title Great Britain might have held. There is no reason for any such assumption. But the fact is, that convention was renewed at the peace in 1814, between this country and Spain. Therefore, the United States, by any agreement they made, any Treaty they entered into in 1819, could only inherit and succeed to such a title as Spain held in 1814. Now, what was that title? It was a title to settle in and to trade to parts in which English subjects had already settled and traded, to settle and trade for themselves. Well, then, I come to the third question, which I think the most important of all these modes of establishing a title—I mean the title of occupancy and settlement. The question for the House now to consider is, whether there is what the President of the United States calls "a title clear and unquestionable" to be made out by occupation and settlement. I have already stated that a British settlement was formed at Nootka Sound, and I have to add that subsequently settlements were established by the Hudson's Bay Company in various parts of the Oregon Territory. The United States, on the other hand, established a settlement in that district; and I will tell you what was the fate of that settlement, as described by an American writer, Mr. Farnham, who is also very anxious to stand up for the claims of America to this territory. It appears that in 1810 or 1811, a settlement was established in a territory which was called Astoria; and with the proceedings connected with the origin and subsequent fate of those settlements or forts, we have all been made perfectly acquainted by the beautiful manner in which their history has been related by a gentleman, whom I am happy to call a friend of mine, Mr. Washington Irving. Mr. Astor, in 1810 or 1811, made a settlement which he called Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia River. Not long after the settlement was formed by Mr. Astor, a war broke out between England and the United States, and a question arose as to what should become of Astoria, as those who were residing there feared, as they naturally might, that a maritime expedition might be sent out from England to attack the settlement. In consequence of this fear on the part of those in the settlement,
188
the American company took means for the sale of the settlement, and the sale was accordingly effected to the North West Company. After the Treaty of 1815, however, some misconception took place in this country with respect to the settlement which was sold; and Lord Bathurst thought it right to restore to the subjects of the United States the possession of the settlement under an Article in the Treaty of 1815, which Article declared "that all possessions of the United States which had been captured by this country should be restored to the United States." It was urged by the North West Company, who bought the settlement, that the settlement had not been captured by England, but had been, regularly sold to them. It appears, however, that in point of fact the settlement was, after the war, given up to the agent of the United States, and that in point of fact the United States did not establish a new settlement after it had been so given up to the United States' agent. It appears, according to the statement of Mr. Farnham, that the two British companies which were established in this territory, the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay, soon after this period, were joined together by an Act of Parliament, and became one company; and they then built a fort at the mouth of the Columbia River, which they called Fort George; and Mr. Farnham describes this fort as having been presided over by a gentleman, on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company, who was possessed of great influence over the people, and was, as Mr. Farnham states, called the King of the Indians in that territory, and was the only person in authority there. Mr. Farnham gives an account of another American company which was formed by the United States, and which was called by them the Pacific Fur Company; but that company was a total failure; and it failed not on account of any violence or aggression on the part of British subjects, but because the Hudson's Bay Company entered on their trade with a larger spirit of enterprise and more extended views; that they understood the mode of conducting trade in a better manner; and that their particular operations were in consequence more successful and on a more extensive principle. The effect of this superiority was, that the Pacific Fur Company sold out their settlements to the Hudson's Bay Company. What account does Mr. Farnham give of the Hudson's Bay Company, though all the

189
time complaining that any British subject should settle in those parts, and above all, that Americans should be subject to any authority exercised by Englishmen? He says,—
"There are no less than eighteen settlements or ports in this part of the territory of the Oregon. There are several along the River Columbia. One part called Vancouver, contains a great number of people within a sort of stockade or entrenchment. There is also a farm of 3,000 acres well cultivated. The inhabitants dwell in a village, and are subject to the authority and control of the Hudson's Bay Company."
He describes all their settlements to be in admirable condition. He says,—
"While they give a better price for their furs, they bargain with the savages more advantageously to the Indians than any other persons can do for the manufactured goods and various articles they sell."
And I like to quote these American authorities, because they bear a high testimony, not only to the intelligence, but to the integrity and benevolence of this Company in these transactions. We well know the story, so terrible in the history of American civilization, that civilized people have prevailed upon savages, by giving them intoxicating drinks, to part with such goods and furs as they possessed, and could part with; and at the same time they brutalized these unfortunate savages by the use of rum and brandy, which they thus sold to them. Now, mark what is said by a Lieutenant in the American service,—
"The Hudson's Bay Company have done every thing possible to prevent such transactions on the part of the agents of their Company with the Indians with whom they are concerned. And although they have in their stores large quantities of rum, they are not permitted to be sold to those savages. When a ship came into Columbia laden with spirits, the Company at once bought the whole cargo, in order to prevent the degradation and demoralization of the Indian character by the immoderate and excessive use of these spirits, which has been the case formerly."
We are told by the authority which I am now quoting, that the Hudson's Bay Company did every thing in their power, every thing that was possible, to prevent the infliction of the evils produced by these intoxicating drinks upon the Indians; and that although they have large stores of rum in their settlements they do not permit it to be sold to the savages. Such is the mode in which they carry
190
out their views, that at one time, when a ship arrived in the Columbia river, laden with spirits, they bought the whole cargo, in order effectually to prevent the injury to the Indians which always was produced by the immoderate use of spirits. Such is the high character of the Company—such is the extent of their operations—and such is the spirit in which their operations are carried on. It is stated on good authority that there are 20,000 persons living in the Oregon Territory, and that scarcely 100 of these are citizens of the United States; whilst, on the other hand, the Hudson's Bay Company have many settlements in the territory. I know not what the value of the fur trade may be, but it is obvious that it must be a trade of considerable value. There are other considerations, however, which attach importance to this question. The Columbia is the only port, I believe, on that coast, which is, I believe, a very dangerous coast; whilst, in order to show the extent of the river, it is enough to state that it is 1,600 yards wide, at a distance of 90 miles from the mouth. It is obvious that the increase of trade which must take place between this country and China will render it more important, as that is the only port on that part of the coast. There may be one established near Nootka Sound; but it is not, I believe, approachable, and is surrounded by high mountains; and probably will not for hundreds of years, if even then, be made available. I have now given to the House an account of the transactions which relate to this difficult subject; and the result is, that so far as ancient discovery establishes a claim, England has a superior claim to the United States. With regard to the question of treaty or convention, the United States have no claim whatever; nor have they any claim upon the territory on the ground of settlement, occupancy, or trading, on the part of their subjects. With respect to the question of recent discoveries and occupation, it appears that there was a perfect discovery and possession under the authority and sanction of our Government, and the settlement consequent thereon; and, therefore, it appears to me, that on these grounds also this country has a claim to the Oregon Territory stronger than the United States. Captain Vancouver took possession of the coast, and an officer under his command went many miles up the river; and English subjects belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, going from Canada, are, by their skill and enter-

191
prise, carrying on traffic of great importance in that territory. Sir, having stated in this manner the general nature of these claims, I will now allude to what has been done in the way of negotiation between this country and the United States. What I am going first to allude to is an important negotiation that took place in London, between Mr. Rush, on the part of the United States, and Mr. Huskisson and Sir Stratford Canning, acting under Mr. Canning, on the part of Great Britain. Propositions were made by Mr. Rush, on the part of the United States; and it was then alleged, with reference to a declaration of the President of the United States, that no colonization should thereafter take place on the American Continent. This claim was peremptorily denied by Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson. The claim to the whole of the Oregon Territory was as peremptorily denied. At the same time, with a proper appreciation, as I think, of the value of a good understanding between the two countries, Mr. Canning authorized Mr. Huskisson to propose a compromise. A line was agreed to be carried to where the 49th degree of north latitude intersects the Rocky Mountains, and to be carried on beyond that point to a branch of the Columbia River called the M'Gillivray, and thence on to the main stream of the Columbia, and that the river Columbia was then to form the boundary of the territories of the two countries. This was giving a very considerable territory to the United States. It was giving them a valley, watered by a river as large as the Columbia, where it joins the M'Gillivray, called the Willoughby, and all the territory to the south of the Columbia, and between the Columbia and latitude 42, where the British possessions commenced. That extent of territory is described as the most fertile, the best adapted for the cultivation of wheat and other valuable productions. It was proposed by Mr. Canning, that all that country should belong to the United States; but he was not ready to give up the territory or to give up the forts or settlements to the north of the Columbia, which, for the purpose of harbours, were important to the subjects of this country. It appears to me that this proposal was an equitable proposal on the part of Mr. Canning; and that considering the value of the claims which we have, and considering the claims which the United States have, to make the proposal was as fair as they could reasonably expect. It was, however, rejected
192
by the American Government; and it became necessary to renew a convention that had been agreed upon, that both Great Britain and the United States should have power to trade, to occupy, and to settle, without claiming any right of sovereignty in any portion of that territory. Such, Sir, was the state of the question down to the present time; but at the present time we have a new circumstance, a new event upon which the whole question must be finally brought to issue. The President of the United States has made, as I have already read to the House, a peremptory claim to the whole of this territory. He has claimed the whole possession of it for the United States, and has in an unusual manner called upon the people of the United States, with their wives and children, to occupy that territory. That district is becoming, on account of the forts on the river Columbia, more important every year. After that statement of the President of the United States, I consider it impossible that Her Majesty's Government should not endeavour to obtain a speedy solution of this question. I am sure they will feel it impossible to allow the present undefined and unsettled state of relations between the two countries to continue, without incurring great danger that the people of the United States, acting upon the suggestion of the President, may endeavour to disturb British subjects in rights which they hold by virtue of Treaties, and may produce a state of things dangerous to the peace of the two countries. For my own part, I will say, in all moderation, that I am not prepared to affirm that this country ought to put forward any arrogant pretensions. I do not pretend to define—what it belongs to Her Majesty's advisers to define—the diplomatic proposals that should be made. I will not pretend to say what line ought to be laid down; but this I will say, that I do not think we can make any proposal which shall be less than the proposal made by Mr. Canning, with any regard for our own interests, or our own honour. I may be told that it does not matter if this rocky and barren territory should be claimed, or occupied, or taken by the United States. Yes, Sir, but I must say it does matter. It cannot be a matter of indifference, that a large territory to which we have a better and a juster title, should be yielded to what I must call a blustering announcement on the part of the President of the United States. It cannot be a matter of indifference that the

193
communication between that country, west of the Rocky Mountains, and China, the East Indies, and the whole of South America, should be surrendered at once to a Foreign Power; but, above all, it cannot be a matter of indifference, that the tone or the character of England should be lowered in any transaction which we may have to carry on with the United States. With this feeling, then, I beg to thank the House for having listened to the statement which I have very imperfectly made as to the claim which this country possesses to that territory. I should have abstained altogether from entering upon this subject if it had been left to diplomatic negotiation between Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary of State for the United States. I feel the difficulty, and the objectionable course which I am myself pursuing; but I feel that it is forced upon me, and I feel that I can do what it is quite impossible for any Minister of the Crown to do—satisfy the House and the people of this country as to what are their rights. With this statement, therefore, I leave the matter in the hands of the Government of the country; and I will not express the smallest doubt that in all their proceedings they will duly consult the interests of the country and the honour of the Crown which they serve.
Sir R. Peelsaid: Sir, I cannot be surprised, and I must say I cannot complain, that the noble Lord should have taken this opportunity of delivering the sentiments which he has expressed on the present occasion. I think the noble Lord has justly defined the limits within which it is wise to introduce in a popular assembly, and pending the negotiation of measures materially affecting the important interests of two great nations—he has justly defined, I say, the rule which Members of Parliament should lay down to themselves in the exercise of their privileges. While negotiations are pending, through the means of persons regularly constituted with a distinct authority for that purpose, unless there be plain reasons for the exercise of their right, it is politic to abstain from the exercise of free discussion in popular assemblies upon topics of this description. It is so easy to excite public feeling in such assemblies, that, unless there be grave and cogent arguments for the contrary course, it is better to leave such matters to the discretion of those who are entrusted with the care of the honour and the interests
194
of the country. But if the noble Lord has felt it his duty to depart from that course, I must say, he is not responsible for any of the consequences that may arise from that deviation. The noble Lord says, and says with truth, that, from the latest accounts, the President of the United States would appear, in this important matter, to have withdrawn it from the cognizance of the authorities to whom, up to a very recent period, it had been entrusted, and to appeal for a decision of the question to other authorities than those to whom the power of its adjustment was entrusted. The noble Lord has truly said that, in speaking of such a subject as this, a Minister of the Crown speaks under an obligation and an engagement from which the noble Lord, as an individual Member of Parliament, is free. I do not think it would be consistent with my duty to follow the noble Lord in a discussion of the grounds which the United States urged in regard to their claim. It would be impossible to do so without expressing, or at least without implying, opinions which I think it more consistent with my duty not to proclaim in this House. I shall only correct the statement of the noble Lord in one particular in which I think he was in error. The noble Lord, in speaking of the propositions made by Mr. Huskisson, under the authority of Mr. Canning, in 1827—[Lord J. Russell had referred, not to 1827, but to 1818]—I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the subject was under discussion at a subsequent period, in the year 1827, which discussion was carried on first by Mr. Huskisson, and afterwards by Mr. Grant. The last propoposition, made on the authority of Mr. Canning, was not what the noble Lord supposes. The noble Lord states that the last proposal made by the authority of Mr. Canning was, that a line should be drawn from the point where the 49th parallel of latitude intercepts the Rocky Mountains to a branch of the River Columbia called the M'Gillivray, and should continue down to where that river joins the Columbia and thence to the Pacific. The proposal made by Mr. Canning was, that in addition to this, the United States should have this further advantage—that in the harbour of Juan de Fuca there should be free access for American vessels, and that they should have a certain peninsula, comprising a considerable extent of land to the north

195
of the Columbia river, but that the south of the strait should be ceded in sovereignty to the United States. That was the proposal made by Mr. Huskisson at the instance of Mr. Canning. I think it right to abstain from all further discussion as to the claims of the United States; but I feel it perfectly open to me to inform the House of the present general state of our negotiations with the United States. It may be convenient — at least to some Gentlemen—that I should shortly refer to a statement which I made the other night, in consequence of some observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath. In the Convention of 1819, the Northern Boundary of the United States and of the British possessions was defined. The line was carried to where the 49th degree of latitude intersects the Rocky Mountains. No agreement was made with respect to the country west of the Rocky Mountains; but the Convention of 1819 gave a right of joint occupation, which was to endure for ten years. In the course of the year 1824 and the year 1826, efforts were made by Mr. Canning to come to an amicable adjustment of the respective claims of the United States and this country. Those efforts, conducted under the auspices of men of great ability, were entirely unavailing. The proposals which we made to the United States were rejected by them, and the proposals which they made were rejected by us. At the expiration of the term of ten years the Convention would expire. A new Convention was, therefore, entered into in 1827, which was to be continued in force for a further term of ten years, from the Convention of 1819, with an additional proviso—and this distinguished the more recent Convention from the former one—that the Convention of 1827 was not to be necessarily determined by the lapse of time, but was to continue in force for an indefinite period, each party, however, having the power of terminating it at the end of a year, by giving notice the year before; and in that case the rights of the two parties were not to be prejudiced. That is the agreement under which we are now acting. That is the Convention which determines the relations between this country and the United States, with respect to this territory, which I will call the Oregon Territory. Thinking it of great importance that the causes of future differences should be prevented,
196
by an amicable settlement of the respective claims, Mr. Pakenham, our Minister, was directed to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States, for the purpose of effecting an amicable adjustment on principles which should be equitable and just to the two countries. Those negotiations were continued during the presidency of Mr. Tyler, and almost to the period when Mr. Pakenham entered upon his duties in the United States; and it may be useful that I should read the notice which was taken of the progress of those negotiations in a Message addressed by the President of the United States to the two Houses of Congress, at so late a period as the 3rd of December, 1844. The then President, Mr. Tyler, on the 3rd of December last, said:—
"Since the closing of your last Session, a negotiation has been formally entered upon between the Secretary of State, and Her Britannic Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary, residing at Washington, relative to the rights of their respective nations in and over the Oregon Territory. That negotiation is still pending. Should it, during your Session, be brought to a definite conclusion, the result will be promptly communicated to Congress. I would, however, again call your attention to the recommendations contained in previous Messages, designed to protect and facilitate emigration to that territory. The establishment of military posts at suitable points upon the extended line of land travel, would enable our citizens to migrate in comparative safety to the fertile regions below the Falls of the Columbia, and make the provisions of the existing Convention for the joint occupation of the territory by subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States more available than heretofore to the latter. These posts would constitute places of rest for the weary emigrant, where he would be sheltered securely against the danger of attack from the Indians, and be enabled to recover from the exhaustion of a long line of travel. Legislative enactments should also be made which would spread over him the ægis of our laws, so as to afford protection to his person and property when he shall have reached his distant home. In this latter respect, the British Government has been much more careful of the interests of such of her people as are to be found in that country, than the United States."
That refers to an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament in the year 1821, which Act introduced British laws in this disputed territory.
"She has made necessary provision for their security and protection against the acts of the viciously disposed and lawless; and her emi-

197
grant reposes in safety under the panoply of the laws. Whatever may be the result of the pending negotiation, such measures are necessary. It will afford me the greatest pleasure to witness a happy and favourable termination to the existing negotiation, upon terms compatible with the public honour; and the best efforts of the Government will continue to be directed to this end."
This was the Address delivered to the two Houses of Congress by the late President Tyler, at so late a period as the 3rd of December, 1844. I think the general spirit of this Message must show a sincere desire to obtain an amicable adjustment of the claims by means of negotiation; but at a later period than the 3rd of December, a Motion was made in Congress for an Address to the Executive Government, praying that all Papers relating to the negotiations might be laid upon the Table of the House. It was necessary for Mr. Tyler to reply to that Motion, which he did at so late a date as the 19th of February, 1845, about a fortnight before the Inaugural Speech made by the present President, to which the noble Lord has referred; find what was the answer given by Mr. Tyler? It is as follows:—
"TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
"In answer to the Resolution of the Senate of the 11th of December, 1844, requesting the President to lay before the Senate, if in his judgment that may be done without prejudice to the public interests, a copy of any instructions which may have been given by the Executive to the American Minister in England, on the subject of the title to and occupation of the territory of Oregon, since the 4th day of March, 1841; also a copy of any correspondence which may have passed between this Government and that of Great Britain, or between either of the two Governments and the Minister of the other, in relation to that subject since that time—I have to say, that in my opinion, as the negotiation is still pending, the information sought for cannot be communicated without prejudice to the public service. I deem it, however, proper to add, that considerable progress has been made in the discussion, which has been carried on in a very amicable spirit between the two Governments; and that there is reason to hope that it may be terminated, and the negotiation be brought to a close within a short period. I have delayed answering the Resolution under the expectation expressed in my Annual Message, that the negotiation would have been terminated before the close of the present Session of Congress, and that the information called for by the Resolution of the Senate might be communicated. "JOHN TYLER.
"Washington, Feb. 19, 1845."
198
I am bound to confirm this statement so far as relates to the amicable spirit of the negotiation. I cannot confirm it as to the progress of the negotiation, and the prospect of its speedy termination; but nothing could be more friendly than the spirit in which the late President declined to give the information required. On the 4th of March, 1845, the present President of the United States made that Inaugural Address to which the noble Lord has referred. It is right to state that since that Inaugural Address we have had no communication from our Minister in the United States. He wrote a letter transmitting the Address, but had not time to make any comment upon it. No diplomatic negotiations have taken place between him and the present Government of the United States that we are aware of. When I say that no such negotiation has taken place, I do not mean up to the present time, but at the date of the last accounts. We have had no direct communication; but I think it highly probable that Mr. Pakenham would have continued with the present Government the negotiations that were in progress; but since the resignation of Mr. Calhoun and the appointment of Mr. Buchanan as Secretary of State, we have had no communication. All we know is what is contained in the President's Address. I think it highly probable, as I have said, that the negotiations have been renewed, or rather continued, by Mr. Pakenham. At no distant period the result of that renewed negotiation must be known. I think it my duty not to despair of a favourable result of the negotiation; but in case there should be an unfavourable result, if the measure which we have already proposed should be rejected, and if no counter proposals should be made by the United States which are likely to lead to an amicable adjustment of these differences—if that should be the issue, it will then be the duty of the Government to lay upon the Table of the House all the communications that have taken place. I trust, however, still, that that will not be the case; I still hope that an amicable adjustment of the claims of the two countries may be made, notwithstanding the last Address of the President. I must, however, express my deep regret that while the negotiations were pending, the chief Executive Authority of the United States should, in a public Address, contrary to all

