Sitting of 28 May 1847

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. For Galway County, Thomas John Burke, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Newfoundland Government; Burgh Police (Scotland).
Reported.—Copyhold Commission; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Loan Societies; Cemeteries Clauses; Police Clauses.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. D'Eyncourt, from Camberwell and Walworth, for Alteration of the Law of Registration of Voters.—By Mr. H. Baillie, from Members of the Presbytery of Inverness, and by Sir G. Clerk, from Dornoch, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill—By Mr. Christie, from Persons formerly Clergymen of the Established Church of England and Ireland, and from
1246
Protestants of Bridgetown, for Religious Toleration.—By Sir G. Clerk, from the Parish of Stoke Damerel, Devonport, for Inquiry.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from Mathias Gaunt, of the Union Steam Mills, Windermere, Van Diemen's Land, respecting Penal Discipline.—By Mr. Newdeglte, from Owners and Occupiers of land in the County of Warwick, in Javour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.—By several hon. Members, from a great many places, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.—By several hon. Members, from Catholics of numerous places, for Alteration of the proposed Plan of Education.—By Mr. Ewart and Mr. Smollett, from several places, for Alteration of the Law relating to Exclseable Liquors (Scotland).—By Mr. Watson, from William Cobbett, a Prisoner in the Queen's Bench, for Inquiry respecting the Fees (Court of Chancery).—By Mr. V. Smith, from Commissioners for Paving, Lighting, Cleansing, and Improving the Town of Northampton, against, and from several places, in favour of, the Health of Towns Bill.—By Lord J. Stuart, from Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of Ayr, and by the Lord Advocate, from Commissioners of Supply for the County of Fife, in favour of the Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland); Transference of Land (Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland); Service of Heirs (Scotland); and Crown Charters (Scotland) Bills.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Members of the Board of Surveyors of the Highways of Salford, against the Highways Bill.—By Mr. Brown and other hon. Members, from several places, in favour, and for Alteration of, the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. J. Dundas, from Operative Shipwrights of London, and by the Lord Advocate, from Leith, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Sir De L. Evans, from John Wild and Barnard Devine, Pensioners, for Inquiry.—By Mr. W. H. Bodkin, from Poor Law Officers, for a Superannuation Fund.—By Lord G. Bentinck, from several places, in favour of the Railways (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Henry Baillie, from Members of the Presbytery of Inverness, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Sir G. Clerk, from several places, for and against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland); and Marriage (Scotland) Bills.—By Mr. Brown, from Members of the Liverpool Anti-Slavery Committee, for the Suppression of Slave Markets.

PORTUGAL.
MR. HUMEwould repeat the inquiry which he put to the Government previous to the holidays, as to whether they had any objection to lay on the Table of the House the instructions under which the British authorities in Portugal had been directed to interfere in the internal affairs of that country?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was his duty to oppose at present the production of the instructions to which the hon. Member referred. Her Majesty's Government had the subject under consideration; and, when the proper time came, the Government would place on the Table of the House the whole of the instructions. They did not, however, think it would be consistent with their duty to do so at present.
MR. HUMEsaid, that all the mischief would be done in the meantime. Seeing the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department in his place, he would ask a question, which probably the noble Lord might answer. He wished to know whe-

1247
ther it were true that the British authorities in Portugal, Colonel Wylde and others, had threatened the Junta to interfere by force of arms, unless certain terms were agreed to by them?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the British Government, in conjunction with the Governments of France, Spain, and Portugal, were engaged in measures which had for their object the pacification of Portugal. Of course, his hon. Friend could not expect that papers could be laid on the Table, whilst the transactions to which the papers had reference were in progress. When the proper time came for the Government to lay before Parliament papers explanatory of the grounds and reasons for the course which they had pursued, they would be most happy to do so; and he thought he should then be able to satisfy the House that the Government, by their conduct in reference to Portugal, had done nothing to forfeit the confidence of Parliament.
MR. HUMEwished to know whether coercive measures had been already adopted by the British Government; and, if so, whether it was under any new treaty that such a course had been pursued?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his hon. Friend must see that it was impossible for him at present to give explanations of measures, which were measures not merely of the British Government, but of the British Government acting in concert with its allies.
MR. HUMEgave notice that, on the reading of the first Order of the Day on Monday, he should again call the attention of the House to the subject.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that the noble Lord had stated that the course of policy at present pursued in respect to Portugal, was adopted in concurrence with the Governments of France, Spain, and Portugal. Would the noble Lord object to state whether that course of policy resulted from a friendly concert between the Three Powers and this country, independent of the Quadruple Treaty, or whether from any obligation still imposed by that treaty?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the policy pursued was not considered to result out of the Quadruple Treaty, except in so far as the Government of Portugal had addressed itself in preference to such of its allies as were parties to that treaty; but the measures that might be adopted were founded on a fresh agreement and friendly compact.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
LORD GEORGE BENTINCKwished to put a question to his right hon. Friend opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) respecting the superintendence of Government works in Ireland. It seemed that whilst the expenditure had been reduced from 250,000 l. a week to 67,000 l., the expense of the staff was not reduced in the same proportion; that expense amounting to about 14,000 l. a week. It had been estimated by his right hon. Friend opposite, that the expense of the staff would be no more than 7½ per cent on the expenditure; and he therefore wished to know whether there was any prospect of the expense of the superintendence being reduced in proportion to the reduction of the amount of money expended on labour. He also inquired what proportion of these persons receiving 14,000 l. a week were destitute electors?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he now held in his hand an account of the precise numbers employed on the 25th of this month, and he was happy to state that a very large reduction had already taken place in the number of persons superintending the works, and especially in reference to the classes to which the imputation contained in the question formerly asked by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire applied, but which, in the present state of Ireland, he should have thought it hardly worth that hon. Member's while to throw out. He would state the amount of reduction, which, he repeated, had principally fallen on those classes of persons, for he could not hold out the expectation that there could be so great a proportionate reduction in the superior class of officers, who were mainly military men, because a large proportion of them must necessarily be transferred from the public works to the duty of aiding the relief committees in the discharge of their various functions. It also must be obvious that the reduction of the superintending officers and pay-clerks could not be effected so rapidly as the reduction of the persons employed, as they must be retained for a certain time to wind up and to bring to a conclusion the various accounts. With respect to the two classes of persons, namely, the overseers and the check-clerks, which might perhaps comprise a certain number of electors, although not having access to the registry, he could not state how many of them were electors, the reduction which had taken place from

1249
the 31st of March to the 25th of May was as follows:—On the 31st of March the number of overseers employed was 11,218, and on the 25th of May, 3,716, being a reduction of about 7,000. In point of fact, this reduction was brought into effect, within a very small amount, on the 10th of May, when the number employed was under 3,800. Therefore the principal reduction had taken place before the noble Lord put his question on this subject on a former occasion. With respect to the check-clerks, there were, on the 31st of March, 4,835 employed, and on the 25th of May 2,080, being a reduction of more than one-half. Thus, in respect to the two classes to which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire's question referred, there had been a reduction of the number employed from about 16,000 on the 31st of March, to about 5,700 on the 25th of May. With respect to other reductions, they were going on as rapidly as was consistent with bringing the various accounts to a close.

DIRECT TAXATION.
On the Motion that the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply be now read,
MR. EWARTsaid, that in introducing the subject of which he had given notice—the effect of the present excessive amount of indirect taxation on the trade and labour of this country—he had been impelled by the importance of the question to our commerce and manufactures, and, most of all, by a conviction of the undue pressure of the existing system on the poor. He thought that the time had arrived when our whole scheme of taxation should be reconsidered: what had been its result in past experience—what should be our principles of action for the future. The present system of indirect taxation was oppressive to the labouring classes of this country, not only because it taxed trade, the principal source of their employment, but because the mode of its imposition was, towards them, unjust. In every instance, the same duty was levied on the inferior article used by the poorer, as on the superior article of the same nature consumed by the wealthier, classes. The cheaper bohea or congou tea of the poor man, paid the same amount of duty as the costlier congou or hyson of the rich. So did his butter and cheese, his tobacco, his sugar, and his coffee. Yet it stood on evidence, given before the House of Commons, that by far the larger amount of
1250
duties on all these articles was paid by the great mass of the working classes. They were the great consumers of tea; they were the main consumers of foreign butter and cheese; they formed (as it appeared before the Tobacco Committee) nine-tenths of the consumers of tobacco. They paid, therefore, the larger amount; and, under the operation of an uniform duty, they paid it in an unequal manner. In fact, it was stated, by one who appeared to have paid much attention to this subject, that "the poor were taxed (under the present system of indirect taxation) to the extent of 20 per cent, or one-fifth of their property." The inequality of this system had neither escaped the observation of statesmen nor political economists, and they had suggested as a remedy the imposition of a proportionate duty on the sale price of the article—in other words, an ad valorem duty. This principle, after a long life of financial and commercial experience, was embodied in the famous Excise scheme by Sir Robert Walpole—a scheme which shook his Administration, and endangered his life. It was thus explained and defended by our great political philosopher, Adam Smith:—
"If (he observes) commodities were delivered out for home consumption, the importer not being obliged to advance the tax till he had an opportunity of selling his goods, either to some dealer, or to some consumer, he could always afford to sell them cheaper. It was the object of the famous Excise scheme of Sir Robert Walpole to establish such a system."
Were such a plan introduced, and an ad valorem duty applied to it, it would form a species of indirect tax on property. Such a system had been pursued in levying the duties on the sales by auction of the East India Company's tea. But was it applicable to modern usages and modern commerce? He (Mr. Ewart) feared not. To accomplish it, you must have a system of compulsory and periodical sales by public auction. Freedom in the disposal of produce, when they could and how they could, by the traders of this country, and the extension of sales by private contract, appeared to be indispensable to modern commerce. What then remained? That, to alleviate and equalise their various fiscal burthens, they should extend more fully the principle of taxation upon property. Such a system of financial reform would not benefit the public by a change of the point of pressure only: the reduction or repeal of an indirect tax amounted to much more than the mere amount of the duty reduced. It was an observation of Dean Swift,

