Sitting of 7 May 1850

COURT OF CHANCERY.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, he had given notice of a question of rather a delicate nature; but looking at the public inconvenience which had occurred in consequence of the Lord Chancellor's inability to attend to the proceedings of the Court of Chancery, which had for a long time been in abeyance, he trusted he might be excused for asking the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department whether he was able to give the country any intimation as to the probable period at which the Lord Chancellor might be expected to resume the duties of his office?
SIR G. GREYbelieved it was well known to all, that for several weeks past the Lord Chancellor had been suffering under severe indisposition. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would rejoice to hear that the noble and learned Lord was recovering, and was already able to attend to business connected with his office, though he had not yet resumed his regular sittings in the Court of Chancery. The noble and learned Lord intimated to the leading counsel of his court at the beginning of this term, that he was ready to hear in his own house any appeals that might require immediate attention. There was only one case of that nature at the time; upon which the noble and learned Lord, after hearing it argued, had pronounced a very able judgment.

EXHIBITION OF WORKS OF INDUSTRY, 1851.
MR. ARKWRIGHTbegged to inquire of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade whether he intended to ask Parliament to interfere in any way with respect to the Exhibition of the Works of Industry, 1851? and whether he would give an assurance that no application for an allowance of public money in aid of that exhibition would, under any circumstances, be sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government?
MR. LABOUCHEREdid not anticipate that it would be his duty to ask Parliament to interfere in any way with respect to the conduct of the Exhibition of 1851, which in its origin had been, and he trusted to its termination would be, entirely dependent on the voluntary exertions and contributions of the public. The only point on which it was possible he might ask the interference of Parliament, and which was now under his consideration, was whether in the Bill which it would be necessary to propose to the House to amend the Act for the registry of designs, it might not be expedient to introduce a clause to protect from piracy the unpatented articles that might be exhibited. With respect to the second question, he objected on principle to answer questions of that general description; but he could assure the hon. Member that, having the honour to be one of the commissioners for the conduct of the exhibition, nothing was further from the intention of the commissioners than to apply to the Treasury for any advance of money, and that if they did apply he believed that Her Majesty's Government would be unwilling to entertain it. The only expenses which would fall upon the Government were those to which his noble Friend at the head of the Government had referred when he stated that he intended to advise the issuing of the commission, namely, those ordinary and trifling expenses which were necessarily connected with the conduct of any public commission. Beyond that, he did not anticipate that the country would be asked for a single shilling towards the exhibition.

ADVERTISEMENT DUTY.
MR. EWART, having presented a great number of petitions, chiefly from newspaper proprietors, against the advertisement duty, proceeded, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his Motion for the repeal of the duty on advertisements. The petitions
1238
he had just presented, emanating from every class of newspaper property, would of themselves have warranted him in mooting this question; but he proposed the Motion still more emphatically on broad public grounds. He considered this tax one of the most objectionable taxes ever imposed on the country. It was a tax on the vehicles of information and commerce. It stood in the same predicament, though much more obnoxiously, with the tax on auctions, that was repealed by the right hon. Member for Tamworth. That tax was repealed because it was a tax on transactions; there could be no tax more objectionable in a social, political, or commercial point of view, than a tax on transactions; and he regarded the advertisement duty as coming emphatically within that category. He considered it, indeed, on general grounds, as even more objectionable than the duties which had recently been brought before the House by his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. He most fully participated with his right hon. Friend in his hostility to all taxes on knowledge; but this minor duty on advertisements extended still further, for it taxed knowledge—it taxed agriculture—it taxed literature—it taxed the wants of the community. No one could take up a commercial paper without observing how trade was fettered by this tax; no one interested in agricultural produce and interchange could be ignorant how heavily it pressed upon that interest; and he trusted that those who peculiarly represented agriculture in that House would support his Motion, as one closely connected with the objects of their advocacy. It was a tax which pressed upon literature to such a degree, that Mr. M'Culloch did not hesitate to characterise it as amongst the heaviest burdens in the way of taxation that impeded the production of literary works. It was a tax upon religious communications. Among the petitions he had just presented were several from the proprietors of religious newspapers, who stated that their circulation was materially checked by this prohibitory duty. It was a tax on art, for he found the proprietors of such publications as the Illustrated London News and the Art Journal stating that they suffered severely from the operation of the duty. It was a tax even on wit, for such publications as Punch complained that more or less they were affected by the impost. It was a tax on the poor, for the humble author on his sixpenny