199
usage, have referred to other contingencies than a friendly and satisfactory termination of these differences. Such a reference is not likely to lead to that issue which may tend to the maintenance of the amicable relations between the two countries which we desire to see—namely, an amicable, honourable, and equitable settlement of the differences which have arisen respecting this territory. I deeply regret, not only the reference which was so made, but I deeply regret the tone and temper in which that reference was made. As the subject has been brought under discussion — I think not improperly by the noble Lord—I feel it my imperative duty, on the part of the British Government, to state in language the most temperate, but, at the same time, the most decided, that we consider we have rights respecting this territory of Oregon which are clear and unquestionable. We trust still to arrive at an amicable adjustment—we desire to effect an amicable adjustment of our claim; but having exhausted every effort to effect that settlement, if our rights shall be invaded, we are resolved—and we are prepared—to maintain them. Perhaps that declaration may induce the House—although each individual Member has a right to participate in a discussion with reference to a public question—to abstain from a discussion in a popular assembly. Such, although it be a matter of right, might have a tendency to prevent that result which we must all desire—a satisfactory adjustment of the question; and I trust individual Members will be content to leave the matter where it is placed, in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord John Russellsaid, he had not been aware of the more recent proposals of Mr. Canning, to which the right hon. Baronet adverted, otherwise he should not have omitted to notice them. After what the right hon. Gentlemen had said, he should leave the matter where it was. He had made no Motion—he had carefully abstained from making any Motion; and after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, he should abstain from making any Motion until the Government were prepared to communicate the necessary information to the House.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid: Sir, I quite agree with the the right hon. Baronet that it would not be now expedient for Members of this House to pursue the sub-
200
ject further; but I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to state, with reference to what has passed in an earlier part of the evening, that, looking at the quotations that had been made by a noble Lord in another place, as I understand from Despatches which I myself placed on the Table in connexion with the negotiations on the Boundary Question, I am inclined to think that when the right hon. Baronet looks into them he will find that the noble Lord has quoted nothing but what he was perfectly justified in quoting. After the manner in which things which I have said in debate have been elsewhere alluded to, I might perhaps take advantage of this opportunity to answer what has been said elsewhere. I shall only say with regard to the observations that have been made upon statements and arguments of mine on the Boundary Question and the Ashburton Negotiation, nothing which has been said in another place appears to me to contain any answer to the detailed arguments which I, nearly two years ago, addressed to this House, and to the despatches which have been laid before the two Houses of Parliament; and the opinions which I expressed and entertained have been in no degree invalidated. It is true that the late Government adopted the award of the King of the Netherlands. They did so because they thought it a point of honour to abide by his decision. It is quite true, also, that it was less advantageous to the country than the proposal which we afterwards made for dividing the disputed territory into two. It is true that it would have left to the Americans the territory south of the St. John; but we did not stand on the ground that such cession ought not, under any circumstances, to be made, but our negotiator had said that it would be cruel and unjust to make the cession without the consent of the inhabitants. The Americans had said that the river was the natural boundary; but he afterwards, in reference to another portion of the territory, did not stand upon the river, but consented to go beyond it in deference to their wishes. It has been said in another place that my arguments were at variance with my acts; but if any one will take the trouble of referring to what I said, he will find that I refuted all the arguments founded upon that assumption. Objections have also been taken to the manner in which I have stated my views

201
on this subject. I trust that on every occasion when it has been my duty to state my opinions to the House, I have always abstained as much as circumstances would permit from any personal attack upon any individual; but if individuals choose to accept great and important public functions, they must expect that their public conduct and their public acts will be liable to such observations as any one may think it his duty to make. And I can only say, when observations are made by persons who, in my opinion, have in the discharge of great important public trusts, from whatever motive it may have arisen—whether it be from natural incapacity, or from opinions—speculative opinions—inconsistent with the duties they have to perform, whenever such persons sacrifice the honour or the interest of this country, it will be a matter of entire indifference to me in what manner such individuals may speak of any strictures I feel it my duty to make upon them. I never feel any concern if I find the opinions of these persons, upon great political questions, at variance with my own. I am, Sir, rather inclined to think that where they do differ from me, it is a presumption of my view being the correct one.

OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST OFFICE.
Upon the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Wakleyrose to move, in pursuance of the terms of his Notice,—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before the House, a Copy of any Warrant or Warrants sent to the Postmaster General by any Secretary of State, directing the detaining or opening of any Letter or Letters addressed to or written by Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, Esq., a Member of this House."
He was unwilling to bring forward this Motion at the present moment, as his hon. Colleague laboured under the impression that it was not to be brought forward until Monday next. If he did not now bring it forward, he would be precluded from doing so for some time to come. The right hon. Baronet opposite could, however, relieve him from the necessity of discussing this question, by producing the warrants—his not doing so compelled him to submit his Motion, and to take
202
the sense of the House upon it. He reminded the House, that immediately before Easter he had presented a petition from the inhabitants of Finsbury, complaining of the wrong done to their Representative, and praying for an inquiry into it. Upon this subject he could assure them that the feeling in the borough of Finsbury was deep-rooted and intense. He then quoted the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), made when this subject was last before the House, and containing a full statement of the circumstances under which that right hon. Baronet had been induced to open Mr. Mazzini's letters. The course pursued in that case was different from that adopted towards his hon. Colleague. His hon. Colleague had stated that his letters had been opened at the Post Office; but he could get no acknowledgment from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether his letters had been opened or not. His hon. Colleague's letters having been opened, he had a right to know who were his calumniators—who it was that had been acting as spies and informers against him, and inducing the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he had been guilty of improper practices. His hon. Colleague was utterly in the dark as to the whole of this transaction. It was known that his name had been traduced—that his conduct had been misrepresented; and, placed in these circumstances, he had a right to complain to that House, and his constituents also had a right to complain, that one who had so honestly, so faithfully performed his duty, should be so maligned and so injured. When, too, these constituents found that Her Majesty's Government had been opening the letters of their Representative—that his correspondence had been violated, then they conceived they had a right to know what were the circumstances under which these things were done. If the Government was justified in opening the letters of his hon. Colleague, why were not the reasons stated to that House? The right hon. Gentleman would not admit that the letters had been opened; and yet it was the general belief throughout England, not only that letters written to him, but letters written by him, had been opened; and the Government ought to state why this had been done. The right hon. Gentleman talked of "responsibility;" but what was the

203
meaning of it, when they had not the means of knowing what had been done? If a prosecution were instituted against parties in the Post Office for opening letters, the warrant must be produced. There was no other defence for them, in law, but the production of the warrant. He must say that the Government appeared to him to be fencing on this subject in a manner that was not creditable to them. They were giving an example calculated to produce a bad effect upon the country; for they did not rely upon law; they did not rely upon justice; their sole reliance was upon force; they rested upon their majority, and, secure in that, they baffled inquiry. His hon. Colleague had asked in every form for justice, and it had been refused to him. To deny him was unfair—to refuse his demand was ungenerous. The conduct of Her Majesty's Government, he considered, as unfair; but the conduct of a majority of the House was infinitely worse. Her Majesty's Government appeared as obdurate now as it had been the very first moment the matter had been brought under their consideration. The time, he hoped, had come when the Government would relent, and adopt a course different from that which they had hitherto pursued. In the case of Mr. Mazzini a full explanation had been given. Why not also give a full explanation as to this? If his Motion were now opposed, there would, he knew, be a majority against him; but then that decision would produce no beneficial effect upon the public mind, and more especially in the borough of Finsbury. He thought his hon. Colleague had been treated most unfairly, and this, too, while he was endeavouring to discharge his duty to an individual who considered himself aggrieved. He was assuming that the letters of his hon. Colleague had been opened, because he had said he could prove at the Bar of the House that his letters had been opened. If, however, the Government said that his letters had not been opened—if such had not been the case, what would there be humiliating to them in making such an avowal? If, on the other hand, the Government admitted that the letters had been opened, why not let the House and the country know the reason why this had been done? He concluded by moving, in accordance with the terms of which he had given notice.
Sir James Grahamobserved that it had
204
been frankly admitted by the hon. Member that if he had consulted his own judgment or feelings this Motion would not have been brought forward on the present occasion. The present appearance of the House showed that it was weary of the subject. No one more readily admitted than he did the ingenuity of the hon. Member; but that ingenuity was so exhausted, that in the address he had just made to the House there was not to be found one new topic, nor one new argument. The hon. Member had, as on other occasions, asked what was Ministerial responsibility? Surely the hon. Gentleman and the Members he addressed could not believe his feelings to be so callous that these repeated discussions, that were forced upon him, did not constitute responsibility only, but a very painful responsibility. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the majority, and complained of it. In every popular assembly it was the majority that must decide. When this matter was first brought forward he had pledged himself, as a Minister of the Crown, and as a gentleman, to state frankly to the tribunal appointed to investigate the subject the particular cases in which he had exercised this power. He had done so fully, and without reserve, and that too before a tribunal of which the majority consisted not of the friends, but the opponents of the Government. The Report of that Committee was before the House. Against its decision various appeals had been made, which had been negatived by the House. He thought that what he had stated on a former evening, when this question was under discussion, had satisfied not only the House generally, but the hon. Member himself who made this Motion; he hoped and believed also, that reparation was made by him (Sir James Graham) to the wounded feelings of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe). He said distinctly on that occasion that nothing had come to his knowledge in any way, or at any time, inconsistent with the hon. Member's character as a Member of Parliament, and as a loyal and faithful subject. This he had stated most distinctly and unequivocally in his place in Parliament. He had made that declaration then, and he repeated it now. He must say further, that he did not think it consistent with his duty to give a more explicit answer than he had already given. But what he had stated in regard to the character of the hon. Member for Finsbury he repeated, and was glad to have the op-

205
portunity of doing so. Further he thought it was not necessary to pursue this question. The whole matter with regard to the opening of letters by the Government had been investigated by the tribunal chosen by the House for that purpose; and though that tribunal had not said that the power possessed by the Government had been in every case acted upon with discretion, still they had reported, that in no case and by no Minister had that power been exercised from the impulse of personal or vindictive feelings, or from any other motives (though in some cases they thought mistaken) than a due regard to the public peace, and the good of the country. That was the decision of a tribunal—he would not say an adverse tribunal—but certainly one that could not be supposed to have any prepossessions in favour of the Minister or of the Government. That decision had been satisfactory to the House; and he hoped, under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to divide the House, but allow the Speaker to leave the chair.
Mr. Humeagreed with the right hon. Baronet that the subject was exhausted; but was glad that an opportunity had been given for the explanation of the right hon. Baronet as to what he understood by Ministerial responsibility. For his part, he was sorry the question had been mooted at all; for he believed it had damaged the character of our Government functionaries all over the world. The only point now was, whether under the provisions of any Act of Parliament the Minister had the power of issuing general warrants for the opening of letters; and his hon. Friend wanted to have a copy of any warrant that had been issued in regard to his letters, in order that that question might be tried in a court of law and decided. He really thought that was a most reasonable request, and one that the right hon. Baronet might fairly have conceded. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that the question would not be settled in the public mind, until an opportunity should have been afforded of trying that point. As his object was to see the document, he must, if his hon. Friend should go to a division, divide with him. He admitted that the right hon. Baronet had made every explanation and given every satisfaction to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, so far as his personal character was involved.
Mr. Monckton Milneswas also desirous that no division should take place; but adhering, as he did, to the constitutional view of the question, he must, if the hon. Member divided, vote with him. He had never yet heard any answer to the question, why a warrant was not to be considered as a public document, to be produced when required for public purposes.
Dr. Bowringcould not allow this discussion to close without bearing his testimony to the character of Mr. Mazzini, which had been so unjustly attacked on a former evening by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham). He had known Mr. Mazzini for many a long year; he knew his position, and he knew, too, the feelings of affection and confidence felt towards him by all who knew him. Mr. Mazzini had never approached any person in this country without leaving the most favourable impression as to his high intellect, and pure and unspotted morality. He had struggled much, he had suffered much, and had devoted the whole energies of his mind to one great object—the redemption of his country. He might be a dreamer—he might be (though he hoped he was not) a mistaken enthusiast—but he was one of those who believed that the country that gave him birth was destined to something better and happier than her present position; and having come to this country, having heard of and witnessed the advantages and the blessings of its free institutions, his mind became filled with hopeful aspirations for the time when his own country should enjoy such institutions as ours. Who could blame him, or impute it to him as a crime, if he did believe that his own Italy must ere long also be free? It was impossible that Mr. Mazzini could have contemplated crime — the idea of assassination never could have entered into a mind so elevated and so pure. Was it charitable—was it just—of the right hon. Baronet to traduce the character of an absent man? He (Dr. Bowring) recollected well the excitement occasioned in the House when the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government attacked the hon. Member for Shrewsbury in reference to the imputations he had thrown out against an absent and an innocent man; and yet the right hon. Baronet's Colleague—the Home Secretary—knowing nothing of Mr. Mazzini (for if he had known him, he would never have accused him), did not hesitate,

207
in a place where Mr. Mazzini could not be present to defend himself, to level accusations against him the most terrible and the most criminal. All he asked was, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would inquire into and inform himself of the real character of Mr. Mazzini; and if he found, as he would find, that he had been misinformed, or, improperly and erroneously informed, done an injury to such a man, then he would appeal to his own sense of justice, whether he would leave him in the position he now occupied, sunk in that abyss of degradation which the aspersions publicly cast upon his character in that House had thrown him? He had felt it due to Mr. Mazzini—whom he had known for a long time, and whose conduct he had watched closely, and whose character was distinguished by the highest principles and practices of morality and justice, in whose mind undoubtedly the love of liberty was strong, but the moral principle still stronger—he had felt bound in justice to that gentleman to make these observations in his defence.
Colonel Wyndhamhad no doubt the hon. Member for Bolton had a high opinion of Mr. Mazzini; but he (Colonel Wyndham) should be sorry to be in Mr. Mazzini's position. He had read the correspondence and statements that had appeared on the subject, and he thought Mr. Mazzini, with his talents, should be occupying a proper position in his own country, instead of coming here to do mischief. He had not that high opinion of him that the hon. Member for Bolton entertained, and if the Amendment was pressed to a division, he should vote against it.
Captain Bernal Osborne: After the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton—which, as a Member of that House, and a friend of Mr. Mazzini's, did him honour, in contradistinction to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who last spoke, and who knew nothing about that Gentleman—he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether, after coming down the other night with those trumped-up charges from certain newspapers which he brought down with him, and which he read—though he ought to have known that the statements contained in them were not true, and though he stated that Mr. Mazzini had never endeavoured to clear his character from the accusations
208
made against him, he ought to have known that he had brought one or two actions against those papers by whom his character had been aspersed—he would put it to the right hon. Baronet whether, after all this, he could be content to allow the matter to rest as it now was? He remembered that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government once made a similar charge against the hon. Member for Stockport, which, by the way, had never yet been apologized for, and which he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) did wrong to submit to. He thought it most improper that Cabinet Ministers should be allowed, having made such charges, to shelter themselves behind their official responsibility. He wished to know whether, after the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton in defence of the character of Mr. Mazzini, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) intended to remain altogether silent?
Sir James Grahamwas really at a loss how to answer the question of the hon. Member. In the early part of the present evening, another hon. Gentleman, without notice, had put a question to him on the subject; and being without notice, and having had no opportunity for consideration or inquiry, he had felt bound, by a regard for truth, to state explicitly at the moment what he did. If more time had been given him to reflect, he might not have had so unequivocal an impression resting on his mind; but the impression he had was, that doubts still hung over the transactions referred to, so far as Mr. Mazzini was said to be implicated in them. He had presented to the House no trumped-up stories; but had stated fairly and truly transactions that had come to the notice of the Government. [Mr. Bernal Osborne: From the Moniteur?] No; from the despatches of the British Minister, which the Government had been receiving for some time past; and he said that, looking at those despatches, some doubts still hung over the transactions, as would be apparent to the House from those despatches, which would be in their hands in a few days. If on further inquiry, and further consideration, he could be satisfied that he had done an injustice to Mr. Mazzini, he need scarcely say that no man would be more ready to make ample and full reparation to him, as to every one else whom he might from misinformation have in

209
like manner injured; and most especially should he be anxious to make reparation to an unprotected foreigner like Mr. Mazzini. He would infinitely rather make that reparation to Mr. Mazzini himself than to any Member of that House; but at the same time he must say, that his regard for truth, while he was not satisfied that he had done an injury, compelled him, as a man of honour, not to admit it.
The House divided on the Question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes, 73; Noes, 22: Majority, 51.

List of the AYES.

Acton, Col.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Arkwright, G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Baillie, Col.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Baillie, H. J.

Hope, hon. C.

Baird, W.

Hope, G. W.

Baldwin, B.

Hornby, J.

Benbow, J,

Jermyn, Earl

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Boldero, H. G.

Kemble, H.

Borthwick, P.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bowles, Adm.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bruce, Lord E.

Lockhart, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Manners, Lord J.

Cardwell, E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Chapman, A.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R,

Chelsea, Visct.

Peel, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Praed, W. T.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Pringle, A.

Copeland, Ald.

Round, J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Smith, rt. hon. T. B. C.

Cripps, W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Darby, G.

Somes, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Spooner, R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Stewart, J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Forman, T. S.

Tennent, J. E.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Fuller, A. E.

Trotter, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Wellesley, Lord C.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Wood, Col. T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Greenall, P.

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baring, H.

Hampden, R.

Young, J.

List of the NOES.

Barnard, E. G.

Collett, J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Etwall, R.

Bowes, J.

Forster, M.

Bowring, Dr.

Gisborne, T.

Butler, hon. Col.

Granger, T. C.

Butler, P. S.

Hill, Lord M.

Christie, W. D.

Hume, J.

210

Milnes, R. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Napier, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Osborne, R.

Wakley, T.

Plumridge, Capt.