1251
as trite as it was true, that "in matters of finance two and two do not always make four." He (Mr. Ewart) believed it might be said that, in the reduction of taxation "take two from four, and two do not always remain;" but (if the reduction be judiciously effected) sometimes much more than two. Thus he found it stated, that while the Excise duty on salt (30 s. a cwt.) existed, the price of salt in the interior of this country was 40 s. the cwt. The tax was repealed. But the price of the article fell much more than by the mere amount of duty repealed. It did not fall to 40 s., minus 30 s. (the amount of duty), that is, to 10 s., but to 3s. 6d. Such was the effect of removing the intermediate charges for capital and time, which vanished with the primary and original charge of duty. So when that judicious measure, the repeal of the duty on almanacks, was effected by that excellent man, the late Lord Spencer, the price of almanacks fell by much more than the amount of duty. The tax was 1s. The price of Moore's Almanac was then, duty included, 2s. 2d. The tax was repealed. The price fell, not to 1s. 2d., but to 6d. Thus, much collateral as well as immediate good was conferred on the public, by the abolition of an injudicious impost. In his review of taxation, he (Mr. Ewart) would begin with the Customs duties, and then proceed to the duties of Excise. From among the Customs duties, he would select the duty on tea. Tea was becoming more and more an article of consumption by the poorer classes of this country; and it was an article which, in modern times, much affected the employment of the poor, because it was the basis of our trade with China. But how disproportionate was the duty on the lower priced, compared with the higher priced article. The poor man paid for his tea more than twice the proportion of duty which the rich man did. Yet the greatest tendency to increased consumption existed among the poorer classes. The real secret of indirect taxation was, to increase your area of consumers. Let the base of the pyramid be as wide as possible. By lowering the duty, you create a new class—almost a new nation of purchasers. The habit, once given, was never lost; and the newly acquired want elicited new energies from the population. Nay, more, the good conferred was collateral, as well as direct. If more tea be consumed, more sugar will be demanded also. In the Isle of Man, the duties on tea had been reduced. The consumption
1252
increased largely; and, contemporaneously, the consumption of sugar. But the duty ought also to be reduced, for the sake of further employing our poor. Our exports of cotton to China were decreasing. Our exports of woollens were alarmingly diminished. Germany and Belgium successfully competed with us. Yet it was undeniable, that China only waited for a large reduction of the tea duty to become an immense consumer of the cottons and woollens of Great Britain. The principle which events had rendered applicable in India, must be applied by us to China. Take her natural products, she will take your artificial products. Lower your duty; and unlock the trade. By such means, in India, the production of sugar had been doubled since 1840; coffee since 1839; sheep's wool, a new article of export, had been called into existence; and these must be exchanged, directly or indirectly, for British manufactures. Thus the new wants of the people would create new employment for the people; while mutual intercourse and mutual peace would be promoted with the East. To another article—or rather to two other articles, whose consumption among the poor was greatly extendible—he had already called the attention of the House: he meant the humble but most important articles of butter and cheese. Mark the tendency of the area of consumers to enlarge itself coincidently with a reduction of duty. Since Sir Robert Peel had reduced these duties by one-half, the consumption of foreign butter and foreign cheese had greatly increased. This was the range of increase according to the Finance Accounts of this year:—

Value of foreign Butter consumed

in 1845, £259,151

in 1846, 364,194

in 1846, 372,727

Value of foreign Cheese consumed

in 1845, £312,320

in 1846, 387,497

in 1847, 506,761

Foreign butter and cheese (like so many other foreign articles) were mainly, nay essentially, consumed by the working classes of this country. Our very agricultural labourers lived upon Dutch cheese. Here, again, he said, extend your area of consumption. Lower, or rather repeal, this iniquitous duty, which, in times of scarcity, was a cruel duty; feed your people, and extend your trade; and bind Holland to you by the golden links of commerce and of peace. The tobacco duty, though on principle a perfectly justifiable duty, was, in consequence of its amount,

1253
a duty most oppressive on the poor. It ranged between an amount of 600 and 1,200 per cent on the value of the article. So extravagant a duty was a financial solecism. In such cases, our friend the smuggler interposed; and it appeared, before the Committee of which he (Mr. Ewart) was a member several years ago, that tobacco was sold at a lower price than the amount of duty. But what the people gained in smuggling, they lost in morality. It appeared by a return (moved for by Mr. Hume) that in the three years ending in 1845, no less than 3,000 persons were convicted for smuggling tobacco. Nay, the Committee had evidence that a school for smugglers was established in London; he regretted to add that it was under female superintendence, and he feared it might successfully rival some of the institutions of the Committee of Council on Education. In considering the tobacco duty, the manufacture of snuff ought not to be omitted. It seemed to be established by every witness before the Committee that, were the duty lowered, this country would become the great centre of the manufacture of snuff. We were already bound to America by our cotton trade: we were perhaps about to be even more essentially united to her by the com trade. It would be well if we found another source of extended commerce, and another security for peace, in the tobacco of Virginia, as well as in the cotton of the southern, and in the corn of the western regions of the Union. He turned to another most important and yet undeveloped trade, the wine trade. Our commerce in this direction was chained down. These two propositions were clear: that other nations, less able to pay for them, consume far more of the wines of France than we do; and that we consume far less than we did, in even less civilized times. For this anomaly there could be no other reason than the burthen-some duty upon wine. Denmark, not more populous than London, consumes more of the wines of France than all Great Britain. Holland (according to Mr. Porter), sixty times as much. Here, again, was an opportunity of extending the area of consumption. Bring in a new race of consumers. Formerly the demand came from a lower depth of society. Let it come thence again. France can supply us cheaply and abundantly. He (Mr. Ewart) had moved for a copy of the address of the Libres Echangistes (or free-traders) of Bordeaux to Lord John Russell. Let him quote their words:—
1254
"The consumption of wine in France is thirty-six gallons per inhabitant; in England it is only one-fourth of a gallon. In the 17th century, the consumption of wine in the British Isles was many times greater than now. Suppose a duty imposed of 10 l. a hogshead, common wine could then be sold (duty included) at 1½d. a bottle, ordinary sorts 6d., superior sorts at 8d. a bottle."
The wines of Bordeaux were formerly not only a more common beverage in England, but the orthodox beverage at Oxford, till port was introduced under the shelter of the Methuen Treaty, and until diplomacy, as she often did, but as she should never be allowed to do, imposed fetters upon commerce. Besides re-opening our trade with France, a reduction of the wine duties would open a new trade with Greece and Italy, and clothe the natives of those and of other countries with our manufactures. From the consideration of injurious Customs duties, he turned to a subject of even greater oppressiveness, the duties of Excise. He knew not how this most important element of impolitic taxation had been so long neglected. Our views, long directed to duties on our foreign trade, had overlooked the imposts and restrictions which weighed down our domestic manufactures. The gigantic injustice of the corn laws had thrown into the shade many evils which were nearer home. It was true, that various judicious reforms in the Excise had been adopted. The Commission of Excise Inquiry, appointed in 1833, with the late Lord Congleton as its chairman, had suggested many most valuable changes. Several of these had been adopted, especially under the auspices of the present able chairman of the Excise Board, Mr. Wood. The duties on vinegar, starch, glass, and more recently on auctions, had been abolished. But many grievous burdens still remained. It was not always of the amount of duty, nor the conduct of the officers (who, generally, he believed, were well-conducted), that the traders complained, but of the system; in matters of trade, a small restriction was a great impediment. The very act of intermeddling was an evil. But it was much aggravated when this intermeddling took place in the course of manufacture. A necessary corollary of the Excise system was the survey on dealers. This involved the right of entering on premises at any hour; even (with certain observances) at any hour of the night. The act of "taking stock" was another official interference. He was told that, to make this interference really effective, the number of officers must be multiplied to an