1239
pamphlet, the distressed needlewoman on her appeal for employment, paid as heavy a tax as the wealthy capitalist upon the announcement of a vast estate for sale. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would probably complain that independent Members of the House were constantly interposing proposals to repeal taxes which the Government would find it difficult to repeal. He must nevertheless speak there for those who desired he should represent their interests, and for the interest, as he conceived, of the public at large. For the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not justly make it matter of complaint that a Member of the House should raise a question of this kind, unless the right hon. Gentleman could disprove the universal pressure of the tax in question. What tax pressed most generally on the community? and what tax could most easily be spared? These were the two points on which the question turned. It had well been said, on a recent occasion, that you might, on the principle of this tax, have imposed a tax upon the public cryer; he would add, that upon its principle you might just as well lay a tax upon the transactions of men with each other on the public exchange, or the corn merchant at the corn exchange, or the coal merchant at the coal exchange, before you allowed him to negotiate his commodities. The tax, further, was a tax of great inequality, for the advertisement duty was not levied on all advertisements alike, but only on advertisements that appeared in newspapers and periodicals, so that you might advertise as much as you liked in books without being taxed. One of the results of the system had been an evil which occurred to every one's eyes as be walked along the streets. The public, almost prohibited from advertising in the legitimate channels, placarded their announcements upon the perambulating van, which, with its unwieldy bulk, impeded and disfigured every thoroughfare—a strange herald of literature, which, drawn by its lame Pegasus, and advertising some modern poem or some modern drama, reminded him of the old Horatian lines—
"Ignotum tragicæ genus invenisse Camœnæ,
Dicitur, et plaustris vexisse poemata Thespis."
Another peripatetic advertisement created by this obnoxious duty assumed the shape of an unfortunate man, encumbering the streets, encased between two boards, before him and behind. These and similar objectionable expedients were the result of
1240
the system which he desired to remedy. He held in his hand papers showing the excessive severity with which the revenue department must necessarily press on the communication of human wants. No advertisements could by any classification escape the duty. Each individual article specified (however briefly, even in a single line) within a class, must pay the same amount of duty as if it stood singly, and filled a column. He had received a letter from a publisher in Scotland, stating that, having occasion to advertise a series of articles, each article in the series occupying one line of the advertisement, he had been charged duty for each line, as for a separate advertisement; while, had each article occupied a column and a half instead of a line, he would have been charged no more. Another distinction which the Revenue Department made, was that, though the subjects of charge related to the same thing, yet, if what was called a separate interest could be established between them, they were separately charged. Suppose a steamboat company or railway company desired to inform the public that its boats or its trains ran to a particular place, and that from that place passengers might be conveyed whither they wanted to go by a coach or other vehicle, this information, so essential to the public, could not be embodied in one advertisement, but must pay a separate tax for every separate announcement. Though he did not blame the revenue boards for doing what they might deem their duty, he maintained that such proceedings as those which he described were interferences with, and injuries to commerce. If we directed our eyes from this country to the United States, where no advertisement duty existed, how different was the scene! Any gentleman who had seen the newspapers of the United States would agree with him in thinking that the vast number of advertisements he found there must be a source of infinite commercial advantage to the whole community. Advertisements in the United States were the great vehicles of interchange. When Mr. Poulett Thompson brought forward the general subject of taxation he stated to the House, that whereas in the United States the advertisements, at that period, annually numbered 10,000,000, in England they only reached 1,000,000. In 1833 the advertisement duty was reduced from 3s. to 1s. 6d., and there was, in consequence, a great increase in the number of advertisements; but still, if we

1241
compared the number of papers circulating in this country with the number of those circulating in the United States, a comparison immediately connected with the advertisement duty, the result was altogether in favour of the United States. In 1847 there were published in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and the Channel Islands, 565 newspapers; in the United States, with a population one-third less, there were published in the same year 1,700 newspapers. He was satisfied that the numbers would be much more equally balanced if the injurious fetters imposed by this tax were once removed. And not only did England suffer in comparison with the United States, she suffered also in comparison with her own colonies. He would put it to the House, whether it was right that Englishmen at home should be worse off in this respect than Englishmen in the colonies? Yet colonial newspapers paid no tax on advertisements. Nothing could show more fully the tendency of advertisements to multiply than the great increase in their number since the reduction of the duty in 1833. Previous to the reduction of duty in 1833 the number of advertisements generally averaged 700,000 or 800,000 a year; but since the reduction the advertisements had gone on gradually increasing, till at the present time they numbered about 2,000,000 annually. This increase had taken place, undoubtedly, in consequence of the reduction of duty. He had the authority of Mr. M'Culloch in favour of the total repeal of this duty. That gentleman, while admitting the benefit derived from the reduction of the duty, said that it could not be imposed upon the ad valorem principle, which would be the only just principle by which it could be regulated, and that therefore the best course would be to repeal it altogether. He (Mr. Ewart) entirely concurred in that opinion. The amount at present raised by advertisement duty in England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, was about 157,000 l. a year. Previously to the reduction of the duty the revenue derived from this source was about 170,000 l. a year; so that, in consequence of the great increase in the number of advertisements, the produce of the tax was now approaching what it had been in 1833, when the duty was reduced by one-half. His inference was, that if they entirely repealed the duty, the number of advertisements would increase to a proportionate extent. He believed that the repeal of this tax would be of the greatest advantage
1242
to the wealthiest person in the community, who offered lands or goods for sale, as well as to the poorest needlewoman who was pining for employment; and, deeming it a duty more uncommercial in principle, and more general in pressure, than any other existing duty, while, at the same time, it could most easily be spared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not hesitate to move, "That it is expedient that the Advertisement Duty be repealed."
MR. M. GIBSONseconded the Motion.
MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he had a Motion on the Votes for the application of two millions a year to the reduction of the National Debt, in time of peace; and, therefore, however much he might agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumfries as to the evil results of this and other taxes, he could not consent to support the present Motion. He believed that great fallacies had been put forward on the subject of taxation; as, for instance, the other night, when they heard so much in favour of the remission of the duty paid by solicitors, though he, for one, considered that tax, like many others, was paid, not by the attorney, but by the consumer. He should censure hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House for supporting all these reductions of taxation, because he thought they ought to regard the reduction of the debt as a matter of far more prominent importance. It was from this feeling that he felt bound, though with great reluctance, to oppose the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthanked his hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock for the support he had given him in resisting this Motion. He hardly knew what more he could say on the subject, than he had already said on the three or four occasions when he had had to oppose propositions for reducing or repealing taxes. He had stated what sum he thought it necessary to maintain to meet contingencies, and how he proposed to apply the surplus that would be left, and the House had confirmed him in the course he then took; he could not, therefore, consent to any proposition which would interfere with that arrangement. He quite agreed that it would be impossible to have an ad valorem duty on advertisements. The duty had been reduced from 3s. to 1s. 6d., and the hon. Gentleman admitted that since the reduction the number of advertisements had almost doubled. This