Williams, W.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
On the Question being again put,
Mr. Williamssaid, he had certainly intended to move the Amendment he had given notice of for the reduction of the Household Troops; but he was bound to confess, that what had taken place in the House that evening had entirely altered his intention. He should not now move any reduction in the Army Estimates; for though he was as anxious that as much economy as possible should be exercised in regard to our standing army, yet if we were threatened with danger from any quarter, or if an attempt was apprehended in the remotest degree, on the part of any Foreign country, to do us an injustice or to invade our rights, he would be the last man to stand in the way of the Government in making efficient preparations for the maintenance of the honour and character of England. He had intended to show that the Army Estimates now proposed so greatly exceeded the same Estimates ten years ago, as to require some explanation, and he should have moved a reduction, but for the circumstances that had that evening transpired. There was, however, one point to which he would call attention—viz., the great cost of the regiments of Life Guards and Foot Guards as compared with the regiments of the line. The total charge for the three regiments of Life Guards and the three regiments of Foot Guards could not be taken at less than 355,069 l. Four regiments of the line, numbering 4,515 men, cost 132,553 l. Another item of expense, including six regiments of the line, composed of 8,028 men, cost 232,986 l.; making, altogether, a force of 12,543 men, supported at an expense of 355,848 l. Now, the number of the Guards, 6,561, cost as much as did 12,543 men of the line. He believed that one regiment of Life Guards, of the strength of 400, would suffice for any State occasion. Now, taking the expenses of such a regiment, costing 44,000 l., from the sum of 355,000 l., which the Guards cost the country, a saving of 311,000 l. would be the result—the amount left after the subtraction of

211
the 44,000 l. By reducing the Guards as he proposed, 5,000 more men might, in case of necessity, be added to the line, or they might in a proportionate degree reduce the cost of the whole military establishment. The distinction between the regiments of the line and the household troops produced, he believed, much heart-burning and invidious feeling in the Army. He thought that regiments who had served gallantly abroad should have in their turn, while stationed in London, the opportunity of escorting and guarding their Sovereign. The difference too in the pay of the two classes of regiments, he contended, was quite indefensible. If they were to have differences in pay at all, the higher rate should be bestowed upon regiments of the line, and not upon the household troops. What was the use of the Guards? They afforded no relief to the troops stationed in the Colonies. They took no turn of duty abroad, while it was well known that one of the principal reasons for our keeping up the immense standing army we did was in order to provide regular relief to the troops stationed in our Colonies; and what was still more objectionable than the inequality in pay, was the inequality of rank established betwixt officers of the Guards and officers of the line. Yet, although the former were nominally intended to supply military attendance to the Sovereign, Her Majesty, in her journeys, hardly ever had her escort formed of Horse Guards, some body of light cavalry being generally selected for the service, the heavy household cavalry only attending upon State occasions. When the Emperor of Russia was here, at the review in Windsor-park, when the household troops were pointed out to him, he observed that it was not them he cared so much for seeing as the troops of the line, who had served in every part of the world, and triumphed over every difficulty. He would only call the attention of the House to one other point, namely, the large amount expended in half-pay, and pensions. In the Army Estimates there was a vote for upwards of 5,000 officers receiving half-pay; upwards of 3,000 widows of officers were upon the pension list, and 2,410 other persons. He believed officers' children were similarly provided for. In all, 2,148,300 l. was expended in pensions and half-pay for the Army, while the whole amount of half-
212
pay proposed to be voted in connexion with the three services—the Army, the Navy, and the Ordnance—was 3,689,000 l. This, he contended, was an amount which called for revision and reduction. The rules for permitting retirement upon half-pay should also, he thought, be made more stringent. In offering these observations to the House, he did not mean to press his proposition to a vote. He had already stated the reasons which actuated him in taking that course, and he would content himself with having drawn the attention of the House to the subject.
Mr. Humethought that his hon. Friend had acted quite rightly in abstaining from pressing on the proposition of which he had given notice. The military force of the country was now on a war establishment, and he trusted the Army was large enough to prevent the need for increase, in case of actual war. He objected to the system of favouritism, kept up by the footing upon which the Guards were placed. The expense, per man, of the Guards, was still, within a few pounds, what it was in 1821. More regiments were given to officers of the Guards, than to all the officers of the line. There ought to be no pet corps, no favourite men; every regiment of the line ought to take its tour of duty at the Palace, as was done in the military monarchy of Prussia. The conduct of Lord Ellenborough in India, in his mode of forming his body-guard of the most meritorious officers and men, had been highly creditable, and had given great satisfaction. The time was coming when the people of this country would call for a reduction in the expense of our military establishments, now between 7,000,000 l. and 8,000,000 l., including barracks; and, fortunately, the disposition manifested by the present Government to maintain peace, so highly to their credit, would (it might be hoped) soon enable them to reduce this heavy charge, which the country could not bear. After the battle of Waterloo, having a Prince Royal to the head of the army, there was a military mania, and we became a military people at the expense of our Navy. At the same time considering the circumstances in which they now stood, and after what had that night transpired, he would not be a party to any proposition for an immediate reduction of the Army. He was a man of peace; he had always advocated peace;

213
but it was possible to carry love for peace to such an extent as to encourage other nations to trample upon us. He hoped most sincerely that no necessity for keeping up the Army might arise from events now pending; but come what might, our rights and interests must not be allowed to be disregarded, and to be trampled down. While they expressed themselves strongly against war—while they were fully conscious of all the injuries and evils which it must inevitably give rise to—while they expressed decidedly in favour of peace, they must remember that they had rights and interests which they could not and must not allow to be set at nought.
House in Committee of Supply.
Mr. Sidney Herbertrose to move the Army Estimates. He could not commence the statement which it was his duty to make, without expressing the satisfaction with which he had witnessed the course adopted by the hon. Member for Coventry, and by the hon. Member who had succeeded him. However extreme on some occasions their views on economy might be, they had on this occasion shown, that those ideas did not interfere with those larger views and better feelings which it became hon. Members to adopt in such circumstances as the present. He should say a few words as to the particular subject adverted to by the hon. Member for Coventry, and then state, as shortly as he could, the changes of detail which would be found in the present, as compared with the last year's Estimates. He believed that the hon. Member, in the calculation which he had made as to the cost of the household troops compared with that of the troops of the line, had been misled by the great mass of detail which would be found in the Army Estimates. Because he found that if they compared the expenses of infantry of the line with these of the soldiers of the Guards—adding to the pay of the officers and men of the former the different allowances to which they were entitled—the contingent allowance, lodging money, &c.—if they were to take the household troops and adopt, with respect to them, the proposition which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the other night, and suppress two regiments of household cavalry, converting them into infantry of the line, the saving effected would only amount to about 62,000 l. The reason was this, the pay of the officers of the Guards, though at first sight higher than that of those of the line,
214
had not added to it the allowances made to officers of other regiments, although they were put into situations which exposed them to increased expense. He had a calculation upon the subject, made by a great authority, no other than the Duke of Wellington, which shewed clearly that in some of the higher grades of rank among the officers of the Guards, when all these circumstances were taken into consideration, the pecuniary advantage of—take the rank of a captain in the Guards for instance—was very little greater than it was in the case of a captain in the line. It should not be forgotten, too, that officers in the Guards were put to a greater expense than officers in the line, from the circumstance that the former had not the advantage of a mess. Troops of the line, too, when in London, used to receive the additional penny a day, which made the difference between their pay and that of privates in the household troops. Upon the whole then, taking into consideration these allowances, and the various circumstances to which he had adverted, he thought that the hon. Gentleman would see how trifling would be the saving which would be effected by means of his proposition, were it to be carried into effect. There were also other reductions, which, however, were of too minute a character for him to trouble the House by entering into them in detail. They arose from the transfer of the clothing department of the Army to the Ordnance, and the alterations with respect to the military prisons, made pursuant to the recommendation of a Committee. There was a trifling increase in the Estimate for good conduct money, the total number of men now in receipt of good conduct pay being between 7,000 l. and 8,000 l.; but that was an increase that no man can regret. The item for military prisons was 4,408 l.; but as a portion of this sum was derived from other sources, there would on the whole be a saving in the item to the public. In the item for the staff there was a small increase, and in the unprovided service an additional sum was required of 55,000 l. in order to equalise the allowance of troops serving in Hong-Kong and China with that of the troops in India. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the increase which had been made to the staff, he should have borne in mind the various reductions that had also taken place in that department. A force of 7,000 pensioners had been lately enrolled, but independently of that there was a real annual decrease of from 30,000 l. to 40,000 l.

215
in the dead weight alone. The number of officers in 1821 was 17,426; and in 1845 the total number of officers in the Army was but 1,101. In 1814, there were 591 general officers in the Army, and at present there were less than 300 general officers, showing a reduction of considerably more than one half. The saving on the dead weight since 1821 amounted from these causes to no less than 685,000 l. He hoped these details were satisfactory to the House. If the hon. Gentleman would refer back to the years mentioned by the hon. Member for Montrose, he would find that they were now enabled to maintain, for the purposes of their Colonial empire, a much larger force with the same amount of means than the country supported in those years. With these remarks, he would beg leave to move—
"That a sum not exceeding 2,630,499 l. (being part of a sum of 3,430,499 l., of which 800,000 l. has been granted on account), be granted to Her Majesty for defraying the charge of Her Majesty's Land Forces, for Service in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and on stations abroad, (excepting the regiments employed in the Territorial Possessions of the East India Company,) from the 1st day of April, 1845, to the 31st day of March, 1846, both days inclusive."
Mr. Humestrongly hoped the Government would be very cautious in any reductions which they might attempt to make in the expenses of troops serving in China and Hong-Kong. They had already had instances of insubordination created by such attempts. In those stations the expenses were very considerable; and it could not be expected that one corps could serve with another, while that second corps received a double allowance of payment. Where there was an equality of danger, there ought to be an equality of remuneration. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not listen for one moment to any proposition for reducing the allowances to which the troops serving in China were entitled, in a station where they were exposed to so much of expense, of danger, and of disease. He might also take that opportunity of observing that he objected to the number of troops serving in Ireland. He was glad to find that the Government were taking steps to do justice to that country, and he hoped, therefore, that the present military force maintained there would not be much longer required.
Colonel Woodthought, as the hon. Member for Coventry had not pressed his
216
Motion, the House had a right to complain of the address which they had heard from him. He could only have characterized that Motion, if it had been persevered in, as one of a revolutionary character; for, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had well observed, it would, if adopted, be in effect a total disbanding and dissolution of the household troops. He would repeat, that the Motion was of a revolutionary tendency; but as it did not appear to have been brought forward seriously, he considered it was most unjust towards the household troops, and the corps to which he had the honour to belong, that the hon. Gentleman should have taken the opportunity of making a speech reflecting on the character of military men, and tending to destroy the self-esteem of these particular troops, by holding them up as useless. Whenever the hon. Gentleman brought forward a distinct Motion on the subject, he should be prepared with good grounds to show that the proposal to disband the household troops would have a revolutionary tendency.
Colonel Rawdonbelieved the Motion of which he had given notice ought to take precedence of the Vote then before the House. The Motion was, "That he would, on Vote 2, in Committee on the Army Estimates, make inquiry as to the health of the troops in Hong-Kong and the West Indies; and as to the success of the encampment system." He should not have called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these subjects, were it not that he had seen a letter from Canton, dated in September last, in which it was stated that Hong-Kong was then in its worst state, and that the dead were buried in the most unceremonious manner. In some instances the troops were stationed in paddy ground, and he believed they were also harassed by unnecessary guards on parade. He had also to allude to Demerara, where out of two companies of soldiers no less than twenty men, including three sergeants, died in a few months. He would also wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the condition of the troops in the other West India Islands, and likewise to the system of encampment, which, he believed, required improvement. He would wish to ask whether the black regiments might not be increased, and the white soldiers in the West Indies be used only as a reserve force? Also, whether it might not

217
be possible to organize a militia in those Colonies, and to improve the encampment system. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by observing that the Army deeply regretted having lost the aid of the late gallant Secretary at War, who had been called to a wider field of exertion; but from the specimen which they had had that evening of the ability of his successor, there could be no doubt but that the right hon. Gentleman would do his utmost to promote their interests.
Mr. Sidney Herbertsaid, there was no reason why they should have originally suspected that Hong Kong would prove as dangerous to the health of their troops as some parts of the island had proved to be. The mortality formerly averaged as much as 32 per cent.; but by the latest accounts it had materially decreased, and during the last three years it had been less than previously. The letters which had arrived by the last mail expressed the most confident hopes that the sickness had decreased there permanently. With respect to the West India Islands, he might observe that in Jamaica the precaution had been taken of placing the black troops, who were not affected by the climate, in the lower quarters, and removing the white troops to higher positions. In the other West India Islands the mortality had decreased between 1842 and 1844 to one half what it had been before 1838.
Captain Bernal Osbornerose merely for the purpose of protesting against the allegation of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, that a Motion for the abolition of the household brigade was revolutionary. He should also beg to state that he totally dissented from the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Williams), to the effect that the troops of the line viewed the household regiments with any invidious feelings. He was confident that no such invidious feeling existed either among the officers or men. He did not consider that the household troops were maintained in order to keep down revolution; but it was of the highest importance to have so fine a body of men as the Guards always ready to be sent to any of their Colonies in which disturbances should take place. It appeared that this gallant fine corps had been reported to be in a state of bankruptcy. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the
218
fact of the Blues not being allowed to exchange.
Lord A. Lennoxsaid, that the hon. Gentleman having stated that the Guards had never been on Foreign Service, he begged leave to inform him that such was not the fact, for he had the honour of serving in Portugal with them during the Canning Administration. The hon. Member for Montrose had mis-stated the number of the men belonging to the Guards at 14,000 instead of 5,500. Thus, instead of diminishing the Army, his calculation had added upwards of 8,000 to the number. If, unfortunately, any contest should arise between the United States and this country, the Guards would be the first men sent out to occupy Oregon; and most probably the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex would go with them, when the hon. Member for Montrose would have another opportunity of being defeated in that county.
Lord J. Mannerssaid, that the hon. Member for Wycombe had alluded to a subject of considerable delicacy; and from almost an hereditary feeling for the regiment of Royal Horse Guards, he must express a strong and earnest hope that no miserable feeling of economy would induce Her Majesty's Government to take any steps tending to the degradation of that regiment in the eyes of the country.
Mr. Sidney Herbertsaid that, with regard to the finances of the Blues, it was true that, owing to the arrangement in 1832 and to other circumstances, the present clothing allowance was found to be quite insufficient. He believed that the clothing allowances of the two regiments of Life Guards was larger than was necessary, and the Blues was less than was required. He hoped that some arrangements might be made as to the clothing allowances of the three regiments of household cavalry, so as to get rid of the inconvenience alluded to.
Vote agreed to.
On the Question that 341,000 l. be granted as the Estimate of the charge for Half-pay and Military Allowances to reduced and retired Officers of Her Majesty's Service.
Sir Howard Douglasrose to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of which he had given notice. He said, if this were a case of complexity or difficulty, he should certainly abstain from calling the attention of his right hon. Friend the

219
Secretary at War to it at so early a period after his accession to the duties of an important office, which he (Sir Howard Douglas) was sure that right hon. Gentleman would discharge with the ability and efficiency of which he had given so much promise; nor did he bring this case forward without the knowledge and consent of his right hon. Friend; and when he (Sir Howard Douglas) said consent, he did not mean that thereby his right hon. Friend had pledged his adoption of these suggestions. He would now state briefly the case he had to submit to the consideration of the Committee. By Warrant of December, 1840, a limited establishment of retired full pay was created, to consist of 20 lieutenant-colonels on 17 s. a day; 20 majors on 16 s.; and 115 captains—of whom not more than 45 may be brevetmajors—on 11 s. 7d. and 13 s. 7d. respectively; these to be selected by the Commander in Chief, and the promotion of officers so placed on retired full pay not to proceed. This measure was extended to the artillery and engineers by Warrant dated April, 1841, in the following numbers. Lieutenant-colonels — Artillery 8, Engineers 2: Captains—Artillery 12, Engineers 10; First and Second Lieutenants—Artillery 8, Engineers 4. The only difference between the provisions of those measures is—and he begged his right hon. Friend and the Committee to note it—that whilst no further promotion is accorded to officers of the line so retiring, the promotion of the retired field officers of the artillery and engineers is permitted to proceed. This boon was stated by the Naval and Military Commission to have been granted to what is called the seniority corps—viz., the artillery, engineers, and marines, on account of the slowness of promotion. But he might observe, in passing to the main subject, that he did not see why the like boon should not be extended to field officers of the line retiring upon full pay, according to the provisions of this Warrant. The expense would be trifling, and the honorary boon gratifying. As stated in the Notice he had given, his object was to extend the advantages of a full pay retired establishment to a limited number of medical and regimental staff officers,—viz., surgeons, paymasters, and quartermasters. The serving pay of these officers is most liberal; a surgeon commences with 13 s., which rises after 10 years' service to 15 s.; after 20 to 19 s.; after 25 to 1l. 2s. a day. The paymaster commences with. 12 s. 6d.,
220
which after 5 years' service, increases to 15 s.; after 15 years to 17 s.; after 20 years to 1l.; and after 25 years to 1l. 2s. 6d. The quartermaster commences with 6s. 6d., which rises after 10 years to 8s. 6d.; and after 15 years' service to 10 s. The differences of serving pay and half pay are such, that officers necessarily and naturally cling to their full pay situations as long as they possibly can, and frequently longer than is consistent with their health, comfort, and efficiency to discharge actively their several duties. He should first take up the case of medical officers. The average age at which these enter the service is 24½ years. The statement he held in his hand, of the services and age of medical officers fully corroborated what he had to advance—viz., that many medical officers were in a manner constrained to serve, who would, perhaps, have availed themselves of retiring on their full pay, to their own ease and comfort, and opening, to a certain extent, the current of promotion to others, had an establishment of retired full pay, such as he recommended, been created. Dr. Bone, Deputy Inspector, now serving at the head of the medical staff in the West Indies, has served very nearly fifty years. That excellent officer served for some years on a foreign station of which he (Sir Howard Douglas) recently had the command, and discharged his duties most efficiently, and is still an efficient officer; but perhaps he might have chosen to retire — at least, it is just to give to officers, after such services, the option of retiring upon full pay, instead of being constrained to encounter afresh the arduous difficulties, and the dangers of protracted service in unhealthy climates. Dr. Kidd, Deputy Inspector, who is still serving in the Ionian Islands, has been between forty-nine and fifty years in the service. He served under his (Sir H. Douglas's) command on a foreign station, and is an excellent medical officer, to whom, perhaps, at his age, retirement on full pay might be a great boon. Dr. Grant, Staff Surgeon, still in the Ionian Islands, has served forty years. That excellent officer was likewise in that command when he (Sir H. Douglas) held it, and discharged zealously and efficiently his duties. He mentioned this case to show the slowness of promotion in the medical department, but which would be advantageously accelerated by the establishment of a retired full-pay list. In proof of this, he would advert particularly to the case of

221
Dr. French. That officer entered the service in 1810, and after having served upwards of thirty years, proceeded with his regiment—the 49th—to China, and was placed at the head of the medical department in that important war. His services were so distinguished, that he was specially and strongly recommended by Sir Hugh Gough for promotion. The recommendation was, he (Sir H. Douglas) believed, supported by the Inspector General, and the Commander in Chief; and Dr. French's merits and claims admitted by the late, as well as the present, right hon. Secretary at War; but still, for want of opportunity such as the establishment which he (Sir H. Douglas) urged, Dr. French remained unpromoted, and he feared disappointed and mortified, and is now a retired Staff Surgeon. In the naval service in China, several promotions of medical officers took place, as he (Sir H. Douglas) might appeal to his right hon. Friend the Principal Naval Lord of the Admiralty. He (Sir H. Douglas) had said that the serving pay is most liberal. This, in fact, would contribute pecuniary means towards the expense which the establishment of a retired full pay would cause. The officers retiring from the highest rate of pay to which they are entitled by length of service, would be succeeded by officers who commence their service at the minimum rate; the difference becoming available towards the retirement. Thus a paymaster, who retires on 1l. 2s. 6d. a day, is succeeded by an officer on 12 s. 6d a day. If a half-pay captain be appointed to such a situation,—which often happens—he loses his half pay of 7s., so that the only extra expense would be 5s. 6d. He (Sir H. Douglas) would recommend that a retired full pay establishment be created for medical and regimental staff officers. He would not specify the number; but leave that to the consideration of his right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government; but would suggest that it should be enjoyed, subject to those limitations, by medical officers after thirty-five years' service, of which twenty years as surgeon; by paymasters after thirty-five years' service, of which twenty-five years as paymaster; by quartermasters after thirty-five years' service, of which twenty years as quartermaster. He (Sir H. Douglas) was happy to hear from what had been said by the hon. Member for Coventry, upon the Vote for half pay, that he never would object to any provision of this kind for officers who
222
had really been worn out in the service, or who had, after long periods of service, occasion, and just claims, to be liberally provided for; and he was assured, too, that he should have the support of the hon. Member for Montrose in the recommendation which he (Sir H. Douglas) ventured to make of this class of officers. He would now leave the case in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War and Her Majesty's Government. He hoped he had made a plain statement; and trusted the Committee would deem it a strong one. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it as liberally and speedily as may be consistent with other circumstances; and propitiate, as far as he could, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the accomplishment of what he thought a fair and strong claim on the consideration of Government, and the liberality of Parliament.
Captain Bernal Osbornesaid, that he highly approved of the gallant Officer's suggestion. The grant proposed was too small to be refused. He would recommend that veterinary surgeons should be included in the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Sir Howard Douglassaid, that he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Member; and that, in fact, he (Sir H. Douglas) had embraced that class of officers in his minute of this case; he had, however, he feared, omitted to state it, and thanked the hon. and gallant Member for what he had said.
Vole agreed to.
On the next Vote,
Sir Howard Douglasrose to put a question to the right hon. the Secretary at War upon the subject of the Military Savings Banks—an institution which he was instrumental in introducing into the service, by what he said in the House on a former occasion, in Committee on Army Estimates, in 1842; and which soon after were established by his right hon. Friend, now Governor General of India, to whom the service and the country were so deeply indebted. He rejoiced to learn from the Parliamentary Papers lately circulated, the progress making by these institutions: there were now about two thousand soldiers contributors in Regimental Savings Banks. His right hon. Friend was aware that these institutions were not yet established in the Queen's Regiments serving in India; where, perhaps, the objects