1255
excess which was scarcely within the hounds of possibility. But it appeared to him that interference with trade involved the sacrifice of the most valuable of all things to the trader, namely, the trader's time. He was told that this was especially the case in the paper manufacture. Suppose our cotton, or silk, or woollen manufacturers were suddenly subjected to the same mysterious meddling, is it possible that they could endure it? The duty on soap, however modified it had been in substance and in form, was still, to his mind, a great national evil. True, the duty had been reduced; but not to the extent recommended by the Excise Commission in 1833. But of this, and other duties, he thought it would be better to absolve commerce altogether, and adopt the substitute he should suggest—a system of direct taxation. The report of the Commissioners stated, that the manufacture of soap was more advanced in France, and even in Spain, than in this country. The duty on olive oil (one of the elements of foreign soap) had indeed been reduced from 4l. to 2l. per ton; this was one of the judicious fiscal reforms of Sir Robert Peel. It ought however (as a tax on a raw material of soap) to be altogether' repealed. Even then, could we successfully compete with the foreign soapmaker, while our Excise system obstructed the progress of improvement? It appeared, by the report of the Commissioners, that duty was payable on soap which was the result of an unsuccessful experiment. He could scarcely believe that a regulation so hostile to commerce still existed. Even were it modified, objections to the principle of the soap duty remained. The soap duty did not extend to Ireland; if suffered to exist, there can be no doubt that Ireland (as the Commissioners of Inquiry recommended) ought to be liable to the duty equally with Scotland and with England. He next turned to a subject which he deemed of the greatest importance to this country. He meant the duty upon paper. This duty, together with the soap duty, was imposed by the 10th of Anne (in 1711), in the words of the statute—
"For raising large supplies of money to carry on the present war, until your Majesty be enabled to establish a good and lasting peace."
The peace had been established in 1713. It was (thanks to Sir Robert Walpole) tolerably lasting too; but the duty had never been repealed, He held this to be a most objectionable tax. Its levy caused
1256
much vexatious interference. An account (he believed) must be taken of the daily produce of the paper manufacturer. The number of sheets in every ream must be given. Every ream must be labelled. Every label must be written on. If the paper be afterwards destined for exportation, the label must be removed. All this was interference; and it was a tax of the most intolerable kind in this age, because it was a tax upon time. To tax the time of the trader, was (in his, Mr. Bwart's eyes) one of the greatest fiscal offences that could be committed. Yet, in all these little matters, the workmen must attend the steps of the Excise officer. A paper manufacturer with whom he was acquainted, was lately showing his works to an enlightened foreigner, the owner of a paper manufactory in the Roman States. Entering a room of the establishment, they found two men at work. The Italian learnt with astonishment that these were officers of the Government. He paid, he said, a direct tax of 7l. 10 s. to his own Government; and his trade was free. He (Mr. Ewart) believed that our paper manufacturers were undersold abroad, notwithstanding that a drawback was allowed on the paper which was exported. This disadvantage he could only attribute to interference with the trade. If emancipated, it would probably expand into full freedom, like the glass trade. Even now it had a latent tendency to do so. A manufacture of paper from straw had been begun; and he believed that boxes, now made of wood, would frequently he made of paper, if our manufactures were unshackled. But there was, in his mind, an insuperable objection to this paper duty, and these paper fetters altogether. They formed a tax and a burden upon the literature of England. He believed that two-thirds of the paper manufactured were used for the purposes of printing. There was also this anomaly in the duty: much of our paper (especially the paper of which newspapers were made) was formed out of the sweepings of our cotton and flax-mills. There was no duty on these articles as raw materials; but they paid a duty when they entered the paper trade. Turn cotton into calico, it was duty free; convert it into paper, it was taxed. The effect of the repeal of the duty on almanacks (already adverted to by him) was an instance of the effect of repealing a duty upon literature, however lowly. But he held the mere duty on paper not to be so great an evil as the

1257
intermeddling with the paper trade. If these domestic restrictions were removed, our language and our literature would naturally expand. From the extension of our commerce, and the commerce of the United States, the common language of both nations had a natural tendency to become the mercantile language of the world. Let us render justice to our national language and our national literature, as well as our national commerce. He next turned to an impost on a common article of great and increasing importance—he meant the Excise duty on bricks. In this case, as in the case of soap, there was no duty on the manufacture of Ireland. Indeed, comparatively, there was scarcely any duty in Scotland, since nature had provided Scotland with an ample supply of valuable stone. But where the duty did fall in Scotland, it was, by comparison, the more oppressive. This duty was originally imposed by Mr. Pitt in 1784, to meet the exigencies of the debt created by the recent war with America. At first it extended to stone, as well as to bricks; but the stone interest was successful in its rebellion against the duty. Mr. Pitt was obliged to yield. He left the brick duty alone remaining; but he acknowledged the impolicy and the partiality of its character. In fact, he (Mr. Ewart) maintained that this was, in the language of the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, "among the most objectionable of the duties of Excise." The same Commissioners also condemned certain restrictions which affected the spirit trade. It was hard that a general dealer should have any minimum imposed as a limit on the quantity he was allowed to sell; yet so it was. He could not (Mr. Ewart believed) sell a smaller quantity than two gallons. The Commissioners recommended a reduction and equalisation (throughout the three kingdoms) of the duty. Ireland ought in this, as in other respects, to enter on her common liabilities of impost. Give her every (the minutest) privilege which we enjoy; but, with her privileges, let her share our burdens. But there was one point of view in which he deemed many of the Excise duties especially obnoxious—he meant, in their effect on science and on art. They barred the way to the explorations of science, and the inventive power of art. From the repeal of such duties new and unexpected developments arose. When, more than twenty years ago, the duty was repealed on salt, a new chemical manufacture was at once created. Soda,
1258
before produced from the kelp of the Highlands or the barilla of Spain, began to be derived from common salt. At Liverpool, and elsewhere, new manufactories arose; a new trade was created. On the same principle, it was shown before the Commissioners of Excise Inquiry, especially by Mr. Fincham, that the existing restrictions on the glass trade had obstructed the application of science to the making of glass. Lenses for telescopes, ordered by foreigners in this country, could not be made, because of the restrictions of the Excise. It was also shown that these restrictions prohibited the experiments of science in the manufacture of soap. Since the glass duties had been abolished, how great had been the development of that most beautiful fabric! The window of every glass shop indicated that science and art combined to improve and to embellish it. Few would suppose that there was a connexion between the arts and the making of bricks; but he remembered that when it was asked in a Committee (on the connexion of art with manufactures, of which he (Mr. Ewart) was chairman, in 1836) why we did not make bricks of various shapes, as in the time of Henry the VIIth and Henry the VIIIth, the answer was, that the restrictions of the Excise prevented us. He found this evidence singularly corroborated by the valuable testimony of Mr. Wood, the chairman of the Excise Board in the last Session of Parliament. That Gentleman, in his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords, on "The Burdens on Land," stated that some of the Excise regulations on the manufacture of bricks had been relaxed, and that "the consequence of this alteration was, that great facility had been given for making bricks of ornamental shapes, and enabling architectural ornaments to be made in brick, previously in effect prohibited." He (Mr. Ewart) had no doubt that so ordinary a trade as the brick trade, when emancipated, would be made still further obedient to the purposes of art. He had limited the foregoing suggestions to duties of Customs and Excise. He admitted the injustice and impolicy of other duties also. The window duty was one of a most unequal and impolitic character. The insurance duty was a tax on the foresight of the parent and the resources of the family; and other duties were, in various ways, objectionable. But he principally assailed those duties which obstructed or choked up the sources and

1259
Springs of labour. There was, however, one class of duties which bore so unequally on the less wealthy classes, that he would briefly refer to them—he meant the stamp duties. It appeared in evidence before the Lords' Committee on Land Burdens, last year, that the—

£

£

s.

d.

Stamp duty on a sale of land of

50 value was

12

10

0 per ct.

Stamp duty on a sale of

100 value was

5

0

0 per ct.

Stamp duty on sale of

300 value was

2

10

0 per ct.

Stamp duty on a sale of

500 value, only

1

14

3 per ct.

Stamp on one above

500 value, only

1

0

0 per ct.

So, in the case of mortgages, the law prevented the poorer individual from obtaining equal
facilities with his more wealthy fellow-countrymen.

£

£

s.

d.

The stamp duty on a

50

mortgage was

2

0

0 pr. ct.

The stamp duty on a.

20,000

mortgage was

0

2

0 pr. ct.

The stamp duty on a

10,000

mortgage was

0

0

6 pr. ct.

So that, as Mr. M'Culloch stated, the duty on the mortgage for 50 l. was eighty times as great as the duty on one for 100,000 l. These duties, however, he only alluded to collaterally, as showing how much the whole subject of our present system of taxation deserved the attention of the Government. He reverted to his main object, the indirect pressure of the duties of Customs and Excise; and he wished the House to consider them in another aspect, their effect on the morals of the people. He had partly referred to their immoral influence in his view of the tobacco trade. In the soap trade, in the paper trade, in the spirit trade, fraud was proportionately prevalent. It was the inevitable result of a heavy system of indirect taxation. But he had found in one of their own Parliamentary documents an admission respecting the immoral influence of the Customs duties, for which he had not been prepared. In the year 1844, in con-sequence of extensive frauds in the Customs department, involving the characters of its officers, a Commission of revenue inquiry was appointed. The following was a part of their report, bearing the signatures of G. H. Somerset, W. E. Gladstone, W. B. Baring, J. M. Gaskell, A. Pringle—all, at that time, Ministers of the Crown:—
"In respect of the great revenue articles of tobacco, spirits, and Wine, as well as of many imports on which high duties are leviable … Sufficient disclosures have been made to show that the fraudulent trader has not failed to avail
1260
himself of any means of increasing his profit to the detriment of the revenue; and that officers were easily induced to facilitate such attempts by every mode of deceit and every description of falsehood. Indeed, we were forced, very early in our inquiries, to feel a distrust of the integrity of the officers, and of the efficiency of the system. The previous high character and estimation of an officer appeared to be no guarantee for his honour and integrity."
So much for the moral influence of indirect and overstrained taxation! As to the relative cost of the two systems, he (Mr. Ewart) maintained that a direct tax on property would be far more economically collected than a great portion of the present taxes. He thought that this might be inferred from the relative percentage cost of the different sources of revenue, as given in the ordinary finance accounts annually laid before Parliament. Taking the finance accounts just printed for 1847, he found that—

£

s.

d.

The cost of collecting the Customs duties was

5

11

10 per cent.

The cost of collecting the Excise

6

0

10 per cent.

The cost of collecting the Taxes, Land

3

6

4¾ per cent.