1243
showed that considerable benefit had already been given in this item of taxation. He did not hold himself bound to prove that any tax was beneficial, or to show that it was not liable to objection; but the question was, whether, if the House were prepared to remit taxation, this precise tax upon advertisements ought to be first chosen. He thought the taxes which pressed on the articles of consumption, and on the lower classes of the people, were those which had the first claim on public attention. No doubt hopes were entertained by many, that every tax would be abolished; but as no Chancellor of the Exchequer could carry on the public service without money, it was utterly impossible to realise the happy days when all taxes would be done away with. There was no end to the Motions and suggestions which were made at present for the repeal of taxes. Some were for repealing the taxes on air and light, and others for repealing the taxes on knowledge and advertisements. He hoped the House would maintain the public service, and join with him in resisting this further attempt to reduce taxation, because it was utterly impossible that the financial credit of the country could be sustained if all the sources of public income were one after another frittered away. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would concur with him in opposing the Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, the address of the right hon. Baronet was an appeal to the House to this effect:—"I have made up my mind. I will not listen to any change of my plans, and therefore I will not enter into the particulars of this advertisement tax." He (Mr. Hume) objected to too great a deference being paid to the judgment of the right hon. Baronet in this matter. He knew that the Government of the country could not be carried on without money, but then it was the duty of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to obtain that money at the least possible inconvenience to the great mass of the community. The question was not whether the advertisement duty was new or old, but whether it bore on particular interests, and whether the amount it produced might not be obtained in a manner less burdensome to the people. The House ought to overrule the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, the more particularly if they thought with him (Mr. Hume) that he had made an unwise distribution of the
1244
surplus. What did the advertisement duty do? It prevented the giving of publicity to the various articles required by the community. Every man who had anything to sell wished to sell it to the best advantage, and every man who desired to purchase wished to do so to the best advantage. Both could effect their objects by means of advertisements, if the duty were repealed. In the United States, it not unfrequently happened that a single newspaper contained 10,000 advertisements. The consequence was, that the public knew at once where to look for what was to be sold and bought; and this was an immense advantage in a trading and commercial point of view. The panics most anxious to advertise were the poor—the persons who wanted and were seeking for employment. He believed that half the profit realised from advertisements were obtained from servants who were out of place, and looking for situations. If no other class except these were to be benefited by the present Motion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to be told at once that the tax must be repealed. If, indeed, the House were to be told that they must not interfere in the matter of taxation after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once issued his fiat, then they might as well shut up at once. It was because he wished to see knowledge prevail, and the springs of industry relieved, that he should most cordially support the Motion.
MR. EWART, in reply, observed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that objections might be taken to any tax; but when the House was in a position to remit taxation, the question was, what was the most objectionable tax; and he (Mr. Ewart) regarded this as one of the most objectionable duties now imposed. He hoped, therefore, that the House would as-seat to his proposition.
The House divided:—Ayes 39; Noes 208: Majority 169.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Ellis, J.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Greene, J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Heyworth, L.

Bright, J.

Hodgson, W. N.

Broadwood, H.

Hume, J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Hutching, E. J.

Cobden, R.

Keogh, W.

Corbally, M. E.

Kershaw, J.

Cowan, C.

Lushington, C.

Crawford, W. S.

Meagher, T.

Duff, J.

Mowatt, F.

Duncan, G.

Mullings, J. R.

1245

Nugent, Lord

Thompson, Col.

O'Connor, F.

Thompson, G.

Osborne, R.

Wawn, J. T.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Williams, J.

Pigott, F.

Wyld, J.

Pilkington, J.

TELLERS.

Scholefield, W.

Ewart, W.

Stanford, J. F.

Gibson, T. M.