223
contemplated would be most successfully and largely promoted. For this, it required the authority of the Government of India and the Commander in Chief to carry out to that country the provisions of the Savings Banks Act and Warrant. This, he hoped, would be done, not only to the Queen's, but to the Company's troops. He felt convinced that these institutions would co-operate most powerfully with other measures which happily were taken to improve the moral character, and temperate and provident habits of the soldier.
Mr. Sidney Herbertreplied that a Committee had been appointed for the purpose of procuring the necessary authority for carrying out the provisions of the Savings Bank Act and the Warrant directed to Her Majesty's troops in India. He begged also to inform the gallant Officer that he had a Bill in preparation authorizing the Commissioners of the National Debt to receive the deposits of Military Savings Banks (which already amounted to 15,000 l.) in like manner as the deposits made by the other Savings Banks.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 105,000 l. for Allowances as of Her Majesty's bounty and pensions, gratuities and allowances, to Officers for Wounds, being read,
Colonel Rawdondrew the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Francis Moore, brother of the late Sir John Moore, had for many years voluntarily relinquished a pension of 800 l. to the service of the public.
Vote agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Corrymoved that a sum of 1,289,543 l. be granted for the wages of Seamen and Marines.
Captain Pechellwished to call the attention of the Committee to the situation of captains' clerks in the Navy. They were called upon to perform eminent and important services, and they received for those the most paltry pay. They had scarcely any hope of advancement, and having no rank in the Navy were subordinate to the smallest midshipmen or the lowest officer, although they messed with mates and midshipmen. The pay was now but 56 l. per annum for the highest, and 52 l. for the lowest; and he thought their situation deserved the attention of the Admiralty.
Sir G. Cockburnadmitted that many of these clerks were in a hard position; but it was very difficult to apply a remedy. In the first place, as the gallant Officer was aware, it was a principle of the Naval Service to allow the captain of a ship to choose his own clerk. He was the captain's instrument, who was answerable for his conduct. The captain's clerk, in short, was not the servant of the Admiralty at all: he followed the fortunes of the captain, if he changed his ship; therefore the Admiralty had no direct control over those clerks. Clerks that had passed, the Admiralty had some hold upon: they were now borne on the list of the Navy; and there were several points on which he hoped that the Admiralty would be able to ameliorate their condition. If they were to say that none should enter the Navy as clerks but through the Admiralty, as the hon. and gallant Officer wished, he was not so sure that the result would be satisfactory in all respects. He believed no class was so much sought after in the Navy as this. Such extensive alterations as were suggested, could not be made on account of the number of applications.
Sir C. Napieradmitted that it was extremely difficult to make any material arrangement on this subject; but he did not see any difficulty in the Admiralty appointing clerks after they had passed their examination, and then holding them responsible. He did not think the captain would have any objection to the Admiralty appointing clerks in this way, provided the clerk was held responsible.
Mr. Williamsthought that persons who were employed for a short time as clerks by captains, and then dismissed, had no claim to support afterwards at the expense of the public; but if they were placed upon the establishment, they then acquired a right to a provison for their subsistence.
Captain Pechellsaid, what he wished was, that this class of persons should be made respectable, taken from the list, and rewarded with a modicum of 2s. 6d. a-day when the Admiralty could not give them ships.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.
House adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—3a. and passed:—Property Tax.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Winborne Minster Agricultural Society, for Protection to Agriculture.—From Proprietors of Stroudwater Canal Navigation, for regulating Railway Charges for Conveyance of Passengers and Goods.—From Leeds, for Abolishing the Traffic in Hill Coolies.—From Cork, against the present system of Levying Rates (Ireland), and for transferring Criminal Business to Quarter Sessions.—By Lord Brougham, from John Loveridge, of St. John's Wood, complaining of great hardship with regard to Operation of Income Tax, and praying for Inquiry.—From Cork, for Revision of Secondary Punishments.—By Bishops of Bangor and St. David's from Clergy and others of Lleyn and several other places, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Clergy and others of Tamworth, against the Union of St. Asaph and Bangor, and in favour of the Appointment of
112
a Bishop to the See of Manchester.—From President and others of Liverpool Guardian Society for Repeal of 57th Clause of the Insolvent Debtors Act Amendment Act, except as to Debts not exceeding 5l.—By Duke of Buccleuch, and Earl Clare, from Lochmaben, and 6 other places, for Improving the Condition of Schoolmasters (Scotland).—By Bishop of Lichfield, from Clergy and others of Newcastle-under-Lyne, and several other places, against any further Grant to Maynooth.—From Brailsford, and 2 other places, for adopting measures for the better observance of the Sabbath.—From Aston, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with Church Education Society.—From Prisoners in Queen's Bench Prison, for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.

IMPRISONMENT FOR POOR-RATES.
Lord Broughamsaid, he had two petitions to present, to which he called the particular attention of his noble Friend on the Woolsack, complaining of a grievous injury inflicted under colour of the law by two magistrates of the town of Leicester, whom he would abstain from naming, but whom he understood to be men of the most respectable character. One of the petitions was from a poor man named Thomas Lukin, and the other was from Ann Ward, who was a poor widow 58 years of age. One had been called upon to pay a poor rate of 5s. 4½d., and the other a rate of 3s. 4d.; in default of payment an order was made for a distress on their goods; but as they were only lodgers, there were no goods on which to make the levy; after that failure to levy, an order was made (and he admitted legally made) for the commitment of those persons for non-payment of the several sums they were required to pay. The order for committal, be it observed, made no mention of costs. On going to the gaol some benevolent person paid the amounts of rate for them; consequently they were discharged, and the whole force of the caption and of the order for imprisonment was spent. But he begged their Lordships to observe what followed. The same magistrates, in order that the costs should be paid, which they ought to have directed in the first instance, and made a part of the original order, then made a second order on each of the parties for the payment of 20 s. for costs. Twenty-shillings costs!—six times the amount of the one sum, and four times the amount of the other, in order that the justices' clerk might be paid his fees, which he had not been paid before. Whereupon those two unhappy individuals were summoned, and both being penniless, and having already been proved the one unable to pay 5s. 4½d., the other 3s. 4d.—they were both called upon to pay 20 s. for costs. As a condition precedent to being heard in their own case, they were asked to pay 20 s. each, on the assumption that

113
parties who could not pay 5s. 4½d. and 3s. 4d. could produce 20 s. "We have not got that sum," they naturally said. "Then," was the reply, "you must go to prison" (for they had the order of the justices made without hearing the parties), "and be imprisoned in the house of correction for one calendar month, and kept to hard labour." It was the first time he had ever known that imprisonment for debt was to be accompanied by a sentence to hard labour: these parties, however, were sentenced to hard labour, which no person in this land could be made to suffer even for a breach of the law and a criminal act, unless it were an act of so infamous a character that it was taken out of the common class of misdemeanors. But undoubtedly there was a Statute—he did not deny that the 18th Geo. III., cap. 19, gave a general power to justices to imprison a person in the house of correction, and keep him to hard labour for a term not exceeding one month, and not less than ten days, if the costs of any complaint made before justices were not paid. But by the Statute the costs were directed to be paid to "the injured party," which seemed plainly to indicate that the Act applied only to cases of wrongful acting; nevertheless here the justices held their clerk to be the injured party; and by that ample, extensive, and liberal construction of the Act, the sentence was pronounced of imprisonment for one month—the maximum extent of punishment, with hard labour, on these poor penniless persons. They might have committed many misdemeanors of a serious nature, and not have been imprisoned; but their only offence was their poverty. First, he made no complaint against the magistrates for ordering the levy in the first instance. Secondly, he did not complain of the month's imprisonment which they had ordered in the exercise of their judicial discretion; and however he might think they were entirely wrong—however completely he might feel that he himself should have been utterly incapable of pronouncing such a sentence—though he should have shuddered at passing such a sentence upon this poor old pauper man and woman, who were living absolutely upon nothing, because they could not pay 20 s. each for costs to the clerk—he repeated, that though he should have shuddered at the very thought of such a sentence, still he would not call it an inhuman sentence, nor did he doubt the legality or propriety of it. These magistrates were acting judi-
114
cially, and they might have acted lawfully and humanely—if it were not bitter irony to talk of humanity in such a case. They might have mistaken the law — magistrates were always candidly construed in their conduct when they made legal errors; but one thing he would take leave to say, and it was that they had no right to issue their order for imprisonment without having heard the parties. He was told that they were men of high respectability. They might be so; but they would be pleased henceforth to learn, if hitherto they had not learned the lesson, that no respectability could enable a man or a magistrate to place himself above the law. Not only the law of the land, the Statute law, or the common law, known only to the learned lawyer, and not to the layman, but a law which was written in every man's heart, be he lawman or layman, had decreed that before you decide you must hear; before you condemn, you must see the party; and that the grossest outrage that could be committed by any judge was to dare to sentence a man without hearing him in his defence. He would now leave the case in the hands of this noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who would inquire into the particulars of it. He (Lord Brougham) knew that these men had confessed the whole of what he had stated. They had confessed it by their clerk, for whose behoof the act was done of which he complained. They did not deny it at all. They did not pretend that the order for the costs was made in the first instance; they did not pretend that they saw the parties before they committed them, much less did they pretend to deny that the one month's imprisonment with hard labour to which these parties were sentenced, had almost expired, when the wise and prompt humanity of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department the very instant he heard the statement which he (Lord Brougham) had made, interposed and liberated them from what remained of the sentence, unhappily but a couple of days. He handed over these two justices, not to their Lordships, but to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack. If he thought they were men fit to continue in the administration of justice in England, he should be satisfied that they did so remain; but with the feeling of satisfaction he might, perhaps, also have the feeling of astonishment.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would inquire into the case to ascertain the facts,

115
and if he found that these magistrates had conducted themselves in the manner stated by his noble and learned Friend, it would be his duty to remove them at once from the commission of the peace. But he must make the necessary inquiry. He understood, however, that these parties had been released by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Lord Brougham: Immediately.
The Duke of Richmondhad been asked to second the Petition which had been presented to the House by his noble and learned Friend, and he begged to suggest to their Lordships, whether, after his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack had investigated the case, their Lordships should not inquire whether there was not some legal remedy against the men who had so illegally committed these poor persons to prison, because he considered that if there was no law to give these parties redress against the constable who took them to prison, without their case having been heard, the sooner the law was amended in that respect the better.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, there was no doubt that if these individuals had been improperly imprisoned, without the necessary proceedings having been gone through, they would be entitled to damages.
Lord Campbellsaid, that for the honour of the law of the land, if a case of such hardship as had been stated were made out, the parties would be redressed by the verdict of a jury.

THE OREGON TERRITORY.
The Earl of Clarendon: I yesterday gave notice that I should bring the subject of the Oregon Territory under the consideration of the House; and I did so in those terms, not because I propose to enter into the question, or to occupy the time of your Lordships at any length, but because it has recently appeared to be the wish of your Lordships, in compliance with a suggestion which proceeded from the noble Duke opposite, that the practice of putting questions to the Government, or, as it was termed, of making speeches not meant to conclude with a formal Motion, should be abandoned; and I have no intention of departing from any rule which your Lordships may see fit to adopt upon this subject although I myself can see no inconvenience in the practice. On the contrary, it seems to me the most simple mode of
116
obtaining the information which your Lordships are justified in asking of the Government, or the country has a right to possess, upon matters of public interest, with regard to which Papers or Correspondence may not exist, or when their production might be inconvenient. If, however, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs prefers, either in conformity with what is to be an established rule of this House, or because it would be more satisfactory to your Lordships and the country, that Papers should be laid upon the Table, I shall be prepared to move for them; but whether or not this course be adopted, I am sure your Lordships will consider that we should not be performing our duty if we did not avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the Inaugural Address of the President of the United States, and of asking from my noble Friend such information as he may think it consistent with his duty to give upon that part of the President's Address which has a direct and immediate bearing upon British interests. With respect to the annexation of Texas, announced in the President's Speech, as it may be said to bear but remotely upon British interests, and as our rights in a case so unprecedented, and the obligations of Texas towards us may not as yet be clearly defined or understood, I shall not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships at the present moment, beyond the expression of my surprise and deep regret that a body of men so just and enlightened as those who usually compose the Senate of the United States should have sanctioned a measure which was brought about by such unwarrantable means, which will be so deeply injurious to the cause of humanity, and which may at no distant period endanger the peaceful relations of the United States: for the restless and encroaching people by whom Texas is henceforward to be inhabited will not long be content without gratifying the national taste for a boundary quarrel, or establishing a case for war with Mexico, which they may rest assured will, in this quarter of the world, not be viewed with indifference. It is, however, with the Oregon Territory that we are immediately concerned; and it is most important we should know in what position we really stand in reference to that question; and what course Her Majesty's Government

117
will be prepared to adopt under circumstances which seem but too probable from the extraordinary tone of the President's Address, and the apparently studied neglect of that courtesy and deferential language which the Governments of different countries are wont to observe when publicly treating of international questions. It is hardly possible to believe that any negotiations upon this subject are pending, or that they have ever been commenced or even proposed, if we are to draw from the President's Speech the inference which it must naturally suggest; for not only does he not make the slightest allusion to them, but he formally announces that the right of the Americans to the Oregon Territory is clear and unquestionable: and it is consequently difficult to understand upon what ground he could justify to the citizens of the United States the right of their Government to negotiate at all upon a matter not doubtful; for whatever predilection they may have for acquiring what does not belong to them, they certainly exhibit none for giving up what is indisputably their own; and if their Government accordingly did consent to negotiate, it would seem that it could only be upon the basis that England was unconditionally to surrender her pretensions to whatever might be claimed by the United States. In short, the whole question is treated by the President as one completely settled—as if all negotiations were concluded, or none had ever been contemplated; and he announces that the wives and children of their citizens are now on their way to occupy the territory. I say this is the only deduction which it would be possible for a person ignorant of the circumstances—and the great majority of the people of this country are ignorant of the circumstances—to draw from the President's Speech; but on the other hand it is so much more imposssible for us here to believe that Her Majesty's Government should have neglected this question, knowing as they must its importance, and the excitement which for a long time past has prevailed upon it in the United States; it is so impossible that they should not have used their best endeavours to bring it to a satisfactory and amicable adjustment, that I am sure my noble Friend will be desirous either now on the present occasion, or by the production of such correspondence as he may think proper, to
118
satisfy the people of England that their rights have not been neglected, and that they will be upheld. As regards the past and the future the public are entitled to this information; and it is for the purpose of obtaining it, and satisfying the great and natural anxiety which prevails upon the subject, that I have taken the liberty of occupying your Lordships' time for a few moments. I do not consider this a fitting opportunity for discussing the justice of the British claims to the Oregon Territory; but I will, with your Lordships' permission, say a very few words upon them, in order to render more intelligible the nature and extent of the President's assumption. In the first place, as far as discovery can be said to constitute a claim, ours is clearly the indisputable one; for Sir Francis Drake first visited that part of the country in 1578, and found all the land north of the thirty-eighth parallel of latitude unappropriated; he took possession of it, and gave to it the name of New Albion. This, however, cannot really be said to constitute a claim, as we made no settlement there till the year 1792; when, after the dispute respecting the British vessels seized by Spain at Nootka, it was agreed by the Convention of the Escurial in 1790 that the subjects of the respective contracting parties should not be molested in navigating, fishing, or making settlements in parts not already occupied. In 1792, Vancouver took possession of the country adjacent to the thirty-ninth parallel of latitude, and of the Columbia river, which he is believed to have explored for 100 miles from its mouth. In 1813, the North West Company was established at Fort St. George, and an authorized Colony of British subjects, governed by British laws, occupied the country on the River Columbia; it was the first of a national and legal character recognizable as such by foreign nations, and it continues there to this day. Now the claim of the American Government is derived originally from the sale of Louisiana by Napoleon to them in 1803 for eleven millions of dollars. France had nothing but Louisiana to sell; but nevertheless there was inserted in the Treaty—having for its object to define the boundaries of Louisiana—a reference to a perfectly undefined line to the Pacific, having no definable boundary to the north or south or on the east. In the Treaty, however, with Spain in 1819, called the Florida Treaty, this undefined line was

119
then defined to run from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific to the forty-second parallel of latitude (Spain never having occupied any point north of Cape Mendocino, in latitude forty-one degrees); and a sweeping clause was introduced by which Spain ceded all claim to territory lying north of such boundary, which had never belonged to her; and the Americans then contended that we had no right to territory north of the forty-second degree of latitude, because Spain alone had a right to cede it, although we had formally taken possession of it in 1792 under our Treaty with Spain and the North West Company, and a legally established Colony had been in the occupation of it since 1813. In 1818, a Convention was ratified between Great Britain and the United States, by which a northern boundary line was agreed upon, and that the country westward—I beg your Lordships to mark this—of the Rocky Mountains, should be free and open for the term of ten years to the vessels and subjects of both Powers, without prejudice to the claim of either country; and in 1827, another Convention was signed, renewing the provisions of the one of 1818, and extending it for an indefinite period until either party should annul it on giving a year's notice. Yet it is in this state of things—and I say nothing of subsequent or pending negotiations—that the President of the United States, by the very first act of his administration, thinks himself justified in announcing that it is his duty to assert and maintain the right of the United States to the territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains—that their title to the country of Oregon is clear and unquestionable—that the people are already preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children—and that to the Government belonged the duty of adequately protecting them, and extending to them the jurisdiction of American law and the benefits of republican institutions in the distant countries which they have selected for their homes; and which by the increasing facilities of communication must soon be brought within the sphere of the Federative Union. I rejoice to think that the whole question is viewed in a far different spirit here—that we are influenced by no desire for territorial aggrandizement; but that we are actuated by a sincere love of peace, and the most friendly feeling towards the people of the United States.
120
As far as I am acquainted with the circumstances, I believe no assertion is made that our own case is free from all doubt, and I am sure there will be no want of readiness to concede whatever can be justly claimed by the Americans; but on the other hand I am equally sure that the people of this country will be determined not to yield their own undeniable rights to encroachment, or clamour, or menace; and although I doubt not that my noble Friend will leave no efforts untried to bring the question to an amicable issue, yet if those efforts should unfortunately prove ineffectual, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not shrink from adopting that course which may become necessary for vindicating the national honour and protecting the national interests.
The Earl of Aberdeen: My Lords, I think it is perfectly natural that in such a conjuncture as the present, the noble Lord should reasonably expect to receive such information from Her Majesty's Government as they in the discharge of their duty may feel it possible to give. And I am far from objecting to the course of putting questions to Ministers upon any matter of public importance—certainly not on one of such paramount interest as this. My Lords, if I followed my own inclination in this matter, I should be disposed at once to lay on the Table of the House every part of the negotiation which has taken place upon this subject from the period of the Treaty of Washington up to the present day; and I am sure that, if I did so, I should not only receive from the candour of my noble Friend opposite an opinion approving the course which has been pursued, but I might fearlessly appeal to the public at large, and to the whole of Europe, for its confirmation. A time may come when such a course may possibly be necessary: at present, it would clearly be unsuitable and impolitic. I could wish for an opportunity of explaining a little more at length the state of this question, as affects the interests and the claims of Great Britain to the disputed territory. The noble Lord has cursorily described the claims of this country and of the United States with sufficient accuracy, as far as he has gone. They, however, would admit of a much more detailed examination; and although I might now enter into that examination without injury to the public service, I feel that I could not do it without inconvenience to your Lordships; and this also I think it better to defer to a future occasion. I shall, therefore, only address