The cost of collecting the Taxes, Assessed

The cost of collecting the Taxes, Income

The cost of collecting the Taxes, Property

So far, therefore, it appeared that the direct revenue of the country was raised more cheaply than the indirect revenue. This result would probably appear more manifest, if the revenue accounts gave any means of separating the property tax from the land and assessed taxes. But this they did not do. Now he (Mr. Ewart) maintained this proposition—that, as the capital of the country yearly, and even daily, increased, the collection of a large part of the revenue derived from it must become cheaper and cheaper to the public. Accumulated capital must be invested. If invested, whether in mortgages, canals, railways, or any other public undertakings, it could be taxed in transitu. In such cases, no staff of officers was required, no interference with trade. The Government gathered its revenue as the profits passed out of the subject of investment into the purse of the recipient. It might indeed be objected that a more direct system of taxation would drive British capital into foreign countries. He admitted this objection; and he thought that some effective mode of taxing profits on foreign investments was just and necessary, and not impracticable. Looking beyond our own country, or rather to its lasting welfare as combined with the welfare of all the world,

1261
he hailed a diminution of our system of indirect taxation as a great financial instrument of international peace. Let him be allowed to quote, on this part of the subject, the address of the Free-trade Association of Bordeaux to Lord John Russell:—
"When (they say), in the beginning of the last year, Sir Robert Peel presented to the British Parliament his great commercial measures, he expressed his belief that England's example, as regards free trade, would be followed by other nations. Sir Robert Peel's speech had no sooner reached Bordeaux, than it produced a deep sensation, and a general desire of making further and more vigorous efforts to obtain the adoption in France of the principles of free trade."
He (Mr. Ewart) rejoiced to hear such language from one of the leading interests of a great country, with which the sympathy produced by congenial institutions, and, he believed, the will of Providence, tended to unite us, interrupted in vain by the force of hereditary prejudice and the mischievous meddling of diplomacy. Let us, then, take freely the wines of France; and let us, on the same pacific principle, admit the tobacco of the United States, strengthening the bonds which already connected our land with theirs, and adding the produce of Virginia to the cotton and corn of their southern and western districts. So, bind Holland to you by the bonds of peace, and let her dairy produce feed your impoverished people. The ever memorable words of Mr. Pitt recurred to his mind; they were those with which he introduced his commercial treaty with France:—
"To suppose that one nation is to be unalterably the enemy of another, is weak and childish. It neither has its origin in the experience of nations, nor in the history of man. It is a libel on the constitution of political societies, and supposes the existence of diabolical malice in the original frame of man."
On all these grounds be (Mr. Ewart) in-treated the House to explore and see if they could not amend, with benefit to the poor, with benefit to commerce, with benefit to the nation and the world at large, their system of taxation. The labour which they taxed was the most sacred part of the property of this country. Accumulated wealth ought to bear its part. It would do no harm if something were detracted from superfluous luxury, to add something to productive labour. He thought that even the artificial habits of our richer classes might be made more simple and more frugal, if they bore a more equal share of the general taxation. Finally, he asked for no sudden and dangerous, but for a wise and well-consi-
1262
dered change. The aridity of the subject might have wearied an unwilling audience. He knew not how he might be answered in the House or in the country. Whatever were the issue, he sought for consolation (and he found it) in what he believed to be the soundness of his principles, and what he knew to be the purity of his motives. The hon. Gentleman then moved—
"That it is expedient that a more direct system of Taxation on property should (as far as possible) be substituted for the indirect system (by Customs and Excise Duties) now in use:
"That such a change would, by removing restrictions caused by the Excise, encourage trade, and the free application of science to trade:
"That, by removing the restrictions caused by Customs Duties, it Would extend commerce, and be the most natural means of prolonging the peace, by promoting the intercourse, of the world:
"That it would be highly beneficial to the poor, (who now pay the great mass of indirect Taxation,) by giving them more abundant means of subsistence and of employment; and would tend generally and finally to the good of all classes of the community."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERfelt confident that he expressed the opinion of the whole House when he said that it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) to say anything in defence of the purity of his motives. He believed that there was no man who stood less in need of any defence on that score, as every one knew the disinterested motives which always actuated his hon. Friend; and certainly it was impossible to overrate the importance of the subject he had brought before the House. At the same time, he hoped his hon. Friend would not consider it any disrespect to him if he declined to follow his hon. Friend into the details of the various points he had brought under the notice of the House, relating to almost every article of taxation in the Customs, the Excise, and the Stamps and Taxes. It was evident that in the course of next Session it would be his duty to bring before the House the subject of taxation—that it would be indispensably necessary to deal one way or another with one great item of taxation—he meant the income tax; and that it would then be for the House to consider the question of the permanence, and perhaps the increase of the system of direct, as contradistinguished from indirect taxation. It would be obvious, therefore, to every one, that it would not be proper on the present occasion to say anything which would indicate the course which—supposing that he continued to hold his present

1263
situation—he might consider it his duty to take on this question. His hon. Friend had satisfactorily proved that there was no tax against which some plausible objection might not he made; and he was certainly not sanguine enough to expect that he would be able to do what so many of his predecessors had failed in doing—he meant make taxation of any kind palatable. He assured the House, however, that it was his anxious desire to see our taxation put on a footing the least oppressive to those who paid the taxes; and to foster industry and commerce to the greatest degree of which they were susceptible. Beyond this general explanation he thought it better to abstain from saying more on the present occasion; and after the full and able way in which the hon. Member had submitted his views on the subject of taxation, he thought it very desirable that the subject should not be prolonged.
MR. R. YORKEtrusted that after what had just been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion, and permit the House to proceed to the business of the evening.
MR. HUMEsaid, that as the business of the evening was to vote away the public money, it was of great importance to consider how the taxes should be levied from the public; and, therefore, he thought his hon. Friend had taken a most appropriate step in introducing his present Motion. He (Mr. Hume) thought the time had come when the House ought to consider how they could raise the largest amount of money at the least expense. He had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be desirous to be relieved from the importunities to which he was subjected with reference to particular taxes, especially Excise taxes. Nothing could be more unsatisfactory than for a Legislature which professed a desire to improve the moral condition of the people to keep up a system of taxation which created immorality every hour of the day, and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his power, could not put down. His hon. Friend, therefore, had done right, he thought, in bringing the subject before the House, and in giving an opportunity to hon. Members to express their opinions on it. It was true the question would come before another House of Commons; and his principal reason for rising at that moment was to say that it depended on the people themselves whether any improvement should take place. If the people
1264
sent Members into that House without instructing and requiring them to reduce the expenditure of the country, the fault was their own if it was not reduced. It had been said a league was formed to put down the Excise duties. He wished them all success; but they would do well to look to what had been done by the Anti-Corn-Law League. Let them look to the elections that were coming on, and make a point of supporting no candidate who would not pledge himself to a reduction of taxation, as well as a change in the mode of taxation. He believed that great injury was done to trade by the manner in which taxes were at present collected. No individual, for instance, could employ himself in the burning of bricks without being liable to be brought under the lash of the Excise. Then there were the restrictions on the manufacture of paper. He saw no reason why this country should not manufacture paper for the whole world, seeing we possessed such natural facilities for it; and yet the vexatious interference of the Excise prevented this being done. He hoped, that in whatever changes were contemplated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the abolition of the duties on paper, soap, and bricks, would be included. He would also recommend an early consideration of the reduction of the expenditure of the country. The income of the country, he felt confident, was at present diminishing every hour. It was impossible, from the state of manufactures, but that the revenue derived from the Excise duties must be diminishing. Why not, as one item, withdraw our naval force from the coast of Africa, where it was of no use? This would be one important reduction; and there were many others which might be effected with equal advantage.
MR. WILLIAMSfully concurred in the necessity of an alteration of a system of taxation by which upwards of fifty millions per annum was taken from the pockets of the working classes. The hon. Member for Montrose had talked of bricks, and soap, and paper; but the tax on those articles only amounted to 2,000,000 l. sterling. It was not such matters, but the expenditure of the country which ought to have the first consideration of the Government. What was the state of the expenditure when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth laid before the House the estimates for 1835? Why, it was 7,000,000 l. sterling less than the estimates of this year. He should like to

1265
know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer some reason for this vast increase. Nor would he take the year he mentioned alone; an average of five years would show an equal increase. Let them return to the expenditure of 1835, and they would save not only the duty on the three articles on which the hon. Member for Montrose laid such stress, but the income tax besides. He begged to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in all reductions of taxes which had hitherto taken place, the revenue had never fallen off more than a third on the particular article reduced; generally much less, and often there was no loss at all; and therefore the right hon. Gentleman might reduce taxation without fear to a great extent contemporaneously with a reduction of expenditure. The country had therefore a right to call on the Government to reduce the expenditure. Why not go back to that of the year he had taken for an example? But it would appear that the country was always to be governed by a wasteful extravagance of expenditure. He remembered when Lord Grey's Government succeeded that of the right hon. Member for Tam-worth, a reduction of 1,000,000 l. sterling was made in the estimates; but the present Government, in replacing the right hon. Baronet, made no such efforts. In speaking of the taxation, it must always be remembered that the sums dealt with in Parliament was the net amount; the cost of levying the taxation, which amounted annually to 4,500,000 l., in its progress from the taxpayer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was always deducted. This was a state of things the present Government, or at least the leading Members of that Government, had declared, by a resolution signed by themselves, to be most injurious to the public interest; yet, when the hon. Member for Bolton brought forward his Motion to abolish or mitigate the evil, they voted unanimously against it. The working classes were the consumers of the principal articles of taxation, and he would say that such an enormous reduction from their hard-earned wages could not long be submitted to. The hon. Member for Montrose said that the people had it in their own hands, and that they ought to reject all candidates who would not pledge themselves to reduce the amount and alter the manner of taxation; but, unfortunately, the people had no such power; and until they had a more extended power in their hands there was no hope for them. He
1266
would ask, were labouring men to toil and sweat, and experience the greatest possible difficulty in providing for themselves and their families, and then have more than half their wages taken from them in taxes on the necessaries of life which they could not avoid paying? He would not then detain the House by any further remarks, as he understood that this Motion was to have no result whatever. He could have wished the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart) had brought forward his Motion in such a way as to test the opinion of the House; but that could not now be done, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given them a hope that he would revise the system. He hoped next year the right hon. Gentleman would redeem that pledge; but he confessed, from the experience of the past, he had no sanguine hope that that pledge would be redeemed. The time, however, was coming when the present state of things would no longer be endured.
COLONEL SIBTHORPremarked, that the hon. Member for Coventry was so constantly declaiming on the subject, and was so dissatisfied with every item in the way of expenditure, whether by the late or the present Government, that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had become convinced that he would never be satisfied until he became Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.
MR. EWARTsaid, that believing good would be done by the public attention being called to the subject by the present discussion, and being desirous that the subject should be fully considered by that House and the public, he begged in the meantime to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
House in Committee.