JOURNEYMEN BAKERS.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, the Motion he was about to submit to the House was one which appealed to the best feelings of the heart. He had on a former occasion explained the grievances of which the journeymen bakers complained, and he could not believe that any serious objection would be made to his proposal. When he first brought forward the subject, he moved for a Committee to inquire into the sanitary condition of the journeymen bakers. To that Motion the right hon. Home Secretary replied, that as papers on the subject had been laid upon the table, there was no necessity for inquiring into matters which would be clearly developed in those papers. The right hon. Member for the University of Oxford then said he would prefer seeing a remedy applied by a Bill, rather than that the subject should be referred to a Committee. Last year he (Lord R. Grosvenor) moved for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit labour in bakehouses during certain hours of the night. The evils under which the men laboured were admitted, and it was not attempted to be proved that the remedy proposed would not be efficient; but a certain set of phrases were strung together, and all sorts of evil prophesied from the working of such a Bill were made, and leave was refused. The petitioners whose petitions he had presented at an early period of the evening stated that they had considered the arguments used against the proposed Bill, and believed the majority of the House were under a complete misconception as to the effects it would produce, and they prayed for a Committee of Inquiry. The right hon. Home Secretary had admitted that there might be a case upon the sanitary ground, and he (Lord R. Grosvenor) proposed now to delegate to a Committee of Inquiry whether the state of the bakehouses was not extremely prejudicial to health—those houses in which the food of the people was prepared. It was complained that they were in such a state as to injure not only the persons working, but the bread made there—an article liable to be affected by the air that was around it;
1246
and every one who had seen the horrid dens in which the greatest part of the bread was prepared in this town, and the dirty state of those who bad to prepare it, would concur in thinking that some sanitary regulations were necessary. If there were no other reason for a Committee, it would satisfy the men themselves, who must know whether they were suffering, and must be best acquainted with their own trade. He hoped he should not make this appeal in vain.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire whether any measures can be taken to improve the sanitary condition of the Journeymen Bakers."
LORD D. STUARTseconded the Motion.
SIR G. GREYwould have bsen glad if he could have felt it consistent with his duty to agree to the Motion; but the objections he had had to urge on former occasions remained unremoved. He felt the force of the argument urged on those occasions by several Gentlemen, that it was inexpedient to grant Committees of Inquiry founded upon such petitions, unless the House had some clear and definite conception of legislative measures that might be founded upon the report of such a Committee. When the noble Lord moved for a Committee of Inquiry two years ago, he was met by the argument that the evidence upon the subject of the condition of the persons in this trade was taken before the Sanitary Commission. Statements very painful to read were made, and it was impossible to deny that those persons were subject to very serious evils in the prosecution of the business in which they were employed; but the remedy proposed by the noble Lord was rejected by a very large majority, because it was felt that it would not only be violating the principles of political economy, but that it would be impossible to enforce it, and that if we proceeded to legislate for this trade, there was no reason why we should not be asked to legislate with regard to others. He (Sir G. Grey) believed, as he had said before, that arrangements might be made between employers and men, by mutual consent, which would tend to remedy many of the evils complained of; and that by looking to Parliament the parties were diverting their attention from the means by which they might attain a remedy. The petitioners asked for an opportunity of proving before a Committee that the House was wrong in

1247
rejecting the Motion of last year; but that was matter for the House, not for a Committee. The noble Lord had pointed to sanitary measures; if any peculiar sanitary measures were necessary as applicable to this trade, they might be taken under powers already subsisting, or new powers might be asked for from Parliament; but Parliament had all the information which would enable it to legislate, if legislation was desirable. He (Sir G. Grey) had always avowed his opinion, that legislation would not accomplish the object the parties had in view, and that the Committee asked for would be inoperative and have no practical effect. To agree to the Motion would be acting contrary to principle, only to insure ultimate disappointment. Participating in the benevolent desire of the noble Lord, he must, with great regret, object to the appointment of the Committee.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that when the parties on whose behalf this Committee was moved ascertained that it was opposed on no better grounds than those just advanced by the right hon. Gentleman, they would arrive at the conclusion that their case had not been fairly met. It was urged against the present claim that other callings and trades would bring forward their grievances also; but all he could say to that was, that if Parliament went on refusing to allow these parties to give evidence of their grievances, it was not very likely that the working classes would much longer persist in their attempts to get their condition ameliorated by appeals to the Legislature. Now, bearing in mind what we saw going on around us in other countries, he did not think it wise to turn a deaf ear to claims so unanimously preferred. Although evidence might already have been collected, he thought a Bill on the subject would come with all the greater force if founded upon the more recent statements of the journeymen bakers. When the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex proposed to bring in a Bill, he was opposed; and when he suggested a Committee, he was told to introduce a Bill; but if these parties were thus driven from pillar to post, they would come to the conclusion that Parliament was either unable to mitigate their grievances, or unwilling to inquire into them, or they would conclude that, under the guise of modern philosophy and dogmatical rules, the Legislature were only showing their incapacity to deal with a complex question. He did not
1248
think that these grievances could be settled by private agreement, and feared that, unless Parliament stopped in, the working people would break out in disaffection, and not omit opportunities of showing that their feelings had been alienated from their rulers.
MR. BRIGHTunderstood that the noble Lord wished the inquiry to extend to the places in which these men worked, and the time they were employed. The noble Lord had even spoken of their disgusting dirtiness. But he (Mr. Bright) could not understand how Parliament could take steps to alter the buildings in which they labour, or to make them more cleanly. He did not see how Parliament was to interfere directly and avowedly with the labour of adult men. Indeed, the noble Lord's clients, however much they might suffer, seemed to be in a very good position to plead their own cause, for they had an organ of their own, termed the Bakers' Gazette and General Trades' Advocate. By a copy of it, which he held in his hand, he was happy to observe that the stamp authorities had not put their impress upon it, and that it could be sold for three halfpence. That the House might know what were the principles now being propounded to Parliament, he would read from this publication a few sentences from an article which contained opinions identical with those expressed by the noble Lord, and with the principles of the measure he brought forward last year. The article was entitled "Wages and Labour," and referred to a case which was brought before one of the police offices, showing for how small a sum a needlewoman had been compelled to work, and complaining of the want of some law to protect labour. The particular case was that of a poor woman who was allowed but sixpence per pair for making corduroy trousers. He put it to the House whether there was anything in any of the projects of Robert Owen, or of any of the Socialists of the day in France, more clearly of the nature of what we understood by Communism than what was contained in that article. The men whose case the noble Lord advocated were grown up men, and, as it appeared, not ordinary men, but Scotchmen. Now, if there was one class of men on the face of the earth better able than another to take care of themselves, it was Scotchmen. If the condition of these north country bakers was horrible, he took it that there was something more horrible still in their own

1249
country, from which they had fled. If he were in the position of the noble Lord, he should be ashamed to stand up in defence of about 200 stalwart Scotchmen, who could publish a Gazette of their own, and write articles in it of considerable literary merit, and appeal for a remedy to that House, already bowed down with the weight of great public duties. It would be endless work if Parliament were to undertake to make all bakeries comfortable, instead of being as they were described—horrible dens of discomfort and dirt.
LORD D. STUARThad not heard a single reason why the Committee moved for should be refused. It had been said that no good could possibly result from giving themselves the trouble of going through a fresh investigation by the means of a Committee. Was it any reason that justice should not be done to these poor men, because they had friends who supported their cause through the agency of the public press? Was it a reason when poor people were oppressed, that they should be further oppressed, because some persons were found to take up their cause? Surely, when people had a right to demand a redress of grievances, the best way was to solicit, and if possible obtain, the support of the public press. The peaceful agitation which the press created was evidently the most advantageous mode of gaining any legitimate object in public affairs. There might be hundreds, perhaps thousands, employed as bakers. Of this there could be no doubt, that petitions on the subject came from all parts of the kingdom. He would ask, then, when thousands were dependent for their health and morals on the legislation of that House respecting the present subject, when the lives of those men were in danger of being shortened by the present defective state of the law, would the House deliberately refuse to grant an inquiry? The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had told them that all the information which could possibly be obtained on the subject was already before them; but how could be or any one assert that a great deal of information might not yet be obtained? He should not detain the House longer than to say that he had resolved to give his noble Friend all the support in his power on this subject.
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, he felt himself called upon to take some notice of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester. He had himself been accused
1250
of being somewhat too much of a political economist, but if he could imagine that the science of political economy necessarily led to such opinions as those expressed by the hon. Member for Manchester, it would greatly alter his sentiments on that subject. It appeared to him that great injustice had been done to the petitioners in this case, and it appeared to him also that the case of the corduroy trousers had nothing whatever to do with the question before the House. They had been told that the investigation of this matter by a Committee was wholly needless. Now, on the contrary, it appeared to him that a great deal of information was yet wanted, if not for legislation within the walls of that House, at least for the purpose of influencing public opinion out of doors. Hon. Members were hound to recollect that great numbers of the industrious population of this great town were employed in the very useful trade of bakers, and that theirs, as well as every other case of substantial grievance, ought to be looked into. He should most cordially support the Motion.
MR. S. CRAWFORDthought that the House ought not to turn a deaf ear to such complaints; he should, therefore, vote for the Motion of the noble Lord.
LORD R. GROSVENOR, in reply, said that the petitioners ought not to be held responsible for all that appeared in the paper to which the hon. Member for Manchester referred; for they, like himself, had probably no more connexion with it than arose from taking it in.
The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 94: Majority 50.

List of the AYES.

Beresford, W.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Best, J.

Lushington, C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Meagher, T.

Blandford, Marq. of

Morris, D.

Broadwood, H.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Castlereagh, Visct.

O'Connor, F.

Cobbold, J. C.

Osborne, R.

Cowan, C.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Crawford, W. S.

Pigott, F.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.

Power, Dr.

Disraeli, B.

Prime, R.

Duncan, G.

Sandars, G.

Dundas, G.

Sidney, Ald.

Dunne, Col.

Somerset, Capt.

Fagan, W.

Stanford, J. F.

Fellowes, E.

Stuart, Lord D.

Floyer, J.

Sullivan, M.

Granger, T. C.

Thompson, Col.

Greenall, G.

Thompson, G.

Greene, J.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Herbert, H. A.

Wawn, J. T.

1251

Williams, J.

Wyld, J.

TELLERS.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Stafford, A.

KINGSTOWN AND HOLYHEAD MAILS.
SIR R. BULKELEY SIR R. BULKELEY moved for a Select Committee to investigate and report upon the contract for the conveyance of the mails between Kingstown and Holyhead. The House would recollect that some years ago a company was formed for the purpose of making a railway to Chester and Holyhead, and power was given to the company to possess steamboats. They constructed four steamboats, and Government thought fit to enter into competition with them as carriers. In the year 1849 the Government, however, announced that they were ready to receive tenders for the conveyance of the mails, by contract, between Kingstown and Holyhead; and it was to be supposed that the parties with whom they would enter into that contract would be the Chester and Holyhead Company, who had the boats. However, the directors of the Chester and Holyhead Company discovered that the Government were in communication with the City of Dublin Company; and finding that that company had agreed to carry the mails for 45,000 l., and that the Government were about to close the contract with them for that sum, the Chester and Holyhead Company stepped in and offered to convey the mails for 35,000 l. Instead of closing the contract with them for that sum, it was again opened for public competition; and the Chester and Holyhead Company, finding there was a strong feeling against them at the Admiralty, did not make a tender, but gave them to understand that they were ready to take the contract at 30,000 l. This information was conveyed to the City of Dublin Company, and they ultimately closed the contract with Government for 25,000 l. Now, he begged the House to consider what the consequences must be. The saving would not amount to 5,000 l. a year; and the House should also understand that the City of Dublin Company, though ostensibly trading from the city of Dublin, were, in fact, a Liverpool Company. It was their interest to injure as much as possible the direct line to Holyhead. When it was proposed to make an Asylum Harbour at Holyhead, they were petitioners against it, and spent a considerable sum to prevent an undertaking of that kind competing with Liverpool. In the case of the Birkenhead
1252
Docks, no sooner had the promoters of that great scheme began to look for a return upon their capital than the Woods and Forests stepped in and claimed the shore grounds, almost to the entire destruction of the company; and, here again, after a railway company had spent upwards of 4,000,000 l., including 160,000 l. on the construction of steamboats, and just as they were about to reap the fruit of their undertaking, the Admiralty came in and adopted a company whose direct interest it was to injure and ruin, if possible, the interests of that railway. At present, any gentleman going to Ireland, left London at nine o'clock in the evening, and at half-past ten o'clock the same evening was in Kingstown-harbour; but if the finances of the Chester and Holyhead Company became low, they must take off the express trains, and then the only means of going to Ireland would be by the mail at night, sailing next morning from Holyhead, and arriving in Dublin in sixteen or seventeen hours. If a person objected to travel by night, he might go to Liverpool by day, and at seven o'clock he would find a boat belonging to the City of Dublin Company, ready to sail for Kingstown; but that boat, instead of going direct to Kingstown, would turn into Holyhead for a bag of letters. If it were the feeling of the House that the continuous line of communication between London and Dublin was of no consequence for private comfort, or the purposes of Government, then he could not expect their support; but if they thought it of consequence, both for the purposes of Government and the convenience of Irish Members, he hoped the House would give their support to his Motion. The fact was, that when the express boats were taken off, Dublin, in point of time, would not be a bit nearer to London than it was ten years ago.
MR. F. FRENCHdid not think that the Chester and Holyhead Company had any right to complain. If there was any cause of complaint, it was on the part of the Dublin Steam-packet Company. It was known that tenders would be taken by the Admiralty; but this company, that now complained, did not send in any tender. A tender was sent in by the Dublin Steam-packet Company, and everything was nearly fixed on, when, at the last moment, not for the purpose of making money, but for the purpose of thwarting the Dublin Steam-packet Company, a tender at a lower rate was sent in by the Chester and

1253
Holyhead Company. The Government said, they could not conclude the bargain, but would again open the contract for competition; and the Chester and Holyhead Company having again gone into the market, were under-bid by the Dublin Steam-packet Company; and now the hon. Baronet came forward, under these circumstances, with a complaint against Her Majesty's Government. With regard to the allegation that the Dublin Steam-packet Company was a Liverpool Company, he begged to say that the great proportion of the capital of the Dublin Company was held by Irishmen. There would be as rapid communication between London and Dublin by the boats of the Dublin Steam-packet Company as there could be if the contract were in the hands of the Chester and Holyhead Company.
SIR F. T. BARINGsaid, he came down to the House rather with an impression that this was a squabble between the two companies, but the hon. Baronet had made charges against the Government and the department over which he had the honour to preside. He thought that in all cases where there was a doubt thrown on a department that it had acted fairly and honestly in regard to a contract, so far from shrinking from inquiry, that inquiry ought to be sought, and in this case he should seek it. But in so doing, he trusted the House would not for a moment give credence to the statement which the hon. Baronet had made, and which he was sure he must have given from the instructions of other persons. He (Sir F. T. Baring) was cognisant only of the latter part of the transaction, but he could scarcely recognise it as the same from the statement of the hon. Baronet. The facts of the case transpired, some of them, before he was in office; but he apprehended the case stood thus: It was quite true that on the recommendation of the Committee the railway company had power given them to run steamers; but the Committee never intended that the Government should only employ those steamers, and that this company should have a monopoly of Government employment. What were the facts? The Government had steamers on the line before. The company competed with them, not they with the company. He was afraid it had not been a profitable business for the company. The company had offered by private arrangement with the Treasury to take the mails; but they asked so much that the Treasury would not accept the
1254
terms. Then came the report of the Committee of the House of Commons, which stated very properly that in all these cases they should have recourse to public competition. They put it up to public competition, and this company did not tender. There was only one tender, and Government had communication with the parties who made the tender, with the view of bringing them to lower terms; and there was a prospect of some agreement being come to, when the Chester and Holyhead company put in a fresh tender, offering to do it for a less sum. He did not think that was a fair way of conducting business. However, Government put it up to public competition again, and again the Chester and Holyhead Company were beat. Government took the lowest tender, and surely the company had no right to complain. He was sorry the company had so managed their business, and that their competition with the Government had not been profitable. It was their fault, and not the Government's. In granting the Committee, he begged it to be understood that the Committee could only be as against the Government, because, so far as the Dublin Steam Packet Company was concerned, they had entered into the agreement, and it would not be broken off. The parties were now actually in operation, and, of course, the faith of the Government was pledged, and the public faith should not be broken whatever might be the opinions of the unfortunate parties belonging to the other company. On looking round, he could not help thinking that there were parties in the House who had some connexion with the unfortunate company, and who were not quite disinterested in the course they would take.
MR. S. HERBERTwas glad to hear the explanation of his right hon. Friend, for it gave a different colour to what he had heard respecting this transaction. With respect to the proceeding when the first public competition took place, it was represented to him not as a public tender, but as a private negotiation between the Dublin Company and the Government. [Sir F. T. BARING: That negotiation was between the Government and the other company.] He was glad to say the statement of the right hon. Gentleman set that at rest, unless in Committee the contrary allegation should be proved. He doubted very much that the Dublin Steam Packet Company could perform the service at the amount agreed to, for if a company with

1255
vessels could not do it, much less could it be done by a company without vessels. The railway company had spent an enormous sum on their undertaking; they had spent also a large sum on the harbour of Holyhead, and, therefore, he conceived, had the first claim on the Government. The state of the case was one which required consideration to see how far the public interest would be promoted by the arrangement now made. As he understood it, the Dublin Steam Packet Company, having no ships, should procure ships to compete with the railway company, with four of the fastest steamers in the world. The railway company having ships, could still remain on the line, and what would happen would be this: the Dublin Company being obliged to carry the mails, the railway company would send a train with a light engine to carry the mails; another train with passengers would be despatched within a short time afterwards; the consequence would be that the Dublin Company's boat should take the mail without passengers, while the railway company's boat would convey the passengers. The result might be that both the companies would be ruined, and, between them both, the public service would not be advanced.
MR. B. OSBORNEconceived that they were to take up this question, not as a local squabble between two companies, but as one affecting the interests of England and Ireland. He dared say the fact of this railway having been established would be one of the arguments used on Monday night next in support of the proposition for abolishing the Lord Lieutenancy. He thought the First Lord of the Admiralty had given a fair answer to the charge that had been made, and consequently with that part of the question he had nothing to do; but he must say this, that, considering the great inducements that were held out to this company to lay out their money on this line—not a line merely projected for private advantage, but a line in which great national interests were involved—there was an impression abroad that that company had not been treated with the consideration its merits demanded. They were also induced to lay out 200,000 l. in improving the harbour of Holyhead. [An Hon. MEMBER: They have not paid a sixpence towards it yet.] The course that was being pursued towards them would prevent them from doing so, or from completing one of the grandest undertakings of modern times
1256
—the construction of the tubular bridge over the Menai Straits. The question whether they should arrive from London in Dublin in seventeen or in thirteen hours might be one of life or death in the latter country. A report also had got abroad that the Admiralty had let the docks at Holyhead to the Dublin Company for 200 l a year, though the Chester and Holyhead Company would give 800 l. or 1,000 l. for it; but that would also be a question for the Committee. In consequence of the Government taking away the contract from the railway company, the railway would not be completed to the pier, and the conveyance of the mails would be delayed.
MR. MANGLESshould not have said one word had it not been for the taunt of the First Lord of the Admiralty, who said that he did not wonder at this debate, because he saw so many present in connexion with the railroad. He (Mr. Mangles) had also looked round, and he believed he was the only individual in the House who was, in the least degree, connected with the company; and, with the exception of his interest in the North Western Railway, he had not a shilling in the Holyhead Railway. The right hon Gentleman had stated the truth as far as he had gone, but he had only stated it partially. It was true that an offer was made by the Chester and Holyhead Company to carry the mails before it was put up to public competition—he was speaking without book, for ha came to the House unconscious of the Motion being about to come on, and he had brought no papers with him. The company said they would carry the mails, and asked, he believed, 35,000 l. The Admiralty replied that the demand was exorbitant, and that the passage money nearly covered the expenses. But the Admiralty made no allowance for the prime cost of vessels—for their own were paid for by the country—for wear and tear, or for insurance, for they never insured; and they made their estimate as if they could carry the mails for the wages and coals. The company stated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they did not want to make any profit whatever on the communication across the Channel, but would be content with the profit derived from the railway; and that they would make an allowance for the passengers, and take the mails for an interest of 5 per cent upon their outlay; but the Admiralty refused, and were pluming themselves now on having saved 5,000 l. a year, which