121
myself to the inquiry of my noble Friend. I wish to state, that the negotiation which has taken place, and which is still pending, upon this subject, was commenced immediately after the signing of the Treaty by my noble Friend near me, commonly called the Treaty of Washington. Without, of course, explaining to your Lordships any of the steps that have been taken in the progress of that negotiation, I wish to draw your attention to the last act of the late President of the United States before his resignation of office. The Senate of the United States having addressed Mr. Tyler so long ago as the month of December, requesting him to communicate with them and inform them on the progress of this negotiation, Mr. Tyler, in his answer, which was not delivered until the 19th of February, makes this statement. After reciting the resolution and request of the Senate, he says,—
"In my opinion, as this negotiation is still pending, the information sought for cannot be communicated without prejudice to the public service; but I deem it, however, proper to add, that considerable progress has been made in the negotiation, which has been carried on in a very amicable spirit between the two Governments, and that there is reason to hope that it may be brought to a close within a short period. I have delayed answering the resolution of the Senate, under the expectation expressed in my Annual Message, that the negotiation would be terminated before the close of the present Session, and that the information called for by that resolution might be communicated."
I am bound to say, that I think the late President took somewhat too favourable a view of the state of the negotiation when he made that answer to the Senate; at the same time, as an indication of a friendly feeling, and of a desire to bring it to an amicable termination, such a declaration must be highly satisfactory. My Lords, in a fortnight after the delivery of this answer to the Address of the Senate, the new President made the Inaugural Speech referred to by my noble Friend. I wish to observe that this speech is not an address made to Congress—it is a speech made to the public, the Congress not being sitting. Undoubtedly, no speech of such a nature could be made by the President of the United States without drawing towards it the most serious attention. Nevertheless, it does not possess the importance of an official message, forming part of the legislative proceedings. I do not mean to undervalue its importance;
122
but I must observe, that it has not quite the character of an address made to the Congress as the foundation of any legislative measure. I have already mentioned that that declaration of the late President is the last act of which we have any knowledge, as far as the negotiation is concerned. The new President had no Ministry at the time he made his speech; his Administration was not formed, and no communication had taken place between Her Majesty's Ministers and those of the Government of the United States since the resignation of the late President and of his Administration. We therefore stand precisely in the position in which we stood at the time of the answer of the late President, with the exception of such a character as the relations may have received from the speech pronounced upon his inauguration by the new President. My Lords, I wish also to state, that our position is precisely such as it has been for the last eighteen years with respect to our rights, under the Treaty which was made in 1827, renewing, or rather continuing, the Treaty of 1818, which was for ten years. The Treaty of 1827 continued that Treaty for an indefinite period, but with the provision that either party might terminate it by a year's notice. There is nothing whatever, therefore, to prevent the Government of the United States or Her Majesty's Government, if they thought proper, from terminating that Treaty of 1827, by giving a year's notice for the purpose, which, however, the President has not said he means to give; but if he does mean it, he cannot effect his purpose without a Vote of the Congress authorizing him to exercise that power. The Congress will not meet, unless specially called together, until the month of December; and even then the Treaty cannot expire without a year's notice being given from the time at which the President receives the necessary authority to give such notice. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that in point of time the matter is not so urgent as might be supposed. I need not say, that Her Majesty's Government will continue to avail themselves of the intervening period which may be thus afforded, in the hope of bringing the negotiation which is still pending to an amicable conclusion. The negotiation was founded upon the principle of an amicable adjustment by the mutual concession of extreme claim on both sides; and on that principle, as far as we are concerned, it will be continued. My noble

123
Friend has by no means expressed any censure of the mode of proceeding that Her Majesty's Government have adopted in this matter; at the same time, I may say that I have seen, in other places, some intimation of an apprehension of too great concessions—of an abandonment of what is called the "high tone" which this country ought to maintain. I am accustomed almost daily to see myself characterized as pusillanimous, cowardly, mean, dastardly, truckling, and base. I hope I need not say that I view these appellations with indifference; I view them, indeed, really with satisfaction, because I know perfectly well what they mean, and how they ought to be and are translated. I feel perfectly satisfied that these vituperative terms are to be translated as applicable to conduct consistent with justice, reason, moderation, and with common sense; and I therefore feel, as I said before, really not indifferent, but positively satisfied, when I see such observations. I believe I may conscientiously say that no man ever filled the high situation which I have the honour unworthily to hold, who felt more ardently desirous than I do to preserve to the country the blessings of peace, or who would be disposed to make greater sacrifices, consistent with propriety, to maintain it. [Cheers.] My Lords, I consider war to be the greatest folly, if not the greatest crime, of which a country could be guilty, if lightly entered into; and I agree entirely with a moral writer who has said, that if a proof were wanted of the deep and thorough corruption of human nature, we should find it in the fact that, war itself was sometimes justifiable. [Cheers.] It is the duty, and I am sure it is the inclination, of Her Majesty's Government to preserve peace: at the same time, there are limits which must not be passed; and I say that, without attaching too much weight to questions of national honour—for I think, fortunately for this country, that we need not be very sensitive on these matters—it is not for us, God knows, to "seek the bubble reputation at the cannon's mouth," or any where else; our power, our character and position, are such as to enable us to look with indifference on that of which other countries might be, perhaps, more jealous. [Cheers.] But our honour is a substantial property that we can certainly never neglect, and most assuredly we may owe it to ourselves and to our posterity to adopt a course contrary to all our desires—to all our inclinations. My Lords,
124
from what I have said, your Lordships will perceive an earnest of the spirit of peace which shall pervade this matter, if I continue to conduct this negotiation; and I cannot bring myself to think that at this day any civilized Government would desire to see any other course pursued; and I hope, therefore, and fully believe, that we shall have the happiness of seeing this important question brought to a satisfactory because an amicable conclusion. [Loud cheers.] Should it be otherwise, I can only say that we possess rights which, in our opinion, are clear and unquestionable; and, by the blessing of God, and with your support, those rights we are fully prepared to maintain. [The noble Earl resumed his seat amidst loud and general applause.]

PROPERTY TAX BILL.
The Earl of Riponrose to propose the Third Reading of the Property Tax Bill, and said, that when he had introduced the same Bill to the House in the year 1842, he had then felt it to be his duty to explain the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government had proposed that measure to Parliament; and the measure was altogether so important in itself, that at that time he had thought it necessary to make a very lengthened statement with reference to it. On the present occasion he should have to request their Lordships' indulgence whilst he stated to them the reasons which warranted the Government in calling upon Parliament to give to this Act a further continuance. On that former occasion he had stated that this measure had been introduced for the purpose of remedying the acknowledged evil of a deficiency in the Revenue of the State. The remission of a great number of taxes subsequent to the passing of that Bill, had rendered some such measure as the present necessary; otherwise it would be inconsistent with the Revenue and the interests of this country to remit so large an amount of taxation as had been taken off. He did not think that he was called upon to enlarge upon the importance of preventing as much as possible the dangerous practice of having a continued deficiency of Revenue; neither did he deem it necessary to state to them the importance of reviewing their fiscal regulations, which had grown in the course of years into such a state as to be neither beneficial to the Revenue nor advantageous to the country; nor did he deem himself on the present occasion called upon to state the reasons why he believed nothing but an Income Tax

125
could enable them to meet the deficiency in the Revenue. In 1842 that House passed the measure, and he believed that they would not have passed it if they had not regarded it as the only certain and efficient mode of overcoming the evil with which they had to contend. He should state to their Lordships, however, why the Government felt called upon to propose a continuance of this tax; and he must, therefore, put their Lordships in possession of the present state of the Revenue, as compared with its condition at the time when the tax was originally proposed, and compared also with what they must expect it to be if their Lordships should not concur in its temporary continuance. The Act was proposed in 1842, and was to last for three years. At that period the state of the Revenue and Expenditure was as follows, viz.:—On the 5th of April, 1842, there was a deficiency of 2,139,000 l., and it was against that deficiency that they had asked Parliament to provide by consenting to the Income Tax; and at that time alterations were contemplated in our fiscal system, which it was calculated would further reduce the Revenue by between 1,400,000 l. and 1,500,000 l. The consequence of these alterations was, for the moment, still further to aggravate the diminution of income as compared with the expenditure. It was obvious that for the first year the full benefit of the Income Tax could not be experienced, while by the repeal of these duties the income for the year would be still further reduced. Accordingly, on the 5th of April, 1843, in consequence of the whole of the Income Tax not having been received, the great object of attaining a surplus had not been obtained, and there was on that day a deficiency of Income as compared with Expenditure of 2,421,000 l. In the year ending April the 5th, 1844, however, the picture was reversed, for the Property Tax had then been collected during four full quarters, and it had produced considerably more than the estimate of the Government; for whereas the Government had estimated it at 3,750,000 l., it did actually produce 5,356,000 l., and that gave them a surplus of 2,950,000 l. In the course of last year it was thought advisable, proceeding on the principle of diminishing duties, to apply it to the various important articles of trade, amounting to between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l., so far presuming upon the success that had attended the scheme of 1842. On the best information which he
126
had been able to gain, founded upon the expenditure and receipts up to the latest moment, he believed he was warranted in stating that the surplus on the 5th of April, 1845, would, including everything, considerably exceed the sum of 5,000,000 l. It would, he believed, exceed the amount of 5,800,000 l., including 5,200,000 l. from the Property Tax, and 600,000 l. from the China indemnity. Their Lordships would see, then, that they had secured that surplus of revenue over expenditure which it was the object of the Bill of 1842 to effect. They had at the same time been able to reduce taxation to a considerable amount—to the amount, he believed, of between 1,400,000 l. and 1,500,000 l.; and he should, notwithstanding, be able to show to their Lordships, that during these two last years the Revenue had been in a state of progressive, and he might say, of remarkable improvement. It would be necessary, however, to state what would be the condition of the country if the Property Tax were not renewed. For the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, the estimate of the expenditure of the country was 49,645,000 l., including the Debt and all the Supplies voted. The ordinary receipts of the country would amount to 47,900,000 l., so that there would be a deficiency in the year ending the 5th of April of 1,745,000 l. There were, however, two quarters of Property Tax to be received in that year, and there would be 600,000 l. from China; so that they would find, that in the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, there would be a surplus of 1,457,000 l. But that surplus would be entirely owing to what remained over uncollected from the Property Tax, aided by the 600,000 l. from China. In the following year, therefore, supposing the Property Tax expired, they would have no further source except the same 600,000 l. from China; and the consequence would be, that they would have in 1847 to contend against the very same species of deficiency, with all its evils, which in 1842 had induced Parliament to impose this tax upon the country. It appeared to him, then, necessary that they should take this opportunity, by a renewal of the tax, of maintaining a surplus of revenue over expenditure. He was quite sure that it would be impossible to meet the evil by a diminution of expenditure, for he was certain that the present Government had endeavoured, and had succeeded, in curtailing the expenditure of the country to the very lowest point. In almost every branch

127
reductions had been made, though there were some branches in which it was felt that at present reductions could not with safety be effected. It was felt, for example, that in the present position of affairs our Navy should not be neglected; and it was clearly the interest of this country not to allow other States to outstrip her in steam navigation; an increase had, therefore, been proposed in the number of seamen to man our Navy. Her Majesty's Ministers, then, proposed to renew the tax upon Property and Income for a period of three years — the same period for which it had originally been imposed. Should Parliament accede to this proposition, the effect would be, that, in the year ending the 5th of April, 1846, there would be a surplus of 4,056,000 l., which would be a great means of realizing the object they had in view, that of equalizing the Revenue to the Expenditure of the country. But they had thought (and he confessed he had never had the slightest doubt on the subject) it would be wise, and he would go further and say it was necessary, to combine, as had been done in 1842, with the Income Tax, a further attempt to rectify the anomalies existing in our import duties, and to apply a portion of that surplus revenue to the relief of other duties that were onerous and objectionable in every point of view; and, accordingly, they had proposed to Parliament—and the measure was in the course of discussion in the other House—to make a very considerable reduction in the duties upon a great variety of articles, some of the greatest importance. In the first place, it was proposed to repeal absolutely almost all the duties (with only one or two exceptions) chargeable upon the raw materials of our manufactures of every kind. The total amount of relief on a very great number of articles, too minute to detail, would be 320,000 l. Their object was to enable us successfully to compete with foreign markets, by cheapening the cost of production—that was the principle upon which they (the Ministers) proposed to proceed. Amongst the articles the duty on which was reduced was glass, a most important manufacture, the duty on which was of large amount, though a great quantity was lost in the way of drawback. The amount was 680,000 l., but the real amount of the Excise duty collected on glass was far beyond that. The public had to pay double the amount, besides the nuisance of an Excise officer attending the manufacture, which
128
was necessary if any duty existed. Some said, "Why take off the duty on glass; why not remove the duty on soap?" But equally good reasons might be given why the duties on other articles should be removed; and with respect to soap, he should be very glad to get rid of it. The next item he would notice was cotton wool, the duty on which was very productive, yielding 650,000 l.; but no doubt it was a duty which sinned against every principle; it amounted in effect to from 5 to 7 per cent. upon the price of the raw material of an immense manufacture, and nothing but necessity could justify the keeping up of that tax. The next article he should touch upon was sugar. He was not going upon this occasion to renew the controversy of last year as to whether the policy of the Ministers with regard to sugar was wise or not; that was a fair subject for argument and discussion. But he was entitled to say that the reduction they proposed to make in the duty on sugar was in itself an immense benefit to the consumers of the article, amounting at the very least to 12 s. or 13 s. per cwt.; and this would make such a reduction in the price of sugar as to bring it within the power of consumption of a number of poor people who at present, in consequence of the high price of sugar, were deprived of what some called a luxury, but which was in fact a necessary of life. Therefore, whether their policy in dealing with sugar was right or wrong on principle, a great and substantial benefit would be conferred on the people of this country, and, as he understood, had been already felt. It was calculated that the loss to the Revenue from this item would be not less than 1,300,000 l. Another article was the duty on auctions, 300,000 l. Much had been said about this duty, and it was a fair matter for discussion. The difference, therefore, between 4,056,000 l. and 3,020,000 l. would be a surplus in April, 1846, of 836,000 l. Now, that was their scheme in figures. But he had some observations to make before he concluded. It might be said, in objection to this scheme, that by reducing so much of our indirect taxation, they would be compelled again to apply to Parliament to prolong the Income Tax. That was the argument used, and it was a very plausible one; and whether used with a view of recommending or of depreciating the scheme proposed, he was not surprised that it had been used. But he hoped that the financial condition of the country at the end of the term for which

129
the continuance of the Income Tax was proposed, would be such as to enable us to dispense with the Income Tax; and the general aspect of our commercial affairs led him to think that there were very auspicious circumstances connected with them which should not be kept out of sight in forming any speculative conclusions. In the first place, he would request their Lordships' attention to the condition of the Public Debt. Every one knew that the charge for the Public Debt constituted one-half of our annual expenditure; its diminution, therefore, was an object of immense importance, though of great difficulty. The state of the Debt as it stood now (or would stand in 1846), as compared with the year 1842, was as follows: — In 1842, the charge for the Public Debt, funded and unfunded, permanent as well as temporary, or terminable, was 29,452,000 l.; and the amount of the charge for the Debt which will be incurred (including the same items) in the year ending April, 1846, will not be more than 28,365,000 l., showing a reduction of charge, between April, 1842, and April, 1846, of no less than 1,087,000 l. This was a permanent diminution of charge. Another circumstance, equally satisfactory, was this, that the balances in the Exchequer, which on the 5th of April, 1842, were 8,857,000 l.; on the 5th of April, 1844, had increased 2,235,000 l. He could not tell what would be the amount of balances on the 5th of April, 1845; but he had shown that the amount had increased in April, 1844; and they were a great resource at periods of sudden difficulties, charges, and embarrassment. He would next call their Lordships' attention to the great improvement which had taken place in the trade and commerce of the country, and the state of some of the principal branches of our exports as compared with what they were in former periods. He had an account which had been laid before Parliament of the real value of the exports of the principal articles of British produce and manufactures for three years, 1842, 1843, and 1844. The principal articles of export were coals, cotton manufacture, earthenware, glass, linen manufacture, lead, tin, salt, yarn, &c. &c. In the year 1842, the real value of all these articles exported amounted to 40,785,000 l.; in 1843 they were 44,720,000 l.; and in the year ending January, 1845, they amounted to no less than 50,614,000 l., being an excess beyond the year 1842 of no less than 9,829,000 l., and over the
130
second year no less than 5,894,000 l. He would for a moment advert to certain articles of import, in order to show the increased power of consumption on the part of the people of this country. First, he would mention coffee. The duty on coffee was greatly reduced in 1842, and had been further reduced in 1844. What had been the result? He had an account of the quantity of coffee which had paid duty for home consumption in the last five years. In 1840, the quantity was 28,664,000lb.; in 1841, 28,307,000lb.; in 1842, 28,519,000lb.; in 1843, 29,979,000lb.; and in 1844, 31,394,000lb. The quantity of chicory had increased in the same proportion. It might be said that the increase in the consumption of coffee had been at the expense of the consumption of tea; but that was not the fact. The quantity of tea which had paid duty for consumption was, in 1840, 32,852,000lb.; in 1841, 36,725,000lb.; in 1842, 37,353,000lb.; in 1843, 40,293,000lb.; and in 1844, 41,366,000lb., being an increase of 4,722,000lb. in 1844 above the average of the first three years, and above the year 1840 of more than one-fourth. With regard to sugar, there was one advantage attending the reduction of duty which he had not mentioned; it would have the effect of putting an end to the adulteration of sugar by means of an article which he should not have thought of being employed for that purpose—namely, the flour of sago. One circumstance connected with this prosperous condition of the country—for he considered it was manifest, from the facts he had stated, that the country was in a prosperous condition—he had never heard it denied as a general proposition—one circumstance connected with it was, that it had not arisen in any degree whatever from an undue extension of the currency. Not only was it clear that this improved condition of the country had taken place without any increase of the currency, but that the practical effect of the improvement of the trade and commerce of the country had been to render such an increase next to impossible. He would, therefore, venture to say, at the hazard of being charged with taking too sanguine a view of the financial affairs of the country, that it by no means followed that those apprehensions which other persons entertained, that at the end of the next three years the Property Tax would be proposed to be made a permanent tax, were correct. On the contrary, he believed if Parliament would keep steadily in view

131
the objects which the Government had been aiming at in their general plan of finance, at the termination of the three years, there would be no necessity again to impose upon the country this painful, he must call it, and in some respects ungracious, sacrifice; for so, even now, he would designate it, if the object for which it was made were not worthy of the sacrifice. If they persevered in the system they had adopted, he trusted to Providence to keep us out of the situation in which circumstances (for he would cast blame on nobody) had involved us; and a perseverance in it would confer a great benefit upon all classes of the community. There was a remark which he could not refrain from making before he sat down; and that was, with reference to the complaints that had been made of agricultural distress. Now, though he did not mean to deny that, owing to causes which he would not then enter into, a considerable degree of distress existed amongst the agriculturists in some districts, he must beg to state that this complaint was not general throughout the kingdom, for there was no distress in the parts of the country with which he was connected, and which he knew best. But what he wanted to know was, the species of relief which it was expected the Government could afford the agricultural interests, or what scheme they themselves would propose to be adopted for having their distress mitigated, with reference to the fiscal revenue? With respect to the agricultural interest, he wished to know by what scheme, connected with our fiscal system, particular benefit or relief could be given to that body? But it was said, that the Government ought to have expressed some sympathy for the distress under which a great part of that class was labouring. If such sympathy had been expressed, and not accompanied with any practical scheme to give effect to the words, he suspected the Government would have been accused of insult and mockery. Feel for the distress of the agricultural interest! Of course they did. Who were the Members of that House? Were they not connected with the agricultural interest? Who were the Members of Her Majesty's Government? He believed all, both in that and the other House, were connected with that interest. How could any one suppose, then, that even in regard to their own interests — their selfish interests — they could be insensible to the distress of the very class to which they were especially
132
attached? But it was of no use to make a parade of sympathy; and he thought the Government had performed their duty best to that very interest by abstaining from that which would have been useless, and doing at the same time their utmost, by proposing to Parliament that which would be useful to all interests. His Lordship concluded by moving the third reading of the Property Tax Bill.
On the Question being put,
The Marquess of Lansdownejustified his having moved that their Lordships be summoned for this evening by the deep importance which attached to the subject. Familiarised as they had unfortunately been with an Income and Property Tax, the present proposition was essentially new to the House and to the public. They knew the various reasons by which a Property and Income Tax had been recommended to favour. Such a tax might be proposed, as it had been formerly, under the pressure of a formidable war, or of domestic disturbances, as indispensable for the safety and best interests of the country. It had been proposed by Lord Liverpool, at the end of a war, to wind up the finances of that war, but refused, because not called for by urgent necessity. A second ground upon which an Income Tax might be proposed was, that of providing for the public faith; and at a time when no other means presented themselves for that purpose, he should be prepared to give his assent to such a proposal. Upon such a ground he conceived Sir R. Peel to have proposed the Income Tax in 1842. But that proposal had now arrived at another stage, which brought him to the consideration of the third ground upon which an Income Tax might be proposed. That was a distinct preference for that mode of taxation over others. Notwithstanding what had fallen from his noble Friend opposite, looking at this tax, and coupling it with the other measures with which it was accompanied, however desirable he might consider the repeal of any tax to be—however judicious he might think the selection of those to be repealed—it was impossible not to observe the omission of any measure calculated to increase the revenue within the next three years, and the inevitable consequence of such an omission in the shape of the greater difficulty in parting with this tax. That which he regarded with the greatest anxiety, but to which the smallest part of the argument of his noble Friend had been directed, was the means by which the Go-