SUPPLY—THE MINT.
On the question, that a sum of 77,806 l. be granted to defray the expenses of the Mint,
MR. HUMEcomplained of the great expense of this department. From a return lately laid upon the Table of that House, it appeared that for the recoinage of 11,000,000 l. the public had been subjected to a surcharge of 43,000 l. He was anxious, therefore, to see this department placed in a condition in which so large an expenditure would not be incurred; and he had determined to oppose any further proceeding without an inquiry—seeing that the public were put to an unnecessarily large expense, and believing that the establishment did not answer the purpose for

1267
which it was intended—and it was with great reluctance that he had come to the determination not to press his Amendment. He contended that they were not warranted in paying away such large sums for an establishment which ought to maintain itself. In France, in America, and in many other countries, the Government was put to comparatively little expense in connexion with the coinage. In a former Session a Committee was appointed to inquire into the mode of transacting business at the Mini, and the evidence taken before that Committee established the existence of abuses which it would be easy to remove. It would afford him pleasure to know that every ounce of silver imported into this country was coined into British crowns, and he knew of no reason why the circulation of such a coinage throughout the world should not be co-extensive with the commerce of England. In the present state of public business, he would not oppose the vote before the Committee; but he hoped that the Government would direct its attention to the points to which he had adverted.
MR. SHEILsaid, that the Committee to which the hon. Member for Montrose had alluded, and which sat in 1837, made no report to the House; if, therefore, they discovered the existence of any abuses in the management of the Mint, they had left no record of their opinion on the subject. Should the hon. Member be disposed to move for the reappointment of the Committee, the Government would offer no objection to the proposition. It was true that in other countries the expense of the Mint was not so great; but, as Sir T. Atkinson had well stated before the Committee to which he had alluded, neither were salaries generally so high in those countries. At all events security to the public property had been obtained, and that he thought a great point. He did feel that some improvement might be made in the appointment of officers and apprentices; but the circumstance that no loss had ever been sustained by the public, not with standing the enormous sums which had been coined, ought not to be lost sight of by any Committee which might be appointed.
MR. HUMEdisclaimed the intention of impugning in the least degree the integrity and. honour of the officers of the Mint; all he complained of was the system which permitted those parties to overcharge the public 43,000 l. in an account of 67,000 l.
MR. SHEILwas happy to find that the hon. Member intended to cast no imputa-
1268
tion on the moral character of the officers of the Mint, which stood as high as that of any persons employed in other departments of the Government. The hon. Member complained of the coinage of 11,000,000 l. having cost 67,000 l.; but in 1774 the coinage of 15,000,000 l. cost 758,000 l.
MR. HUMEobserved, that since the period referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, the Mint had been supplied with improved apparatus, at an enormous expense.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, the objection was that the Mint was in the hands of a private company instead of that of Government; and that, therefore, there was no necessity for an inquiry. The importance of the Government having this in their own hands was perceptible, when they looked at any great crisis, such as that in 1825, when the demand on the Bank of England for coin was so tremendous. No doubt the Mint did make as much exertion as it was possible to be made, and coined an immense quantity of gold in a short time; but it ought to be in the hands of the Government. As to the security talked of by the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt it would be as secure in the hands of Government as in that of any private company. He hoped that the Government would direct its attention to the subject.
SIR G. CLERKsaid, the hon. Member for Coventry talked as though they were at the mercy of a private company when a large issue was required; but he thought the experience of the period of 1825 showed that company as anxious to do its duty as any one could be. They were merely contractors; and the system in this country was the same as that in France, Holland, and in all others, except, he believed, the United States. They contracted for the expense of the fabrication of the coin; that contract might be too advantageous to the contractor; and, if so, that, he conceived, would be a question for the Master of the Mint to consider. The hon. Member for Montrose had talked of the charge on coining 11,000,000 l.; and no doubt if that sum were coined every year, it was possible the price would bear reduction, but the quantity and period of work was uncertain. There might be intervals of months or years without work, and during all that time the contractors had a large capital lying unproductive.
MR. HUMEdid not know of any capital. Formerly they used public materials for their private assays, but that had been

1269
done away with. That they had a large capital sometimes lying dormant required explanation, and perhaps the right hon. Baronet, who had been Master of the Mint (Sir G. Clerk), would enlighten the House on that point.
SIR G. CLERKreferred the hon. Member to the evidence taken before the Committee for information on the point.
MR. SHEILsaid, that the company were obliged to keep up their machinery, and to pay the wages of a number of skilful artisans during the time they were not engaged in coining. With respect to the question generally, he did not hesitate to say that it would he matter of future consideration for the Government whether some useful modification might not be made in the existing system.
MR. THORNELYwished to know whether any progress had been made in the coinage of two-shilling pieces?
MR. SHEILhad consulted the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was officially more responsible than himself as to the form the coin should assume, and the right hon. Baronet had promised to give his attention to the subject. He (Mr. Sheil) had given instructions to the engraver to be in readiness, should it be determined to coin two-shilling pieces.
MR. HUMEsaid, that as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clerk) did not reply, he should beg to ask the present Master of the Mint what capital the moneyers were compelled to employ?
SIR G. GREYsaid, if the hon. Member were to refer to the evidence taken by the Committee, he would find they were obliged, in addition to the charges alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheil), to keep a quantity of material always ready. If they were to take an average of ten years, they would find that each of these persons received a sum which was not much for their risk and trouble.
MR. HUME: That was not the point. All the material was supplied at the public expense. he knew of no capital or risk with which they were concerned.
MR. WILLIAMSsaid, it was quite absurd to talk of their keeping a stock of bullion; they merely coined that which was put into their hands by the Government or by private persons, and made a charge on it. He ventured to assert, that those individuals divided annually profits to a larger amount each than the salary of the Master of the Mint—a high officer of State, and often a Cabinet Minister. Why this was, he
1270
did not know, for they could do nothing without the superintendence of the Master of the Mint.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—COMMISSIONERS OF RAILWAYS.
On the question that 17,000 l. be granted for the salaries of the Commissioners of Railways,
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that, preferring duty to dinner, he had remained in the House purposely to oppose this vote. If these Commissioners must have 17,000 l. a year, let it come out of the pockets of the railway companies. Heaven knew they made money enough.
MR. HUDSONagreed with the hon. and gallant Member in thinking that the public ought not to be called upon to pay this charge; but he could not concur in the suggestion that it should be transferred to the railway companies. The Commissioners were appointed on the recommendation of a Committee which sat at the end of last Session, and of which he had the honour to be a member; but he disapproved of the recommendation of the Committee, and the experience furnished by the working of the Board convinced him of the propriety of the objection he originally entertained with respect to it. The Committee of the Board of Trade was as useful for all purposes as the present Board could be. But if the appointment of the Commissioners were necessary, the sum they were paid was enormous. In appointing the Commissioners, the Government took no trouble to select men who possessed any knowledge of the railway system. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was the only one of them who could be supposed to know anything of the subject; but one of his Colleagues was a gentleman who had distinguished himself as an Indian judge; and the other was a noble Lord. Persons connected with railway undertakings could not respect the decisions of a Board, the members of which—with the exception of the Chief Commissioner, who, by travelling frequently between Derby and London, knew what a railway was—were totally unacquainted with the subject to which they were required to apply themselves. Their remuneration, however, was excessive under any circumstances. The duties which he performed in connexion with railways were more onerous than those which devolved on the Commissioners, and he was able to execute them without any

1271
assistance. The expenditure of the country had gone on increasing since 1836; and it had become necessary to object to every fresh item which was not indispensably necessary. He thought that 8,000 l. a year, instead of 17,000 l. would be quite enough for the expenses of the Board.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the estimates were examined, it would be found that the expenses of the Board did not exceed 12,000 l. a year. Nor could he agree with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the members of the Board were overpaid. All the public men who had been in the public service during the last twenty years had not put so much into their pockets as had a few gentlemen who, with great skill and integrity, no doubt, had managed railways during the last few years, as the right hon. Gentleman himself had done. The Board was constituted with the full assent of the House and of the Committees both of that House and of the House of Lords, who had investigated the subject; nor did he think that the public generally would either think that Board unnecessary, or that the appointments themselves had not been judiciously made. The object was to get gentlemen to constitute it who were unconnected with railways, and who would be free from the suspicion of partiality. He believed that they had discharged their duties to the great satisfaction of the public, and that, so far from the public money having been wasted, it had been expended for the public benefit. He begged also to observe, that a great portion of the staff of the Railway Board consisted of those officers who had been transferred from the railway department of the Board of Trade.
COLONEL SIBTHORPthought that the time of the Railway Board would be well employed in seeing how far compensation had been and should and could be given by railway companies in cases of melancholy accidents, such as that which had recently occurred on the Shrewsbury and Chester Line.
MR. STRUTTreminded the hon. and gallant Member, that such cases had been already provided for by the Death by Accidents Compensation Act, which, among other things, gave to the survivors of persons killed a right to recover from the company, which they had not had before. With regard to the accident on the Shrewsbury and Chester Line, the Railway Board had thought it so important, that, besides
1272
the officer of engineers, who had, in due course, proceeded officially to investigate it, they had thought it right to associate with him an eminent civil engineer; and they had chosen Mr. Walker, than whom a more fit person could not be found. They had also communicated with the Ordnance and the Admiralty; and those departments had also sent persons to assist in the inquiry. With regard to the expenses of the Board, he begged to observe, that the duties performed by the department were now much more onerous than they were six months ago under the Board of Trade, in consequence of the additional railways authorized by Parliament.
MR. HUMEapproved of the establishment of the Railway Board, but thought the expenses more than they need be.
MR. WILLIAMSobserved, that the expenses of the Board of Trade, notwithstanding the business that had been withdrawn from it, exceeded by 445 l. this year what they were for the year 1846.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the discussion would not be proceeded with. A more fitting opportunity would occur when the new Railways Bill came before the House.
MR. HUDSONagreed that this was not the proper occasion for the discussion. He admitted he was wrong as to the expenses of the Board; but he thought even 12,000 l. a year too much. He doubted whether the inspection and certificate of any Inspector General could he a sufficient protection to the public in cases of bridges and other works on the lines. As to what the right hon. Gentleman had said on the subject of the profits of those who had managed railway companies, he could only say, that if he had won any prizes, it had not been as the salaried servant of any company; at least, his salary from any company had not exceeded 100 l. a year.
MR. HUMEinquired whether it was true that third-class passengers were obliged to stand, like cattle, in the carriages, notwithstanding the arrangement of last year?
MR. STRUTTsaid, all the Railway Board could do was to see that the law was enforced. By the Act of last year, companies were compelled to run one train per day with seats at 1d. per mile. That Act, he believed, had been strictly complied with throughout the country. But it was quite competent to the companies to run other third or fourth class trains—as, on one line, there was a train at ½d. a