1257
they had done by retarding, by many hours, the communication with Ireland. This was a most singular instance of a commercial undertaking hating been brought to the brink of ruin by the injustice of Government. Even when the undertaking was commenced, its promoters told the Government that it would not pay per se, and that they would hot commence it unless they had the advantage of carrying the mails. Taking advantage of the railroad mania then raging, the Government screwed the contract down to 30,000 l., which was a less sum than would now be awarded by arbitration. The next thing was this: Mr. Stephenson, the engineer, was planning a bridge of iron over that enormous strait, which would have cost 250,000 l. Of course, being built on arches, the summit of which was on a level with the roadway, the spring of the arch was something lower than the centre. The Admiralty immediately said, "This cannot be; we cannot suffer any obstruction to the Menai Strait; you shall not cross the strait with a bridge at all, unless you cross it on a level." They supposed that impossible; but engineering talent had overcome that difficulty, and the strait was crossed on a level. The Government bad forced the company—not induced them, as the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex said—to build the tubular bridge, which would cost nearly 700,000 l., instead of 250,000 l. The company did not want to make any profit by the mail communication; they would have been satisfied with doing it at its bare cost. What they wanted Was to make a continuous communication between London and Dublin via Holyhead, the most rapid and efficient that was possible. Their interest in that respect is absolutely identical with that of the public. They had built boats, which Were now running on at that station at a pace, and doing the work in a manner, which would have been thought, a very few years ago, to be impossible upon scientific principles. The third thing was, the Government had said to the company, "You must contribute 200,000 l. towards the harbour at Holyhead;" and, if they had not actually paid the money, it was only on account of their extreme poverty; they were unable to pay the money, but they were under an obligation to pay it, which the Government could enforce to-morrow. The Government, taking advantage of the circumstance of the company having
1258
a Bill before the House, had compelled them, nolens volens, to make that contribution; and when the correspondence came before the public, it would be found that the invitation so called was very much in the nature of compulsion. Throughout the whole of the transactions, the Government had never held out a helping hand to this great national undertaking—an undertaking which would, no doubt, shortly be urged as a ground why it was possible to save the country the expense of maintaining a Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. They had rather done their best to screw money out of them, and thus depress them; and every impartial man, who knew the circumstances of the case, and the way the company had been dealt with, expressed his astonishment and displeasure at the course the Government had pursued.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would have been much more convenient had a good deal of this discussion been postponed, or reserved for the Select Committee, by whom the matter could be fairly gone into. He had only three observations to make with reference to the statements of the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House. The greater part of the transactions to which he referred had taken place five years ago. The whole of the arrangements with the Post Office, the whole arrangements as to the building of the bridge, had taken place, not during the existence of the present, but of a former Government. Was it not, then, far better that those transactions should be inquired into before a Committee, than that the Government should be asked to enter into explanations of things of which they knew nothing? The Committee would be granted, and the whole matter would come before them, for, of course, there could not be the slightest object in concealment. Then the facts would come out, though, perhaps, not quite in the shape in which the hon. Gentleman stated them. When he said that nothing in the world had been done by the Government towards giving the company a helping hand, he would ask him—referring only to transactions which had happened between himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and the company—if he had not paid money to them which, though earned, was not actually due; and whether, on the other hand, he had not refrained from pressing them for money which was most indisputably due from them? If this were so.

1259
was it a proof that the Government had done nothing whatever to assist them? He would not go into the general attacks that had been made; instead of the House listening to contradictory statements on the one side and the other, he thought it would be better that the present debate should cease, and that the facts on both sides should be fully gone into before the proper tribunal.
MR. H. HERBERT, as an Irish Member, wished to tender his thanks to the hon. Baronet who had brought forward this subject, which was most intimately connected with the prosperity of Ireland. Whether regarded in that light, or as a further step to an accelerated communication between England and America, it was most important that the adjudication should be the speediest, the safest, and the best that could be adopted.
SIR R. BULKELEYsaid, he had heard nothing from the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty which materially answered his observations. Before Easter he had moved for certain papers on the subject; on more than one occasion he had jogged the memory of the Secretary to the Admiralty, who said that the papers would not take five minutes to copy; but up to that moment they had not been produced.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the papers referred to were in the hands of the printer; and if the hon. Baronet had waited till they were laid before the House, he would have been spared the trouble of making many of the observations which he had made.
Motion agreed to. Select Committee appointed.
The House adjourned at a Quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS,—1a Tenants at Rack Rent Relief; Distressed Unions Advances and Repayment of Advances (Ireland); Defects in Leases Act Amendment.
3a Indemnity.

FOREIGN CHAPLAINCIES BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for the Second Reading of this Bill,
EARL NELSONsaid, that since he had had the honour of introducing this measure, he had received the strongest requests from different quarters not to press the second reading, upon the ground that
1236
any discussion of ecclesiastical affairs at the present moment might interfere with that calm consideration which such a subject as the present was entitled to receive. Under these circumstances he should postpone the further progress of the measure till after Whitsuntide.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEwas glad to hear the noble Earl's intention to postpone the Bill, because it was one to which Her Majesty's Government could not give their assent. It was a measure which, to some extent, infringed upon the prerogative of the Queen: and he hoped that when it was again brought before the House, the noble Earl would consent to withdraw it.
Order of the Day discharged.
House adjourned to Friday next.