133
vernment, not professing to prolong this tax beyond three years, expected the revenue was to be increased during that time, so as to enable them to fulfil their expressed wish of dispensing with the tax. There had been an increase in the Naval Estimates, and there had been an increase in other Estimates, small indeed in amount, but great in principle, and of the highest importance as regarded its remote consequences, and its effects in future ages—an increase to which he not only gave his unqualified assent, but which he had long thought it the duty of Government and of Parliament to adopt, as essential to the peace of the country—an increase now made at a cost to the public of not more than 20,000 l. or 30,000 l., for the purpose of making better provision for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood. He had merely alluded to this in passing; but what he wished to say was, that with increased Estimates the chance of ultimately getting rid of the Income Tax seemed to be indefinitely diminished. Supposing the Estimates to be retained as before, and that there was no increase of taxation, the deficiency would not, according to the Papers he held in his hand, be more than 600,000 l. or 700,000 l.—a deficiency which it obviously would be most easy for Parliament to grapple with without the imposition of a Property Tax. When he saw the Government increasing the Estimates, though in a manner the propriety of which he might admit in some instances, and although he might admit the prudence of relieving production and industry from the pressure upon them, he had a right to call upon the Government to show, by the taxes they removed, that it was their intention to provide the means of reducing and parting with the Property Tax at a future period. His noble Friend had utterly failed to show that any one of his measures was calculated to effect that object. If it were a matter of choice and wish to keep the Income Tax in preference to other taxes, the Government were at liberty to select the taxes they would repeal; but if their first object were, as he contended it ought to be, to get rid of the Income Tax, then they ought to frame every one of their measures with reference to that object. He saw no evidence of any such intention, although he might claim the existence of it from the speeches both of the right hon. Baronet and almost every other Member of the Government. The noble Duke had stated that an Income Tax ought to be
134
reserved for cases of urgent necessity; and no one had expressed the same opinion with greater authority than the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, who now proposed an Income Tax, and expressed it too under very similar circumstances to the present. In 1833, when it was proposed that the malt tax should be taken off, what was the ground of opposition taken by the right hon. Gentleman who had then occupied the highest official situations in the country? He said that it might lead to the imposition of a Property Tax in time of peace, and that they would be encountering inconveniences by imposing a tax unequal in itself, and afterwards by the introduction of modifications which would disturb its efficiency, and that, above all, it would be necessary to impose the tax upon Ireland, which could not be done. That was the opinion of Sir Robert Peel in 1833. Afterwards, in 1840, the right hon. Baronet, being then on the threshold of power, commanding, or at least influencing, one of the greatest parties in this country, having had seven years for reflection, and there being then a deficiency of 2,500,000 l.—a deficiency far greater than now—said that he did not consider it would be justifiable to attempt to raise that sum by a Property Tax. If the right hon. Baronet had been induced to take a new view of this subject, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not, therefore, be deprived of the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman's name and authority, and he cordially agreed with the opinions of Sir R. Peel in 1833 and 1840, and to which no less weight and importance were to be attached than the authority of the right hon. Baronet now, in allowing the measure to be introduced. The right hon. Gentleman could only have introduced the measure in consequence of his having adopted that principle which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) deprecated—namely, the preference of the Income Tax to other sources of revenue, and he could now only argue that tax with reference to those considerations which applied to it as a permanent duty. He understood that there were persons calling themselves philosophers—persons wiser than other men—who preferred this tax, and avowed that they not only wished it to be perpetual, but desired it to be carried out further on account of what they called its justice and simplicity. What were the justice and simplicity of this tax as imposed upon the various classes of society? First, it was imposed upon

135
persons of all professions. If there was one thing more uncertain than another, it was a profession; and if any tax more unequal than another, it was a tax imposed upon all professions, without reference to the nature of any. Some professional incomes were derived from sources certain to continue during life; others arose from casual sources, which might at any time cease; others were only practised at particular seasons; others were dependent upon contingencies; some might be practised without injury to health and vigour during a whole life; others were destructive or injurious to them. Was a tax just and equal, therefore, that was indifferently applicable to all? But the philosophers had a remedy for that inconvenience. They would exempt professional incomes altogether, and provide for the deficiency so arising in another way. Then came the tax falling upon the manufacturers. But what was more unequal than the sources of income arising from different descriptions of manufactures? In some the expenses were greatly and frequently increased by the additions to or alterations of machinery rendered necessary by the improvements in science, while in others no such expenses might be required. Some were dependent upon fashion, caprice, or taste; others were not. Could that be a just or equal tax which applied to all alike? But leave out the manufacturers, and consider the annuitants on the public funds. Could there be a greater difference than that existing between the state of a person having a terminable annuity, and one enjoying the stipend for life?—or than the difference between a person whose funds had been made the subject of settlements, and one free to enjoy them without limitation? Could that, therefore, be a just and equal tax which called upon all these parties for a like contribution? Then some persons said, "Leave out the fundholders altogether; come to the landed interest, and make them pay." He objected to that exceedingly. He thought the landed proprietors ought not to be made the sole contributors to that or any other tax. But if you confined the tax to them, you would not find that it pressed upon the landed proprietors with equality, simplicity, and justice. The condition of a landed proprietor could not be determined by the amount of his income in any given year; but many considerations must be taken into the account, such as the degree to which his property was tied up in settlements. Where,
136
then, was the simplicity and justice of the Income Tax as applied to any one class who had to pay it? It was an equality that would never be discovered. When a carriage was invented which would travel with equal ease and facility in all countries, whatever the obstacles of the ground—when a coat was made which should be equally adapted for all variations of climate—or a medicine which should be equally salutary to all constitutions—then, and not till then, the simplicity, justice, and equality of the Income Tax would be discovered. He knew of no inconvenience attending indirect taxation, except that it took a somewhat larger amount from the pockets of the contributors. But what had been the inestimable boons in return? The privilege almost of taxing himself—of determining what was the amount it suited his convenience to contribute in any given year to the public Revenue. He had the power of diminishing or increasing his contribution to accommodate it to the state of his circumstances; and surely there was no man in his senses who would not pay a somewhat larger amount to secure these privileges and advantages, while at the same time he avoided those inquisitorial annoyances which ought never to be adopted, save in the last extremity, and which particularly belonged to a Property Tax. He was not about to ask the House to reject this tax altogether. It would be useless to make the attempt; but he contended that their Lordships were bound to give their serious attention to the means of fulfilling the hope—for his noble Friend would most likely not allow him to call it a condition—that the tax would be dispensed with, and not renewed at the expiration of three years. If the Income Tax had been proposed only as an experiment, accompanied by measures having a direct tendency to get rid of it altogether, such as as a large change in the sugar and tea duties, causing a great increase of consumption, in place of that narrow increase adverted to by his noble Friend—if the Government had said, "The measures we recommend are somewhat doubtful in their nature, and give us, during the time of the experiment, an Income Tax, to secure the public creditor," he would have given his assent to the measure; but as he saw no measures proposed which gave a fair prospect of the removal of the tax, he called upon the House to give their attention to the subject, and in every act submitted for their approval, to have in view the importance of providing other and better means

137
than were now provided for getting rid of the tax at the end of the three years. It was said that this had become a popular tax. No doubt you might purchase popularity for any tax by exempting people from paying it; and it might be perfectly true that this was a popular tax for those who had not to pay it. The resident proprietors of Ireland could have no great objection to the tax, for they were not called upon to bear the burden; and this was a very natural view for them to take. All persons under 150 l. a year were no doubt also inclined to think it just and equitable, not being sufficiently aware, and many of them not aware at all, that it would cramp the means of giving them employment, and cut off the source and fund of that capital which supplied them with the means of existence. Again, the manufacturer, who saw the repeal of the tax on cotton tendered to him in the shape of a bribe, was not likely to become clamorous against the instrument by which alone, he was told, that relief could be obtained for him. A pseudo popularity could be obtained at any moment by measures of this sort; but that the thinking and enlightened portion of the public could be reconciled to it was what he did not expect; and, therefore, he hoped that their Lordships and the other House of Parliament would exert their power to induce Her Majesty's Government, in the course of the next three years, to take measures which would have the effect of relieving the country from the burden of this unjust and onerous impost.
Lord Ashburtonbelieved there was no disposition in Parliament to object to the passing of the Bill for the renewal of the tax on this occasion; but the present seemed the only opportunity which their Lordships, in the common course of financial measures, were likely to have, to pass in review, as the noble Lords who had spoken before him had done, the general state of the finances of the country, and the measures which should be adopted for their improvement. On this subject he had the misfortune, he feared, to differ from both parties in that House. It had been his misfortune to differ upon it from almost every Government he had seen in place; and he must say that the financial condition of the country was one which, to him, had always been exceedingly alarming. He would take the liberty of shortly stating to their Lordships his views of the case. With respect to the tax which formed the subject of the Bill now before
138
them, he had to say that he almost wholly concurred with his noble Friend who had just sat down in objecting to it as a permanent impost. Although, setting aside the popularity which it naturally had with those who did not pay it, it had every appearance of plausibility at first sight, yet it was full of the grossest partiality, in every form of its application; and, as was remarked by Mr. M'Culloch, in his book upon taxation—which their Lordships could not do better than read for the purpose of procuring information—it was the worst which could be imposed, and only to be justified in cases of the greatest emergency. Speaking of its effects on land, Mr. M'Culloch said: "We doubt, indeed, whether it be possible to suggest any impost more at variance with sound principles, or more adverse to the progress of improvement." His noble Friend opposite had well stated the great inequality of the tax in all cases. In addition to those specified by his noble Friend, he might instance the body of the clergy in this country, many of whom did not come into their incomes until an advanced age, and who were almost under an obligation to contribute to the support of the various schools and charities around them; their interest in their incomes might cease by any momentary contingency; and yet they were taxed as heavily as those possessing the most permanent species of property: perhaps they were the class, of all others in the community on whom the tax fell most heavily. It fell with particular severity on the land, inasmuch as it was imposed on the gross income, without the slightest reference to repairs or improvements, and on the supposition that the rent was always regularly paid. There was a further objection, that it sinned against one of the first principles of taxation, in taking what was a raw material. Of all the materials of industry of every description, capital was the first; and it mattered not whether the tax was laid on the whole sum or on the income. Applying as it did to the industry of the country in all cases, it was impossible to conceive a tax more fatal to progressive improvement, or to the accumulation of capital. It made no difference to a manufacturer whether you placed a tax on his capital or on the raw material; and the burden of it was aggravated by the exposure of the secrets of his business. In fact, under a continuance of the tax, it stood to reason that any country, however rich, would sink. Such a tax as this oper-

139
ated on the principle known to and acted upon by gamblers; that in the long run the odds in favour of the table would draw all the money into the pocket of the banker. So much upon the question of this tax. His objection to the whole system of finance on which this country had since the war been proceeding was, that it left wholly untouched the heavy Debt which pressed upon us. It was now thirty years from the termination of the war, and we had made hardly any progress—in truth no progress—in lessening or diminishing the National Debt. Though his noble Friend near him had stated that there was a diminution of the Debt, he admitted at the same time that it proceeded almost wholly from a reduction of the charge arising from the lowering of the rate of interest — a very desirable thing, but one which had not originated in any effort whatever on the part of this country to pay off any portion of its obligations. By operation of this, the debt might be said to be reduced between 2,000,000 l. and 3,000,000 l. per annum. At the end of the war the charge on the Public Debt was about 32,500,000 l.; it was now somewhat above 29,000,000 l. [The Earl of Ripon: 28,000,000 l.] This was in truth the incubus which weighed down the whole country. There were 28,000,000 l. or 29,000,000 l. to raise for the purpose of paying the interest, against 17,000,000 l. or 18,000,000 l., or at farthest 20,000,000 l., for the supply of the wants of the Public Service. There was a time when it was thought to be the duty of Parliament to do something towards the extinction of the Debt; but of late years Chancellors of the Exchequer took the more popular course of caring nothing for the Debt, and relieving the immediate burdens on the people by taking off taxes. In his opinion, however, their real duty to the country would have been best shown by exertions to reduce this Debt, and thus relieve the country permanently from its embarrassments. The whole question, which now seemed to engage their attention, was the question of surplus or no surplus, and this was allowed to turn on a sum of 80,000 l. or 100,000 l. in an income of 50,000,000 l. The moment any difficulty came upon us, what were we to do? What was to happen to this country in the event of a serious alarm from a foreign war, or any other cause rendering necessary a large increase of expenditure? What course was to be followed but to borrow? He saw no other
140
resource, particularly if we had already anticipated the Income Tax, which might to a certain extent obviate the necessity. But we could not go on for ever borrowing; this resource must have its limits. The man of the shortest sight possible must see that one day the system would be brought to an end; though, like children, they might build up their house of cards, and pride themselves on its apparent strength and beauty, it would assuredly tumble down with disgrace. So strongly was he impressed with the alarming condition of the country, that he could derive no comfort from a contemplation of our finances, unless he were to see—what, at his period of life, he was afraid he should never see—some decided effort on the part of the Government to grapple with the difficulty that pressed upon us. True it was that predictions of bankruptcy had been often made when the Debt was not one-fourth of its present amount, which had not been fulfilled; but whatever the fate of their predictions, no one could pretend to say that this system could go on for ever, or that it would not come to an end some time or other. He could not understand by what chain of reasoning any honest or sober-minded men could think themselves justified in going on in the present course from year to year. Now, it was true, the country was in a state of admitted prosperity. He did not know that at any period of his long life he had seen the country in a state of more perfect quiet and satisfaction, or greater prosperity. Not a cloud was to be seen in the horizon except that small one of Oregon, which would soon, by the exercise of common fairness and discretion, be dispersed. There was perfect tranquillity in Europe; yet, under circumstances of such unexampled prosperity, not the slighest effort was made to effect any reduction of the Public Debt. Yet the only objection brought against it was the supposed reluctance of the people, and the difficulty of reconciling them to the maintenance of taxation for that purpose. But this, with the prospect that they might be called on at any time indefinitely to augment the Debt, was as much chargeable with dishonesty as any pretext that could be alleged. He did not see in this matter any such difficulty as was generally alleged. He would recommend that a surplus of 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. should be maintained, for the purpose, first, of operating on the Debt, and next, of providing for any contingency that might arise. We had no

141
right to expect that peace would last for ever; but now our surplus was entirely disposed of, and we were completely at the mercy of events. An attempt to create a surplus had first been made by Sir R. Walpole; it was for a short time maintained, and in 1732 or 1733 abandoned. Walpole said, either submit to have the land tax doubled, or give up the Sinking Fund; and the Parliament of the day, of course, as other Parliaments would do, said, you must take the Sinking Fund. Then came the attempt of Mr. Pitt, in 1786. That Minister alleged that the plan had failed for want of proper persons to give a surety that this Sinking Fund would never be touched, and he proposed to secure it for ever. But after the peace, one Chancellor of the Exchequer after another, finding it a much more agreeable task to be constantly repealing taxes than to be making provision for the future, declared his intention to keep no surplus at all. But so far from the Sinking Fund being an abuse, if rightly administered, he (Lord Asburton) contended that it was the most rational purpose to which a surplus could be applied. In the event of war, what was the natural course for a country to pursue, in order to raise funds for carrying it on? Undoubtedly, in a state of prosperity you might have recourse to an Income Tax; but the most expedient plan was to borrow, and upon the return of peace, to pay off the debt contracted during war. Otherwise, if we reverted to the plan of raising within the year the funds required for a war, its duration being uncertain, we might find it at an end in one or two years; and thus the country would be tormented by raising an immense amount of taxation, the arrangements for which would be rendered entirely useless by the return of peace. To borrow a fixed sum, with provision for the redemption of the loan in a certain number of years, was the preferable course. But he should wish to know, could any person venture to say what would be the final result of the present system? Was it wise to calculate on a continuance of sunshine and prosperity for ever? Did they expect to have no more wars, no more commercial panics? This tax had been imposed for the support of public credit, after various experiments with that object had been tried and failed, and might therefore be looked upon as in one sense necessary; but what he objected to was throwing away by a remission of taxes the revenue which would have ren-
142
dered the imposition of an Income Tax unnecessary. If it was to be continued, he (Lord Ashburton) could see no prospect of future security.
Lord Stanleysaid, he could not but think that his noble Friend who had just sat down had hardly done justice to the course pursued—the general and systematic policy pursued—not only by the present but by former Governments. Certainly his noble Friend had exaggerated the state of the case when he told their Lordships that no efforts had been made, no progress effected in the reduction of the burden of the Debt, since the period of the termination of the war in 1815. It might be quite true that as much progress had not been made in the reduction of the Debt as his noble Friend would have thought desirable; but it was no less true that in 1815 or 1816, when the interest of the Debt was at the highest, it exceeded 32,000,000 l. It was no less true also, that the interest for last year little exceeded the sum of 28,000,000 l., being a reduction of 4,000,000 l. a year—equivalent to a reduction of more than 100,000,000 l. in the capital. If, then, from 1815 to 1845, the present and former Governments had succeeded in reducing the interest of the Debt by 4,000,000 l., he thought his noble Friend could hardly state, with fairness, that no success had attended their efforts for the alleviation of the burden of the Debt. He was, however, stating his own case unfairly. He had stated the entire reduction in the interest as compared with the year 1815; but measures had also been taken for the purpose of increasing the temporary interest with the view of reducing the ultimate amount of the charge. By arrangements heretofore made, and followed out by the present Government, the amount of interest had been for a time increased by the substitution of a terminable annuity for an interminable debt. In the year 1854, in consequence of the saving effected by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, through the reduction of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., there would be a further reduction in the annual charge of 600,000 l. In 1860, there would be a still further annual reduction, to the amount of 1,200,000 l., by the falling in of the Long Annuities. In 1865, or 1866, there would be a still further annual reduction of 600,000 l. He had not any statement of the figures, because he did not expect that this discussion would have arisen; but, notwithstanding

143
what his nobly Friend had said, he thought he had shown their Lordships that they had largely reduced the charge on account of the interest now payable, and provided for a still further reduction in future. These were equivalent to a great reduction in the capital of the Debt; and, so far from adding to the burden, they had really taken measures to ensure the cessation of a considerable proportion of the amount. He regarded the speech of his noble Friend as directed, not against the Property Tax, but against that reduction of duties which was, in fact, to be considered as the compensation obtained by the country for paying that impost. His noble Friend said he did not object to a surplus of three or four millions. But the fact was, we had not got the surplus: and to get it, you must impose the Property Tax. Now, the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had proved that in 1846, supposing everything to remain as at present — the Revenue unaltered, and the Expenditure continued as it now stood—there would be a surplus of two millions, indeed, in consequence of the receipt of the half-year's Income Tax; but if the tax should expire in 1846, so far from there being a surplus, there would be a deficiency of 700,000 l. Then his noble Friend got up and said that he did not object to the maintenance of a surplus, but to the taking off taxation. But the very means that enabled them to take off taxation, or to obtain a surplus, and the only possible means of compassing that end, was, the imposition of a Property Tax. He took, therefore, his noble Friend's speech as a defence of the Property Tax; and his objections to taking off other taxes might be considered at a future opportunity. His noble Friend could not show any other source from which a surplus could arise but the Income Tax. ["Hear, hear."] He did not know whether his noble Friend meant that cheer as an expression of doubt or assent; but all he could say was, that no method had been pointed out by any noble Lord or any Member of Parliament, so far as he knew, by which a permanent surplus could be obtained—no mode by which a permanent deficiency could be avoided, except through the agency of the Income Tax. The noble Marquess also said, that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government objected, in 1833, to taking off the malt tax, because that would necessarily lead to the imposition of a Property Tax. He
144
(Lord Stanley) was not there to advocate a Property Tax as the most desirable that, under any circumstances, could be proposed. Nobody was there to contend for it in the abstract: what they contended for was, that in the present state of the Revenue, and in the present circumstances of the country, the imposition of the tax was necessary—first, to prevent deficiency; and, secondly, because it enabled them to afford great and substantial relief to the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country. The noble Marquess did not deny that a Property Tax might be beneficial and justifiable, as in time of war—of which, fortunately, no danger was now to be apprehended—or in any great deficit of the Revenue. The noble Marquess seemed rather to pride himself on the fact that the deficiency at the present moment was not so great as in 1840 or 1841, when he was a Member of the Administration, because at that time Sir Robert Peel did not admit that a deficiency of 2,500,000 l. formed an adequate ground for the imposition of a Property Tax. He could perfectly understand that his right hon. Friend might have stated that he did not consider that such a deficiency was large enough to justify, in this great commercial country, the imposition of an Income Tax. But if, subsequently, other modes had been tried and failed—if a permanent deficiency had to be provided for, even though it might not be so great as the noble Marquess boasted that he had left to the present Administration, there might still be reason for the imposition of the Income Tax. They contended for it, not on the principle to which the noble Marquess had alluded, of "Score up, hostess;" for the score which the noble Marquess and his Colleagues left behind them when they went out of office had been wiped out, short of about 700,000 l., this year. The noble Marquess had admitted that, supposing the present state of expenditure to continue, there would be an excess of expenditure over revenue in the next year of 700,000 l. But the noble Marquess had made another admission; for he stated, "I don't blame your increased Estimates, in the circumstances of the country, I don't complain of your adding to the Naval Establishments. I don't complain of your introducing Estimates which may lead this year to an increase of 1,500,000 l., and for several years to a sum approaching that amount." Yet the noble Marquess condemns them for introducing for three years