1273
mile—at any rate of cheapness, on the condition, if they chose, of not providing seats. Over such arrangements the Commissioners had no control.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—PUBLIC RECORDS.
On the question, that 12,812 l. be granted for the expenses of the Public Record Department,
MR. PROTHEROEhoped to hear that some measures were being taken to provide a place of permanent deposit for the public records: they were at present placed part in that filthy old building the Chapterhouse of Westminister Abbey; part next the powder magazine in the Tower, and in the old Riding-house of Carlton Palace; in all these places they were extremely insecure, and might be destroyed at any time. They contained some of the most curious and valuable documents in Europe; and, even if considered as mere public stores, they deserved to be kept in some place of security. If a building should be constructed for them, he hoped the style of architecture adopted would be a simple one, and not the expensive Gothic of the New Houses of Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the subject had been brought under the attention of the Government, but there was some difficulty in finding a site adequate to the purpose. The Government had given up the notion of devoting any portion of the New Houses of Parliament for the deposit of the records, and three or four sites had been mentioned for a building for them. One was on ground belonging to the Rolls estate; but, however desirable it was to remove the records from their places of deposit, it nevertheless required some time to obtain possession of the ground. He could only say, the subject was under consideration, and steps were being taken to obtain that site which was, on the whole, most desirable.
DR. BOWRINGsuggested that the Government should make a collection of the records connected with the earlier periods of the history of the country. Every nation in Europe had made some progress in collecting such old historical documents; France had made a collection of this kind, and M. Guizot paid great attention to the subject; Germany, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden, had taken advantage of this period of peace and tranquillity to apply themselves to the same public purpose. He did not know whether the Government
1274
had come to any determination on the subject, but it was a matter looked on with great interest by literary men; much surprise had been expressed that countries possessing inferior treasures had done much more than England to gather together the elements of historical knowledge.
MR. PROTHEROEthought it was a great error in the Record Commission to have commenced publishing too soon. They began to print before they knew what they possessed. The records were now being arranged, and it would be known what the country really had. The Commission at first published old calendars, and began series of records afterwards found to be imperfect. He trusted, when all the records were arranged, the Government would think it worth while to devote a sum of money to publishing a selection from them.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not give the hon. and learned Gentleman any information on the point, having had no notice of the question. He thought the suggestion a good one; but he could not commit the Government to any particular course respecting it.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND.
On the question that 6,464 l. be granted to defray the expenses of the officers of the household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
DR. BOWRINGsaid he should object to one of the items included in the vote. He thought it both unreasonable and inhuman, when the people of Ireland and Scotland were dying from starvation, to grant 1,574 l. for a Queen's plate to encourage horse-racing. He therefore hoped that the House would object to this part of the vote.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought the argument of the hon. Member was altogether ad captandum, and made merely to catch popularity. The hon. Gentleman might have selected the vote for the Ulster King-at-Arms, or York Herald, or any other expense for the pomp and state of the office of Lord Lieutenant, and ask the Committee on the same grounds to refuse it. However ad captandum that argument might be, he did not think it ought to be yielded to. The question was, whether the vote was a proper expenditure of money or not. If it was not, then, without any reference to the circumstances of Ire-

1275
land, the House ought to stop it; but the existing distress was no reason why the House should cease to give what it had been accustomed to give for a laudable and proper object. In England various plates were given by the bounty of the Sovereign to encourage horse-racing, out of the civil list; this was formerly the case also in Scotland and Ireland. But the Committee of 1832 transferred the civil list of those two countries to the annual estimates, and the same Committee thought 1,500 l. not an enormous sum to be applied to this purpose. To retrench the sum in Ireland, while it was continued in England and Scotland, would not he a popular proceeding. In Ireland, not only the gentry, but the people down to the lowest class, took great interest in the races. They afforded them a very harmless amusement, and, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's appeal, he hoped the Committee as well as all other Committees had done, would sanction the vote.
MR. WILLIAMShad expected to hear stronger reasons than those given by the right hon. Gentleman for taxing the people to support horse-racing and gambling. Suppose he had proposed a vote for dog-fighting, and badger-baiting? Both these practices encouraged gambling. He should propose that the vote be reduced to 4,964 l.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 22,788 l. be granted for the Chief Secretary's and Council officers (Ireland),
MR. HUMEsaid, though particular circumstances prevented him at present, he would as soon as possible take the sense of the House on the propriety of continuing to maintain the office of Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. Eighteen years ago the House divided on the question, and the abolition of the office was negatived by a majority of only 20. One of the grand mischief's of Ireland was this delegated authority: the country should be placed on the same footing as Scotland, and treated in the same manner; and they would remove the cabals that had hitherto done so much mischief, and give that unfortunate country some rest from political agitation. He believed the Lord Lieutenants had acted like the governors of most colonies, and gathered factions round them. If he should be in the new Parliament, the first Session should not pass without his bringing the question before the House. He was sure there was not a man who wished well to Ireland but would rejoice at seeing an end
1276
put to that focus of cabals in that country. He deprecated in every respect the practice of making Ireland a colony, instead of governing it as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
MR. LABOUCHEREwas sure the hon. Gentleman would feel that whatever opinions he might entertain upon this question, the present was not a fitting time for discussing it. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that whatever might be the proper system with regard to the government of Ireland, the mere expense of that system was a minor consideration. The only point ought to be, what was most for the benefit of Ireland; but at the present moment it was quite obvious that it would be wrong to enter upon a discussion so wide and important.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—SECRET SERVICE.
On the question that a sum of 39,000 l. be granted for the Foreign and Secret Service,
DR. BOWRINGcomplained that from year to year they were called upon to vote the same sum of 39,000 l. for the Secret and Foreign Department. Was the same sum expended every year? He believed very little service was done for this sum; but it was singular that the same amount should be voted year after year.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that the charge was made on the expenditure of an average of years.
MR. HUMEcomplained that putting money into the hands of people in this way only encouraged extravagance, and led, perhaps, to the bribery of fellows in foreign countries who were not worth bribing. He believed it was principally, if not entirely, in the foreign service, that this money was expended; and it was most mischievously thrown away, as he had no doubt had been the lately in Portugal.
MR. WILLIAMSthought the Government ought to satisfy themselves as to whether there was any balance of the sums voted in former years on hand. He might state that there was an impression abroad that a large portion of the Secret Service money was devoted to electioneering purposes.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, with regard to the last observation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. William), could state most positively that the impression to which he had alluded was wholly without

1277
foundation. There was a strict oath which every Minister was bound to take, that he would apply the funds with which he was intrusted to their proper and legitimate purposes.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—STATIONERY.
On the question that a sum of 295,513 l. be granted for the expenses of the Stationery, Printing, and Binding in the various departments,
MR. WILLIAMScomplained that this vote, as compared with that of 1845, showed an increase of no less than 68,000 l.
MR. PARKERsaid, there was included an item of 11,000 l. or 12,000 l., for compensation to the Queen's printer in Ireland. The only other explanation that could be given was, that there wore so many inquiries and commissions, that great expense was incurred in the printing of blue books, returns, &c.
MR. CARD WELLshould like to know how much had been expended in printing preliminary inquiries of various kinds, probably caused by parties who would object to this vote?
MR. HUMEwas anxious to know the expense of printing each separate report. When the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) was one of the Secretaries to the Treasury, he wished to know the expense of printing any paper, but could not get it; this showed that the hon. Gentleman really knew very little about the details of his office. He should like to know what trouble the hon. Gentleman ever took to furnish the House with these separate accounts.
MR. CARDWELLwas understood to say, that to furnish the House with the cost of each paper would be as expensive as the original printing of the paper itself.
MR. HUMEsaid, the hon. Member would admit that when in office it was his duty to act with regard to the public expenditure as strictly as if he were transacting his own private business. If an account of 295,000 l. was laid before the hon. Gentleman for printing connected with his own business, would he not think it necessary to ascertain the various items of which that large amount was composed? Yet this was not done here, and it was just the way with all the secretaries together.
MR. CARDWELLthought the observations of the hon. Gentleman were altogether unfounded and uncalled for. If the Stationery Office were called upon to state
1278
the expense of each particular paper, it would cause a very considerable addition of expenditure, instead of being attended with the slightest economy. The proper way to keep down expense was for hon. Gentlemen not to call for unnecessary papers and reports.
MR. HUMEwould convict the hon. Gentleman on his own words, and show that he knew nothing of his own business. It was n t the clerks of the Stationery Office, but the printer, who entered the amount of the expense of papers printed. It was clear to him (Mr. Hume) that when the hon. Gentleman was in office he failed to do his duty.
LORD G. BENTINCKshould like to have a return of the expense of all the papers moved for and printed at the desire of the two hon. Gentlemen seated beside each other (Mr. Hume and Dr. Bowring).
MR. HUMEhad never asked for papers, but with a view to their being used for the public benefit; and he challenged any man to prove that he ever had. There was not a paper he had obtained that he had not made use of. He challenged the noble Lord to show that he had ever moved for a paper needlessly. On Monday he would move, that an account be laid on the Table showing what the amount of each item in this vote was; and he should also move for a return of what the expense of that analysis would be.
SIR W. CLAYconsidered that more valuable information had been moved for by the hon. Member for Montrose than by any other Member of that House.
DR. BOWRINGthought it was very desirable that before an order was agreed to by the House for the printing of any documents, proper inquiry should be made as to whether the papers asked for had not been already on the Table of the House. With regard to the insinuations of the noble Lord opposite, he must say that he (Dr. Bowring) had never moved for a document simply because he had been requested to do so. It was only when he thought that the production of a document would be of public service that he moved for it. The documents which he had moved for had always reference to some Motion either already before or about to be brought before the House. And having said thus much regarding himself, he would venture to say, with regard to the papers which had been moved for from time to time by his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, that they had been the means of saving not only

