Sitting of 14 April 1851

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Aylesbury, Richard Bethell, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Sale of Arsenic Regulation.
3° Expenses of Prosecutions.

ST. ALBANS ELECTION.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEbrought up the Report of the Committee.
House informed, that the Committee had determined—
"That Jacob Bell, Esq., is duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of St. Albans."
To be entered in the Journals.
House further informed that the Committee had come to the following Resolutions:—
"That, notwithstanding successive special adjournments of the Committee for the purpose of
144
procuring the attendance of persons whose evidence was proved to be most material to the prosecution of the case of the petitioners, such evidence has not been produced; and that, although all diligence has been used for the purpose of securing the attendance of the parties required, such endeavours have been unsuccessful.
"That it has therefore been impossible for the Committee to investigate thoroughly the allegations of the Petition referred to them.
"That it has been distinctly stated by some witnesses, and the general tenor of the evidence given leads the Committee to believe, that a system of gross corruption prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of St. Albans, and also on former similar occasions.
"That it is the opinion of the Committee, that further inquiry, by means of a Commission under legislative authority should he made, into the corrupt practices alleged to be customary at Elections for the Borough of St. Albans."
SIR R. H. INGLISwished to draw the attention of the House to the point which had so often been raised as to the legal constitution of the St. Albans Election Committee, namely, that whereas the law forbade a Committee on a controverted election to adjourn (except on certain specially excepted occasions) for more than twenty-four hours without the leave of the House being first asked and obtained, the Committee in this case had adjourned first and then asked permission, whereby he understood it had been held by hon. Gentlemen far more able to judge in the case than himself, that the Committee had ceased to exist. If that were so, then the Report which had just been presented, was no more the Report of a Committee of that House, than it was of a Committee of the Carlton or the Reform Club. He gave no opinion upon the merits of the case, for he had not read the evidence; but he was bound to say that though it appeared from these Resolutions that five hon. Gentlemen had stated their conviction that a system of gross corruption had prevailed at St. Albans, it was not equally clear to him, that these five Gentlemen constituted at the time a legal Committee; and therefore the House ought to be very careful how it seated Mr. A. or Mr. B. on the Report of a Committee which might have no right to be recognised as such. In order that this point might be settled before the House adopted the Report of what might turn out to be a defunct Committee, he should move that the Report be considered to-morrow, or on any other day that would be more convenient to the House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Act 11th and 12th Victoria, c. 98, required that after a Committee had made their Report to the

145
House, the House should order the same to be entered on the Journals.
SIR R. H. INGLIS: But here it is a question whether the Report made be not the work of a Committee which has ceased to exist, and, therefore, an invalid Report.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, that in consequence of what had passed in the House the other night, the Committee, in accordance with what seemed to be the general feeling of the House, was prepared that morning to hear any argument upon the point which had been raised. It had not, however, been alluded to by the counsel on either side; and therefore, as neither he nor any Member of the Committee thought it would be right or proper to broach the subject, they had heard the case to its conclusion, and formed their judgments upon its merits.
MR. BANKESthought the question was not one between the parties, but it was one in which the House was peculiarly concerned, affecting, as it did, the regularity, as well as the legality, of its proceedings. The further consideration of the question, which had previously been before them, had been adjourned till five o'clock that day; and he therefore suggested that the subject be postponed until after that hour.
SIR G. CLERKwas of opinion that they could run no danger of having their decision questioned elsewhere, if they merely recorded upon the Journals the Report of a Committee upon an issue which they had been specially appointed to try. The decision of the Committee upon the merits of a return was final against all parties whatever; and, if the House were to take upon themselves to say that the Committee had been guilty of some slight informality or irregularity, and they would not therefore record the Report, they would at once reintroduce all the evils with reference to deciding controverted elections which the Grenville Act, and, still more, the Act under which these Committees were appointed, were designed to remedy. Suppose that the Committee had decided otherwise, and declared the election to be null and void, would the hon. Baronet propose that a writ he not issued for a new election? [Sir R. H. INGLIS: Hear, hear!] The hon. Baronet was inclined to go the full length; but he believed that that Gentleman considered a Committee of the House was an altogether improper tri-
146
bunal for such inquiries; and he would remove them into another court. Whatever informalities, however, might have been committed, he (Sir G. Clerk) was convinced that the House was bound at once to receive the Report, and the Act made it imperative upon them to order it to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
The ATTORNEY GENERALagreed with the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down; and considered that if the House adopted the course proposed by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis), it might get involved in far more serious difficulties. The course which it was their duty to pursue was perfectly simple. The Act said that the decision of the Committee should be final to all intents and purposes; and in fact the simple duty of the House was merely to record the Report which the Committee made. It appeared that the question as to jurisdiction had not been raised at all by the parties interested; and, with great submission, he suggested that there was a Motion before the House on which they could discuss the subject. The Committee had brought in their Report: that Report was not objected to by any of the parties concerned, and therefore he apprehended that it must be received. With respect to the party in custody, he hoped that he would, under the circumstances, be discharged; but that was a subject which would come before them at another period of the evening.
MR. T. GREENEquite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk), and the hon. and learned Gentleman, for bethought that if the House followed the advice of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis), it would be establishing an awkward precedent. He was of opinion, however, that the whole subject ought to be taken into consideration, and that a Committee should be appointed for that purpose.
Report to lie on the table.
Minutes of Evidence to be laid before this House.

EXHIBITION OF THE WORKS OF INDUSTRY.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade a question relative to space in the Exhibition building being granted to exhibitors of inventions, who have been hitherto restrained from making application, or sending in their goods, by the delay which has taken place in passing the Designs Act Extension Bill.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that what had taken place was this. It was necessary for the Commissioners and the Executive Committee to know, at an early period, what amount of space would be required, and what articles would be sent in for exhibition; and the parties requiring space had been called on to send in their claims before the 31st of October last. The result was that twice the space the Commissioners had at their disposal was applied for. The various claims were referred to the local committees for selection; and they were advised at the same time what space could be allotted to each district. With regard to subsequent applications, such as those referred to, wherever, from unforeseen circumstances, any vacant space was left, owing to parties not sending goods who were expected to do so, or from any other cause, it was the object of the Executive Committee to distribute that space in a manner which would be most useful to the Exhibition, and most just to the various exhibitors. He had been asked whether there existed any intention on the part of the Board of Trade to make use of that power which was given them in an Act lately passed, to license any other place where persons having inventions which they had not been able to get into the Exhibition, might exhibit those inventions. He did not think the Board of Trade would he justified in extending those provisions of the Act to any exhibition except that in Hyde Park. But should it happen, contrary to his expectation, that inventions were excluded whose number and importance justified such a course, it would be in the power of the Board of Trade to adopt it. As far as his information went, he did not think there was at present any cause which would justify the Board of Trade in exercising that discretion.

THE METROPOLITAN SEWERS COMMISSION.
SIR B. HALLwished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of this Commission. He found, from a Parliamentary paper recently issued, that the Metropolitan Commissioners of Sewers had, during the last year, received no less than 91,000 l., and that they had expended in works 57,635 l., while the management and superintendence had cost 21,164 l., or 40 per cent upon the cost of the works executed. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether he could hold out hopes that any reduction
148
in the cost of the management of that Commission was likely to take place? He also wished to know when the report upon the Victoria-street sewer would be ready.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONwould answer the last question first. The Commissioners did not altogether acquiesce in the representations contained in the report that had been prepared upon the Victoria-street sewer. It had been made by a subordinate officer; and one of the most distinguished of his (Viscount Ebrington's) Colleagues being of opinion that it was not a correct report, the chief engineer had been directed to investigate and report upon the subject. When the two should he ready, he would lay them upon the table of the House. With regard to the expense of management, he had to state that, though under that general head 21,164 l. appeared to have boon expended, it must be remembered that the Commission of Sewers was not only a body for expending but also for collecting money, and that they comprised very extensive and complicated arrangements for collecting the rates from the vast number of householders within the metropolitan districts. He had carefully-gone through those expenses himself, and he had ascertained that of the 21,164 l. upwards of 3,500 l. was directly traceable not to the expenditure of the Commission, but to the collection of the ways and means which enabled them to carry on their works. It was further necessary that he should observe that the expenses of the Commission with regard to works had been only on account of works already executed, whereas the surveyors and engineers that they had paid had prepared in the course of last year the fullest specifications ready for contracts to be undertaken to the extent of 170,000 l. Those contracts would have been accepted if Parliament had so worded its Acts as to enable parties to consider that they would be justified in lending money upon them. As it was, all those works were entirely suspended at present.

ST. ALBANS ELECTION.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. AGLIONBYwould now remind the House, that, when the question was last before them, he had moved that Henry Edwards, having been informally committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-

149
Arms, should be discharged without the payment of fees; and that thereupon the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) moved, as an Amendment, that Henry Edwards be forthwith brought to the bar, and examined as to the allegations in his petition. Ultimately the Debate was adjourned, and he was happy to say now, upon resuming it, that they were relieved from all those technical difficulties and legal arguments which before surrounded it. The final report of the Committee having been received, recommending the appointment of a Commission to make a searching inquiry into the bribery and corruption which had prevailed at St. Albans, he thought it was now unnecessary, and would answer no good end to pursue the case further. In addition to Henry Edwards, who had been placed in custody without being heard, upon the charge of inducing witnesses to absent themselves so as to avoid giving evidence, there were four other persons against whom Mr. Speaker had issued his warrant, upon the report of the Committee that their testimony was required by the petitioners, and that they believed those persons to be absenting themselves in order to avoid being served with the summons of the Committee. As the case was now over, however, and no good end could be served by their attendance, he submitted that Mr. Speaker was using his power to no purpose, and that the warrants should be discharged. He begged to move that the warrants against George Sealey Wagget, John Hayward, John Skegg, and Thomas Burchmore be discharged, and that Henry Edwards be discharged out of custody without payment of the fees.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member, that the original Motion and Amendment must be first disposed of before his present Motion could be made.
MR. BANKESsaid, he thought the question before the House was, that Henry Edwards should be brought to the bar of the House. He had voted for that Amendment. He agreed with the hon. Member for Cockermouth, that the man had been hardly dealt with; and he would not have consented to forego the question on Friday, had he not learned that the party himself was satisfied to abide until Monday. He thought, however, the man ought then to be brought to the bar, that he might have an opportunity of affording any explanation he thought fit to the House. The question of the discharge of
150
the warrants was, in his opinion, a much more grave subject for consideration; for, if he understood the nature of the proceedings before the Committee, their inquiry had been defeated by the acts of the persons against whom warrants had been issued. If that were the case, so far from, wishing the warrants to be discharged, he would be disposed to contend that they should be strictly enforced, and that the persons against whom they wore issued should be brought to the bar to explain their conduct, which had defeated the ends of justice. The effect of their delinquency was, that the borough would now be represented in Parliament by an hon. Member who had been charged with holding his seat unjustly by another person who assumed to be unjustly deprived of that seat. He could not, therefore, agree to that part of the proposition which related to the discharge of the warrants. He must say also, that, if it was usual for persons in custody under similar circumstances to pay fees, he should object to the discharge of Henry Edwards without payment of fees.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought there was no reason for calling Edwards to the bar of the House, unless it was in-tended that he should receive a reprimand from Mr. Speaker.
MR. CHRISTOPHERinquired why, if Edwards deserved a reprimand from Mr. Speaker, the House should be asked to consent to his discharge without payment of fees?
The ATTORNEY GENERALcertainly could not concur in the proposal to relieve Edwards from payment of fees; on the contrary, he thought he ought to be required to pay them.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMER: He was, therefore, at a loss to understand why it was proposed that this man should be discharged at all. If, upon being brought to the bar, Edwards could satisfy the House that he had not been guilty of the contempt imputed to him, or if he made such submission as satisfied the House, they might agree to his discharge; but what was the position in which they at present stood? The Committee had made two Reports to the House. They represented, in their first Report, that Edwards had given money, and had used other improper means, in contempt of the authority of the House, for the purpose of frustrating its proceedings in investigating the charges brought against the sitting Member for

151
St. Albans, and had prevented witnesses from being served with the warrants of that House. What greater contempts of any judicial authority could possibly he committed? But there was another Report from the Committee before the House; and that Report told them that the contempt of Edwards had been perfectly successful—that be had effected his object— and that what he was charged with having done had prevented the possibility of prosecuting the inquiry. The hands of the Committee had consequently been paralysed, and they had been obliged to report to the House, that they had been unable to go into the investigation committed to them, because Edwards and others had, in contempt of the authority of the House, prevented witnesses from coming forward. If, after receiving such a Report, they determined that the man in custody should he discharged without any punishment, or even so much as a reprimand from Mr. Speaker, the House might as well give up its jurisdiction at once. He thought it was due to the jurisdiction administered by Committees under Acts of Parliament on behalf of the House, and due also to the dignity and authority of the House itself, that Edwards should not be discharged until he had been brought to the bar, nor—if there should be ground for further inquiry—until the House had determined whether it was necessary to pursue further inquiry or not.
The SOLICITOR GENERALconcurred in the remark of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Roundell Palmer) respecting the magnitude of the offence alleged to have been committed by Edwards. He thought the course taken by the House in this instance was perfectly correct, and in conformity with the precedent set by the Ipswich case. In the Ipswich case the highest authorities concurred in the view that in order to obtain necessary information from a party against whom the principal charge was that he was either absenting himself or keeping others absent, the proper course was to have him taken into the Custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and at once brought to the bar of the House to clear himself, if he could, or at all events to explain what had taken place. If that were done, or the man otherwise committed, it would be the natural course at once to have him brought to the bar of the House; and he quite agreed that Edwards had a right to be brought to the bar; but the House would recollect that a question had
152
been raised by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) tending to invalidate the whole proceedings of the Committee. When that case was raised, it was again suggested even then that Edwards might be brought to the bar before that point was determined; but the hon. Member for Cockermouth moved that the whole matter might stand over, and that the legality of the existence of the Committee should also be taken into consideration in reference to the Motion he was making. The hon. Member objected to the existence of the Committee and its competency to report, and that became the question upon which the principal part of the debate on Friday took place. Since that time they had had a Report from the Committee, which had been received and ordered to be entered on the Journals of the House. As far as the sitting Member was concerned, and the petitioner against him, he took it to be beyond all question their cases were both concluded by that Report, and that they never could again discuss the legal constitution of the Committee, or the terms of its Report; nor could there be any doubt as to the propriety of the House complying with the terms of the Act, and entering the Report on their Journals. A different question arose with reference to the individual in custody. If they decided that he should he heard at the bar, they would be obliged to hear him on the point of whether the evidence substantiated the charge, and also on the preliminary question of whether the Committee was so constituted that the report ought to have been adopted as a primâ facie evidence of the man's guilt. For it must he observed that the House proceeded on the Ipswich precedent, and adopted the Report of the Committee as primâ facie evidence of guilt. He had no doubt whatever that the man had been duly committed in point of form, in conformity with a power which the House had a right to exercise, and which, he was confident, could never be questioned elsewhere; the form of commitment was the same that had been used in the ease of Stockdale versus Hansard, and no court could call in question the propriety of the proceeding. But although no court could look behind their order, it was quite right that those who had committed the man should look behind it, and see whether they had been just in the whole of their proceedings with reference to the existence of the Committee, because, if there were any doubt with re-

153
spect to its existence, they would not have been justified in taking the report as primâ facie evidence. It did appear to him that, when a question of doubt arose, as in this case, they might do well in discharging this prisoner, who had been in custody for a week, upon payment of his fees. If the party had no wish to appear at the bar of the House to assert his innocence, he thought they would be perfectly justified in taking that course; but if, however, he wished so to appear, unquestionably he ought to be heard, supposing he chose to take that responsibility on himself. He would put an analogous case which occurred with respect to crime and criminals of a much more aggravated description than the present—he alluded to the Monmouth disturbances and the subsequent trials for high treason. Frost and others were then convicted of high treason in its most aggravated form. The House might remember that there could have been no question that those men would have been executed, except for a point of law of the most technical description. This was referred to the Judges, and a majority held that there was nothing in the objection; yet the consequence was that the men were transported for life, their lives being spared. If he were to ask any of the different members of the profession in that House, he thought there would be hardly any one who would not say that a grave doubt existed as to whether, when the Committee made its Report, it was at the time a valid Committee. Looking to that state of doubt, and to the further fact that there could be no beneficial effect to be arrived at in the present instance, except the punishment of the parties, he thought the House might take the middle course that was taken in the case of Frost, and consider Edwards sufficiently punished by the week's imprisonment and the payment of the heavy fees incurred.
SIR F. THESIGERthought that the House must be careful of the steps they took in this case, otherwise they would he apt to get into very great difficulty. The original question they were called upon to decide was, whether the House should discharge Edwards without payment of his fees; and on this an Amendment had been moved, that Edwards should be brought to the bar of the House. He would make this remark to the House, that Edwards had made no application at all at any time to be brought to the bar of the House, and on the occasion of the former discussion o hon. Member professed to have the au-
154
thority of Edwards for pursuing that course. Now, were they prepared to discharge Edwards, and without payment of his fees? He had no doubt that hon. Members had read the evidence which implicated Edwards in the offence of having endeavoured to keep witnesses away from giving evidence upon the petition in question. He had himself read the evidence very carefully, and had no doubt whatever as to the fact of Edwards having tampered with the witnesses. He could not imagine anything much worse than the conduct of Edwards had been; and the petition he had presented to the House praying to be discharged contained only an indirect and evasive denial of the facts. The consequence of his misconduct was, that justice had been defeated, and that the object of the petition in the St. Albans case had entirely failed, the petitioner having been unable to procure the attendance of witnesses, who, they were bound to assume, from the earnest endeavour to keep them out of the way, would have given most important evidence against the sitting Member. He could not quite agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General as to the course he had recommended, and the reasons for it. His hon. and learned Friend said, there was a legal doubt as to the existence of the Committee at the time of its reporting. If his hon. and learned Friend was correct in that view, what right had they, without further inquiry, to make Edwards pay the costs of his committal? But he thought there could be no doubt as to this part of the case. There was a conditional adjournment by the Committee—that was, an adjournment, provided the House should give leave for the Committee to adjourn to the day named, and the House did give leave. The entry was—
"Resolved— That the Chairman, on the application of the counsel for the petitioner, should apply to the House for leave to adjourn till eleven of the clock on Thursday next, in order to allow time to procure the attendance of the witnesses. Adjourned until to-morrow at eleven, in case the House should not give the power of adjourning to Thursday."
And on the next day, the House having given the power to adjourn, the Committee adjourned to Thursday at eleven. He therefore felt convinced that the conditional adjournment was made good by the House having given the power demanded. When the parties met on the day fixed, no objection whatever was made to the legality