145
more a Property Tax; though, on his own showing, we had a sum of over 2,000,000 l. to provide for, which could be met in no other way. It might be, and it was true, that with the Income Tax, which brought in somewhere about 5,200,000 l. a year, the revenue would be more than adequate to meet the estimated deficiency, which was somewhere about 2,000,000 l. or 1,800,000 l.—he meant, the deficiency after the year 1845, after the casual sources of the Revenue should have ceased. The only proposal apart from the Income Tax for meeting that deficiency, was that submitted by the noble Marquess—namely, a large reduction of taxation, thereby insuring a great increase of consumption. Now, he must be allowed to call the attention of their Lordships to the facts of the case, as illustrated by the two articles to which the noble Marquess particularly referred. He said, we should make a large reduction of duty on tea and tobacco; and that by so doing we had a reasonable prospect of so increasing consumption as to defeat the smuggler and bring the Revenue up to its present amount. [The Marquess of Lansdowne: Not quite; but in a short time you would.] But we had to deal with a deficiency which must be at once met, and, if it could not be provided for by taxation, left no alternative but the imposition of an Income Tax. The noble Marquess would increase the deficiency, and trust to enlarged consumption for more than counterbalancing the diminution caused by the withdrawal of the Income Tax. Now, with regard to tea, it did not appear that the tax, heavy as he admitted it was, had had the effect of diminishing consumption; on the contrary, it had increased considerably. He was not going into the probable effect of the reduction of duty, but he very much doubted whether the reduction of duty would so far diminish the price here as to increase consumption. He very much doubted whether the reduced duty would go into the pockets of the consumer, and he was rather inclined to think that it would find its way into the coffers of that not very numerous class which supplied the tea market. The consumption, at all events, had not been checked by the duty; for in the course of five years it had increased from 32,000,000lbs. to 41,360,000lbs. Here was an increase of nearly one-fourth with a tax, the effect of which was complained of as restricting consumption. Well, take tobacco—a very different article. He was not going to say that there
146
was not a great deal of smuggling in that article; but it should be observed, that the tax on that article was many hundred-fold more than the prime cost, and no reduction of duty could have the effect of checking the smuggler, which did not enable the importer to bring it in at so cheap a rate that the smuggler would have no interest in introducing it. This tax yielded 4,000,000 l. a year; and, consequently, unless they were prepared to make a sacrifice of 3,000,000 l., they could not be sure of shutting out the tobacco of the smuggler. Did the noble Marquess suppose that the increased consumption could compensate such a deficiency? But, as it was, the consumption of this article, instead of declining, was increasing. It had increased from 3,488,000 l. in 1842, to 3,607,000 l. in 1843, and 3,863,000 l. in 1844. Here was a steady increase of 200,000 l. a year. However strongly he might be inclined to anticipate, from the operation of the reduction of the duty on these articles, that a considerable reduction would increase the consumption, and ultimately bring up the Revenue to where it was, he could not think that on either of these articles (there were others which rested on different principles, and were to be determined by political considerations) the reduction of duty would have the effect, within a limited time, of raising the Revenue to its present amount. Well, then, if the Estimates were to be increased, and if the present amount of Expenditure in other respects were to be kept up, (for though the noble Marquess had hinted at the possibility of some reduction, he had not stated what,) he could not see how, without the imposition of a Property Tax, there was a means of meeting what was acknowledged to be a permanent deficiency. His noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) complained, however, that, by means of imposing a tax which they acknowledged to be very vexatious, the Government having realized a surplus of 3,000,000 l., had applied it in relieving the industry of the country. They had proposed a remission of duties to the amount of 3,400,000 l. He had not heard from a single quarter—he had not seen it mentioned in the newspapers, still less in their Lordships' House—that there were any of those taxes which it was proposed to reduce, of which the reduction was not essential to the commercial prosperity of the country. The noble Marquess had admitted that, if taxes were to be selected for reduction, a more judicious choice

147
could not have been made. The Government had proposed a sacrifice of 1,300,000 l. on sugar; but our present experience, short as it was, contradicted the prophecies indulged in, that the consumer would not derive advantage from the reduction to the full extent of the amount remitted; for in the recent sales, it was shown that the consumers had the full benefit of the change; and those consumers, mind you, were of the poorest class, and those to whom a low price was of essential advantage. This measure had the effect already of reducing the price 1¼d. or 1½d. a lb.; whereas, if he recollected rightly, the plan of the friends of the noble Lords opposite, which was not accepted by Parliament, did not propose a reduction of more than ¾d. in the lb. We, then, had effected a much larger reduction on a prime necessary than was contemplated by the much-vaunted scheme of noble Lords opposite, on which the sense of the country was declared against them. He did not mean to enter into a discussion of the reductions proposed, for no one found fault with them, not even his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton), as he was against any reduction at all; but there was not one of those articles on which restrictions were proposed to be taken off, that the proposed change would not have the effect of assisting the manufactures of the country, and in some cases were essential to their revival. There was the duty on glass, the abolition of which must not only be a great relief to trade, but must prove a great stimulus also to the home manufacture of the article. Nobody could deny that if it had not been taken off, the manufacture, which was leaving you year after year, must pass into the hands of foreigners. Year after year your vexatious restrictions—your Excise—your impediments and obstructions, not to mention the direct loss imposed on your own manufacturer—were giving a premium to foreign competitors, and year after year you were importing into this country more and more of foreign glass to be re-exported in successful competition with your own manufacture. We made a change, not desired, perhaps, by the few manufacturers who withstood all the disadvantages of their position, and who had acquired a practical monopoly; but which gave a great relief to trade generally, afforded a stimulus to the introduction of capital into this branch of manufacture, and thereby supplied the means of its improvement. There was another very important tax
148
taken off—that on raw cotton. It amounted to 600,000 l. But could there be a duty more objectionable in principle? It was a duty on the raw material—pressed most heavily on the coarsest articles—was levied inversely to the value—and consequently amerced most heavily the classes least able to bear it. It was quite clear that without the imposition of a Property Tax, to meet the deficiency of the revenue, it would be absolutely impossible to make such reductions as those he had referred to, which must stimulate the manufacturing and commercial industry of the country. The noble Marquess said this was a very popular tax — "very popular with those who did not pay it." That might be. But he did not contend for its popularity; he only said that its imposition was necessary; and that this impression was generally participated in was proved by nothing more strongly than by the fact that such a tax had not created a greater feeling of unpopularity and objection throughout the community than it had done. But the question was, not whether it was popular or not, but whether it was a relief to those who were unable to bear taxation in another shape. It exempted, undoubtedly, incomes under 150 l. a year. There was no question that the tendency in this—and it was probably so in all great commercial countries—was a great accumulation of property in comparatively few hands; and this involved an inequality in the weight of the burdens to be borne by the community. We had had some striking proofs that the pressure of your taxation, according to the principles on which it had been hitherto imposed, had reached its maximum; and that the class on which it fell were unable to bear the pressure which they already sustained, still less any further, while the wealthier classes were not taxed in proportion to their ability to sustain the burdens of the State; and he did not deny that in consequence of the exemption of the poorer classes, the charge of the Income Tax in a great measure fell upon the wealthier. In 1840, or 1841, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, as a means of recruiting the finances of the country, an addition of five per cent. on the taxes levied on all articles of consumption, and ten per cent. on the assessed taxes. Mark the result. The tax of fire per cent. produced such a diminution in consumption that it brought one instead of five per cent. But the ten per cent. falling on the easier classes realized the full

149
amount of ten per cent. Could there be a stronger proof that the taxation of the great class of consumers had reached its limit, while that on the easier classes was capable of being augmented without diminishing their enjoyments, or causing them to diminish their establishments? There was another most important fact in illustration of this position. It might naturally be supposed that a compulsory deduction, such as that enforced by the Income Tax, might have the effect of reducing expenditure. But, although the tax fell on the wealthier classes, and although they had the power of reducing their establishments, the fact was, that there had not only been no reduction in the production of the assessed taxes, but establishments had increased since its imposition, and the assessed taxes had been more productive under its operation. He was not stating this as an argument in favour of the imposition of a Property Tax; but he did state it to show that if there was a necessity, under the circumstances of the country, and for temporary purposes, to raise a revenue adequate, and something more, to our current expenditure, it was impossible to do so by increased taxes on consumption; and that there was no alternative but that proposed—a Property Tax. The noble Marquess objected to the tax as not only unjust in principle, but unequal in its pressure on different classes. The noble Marquess said it was unequal in its pressure on temporary as compared with permanent interests; and yet he was compelled to admit that if the tax was imposed at all, it must, if it were not absolutely frittered away, be applied to professional incomes and life interests of every description, without regard to the capital of each individual. He should like to know what other tax of a similar amount there was which did not bear unequally on incomes, if estimated yearly, or according to amount in point of capital. He would not argue the question of taxes on professional income. He could understand the charge of inequality, if there was not a compensation given during the period of the Income Tax in the cheapness of articles which one, so charged, must necessarily consume. If it was proposed to pay a million of debt by taxing the person who had a permanent interest, and him who was only an annuitant equally, he could see the distribution was unfair; but he could not see, and he had never been able to see, that there was injustice in raising a tax on the current
150
income of the year, without calculating its amount in point of capital, particularly when those so charged had a large compensation in articles which they must necessarily consume. He sat down, once more saying that considering there was deficiency to be immediately met, there was no mode of taxation so little objectionable as that which Government had selected, and that, in the reduction of duties which they had effected, they had increased not only the manufacturing and commercial industry, but benefited, through them, the agricultural interest, and thereby secured the general welfare and prosperity of the country.
Lord Monteaglesaid, his noble Friend on the opposite benches (Lord Ashburton) had very consistently dwelt on the necessity of maintaining a Sinking Fund, as essential to the security of the national creditor. His noble Friend therefore concluded, very logically, that by the abandonment of the Sinking Fund, the national creditor had sustained some loss and injury. On this question, however, Parliament—and he believed the public likewise—had differed widely from his noble Friend. He (Lord Monteagle) thought that, in reference to the facts connected with the question now under discussion—the Property Tax, it could be proved by distinct evidence, that although the Sinking Fund had been abandoned, the real interests of the national creditor had not been sacrificed. The real question was, whether Parliament had really lessened the security which was pledged to him in maintenance of the public faith? The noble Lord said, that if Parliament had adhered perseveringly in a steady application of a Sinking Fund according to the doctrines propounded by Mr. Pitt, the public creditor would have possessed better security, and the country would have been freed from a vast amount of debt. [Lord Ashburton: Nearly the whole.] But it should be remembered that there were two ways of augmenting the security of the public creditor; first, by paying off a certain amount of debt; and, secondly, by increasing the amount of the security possessed by the creditor for that debt, by promoting the increase of the national capital. He contended that the latter course had been resorted to most successfully; for if any person would compare the property of this country in 1815, at the expiration of the last Property Tax, with the property assessed to the present Income Tax, it

151
would be seen that the remission of taxation which had taken place since the period to which he referred, and which was complained of by his noble Friend, had given a stimulus to the industry of the country, and had led to an accumulation of capital, which gave to the public creditor an infinitely greater and more permanent security for his debt than he could have obtained by the continued application of a Sinking Fund. The increased capital of the country exceeded the most sanguine anticipations. He believed the present Government were acting in good faith when, at the time the Property Tax was imposed, they estimated that its amount would not exceed 3,700,000 l. It had, however, produced 5,100,000 l. That was its net amount; the gross amount was still more considerable. He found that the property in England assessed to the Income Tax in 181 did not exceed 74,000,000 l.; and that amount included 18,000,000 l. calculated on the property of persons whose incomes did not exceed 150 l. a year; so that the proportion of English property liable to the present rate of Income Tax would in 1801 have only been 56,000,000 l. sterling; but the value of the same property assessed to the present Income Tax was no less than 181,000,000 l. sterling. He was aware that a considerable proportion of that increase was, in fair reasoning, to be traced to other sources besides the remission of taxation; but he was satisfied that it would not be contended that the property of the country could have accumulated in such a ratio, if that property had remained subject to the pressure of taxation necessary for an efficient Sinking Fund. Some of the strongest early advocates of a Sinking Fund had abandoned their first impressions; among them was included the honoured name of Lord Grenville. His latest work was devoted to this argument, and was published at a period when his experience was most matured, and his intellectual powers were at their very highest. It was then that he had given the strongest testimony to the necessity of abandoning the Sinking Fund system. When he heard from his noble Friend (Lord Ashburton) such desponding language as to the National Debt, and the resources of this country in war and in peace, he must remind their Lordships that, upon the best estimate that could be formed of the amount of property in this country assessed to the Property Tax, it amounted to no less
152
than 243,000,000 l. per annum, or between one-third or one-fourth of the whole capital of the Debt. Some corrections might doubtless be necessary in that statement, as property might be assessed under both Schedules A and B; but, after making all reasonable reduction, it must still be evident that the resources of this country, in war or in peace, were never greater, or more adequate to meet any exigency, than at the present time. But he was now compelled to refer to the observations of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley); and he must say, he was rather surprised that a debate which had been carried on with perfect calmness and with an entire absence of all party feeling, should have been made the occasion by that noble Lord of a gratuitous and unprovoked attack on his political opponents on that (the Opposition) side of the House. The noble Lord had been pleased to charge his predecessors in office with "scoring up" debt upon debt; and he thought, therefore, he might call upon them to wipe off these old scores; but he (Lord Monteagle) would recall to the recollection of the House the scores run up by the noble Lord and his Colleagues on the opposite benches. The noble Lords from whom that charge proceeded, or on whose behalf it was made, were, in fact, the parties who had contracted, and were now contracting, an amount of debt which posterity would be called upon to discharge, by the reimposition of the Property Tax. It was perfectly true, that during the years from 1837 to 1841 there had been a deficiency of public revenue; but in the antecedent years, from 1830 to 1836, there was a considerable excess of revenue over expenditure; and so far from the Public Debt of this country having been increased under the administration of those against whom the noble Lord's sneer was directed, it had, during their continuance in office, been diminished by no less a sum than 2,340,000 l. If noble Lords would take the trouble of investigating the subject, they would find that, by what some persons might consider an inconceivable and mysterious coincidence, the years when there had been a deficiency of revenue were those in which bread had been at a high price; while the years of redundant revenue were those in which the price of bread had been low. Was this an accident, or was it cause and consequence? If the latter, as he believed, for a succession of bad harvests, producing high prices, no Government

153
could be held responsible; nor did he think that a Government could justly claim credit for the consequences of a succession of good harvests. In some respects, the present circumstances of the country reminded him of 1825—a period of prosperous finance—a time, too, of unlimited speculation; but the time came when the pendulum took another swing, and the oscillation, both with respect to trade and revenue, was in the opposite direction. Undoubtedly, the trade of this country was at present in a prosperous state; and that prosperity he was ready to admit was, to a certain extent, attributable to the measures proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He thought their former Tariff was—with some exceptions to which he would hereafter call the attention of their Lordships — well considered. He would also say, that he considered the selection now made by Her Majesty's Ministers for the reduction of taxation was, for the most part, a great boon and incentive to the industry of the country. He was the last person either at liberty or disposed to controvert this. On two former occasions he (Lord Monteagle) had pressed upon their Lordships' attention the importance of repealing the duties on wool and cotton. Both those duties were now repealed, and he believed that no greater boon could have been conferred on the manufacturers of this country. They now said to the manufacturers of cotton and wool, as they had long said to some other manufacturers, "The law leaves you free; the Legislature is not so weak or presumptuous as to believe they have the means of protecting you from distress under all possible circumstances; you must yourselves guard against the recurrence of such distress—not by coming to Parliament for protection, but by the exertion of your own industry, the exercise of your own reason, and the frugal administration of the resources at your command." He also considered that the Government had acted most judiciously, not only in removing the duty on glass, but in doing so in a manner to free that important article from all Excise regulations. He believed that, under these favourable circumstances, glass would eventually become one of the great staple manufactures of this country. The proposed reductions, regarded in a commercial point of view, evinced the sound judgment of the Government; but they were bound to consider these questions financially. The question was not
154
whether the proposed changes were in themselves beneficial, but whether the country could afford to make them. This, he feared, was not the case. If he had entertained any doubts on this point, they had nearly been satisfied by the speech of the noble Lord opposite. No individual who heard that speech could have failed to perceive that all the noble Lord's arguments tended not only to the present temporary enactment, but to the perpetuation of the Property Tax; and that perpetuation was advocated on grounds which he considered contrary to all principles of sound legislation, and more likely to lead to mischievous results out of doors than any arguments he had ever heard in the other House of Parliament. In reply to a statement of his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Lansdowne), that the Tax was popular with those who did not pay it, the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) replied that the question they had to ask themselves was not whether there were any complaints against the tax or not, but whether the exemption of the lesser properties was not a great relief; and he then went on to say that the danger of the present times was a great accumulation of property leading to inequalities of condition which it should be the object of Parliament to redress by the exemptions of the Property Tax. If that doctrine were good now, it would be good for the extension of the Property Tax to an indefinite period and to an indefinite amount, till it should swallow up and supersede all the taxes upon consumption. The argument proceeded upon what the noble Lord must admit, if he considered it, to be the most monstrous doctrine. It assumed that the accumulation of capital by the rich was an injury to the working classes; but this was a mischievous fallacy. Did the rich man either lock up or eat and drink and consume his gold? Rather, did not the accumulation of wealth in the one class represent the employment of capital and the wages of labour of another? Was it not new and dangerous to hear a Minister of England representing that those who possessed property stood in such a relation to the poor as to require some remedy to conduce towards equality? A more fatal doctrine to the prosperity and the peace of any country he had never heard advanced. He had already shown that, in referring to former times, the noble Lord, in stating the deficiency which he imputed to the late Government, had

155
excluded from his view the fact, that though there had been deficiencies in some years, there was a surplus in other years, and that the surpluses exceeded the deficiencies. What had happened since? How had the present Treasury squared its accounts? The noble Lords appealed to a Parliament in which they exercised unlimited authority, to make up that deficiency of which they complained; the Parliament acquiesced in every one of their suggestions—let them see with what effect. The utmost calculation of deficiency which his political opponents had ever made was 10,000,000 l., and that was made up of the accumulation of successive deficiencies in successive years, refusing at the same time to give credit for surplus revenue. Assuming the facts as stated, that deficiency had been more than wiped off. He would ask what extraordinary receipts had there been at the disposal of the present Government? They had received actual remittances of bullion from China, to the amount of 2,600,000 l.; they had also received in borrowed money, 2,477,000 l., so that they had received during the three years 5,077,000 l. wholly beyond their own estimate of the Property Tax and the ordinary Revenue of those years. This was more than sufficient to have extinguished the imputed, though not justly imputed, deficiency. If there were still a deficiency at the conclusion of the first three years of the Property Tax, the late Government were not responsible for it; but other noble Lords who now brought forward this charge were much more responsible. [The Earl of Ripon: I did not make the charge.] No; the noble Earl did not. He was too prudent to make it—he left it to his more impetuous Colleague. This charge was reserved for the light troops—it did not come from the heavy company; but he was not taken by surprise, as his ear was familiar to the click of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley's) rifle, and he knew the kindness with which that weapon was used. But to return—the present Government had received 15,300,000 l. from the Property Tax; so that the extraordinary sources, wholly independent of the ordinary revenue, had yielded 20,377,000 l. in those three years. He might also add 3,000,000 l. for the corn duties, which he was entitled to charge as extraordinary revenue against the noble Lords, because such was their aversion to corn as an article of revenue, that, though they received 3,000,000 l., they disclaimed all wish so to deal with
156
the food of the people. Yet, even omitting those duties, there was left for the payment of what had been called the "old score" of 10,000,000 l. a sum of 20,000,000 l. which had been received by the noble Lords in three years as extraordinary revenue. How, then, had the present debt and difficulty accumulated? It was clearly not from those old scores. Why then was it? It was because their budgets had failed, because their calculations had not been realized. When the revenue had been productive, and had saved them, their success was contrary to all their calculations. They calculated a receipt of 3,000,000 l. from the Property Tax; they had received 5,100,000 l. What, however, had become of their other articles of revenue? What had become of their Timber duties? What had become of their Coal tax? What had become of their Irish Spirit duties? They were obliged to repeal them. [The Earl of Ripon: What then?] What then? — why, merely that they were entirely a failure. They had filled the gaols of Ireland with smugglers, though they had failed to recruit the Excise. What had become of their coal tax, which was defended on the highest possible grounds of geological science, as well as on somewhat novel economical and financial reasons, as well as from a love of home protection? The coal fields of England, it was said, required protection; and it was added that in our coal exports, experience had shown that we were creating a manufacturing competition against ourselves; yet notwithstanding these excellent arguments there was a Bill now on their Lordships' Table to repeal this very tax, and this tax was repealed by the very men who had improved it. What had become of other taxes of a somewhat similar nature? If there were a deficiency now existing, it could be clearly traced to the financial operations of the Government itself. The future deficiency of ordinary revenue was also their work. On the present occasion what did they propose to do? They repealed taxes, which, he admitted, were honestly and well chosen, if the country could afford to repeal them; and if he saw a chance that the Revenue could be made good at the end of the three years for which the Property Tax was now re-enacted, so as to allow its repeal at the end of that time, he would give his hearty concurrence to the measure before the House; but he foresaw such a repeal to be impossible. By the actual calculation of the Government, the

157
surplus did not amount to 100,000 l. Such was the miserable surplus to which they looked after taking credit for the full amount of the Property Tax; but a right hon. Gentleman of high experience, the late President of the Board of Trade, had given a comment on the Ministerial Estimates; and he distinctly stated that the loss on sugar, which the Government estimated at 1,300,000 l., would, in his judgment, produce a loss of a million and a half at the least. What then became of their surplus? Here it was converted into a deficiency by the admission of one of their late Colleagues. But the Government in their rashness went further; by way of making the deficiency still more certain, they gratuitously threw away 300,000 l. a year of an increasing duty—the duty on auctions. Was there ever such a needless sacrifice of revenue? — and if the Revenue were sacrificed, it was done for the very reason that nobody had complained; he did think this one of the most extraordinary financial proposals ever submitted to Parliament. They were thus voluntarily creating a deficiency which, at the end of three years, must render the removal of the Income Tax inevitable. No financier, under such circumstances, could imagine it within the range of possibilities that the ordinary Revenue of the country within three years could be augmented by increased consumption to the extent of 5,000,000 l. Unless there were a reduction of expenditure, which the noble Lord said was impossible, they must be prepared in 1848 to re-enact the Property Tax. But this is not all. He would ask would the Government have been enabled this year to carry the Property Tax with such facility if the proposal were not accompanied by a large concession of duties on articles of consumption? They knew very well that the popularity of the repeal of the duties on glass and cotton wool had given them Parliamentary strength for carrying the Property Tax. They would at the end of the three years be called upon for the same reason to make further concessions. Did the Government think that the people of 1848 would be so much more enduring and so much more enamoured of a Property Tax — that they would then consent to its reimposition without any equivalent, when those who preceded them have obtained those popular remissions? Let them be assured that there would be new demands in 1848, and that the tendency of the sys-
158
tem they were adopting would be to bring upon Parliament a pressure for the transfer to direct, of much of what was now paid in indirect taxation. He might go a step further. He might suppose that there might supervene a time of financial pressure; combined with political excitement and irritation, and that the doctrines of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) for setting right the inequalities of property by a Property Tax, should then be in favour. A Property Tax of 7d. in the pound yields 5,000,000 l. A Property Tax of 12 d. in the pound would yield 4,000,000 l. more. That sum it would be urged would enable them to repeal the window tax, and other taxes which pressed upon the people. The people of 1848, if they resembled the people of 1845, would turn to good use the arguments which had been adduced that night; and the Government of that day, to carry the Income Tax, would be called on to repeal these more unpopular taxes. He believed a calculation had been made, that 500,000 people only paid the Property Tax; and it was a very dangerous principle to lay down, that so small a proportion out of the millions of population in this country, could with justice or safety, under any system of legislation, be made the peculiar victims of taxation. If this should be done, it would be the poorer classes and the industrious classes who would fall the ultimate sacrifice to a false system; that was the great danger of converting indirect into direct taxation, and of turning taxation upon consumption into taxation upon property. In following this course we strike at industry itself by diminishing the fund which pays the wages of labour. The rich suffer, but the poor are ruined! Now, had or had not the Government wasted our resources? He did not speak then of the yearly Estimates; though, if he did, he must go beyond the limits of the noble Marquess on the subject of a reduction of expenditure; for when he compared the Estimates of the present year with those which the First Lord of the Treasury proposed in 1835, and found an excess of 4,000,000 l. on the year's supplies amounting to 14,000,000 l., he could not but suppose that something might be done to give relief in that direction. Suppose, however, that there would be no such reduction, he said that there had been a wasting of our resources in the system of the proposed taxation. Could any

159
one defend the Sugar Duties of the present year? Would the noble Lords themselves defend them next year? Must they not be abandoned next year? The Government were now gracefully abandoning their coal duties; they had previously abandoned their spirit duties, and this would give them a little practice on a small scale, preparatory to the abandonment of the Sugar Duties next year. By their own admission, they sacrificed a revenue of 1,300,000 l. He was gratified to hear from the Ministers that the consumer got the whole benefit; but to what a singular conclusion had the noble Lord come, when he declared that tea and sugar, usually talked of together, were governed by different financial laws! He said, with regard to sugar, that all the benefit of the reduction of duty was received by the consumer; but that with respect to tea, some one or other in China or elsewhere, would reap the advantage should a reduction take place. Why the same law should not have the same operation with regard to sugar coming from foreign countries and to tea, he was at a loss to conceive; the political economy of the Treasury was not very consistent. The Revenue would lose 1,300,000 l. by the Sugar Duties, according to the calculation of the noble Lord; it would lose 1,500,000 l. according to the late President of the Board of Trade. Now, there was a very good authority, the late Mr. Deacon Hume, who, with Mr. M'Gregor, made declarations—one with respect to sugar, and the other with respect to timber. Mr. Deacon Hume said, he "could obtain a good million from sugar, without increasing the price to the consumer;" and the opinion of the present Secretary of the Board of Trade was, that he could increase the produce of the timber duties by 2,000,000 l., and this with benefit both to commerce and the consumer. The Government lost 600,000 l. or 700,000 l. by the arrangement of the timber duties in 1842, and they now lost 1,500,000 l. by their Sugar Duties; so that they lost 2,000,000 l. where, by the opinions of two very competent men, they might have made a profit of 3,000,000 l., instead of a loss. There was a difference of 4,000,000 l. or 5,000,000 l., which of itself would be an indemnity for the Property Tax. The Government had now, made out or rather had produced, he admitted, a necessity for the Income Tax; and the way in which they dealt with sugar, timber, and corn, had diminished
160
the national resources, so that they would not have the power of allowing that tax to expire in 1848. With respect to the three articles of corn, timber, and sugar, there seemed a fatality about them; and yet dangerous as these subjects were rendered to the Government, they were not left alone. In the pamphlet of Mr. Gladstone, the duties on corn, timber, and sugar, were said to have been reduced one-half by the measures of Her Majesty's Government. It certainly was not expected by the friends of the Government that those duties would have been so touched and dealt with; but there had been this loss to the Revenue without giving any commensurate benefit to the public. He was sorry that anything like contention should have entered into that discussion. He had been prepared to discuss it as a simple question of finance and of economical science; but he had been compelled to take arms in defence of his friends and his principles: his noble Friend, Lord Stanley, must be aware that if stones were thrown, there must be a little compliment given in return.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he would not at that late hour occupy much of their Lordships' time; but after the speech of his noble Friend who moved this Bill, and the speeches of the other noble Lords who had spoken, he felt himself called upon to express his objection to the way in which it was intended to appropriate the money to be derived from the Income Tax; and also to express his objection to all those items from which his noble Friend took so much credit for removing the duty. He did not include the article of raw cotton; but alluded particularly to those articles which were not enumerated when the measure was first proposed. Of the article of divi-divi his noble Friend admitted that he did not know anything. That was precisely one of his grounds of complaint—that sufficient inquiry had not been made before these Customs' Bills were introduced, and that serious detriment to some of the greatest interests of the country was the consequence. His noble Friend justified the omission from the Queen's Speech of any allusion to the agricultural distress which every one admitted to exist. He said that for that distress he fell the greatest sympathy; and asked whether it was likely that the Members of the Cabinet, who were large landowners, would do anything calculated to injure the agricultural interest of the

161
country with which they were so closely connected. He doubted not the sympathy of his noble Friend; he imputed to him and his Colleagues no motives; he believed they thought they were doing what was best; but he felt that they had not acted towards the agricultural interest with that wisdom which he should have expected, nor did that interest think they had been true to the principles on which they had come into office. It was said that the Income Tax was imposed in order to make taxation more equal, by reducing the taxes on particular articles. If that was the principle, why was the agricultural interest, except, perhaps, in the article of sugar, entirely overlooked? We had heard it said, forsooth, that the agriculturists would be greatly benefited by the reduction of the duly on glass. Did his noble Friend mean to say that he expected to see the day when the farmers could cover their turnip fields with glass frames for the purpose of getting a second crop? for that was the only way in which it appeared to him that they could be benefited by the proposed reduction. Another act of injustice, and which he should certainly make the subject of a motion, was in the application of the Income Tax to the fanner. If he paid 300 l. a-year rent, it was immediately concluded that he derived a profit from his farm of 150 l., and was taxed accordingly, without even the power of an appeal. Now, everybody knew that the last two years had been most unproductive to the farmer in many parts of the country, and that, instead of profit, they in some instances absolutely sustained a loss. It had been stated in the House of Commons, and he now repeated, that one of a deputation who wailed on Sir R. Peel, stated that if the right hon. Baronet would send a person to look at his farm and his books, he would prove to him that in 1843 he had lost 600 l., and in 1844, 700 l.; and yet this man was called on to pay the Income Tax out of his supposed profits. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose business it was to screw as much money as he could out of the pockets of every one, had said, that if they gave to the tenant-farmers the right of appeal, they would lay out an enormous sum of money in manure one year, in order to show the small amount of their profits, and next year reap the benefit, when they were freed from the Income Tax. But the right hon.
162
Gentleman knew little of the state of the farmers of the country when he supposed that they could command the necessary capital for such an outlay. Surely their Lordships would admit that farming was a trade, and if so, why exclude the farmer from the benefit of an appeal? It was not common sense, it was not justice to do so. He should vote for the third reading of this Bill, because he believed it impossible to uphold the public credit without it; but he hoped their Lordships would consent to his intended proposal for giving the power of appeal to the tenant-farmer, whose distressed condition he could not but attribute to the measures which had been passed within the last three years.
Lord Broughamsaid, he would not enter into the debate further than to make an observation upon the course it had taken, and the wearisome nature it had assumed, owing to no want of learning or of talent, of which indeed too much was exhibited in the nature of calculations and figures; but owing, in his mind, to the fact, that noble Lords, except his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne), seemed to have avoided the subject of debate—that subject being the Income Tax. A noble Lord who at one time had the care of the finances of the country, after spending a great quantity of oil, as well as ink, in the framing of a string of resolutions to be submitted to Parliament, was advised by a friend "to take a high ground and throw over all his calculations." So on this occasion he could have wished that his noble Friends had indulged less in figures, and applied themselves to the subject immediately before the House. His opinions upon the Income Tax were well known. He had voted for it for the first three years under the pressure of necessity, and he would vote for its continuance for three years more for the same reason—viz., that if they did not do so they would not be enabled to give that relief to the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country, external and internal, which the labouring finances and the credit of the country rendered necessary three years ago. He was not prepared to say that an Income or Property Tax was a judicious arrangement to have recourse to as a permanent source of revenue. He was of opinion that countries which had adopted it as a prominent feature in their revenue, even to the extent of the fiftieth of a penny

163
upon capital, ultimately suffered for it. Holland was a remarkable instance of this, and had been reduced by it, not to the verge of national bankruptcy, such as that from the jaws of which France recovered—but to much worse—to the bankruptcy of individual trades, from which it required next to a miracle to recover. The political and economical history of Holland, which continued to feel and labour from the impolicy of such a tax, proved this most prominently. The great difficulty in dealing with an income tax was to force it into the different kinds of labour, from that of the artisan to that of the professional man; and into incomes arising from capital as contradistinguished from labour, as well as the different kinds of capital, such as that employed precariously in trade, and that derived from land. It was easy to say that there ought to be a graduated scale; but those who had most deeply considered the question felt that an attempt at any such step must inevitably fail. He, however, thought if it became necessary to renew the Income Tax at the end of three years, that very considerable improvements might be made in it; and perhaps that alluded to by the noble Duke on the cross-bench might be looked forward to as one; for it was no doubt hard that those who traded in the land should be refused an appeal which was granted to all other traders. On the whole, though he was not prepared to say that the Property Tax should be made a permanent source of revenue, still he was of opinion that if any misfortune should arise whereby any breach of the peace of the world should take place, they should not necessarily be thrown back upon the evils of the funded system, or of borrowing upon Long Annuities; but they should have the power of appealing to the country through the Property Tax. One strong circumstance, as it appeared to him, in favour of this tax, was to be found in the readiness with which it could be applied; it was like the rack and pinion, only requiring that a small screw should be touched to produce as large a sum as was required; and he fully believed, if the honour of the country should be assailed—he cared not from what quarter the assault or menace might come, that every man in the country would screw up cheerfully and willingly, even to the amount of a tenth of his income. He regarded with horror and dismay the mere possibility of the peace of
164
the world being broken by war; but, as he knew that all human affairs were liable to vicissitude, he might contemplate the possibility of such exertions being called for; and if they were, he should look forward with exulting confidence, not only to the capacity of the country to endure, but to the cheerful loyalty and patriotism and magnanimity with which the people of this country would bear the additional burdens. He believed that they would ever be ready so to act as effectually to repel all insults, to preserve their rights, and to maintain the honour of the nation. In a particular quarter of the world he saw an individual raised from the utter darkness of obscurity to most unexpected prominence, who maintained that dishonesty was the best policy—that the payment of debts was only required when it suited the convenience of the parties—and who pandered to the basest passions of the mob who had elevated him. The conduct of such an individual might render the reservation of such a power as the Income Tax of the utmost importance. He had the greatest confidence in the humanity and good sense of the American people; and he could see nothing in their past or present conduct which should lead him to abate the affection with which he had ever regarded them. He trusted that the sentiments which he had seen with disgust, and which he should have seen with dismay, if he thought that they were approved by them, would be repudiated by them; and, he was going to add, that they might be the only things which they would be disposed any longer to repudiate. If it should be found necessary at any future time to re-enact this measure, he trusted that every care would be taken to make it as little inquisitorial and painful as possible in its character; and that it never would be continued without some compensation in the way of a remission of those taxes which pressed most heavily on the industrious classes of the community. In accordance with the part which he had always taken upon this question, and for the reasons which he had just detailed, he was prepared to vote in favour of the Motion then before their Lordships.
The Marquess of Normanbyremarked that it was not much to the credit of the House that the debate of to-night should have been characterized as desultory and wearisome; and certain it was that the noble Lord who had just sat down had not

165
rendered it less rambling, although, perhaps, less tedious; but he could not help remarking, that in his opinion it was not peculiarly to the credit of the House, that on the very first occasion on which this question came on for discussion, involving, on the very moderate calculation of his noble Friend, at least 500,000 individuals, there should be such a profession of weariness. He felt so strong an objection to this tax, with the probability of its perpetuity, that he could not allow this last opportunity to pass without saying a few words upon it. The people, he was confident, had as great a distaste to it as ever they had; and he could only regret that the same spirit did not seem to animate their Lordships as had actuated them thirty years ago, when this subject was discussed. He believed, in spite of what had been stated, that there did exist in the country a strong feeling against this inquisitorial tax. The inequality of it had been acknowledged even by his noble Friend opposite; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) could speak to such cases of grievance suffered under the administration of this law, as ought to induce their Lordships deeply to consider the question before they consented to its renewal. It had been said that the boon granted by the other measures which had been passed in the way of repealing taxes, would compensate the people for the imposition of this tax. This was said when the tax was originally imposed three years ago. But had that been the result? Had the prices of articles of consumption been reduced to a sufficient amount—to compensate the people for the payment of an Income Tax? The great and magnificent boon which the poor man could derive from the reduction of the duty on sugar was only, calculating the amount of his consumption, about 2s. 2d. a-year. But this Income Tax operated in a manner against the poor man that more than equalled any benefit he might derive from the reduction of the price of his sugar. The principle of the Reform Bill was, that representation and taxation should always go together; and upon this principle it was that all persons under 150 l. a year were exempted from the Income Tax, because they were not supposed to belong to that class of persons who occupied houses of 10 l. a year, which was the sum fixed as the minimum for the elective franchise. But by this impost, not only were persons
166
taxed who did not enjoy the franchise, because they lived in lodgings and were not 10 l. householders; but in other ways this tax injured the poor man. It operated to check contributions to charitable institutions; it also compelled persons to reduce their establishments, and those who kept one servant were obliged to dismiss that servant. And how did this operate upon that class of persons who were exempted from the immediate imposition of the Income Tax? Why, by the dismissal of their sons and daughters from service, a greater expense was entailed upon the parents to maintain them, than any saving that could be effected by the reduction of the duty on sugar. The tax was, in its innate character, bad; and nothing but an imperative necessity could justify its imposition. That necessity had not been shown to exist; and therefore, though he should not trouble their Lordships to divide upon the question, he should certainly say "not content."
The Earl of Radnorwould also say "not content." When this tax was proposed, three years ago, he entered his protest against it, as being unjust, inquisitorial, demoralizing, and impolitic. Such was his opinion at that time, and such was his opinion now; and therefore he should say "non-content" to the third reading of this Bill. He was afraid that at the end of three years, instead of the Government being able to take off this tax, it would not only be necessary to continue it, but to increase it. This the Government ought to know; and knowing it, they ought to have taken some measure to make the tax less unequal, less inquisitorial, and less oppressive.
Lord Colborneperfectly concurred with his two noble Friends who had just spoken, and he also should say "non-content."
Question put, and resolved in the affirmative. Bill read 3a.
The Duke of Richmondproposed a clause as an Amendment, to give all persons the right of appeal in case of being over assessed.
Lord Stanleyopposed the clause, and considered that it was not competent for their Lordships to introduce such a clause.
The Marquess of Normanbyconsidered the refusal to adopt this clause as the crowning act of injustice connected with this measure.
Amendment negatived. Bill passed.
House adjourned.
The following Protest was entered on the Journals.
"Dissentient 1. Because I continue of the opinion respecting taxes on income detailed in a Protest entered on the Journals 21st June, 1842. And though the revival of activity in the manufacturing districts, owing, I believe, to the cheapness of bread, aided by the remission of certain taxes, has caused a return of prosperity which was not then anticipated, I believe this tax must have done much to retard and to repress it.
"2. Because if scarcity shall again enhance the price of bread, and occasion distress during the continuance of this tax, it will greatly aggravate all the evils, and increase the financial difficulties which will then arise.
"3. Because in that case the financial circumstances of the country at the end of three years will probably be such as to render the further continuance of this tax indispensably necessary; and in the other alternative, and at all events, it may be found convenient to the Minister of the day, and may be justified by the same arguments as have been now used.
"4. Because I see no ground to hope that before that period Parliament will be prepared to repeal the duties on the importation of corn, which might render its renewal unnecessary; or to modify it in such a manner as to make it a tax, not on incomes generally, but on incomes arising from fixed realized property only, in which case I should think it altogether unobjectionable.
"RADNOR.
"CLARENDON."