1279
thousands, but millions of pounds to the country.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think it would be well for the Government to attempt to put checks upon the Members of the House with respect to moving for the production of papers. It would be very invidious for the Government to say to a Member moving for a return, "Your Motion is a very foolish one, and ought not to be granted." It might appear, under such circumstances, that the Government wished to withhold information from the public. He admitted that it would be well if the expense of printing documents already on the Table of the House could be saved; but it would be almost an impossibility. He believed that the expenses in the printing department were as small as they possibly could be made. The work was executed by contract.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he found that in 1845 the total expense for printing was 226,000 l., whilst in the last year it was 295,000 l. Now, even adding the additional ll,000 l., which had been incurred in extra stationery for Ireland, he could not see how the item had increased so considerably. He wished to know whether the Government had been the cause of this increase in the expenditure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that the increase during the past year in the expense for printing papers for the Government was only 15,000 l.; the remaining portion of the increase arose from the increased number of Parliamentary Papers printed on the Motions of hon. Members.
MR. ARKWRIGHTinquired whether there was any control or audit in respect to the printing of papers in the Stationery Office? and whether such papers as were printed for the Poor Law Commissioners could be printed by other departments at the public expense?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Poor Law Commissioners were in the habit, under the verbal authority of the Government, of sending their annual reports to the Stationery Office to be printed. Other departments were responsible for their own printing.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the question of the hon. Member had not been answered. His object was to know whether publications similar to those which had been complained of from the Poor Law Commissioners might be published by other de-
1280
partments of the Government without any check.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to say, that each department was responsible f6r its own printing, under the authority of the Treasury.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—PRISONERS AND PRISONS.
On the question that 388,000 l. be granted for county rates, expense of prosecutions, maintenance of prisoners, &c.,
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the vote now-asked for would not defray the expense for which it was intended. It made no provision for the clothing, blankets, or bedding of the prisoners.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the present vote contemplated two classes of prisoners—those who were formerly maintained by the counties, and those who, by reason of the change in the law, were now confined in the prisons in this country instead of being transported. It would be found that in the estimates for the expense of transports, there was a corresponding diminution of expense.
MR. HENLEYdid not accuse the present Government of not having fulfilled the promise held out to the county magistrates. It was the late Government who said that if the counties would provide prison room for transported convicts, the State would defray the expense of the other convicts in the prisons; instead of that, all that was provided was bread and meat, no allowance being made for clothing and bedding. This was a breach of faith, and a very shabby and mean way of carrying out what was originally proposed to the counties as a boon. It amounted to about 2s. a head per week.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the present Government was not responsible for this vote; nor was there any record of what was the intention of the late Government in proposing the vote of 40,000 l., which it had done in a former year.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 14,349 l. be granted for the expenses of the Prison at Parkhurst, in the Isle of Wight, being proposed,
MR. HUMEsaid, that this vote was not only for maintaining boys in prison at Parkhurst, but for afterwards sending them abroad. Now, it appeared to him, that it would be better to send the boys abroad

1281
without any previous prosecution. It was encouraging vice to leave a number of boys idling about the country, and making no sort of provision for them until they had committed some crime.
SIR G. GREYbelieved that the experiment of which the hon. Gentleman complained had succeeded. Very full reports had been laid before Parliament respecting the conduct of the boys who had been sent abroad from the prison at Parkhurst, and the accounts were of the most favourable character.
MR. WILLIAMSapproved of the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), and thought it would be much better to give the money to the parents, to enable the boys to go out as free labourers and not as convicts, than to await the commission of an offence against the laws, and then, after a certain term of imprisonment, to send them out at the expense of the country as convicts.
LORD G. BENTLNCKthought the House ought to have the details of this great, new, liberal plan for taking out all the boys of the country to the penal colonies; and he should like the hon. Member for Montrose to explain this novel proposition.
MR. HUMEobserved, that none were so dull as those who would not understand. All that he (Mr. Hume) had suggested, was, that instead of leaving the boys in this country till they became criminals, the better plan would be to send them out as free agents, by appropriating the same money for that purpose as was now expended on them as convicts. If this plan were adopted, there could be no doubt that very many boys would be found willing and eager to go abroad.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 18,307 l. for the expenses of the Model Prison, Pentonville, being proposed,
MR. WILLIAMScomplained of the expense of this establishment. The costs of the officers for looking after the prisoners, was at the rate of 15 l. 6s. each prisoner in the year. This exceeded the wages paid to a hardworking labourer.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the expenditure at Pentonville must not be taken as a model of expenditure for all prisons, although it was a model prison.
MR. WILLIAMSthought it remarkable that the labour of 500 prisoners in the Pentonville prison should have averaged only l½d. per day. He had complained
1282
of this last year, and the produce of the prisoners' labour appeared to have been doubled in consequence; but it was still far below the produce of labour in the prisons of the United States. He observed that the pay of the persons who taught the Pentonville prisoners was twice as much as the produce of their labour amounted to.
MR. HENLEYsaid, these prisoners cost 14 s. a week each for their maintenance, besides 4s. rent, which made the cost 18 s. per head. In the rest of the counties of England the average might be taken at 10 s. per head. He thought the management of Pentonville was economic. The men being kept on the separate system required a higher diet.
MR. HUMEsaid, it appeared the maintenance of convicts in gaols cost from 12 s. to 14 s. a week. What a lesson this was for hon. Members, when they saw poor men labouring from morning to night, and unable to obtain 7s. a week! The expense of maintaining prisoners in gaols showed the immense importance of endeavouring, by prevention, to keep them out.
SIR G. GREYwas afraid that, under the best system of education, some prisons would be necessary.
MR. HENLEYdid not think the experiment of Pentonville worth much as a model prison. The Government took only picked prisoners there, while the counties had to deal with the old, imbecile, &c. The value of the experiment had not been so great as it would have been, had the Government taken the prisoners as they came. It must also be remembered, that many persons thought the separate system had a tendency to injure the minds of the prisoners,
SIR G. GREYmight remark, that medical men who had watched the system of separate confinement thought it very successful, and that no more cases of insanity had occurred in the Pentonville prison than were commonly found in persons of the same class of life.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—EDUCATION (IRELAND).
On the vote of 100,000 l. for Public Education in Ireland,
MR. HUMEinquired whether the Commissioners of National Education for that country had presented any report this year?
MR. LABOUCHEREreplied, that a draught report was in his possession, and