155
of the Committee, and the proceedings continued. It was afterwards that the evidence was given which affected Edwards, and on the 4th of April he went to the house in Cottage-place, where Waggett lived. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the Committee had then a legal existence, and power to report. But they did not need the report of a Committee for a proceeding of this kind. If the House was informed in any other way, as by the statement of any hon. Member, that a person had been tampering with witnesses and endeavouring to obstruct justice, they would be perfectly justified in interfering and committing him to custody. There was nothing extraordinary in his having been committed without being-brought to the bar. He found a case, even in the common-law courts, where a party, on affidavit, was charged with having endeavoured to keep a witness out of the way to prevent him being served with a subpoena. The Court of Common Pleas instantly issued an attachment of the party, and it was not discharged except on his agreeing to produce the witness and paying the costs of the Motion. Why should they here at once discharge Edwards, who had been guilty of this great contempt, interfering with the privileges of that House, and acknowledging the object he had in view of stifling a most important inquiry? He confessed he was not disposed at present to discharge Edwards at all. Edwards, he believed, was a professional man. [An Hon. MEMBER: No; he is not.] He thought he had been so, and therefore could not have the excuse of ignorance. When a person, having conducted himself in this way, was triumphing in the success of his artifices, was he to be discharged without the slightest submission on his part, or the slightest, acknowledgment of his offence? Until Edwards had made a proper submission, he, for his part, should unquestionably not consent to his discharge.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that Edwards had been committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms upon the order of the House for a specific purpose—that he might be produced to give evidence before the Committee; and he apprehended that, in conformity with the previous practice of the House, if they retained him any longer in custody, he ought to be committed to Newgate as a punishment. He (Sir G. Grey) quite agreed in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon
156
(Sir F. Thesiger), in his condemnation of i the conduct of Edwards. There certainly could be no sympathy for a man who had used his professional knowledge to obstruct the course of justice with regard to an inquiry instituted by that House; but as some doubts existed as to the validity of the Committee at the time they made their Report, he thought the House should be careful not to involve themselves in any difficulty. He considered that they ought not to continue Edwards longer in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, the object for which he was committed to that custody having ceased to exist. He had, however, been under the impression that nearly all the legal authorities in the House had a doubt as to the legal existence of the Committee; and if such a doubt existed, the House might be unwilling to assume the guilt of Edwards on the Report of that Committee. But it appeared that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon entertained no such doubt. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were correct in that view of the case, and if Edwards ought to be further punished—and he (Sir G. Grey) did not feel at all satisfied that he ought not to be—then the proper course would be to commit him to Newgate.
MR. AGLIONBYwished to state that he had been informed Edwards was not a professional man. He was never either an attorney or an attorney's clerk. He had been a banker's clerk, and was now a farmer.
MR. C. ANSTEYsaid, they had not now to consider whether they could compel Edwards to do anything to further the administration of justice, but whether he had been guilty of a high offence against the privileges of Parliament and the law of the land, and, if so, whether it was seemly that the House should dismiss him without punishment. It had been erroneously stated on a previous occasion that Edwards had not met his accusers; but it appeared from the Minutes of the Committee that he was personally confronted with two witnesses, who identified him. He wished to know from the hon. and learned -Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) what he proposed to do, even if Edwards should appear at the bar and say that the witnesses against him had not spoken the truth. The Motion he should make was that Edwards be brought to the bar, and confronted with the witnesses again, lie entirely assented to the view of the hon.

157
and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon; and under these circumstances could vote neither for the Motion nor the Amendment.
The MASTER OF THE ROLLSsaid, he wished to state why he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Cocker-mouth (Mr. Aglionby) ought not to be acceded to, and that Edwards had not put himself in a situation to entitle him to be discharged. It was admitted that, if the evidence was to be believed, he had been guilty of a grave offence. He had presented a petition commenting upon the evidence, and seeking to show that it did not amount to proof of his being guilty of a Breach of Privilege; but he did not seek to come before the House to give explanation, but put forth a general denial of the offence. It was a rule of law that where evidence was suppressed, it must be taken to be of the very strongest description against the party withholding it, and it must be taken that Edwards was aware of that. Therefore it ought to be supposed that the evidence which had been kept out of the way was of the most vital importance to the petitioners. Now, it was plain that Edwards could not remain where he was; he ought to be either committed to Newgate or discharged. But he (the Master of the Rolls) had never hoard of any person who had been committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms or to Newgate having been discharged without that person's having presented a petition to the House expressing cither his contrition for his offence, or the fact of his having committed it through ignorance. If Edwards should pursue either of these courses, he might be discharged from custody, but not without the payment of his fees, for that amounted to a declaration that he had not been properly committed. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon that the question of the legality or illegality of the adjournment of the Committee had no immediate connection with the point which they had then to consider. It appeared that any hon. Member of that House might upon his own responsibility state that some other person had been guilty of a Breach of their Privileges, and upon that statement the House might commit that person if they should think fit. It appeared to him that Edwards ought then to present a petition to the House, explaining his conduct, or expressing contrition for his offence, and that if he did not pursue that
158
course, the House ought to send him to Newgate. But as the Easter holidays were at hand, and as it might be a serious disadvantage to Edwards to be compelled to remain in prison until the House should reassemble after Easter, he would suggest that they should adjourn that debate until to-morrow, and so afford an opportunity of presenting in the meantime a proper petition to the House.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYmust remind the House that this person had been committed for a gross contempt of the authority of the House; and it was said, it seemed, that he was to come forward and take an objection to some irregularity which, even if it existed, had probably been cured. The Committee represented that the investigation ought to be carried on by a Commission; and was the House to set this man at liberty, to enable him still further to defeat justice? The right course was, to send him to Newgate; and the only further question was, whether the Attorney General should be directed to prosecute him.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, all were agreed that Edwards should not be set loose. The question then was, where was he to remain that night? He should be either sent to Newgate or afforded an opportunity to free himself of the charge against him. In the meantime he (Mr. Roebuck) thought it better to have him sent to Newgate, from whence he might appeal to the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLconsidered the case a very embarrassing one. This individual (Edwards) had been, in the first instance, ordered into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, but at the same time the House ordered that he should remain in the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and that he should be brought by him before the Committee to be by them examined. Well, the Committee had ceased its functions, and the question now was, what should be done with Edwards? In the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms he could not remain; because, the Committee being dissolved, the purpose for which he had been consigned to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms had ceased. Therefore, they must either commit him to Newgate or discharge him. In his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion it was desirable to adopt the course suggested by the Master of the Rolls, namely, not to decide the question now, but adjourn it till to-morrow. If to-morrow there should appear no reason for assenting to his discharge — in the

159
event of his not coming forward, or coming forward and failing to prove his innocence—then he should be either sent to Newgate, or ordered to be prosecuted. It was desirable that that House should vindicate the authority of its proceedings— and therefore fully agreeing in the suggestion of the Master of the Rolls, he moved the adjournment of the debate till Tomorrow.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned."
MR. HUMEthought it mere trifling with the House to think of adopting any one of these courses. If ever an individual deserved the censure of the House, as also the punishment, it was Edwards. By his conduct the means and objects of justice had been frustrated. The Committee had done their best to investigate the matter submitted to them; but all the means of arriving at a just or satisfactory cenclusion had been removed by Edwards. Under such circumstances he never recollected an individual being discharged without at least presenting a petition. In his opinion they ought to send Edwards to Newgate until he should have presented a proper petition to the House. Therefore, at present, they were only losing time. The matter had been already three times before the House, and if then adjourned, to-morrow would be the fourth time.
SIR R. H. INGLISthought it would be an anomaly to adopt the course of hearing Edwards at the bar, and receiving his unsworn assertions in opposition to the Report of a Committee of five sworn Members of that House, as also of the witnesses examined upon oath before them. If Edwards were to express his contrition the House might extend to him its mercy; but without such an expression of contrition, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not be disposed to allow him to be discharged.
SIR J. GRAHAMwished to ask this question, was Edwards committed for contempt, or for further examination? It appeared he was originally committed with a view to examination by the Committee; but if committed for contempt, he had done nothing to purge himself of it. He (Sir J. Graham) did not understand that any member of the Committee, indeed he might include the hon. Member for Cock-ermouth, was prepared to say that he disbelieved the report of the Committee, and believed the qualified denial of Edwards. If such were the state and merits of the case, the point raised by hon. Gentlemen
160
on the other side was in the highest degree technical. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) doubted very much if there was anything informal in the proceedings of the Committee previous to the adjournment; and, therefore, he (Sir J. Graham) spoke with great deference, after such high legal authority. But, if he was not much mistaken, there was no court in Westminster that would allow a party committed on a contempt, to plead informality in mitigation of his punishment. He did not think that this person was in a position to ask for any lenity from that House. He was therefore of opinion, that both the Motion and Amendment ought to be withdrawn, and that Edwards ought at all events for that night to be committed to Newgate. Let him to-morrow, before the House adjourned, present a petition to the House; and if couched in proper terms, he had no doubt it would be attended to by the House.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that the facts had not been proved against Edwards, as they should have been, previous to his committal. No tribunal in England would commit a man to Newgate without giving him an opportunity of defending himself from the charge made against him; and he thought that the House should not call upon a man to express contrition for an offence, the commission of which he denied. He thought that Edwards had in his petition clearly expressed his desire to be heard at the bar of the House, for he said therein that he "has never to his knowledge committed a Breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons, he submits to the justice of your hon. House that he should not be condemned unheard, or punished by imprisonment without having an opportunity of defence." It was for the House to say if they wanted any more formal expression of Edwards' desire to be heard. He (Mr. Aglionby) had communicated with the gentleman who placed Edwards' petition in his hand; had asked him whether Edwards wished to be heard at the bar; and had been told in reply that Edwards expected to be discharged on the technical point without being called to the bar; but that if he was not so discharged, he desired and was ready, at any time, to be called to the bar, and asked any question that the House might think proper. Even if the House thought that they should have a more formal petition from Edwards, he (Mr. Aglionby) thought that the House

161
would hardly, in the meantime, send him to Newgate for that night, when he (Mr. Aglionby) told them that Edwards desired to be heard at the bar.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, that Edwards had been committed to custody for contempt of the House upon a Report of the Committee, and he thought that the House must accept the contempt as proved by that Report. They could have no other evidence; for it was preposterous to think that they could have a trial at the bar of the House, and waste days in investigating the matter. If Edwards expressed contrition, it would be a different thing, the House might then extend its lenity to him.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought that the House ought not to commit Edwards to Newgate upon ex parte evidence taken before the Committee, or at all events without his being present, or having an opportunity afforded him of cross-examining the witnesses. This man had presented a petition praying to be heard at the bar. [An Hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He understood that he had, but he certainly thought that it would be hard that he should be sent to Newgate without being heard. A Motion was made the other day by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) that Edwards should be called to the bar, and the responsibility of that Motion having been defeated rested with the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), who had then said that he did not desire that Edwards should be heard at the bar. This matter had, in fact, been delayed so long by various means, that Edwards' petition was placed in rather an unfavourable position, and he thought, therefore, that if Edwards desired to be heard at the bar, he should not be sent to Newgate; if he did not desire to be heard, or, if being heard, he had nothing to allege in controversion of the facts stated by the Committee, no one who had made himself acquainted with the Report or the evidence upon which it was founded could doubt that there had been a gross violation of the Privileges of the House; and if Edwards did not purge himself of the contempt, or submit himself with that contrition which the House thought fit, he ought assuredly to be sent to Newgate.
SIR F. THESIGERsaid, that if they followed the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, they must not only hear Edwards' own statement in contradiction to the witnesses examined by the
162
Committee, but they must also hear witnesses on both sides (who were not under the sanction of an oath), and try the whole question afresh at the bar. There was no precedent that he was aware of for calling a person who had been charged with contempt, or Breach of Privilege, to the bar of the House, and there trying whether he was guilty of the offence or not. If Edwards had any ground for alleging that he had not been guilty of a Breach of Privilege, he should have asked the Committee to investigate the matter; and the House were bound to assume that the Committee had taken the best means to ascertain whether he had been guilty of a Breach of Privilege before they reported to the House. They were bound to believe that the Committee had fully investigated the matter, and were satisfied that Edwards was guilty of a Breach of Privilege, and therefore this was not to be taken as a mere ex parte statement. Although there was a, primâfacie appearance of hardship ill committing him to Newgate, he maintained that Edwards had brought himself by his own fault into his present position; and under these circumstances he was most unquestionably not disposed to accede to the delay proposed by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), because he did not think that Edwards had placed himself in a position to ask the indulgence of the House. He had not presented a petition asking for investigation or making his submission for his offence, and he therefore thought they should dispose of both the Amendment and the original Motion, and leave Edwards to bring himself again before the House by a proper petition.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that after carefully examining the precedents, he thought that, if the House committed a party to Newgate without hearing him, they would be taking a course which had never been pursued before, and one indeed which was contrary to the course pursued on previous occasions. He had not yet heard any suggestion made for allowing Edwards to enter into evidence at the bar of the House; all that was asked was, that he should be asked what he had to say to the Report of the Committee. In the Dunfermline case in 1803, a person named Trotter was reported to the House to have absconded, in order to avoid giving evidence, and on that report he was committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. When that officer reported that lie was in custody, Trotter was brought to

163
the bar of the House, the Report of the Committee was read to him, and he was asked what he had to say with respect to it. He was then ordered to retire; the House took the Minutes of the evidence adduced before the Committee into their consideration. It was moved that the House do agree with the Report of the Committee, and, upon that Motion being carried, Trotter was committed to Newgate. The next precedent, the Grantham case, in 1820, the parties were merely summoned to the bar (not in custody); the Report of the Committee was read to them; they were asked what they had to say to it, and, after they had been heard and had retired, a Motion was made and carried for their commitment to Newgate. In the Ipswich case, in 1835, the parties on the Report of the Committee were committed to custody, presented petitions confessing their delinquency, and of course they were not brought to the bar of the House, but were forthwith committed to Newgate. Now, in this case, the party, so far from confessing his delinquency, asserted that he was entirely guiltless of the charge; and although the House could not allow him to produce witnesses, nor could they enter into an investigation of the matter, he ought not to be placed in a worse position than Trotter, or the witnesses in the Grantham case. Was it just that he should be placed in a worse position than were the parties in the cases he had cited, and that he should be sent to Newgate without giving him an opportunity of being heard by himself or counsel? The question then was whether the House was prepared to make a new precedent by sending a man to Newgate without affording an opportunity of hearing what he had to say? His (the Solicitor General's) opinion was, that he ought to be brought to the bar and asked what he had to say to the Report of the Committee, before he was committed to Newgate. He ought to have an opportunity either of defending himself, or of confessing his guilt, and asking the mercy of the House.
MR. J. S. WORTLEYsaid, that Edwards had been daily in attendance before the Committee, and he should there have asked to be heard. The Committee had investigated the matter, and had reported to the House evidence which left not a shadow of a doubt upon the matter.
MR. VERNON SMITHwould remind the House that the question before them was one involving the liberty of a British subject, whose case was brought before
164
the House without his having had an opportunity of being heard in his defence. It was true that evidence had been given against him by two women, but he was brought before the Committee merely to be identified by those witnesses; the Committee asked him no questions, and, as he had had no hearing, he now asked to be heard by the House. He (Mr. V. Smith) did not wish to see these committals for contempt and Breach of Privilege carried to any extravagant extent, and he therefore thought it was due to the dignity of the House that they should not proceed hurriedly in this matter, but should give Edwards an opportunity of being heard, as the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) stated that he knew he desired it. The House had assuredly the power of committing to Newgate, but he still thought this power ought not to be carried to a tyrannical or arbitrary extent. He, therefore, considered that the party should get the chance of purging himself of the contempt by giving him an opportunity of presenting a new petition.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERwould not be a party to letting Edwards go without the House marking, in a proper manner, the sense which they entertained of his guilt; but he thought that they might, without any risk of compromising its dignity or privileges, accede to the course proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. That was to say, that if, on the following day, Edwards should not have presented a petition, either making his submission to the House, or varying the statement which was now before the House, he should be brought to the bar: that, in accordance with the precedents, the Report of the Committee should be read to him; and that he should then be asked what he had to say to it. Under the circumstances he (Mr. R. Palmer) should then vote for that course which he had indicated, and which, in his opinion, would best vindicate the dignity of the House.
Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 87: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Barrow, W. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bellew, R. M.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bernal, R.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bethell, R.

Bankes, G.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Baring, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Harrington, Visct.

Brisco, M.

165

Broadley, H.

Moffatt, G.

Brockman, E. D.

Mowatt, F.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connor, F.

Brown, W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Owen, Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Paget, Lord C.

Clay, Sir W.

Parker, J.

Cookburn, Sir A. J. E.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Pilkington, J.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Pinney, W.

Crowder, R. B.

Prime, R.

Denison, J. E.

Pusey, P.

Duncan, Visct.

Rawdon, Col.

Duncan, G.

Reid, Col.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Ricardo, O.

Ebrington, Visct.

Rice, E. R.

Ellis, J.

Rich, H.

Evans, Sir De L.

Romilly, Col.

Foley, J. H. H.

Romilly, Sir J.

Freestun, Col.

Russell, Lord J.

French, F.

Salwey, Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Scholefield, W.

Grenfell, C. P.

Seymour, Lord

Grenfell, C. W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sidney, Ald.

Grey, R. W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Harris, R.

Stansfield, W. R.C.

Headlam, T. E.

Stanton, W. H.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Thompson, Col.

Heywood, J.

Thornely, T.

Heyworth, L.

Towneley, J.

Hindley, C.

Townley, R. G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Townshend, Capt.

Hodges, T. L.

Tufnell, rt. hon. H.

Humphery, Ald.

Wakley, T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wall, C. B.

Langston, J. H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Wigram, L. T.

Lewis, G. C.

Williams, W.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Wilson, J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

M'Gregor, J.

Wood, W. P.

Mangles, R. D.

Wyvill, M.

Matheson, Col.

TELLERS.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Hayter, W. G.

Melgund, Visct.

Howard, Lord E.

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Anstey, T. C.

Drummond, H.

Baillie, H. J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Duke, Sir J.

Blandford, Marq. of

Dunne, Col.

Booker, T. W.

Du Pre, C. G.

Brown, H.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Cardwell, E.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Carew, W. H. P.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J.W.

Charteris, hon. F.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Chatterton, Col.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Christopher, R. A.

Fox, W. J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Frewen, C. H.

Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B.

Fuller, A. E.

Cocks, T. S.

Gaskell, J. M.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Gilpin, Col.

Coles, H. B.

Goddard, A. L.

Cubitt, W.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Currie, H.

Greene, T.

Currie, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Deedes, W.

Halsey, T. P.

Denison, E.

Henley, J. W.

Disraeli, B.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

166

Hogg, Sir J.W.

Richards, R.

Hotham, Lord

Roebuck, J. A.

Hume, J.

Sandars, G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sandars, J.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Seymer, H. K.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Knox, Col.

Spooner, R.

Lacy, H. C.

Stafford, A.

Lawley, hon. B.R.

Stanford, J. F.

Lockhart, A. E.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

M'Neill, D.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Mahon, Visct.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Milnes, R. M.

Tenison, E. K.

Mitchell, T. A.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Tollemache, J.

Mullings, J. R.

Tyler, Sir G.

Mundy, W.

Vane, Lord H.

Newport, Visct.

Verner, Sir W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Packe, C. W.

TELLERS.

Patten, J. W.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Palmer, R.

Debate further adjourned till To-morrow at Five o'clock.

ASSESSED TAXES ACT.
House in Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now, with the permission of the Committee, propose the following Resolution:—
"That the Duties granted by the Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, and now payable in England, Wales, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, and in Scotland, respectively, upon Dwelling Houses, and levied and assessed according to the number of Windows or Lights therein, as set forth in the Schedule marked (A) to the said Act annexed, shall be levied and assessed upon Inhabited Dwelling Houses in and throughout Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, in the manner following: that is to say—
"For every Inhabited Dwelling House, which, with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of twenty pounds or upwards by the year;
"Where any such Dwelling House shall be occupied by any person in trade, who shall expose to sale, and sell any goods, wares, or merchandise in any shop or warehouse, being part of the same Dwelling House, and in the front, and on the ground or basement story thereof;
"And also, where any such Dwelling House shall be occupied by any person who shall be duly licensed by the laws in force to sell therein, by retail, beer, ale, wine, or other liquors, although the room or rooms thereof, in which any such liquors shall be exposed to sale, sold, drunk, or consumed, shall not be such shop or warehouse as aforesaid;
"And also, where any such Dwelling House shall be a farm house, occupied by a tenant, and bonâ fide used for the purposes of husbandry only—
"There shall be charged for every twenty shillings of the annual value of any such Dwelling House, the sum of Sixpence.
"And where any such Dwelling House shall not be occupied and used for any such purpose and in

167
manner aforesaid, there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof, the sum of Ninepence."
SIR H. WILLOUGHBY SIR H. WILLOUGHBY moved that from the passage describing the property on which this tax was to be charged, the words "and gardens" should be omitted. The present proposition was to commute into a house tax such portion of the window tax as was not to be entirely repealed. He contended that it would not be fair to cast any portion of the new tax on property which was not previously subject to window tax. Now the window duty imposed under the 48th George III. fell exclusively on houses and offices. The house duty, which was repealed in 1834, attached itself to houses, offices, and lands. In the schedule "land" was explained to signify "gardens." Now he contended that no portion of the present house tax should be put upon gardens, which had never paid window duty. If the House did so, they, in fact, placed an income tax on gardens. If there was a house and garden, each being worth 10 l. a year (or 20 l. in all), they would be liable to the house duty. Now, no window duty could have fallen upon the garden, and, therefore, in pretending to relieve parties from the window tax, they were in effect about to impose a now tax upon them. If there was a class upon whom he believed that the House would not wish to impose a new tax, it was the owners of market gardens. It appeared to him, therefore, that the present proposition would impose a now and an unjust burden on a species of property which was not previously subject to the window tax; and unless he heard some sufficient reason from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for this course, he should divide the Committee on his Amendment.
SIR G. PECHELL,in seconding the Motion, said, that he disapproved of the principle of a house tax as a substitute for a window tax. When the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire drew the attention of the House a few nights previously to the agitation upon this subject which had prevailed in the metropolitan districts, he might have added that there were a great many other places which sympathised in that movement. They disapproved of the principle of a house tax; after agitating for so many years with his noble Friend (Viscount Duncan) to get rid of the window tax, and having succeeded in that, they did not contemplate a substitute for that odious impost. Those hon. Members
168
with whom he had the honour to sit were resolved to stick to their guns to the last in resisting the house tax, because they apprehended that it would be the nucleus of further taxation. What guarantee had they that if they now assented to a sixpenny or ninepenny tax, they might not hereafter be called upon to impose a tax of 1s. 6d. or 2s.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Willoughby) was quite right in saying that he had adopted the words of the old House-tax Act; and the same reason which led to the insertion of the word "garden" in that case, had led him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) now to adopt it. In many cases it was impossible to distinguish between houses in the country and houses with a certain quantity of garden adjacent and appurtenant to the house. He entirely admitted the force of the hon. Baronet's observation, with respect to market gardens, and would take care to obviate the difficulty by the introduction into the Act of words specially exempting from the tax persons who obtained a livelihood by the produce of their gardens. More than this, however, he could not undertake to do. He could not consent to separate country houses from the pleasure grounds and gardens immediately appertaining to them, for if he were to do so, the productiveness of the tax would be injuriously interfered with. He almost doubted the possibility of letting a house in the country without some extent of ground adjacent or appurtenant to it; and the effect of allowing an exception in cases in which the house was let for 18 l., and the approach to it for 6l., would be that the tax would fail to produce anything. He admitted that sometimes gardens might be so very extensive (perhaps eleven or twelve acres), that it would be unjust to identify them with the house, as making but one concern; but such cases had been specially provided for by the Window Tax Act, 48 Geo. III., cap. 55, which limited to one acre the extent of the garden, which was to be valued with the house. He had taken the assessment under the property tax, and, with that basis, the house tax would produce only 720,000 l., and he hoped the House would not, by introducing exemptions, which formed one of the worst features of any tax, allow the probable amount of the proposed tax to be frittered away. That was a very fair limit with respect to a country house; and, unless there was some reason

169
for deviation, it would be convenient to adhere to words which were well known, and with respect to which the Judges had pronounced decisions. He would, in a future stage of the Bill, introduce words which would exempt market gardens.
MR. HUMEsaid, he knew many instances in which the house was let to one person, and the garden to another.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in such cases the garden would not be assessed.
MR. HUMEmust confess that the limitation, with respect to the size of the garden, did away with much of the objection which might otherwise be heard against the Resolution, in its present shape. He was one of those who thought there was no necessity whatever for a house tax as a substitute for the window tax. He was not, however, opposed to a house tax as a measure of direct taxation; on the contrary, he thought it possessed many advantages, not the least important of which was, that it afforded an excellent criterion for the extension of the suffrage. He would much rather have seen the window tax repealed unconditionally, and in the case of deficiency a house tax imposed. With regard to the income tax, he would cheerfully vote for its imposition upon a fair principle, in order that other taxes might be removed which pressed injuriously on the industry of the country. He considered it was inexpedient to continue the taxes on soap, paper, and hops, in order to pay off the national debt. We were not obliged to liquidate the debt by the imposition of taxes, although we were compelled to pay the interest. They were now actually laying on a house tax for the purpose of paying off a portion of the national debt, because it appeared that, including the last sum of 640,000 l. laid out in the purchase of stock, no less than 2,300,000 l. of debt had been paid off within the last year or so. He admitted that a house tax would be a very good tax per se if there was any necessity for raising money, which he denied. He must complain that from the mode in which the question was brought forward, they were prevented from taking a division upon the question, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ingeniously proposed to substitute a house tax levied upon value for what he called a house tax previously levied upon windows. He objected to fresh taxes being laid on in order to carry out the financial schemes of the right hon. Gentleman. He was pre-
170
pared, if the proposition was brought fairly before the House, to vote for a gradual extinction of the national debt; but he was not prepared to impose burdens which would press severely upon the springs of industry when there was no necessity for such a tax. He entered his protest against the arrangement for exempting houses under the value of 20 l. per annum, while houses in boroughs of the value of 10 l. were entitled to a vote.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEsaid, it appeared to him that they were now imposing taxes on property which hitherto had not been subject to taxation. A great number of houses would be subject to this tax that were not subject to the window tax; and with respect to the introduction of gardens of an acre in extent, it should be recollected that near a town an acre was a large extent of ground. Then, with regard to farmhouses, there were many farmhouses where the rent was not 200 l. a year, and therefore they could not be charged with the window tax; but the house and garden and offices would be of the value of 20 l. a year, and, consequently a fresh tax would be levied on the tenant-farmer. He must deprecate the intention of placing the tax upon a new description of property, and protest strongly against it as unjust and deceptive
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was of opinion that the scheme of a house tax was just as objectionable in principle as the window tax. The house tax was to be imposed on 400,000 houses, out of 3,500,000, but of that 400,000, two-thirds were situate in the metropolis, and consequently the tax was to be regarded as a metropolitan tax. He looked upon the tax as unjust in principle, because houses would then be subject to two taxes: the income tax, paid by the landlord, and the house tax, paid by the tenant; no other property being liable to double taxation. He had reason to know that in some neighbourhoods entire streets of houses had been built so as to be exempt from window tax: all this description of property would now be liable to an entirely new tax. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose, that there was no necessity for the imposition of a house tax. Why had not the Chancellor of the Exchequer charged real property with the payment of legacy duty, and thus raised a revenue which would have enabled him to abolish the window duty without inflicting a substitute? The operation of the existing law was most unjust, and he feared

171
that the house tax would be liable to the same objections. According to the present system, the tradesman's house at the Westend contributed a larger sum to the revenue than the mansion of the nobleman. He himself knew of a case where one of the largest mansions in the metropolis was rated to the income tax at a few pounds more than the tradesman's house next door, with only a frontage of two windows.
VISCOUNT DUNCANthought the House was indebted to the lion. Member for Evesham for raising this question with reference to gardens, and also to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the satisfactory explanation he had made. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman, no piece of ground attached to a house would be included in the value if it exceeded one acre in extent. To that arrangement he could see no objection. He was not one who was anxious to raise up unreasonable objections to a proposal of this kind. He would delay stating more fully his opinions of a house tax till the hon. Member for Marylebone brought forward his Motion; but in the meantime he would repeat that, taking the tax as a whole, he could not help thinking that the plan now introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a great improvement on that which he originally laid before the House.
MR. WAKLEYtook leave to assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the only way in which he could give unqualified satisfaction on a subject of this sort was to repeal the tax altogether. No middle course would have the effect of pleasing everybody. He thanked the Government for the unqualified repeal of the window tax, for such he regarded it to be, and complimented them upon the gracious manner in which they had made a concession to a great and popular demand. The hon. Member for Evesham had, he thought, with great propriety, objected to gardens being included in the assessments; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had defended himself by an appeal to precedent. It was curious to observe, that whenever a precedent was referred to in that House, it was invariably a bad one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the precedent established by the Act of George III., but a worse precedent could not have been found. The hon. Member for Montrose had expressed his approval of the Government scheme, the hon. Member for Lambeth (MR. W. Williams)—another great
172
Cocker in his way—was satisfied with it; and the noble Lord the Member for Bath (Viscount Duncan) had declared himself delighted with it. But to his (MR. Wakley's) mind, the proposition was one of the most unjust and oppressive that ever was sanctioned by an unjust Act of Parliament. It was proposed that every person who had a garden of a quarter of an acre, half an acre, or any quantity under one acre, was to have the value added to the assessment of his house; surely nothing could be more unfair than this, when it was borne in mind that the nobleman who had an hundred acres of pleasure-ground round his mansion was not to be assessed for it. Was it possible that the Committee could sanction so monstrous a piece of injustice as this? If they were to have a house tax, let them have it; but gardens and pleasure-grounds ought to be exempt.
MR. HENLEYconsidered it would have been better to have deferred the discussion until the Committee was in possession of the Bill which the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce, more especially as the right hon. Gentleman had promised to introduce words that would exempt market gardens from taxation. The amount in dispute, if gardens were included, would be very small, and he was not disposed to think that injustice would be done by including them.
MR. ELLISdid not believe that the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when reduced to operation, would be attended with hardship. It appeared to him that the burden of the tax would fall, not upon small owners and occupiers, but upon those who paid large rents. He had visited his constituents twice since the Chancellor of the Exchequer's amended Budget had been before the country, and not one of them had objected to it. The former Budget was one of the clumsiest and worst-digested devices which had ever been concocted; but the amended one was far less objectionable, and was, he thought, rendered necessary in consequence of no reductions having been made in the Army and Navy Estimates.
VISCOUNT DUNCANunderstood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have stated that 400,000 houses would in future be chargeable with the house tax, out of the 500,000 which had paid the window duty. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state how many of the 400,000 houses had gardens attached?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas unable to answer the question. His calculation had been based upon the property tax assessment, where houses and gardens were assessed together.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYthought a house tax was a very fair mode of raising revenue, but objected to the proposed distribution of that under discussion. The Committee had had several instances brought under their notice of the very partial manner in which this tax would operate. The hon. Member for Finsbury (MR. Wakley) had shown that a nobleman with a hundred acres laid out in parks and gardens would come off extremely easy if he were only charged to the house tax in respect of his splendid mansion. The tax would also fall with unjust pressure on the larger and better class of houses in towns, as compared with smaller but still respectable houses. There was no reason why this tax should now be re-imposed in a partial form. He was quite satisfied that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had greatly underrated the produce of this tax. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that only 400,000 houses of the value of 20 l. would bear the tax. He (MR. Alderman Sidney) found by a recent return presented to the House that there were at least 486,000 houses paying a rental of 20 l. in this country. Independently of that, he believed the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there would be some 20,000 or 30,000 houses, not now chargeable to the window duty, which would be liable to be assessed to the house tax. But he (MR. Alderman Sidney) could not see why that partial legislation of excusing houses below 20 l. should be adopted. He knew there were a great number of persons who, having retired from business, lived on their means in the country in respectable houses of less value than 20 l., and kept their pony chaise, but paid no duty for it; and he did not know any reason why that class of persons were to be exempted from the proposed house tax. But the tax would fall also with very undue pressure on the class of shopkeepers. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take the principal thoroughfares in the metropolis, he would go along whole streets, not one of the houses in which would be of less value than 100 l. a year. If those houses were not let as shops, the value of them as dwelling houses would not be more than from 30 l. to 50 l. Would, then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer not make
174
this tax more tolerable by making it more equitable in its pressure? He was sure that when the owners of house property in towns came to be fully aware that they would be made to bear the chief burdens of this house tax under its present distribution, the same objections would prove fatal to this new and modified tax, as tended to put an end to the old house tax. To his knowledge, houses occupied by noblemen when the old house tax was in existence, paid far less than the dwelling-houses of ordinary shopkeepers; and seeing that shopkeepers were compelled, in a manner, to occupy the same premises in which they carried on their business, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was fair or equitable in him to exonerate warehouses, manufactories, and banking houses, in which the more lucrative businesses were pursued, and to charge the proposed house tax on the value of the shop and premises which a shopkeeper occupied? He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was worth while to press a tax on the Committee so partial in its operation, and which, if persisted in, would become extremely unpopular with the class of the community engaged in shopkeeping? He trusted that some method would be devised by which the difficulties he had referred to would be overcome.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should not press his Amendment.
MR. PACKEsaid, he had intended to move as an Amendment to the Resolution, that the words "ten pounds" be substituted for "twenty pounds," as the value below which houses were not to be chargeable to the proposed house tax; but since the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) had intimated his intention to postpone his Motion for the unconditional repeal of the window tax until the Bill for imposing a house tax was before the House, he (MR. Packe) should defer his Amendment until the House went into Committee on the Bill.
MR. MACGREGORhad no objection to a house tax, but he should like to see it so distributed as to enable hon. Members to modify the income tax as it was now levied, and to do away with the inquisitorial nature of that tax. He knew, however, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must do the best he could under the exigencies of the times, and not always what he wished to do. The right hon. Gentleman could not have taken any other course, unless he had greatly reduced the expenditure of the

175
country. He (MR. MacGregor) could not believe this would be a permanent measure. Whatever the House did in the way of taxation, then, would be of a transient character; they would, ere long, be called on by the country to revise the whole system of taxation, and if he did not feel certain that that would be the case, he would not consent to support the house tax on the present occasion.
SIR B. HALLwished to state exactly to the Committee the course he intended to take with regard to the house tax. His right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told him candidly that if he (Sir B. Hall) succeeded in carrying his Motion for the non-imposition of a house tax, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would withdraw his proposal for repealing the window tax; or, in other words, that he would have either the window tax or a house tax. Under these circumstances he (MR. B. Hall) had no other alternative but to withdraw his Motion. But he would as frankly tell his right hon. Friend, that when he found the repeal of the window tax was carried, he (Sir B. Hall) would, if not in the present Session, at some future time, bring on a Motion for the repeal of the house tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould do the hon. Baronet the justice to say that he had been candid in his declaration; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must remind the Committee that when he proposed to repeal the window tax altogether, he had stated that it was absolutely necessary to propose a substitute for at least a portion of that tax. When his hon. Friend talked about bringing on a Motion for the repeal of the house tax, should that tax be adopted, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) might state his belief that there were other taxes which it would be more desirable to repeal than the contemplated house tax.
SIR DE LACY EVANSfelt, with his hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), that he was placed in a dilemma in having to choose between the window tax and a house tax. He certainly must abide by the alternative of a house tax, though at the same time he protested against it on its own merits. He felt it necessary, therefore, to forego his opposition to a house tax at present; but whenever a Motion for its repeal should be brought forward by his hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall), or any other Member, he should certainly support it.
VISCOUNT DUNCANthought his hon. Friend (Sir. B. Hall) had exercised a wise discretion, under the circumstances, in postponing his opposition to the house tax.
MR. HUMEsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that if the house tax was carried, the loss to the revenue by the substitution of a house tax for the window tax would only be 1,100,000 l. He was of opinion that a portion of the surplus revenue might be applied with much more benefit to the country in the reduction of the duties on hops, stamps, advertisements, paper, and soap, than in the foolish attempt to reduce the national debt.
SIR G. PECHELLwished to enter his protest against the imposition of a house tax. He would remind the Committee that in Lord Althorp's time it was always understood that the principal reasons for repealing the house tax were the difficulties experienced in collecting it, and the partial manner in which it was imposed. On getting rid of the window tax he thought the country would only have the parish officers to contend with, but, instead of that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer interposed his house tax.
MR. MOWATTsaid, he had been associated with the hon. Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall) in endeavouring to produce the unconditional repeal of the window tax. He did so in the full conviction that the expenditure of the country must be reduced. He sought to obtain the repeal of the window tax under the impression that the Government, in giving up that tax, would not feel themselves called on to provide for a smaller sum of money by way of substitute. It being decided otherwise, he (MR. Mowatt), for one, had no objection whatever to raise by the proposed house tax some portion of the money lost to the revenue by the relinquishment of the window tax. On the contrary, he preferred a house tax to every other description of tax. No doubt houses were already chargeable with property tax, but, notwithstanding that, he had no hesitation in declaring his most hearty concurrence in the principle there laid down of direct taxation so far as it went. He concurred with the hon. Member for Leominster (MR. F. Peel), who said, in the speech he addressed to the House a few nights ago, that taxation was not to be measured by the amount paid into the Exchequer, but by the injuries which it

177
inflicted on the industrial pursuits and the commerce of the country. He (Mr. Mowatt), for one, regretted that this measure was far from being an extension of that admirable system first introduced by the immortal financier, Sir Robert Peel. The House had retrograded, for instead of raising 1,800,000 l. by direct taxation, they now proposed to raise only 700,000 l., thereby going back to the extent of 1,100,000 l. While he objected to the house tax altogether as unnecessary on the grounds he had stated, still, if they were to have it, he thought it should be more generally applied. He did not see why a man occupying a house of 10 l. a year should not contribute his quota towards the house tax. Every person knew that in many parts of the country people who occupied houses of 10 l. or 18 l. a-year were perfectly competent to contribute to a tax of that description.
MR. HEYWORTHwas of opinion that if a house tax were not imposed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to reduce the duties on coffee and timber. He complimented the right hon. Gentleman on the course he had taken. There was no tax whatever levied on a large class of the community but was very soon shared by the rest of the community; and so it would be with the house tax. Justice would never be done to the labouring men of this country so long as heavy duties were imposed on the articles which they consumed; and to make this a wealthy nation, all its Customs and Excise duties should be abolished.
MR. MOFFATTproposed, as an Amendment, to insert the words "manufacturer or" after the word "shall" in the Resolution, the effect of which would be to exempt places in which manufactures were carried on from the operation of the tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not see why an old woman engaged in knitting a pair of stockings, or in making matches, should not be exempted under the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Moffatt). He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) extended the exemption from the tax to all houses which were at present entitled to exemption from the window tax in respect of a shop window; but if he adopted the suggestion of his hon. Friend, he might as well give up the tax altogether.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he believed, at present, windows of manufactories were totally exempted from window duty, but it
178
very often happened that there was a dwelling-house connected with those manufactories, forming one building, and that the assessment was made on the whole premises.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if a shop or warehouse was attached to a dwelling-house, and formed part thereof, it was liable; but if it was detached, it was not. If the warehouse was part of the house, or not separate from the dwelling-house, it would be calculated in the value. If, on the contrary, it was separated, it would not be calculated in the value.
SIR J. DUKEsaid, the result would be that many houses which had been partly exempted from the window duty would pay the house tax; and he thought no one was to pay the latter who did not pay the former.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdeclared he had explained, on the contrary, that many persons would pay who did not pay now, or would pay more than they paid at present.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, that at present, although the occupier of a house with a shop or warehouse did not pay the window tax for the shop or warehouse windows, he did pay for all the other windows in the house.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he would not press his Amendment, but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the matter.
MR. HUMEhoped that the payment of the house tax was not to be made a condition of the franchise.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I thought my hon. Friend was anxious that the house tax and the elective franchise should go together.
MR. HUME: I am perfectly content, provided you give the franchise to every householder.
MR. Alderman SIDNEYthought boarding houses and houses occupied as schools should be exempt from the tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that the same exemptions which existed in former Acts would be continued. Boarding houses would be charged to the full amount, unless licensed as victualling houses.
MR. SCHOLEFIELD: But with regard to those large old-fashioned houses which are occupied as schools, I think they have a peculiar claim for exemption.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUER: I have applications for exemption from the proprietors of every class of houses, all urged on peculiar grounds. But with regard to the large old-fashioned houses alluded to, I believe they will be at least as much benefited by the alteration as any other, and of course those occupied as schools will come in for their full share of the advantage.
MR. MOFFATTwished to know whether there would be any distinction made between occupiers and those small owners in the country who occupied their own holdings, but who were often in great distress.
MR. AGLIONBYcould state that in many cases owners of the class referred to were under mortgages to the full value of their property, and were in far worse circumstances than an occupying tenant.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the old Act made no distinction between the owner and occupier. It appeared to him that no person could occupy a house of his own, of 20 l. a-year, without being a man of substance and property to some extent.
MR. FREWENhad many constituents who were owners of small freeholds, which they occupied, but were in a much more depressed condition in many cases than the tenants.
MR. Alderman SIDNEYinquired how the annual value was to be ascertained?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould add nothing to what he had already stated. He took a very low sum in the pound, and rated the house at the highest annual value, to be ascertained by the assessment to the property tax.
Resolution agreed to; House resumed; Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

COFFEE AND TIMBER DUTIES ACTS.
House in Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved a Resolution to the effect that, in lieu of the duties of Customs now chargeable on the articles undermentioned, imported into the United Kingdom, the following duties should be charged, namely, coffee, the lb., 3d.; coffee, kiln-dried, roasted, or ground, the lb., 6d.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, that it was his opinion that an equalisation of duties would be injurious to our colonies, more particularly to Ceylon, which had lately made very great progress in its exports, and had always relied on a preference for its produce in the home market. He objected more especially to such a sudden equalisa-
180
tion, and would, at all events, have expected to see the same plan pursued with respect to coffee as had been followed with regard to sugar. Knowing the opinion of Government and of hon. Gentlemen, that the British producer was to have no advantage over the foreign producer, it would be useless for him to press his opposition, though he considered it well founded. Moreover, out of doors he had not heard of any agitation against it; and if the colonial producers thought that they could compete with the foreigner without differential or protective duties, he did not desire to restrain them, being in favour of competition wherever it did not amount to ruin, conceiving fair competition to be a benefit to the consumer. He did not wish protection for the sake of protection, but only to meet just claims; but he thought it would have been only fair had the reduction been to 3d. on colonial, and to 4d. on foreign coffee. He should like to know if the opinion of the Government of Ceylon had been taken as to the effects of this change? Whatever opinion might be entertained on this point, there could surely be no opposition to a plan which would prevent great adulteration in coffee; for, if the colonies were exposed to competition, they had, at all events, fair claims to fair dealing, and if there was a considerable adulteration which was injurious to the producer, to the importer, to the consumer, and to the revenue, it was the duty of Government to prevent it. It was not necessary to prove that the consumption of real coffee had fallen off very materially—the revenue returns proved the fact; and though the Chancellor of the Exchequer might say it was attributable to an increase of low-duty coffee and to a decrease of high-duty coffee, he could not deny that, since 1847, there had been a diminution of 6,000,000lbs., and that every year there had been a decrease in the deliveries of consumption. That decrease was not owing to any want of power to consume it, for the country was in a state of great prosperity—["Hear, hear !"]—at least that was what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said; nor was it from any indisposition to habits of temperance; nor to the place of coffee having been taken by any other excisable article, because tea, which was looked upon as being most in competition with coffee, had not increased in consumption beyond the increase of population. The real cause of it was undoubtedly the adulteration of coffee, which

181
had taken place in consequence of a Treasury Minute, which sanctioned adulteration with chicory, and the consequence of which was, that the Excise never prosecuted for any adulteration at all. The fair trader was thus exposed to all the effects of this adulteration, and he could hardly blame those who practised it for believing they had the authority of Government on their side. But the producer and importer were not the only persons injured—the consumer had to pay a very high price for an adulterated article. The best adulterated coffee contained about one-fourth of coffee, and the rest was of other ingredients, and the consumer ought to get a pound of it for 6d.; but, instead of that, he paid much more. If he was to take adulterated coffee, let him get it at a reasonable price. The Chancellor of the Exchequer considered chicory a very wholesome substitute for coffee; but then let it be used as a substitute. When the Treasury Minute was issued in 1840, coffee was at a very high price, and tea was much higher than it is at present, in consequence of the Chinese war. Chicory was admitted then because there was no fraud on the revenue, and it paid duty; but since that time it had been largely cultivated in England. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought either to reduce the duty, so as to prevent adulteration, or to put an excise duty on chicory, or to withdraw the Treasury Minute. The reduction of duty to 3d. would not prevent the adulteration of coffee, when the article by which the adulteration was effected cost less than the duty. The example of the United States had been referred to in justification of the course proposed to be taken by the Government; but it should be recollected that, in the first place, there was no duty on coffee in the United States; and, secondly, that almost all the Americans ground their coffee in their own houses. It was not his intention to dwell on the sanitary part of the question; but he would observe, in passing, that the adulteration of coffee was detrimental to the health of the consumer. It was impossible to conceive why the adulteration of coffee should be permitted more than that of tea, pepper, and other exciseable articles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared his unwillingness to maintain an army of excisemen. Those were mere words. Every one knew that not an additional exciseman would be necessary. Besides, he (MR. Baring) had that day pre-
182
sented a petition from growers and coffee dealers, stating that they were quite ready to submit to such visits of inspection, if such were necessary, for the purpose of putting down the unfair dealer who adulterated his coffee with chicory or other articles. If the Government would abolish the Treasury Minute, the knowledge that there was a power to prosecute in case of adulteration would go a great way towards putting an end to the adulteration. The newspapers of that very morning had stated that there had recently been no less than thirty-six prosecutions for adulteration of beer. Well, then, why did not the Government prosecute for adulteration of coffee, as well as for adulteration of beer and pepper? He could not understand the difference, unless it was that the excise officers did not wish to be put to the trouble of inspecting the manufactories of adulterated coffee. He believed the proposed reduction of the duty on coffee would not prevent adulteration. That, he understood, was the opinion generally entertained by those engaged in the coffee trade. In conclusion, he gave notice that either he, or some person better qualified, would submit a Motion to test the opinion of the House as to the propriety of permitting the adulteration of coffee.
MR. PRINSEPwas of opinion that the Government was dealing hardly with the Ceylon planters, who, in the belief that the discriminating duty would be maintained, had expended much capital on the cultivation of coffee. He was not prepared to give up the differential duty so easily as his hon. Friend who had preceded him. He submitted that coffee was a peculiar article, which could only be cultivated under very peculiar circumstances, and at enormous expense; and these considerations having led Parliament to give the coffee planter a differential duty, surely it should be removed, if at all, gradually, as in the case of sugar, and not all at once. As to the adulteration of coffee, he thought the best remedy was the reduction of the duty, to which he had no objection, so that it was effected fairly.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (MR. T. Baring) had given an intimation that the question of the adulteration of coffee would be specifically brought under the consideration of the House, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would reserve for that occasion what he had to say in justification of the course

183
which he had pursued on that subject. With respect to the question more immediately before the Committee, he could but repeat some of the facts he stated when he brought forward his Budget. The consumption of colonial coffee had increased 5,000,000 lbs. during the last five years. In 1846 the quantity of colonial coffee entered for home consumption was 23,720,000 lbs., and in 1850 it was 28,832,000 lbs. During the same period the consumption of foreign coffee had fallen off more than 10,000,000 lbs.—a convincing proof that the differential duty was telling in a formidable manner against the introduction of foreign coffee. It must be admitted that when the quantity of colonial coffee imported into this country exceeded the whole consumption, there could be little need of a protective duty. This, however, was the fact, for during the past year we imported 36,000,000 lbs of colonial coffee, while the whole quantity of coffee, colonial and foreign, entered for home consumption was only 31,000,000 lbs. Thus it was apparent that the quantity of colonial coffee imported exceeded the gross consumption by 5,000,000 lbs., and nearly 3,500,000 lbs. of colonial coffee were actually exported again. It must be evident that, under these circumstances, protection was useless. On the other hand, it was certain that the duty had the effect of excluding certain descriptions of foreign coffee which it was desirable should come into consumption in this country. It might be assumed that the consumption of coffee would increase after the reduction of the duty, and the planters of Ceylon would benefit by that result.
MR. MOWATTwished to know what would be the actual amount of duty levied on coffee after the proposed reductions should have been made?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that the duties now payable were, on colonial coffee, 4d. and 5 per cent; and on foreign, 6d. and 5 per cent. He proposed that, in future, every description of coffee should pay an uniform duty of 3d., without the 5 per cent.
MR. HUMEsaid, as to the adulteration of coffee, having heard in Committee upstairs three of the Government chemists opposed by three of the first chemists in London, on the question of the adulteration of tobacco, he feared it would be exceedingly difficult to detect the adulteration of coffee. Nor was coffee a worse case than many other articles. Growers
184
had stated that one-third of the quantity of sugar was adulterated; and, indeed, it was an ascertained fact that one-third more sugar was sold than was imported. Unless the purchaser paid attention to the article he purchased, fraud could not be prevented. Last week a merchant in the City sent him up some coffee and some chicory. He tested them, and he found very little difference between the coffee prepared with chicory and the pure coffee; but another person who tried them seemed to think that the chicory improved the flavour. Some in the House were old enough to remember the coffee prepared by MR. Hunt, which was made out of roasted corn and chicory, and people thought it a very good kind of coffee. For his own part he wished to see every exciseman removed; and if the principles of free trade were fairly developed, he thought that would yet be the result.
MR. E. H. STANLEYtrusted that he should not be chargeable with unnecessarily occupying the attention of the Committee if he ventured to make a few observations with reference to the peculiar difficulties with which the colonial producers of coffee had to contend. With respect to the West Indies, it was hardly necessary to say a word, for in those colonies the production of coffee had all but ceased. Ceylon was the colony deeply interested in this question. The foreign countries whose coffee came into competition with that of Ceylon were Arabia, La Guayra, Java, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Brazil. Of Mocha coffee the quantity imported was small, and it sold at a high price; it was likewise brought to this country by a long voyage, equal to that from Ceylon, and these circumstances combined to prevent it from entering into competition, to any great extent, with coffee of ordinary quality. The same observation applied to the coffee of La Guayra and Java; and as regarded the latter country, the manner in which the land was cultivated, and the monopoly of sale enjoyed by the Government, which forced the occupiers of Crown lands to sell it at fixed and unremunerating prices, tended much to discourage production. As regarded Central America, there was some competition in Costa Rica coffee, which, though not formidable at present, was increasing year by year. It was, however, of peculiar quality and high priced; and, moreover, the greater part found its way into the markets of North America —a circumstance accounted for by geo-

185
graphical position; while the remainder, with the exception of a very small quantity imported into this country, went into the markets of Germany. The quantity of coffee produced in Cuba was not very great, and the quality was not superior. The real competition was exclusively between the coffee of Ceylon and Brazil, and, therefore, he was desirous of stating, very briefly, the disadvantages under which the colonists of Ceylon laboured, compared with the coffee-producers of the Brazils. These circumstances were, the extent and quality of soil, labour, price of food, expense of clearing land, inland transit, and cost of voyage—the last item dividing itself into the two heads of insurance and freight. In Ceylon the soil was of limited extent, the coffee plant growing only on the uplands, the soil of which was described in the report of the Sugar and Coffee-planting Committee, and in other official documents, as being poor generally, and soon exhausted. It was also stated— and he believed accurately—that after four or five years the coffee plants pined and died unless they were carefully manured. To obtain a manure a large expenditure of capital was necessary, there being no pasture for cattle in the uplands. Brazil, on the other hand, possessed a rich alluvial vegetable soil. The area of cultivation was, practically, unlimited, and the coffee-tree lasted there, without artificial attention, for between twenty-two and thirty years. But the quality of soil and extent of territory — important as they were — were not so important as the facility of obtaining an adequate supply of labour. It was notorious that no labour was as cheap as slave labour in a country where public opinion was not directed against the practice of slavery. In Brazil, therefore, there was a constant supply of the cheapest labour. In Ceylon, on the other hand, it was almost impossible to induce the Kandians, who formed the great mass of the population to work as hired labourers, they believing it to be beneath their caste to do so. It had been calculated that the number of Kandians, who could be prevailed on to work, did not form one-fifth of the whole number of labourers required on the coffee estates. It had, in consequence, been found necessary to import Coolies from India to carry on cultivation. Even of these the number had never exceeded from 30,000 to 40,000, while the number of labourers actually wanted was 80,000. Thus the Ceylon planter was supplied with only half
186
the necessary amount of labour. The average wages of a Coolie were from 18 s. to 20 s. per month, with lodging, and food sold to him at a low fixed price. In Brazil all the food of the labourers was raised on the ground. Ceylon did not grow rice, which was imported from India at a heavy cost for freight, and paid a duty of 7d. per bushel, besides a charge for inland carriage, raising the price to 7s. or 8s. per bushel. Again, while the cost of clearing of estates, owing to the circumstances he had stated, was in Ceylon not loss than 3l. per acre, in Brazil 25 s. to 30 s. per acre covered the expense. In Ceylon the coffee grew only on the hills, at an altitude, in many places, exceeding 4,000 feet, and at a distance of not less than 70 to 100 miles inland. The roads, though improving, were still few; the usual mode of carriage was, to the nearest highway, from five to fifteen or twenty miles, on men's heads; and the cost of carriage to the shipping port was thus raised to a sum varying from 4s. 6d. to 8s. per cwt. On the other hand, in Brazil, where the estates lay mostly in the Organ mountains (Paracayba district), 60 miles inland, the average price for carriage was 8d. the arroba, or 2s. 2d. per cwt. Then, as to ship conveyance. From Rio it was possible to ship all the year round. At Colombo, from December to June, the monsoon blew from N.E.; from June to December, from the S.W. During this latter period—nearly half the year—ships found great trouble in loading or unloading on account of the waves and surf. There was another harbour on the opposite coast, Trincomalee, but no roads led there, and the distance from the coffee-growing districts was much greater. Again, the time of voyage from Ceylon was, on an average, not less than five months, while from Rio the average was two months or ten weeks. The freight from Brazil was not more than from 27 s. to 57 s. per ton, whereas from Ceylon the lowest freight was 3l. pet ton, but oftener 5l. 10 s., and in 1847, when rice, imported for labourers on Ceylon estates, was shipped off to Ireland, it was as high as 7l. 10 s. When the corn law was under discussion in that House, great stress had been laid on the circumstance that the home producer had no freight to pay. Let him have the benefit of the argument now, when he pointed out, in this respect, the more favourable condition of the foreign coffee-grower as compared with our own colonists. This would

187
appear in the summary of the case which he would give in this comparative statement:—

COST OF COFFEE PER CWT. FROM CEYLON AND BRAZIL.

Ceylon.

Brazil.

Difference.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

£

s.

d.

Cost of production

1

15

0

1

3

0

0

12

0

Carriage to place of shipment

0

5

6

0

2

2

0

3

4

Freight

0

5

0

0

2

4

0

2

8

Insurance

0

1

1½

0

0

6¾

0

0

6¾

Total cost per cwt. in England, exclusive of duty

£2

6

7½

£1

8

0¾

£0

18

6¾

The difference, then, per cwt. between the cost from Ceylon and from Brazil was 18 s. 6¾d. per cwt.; and this was exactly counterbalanced by the present rate of duty, which, at 2d. per lb., amounted to 18 s. 8d. per cwt. Hence he inferred that that duty was no more than an adequate compensation for the disadvantages under which the colonial producer laboured. He would not longer detain the Committee, and, aware that anything beyond a protest would be unavailing, he should content himself with entering that protest.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought, that unless the House was prepared to depart altogether from the principles for the regulation of commerce which it had of late years acted upon, it would not be induced by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. H. Stanley) to support discriminating duties. There were many circumstances at present tending to make this a favourable moment for the introduction of these equalising duties. It was a fact that they received from their own colonies at the present moment an amount of coffee in the year which they could not consume, and which they were, therefore, obliged to export. We were now receiving from our own colonies not only enough coffee for our own consumption, but a surplus for exporting abroad. There was, then, no such occasion for despondency on this head as seemed to be suggested. The hon. Gentleman had urged the great advantage which slave labour gave to the Brazils in the cultivation of coffee over the free-labour cultivation of our own colonies. He differed altogether from the hon. Gentleman as to the permanently greater cheapness of slave-labour; and anybody who paid the least attention to what was going on in Brazil at this moment must be aware upon how insecure a basis the whole system of slave-labour rested. No doubt, it had always been contended that in the cultivation of sugar there was great advantage to the employer of slave-labour, by reason of the constant and excessive na-
188
ture of the labour to which the wretched slaves were subjected; but then the cultivation of coffee had always been contrasted with that of sugar, as a cultivation which could be easily worked by free labour. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the coffee-grounds of Ceylon as poor, thin land, not naturally adapted for the growth of coffee, and which, unless protected, must be thrown out of cultivation. This was the old argument for the protection of inferior soils, which had been so thoroughly used, so worn out in the corn-law debates, that he had never expected to hear it revived. The hon. Gentleman had revived it; but the House, he was sure, would at once repudiate it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the hon. Member for Montrose (MR. Hume) wanted to make out that adulterated coffee was just as good as pure coffee. The hon. Gentleman had, perhaps, not been sworn at Highgate, and was, therefore, not bound to prefer the better to the worse article; but it was extremely desirable that the House should not give Parliamentary sanction to fraud; there had already that been said in the House of Commons which encouraged the roguish grocer, which discouraged the honest trader, which had occasioned a falling off in the annual consumption of 3,200,000 lbs. of coffee, and an annual falling off in the revenue of 80,000 l. It was time that the honest grocer should be told by Parliament that his neighbour, if a rogue, was at least not a rogue by authority of the House of Commons.
SIR F. T. BARINGsaid, that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, great complaints wore made, as now, of adulterations in coffee. A deputation, purporting to represent the coffee trade, that was to say, the honest coffee trade, waited upon him, and earnestly protested against the frauds committed by the dishonest grocers, which tended utterly to ruin those who obeyed the Excise regulations. He asked them, "Can you yourselves frame any set of Excise regulations which will not seriously interfere with trade?" and they at once answered in the negative. The only course that hereupon seemed adapted for giving all parties an equal chance, was to suspend those Excise regulations which it had been represented those knavish traders throve by systematically evading, and which it had been also represented the honest grocers were ruined by obeying.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, that in 1840 the

189
use of the miscroscope was not so well known as it was at present. As to the statement that it was impossible to discover the adulteration of coffee, he could assure the hon. Member for Montrose that there was no difficulty whatever. He asked how the Government could allow such a document as the Treasury Minute to remain in force, which was immoral in its tendency, sanctioning, as it did, a cheat and an imposture, and oppressing, as it had been shown, the honest trader? It was highly discreditable to Government, after all that had been said, to persist in retaining this Minute. He asserted that both chemically and medically chicory was a noxious, unwholesome root, and that its consumption was attended with pernicious consequences and most deleterious effects. He would readily undertake to show the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by the means of a microscope, the difference between the two articles.
MR. LOCKHARTsaid, that not only chicory, but beans, lupins, lentils, and all sorts of adulterations, were palmed off as coffee upon the poorer classes of consumers, who had not the remedy in their own hands, as, to a certain extent, the rich had.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury ought to receive great attention from the Government, on this particular question, as that hon. Member brought to bear not only his habitual philanthropic feelings towards the lower classes, but also great chemical and medical knowledge. His opinions were, therefore, entitled to great weight with the House and with the country. It was a very marvellous thing that the right hon. Gentleman, who boasted of being one of the chiefs of a free-trade Government, now came forward to advocate a protection which forced the lower classes to consume a deleterious drug. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not lend the sanction of his high name to a system of fraud most injurious to the morals of the country. The right hon. Gentleman, in an unfortunate speech, declared his belief that the adulteration of coffee with chicory was wholesome; now that opinion was quoted in favour of the continuance of the fraud. He did not wish entirely to prevent the use of chicory, he wanted to have it by its right name; let them have chicory, or sham chicory, sold as such, but do not let the poor man be obliged to take for coffee
190
what was nothing but a deleterious, noxious, and unwholesome drug. If a person forged a letter upon the right hon. Baronet, and obtained five shillings under a false pretence, he would have him punished; but what was this adulteration but a false pretence?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if he considered chicory a noxious and deleterious article, he would at once consent to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury (MR. Wakley); but it was because he did not believe that it was such that he still maintained his former opinion.
MR. WAKLEYbegged to explain; and to show the extent to which the adulteration of coffee was carried on, he might state that examination had been made of coffee bought at a hundred different shops, and nearly every one of them was found to be adulterated, not only with chicory, but with roasted corn, acorns, peas, and beans. After this, chicory itself was purchased at a great many shops and examined, when it was found that the chicory was adulterated in the same way and with the same materials; so that it was plain the coffee was doubly adulterated, first by the articles themselves, and then by the chicory containing these articles. The right hon. Gentleman suffered very much last year from ill health, and he was afraid the cause might be traced to his taking adulterated coffee.
Resolution agreed to, as was the Resolution on the Timber Duties.
House resumed; Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY—INTERIOR DECORATION OF THE NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Order for going into Committee of Supply read.
SIR DE L. EVANSbegged to call the attention of the House to the so-called interior decoration of the New House of Commons, persisted in by the architect in opposition to the declared wishes of the Members of the House. Having recently inspected the New House of Commons with the view of ascertaining what progress was being made, he had been much astonished at the unsatisfactory state in which the interior of the House was at present. When the subject last came under discussion it was the almost unanimously expressed opinion that the House should be fitted up in the plainest, the most simple, and the

191
most unornamented manner, and as much in contrast as possible to the gorgeous and gingerbread gilding of the House of Lords. He presumed, however, that the architect had taken advantage of the absence from town of the hon. Member for Lancaster (MR. T. Greene), for he found that there were not two square inches of the wainscotting, or any part of the interior, that had not been ornamented, or rather he should say disfigured, by wretched fantastic carving, so that it looked more like some monastery of the tenth or twelfth century, than a representative chamber of the nineteenth. The enormous propensity of MR. Barry for gilding whatever he laid his hands upon, had been immediately commenced. The ceilings of the galleries were commenced to be gilded; and there were, amongst other things, shields to contain the armorial bearings of the Speakers for the last 500 years; and although he had every respect for those Gentlemen, he thought that was a species of ornament that might have been dispensed with. There were also 200 small shields or escocheons which had been carved out, and were to be painted, no doubt in very gaudy and glaring colours. He did not pretend to be a dilettante or a man of great taste; but it certainly could not he denied that light was necessary to a legislative chamber, and that facilities for hearing were also most important. MR. Barry's neglect of the latter had occasioned the roof to be lowered, and by that step he had taken away half the light that was previously afforded. Besides that, the glass was to be painted, and every sort of grotesque figure in the most inharmonious colours was to be seen. It was not the very clearest climate that we lived in, and surely none of the light of heaven should be excluded. He begged to inquire of the hon. Member for Lancaster how these circumstances had occurred, and at the same time to return his thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having ordered a complete cessation of these ornamental proceedings about a fortnight since.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the House had last Session voted 8,500 l. for this purpose. He should be glad to know whether the alterations already made had not cost a sum approaching double that which the House had voted, and which had been stated to be a sufficient estimate for the alterations required.
MR. GREENEsaid, that the Commissioners at their last meeting had called upon MR. Barry to give an account of
192
what had been expended in the alterations directed by the House. The works were not yet completed, and it was difficult to state precisely, but he believed that they would come within the sum voted by the House. With reference to the mode in which the present decorations had been introduced, he must say that it was his full idea when he left London that it was the desire of the House that the new chamber should be as unadorned as possible; and he certainly thought that MR. Barry quite understood that to be the case. When he returned, he desired MR. Barry to state the reason why he had not acted on that understanding; and MR. Barry's reply was, "I was not aware of any declared wish with respect to the decorations of the House of Commons." He (MR. Greene) repeated that he thought MR. Barry had that knowledge, and he was much surprised, when he returned to London, to hear of the decorations. They had taken place without his (MR. Greene's) sanction, and, having been brought under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, their further progress had been at once stopped. The ceiling had been so far finished that the Commissioners did not feel justified in going to the expense of scraping it off again. But of course the House might exercise its pleasure upon that point. With respect to what appeared under the gallery, and the shields, the Commissioners had not yet given any special directions, and MR. Barry had requested them to suspend their orders until a portion of the lower part of the House should be finished. It was the intention of the Commissioners to have what yet remained vacant built up with plain oak, and not to have the shields painted. In their present form he owned that these decorations were very unsightly to him, and he assured the House that it was the anxious desire of the Commissioners to meet their wishes. With regard to the acoustic properties of the House, he frankly owned he did not think that the course adopted by the Committee had been the wisest, for he believed that if the ceiling had been left as it was, and the galleries had been widened, there would have been every requisite facility for hearing. He did not think that any difficulties would be experienced with reference to light. Their sittings were usually in the evening, and the now chamber would be quite as well lighted as their present one.
MR. WAKLEYwished to know if written instructions had been issued to

193
Mr. Barry by the Commissioners relative to decorations?
MR. T. GREENEsaid that there had been no written instructions. It was almost impossible, in point of fact, to lay down minute details as to decorations; but his understanding certainly was that the interior should be fitted up in as plain a manner as possible, and without any decorations.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,as a Member of the Committee, wished to remind the House that they had determined to try an experimental roof, and that, having done so upon several occasions, it was ultimately resolved to build the roof after the experimental form. He also had understood it to be the general wish that the interior should be perfectly plain, without any painting or decoration whatever. He was greatly surprised to hear that some painting had been introduced, and he immediately ordered that no further decoration should be proceeded with.
SIR B. HALLrecollected that in the Committee his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had distinctly cautioned Mr. Barry as to the decorations of the House, and his not exceeding the expenditure for which he had given an estimate. He sincerely hoped that, so far as possible, the hon. Member for Lancaster would see that the estimate was not exceeded. He understood it was intended there should be a shield for the arms of every borough; but as he represented a borough—not a very insignificant one, but still which was not incorporated, and therefore had no arms—he hoped that would not be the case. He thought that the new House would be much more commodious in every point of view than the present, and that all the lobbies and appurtenances would be a great improvement; but he should be glad to know when they would be likely to get into the building, because they had gone on year after year, and he believed that the longer they were kept out, the greater would be the expense. He did not see the slightest reason why they should not be able to enter immediately after the Easter holidays.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, that Mr. Barry had stated that he believed after Whitsuntide they might enter, but that the difficulty arose from the circumstance of the walls of the lobbies being yet so wet that they might destroy the panelling. For himself, he did not think that until the
194
libraries should be finished, the rooms adjoining fit to be occupied, and the Members' entrances completed, there would be much advantage to be gained from getting in. Neither did he think that any great additional expense would be incurred if they delayed their final occupation until next year. Still the Commissioners would urge Mr. Barry forward as much as possible.
SIR D. NORREYSdenied that Mr. Barry had ever received any instructions with respect to the ornament of the House. As they had adopted a certain style with respect to architecture, they should have the details and ornaments carried out in a similar taste, otherwise they would be acting in a most absurd manner. As the House had chosen to adopt this style of architecture, Mr. Barry was quite right in adopting the style of decoration in unison with it, and had therefore been improperly stopped. He was not MR. Barry's advocate—he believed Mr. Barry had committed more faults than any other architect; in fact the country had paid 1,000,000 l. in the education of Mr. Barry as a mediæval architect—but he considered, as Mr. Barry had perfected himself in that style of education which the country had prescribed, he ought not to be censured for carrying out its principle. He differed from the opinion of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) about the un-coloured heraldic decorations. He was at a loss to conceive how the idea of heraldic decorations was to be carried out without using colour. He did not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) with respect to the fault he found about the decorations. He believed the decorations to be suitable, and in character with the design of the building. He would call the attention of the House to the wording of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster. The words of the Motion went to impugn the professional reputation of the architect employed by that House, inasmuch as the Motion would lead persons to believe that the architect was acting in opposition to the wishes of the House and the nation. He considered it was not fair towards Mr. Barry to create such an impression.
COLONEL RAWDONsaid, he had been requested by Mr. Barry to make a statement to the House; and, in justice to an absent individual, he hoped the House would allow him to do so. The statement was this:—

195
"Mr. Barry has not been made acquainted with any declared wishes on the part of the Members of the House as to the decorations of the new House of Commons, and knows nothing of the existence of such a declaration collectively or individually. Mr. Barry is not persisting in carrying into effect the 'so-called' internal decoration of the House, which was suspended on its being objected to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Heraldry is absolutely essential to the character and the full expression of the Tudor style of the design adopted by Parliament, and it is the only means of giving historic interest to it, which, in a great national edifice devoted to the object of the New Palace at Westminster, is most desirable for many reasons. A display of heraldry and suitable historic decorations has always formed an essential feature of the design and estimates of the building sanctioned by Parliament, and I have never received any intimation, cither written or verbal, to forego the use of it."
He supposed, therefore, that all these decorations had been sanctioned by Parliament, as they had been laid before the authorities when the estimates were before them. He was sorry to have heard the statement of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene) as to the internal decorations, for he (Colonel Rawdon) was at a loss to understand how heraldic decorations could be carried on without colours. As to the decorations referred to by that hon. and gallant Officer the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans), he dobted whether the gallant Officer could have been in the new House; there was a lighter colour in the ceiling, because Mr. Barry said he found that if it was entirely of oak colour, being so low as it now was, it would have a very sombre and heavy appearance. In a gorgeous palace of this kind, they ought to create as much historic interest in it as possible. But he wished to call attention to the form of notice of the hon. and gallant Officer, and to say that, while the right hon. Gentleman in the chair claimed for every Member in that House a right of speech, he thought no hon. Member was bound to put into print a notice of this kind, which impugned the professional character of a professional man. The notice was neither more nor less than this—that an architect employed by the country was acting in opposition to the repeated wishes of Parliament. They ought to be careful in dealing with the character of a professional man. The wishes of the House had not been conveyed in a manner so authoritative, and therefore the hon. and gallant Officer was not justified in saying that the architect was proceeding in opposing the wishes of the House.
VISCOUNT DUNCANsaid, the hon. and gallant Gentleman told them that Mr. Barry intended to pursue the style of decorations he thought expedient, notwithstanding anything that might fall from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Commissioners. Every person appeared to be satisfied with the decorations of the House last year. The House was perfectly plain, and if it was necessary that colouring should be used, the House had a right to complain that it had not been used before then. But there seemed to be no end to the expense of the new House. They began with an estimate of 500,000 l.; he believed it now amounted to 2,000,000 l. He wished to know what was the actual expense incurred up to that moment, and what it would be to bring the works to a close. By a return he held in his hand he found that the quantity of water to be supplied for the new and old Houses and official residences was 260,000 gallons a day while the House was sitting, and 100,000 during the recess; but he had been credibly informed that that was a larger supply than would be afforded to a town of 14,000 inhabitants. If they went on in that way, the people of the country would be very much dissatisfied with their management of this matter. The Government ought to come to some decision on the point. For his own part, he believed the error had arisen from the Board of Works being united with the Woods and Forests, instead of being conducted by a separate and responsible Minister,
MR. T. GREENEthought the noble Lord had misunderstood the statement of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Rawdon). The hon. and gallant Member stated that Mr. Barry did not understand that any express orders had been given, but as soon as he found such orders were given he suspended all operations, and would not proceed in the smallest degree without the authority of the House.
MR. HUMEsaid, he had recommended on a previous occasion that Mr. Barry should be removed from his situation; and he did that as a simple matter of unfitness, and not as a question of pounds, shillings, and pence. The idea of spending 2,500,000 l. on a building, which, after all, was not a suitable one, presented an absurdity not to be equalled in the annals of human folly. He foresaw that so long as Mr. Barry could build up and pull down, paint and unpaint, at his pleasure, there never would be an end to it. The House

197
was not to blame in the matter. No party could take more trouble than had been taken by the Committee. Finding that Mr. Barry was unprepared and unfit to defend his estimates, the Committee had given him an entire year in which to come forward with all his plans and estimates, and to have everything ready; and the Board of Works had recommended that he should not be allowed to commence the work till all the plans were agreed on and ready to be contracted for for 750,000 l. The moment the House of Lords was finished, he (Mr. Hume) had complained that there was not sufficient accommodation for the House of Commons, and had stated that if Mr. Barry was allowed to proceed with it he would make it a gewgaw, just like the House of Lords, and not fit for that House. The House had negatived that proposition. He was convinced that the House would not be finished in five years unless some other plan were taken. Two years ago he had moved for a return of the expense incurred, as well as an estimate of all that was to be expended; and the Government of the day had done extremely wrong in allowing the works to proceed without obtaining that estimate. Mr. Barry would now have to receive 50,000 l. or 70,000 l. It was all very well for him getting his 5 per cent on the outlay, but it was contrary to the express agreement. But the Government was more to blame than Mr. Barry, who was obtaining his education at the cost of 1,000,000 l., in order to perfect himself in architecture, at the expense of the country; and he had no doubt the building would cost another million.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, his recollection of the first estimate was, that it should he 764,000 l. Then it became necessary to make an embankment apart from the original estimate, the cost of which was 80,000 l. After that, the House adopted a system of ventilation, and it was necessary to erect a tower; that was sanctioned by the House, and cost 70,000 l. more. That raised the cost above 914,000 l. But then there was the purchase of houses in Abingdonstreet; and, besides that, there was the furniture of the building, extending over an immense space of ground, and with a façade unrivalled in richness, as well as in lineal extent, by any other in continental Europe. But he believed that the money already expended had not been half of 2,500,000 l.; and, be the architect faultless or faulty, it was of importance to
198
his reputation that the facts should be accurately stated. Some individual Members might have complained; but where was the record of opinion of a Committee, or of that House, on the assumption of which opinion the notice now on the table had been given? He denied that there had been any such expression of opinion; and, though he could not agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. T. Greene), when he said there was an understanding on the subject, still he thought Mr. Barry would say there was no intimation of a declared will or wish on the part of the House or the Committee that he should omit or do anything that he had done or omitted. He thought it due to the character of an architect of first-rate reputation—for first rate he believed Mr. Barry would have been, even if he had not been the architect of the New Houses of Parliament—to make this statement to the House.
LORD CLAUDE HAMILTONfeared that the hon. Baronet had not listened to the observations of the hon. Member for Marylebone, who had stated that he had heard a conversation between the architect and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of the decorations. The hon. Member for Lancaster had also stated that an understanding was come to with Mr. Barry on that subject. He (Lord Claude Hamilton) most fully conceded that no Englishman could be indifferent to the feeling that tenderness should be exhibited in dealing with an absent man; and he, therefore, deeply deplored that the hon. Member for the University of Oxford should have thrown out as a taunt that, because the House had not formally recorded its condemnation of the architect of the New Palace, it was to be assumed that they approved of every thing he had done. He apprehended it would place Mr. Barry in a worse position than he was before; for if approval was assumed because no formal protest was made, the House might not in future consult that feeling of consideration by which they had been actuated. He wished to say nothing with respect to Mr. Barry's talents; they had heard that the decorations were not approved by the Commissioners; and, being the representatives of those who had to pay for the building, if they invited attention to their proceedings by their publication, he asked whether they were not setting a bad example in allowing Mr. Barry, without specifications, without draw-

199
ings, without plans, without consulting the Commissioners, to incur any expense he liked, and to involve the country in the payment of any of his fancies, however little in accordance with the wishes of the taxpayers? The grave error, from which sprung all other errors, was commited in 1835, when the architects were not bound down by any specification as to amount. All the architects were invited to compete, but nothing like an estimate was given. The result was, that one plan would have cost 200,000 l., and another 1,100,000 l.; there was no limit, and the dearest of all the plans was selected, for the amount had been nearly doubled. He hoped that some limit would now be placed on that expenditure, and, instead of desultory, and perhaps invidious, conversation, that the House would treat the matter as one of practical business.
LORD H. VANEhoped the House would come to some understanding on the matter. Mr. Barry ought to receive specific authority, and ought to be obliged to act on that, and on that alone.
MR. J. E. DENISONwould like to know who was responsible? He had the strongest possible feeling that the conduct and management ought to be put under some responsible administration.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYmust revert to the discussion on the New Houses of Parliament; he wished to know who was responsible, for positively no one seemed responsible?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERunderstood that the responsibility rested with the Commissioners; but, owing to the illness of one hon. Gentleman, who was, therefore, absent from England for some time, the Commissioners did not meet; and in that interval the decorations which he had stopped were introduced.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, the Commissioners had to determine upon the decorations, furniture, and fittings, subject to the approval of the Treasury with regard to the cost. He did not wish it to be understood that he said there was an understanding with Mr. Barry as to the ornaments, but that the Commissioners conferred with him on the subject. He thought Mr. Barry did understand; but he was ready to believe that that gentleman was not at all aware what were the wishes of the Commissioners.
MR. BANKESconsidered that the blame rested with the Treasury, who were responsible for the expense. As a mem-
200
ber of the Committee who sat towards the close of last Session, he could only say, that they determined that no expense should be incurred beyond what was absolutely necessary for securing a further extension of room to accommodate the number of Members usually in attendance. Their opinion was against painted windows, for fear of diminishing the quantity of light. Half the windows had been cut off to secure the necessary amount of room; and, now the windows were painted, he could not read moderate-sized print without great difficulty. The light was so deficient that he believed they would require at noonday such artificial light as they had then; and the expense of those windows must, in addition, be very considerable. He knew not who were responsible; but he was sure the Committee were not responsible, for in every discussion the principle of economy had never been lost sight of. All they had ventured to recommend was an extension of room; and he greatly regretted the expense, which no one had authorised.
MR. HUMEasked, whether Mr. Barry had given in any statement of the expense of ornaments and fittings to be submitted to the Treasury?
MR. T. GREENEcould not give a very satisfactory reply. The whole arrangements were now in the order of the Committee, and the Commissioners felt that it had been taken out of their hands.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
(1.) 14,606 l., Distinguished Services.
(2.) 52,000 l., General Officers.
(3.) 52,500 l., Full Pay, Reduced and Retired Officers.
Votes agreed to.
(4.) 377,000 l., Half Pay, Reduced and Retired Officers.
MR. HUMEwished to know whether any of these officers were capable of returning to the service, if required?
MR. FOX MAULEreplied, that some were, but the proportion was very small indeed—as small as could be conceived. There had been of late years a visible diminution both in the number of officers on the list, and in the sum granted to them. In 1835, the number on the list was 5,671. It was now 3,130, and the sum voted had diminished from 585,000 l. to 377,000 l.
Vote agreed to.
(5.) 38,993 l., Disbanded Foreign Corps.
MR. HUMEsaid, that, on looking over the printed returns, he was struck by the extraordinary longevity of these annuitants. They certainly appeared to live much longer than half-pay officers residing in Great Britain. Great care ought to be taken by the Government to see that no imposition was practised, otherwise these foreign pensioners would live for ever.
MR. FOX MAULEassured the hon. Member that every possible precaution was taken to prevent imposture; and the recipients of the pensions had to be identified by the consuls abroad before receiving their annuities. There was a gradual diminution in the number of annuitants, and there seemed to be every probability that, in the course of a few years, the whole item would disappear.
MR. HUME: Well, that is so far satisfactory; but he remembered some years ago calling attention to the pensions of some persons who came over here on the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and the explanation was, that though all these persons were dead, other persons had had the pensions granted to them instead. He did not think the War Office would be guilty of such a job as that, but still these pensions required looking after.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, in 1835 the numbers were 673; in 1851 they are 320.
Vote agreed to, as were the following Votes:—
(6.) 122,717 l. Widows' Pensions.
(7.) 88,500 l. Compassionate List.
(8.) 35,413 l. Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.
MR. HUMEthought the time had come when the Government should inquire whether the establishment of Chelsea Hospital was productive of benefit proportionate to its expense. Since greater facilities had been afforded for paying pensioners at their own abodes, there had been a disinclination exhibited on the part of pensioners to reside in the Hospital. If the immense staff of officers in the establishment were disbanded, the number of really deserving objects receiving relief might be quadrupled.
LORD NAASinquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had issued, in the case of the Chelsea Hospital, similar instructions to those which had been issued in the case of Kilmainham, namely, that no more inmates should be admitted without application being first made to the War Office?
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, he certainly had not.
MR. W. WILLIAMSthought the abuses in the Chelsea establishment were many and flagrant. There were 540 old men in the Hospital, and there were no fewer than 102 officers and 27 nurses to take care of them. The entire cost of the establishment was 26,735 l., of which near 9,004 l. was paid to officers of the establishment.
COLONEL DUNNEwished to know whether the 120 officers included the nurses? He would be glad to know how much was allowed for apartments for the staff officers. He thought it would be found upon inquiry that the institution was almost self-supporting.
Vote agreed to, as was also—
(9.) 1,233,050 l. Out-Pensioners.
(10.) 37,500 l. Superannuations.
COLONEL CHATTERTONsaid: Before the Army Estimates are finally disposed of, I am anxious to repeat a few remarks nearly similar to what I stated last year, and requested the right hon. Secretary's attention to, which he promised he would accord; and I would, in the first place, beg to remark upon the smallness of the sum voted under the head of "Allowance to Commanding Officers, as borne upon the Establishment—4,941 l." Now, Sir, this arises from a case of manifest injustice, in granting to officers commanding infantry regiments an allowance of 3s. per diem as command money. Now, Sir, why this should be withheld from the officer commanding a cavalry regiment, I am greatly at a loss to imagine, or how such an act of injustice could exist; by this, the pay of the lieutenant-colonel of the infantry is greater than the cavalry lieutenant-colonel, for the latter pays for forage for his horses, and the former does not; and the infantry service is not one-tenth so expensive as the cavalry. Whilst on the subject of forage, I would also remark upon another case of very flagrant injustice shown to the cavalry officer, in having to pay for the forage of his regimental chargers, kept for the public service. Payment for the forage is liberally granted to our illustrious Field Marshal, the Commander-in-Chief—every general officer employed; every description of staff officer; every officer of infantry; artillery; engineers; commissariat; all receive payment for their horses; and the cavalry service, where alone horses are positively required, where the force would be useless without, are compelled to pay for their keep and forage. This, Sir, is

203
an anomaly unheard of in any other service, and is so decidedly unsupportable by any idea of right or justice, that I am surprised any Secretary at War could sanction it. I trust, therefore, the right hon. Secretary will consider this, and remove the injustice. The right hon. Secretary dwelt with much eloquence and force upon the many and great advantages derivable from the grant of 1s. 2d., made by a late order, to the married soldier, for lodging-money— and no doubt they are very great, and I rejoiced to see the House reciprocate that feeling; but I hope my right hon. Friend will excuse me when I say I do not join in this feeling of praise, for I find the same spirit of parsimony here which always marks all gifts to soldiers. I dare say every Member (except the military) in the House were impressed with the idea that every soldier who had married with consent of his commanding officer, received this bounty; but such is not the fact, it is only given in the miserable proportion of 3 for every 100—thus giving about 8s. 9d. to every cavalry regiment per week, and about 3s. 8d. to each infantry corps. But this is not all. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will scarcely credit me when I say the public benefit by this great liberality—by the barrack regulations every man residing out of barracks forfeits all claim for fuel and candles, as well as the use of barrack bedding and furniture. Now, Sir, the value of these allowances is, I should say, rather more than 1s. 2d. per week; certainly more if we take into consideration the wear and tear of the furniture. Thus, what is paid by one department is saved by another, and of course the soldier suffers. The right hon. Secretary talked of the advantage which would accrue to the soldier by having model lodging-houses near the barracks, and no doubt it would be; but I venture to suggest a plan which would be far more advisable, namely, for the Barracks Department to construct some small tenements inside the barrack walls suitable for married soldiers, and they would gladly pay this allowance of 1s. 2d. per week. They would have the advantage of residing with their families, free from the wretched association of the profligate and depraved, who resort to those low lodging-houses where the soldier can only seek for accommodation—they would shelter their families from the immorality and impropriety of occupying the same rooms with bachelor soldiers, being resident within the walls,
204
and they would have their fuel allowance, and the use of barrack bedding and furniture, and be thus comparatively happy, and they would be under the surveillance of their officers, which every soldier should be. I have only one more matter to call the right hon. Secretary's attention to, namely, the state of barrack accommodation and lodging money to married officers. When a regiment arrives at its new quarters, the senior officers have their choice of quarters in barracks, and it usually happens the staff officers have the prior choice; but this is rendered quite useless by the paucity of the accommodation—one room. So those officers are forced into lodgings, and the junior officers occupy the room in barracks. Now, Sir, although the accommodation is not large enough, these officers, before they can receive lodging money —wretched as it is, 6s. per week—are obliged to sign a certificate that "they are not in lodgings for their own personal accommodation." Now, Sir, I hope the right hon. Secretary will expunge this certificate, which no officer can sign; and as this injustice falls on those who can least afford it, namely, staff-officers who have risen from the ranks by merit, it is most desirable it should be done away with; and I do entreat my right hon. Friend will consider this, and expunge this most objectionable certificate, and enable these officers to obtain lodging-money when the barrack accommodation is not sufficient for the corps. I have to apologise for taking up so much of the time of the House, but my anxiety for the advantage and well-being of my profession will plead my apology.
MR. J. A. SMITHbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Secretary at War to the want of day rooms for soldiers in barracks, as a means of raising the character of the soldier. He believed that in all other services in Europe there were common rooms for the soldiers, to which they could repair and pass their time in rational amusements, instead of in the town or canteen. He threw out the suggestion in order that accommodation might be provided in any new barracks that might be built hereafter.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, with reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Col. Chatterton) respecting the command money of officers commanding regiments, that he feared the question was one of pounds, shillings and pence, depending upon the liberality of the House.

205
There were questions with regard to officers in the Army and their pay, that required prior consideration; but he had not, as yet, been able to move in that direction, nor was he aware that he had given any pledge that he would do so. With regard to cavalry officers, he did not think they had the ground of complaint which the hon. and gallant Gentleman stated. The pay was perhaps lower than it ought to be; but still he did not think it was lower in proportion than that of other officers in the Army. With regard to the question of married soldiers, it was the intention to allow three out of the six permitted to marry to live out of barracks, and arrangements were also being made for separating the married and unmarried soldiers. The question of married officers was one which he feared he could not touch, for if they were to allow married officers to have accommodation for their wives and families as a matter of claim, the entire Army would very soon be married. With regard to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. J. A. Smith), they were extremely valuable, and he assured him that they had not been forgotten. Almost every barrack had now a day-room, supplied with newspapers and periodicals, to which he was happy to say the soldiers resorted in preference to the town or the canteen. These rooms were not as large as they ought to be; but care would be taken to extend accommodation of this kind as much as possible.
MR. HENLEYwished to know whether the right hon. Secretary at War had any objection to a return being made out, showing the comparative cost between the cavalry horses and the horses which were in the service of the artillery? On comparing the estimate, he found that whilst the cost of the horses in the cavalry wore 26 l., those in the artillery service cost 31 l.
MR. FOX MAULEsaid, he should be happy to procure any information which the hon. Gentleman might desire, on his bringing the question before the House in the shape of a Motion for a return.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

EXPENSES OF PROSECUTION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill read 3°. On the Question that the Bill do pass,
MR. BANKESsaid, he looked upon the measure as one of considerable importance.
206
He thought it would have been perfectly safe to have made it extend to cases of conspiracy. He thought also that provision ought to be made for defraying the expenses of parties who conducted proceedings for conspiracy in gross cases of injustice. A discretion ought to be given to the Judges who adjudicated on those prosecutions to award costs to the prosecutors.
Sir G. GREYsaid, the Bill already provided for certain cases of conspiracy; but it was thought unwise to burthen it with provisions to meet every particular case of that nature which might occur.
MR. HUMEsaid, in his opinion the time for the appointment of a public prosecutor had arrived.
Bill passed.

ADVERTISING VANS, AND BARREL ORGANS.
COLONEL SIBTHORP COLONEL SIBTHORP moved for a copy of the instructions given by the Commissioners of the Police to the police officers, relative to the preventing obstructions and other nuisances caused by the large travelling barrel-organs and advertising vans in and about the metropolis. He begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the substance of a letter which had been sent to him, and which he remembered seeing in the Times some time ago, relating the circumstance of a gentleman having been thrown out of his gig when driving along the Strand, by one of these advertising vans, in consequence of which he had suffered severely. The other night he had endeavoured to call the attention of Government to this subject generally, with the view of abating intolerable nuiances of this kind; and when he mentioned the subject to the right hon. Gentleman he found him extremely anxious, as he always was, to do whatever he could to correct any nuisances and evils in this metropolis. At that time the right hon. Gentleman had stated that an order had been given to the police on the 21st March, relative to this matter; and the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the police had full powers in regard to street nuisances generally, and that as concerned street music there was a special enactment in the 26th section of the Police Act, empowering any householder, by himself or by his servant, to order the musician to cease playing before his house in the case of illness in his family; and if the offender refused compli-

207
ance, he might be taken before a magistrate, and was liable to a fine of not more than 40 s. [The hon. and gallant Member then read a letter which had been sent by order of the Police Commissioners, dated Whitehall, March 28, intimating that "the police had no authority to prevent playing music in the streets."] And yet the right hon. Gentleman had said in his speech that such an order had been given; and the letter he (Colonel Sibthorp) had read was dated six days subsequent to the right hon. Baronet's notification. After such a letter as he had just read, he really thought he was justified in calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman again to the subject. He did not himself pretend to know what powers might really exist, or how far they have extended with regard to this matter; but he must say he regretted that these nuisances did continue to the very serious extent they had gone. He had mentioned that a gentleman had been thrown from his gig by an advertising van and injured; and he begged to remind the right hon. Baronet that an hon. Member of that House had complained of the frauds that were practised on the revenue at railway stations and other places, by these advertising vans, which exhibited advertisements of all kinds without paying any duty whatever for them. He was sure that the right hon. Baronet was not aware of the extent to which such nuisances prevailed. He did not doubt his desire to put a stop to them as far as he could. There were also many complaints from tradesmen regarding the difficulty they experienced in passing through the streets.
SIR G. GREYcould assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was very desirous, consistent with the law, to remove any of the obstructions complained of. With reference to the letter of the 21st of March, he (Sir G. Grey) could state that the apparent difference between the letter and the statement the hon. and gallant Member had made arose thus:—It had been stated in the newspapers that he (Sir G. Grey) had said that orders had been given to put a stop to all street nuisances; whereas he had said that any servant, owner, or occupier of property could complain of any nuisance to the parties, and if they refused to remove them, they could make a complaint to the police, who would interfere if it were a case within the law. The order of the 21st of March was not an order to prohibit all street nuisances, but to prohibit and order the removal of all
208
such obstructions and impediments as were dangerous or obstructive to the thoroughfares. He had no objections to the return asked.
MR. BROTHERTONhad had complaints made to him of the interference of the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) regarding street music. If the hon. and gallant Officer could enjoy the opera, they thought that he should not interfere with the enjoyments of the poor, for street music was an enjoyment to the poor, without its being a nuisance to any one. He (Mr. Brotherton) was glad to hear that the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) had not given orders for the removal of all street nuisances; but he (Mr. Brotherton) believed that the police had been more active than they ought to have been, and the poor ought not to be deprived of these enjoyments which the hon. and gallant Officer could afford to pay for at the opera-house.
COLONEL SIBTHORPhad no doubt that the hon. Member (Mr. Brotherton) had received complaints on the subject, and he might receive many more; but he (Col. Sibthorp) promised him that he would persist in doing his duty in order that the inhabitants might be secured from danger to their lives.
Return ordered.
The House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS. — 1a Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management.
2a Church Building Acts Amendment.

THE COUNTY COURTS—THE CRIMINAL LAW COMMISSION.
LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM moved for returns connected with the County Courts (Minutes of Proceedings, 36, 37, 38, 39). He regretted to hear the complaints that had been made with respect to any increase of the salaries of the County Court Judges, for the working of those courts proved how highly beneficial they had been to the public. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had said that ninety-nine cases out of one hundred decided in those courts were for sums under 20 s. He had looked at the returns, and he found that about one-third of the cases were for such sums, but it appeared also that out of 130,000 disposed of by those Courts last year, no less than 32,000 were for sums above 10 l., while he found that in the Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas in the year 1827 —the last year for which there was any return—the number was only 31,600. There was another subject that appeared to him to require attention, and that was with respect to the state of the criminal law digest. Nine months since he had had a correspondence with his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack, in which his noble and learned Friend expressed himself fully sensible of the labours of the Criminal Law Commission, and he (Lord Brougham) was in hope that something would be done with respect to it; but the Government had allowed that Commission to expire. Every one was aware that the labours of that Commission had been very great, and, even without its being renewed, he thought advantage might he taken of

123
the admitted good the learned Members of it had done.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, his attention had not been called to the subject of his learned Friend's last observations; but as to the renewal of the Commission in question, the Government were of opinion that it was not required. With respect to the cases that had been disposed of in the County Courts, he had merely said that a large proportion of them were of the description he had referred to on a former occasion, and when his noble Friend spoke of the increase of the salaries of the Judges, he (the Lord Chancellor) had mentioned that a considerable number of the cases disposed of by them required no labour.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that one reason why those cases were disposed of with so little labour was, that the Judges had the means of examining the parties themselves.
Returns ordered.

CHURCH BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
THE EARL OF CARLISLE THE EARL OF CARLISLE moved the Second Reading of this Bill. The Commissioners for subdividing Parishes had presented two reports, and it was with a view of carrying into effect the greater part of the recommendations in their first report that the present law had been framed. The object of the Bill was to impart as parochial a character as possible to all divisions and subdivisions of parishes; and its details were chiefly directed to provide a sufficient amount of income for those clergymen who have the charge of such divisions of parishes. The Commissioners had recommended that some arrangement should be made to do away with Church Rates in their present objectionable form; but it had not been thought right to introduce any clause for that purpose in the present Bill. He thought the measure before their Lordships would have the effect of promoting Church extension throughout the country in a manner most unobjectionable to all parties.
THE EARL of POWIShoped that some provision would be inserted in the Bill with reference to outlying parts of parishes.
Bill read 2a.

RAILWAYS IN THE SOUTH OF IRELAND.
LORD MONTEAGLEpresented a petition from Landowners, Clergy, and inhabi-
124
tants of Killarney and the county of Kerry, praying for the adoption of measures securing by local guarantee the payment of interest to parties willing to undertake the completion of the works for the construction of railways (Minutes of Proceedings, 53). The petition involved a most important principle, and he wished to call particular attention to it. Some years ago, when this subject first came before their Lordships—that of affording public assistance to railway companies in Ireland — although it was late in the Session, the measure appeared so likely to improve the condition of the country that their Lordships readily sanctioned the Bill. The line of railway from Dublin to Cork had now been completed. Mr. Drummond, however, in his report, recommended its being carried further west to Mallow, and from thence to Killarney. This railway had been partly constructed, but the resources were inadequate for its completion, in consequence of which the grand juries of the counties of Cork and Kerry had assented to the principle of assisting by the county rates the completion of this railway; and the question was whether, under the circumstances of the case, Parliament would be disposed to sanction that proposition. The railway would give employment to from three to four thousand ablebodied men, and be of the greatest advantage to the district. A Bill was now before the other House of Parliament on the subject, and he hoped when it came up to their Lordships they would give it their assent.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill was first introduced in 1845 or 1846, and the capital of the company then was 375,000 l.; that estimate had now been reduced to 210,000 l. This, therefore, was clear, that it was proposed, in the first instance, that the capital should be raised on 150,000 shares of 25 l. each, and it was now proposed to reduce the amount to 14 1. per share, so that the original proprietors would get rid of 11 l. per share. The calls which had been made amounted to 6l. per share, and if all were paid up the sum raised would be 90,000 l., and the rule was that a railway company should not be allowed to borrow until half the capital was paid up. The power of borrowing, which they now wanted to take, went to the extent of 125,000 l., which would be 5,000 l. more than the estimated cost of the whole line. There was also an extension of this line from Killarney to Valentia, for which

125
no such privilege was asked; and, unless something was stated much stronger than anything he had yet heard as reason for dispensing with the Orders of their Lordships' House, he thought they ought not to sanction such a principle as that sought to be obtained by the Bill. The Galway case was not in point. In that case great distress existed, and that was the only ground upon which the public money was advanced, whilst in the present instance it appeared to him that private parties' came forward and sought to raise money for their own private advantage upon the security of others.
EARL GRANVILLEdeprecated the practice of discussing a general principle upon the presentation of a petition, and referring to a measure not before the House. There was some excuse, however, for this matter being then brought before their Lordships, and he found himself in the somewhat incongruous position of agreeing, to a certain extent, with both of the noble Lords who had addressed the House. The Railway Commissioners, in pursuance of their duty of reporting to both Houses of Parliament, had never given an opinion on the merits of Bills; but it was their duty to point out any unusual provisions in a Bill, or any clauses which might clash with the general law on the subject. Now, the provisions in this Bill were of an unusual character, and were not in accordance with the general law of railways; at the same time it was perfectly true that a precedent existed in the Galway case, whore the Government had advanced 500,000 l., but the cases were by no means the same. He, however, thought that a great public benefit would arise from the proposed extension of this railway. He believed that it was matter of notoriety that great distress existed in that part of Ireland through which the line would pass, and the railway itself would not only be a public advantage, but it would give great employment to the poor; and, therefore, he thought the rules of the House ought not to be too closely applied with a view to prevent such an object from being carried out. It was necessary that great care should be taken in preparing such a measure; and it was impossible that this Bill could pass both Houses in its present shape; at the same time it would be the duty of the Government to consider whether a fair and unobjectionable mode might not be adopted by which the public advantages contemplated by the Bill in question might
126
be obtained without infringing on the rules of their Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, there was such great distress in that county that he was sorry any technical rules of the House should stand in the way of its relief.
EARL GREYsaid, there two ways in which railways were advantageous: in the first place, from profits directly made from passengers and goods; and, in the second place, indirectly by the additional value given to land and particular parts of a country, by opening up communication. In the United States of America, and especially in the remoter parts of that country, railways which would be utterly ruinous speculations if they were merely to look at the receipt from passengers and goods, became very advantageous when they took into account the increased value given to the land through which they passed. He thought it would be very wrong for their Lordships hastily to assume that something of the same kind might not take place in Ireland. He thought it possible that there were parts of Ireland which suffered so much from the want of communication with other parts of the empire, from want of a good market for their produce, that it might be worth the while of owners of property in those particular parts of the country to consent to become subject to some liability in order to encourage the formation of railroads in those districts, even if these parties had no share in the returns on account of passengers and goods. He quite agreed with the noble Lord opposite, that it was quite right to call the attention of the House to a Bill of so unusual a character, and he quite agreed with his noble Friend near him that any measure founded on this principle ought to be looked at with the utmost care. He thought that, especially when they were legislating for Ireland, they ought to be careful there was not some job intended.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, there was something peculiar in this case. The petitioners who asked for this power were not merely the company promoting the Bill. On the contrary, it was the party who was to give the guarantee. It was the ratepayers themselves who petitioned to be allowed to give a guarantee on the raising of this sum of money. It seemed a hardship to refuse such a request.
LORD STANLEYsaid, it seemed to be generally admitted that this was a principle of an exceptional character, and one which

127
in ordinary cases ought not to be allowed. It was a proposition which the noble Lord behind him was not only justified in bringing, but it was his bounden duty to bring it, before the House. On the other hand, there was a general concurrence of opinion that these petitioners, not being the promoters of the railway, but who wore merely desirous of giving a guarantee, would by giving it, add to the value of a large tract of land. It was proved also that there was a great amount of distress in the district through which the railway was to pass, which might be in a great measure alleviated by the introduction of a work of this character. And he thought a case had been made out for giving, under proper provisions, the guarantee of the county rates for the purposes of this railway. There was one peculiarity which applied to an Irish railway, but did not apply to an English one, which was, that these same parties who came forward to offer this guarantee, had, under ordinary circumstances, the power to lay out the very same funds for the making of roads. The question then was whether they would not allow the county to make a railway for the purpose of opening up the county, out of precisely the same funds with which they could make a road for the same purpose. It was possible it might not cost the county a single shilling.
LORD REDESDALEobserved that it must cost them 25,000 l. at once.
LORD STANLEYsaid, if he understood it, the county gave the guarantee to enable them to raise the money; but be apprehended the guarantee was not to go further than to make good the amount of interest in case the receipts from goods and passengers fell short. On these considerations he thought, though it was a case to be watched, it was an exceptional case, and one in which they ought not to adhere strictly to the technical considerations generally applicable to railways.
THE EARL of POWISsaid, as there was a general concurrence in the county that the guarantee should be given, it was a case in which they might step out of the ordinary course, taking due precautions.
THE EARL of WINCHILSEAsaid, the House was greatly indebted to the noble Lord for bringing this matter before it. This was not a work which would do good to the whole county, but only part of the county. The House should well consider before they sanctioned such a principle.
LORD REDESDALEexplained that the
128
company proposed literally to do nothing of themselves.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, he felt justified in having specially called their Lordships' attention to this subject. He had stated that though the persons who subscribed the petition were of great importance, and represented a great extent of property, they were not the representatives of the whole county; but then he stated that two meetings had been held of the grand jury and of the ratepayers, and also that there had been held special meetings of the ratepayers in the district, and that all parties were unanimous in favour of it.
Petition to lie on the table.

BRITISH GUIANA.
LORD STANLEY: I have a petition to lay before your Lordships, of which I gave notice upon a former evening, signed by a very large number of persons of all classes in the Colony of British Guiana, praying for an entire alteration in the legislatorial constitution of that colony—(for the Abolition of the Court of Policy and the Combined Court of that Colony, and of all Offices and Institutions necessarily connected with those Courts, and for the adoption of a Representative Constitution in lieu thereof—Minutes of Proceedings, 54). The petition comes before your Lordships in rather an unusual form, but I hope not in such a form as to render its reception inconsistent with the rules of the House, inasmuch as the only departure from the usual form is that the signatures, instead of being appended or tacked together to the petition, are bound together in a book, which I now hold in my hand. The petition is signed by not less than 5,000 of the inhabitants of British Guiana, and amongst them I see the names of many persons holding prominent positions in the colony. The signatures include the names of all classes and all denominations—clergy, barristers, landed proprietors, merchants, shopkeepers, tradespeople of all descriptions, small freeholders, and labourers. I am sorry to see—because it does not give one a very high idea of the progress of education in the colony of late years—that a very large number of these signatures are subscribed by marks and not by name; and this applies not only to the labouring classes of the community, but in many cases to the small freeholders and even persons engaged in trade. But I must say with regard to these 5,000 signatures, that, almost without exception, the profession or

129
trade of almost every person is given, and that the genuineness of the marks is in each case attested by the signature of a respectable witness. It having teen represented that the views expressed in the petition were not the views of the colonists at large, it was thought desirable to procure a larger number of signatures from the lower classes than would otherwise have been the case. Before I proceed to state the circumstances of the petition, and the precise nature of its prayer, I must for a single moment describe the existing constitution of British Guiana, against which the petitioners remonstrate. That constitution is by no means formed upon an English model. It is practically, to all intents and purposes, the same constitution which it possessed at an early period under the old Dutch Government, and which was guaranteed on the cession of the colony to this country. There are in British Guiana two legislative bodies, or rather one consisting of two parts: one, the Court of Policy; the other, the Combined Court. The Court of Policy is constituted in this manner. The colony is divided into five districts; these five districts elect by franchise, which was a very high franchise, but has recently been lowered, seven persons, who form an electoral body or college of choosers. This college, consisting of seven persons elected for life, have power, as vacancies occur in the Legislative Council or Court of Policy, of selecting at their pleasure two persons, who are recommended to the remaining members of the Court of Policy, and the Court of Policy, out of these two persons, selects one who shall fill up the vacant place. Now, the Court of Policy consists of ten members—the Governor and four official members, and five other persons, who are nominated in the manner I have described. Into this portion of the court the principle of representation does certainly enter, but through a system of distillation which leaves exceedingly little of the representative character when the member elected took his seat. There are five persons, undoubtedly, who are selected by a body themselves selected, but elected for life, and upon whose return to the Court of Policy the previously elected members exercise that veto which consists in choosing one of the two returned. But inasmuch as the Court of Policy consists of only ten members, and of these ten five are the Governor and four official members—the four always acting under the authority of, at
130
in conjunction with, the Governor—and the Governor possessing the advantage on an equal division of votes of a casting vote, it is apparent that all the elected, even by the qualified system of representation, are of one way of thinking, and can determine any question in whatever way the Governor may think fit. With regard to the election also of a member caused by a vacancy among the elected members, the Governor has sufficient power without the exercise of a casting vote; for the vacancy having reduced the non-official members to four, the Governor and the four official members form an absolute majority of the remainder. The election, therefore, is in the hands of the Governor. Now, the Court of Policy, constituted as I have described, is, properly speaking, the solo legislative body in the colony. No legislation can originate or be carried on except in that court. There is, certainly, another body, consisting of six representatives, whoso duties are financial, and who are elected by the same constituency, and who sit with the members of the Court of Policy in what is called the Combined Court, and who there take into consideration financial subjects. Of course, although the Governor exercises a great authority in that court, he does not exercise the same absolute authority as in the Court of Policy; but he has not only the authority which he exercises by virtue of the free members which he has at his disposal (including himself), but the court is not permitted to originate anything whatever; it has only the power of dealing with the financial system and with taxation, and that merely for the purpose of checking and controlling systems of taxation originating in the Court of Policy. The Governor, however, has a further control, even over the Combined Court; for at any time in the progress of any measure, by his own single authority, he has the power to put an end to any discussion whatever, by moving and carrying by his own authority an immediate adjournment of the court, not merely to any future period, but sine die, thereby putting an end to the discussion. After the short description I have given of the legislature of the Colony, I think your Lordships will be of opinion that it is not one in which the representative system very largely prevails, or one which conforms very strictly to any British model; and that, if it is at all desirable to introduce the representative principle—if the Colony is fit for the introduction of institutions approaching to British institutions,

131
the remedy is to be sought, not in a slight modification of the existing system, but in an alteration of the system altogether, in accordance with the prayer of the petitioners. I am not aware exactly of the precise nature and extent of the alterations introduced by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) in 1849; but I believe I am correct in saying, that, while the constitution of the Court of Policy and the Combined Court remain entirely unchanged, the alteration was an extension of the franchise of the persons who had to choose the college of electors, and the substitution of a system of open voting for the vote by ballot, which previously prevailed. I am not quite sure, looking at the state of ignorance of a great portion of the population, that the mode adopted of extending, by lowering, the qualification, was the most desirable mode of introducing a change and similarity to liberal and British institutions. The vices of the want of representation still subsisted—the vices of the control of the Governor over the legislature still subsisted; and only the choosers were chosen by a more extensive, but probably inferior, class of persons. The fact is, that great discontent has prevailed in the colony with regard to the existing institutions for a number of years; and in consequence of this discontent, previous to April last a meeting was held, and a petition was sent to the Court of Policy, praying for an alteration of the system, and the introduction of the elective system, and a full and fair representative system. On the 3rd of April, a Motion was made in the Court of Policy, recommending that the present legislative and financial institutions of the Colony should cease to exist; that they should be replaced by a Council and House of Assembly; and that such resolution should be transmitted for the sanction of Her Majesty. The Court of Policy negatived that resolution—that is to say, they decided that the petition should lie on the table, and took no further step. On the 15th April, a largo meeting was held in Georgetown, which was presided over by the mayor; and, on the 6th of May, another meeting was held, at which a committee of sixty persons was appointed to organise operations for the accomplishment of the change which they desired. In consequence of the petition of the 3rd April having remained unnoticed, the demands of the people on the 15th of April became stronger, and they demanded a purely representative Govern-
132
ment, consisting of a Council, not nominated by the Crown, but elective, and a House of Assembly. On the 13th of June, a petition, emanating from the second meeting, was laid before the Court of Policy; and, from what motive I can hardly divine, but that same Court of Policy, which had refused to entertain the petition of the 3rd of April, then came to a resolution to this effect—that it is the opinion of this court that the legislative institutions of British Guiana are unsuited to the existing state of society, and that it is desirable they should be abolished and a House of Assembly and an elective Legislative Council be established in their stead. If anything were wanting to show the almost universal opinion of the Colony, it would be, that, in a body so constituted, such a self-condemnatory vote as that should have been adopted. Many meetings were subsequently held, and great activity prevailed. On the 18th of September, the Governor submitted to the legislative body a scheme not for the purpose of introducing direct representation in either branch of the legislature, but for the purpose of increasing from six to ten the number of financial representatives, and adding to the elective members of the Court of Policy the mayor of Georgetown. Immediately after the promulgation of the proposition, the Governor adjourned the meeting, without discussion, till the 30th of September. In the interval another meeting, very numerously attended, was held, which affirmed most strongly the declaration of the former meetings, stating that they would not be satisfied with such modifications as those proposed by the Governor, but that they claimed the establishment of representative institutions, upon the model of the British constitution. On the 30th of September, a resolution embodying that principle was proposed to the Court of Policy, and that Court did not negative the resolution, but, on the 8th of October, got rid of it by substituting an amendment, to the effect that the Court, recognising the propriety of not altering the constitution for the present without the full consent of all classes of the inhabitants, will abstain from legislation on the subject until sufficient opportunity be afforded to the memorialists for explaining in detail their plan for an Elective Council and a House of Assembly, defining what would, in their opinion, constitute a fair, free, and direct representation. Now, here is the Court of Policy condemning its own con-

133
stitution, and resolving that it ought to be abolished. There is, then, a general assent on the part of the Colony in that resolution, and a general declaration that they desire to substitute for these institutions a House of Representatives upon a principle of general representation, combined with an elective Upper Chamber. Nothing can be more distinct or definitive than these propositions. I do not say whether they are propositions which ought to be adopted, or whether the state of the Colony is such that it would furnish materials for these two Chambers, or that, if they are appointed, that they ought both to be elective; but they go as far as possible in pointing out the views and objects of the people, who are represented by 5,000 petitioners out of a population not exceeding in the whole 100,000 persons. For a body which has condemned itself, to put the petition aside by calling upon the petitioners to furnish a detail of all the circumstances which will give effect to their own wishes, appears to me to be an evasion of a petition, expressing the plain, distinct, and almost unanimous sense of the colony. If anything were required in order to test the feeling of large bodies of the inhabitants, and of those in whom the power of election exists, so far as it exists at all, it may be shown by a single election which has taken place in Georgetown, caused by a vacancy in the College of Electors. The constituency as constituted by the noble Earl opposite, has been called on to pronounce its opinion between the chairman of what is called the Reform Association, which supports the principle of representative institutions, and the supporters of the present system. Of 148 persons who voted, 124 voted in favour of a purely representative system, whilst there were only twenty-four votes in favour of an adherence to the existing constitution of the country, modified as it was proposed to be. I believe I have now laid before your Lordships the facts of the case, and the universal feeling of the colony in favour of a substantial amendment or alteration of the present system. The petitioners state that they would earnestly press upon the consideration of your Lordships, that a spirit of deep discontent has been engendered—that they have a general conviction that the public expenditure is not only extremely onerous on all classes, but, considering the present state of the colony, recklessly extravagant; that the high taxation has enhanced the
134
cost of living to an extent which has been painfully felt by all persons in the colony not in the receipt of Government pay. It is notorious to your Lordships that British Guiana, in common with other colonies, has suffered by recent legislative measures. I am not going to discuss them. But the result has been that the whole revenue of the colony has diminished, whilst the pressure of taxation must fall much more heavily upon diminished incomes than it did in the days of high and remunerative prices; and it is felt by them as a special grievance, that whilst their own produce is subjected to a very serious competition with other produce, and gives a very inadequate remuneration for the labour bestowed upon it, they are obliged, for the purpose of maintaining a high rate of salary for the official servants of the Crown, to impose taxes on the necessaries of life. I call the attention of the noble Earl opposite particularly to this complaint. They complain that while all protection is withdrawn from their own domestic produce, a high tax is put on those articles which it is necessary for them to import for their actual subsistence, and that for the purpose of keeping up the high salaries of officials, which are much more valuable to the holders and more oppressive to the payers than when produce fetched higher prices. I do not say anything with regard to the specific proposition of the petitioners. I do not pretend to such a knowledge of the colony as would enable me to state whether it is in a condition to establish two separate legislative bodies—the one returned by direct representation, the other either by the nomination of the Crown or by election also, as these petitioners propose, by a higher rate of franchise than that required for the Representative Assembly. I do not say that that process ought to be introduced. But this I do say, that if the colony is in a state of advancement and enlightenment—and I have no reason to believe it is not—commensurate with those of Her Majesty's other West Indian possessions—if there are a considerable number of intelligent and well-educated men, and there is a general feeling among them in favour of the introduction of the British representative system, in lieu of the old, obsolete, and badly-working Dutch system—on every principle we are bound to attend to the wishes of these colonists, and not hastily, not injudiciously, not incautiously, approximate as soon as we can to the purely representative system, and pave

135
the way for the introduction of that system, not by modification and tinkering that which is adverse to British views of constitutional representation, but by introducing the principle of direct representation, with regard, at all events, to the upper branch of the assembly, under such safeguards as may be thought necessary. The noble Earl is bound, unless there are strong reasons, which I do not see, to the contrary, to defer to the general, I may almost say the unanimously expressed, wish of the colony, and to grant such modification, with such restrictions as he may think fit to impose, to the principle of direct representation, for the purpose of enabling the people to exercise that control not only over their own financial affairs, but over their legislation generally, which is conceded to every class of British colonists as soon as the condition of the colony is such as to enable them with advantage to themselves to take upon themselves the management of their own affairs. I commend the petition to your Lordships' notice, and the attention of the noble Earl opposite. I do not pretend to dictate, or even to suggest, what precise course should be taken; but I earnestly hope that his attention and that of Her Majesty's Government will be directed to getting rid of the well-founded ground of objection arising out of an obsolete system, and the substitution for the old Dutch system of something like that British freedom which our Colonies ought to possess.
EARL GREY: I entirely concur with the noble Lord that it is most desirable that British colonists, as fast as they are fitted for it, should enter into the enjoyment of the representative system, founded, as far as it is practicable, upon the model of that existing in this country. But much of what the House has heard from the noble Lord, goes upon the assumption that the demand for direct representation is general in British Guiana. But, in the first place, I cannot admit that this petition expresses the general feeling of the people of the colony—so much the contrary, that on looking over the signatures I believe the noble Lord will find the absence of a very large proportion of names of the greatest weight and authority in the colony. I have here a despatch which has recently been printed, in which the Governor, speaking of a memorial delivered to the Court of Policy, and containing nearly the same signatures as the present petition, says that it fails to convince him of the all but
136
unanimous concurrence of the inhabitants in its object; that although the names of some highly influential persons may be recognised, the names of the great majority of the resident proprietors are certainly absent, and their places are all supplied by the names of their clerks and overseers, and that the great bulk of the respectable resident population is opposed to the plans of those who have put 1,400 marks in lieu of signatures to this petition, and who for the most part are members of the London Missionary Congregations. Now, if you have a representative government, it should be a representation resting on a really wide basis. But so far are they from being agreed upon that point, that although they have been repeatedly asked to do so, they have never been able to agree among themselves what franchise they would have; and it is perfectly notorious to all persons who have a knowledge of parties in British Guiana, that the petition emanates from a coalition between two most opposite parties —one party who want to have the extreme of democratic institutions, another party who wish to re-establish that which formerly prevailed—the complete power of a small oligarchy, consisting of a small number of persons holding in their hands greater power than the Governor. The noble Lord adverted to the changes made in the year 1849; now I can state to the House that antecedently to those changes, six or seven persons could return any one they thought proper to the Court of Policy—in that year, however, the franchise was enlarged. I must confess that when I look at what British Guiana is, I very greatly doubt the expediency of proceeding at once to offer a constitution which will really throw the power into the hands of the great body of the population. I must first consider what that population is. There are, I believe, under 1,000 persons of European descent in a population of somewhere about 130,000. That 130,000 individuals were in great part formerly slaves; Coolies from the East Indies, and Portuguese from Madeira. The population of Guiana is one made up of these various and conflicting elements, consisting mainly of persons—as it appears by the very petition which the noble Lord has presented—so ignorant that they must affix their marks instead of their signatures to the petition. Nor is this all. In Guiana, owing to the high rate of wages and the low value of land, persons of little education are able very rapidly to acquire property; and, as

137
the noble Lord has remarked, out of those who are described as freeholders in the petition, a very large proportion have added their marks, and not their signatures. Therefore, if you adopt any pecuniary qualification whatever—even one which in this country might be considered a high one—practically a large amount of power would be thrown into the hands of people who are perfectly ignorant. On the other hand, if it were sought to throw the whole power into the hands of the planting interest, that would be still more objectionable. Nothing could be more injurious to the real welfare of the people of that colony than that you should create an oligarchical power of that kind. Hence, it appears to me that the really judicious course is gradually to improve upon those institutions which we find existing in that country, and, building upon that existing foundation, gradually, and as the people become prepared for it, to increase the amount of popular authority. This has already been done to a certain extent. But the noble Lord has expressed a doubt as to whether the alteration in the franchise effected in the year 1849 was a wise one. In my opinion, the facts are quite decisive upon that point. The franchise at that time was, as I thought wrongly, confined to an extremely few hands. The absentees were able to act, through their attorneys, to a very preponderating extent; and although I have no objection that property should have its fair influence in the representation of a country, at that time the fact was, that practically a very few people were able to return the Court of Policy. By the alteration which was adopted, a franchise was given by which already there are between 900 and 1,000 electors, and that number is likely rapidly to increase; because there is no doubt that, under the law as it stands at present, a large additional number of electors might he qualified if the parties chose to claim. The Financial Representatives are chosen by direct election; the voters have the power of preventing the imposition of any new taxes, and of regulating all the financial affairs of the colony. In all financial matters the colony does already possesss, to a great extent, the power of self-government. My Lords, I have said that this petition does not represent the opinions of the great majority of the persons in the colony, and still less does it represent that of persons in this country who are deeply interested in the welfare of that colony, and who possess a
138
large proportion of the property there. I hold in my hand a Resolution which I received only a short time before I came here to night, and which was transmitted by the chairman of a meeting of proprietors very largely interested in British Guiana. The opinion they entertain is this—that, under the existing institutions of that colony, the taxpayers possess an effectual control over both the imposition and the expenditure of the taxes; and then they go to point out several reforms and alterations in the existing institutions, which they consider desirable, and which would, in their opinion, be greatly preferable to any sweeping change of the constitution as it now exists. To the alterations which these gentlemen propose, I see no objection whatever. On the contrary, I believe they are sound in principle, calculated to improve the existing institutions of the colony, and gradually to prepare it for the enjoyment of still greater freedom. Accordingly it will be my duty to send out these Resolutions to the Governor, and strongly to recommend to him that a measure founded upon them should be passed by the Court of Policy. I believe that those Resolutions have been adopted by every considerable merchant connected with Guiana, resident in England, Scotland, and Ireland. I cannot help, therefore, thinking that these very intelligent and respectable gentlemen most deeply interested in the welfare of the colony, are quite fit to be trusted with a matter of this kind; and the opinion thus expressed by them is one which ought not to be lightly rejected in favour of that petition which is signed by a small portion of the inhabitants of that colony, and in which, to a large extent, the signatures are not signatures but marks. Then the noble Lord went on to say that, under the existing constitution of the colony, the burden of taxation is very heavy, and that the financial affairs have been very ill-managed. Now, since the last five years, all the changes that have been made have been for the relief of the colony. A large reduction of expenditure has taken place, and a considerable reduction of taxation has taken place also. But the noble Lord said that since that time the Act of 1846 had been passed, an Act which so much affected the property of the colony as to make the necessity of a further reduction of taxation more urgent. Now, I believe, if the noble Lord will look at the actual state of that colony, he will find that it is certainly not less promising in regard to

139
cultivation than it was when the Act of 1846 passed. I will venture to say—and I challenge inquiry into the subject—that the noble Lord will not find, comparing the actual price at which sugar is produced in Guiana, and the price which it realises, that any change for the worse has taken place: in fact, the Governor, in recently opening the Session, congratulated the Court of Policy upon the dawning of better prospects for the future; and I believe he made the statements which he did without being contradicted. Much has been done to reduce the cost of cultivation in the colony, and the fall of wages is equal to the fall of the price of food. I ventured to state upon a previous occasion, that here the effect of protection was to keep up wages. In the case of Guiana, with a limited population, and with an immense demand for labour, there was at that time little inducement to labour; the people would not do more work than was necessary to maintain themselves. Now, the effect of the high prices of sugar inducing the planters to bid against each other was to raise wages, and at the same time to diminish the amount of labour performed. This is what I stated at the time would be the case, and what has been proved by experience. The rate of wages has now fallen to this extent, that the population do more work now for the same wages than they did formerly; and this, in the state of society at Guiana, is an unmixed good, not only to the planters but to the people themselves; because it is most desirable that an adequate motive should be found to labour, and that no desire should exist to encourage the system of idleness which previously prevailed in the colony. The noble Lord stated that the effect of the measure of 1846 has been so to injure the colony as to make a great reduction of taxation necessary. Now, if we look at the facts before us, I find no proof of this. What is the actual state of affairs? At this moment the Governor has been able to propose in the colony a reduction of taxation to the extent of no less than between 150,000 and 200,000 dollars. And how has ho been able to do that? Why, mainly by the increased productiveness of existing taxes. Surely that is no proof of general distress in the colony. It seems to me to be a decided proof of the reverse. I am also happy to say that a great part of this reduction is to be a reduction of the duties upon imported provisions—because I concur with
140
the noble Lord with respect to that colony —and I only wish he concurred with me in the same principle as regards England —that no more suicidal policy could be adopted in Guiana than laying heavy taxes upon the importation of the necessaries of life. But even the existence of self-government could not prevent this, for we do not find that in the West India Islands, for example, any wiser policy has been adopted than that of the Legislature of Guiana. I think, however, that the Combined Court, in its present sittings, will make large reductions in these objectionable duties upon imported provisions, and that will ho followed in future years by their entire removal. I think that is most desirable, because I firmly believe that the effect of those duties upon provisions in the West Indies is most injurious both to the planter and the labourer. It is at all times injurious to the labourer that labour should be artificially restricted; and it is specially injurious to the planters, because in Guiana, by laying a tax upon imported provisions you are virtually giving an encouragement to the negroes rather to keep themselves in their own provision grounds raising provisions, than earning wages from the planter in the sugar mill. It makes the provisions dear; that is, in fact, it makes what the people can purchase with the wages they earn, less than would otherwise be the case; and I therefore think the Government has taken a most judicious course in proposing to reduce the duty upon imported provisions. In fact, the whole of the reductions which the Governor has proposed will really fall, in a great measure, upon those articles. I say, then, that in my opinion, it would be most desirable, if the population was prepared for it, that we should establish more completely representative institutions in Guiana. But as matters now stand, I concur with the gentlemen whose opinions I have now quoted, and who were, I believe, holders of a large proportion of the property in Guiana, that it is far wiser to endeavour cautiously to improve the existing institutions of that colony, than at once to sweep them away, and substitute a scheme altogether new and untried.
LORD STANLEYwould have been inclined to attach much more importance to the statements of the gentlemen cited by Earl Grey if they had not asserted that the colonists were not, in their view, fitted for representative institutions; whilst the noble Earl said, that they had already a

141
highly-intelligent and numerous constituency in Guiana—a constituency of about 1,000 persons—a constituency which would be much larger than it was if persons would come forward and claim the privilege; and that that constituency had now the power of dealing with all financial questions. The noble Earl said, that there was an extended constituency which might he made more extensive still; and that this constituency did in fact at present exercise control over the legislation of the colony. But, if that were so, the authority of the practical men to whom the noble Earl referred was at once destroyed; for the noble Earl did not state that the constituency were unfit, but that they did exercise control. Then why not let them exercise that control by direct representation rather than by a system of which the colonists complained as being so repugnant to them.
EARL GREYsaid, that there was a material difference between throwing practically the whole power into the hands of the population of that colony by such an assembly as was asked for, and giving a well-regulated power over the imposition of taxes, which was already possessed by the constituencies, who elected the financial representatives.
Petition to lie on the table.

RAILWAYS IN BRITISH NORTH AMERICA.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he had another petition to present, from an association of persons in this country who were deeply interested in emigration to North America (Minutes of Proceedings, 55). It had reference to Papers which were recently laid upon the table of the House, from which he (Lord Stanley) was glad to see that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to give some assistance, and the guarantee of this country, to the Legislatures of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Canada, for the purpose of establishing a railway between Halifax and Quebec. The petitioners (the Committee of the Canadian Laud and Railway Association) were connected with a number of skilled and unskilled workmen, who could not find employment in this country, and were desirous of emigrating to Canada, and they prayed that, in carrying into effect the railway from Halifax to Quebec, Her Majesty's Government would not lose sight of the connexion which might he wisely and advantageously established between a well-regulated system of emigration and colonisation, and the construction of this great national work.
142
He mentioned this now because he did not see any definite mention made in the Papers as to how far the noble Earl was disposed, with regard to New Brunswick particularly, to take the larger portion of the land adjoining the proposed line of railway as a collateral security for the guarantee of the Government. With regard to Nova Scotia and Canada he believed such an arrangement was unnecessary; but with regard to New Brunswick he was afraid that, looking at its present financial position, and looking also at its want of resources, as well as the peculiar adaptability of its lands to purposes of colonisation, that colony would not be able to give the Government a sufficient security for the payment of the sums to be advanced on loan unless the Government accepted as a portion of the security a surrender of the waste lands, which had already been offered by the colony. He saw no reference to that in the Papers laid upon the table by the noble Earl.
EARL GREYsaid, that with regard to the matter to which the noble Lord had adverted, he had only to point out to the noble Lord this circumstance, that the manner in which it was proposed that Her Majesty's Government should guarantee the loan, would make the whole revenue, both territorial and general, liable, in the first instance, for the payment of the interest on the loan. If the proposal had been that this country should make the loan, or should guarantee the interest to the company making the loan, it was obvious that it would then be material, in the first instance perhaps, that there should be a certain right to the laud on both sides of the line to afford the means of meeting the costs. But if the responsibility of this country was confined to guaranteeing the payment of a loan raised in the money market by the colony on the security of all its resources, territorial and general, that arrangement would be no longer applicable.
LORD STANLEYthought the matter well worthy the consideration of the noble Earl and Her Majesty's Government. True, the whole of the revenue and the lands of the colony would be the security for the guarantee of this country; but he doubted very much whether the revenue of the Province would, after providing for carrying on the administration of the Province, be a sufficient security for the sums required to construct the railway through New Brunswick, But even if it were, he thought that

143
in a national point of view, and particularly with reference to emigration from this country, very great advantage would be obtained by placing under the control of the Commissioners, who were, he understood, to act in conjunction with the colonial authorities, the promotion of colonisation along the line by emigrants going out under the superintendence and control of the Government. In that manner the surrender of the control of these lands along the railway, might, not only pecuniarily, but politically, be a most important matter for this country, with a view to transferring thither a large portion of industrious emigrants, who would not easily find their way there if the lands were not taken under the control of the Commissioners, but left to be disposed of by speculators for what they would fetch in the market.
EARL GREYwas understood to say that he thought any arrangement of this kind premature at present.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought the colony should be in the position of being able to offer a real security for the guarantee of this country; but he was afraid that without the surrender of the lands the colony would not have it in its power to give such security, and he should be sorry indeed if such an opposition were raised as that Parliament would be dissuaded by the insufficiency of the security to refuse its guarantee.
Petition to lie on the table.
House adjourned to Thursday the 1st of May next.