1283
that it would be laid upon the Table of the House in a few days.
MR. HUMEwas satisfied, from what he saw last year in Ireland, that the national system of education was working most satisfactorily; and he wished to know why a similar system should not be adopted in this country?
MR. LABOUCHEREfelt no hesitation in saying that the experiment which had1 been made in Ireland with regard to education, had been completely successful. There were, at present, little short of half a million of Protestants and Catholics educated together under the system which had been adopted in that country. He would not, on this occasion, enter into any of those details which were contained in the report of the Commissioners, and which would show the satisfactory operation of the system. He might, however, be allowed to read a short extract from a letter he had received from Ireland on this subject. The writer said—
"We have at present 3,637 schools in operation, attended by 456,410 children. The increase of children within the year is 23,506, and of schools 211. We consider, but have no actual returns on the subject, that fully one-seventh of the children attending our schools are Protestants. Of the schools on our roll, amounting to 3,986, there are in Ulster alone 1,601. We train about 300 teachers each year, and of these nearly one-fifth are usually Protestants. They are educated together without any distinction as to creed, and live together while in our training establishment in perfect harmony."
He thought this brief statement was sufficient to show the House how admirably the system was working.
MR. E WARTexpressed his gratification at the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), that the system of national education established in Ireland should be extended to this country, he begged to say that it had been introduced most successfully by the corporation of Liverpool three years ago.
MR. M'CARTHYthought that, in addition to the course of education at present afforded in the National schools of Ireland, it was most advisable to give the poorer classes in that country some instruction in practical agriculture.
MR. LABOUCHEREwas glad to be enabled to inform the hon. Gentleman that that object had not been lost sight of. During the last year, the Commissioners of Education had turned their attention to the manner in which they could most effec-
1284
tually promote agricultural knowledge in Ireland; and in the report which they had drawn up, and which would shortly be laid before the House, they afforded every information on the subject. The report stated that they were perfectly alive to the importance of diffusing agricultural instruction in that country; and that, as the result of their efforts, there were now in operation five agricultural model schools, in addition to other schools of an inferior description. This was exceedingly satisfactory; and to offer every inducement to the class through whom the instruction must be imparted, the highest remuneration would be given to teachers conversant with the elements of agricultural science. A practical acquaintance with that science was of consequence at all times, and was especially important at this moment; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that no exertion would be spared to extend the advantage conferred by agricultural schools throughout the country.
MR. V. SMITHfound that in this vote for this year, there was an increase of 25,000 l. as compared with 1845. It was desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should explain if the increase resulted from the adoption of an improved mode of instruction, or from the necessary extension of the number of schools.
MR. LABOUCHEREstated, that the increase had been occasioned partly by the gradual extension of the system, and partly by the carrying out of an improved mode of instruction, suggested by the Commissioners. There were a greater number of teachers employed, and they were paid at a much higher rate than had formerly been the case.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had heard much of the harmonious working of the joint system of education; but he was at a loss to know what proof of it was to be found in the fact, as stated by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that 1,600 Protestant schools were established in Ulster alone.
MR. LABOUCHEREadmitted, that, while the system of joint instruction did prevail to a considerable extent, it was not so extensive as he could wish, and as he yet hoped to see it.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—NELSON'S MONUMENT.
Upon the proposal that 2,000 l. be granted for completing the Nelson Monument in Trafalgar-square,
MR. BROTHERTONthought that this money was quite thrown away.
MR. WILLIAMSasked whether this sum would complete the Monument?
VISCOUNT MORPETHwas afraid that it would not. If carried out according to the full original design, not less than 16,000 l. would he required to complete the work; but whether they should so complete it, was a question which the Government had still under consideration. The late Government had stated that 12,000 l. would complete it; but that had been found an incorrect estimate. Only 8,000 l. had at present been voted.
MR. BORTHWICKsaid, that, as it now stood, it might be described as a Doric column with a Corinthian capital. The original design had been altered—the column had been cut down; and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had said, that if the original design had been carried out, he could not answer for the safety of Her Majesty's subjects; but if that was so, why had the design ever been adopted? And if the Government were now going to proceed with a design of their own, he should be glad to know whether the column was to be left to preach to posterity the bad taste of the age in which they lived, or whether it was to be pulled down entirely, and a more worthy monument erected to the illustrious hero whom it was intended to honour, but whose fame it really desecrated? It was disgraceful to the nation that such a monument should rise so slowly, and with so much difficulty, to their dead hero, whilst they were crowding their streets with monuments to perpetuate the fame of their living hero.
Vote agreed to.
House adjourned.

MINUTES,
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Transference of Lands (Scotland); Burgage Tenure (Scotland); Heritable Securities for Debt (Scotland); Crown Charters (Scotland); Representative Peers (Scotland).
Reported.—Naval Service of Boys.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From the Provost and others of Glasgow, for Alteration of the Law of Entail (Scotland).—Prom Factory Workers in the Employ of John and William Chadwick, in favour of the Factories Bill—From Leicester, for the Repeal of the Malt Duty.—From Melton Mowbray, for Alteration and Amendment of the Law of Settlement.—From St. Margaret, Leicester, for Repeal of the Poor Removal Act, and for the Establishment of a National Rate.—From Her Majesty's Subjects, Sufferers by the Fire of the 9th of June, at St. John's, Newfoundland, complaining of the Misappropriation of the Funds granted for the Relief of the Sufferers.

FIRE AT ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND.
LORD PORTMANrose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to papers which had been laid upon their Lordships' Table, respecting the destructive fire which some time ago had taken place at St. John's, Newfoundland. When, in the first instance, it was thought necessary to bring the subject before Parliament, his noble Friend the Secretary of
1242
State consented to lay before them the papers that were required to develop the whole transaction. Those papers had for some time been before the House; and, having considered them, he took it upon himself to say, that the case was one which did require the attention of their Lordships. The money which had been subscribed in consequence of this disastrous fire, was not only not applied to the purposes specified in the Queen's Letter, but was applied, by private arrangement, to matters which had not even been mentioned in Her Majesty's Letter. Both the purposes to which the money had been applied, might have been in themselves good; but it was not for both, it was only for one of the number, that the subscribers gave their contributions. The Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts, had subscribed 2,000 l. towards rebuilding the episcopal church at St. John's. But the collection under the Queen's Letter was made from door to door, and many became subscribers who never thought that they were giving their money for the purpose of rebuilding an episcopal church, inasmuch as many of the subscribers were Dissenters, who, in giving their money, thought that they were merely contributing to the relief of their distressed brethren. The petition praying that a Queen's Letter be issued, asked for assistance generally, and particularly referred to the rebuilding of the church; but the answer to that petition, as well as the Queen's Letter, was silent on the subject. What he complained of was this, that having in the first instance taken what seemed to be a perfectly safe, sound, and cautious course, namely, referring it to the governor of the colony to inform him whether it was desirable that any part of the money collected could be spared for the purpose of rebuilding the parish church of St. John, and, if so, what portion should be so applied, his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies did not wait for the answer of the governor, but suddenly jumped, as it were, to the conclusion that one-half was the precise proportion that ought to be granted for that purpose. There was one more stage of the proceeding to which he would refer. The Bishop of Newfoundland requested that the money should be kept in this country, and placed somewhere, so that interest might accrue upon it, whereby it might become a larger sum, and be more useful than if sent to the colony at first. His noble Friend the Secretary for

1243
the Colonies consented to that course; but unfortunately another authority in this country stepped in, and the Lords of the Treasury declined to adopt the suggestion. It was evident that there was great distrust of the authorities of the colony, though from what cause it was not for him to say. But there was this difference between the case of the fire in Newfoundland and that of Quebec; in the latter case, the money collected under the Queen's Letter for the relief of the sufferers was sent to Lord Metcalfe, the governor of the colony, for his appropriation and distribution; and he, therefore, was responsible for the whole proceeding; but upon this occasion, there appeared to have been an understanding with the London Committee, and with the right rev. Prelate, and also with the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, that the parties who contributed the money should not be told the purpose for which their money was asked. In his opinion, however, it was desirable that in every case where the people of this country were asked to contribute their money for any purpose, they should be distinctly told what the purpose was. The noble Lord then concluded with expressing his hope, that their Lordships would concur in the Motion he was about to make—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to direct, that as often as Her Majesty shall be graciously pleased to issue Her Royal Letters, directed respectively to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, authorizing the Collection of voluntary Contributions within their several Provinces, Accounts shall be presented to Her Majesty of the Amount of Money received under such Letters, of the Persons to whom paid, under whose Authority, and for what Purpose it is expended."
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that the statement of the noble Lord looked very much like a charge of having obtained money under false pretences. The noble Lord said, that the money had been collected for one purpose, and improperly applied to another; but the money was collected for the general purpose of repairing the damage committed by the fire; and the clergy and the congregation of St. John's were sufferers by that fire. He maintained, therefore, that providing funds for the rebuilding of the parish church was a work of charity. That a great part of the money collected, was contributed by persons who believed that a portion of it would be applied to rebuilding the parish church, he did not entertain a doubt; nor could he conceive that any member of the Estab-
1244
lished Church could make any objection to such application. The whole matter, from the beginning, was most open; there was no concealment—no delusion—and he must repel, without any qualification, the charge of having been accessory to a measure, the effect of which would be to collect money under false pretences. The London Committee, having very charitably and benevolently exerted themselves to raise funds by general subscription for the relief of the distress occasioned by the fire in St. John's, considered that an appeal ought to be made through the usual medium to the members of the Church of England; and he himself believed, that the money was almost exclusively collected from members of the Church of England. The committee appealed to the Secretary of State for a specific mention of the church of St. John's in the Queen's Letter; and the answer they received was, that the Queen's Letter had already been issued; he then wrote to the chairman of the committee, and the reply which he received was, that the committee were unanimously of opinion that a portion of the funds should be applied to the rebuilding of the church of St. John's. He, therefore, could not conceive that there had been any breach of trust, or the slightest deviation from the strict line of duty, on the part of the Secretary of State in the course he had taken. He himself had little responsibility in the matter; but, if the whole rested upon his shoulders, he should consider that he had but done his duty. At the same time, he thought that when money was given for general purposes of charity, an account should be furnished to the donors of its application.
EARL GREYsaid, it was true that, on the 7th of November, 1846, he did refuse to allot any portion of the money to the purpose of rebuilding the church of St. John's; but shortly afterwards he received a despatch, dated the 26th of November, 1846, from the officer administering the government of Newfoundland, stating that the grant of money that had been already made, had had a demoralising tendency, as the people seemed to have an idea that, whether they were in poverty or not, they had a right to relief out of the money that had been subscribed, and requesting that the rest of the funds might be placed in the hands of the Secretary for the Colonies, to be appropriated as he thought fit, and in particular recommending that a part of it should be applied to the rebuild-

1245
ing of the church. He placed his change of determination expressly on the ground of fresh information, and on the fact that the principal sufferers had received almost the whole amount of their loss, whilst those who had not received the amount of their losses were the small shopkeepers, on whom the expense of restoring the church would principally fall. Besides, the officer administering the government, had recommended a fixed proportion of the money to be applied to this particular purpose. With respect to the Queen's Letter, it was contrary to precedent to notice all the objects to which the collections were to be applied; and it was the usual course to leave the distribution of the fund raised to a committee administering any general subscription, the Government having, in fact, no means of distributing these voluntary contributions. At the same time, he saw no objection to the present Motion.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, so far as he had the means of judging, no appropriation could have given greater satisfaction to the clergy than that of providing for one of the most grievous disasters amidst the general calamity; and such an incident as the destruction of the church, ought not to have been omitted from general assistance. The parties who applied for the Queen's Letter, the authorities in the colony, and Her Majesty's Government, had all concurred in the necessity and propriety of this application of the money; and he believed it met with general assent.
LORD PORTMANreplied, disclaiming any intention of imputing blame to any of the clergy, though there was a different interpretation put by them upon the Queen's Letter.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned.