Sitting of 18 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Grand Jury Cess (Ireland); Poor Relief Act Continuance.
3° Victoria Park; Copyhold and Inclesure Commissioners; Charitable Institutions Notices; Tithe Rent Charge Assessment.

DAVID SALOMONS, ESQ.—THE OATH OF ABJURATION.
David Salomons, esquire, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Grenwich, came to the Table, to be sworn; and being tendered the New Testament by the Clerk, stated that he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament:—Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker; and Mr. Speaker asked him why he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament; he answered because he considered
980
it binding on his conscience; Mr. Speaker then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament; the Clerk handed to him the Old Testament, and tendered him the Oaths; and he took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, repeating the same after the Clerk; the Clerk then proceeded to administer the Oath of Abjuration, which Mr. Salomons read as far as the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," which he omitted, concluding with the words "So help me, God:"—
[Mr. SALOMONS then read the following declaration from a paper which he held in his hand, and then pushed over to the Clerk at the Table:—"I have now taken the oaths in the form and with the ceremonies that I declare to be binding on my conscience, in accordance with the statute 1 and 2 Victoria, cap. 105. I now demand to subscribe the oath of abjuration, and to declare to my property qualification."]
And the Clerk having reported to Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Salomons had omitted to repeat the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," Mr. Speaker desired Mr. Salomons to withdraw:—He thereupon retired from the Table, and sat down upon one of the lower benches; upon which Mr. Speaker informed him that, not having taken the Oath of Abjuration in the form prescribed by the Act of Parliament, and in the form in which the House had upon a former occasion expressed its opinion that it ought to be taken, he could not be allowed to remain in the House, but must withdraw:—And he withdrew accordingly.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLthen rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I am requested by the hon. Member for Greenwich, who has presented himself at the table for the purpose of taking the Oath prescribed by the Act of Parliament, and by the forms of this House, and who has proposed to take that oath in the manner most binding on his conscience, to declare to you and the House that he withdraws from the seat which he has lately occupied in deference to your high authority as pronouncing the orders of this House. But I am also requested by the hon. Member to state—
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: Sir, I rise to order. I apprehend that the worthy Alderman has not obeyed the orders of this House. He has not withdrawn, but is at present standing within the House, and it is ray duty to call attention to that circumstance.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must withdraw.
[To explain Sir F. Thesiger's interposition, it is necessary to state that the hon. Member for Greenwich, apparently not aware of the invisible line of demarcation which separates the space below the bar from the body of the House, had, during Sir B. Hall's address, gradually advanced on the floor towards the chair till he passed this imaginary barrier. On receiving Mr. Speaker's order to withdraw a second time, however, he immediately retired.]
SIR BENJAMIN HALLagain rose and said: At the time the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon interrupted me—I do not say that he did so improperly—I was about to proceed to state that I have been requested by the hon. Member for Greenwich to declare to the House that his only object in taking the course which he has adopted was to try his legal right to sit as a representative of the people in this assembly. It is not the intention—it is far from the desire of the hon. Member to take any course which may be either displeasing or inconvenient to this assembly; and I have now only to ask a question to which I should be glad to receive an answer from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. That question is to this effect:—The hon. Member for Greenwich, as I stated before, is only anxious to try his right; he is anxious to put himself ill a position in which that right may be fully tried by the legal tribunals of this realm; and I have to ask my right hon. Friend, whether, if the proceeding which has now been taken, is not sufficient to allow of the institution of a prosecution, and if the hon. Member will come into this House as he is prepared to do immediately, and lay himself open to the penalties of the law—if such penalties may attach to him—whether, in that case, my right hon. Friend will take the course which I think he ought to take upon the present occasion, and instruct the hon. and learned Attorney General to prosecute the hon. Member, in order that this question may be fully and fairly tried.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am sorry to say, in the unavoidable absence of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, I hope I may be permitted to state the course which I think it most advisable that the House should pursue upon the present occasion. I must first, however, observe that I am sure that whatever may be the opinion of the House
982
as to the ultimate issue of this question, they will do justice to the anxiety which the hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Salomons) naturally entertains to vindicate that which in his opinion is his legal right, as well as to the course which he has taken in deferring to the wish of the House, with a manifestation of respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, which I think ought ever to be shown by every person sitting, or claiming to sit, in this House. There are two questions raised by this proceeding—one is the right to sit in this House, and the other is the liability of the hon. Member to certain penalties if he should improperly take his seat. The object of the hon. Gentleman is to have that latter question decided in a Court of Law. Now it seems to me to be a matter of very grave and serious deliberation what course we should pursue in this matter. I certainly am not prepared, on the instant, to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone; and with respect to that portion upon which it is for this House to decide, namely, the right of the hon. Member to sit among us, I think that we ought to adopt no immediate proceeding, but that we should have time to consult the Acts of Parliament on the subject, and gravely to consider the course which we should pursue. I think that no proceeding should be taken by us without full consideration. After all, we are to pronounce our opinion upon the point, not perhaps altogether as we should wish, but as we may feel ourselves bound to do under the Statute and the constitution of Parliament. I propose, with a view to our taking up this subject in that grave and deliberate manner in which alone I think it can be advantageously discussed, that no further proceeding should take place in the matter at present, but that when my noble Friend at the head of the Government shall be present on Monday, and after hon. Gentlemen shall have had time carefully to consider the subject, we should resume the proceedings precisely where they stand at this moment, so that no advantage may be gained or lost to any party or to any view which any hon. Gentleman may entertain, whilst we shall have had time to make up our minds as to the course which should be pursued in reference to this important subject.
SIR BENJAMIN HALL: I entirely concur, as far as I am concerned, in the proposal of my right hon. Friend, and I wish to give notice that I shall repeat my question on Monday next; or if it should not be convenient to the noble Lord at the

983
head of the Government to attend here on Monday, I shall defer the the question until Tuesday.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: I wish to know what is the question that is to be resumed on Monday. It appears to me that there is no question before the House, and that there can be no adjournment of a debate, because there is no debate. I think that there ought to be placed before us some question upon which we could adjourn the discussion until Monday.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone put a question to me which I said I did not at present feel myself competent to answer, and he proposes to repeat that question on a future day. What I proposed was, that no proceeding should now take place, in order that we should stand on Monday precisely as we do at present, but with the advantage of knowing what is to take place, and of having had an interval to consider what it may, under the circumstances, he most advisable for the House or for any hon. Member to do.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: If I could understand that there was a question before the House with respect to which we were called upon to decide, I should be disposed to concur in the suggestion that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the discussion should be postponed until Monday, in order to afford us further time for considering that question; but I feel an equal difficulty with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in understanding from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman what the matter is which we shall on Monday be called upon to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman told us that there were two questions to be decided—the first being the question as to the right of the hon. Member for Greenwich to a seat in this House—and the second as to the means of affording an opportunity for instituting a prosecution for the purpose of bringing forward the question of the right of the hon. Member to sit and vote in this House. Now, I have great difficulty in understanding what is the first question which the right hon. Gentleman will propose to us on Monday as the subject of discussion. There can he no doubt whatever, according to the former decision of this House, that the hon. Member for Greenwich having refused to take the whole of the Oath of Abjuration, is utterly incapable of taking his seat
984
in this House; and therefore I apprehend that no question of that description can possibly be raised. [Mr. Serjeant MURPHY: There is great doubt about the matter.] My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork says there is great doubt about the matter. But my hon. and learned Friend was not in Parliament last year, and he therefore is not, perhaps, aware that there is on the Journals of this House a resolution upon this very question. Now, I apprehend that if our resolutions are worth anything, there is no question of that description which it can be open to us to discuss; for I can hardly believe that the House is prepared in one Session to rescind a resolution to which it came in the preceding Session, after long and anxious discussion; and I conclude, therefore, that there must be some other point which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that we should consider. And here I may be permitted to say that I think we fell into a great mistake last Session in the course which we pursued with regard to Baron de Rothschild. It may be in the recollection of the House that on the Baron de Rothschild's refusing to take the whole of the Oath of Abjuration, I rose and moved that Mr. Speaker should issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for the issuing of a new writ for the city of London. I was opposed, upon that occasion, by several hon. Members, and among others by my right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, at that time Attorney General, who stated that, under the Act of Parliament, the penalty for having refused to take the oath was not the forfeiture of the seat, but merely a disability to sit and vote. Now, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend was mistaken upon that point. I have very carefully considered the subject since that time, and I have come to the conclusion that the precedents in the case establish the course of issuing a new writ when a Member refuses to take the oaths which are necessary to be taken before he can sit or vote in this House; and I believe no difference will be found in that respect between the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the Oath of Abjuration. I trust I shall be able to satisfy the House that in either case where a person who has been elected refuses to take the Oaths, his seat becomes vacant, and that a new writ ought to be issued. Now, if that is the question which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to submit to our considera-

985
tion on Monday, I shall be prepared to meet him upon it. But if that is not the question which he means to bring forward—and I cannot assume that there is any other, notwithstanding the "great doubt" of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork upon a settled matter—I should be extremely glad to know precisely what is the point with regard to the right to the seat which the right hon. Gentleman means to bring under our notice.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I rise to order. I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is in order in making those observations, if he does not mean to conclude with a Motion?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon must conclude with a Motion, or else he is not in order.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: Then I beg leave to move, at the instigation of the hon. Member for Middlesex, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for a new writ for the Borough of Greenwich.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Greenwich, in the room of David Salomons, esquire, who has refused to take the Oath of Abjuration in the form prescribed by Law."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am very much surprised at the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon this occasion. A few minutes before the commencement of this discussion, I stated to the hon. and learned Gentleman the course which I proposed to pursue on this occasion, and he expressed his entire concurrence in the propriety of taking that course; and, as far as I could understand from my communications with hon. Members, I certainly thought it was the general wish of the House that no question should be raised this evening, and that we should not enter into the whole case in what would perhaps be the most objectionable manner. I confess, therefore, that I am much surprised at the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken, and I think I have a right to complain of it. It is no doubt, however, competent to him to pursue that course; but I trust, under the circumstances of the case, the House will not refuse to adjourn the discussion.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: I do not mean to oppose the Motion for the adjournment; but when the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) rose to call me to order for exceeding the proper limits of debate, I felt it necessary to conclude with a Motion, and I made a Motion which should give the House to understand the course which I would adopt on Monday next, when the question should again come forward for discussion. I have not the least desire, however, to violate the understanding to which I admit that I came with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject.
Mr. CHISHOLM ANSTEY: I rise to order. I submit to you, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is travelling into matters that do not now come properly before us. I wish to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is warranted in rising to explain to enter into a variety of matters not properly before the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon has moved the issuing of a new writ for the borough of Greenwich, and any Member making a Motion in this House is entitled to a reply.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: May I be permitted to interpose for a moment? I wish to prevent the sort of feeling which is rising in the House. It is not necessary, on a proposal for adjourning the discussion, to enter into a lengthened explanation of the facts of the case. Let hon. Gentlemen recollect the angry feeling which prevailed upon this subject last year, and which it must be our wish for the future to avoid. I feel persuaded that, by not alluding further to the question at present, we shall best ensure hereafter a calm and temperate consideration of the subject.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: It is far from my wish to produce any irritation. I merely wished to explain how I was almost forced, by the interruption of the hon. Member for Middlesex, to conclude with a Motion. I have not, however, the slightest intention of departing from what I admit to have been the understanding between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion. It has served its purpose, and I do not wish to persevere with it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Further proceedings adjourned till Monday next.

SUPPLY—CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
The following Votes were agreed to:—
(1.) 9,883 l., House of Industry, Dublin.
(2.) 600 l., Female Orphan House, Dublin.
(3.) 1,750 l., Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin.
(4.) 600 l. Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that great benefits had been conferred by this hospital on the poor, and he would refer the Committee to the testimony borne in its favour by Sir Henry Marsh. He hoped the reduction in this grant would not be persisted in next year.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to these votes, as taxing the people of this country for the support of the Irish poor.
COLONEL DUNNEwould like to know how the hon. Member reconciled the vote of 10,000 l. or 15,000 l. for the British Museum to his conscience?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped Mr. Reynolds would agree to leave the matter as he had left it the other evening, when a promise was given to take these institutions into favourable consideration.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, the Irish people were not indebted to this country at all, but were, on the other hand, defrauded of a large portion of their own revenue. A return of the Irish revenue showed that the gross total was 5,000,000 l.; the annual expenditure was 4,400,000 l., and 621,891 l. remained in the Exchequer after all expenses had been paid. Let any Member of the Government show that this was not correct if he could. He would prove to any jury of twelve men that in the debits annually made to Ireland, she was defrauded at least of 1,000,000 l. per annum.
Vote agreed to; as were the following:—
(5.) 1,200 l. Doctor Stevens's Hospital, Dublin.
(6.) 3,040 l. Fever Hospital, Cork-street, Dublin.
(7.) 400 l. Hospital of Incurables, Dublin.
(8.) Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 38,160 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Non-conforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
Mr. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should oppose this Vote. A return recently laid before that House showed that there were 451 congregations whose ministers received this grant; these congregations paid 18,441 l. as stipends, or about 40 l. a year each congregation. They comprised 86,450 families, or 432,250 persons, giving an aggregate payment for each individual to his minister of forty-one farthings per annum. The same return stated, that no class of Dissenters were in the habit of paying so little to their ministers as those receiving the Parliamentary grant. The Presbyterians of the north of Ireland were as wealthy as the same class in England, and were as able to bear the expense of their own ministers. The grant was equivalent to about 85 l. for each minister, or more than double the amount paid by their congregations. He therefore contended that no portion of the public taxes of this country ought to be paid for the support of these ministers.
MR. TORRENS M'CULLAGHsaid, the hon. Member for Lambeth had surprised him for once. He had expected him to conclude with regretting the paltry nature of this grant. The calculation he had referred to was made by a person called Duncan Chisholm, an absconding witness, who consequently could not be relied on. The hon. Member ought rather to have proposed a reduction of the enormous revenues of the Established Church, which had not more members than the Presbyterian Church. He regretted that the forms of the House would not allow him to move the increase of this extremely inefficient grant. Seeing the way in which Duncan Chisholm had tampered with the public money and accounts, his statements could not be relied on.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, he could not agree in the views of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), because he believed there was scarcely any vote in the whole series of votes for the Civil Services, the disallowance of which would be attended with worse effects than the denial of this grant. This grant partook of the nature of an endowment for the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, and was originally granted by the Irish Parliament in the 17th century; and having been voted regularly ever since the Union by the English Parliament up to the present day, expectations of its permanence had been naturally excited by its long continuance. It was extremely moderate in amount for its

989
purpose, and if it were suddenly withdrawn, he believed it would stir up angry feelings in the north of Ireland, which they must all wish to see allayed.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, this Vote was tantamount to an avowal that these grants were made to purchase the loyalty of the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland. This was assumed by the very worst possible principle on which they could legislate; it was injurious both to the people who received, and the Government who made the grants. The sum was confessedly inadequate for the purpose; and, on their own principles, Government were bound to increase it; while the Committee, by affirming the principle, pledged itself to increase the Vote if necessary. He bad resisted the Vote for the repairs of Maynooth, and on the same principle he should oppose all those partial grants. The Dissenters of Ireland themselves objected to these annual eleemosynary grants, and would rejoice in their withdrawal altogether. They were the source of bitter feuds in Ireland, and were the means of dividing the bodies into so called orthodox and heterodox parties. He would have the whole of this class of Votes withdrawn, whereby they would do away with great differences between the Dissenters themselves.
MR. W. J. FOXobjected to this Vote on the same ground as he had opposed the Maynooth grant, the Regium Donum, and all other grants from the State to any religious denomination. It was, in fact, an endowment, and it had had the effect of diminishing the voluntary support of the ministers by their congregations. When this Vote was first granted by the Irish Parliament in 1792, it was only 8,100 l.; but since they had had a pull on the English Exchequer, it had gone on increasing almost every year since the Union. He did not believe that the Presbyterian body had increased in proportion. The number of congregations might have increased, but there had been very little increase in the number of members. It was increased to 15,000 l. very soon after the Union—almost double the amount thought sufficient by the Irish Parliament—a proof of the greater liberality of the united Legislature. He should support the Amendment, though he would much rather see the vote annually diminished until it was wholly withdrawn. He was convinced that the increase in this grant had been occasioned, not by an increase of the Presbyterian body in Ireland,
990
but by the increased reliance of that body on the Imperial Exchequer.
MR. SHARMAN CRAWFORDwould vote against the grant, as he always voted against all grants for religious bodies. He would prefer, however, a gradual diminution of the sum to its immediate extinction.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, the grant had been originally made in 1615 by James I., to encourage the settlement of Scotch Presbyterians in the north of Ireland. It was suspended by Cromwell on account of the unswerving loyalty of the Presbyterians to the house of Stuart. It would be seen, on reference to the returns, that the grant had only been increased in proportion to the population. The sums awarded to the different ministers, 92 l. and 69 l., could not be said to be extravagant.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he should oppose the grant on principle. If made to the Presbyterians, why should it not be given to the Roman Catholics? He had opposed any endowment of the Roman Catholics on this very principle.
MR. ROCHEthought that retrenchment ought to begin with the Established Church, and not with those who dissented from it. This grant was adapted to the state of things in Ireland. If the voluntary theory was to be carried out, let them not begin with these small grants, but with the Established Church.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELLsaid, he should support the grant. He was certain its withdrawal would be felt by the Presbyterians as a very great hardship. Considering the length of time the grant had existed, he thought it would be an act of injustice to do away with it.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYwould vote against the grant, for the reasons assigned by the last speaker, as well as on account of what had been stated from the Treasury bench, that the grant had been in existence upwards of two centuries. He thought it high time that these things were done away with. He had a memorial from a large body of English Dissenters, requesting him to oppose a similar grant for this country.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that in reply to those who argued that the Established Church should be made the first example of reduction, that his objection to this vote rested on a different ground from any objection to an Established Church, because the present grant was paid from the

991
public taxes. If the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to propose the gradual reduction of this Vote, as he had done in the case of the grants to the Dublin Hospitals, he should not think it necessary to divide the Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not hold out any such promise as the hon. Member wished for.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 115; Noes 43: Majority 72.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(9.) 6,589 l., Concordatum Fund and other Charities and Allowances, Ireland.
(10.) 144,000 l., Harbours of Refuge, postponed.
(11.) 9,969 l., General Board of Health.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that the Board had as yet accomplished nothing whatever, and he saw no reason for believing that the plan contemplated by the General Interments Act of last Session would ever be carried out. They had expended, in the course of four months, upwards of 1,600 l. in preliminary expenses. He hoped the Government would take care that they should not go on spending money in mere speculative inquiries.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that it was part of the General Interments Bill that the money for carrying out the scheme was to be raised upon securities; and that, owing to the difficulty of raising the money, the scheme had not been carried into operation with the success that might have been hoped for. All the ground round London had now been surveyed, with the view of ascertaining a suitable site, reference being had to the nature of the soil and considerations of that description, and he believed that the future expenses would not be great. The only question now was, how the future operations were to be carried on.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he had received numerous communications on the subject of these burial grounds, expressing much surprise and disappointment at the delay that had taken place in respect to them.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that before they could close up the intramural burial grounds, is was of course essential that some other cemeteries should be provided for the reception of the dead.
MR. MOWATTsaid, that that was a fact which they were all perfectly well aware of. But the public complained of so much time being lost without any active
992
measures being taken for the establishment of these cemeteries, and for putting a stop to the great evil which was so generally complained of. Was the noble Lord aware that in the very churchyard opposite, St. Margaret's, there were a considerable number of bodies interred daily? Why were not arrangements entered into to put the authorities in possession of cemeteries in the suburbs? The measure was pressed forward with much speed in the last Session of Parliament, on account of the urgency of the case; and yet nothing had been since done to give effect to it. He thought that the public had been trifled with by the Board of Health on this subject.
LORD SEYMOURsaid, that the great difficulty arose in respect to the raising of money to purchase the necessary land upon the securities offered.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, as the cemeteries about London were contemplated to be used temporarily, whilst the permanent places were being sought for, he could not see why, if these places were capable of receiving the dead of London, they should not be made permanent, and the intramural grounds closed. Now here were resources at hand; and he saw no reason why an absolute prohibition should not issue against intramural interments, seeing that they were the source of much mortality in this metropolis. One case of Asiatic cholera had been reported in the last week; and he therefore thought no further unnecessary delay should be permitted.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that in the event of the intramural graveyards being closed, compensation should be given those who had an interest in them. Now it was impossible to find the means for such compensation unless by levying a rate in the different parishes.
SIR DE LACY EVANSwas willing to admit that there would be considerable difficulty in putting such a measure as the Interments Bill into operation. But though there was declared to be a difficulty in obtaining the funds, yet he hoped an assurance would be given that the measure would be put into operation at the earliest possible period.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was proposed to raise the necessary funds on certain securities, but parties subsequently objected to these securities on the ground that there would be a risk. However, that difficulty, he

993
trusted, could be got over; but within the last few clays another had arisen, which was now under consideration, and he was not prepared to say that at that moment he saw his way clearly through it.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that if the Board went on expending money in the proportion they spent it during the last four months, it would be at the rate of some 5,000 l. a year.
MR. W. J. FOXthought the difficulty of compensation could be met in this way. On the interment of every parishioner a fee was payable to the parish clergyman. Let that principle be extended to interments in the cemeteries, and then a sufficient fund to compensate the parties having interests in intramural grave-yards would speedily follow.
MR. MOWATTthought if the Government had not undertaken to legislate on the subject, it would have been long ago put an end to. The Government were only trifling with the public health in this vast metropolis. They had now an accession of nearly 2,000,000 to their population, and consequently the metropolis was exposed to the greatest danger from epidemic. The Government might talk of the difficulty of putting the Interments Bill into operation; but it was their own Bill, and they were bound to see that ample provision was at hand to carry it into effect.
Vote agreed to.
(12.) 11,500 l., Incumbered Estates Commission, Ireland.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to ask for some explanations with respect to this Vote. The 4th section of the Act of Parliament gave power to appoint a Secretary, but it contained no authority for the appointment of a Master, and he believed the appointment of a Master was entirely illegal, The estimate included a sum of 3,130 l., under the head of "other persons," besides 1,370 l. for incidental expenses, and he thought some explanation should be afforded as to the manner in which those sums were expended. Mr. Baron Richards, the First Commissioner, received 1,500 l. a year for his services under the Incumbered Estates Act, in addition to his salary of 4,000 l. as a Baron of the Exchequer; but he contended that the public were entitled to the learned Baron's services in consideration of his judicial salary. He also thought the appointment of Baron Richards as a Commissioner was objectionable, because he
994
would thereby be prevented from attending to his duties in the Exchequer, and great inconvenience might be occasioned in consequence. Baron Richards, also, was prevented by his duties as a Commissioner from going circuit, and it had been therefore necessary to send a barrister in his place. He (Colonel Dunne) considered that the proceedings of the Incumbered Estates Commission were spreading ruin in Ireland, where it was unsettling all ideas of private property, by giving what was called a Parliamentary Title; but it was in reality nothing but a Parliamentary sanction of robbery. The Commissioners commenced by stating that they had had applications made to them for the sale of property, the nominal rental of which was 1,036,975 l., but the real worth of which they took at 850,000 l.; and it appeared that they had sold 227,327 acres of land, of which 210,000 acres were arable, at an average price of something like 9s. an acre, as cheap, he believed, as it could be bought in America or New Zealand. The incumbrances on this land were stated at 4,082,192 l., and they also said that they had received for it only 1,850,116 l.; what, therefore, was to become of the remaining sum of near 3,000,000 l. of debts? He admitted, indeed, that in many cases the incumbrances on an estate appeared to be double what they were in reality, on account of a practice in Ireland of giving judgments with the mortgage as a collateral security. One of the benefits which it was promised would result from this Court was that the money received on account of sales would be distributed quickly; but it appeared that although up to the 31st of March last the Commissioners had received 1,850,116 l., they had more than 500,000 l. undistributed in their hands on the 1st of May. A policy based on such injustice, and carried out in such a manner, could be of no benefit to any country, and he believed that of all the measures detrimental to Ireland that had been passed of late years, this was the worst, and would be most disastrous in its effects.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISmust decline to enter, on the present occasion, into the general policy and operation of the Incumbered Estates Courts in Ireland; but he certainly differed entirely from the hon. and gallant Member as to the tendency of that policy, and its effects up to the present time. He (Mr. C. Lewis) would only remark, with regard to the non-dis-

995
tribution of the funds under the control of the Court, that the main object of the Incumbered Estates Act was to facilitate transfers of property, and to place purchasers in possession as soon as the purchase was effected, instead of keeping them out of possession, which would have been the effect of the slow and tedious process of sales heretofore effected under the direction of the Court of Chancery. It was the duty of the Court to distribute the funds created by purchases among creditors, according to the priority of their claims; but it was necessary that those claims should be proved, and their due priority ascertained, and that process could not be very rapidly performed. There was, however, no doubt that the Incumbered Estates Court proceeded much more rapidly in the distribution of the funds than the Court of Chancery would have done. The hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington inquired under what authority a Master had been appointed. He (Mr. C. Lewis) apprehended that that officer had been appointed under the general authority contained in the Incumbered Estates Act. The 4th section of that Act provided that it should be lawful for the Commissioners from time to time, with the consent of the Treasury, to appoint a secretary, clerks, messengers, and such other officers as they thought proper. A general power was thus given to the Commissioners to appoint officers, with the consent of the Treasury, to carry out the Act; and he believed the Master of the Court had been appointed under that general authority, and that his salary had been fixed with the consent of the Treasury. With regard to the appointment of Baron Richards, that was merely a temporary arrangement, made when the Incumbered Estates Court was originally constituted, in order that that Court might have the benefit of his knowledge and experience. It was true the learned Baron received an additional salary in consideration of his undertaking duties in addition to those of his judicial office; and he (Mr. C. Lewis) thought such as arrangement, under the circumstances, was only just.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONwished to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary circumstance that so large a sum as 4,500 l. was put down in this estimate to "other persons and incidental expenses." He found in other estimates (and very properly) the most minute details; as, for instance, at Pentonville pri-
996
son, "an assistant tailor, 26 l., and a charwoman, 31 l.," and so on. He doubted whether the Committee would do right in passing such vague charges without some explanation as to the items.
MR. HATCHELLsaid, that the Master of the Court was the gentleman who was originally appointed secretary, and who performed duties similar to those of the Master in the Court of Chancery; it was found necessary to devolve them upon him, in consequence of the accumulation of business in the Court, which required the Commissioners to devote the whole of their attention to the higher duties of the Court. His salary remained the same, and nothing was changed but the name of his office—a step which was thought expedient, in order that the duties performed by him should be properly understood. The particulars required by the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) were furnished in a return on the table. With regard to the head "incidental expenses," he might state that, in consequence of the accumulation of business in the court, it had been found necessary to employ additional hands, a great many of whom had been employed in furnishing the numerous and difficult returns called for by that House.
MR. ROCHEthought that the principle of the Incumbered Estates Act was a good one, though he wished to guard himself from being taken to approve of the manner in which its details had been carried out. He must complain, however, that Government did not press with sufficient vigour the Security for Advances Bill, which was introduced two years ago by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Master of the Rolls, and which was absolutely necessary to prevent the depreciation in the value of property which had taken place in consequence of the quantity of land which had been brought into the market in order to pay off the incumbrances. He knew a case in which land was recently sold at Cork at five years' purchase. He did not see why there should be any delay in the distribution of the fund to creditors; if there were not enough Commissioners to do the work, more should be appointed.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that the Incumbered Estates Act received the general assent of both Irish and English Members on both sides the House, nor was the present a fitting occasion for discussing the principle of the Court.

997
Whatever difference of opinion might exist with reference to that point, he thought there could be none with respect to its efficiency, and to the manner in which the Commissioners performed the duties entrusted to them. It appeared, by a return dated July 17, 1850, that up to that time the Commissioners had sold property worth 500,000 l., the whole of which they hoped to distribute with the exception of 25,000 l., which possibly might have to be lodged in the Court of Chancery; that they had actually distributed 100,000 l., and hoped to distribute 200,000 l. more before October. The total amount of the purchase money of the land sold up to the 30th March last was 1,850,116 l., and they had distributed 838,000 l. up to the 1st May.
LORD NAASsaid, that when the general assent of the Irish Members, was given to the Incumbered Estates Act, they had no idea of the enormous extent to which the operations, under it would proceed. Something was then said of 2,000,000 l. of property coming under it, but he believed that the Court had now in its hands property on which there were 17,000,000 l. of incumbrances. He believed that the effects of the Bill had been quite different from what was anticipated; and he believed that, although a small measure was necessary, this had so far outrun what was expected from it that it had done much more harm than good. He believed that the greatest escape that Ireland ever had was from the Security for Advances Bill. It sanctioned a general issue of paper money representing land, which would have been the French assignats of 1792 over again.
MR. MONSELLsaid, he must differ from his noble Friend as to the effect of the measure, but he regretted that it was not accompanied by the Security for Advances Bill. The working of this Act had revealed a state of things in Ireland which if known before would, he believed, have made the House more desirous of passing it sooner. Estates to the value of 850,000 l. a year had been brought under the Court, and the incumbrances upon them were 17,971,000 l. Out of 1,650 estates which had been brought under this Court, one half had been under receivers of the Court of Chancery. He would ask his noble, Friend whether any country could thrive or prosper under such a state of things. The Commissioners had discharged their duty in the most satisfactory manner, and nothing could be more re-
998
markable than the cheapness and expedition of the process. They had distributed and allowed in payment of incumbrances, 932,000 l. [Colonel DUNNE: No, no!] They state in their returns of the 3rd of May that 838,000 l. had been distributed, and that 94,000 l. had been retained for the payment of incumbrances. The expenses of the Commission were only 11,500 l., and he thought Her Majesty's Government would do well to reform the other Courts of the kingdom, and endeavour to make them work as cheaply as the Incumbered Estates Court. So far from thinking the Court injurious, he thought that, if necessary, the Commissioners should be increased.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsuggested that the discussion was passing beyond the question before the Committee.
SIR HENRY BARRONmaintained that this was a fit occasion for the expression of opinions respecting the Incumbered Estates Act. He saw too much of the ruin which had overtaken many families through the working of the Act, to sit silent when he heard this described as a beneficial measure. The market had been glutted with landed property, and estates had consequently sold for twelve or thirteen years' purchase, instead of twenty or twenty-five. Creditors had been ruined, He knew an estate sold for 22,000 l, where the encumbrances were 27,000 l., the interest of which had always been well paid, and left the owner a clear income of 850 l. a year.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he believed the Act had robbed the proprietor, the puisne creditor, the widow, and the orphan. To sell at twelve years' purchase estates worth twenty, was robbery. He could not think that due diligence was used in distributing: the money.
MR. ROCHEregretted that there was a deficiency on sales, owing to the depreciation caused by the potato disease, and the fact of more money having been lent than the land was worth; but the case would be worse, unless the Security for Advances Bill were passed, and English capital attracted to the country.
MR. REYNOLDSwould not vindicate the details of the Act; but he was prepared to raise his voice in support of the Act itself, as having done greater service to, and conferred more substantial benefit upon, the great majority of the people of Ireland than all the Acts of Parliament which had been passed by this House for

999
a half century. He admitted that property in Ireland had been sold at twelve years' purchase, but not that that was below its value; because, when an estate was offered in Dublin in the Incumbered Estates Court, but unincumbered by a pauper population, and the purchaser had a fair guarantee of between 4 and 5 per cent for his investment, it was not sold at twelve or eighteen years, but often ranged between twenty and twenty-four years purchase. As an instance of this, he might mention the sale, the week before last, of Lord Belmore's extensive estates in Cavan and Fermanagh, producing between 5,000 l. and 6,000 l. a year; and the average number of years' purchase which that property had brought in the Court was as close as might be to twenty-one, whilst, instead of being in the hands of one sole proprietor, as before, it had been sold in twenty-two portions, and had thereby created twenty-two additional fee-simples. He could not agree that the Commissioners had glutted the market by forcing more land into it than there was money to purchase with; I and he knew that when the Commissioners had been pressed to adjourn sales, they had invariably complied. He (Mr. Reynolds) did not want English capital to flow into Ireland; that would be only increasing the number of absentee proprietors. He believed that both England and Scotland would be benefited by an Incumbered Estates Act; in many instances estates brought to the hammer would produce no surplus for the mortgagor.
SIR HENRY BARRONsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Dublin could have no knowledge of the scenes to which he (Sir H. Barron) had referred; and that he had drawn upon his imagination, which was exceedingly fertile, for several of his statements. He was quite mistaken, for instance, when he said that by the sale of Lord Belmore's estates twenty-two additional proprietors of land had been created.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes of
(13.) 4,993 l., Lighthouses Abroad.
(14.) 130,000 l., Census of the Population.
(15.) 7,700 l., New Bridge, Inverness.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to remind the Committee of the necessity of this Vote. About a year and a half ago, a great flood took place in the north of Scotland, which burst the bank of the Caledonian Canal, and washed away the old bridge of Inverness.
1000
The people of Inverness attributed the washing away of their bridge to the canal accident, and having obtained the opinions of engineers in Scotland to that effect, appealed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), on the strength of those opinions, to rebuild the bridge. Mr. Walker, the English engineer, did not concur in the opinion of the Scotch engineers, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), after considering the circumstances, came to the same conclusion; but, under ail the circumstances of the case, and especially as there did not appear to be any funds at Inverness for the re-establishing of the important communication which had been destroyed, he thought it best that half the expense, 7,700 l., should be granted by Parliament, and that the remainder should be advanced as a loan, and made a charge on the county.
MR. W. WILLIAMSwas on principle strongly opposed to the Vote, and would take the sense of the Committee against it. The most eminent engineers had stated that the destruction of the old bridge was not caused by the overflowing of the Caledonian Canal.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, it was quite true that Mr. Walker was of opinion that the destruction of the bridge was not occasioned by the overflowing of the canal. He felt bound, however, to state, that some engineers who were sent down by the Admiralty did not concur in Mr. Walker's opinion, but thought that there was some blame in connexion with the canal.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, he must complain that a rule was laid down by the Admiralty department, that when a joint-stock company or a benevolent individual determined upon rescuing from the sea what was called shore, before being permitted to commence such an undertaking, they were required to lodge a large sum of money for a preliminary survey; and if they were unable to lodge that money, the work was stopped. In the same breath that the Lords of the Admiralty laid down that rule, they came forward to aid the inhabitants of Inverness with 7,700 l. of the public money for the purpose of building a bridge.
MR. DUNCANthought it rather too much to say that the engineer of the Caledonian Canal would send in a report against himself. Scotchmen were not generally guilty of such indiscretion.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would not trouble the Committee to divide.
Vote agreed to; as was also the Vote for
(16.) 7,000 l., Cholera in Jamaica.
(17.) 15,000 l., Hunterian Collection (College of Surgeons).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in proposing this Vote, said, that Dr. John Hunter, having left an anatomical museum, which was committed by the Government of the day to the charge of the College of Surgeons, the duty devolved on that body of preserving those specimens, of admitting the public under certain restrictions, and of giving a course of lectures on science generally. The College of Surgeons had most faithfully discharged the trust confided to them. They had largely added to the museum; they had expended on it and the theatre no less a sum than 189,000 l. of their own money; and at this moment, in point of pathological science, it was now the first museum in the country. It had been lately found that the present building was not sufficient for the purposes of the museum, with a due regard to the convenience of the public, in its increased extent, and an application had been made to the Government for a grant towards making the required addition to the museum, and for enlarging the theatre for the delivery of the lectures.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISbegged to tender his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the encouragement the Government were, by bringing forward this Vote, giving to medical science.
Vote agreed to.
(18.) 1,000 l., Babylonian and Assyrian Inscriptions.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that the Committee was aware of the discoveries which had been under the direction of Colonel Rawlinson on the supposed sites of ancient Babylon and Nineveh, and that under his superintendence, and with great labour, many inscriptions had been collected. A portion of these had been published in fac simile by the Asiatic Society; but, having only limited funds, and the expense of publishing the entire being beyond their means, they had applied to the Government for a public grant to enable them to complete this very interesting 'publication, and, as no very large amount was devoted to literary purposes, they might fairly recommend to the Committee a Vote in compliance with such application. He might as well take the same opportunity of stating that the next Vote, 500 l., was for the purpose of assisting
1002
Captain Layard in carrying on his excavations at the mound of Susa, with a view to the discovery of any ancient monuments that might be there deposited.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(19.) 500 l., Excavations at Susa.
(20.) 10,000 l., Works at Spurn Point, River Humber.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 144,000 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year 1851, the Expense of constructing Harbours of Refuge."
MR. W. WILLIAMShoped this Vote would be postponed until the Committee was in possession of some farther information on the subject. The report containing the items of expenditure, though delivered this morning, had not yet reached the hands of many Members, and those who had received it were prevented, by the shortness of the time, from inspecting the document.
MR. AGLIONBYtrusted the Government would not object to a postponement, as the hon. Member for Montrose, who, he regretted to say, was absent from indisposition, and who had paid great attention to the subject, was desirous of bringing the Vote under the attention of the Committee.
MR. COBDENobserved that he had not had time to read the additional report, which had only been delivered to Members that morning, and he believed many others were in the same position. He hoped the Vote would not be pressed until his hon. Friend (Mr. Hume), at whose instigation the postponement had taken place, should have had an opportunity of examining the additional information which had been submitted in regard to the works in the Channel Islands. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Sir J. Graham), who also had required further information, was not present.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERregretted that the information had not been placed in the hands of Members earlier. The present Vote had already been once postponed, and if it was not taken to-night it might occasion the delay of a week in getting through the estimates, of which two other Votes only remained.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Vote had been postponed in order that further information might be obtained with respect to some of its details. That information

1003
could not then be acted on, as it had only that day been laid on the table of the House.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that nine out of ten parts of the information had been before the House previously in the evidence he gave before the Committee. The only addition was as to the money which had been expended since, and the probable amount required to complete the works.
COLONEL SIBTHORPobjected to Votes being postponed on account of the absence of individual Members. He had himself, at considerable personal inconvenience, hurried down to the House before breakfast, in the expectation that the hon. Member for Greenwich was to take his seat at twelve o'clock, but had been disappointed, and the consequence was, that he had been deprived of his breakfast, and compelled to make a very hurried dinner in order to be at the House again at four o'clock.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, it was no uncommon circumstance for that House to grant indulgence to private Members on postponed Votes; but if doing so on the present occasion would prevent the estimates being finished to-night, and obstruct the general business of the country, he would not say another word on the subject.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLbore testimony, as a naval man, to the advantages of the works which had been carried out at Dover and Portland.
MR. W. WILLIAMSdid not object to the charge for the works at Dover and Portland, but only to that for the works in the Channel Islands. He wanted to know the grounds on which that enormous and, as he considered it, useless expenditure was to be incurred.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLwas of opinion that no money spent in preparations for war or the protection of peace was of greater advantage than that expended in the construction of harbours of refuge. As he was informed, the works at these harbours were all in progress, and the question was whether they should carry out what they had begun. He had looked over the report which had been delivered that morning, and he had no doubt, from what he collected from it, that the harbours in the Channel Islands would Be of very great advantage, and supply a want which was experienced severely during the last war.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the
1004
charge for carrying on the works during the present year, in the Channel Islands, was 60.000 l. He doubted whether the island where the harbour was being constructed was worth as much.
MR. COBDENwas quite willing to admit it was right to attempt to improve the harbours of Harwich, Dover, and Portland. His objection was to the item for the Channel Islands, particularly for the works at Alderney. The estimate for the works there was 620,000 l., of which 126,000 l. had been expended., so that there would still remain to be spent in constructing a harbour of refuge at Alderney, which was an island about two miles long by a mile and a quarter broad, nearly 500,000 l. of money. With regard to its advantages as a harbour for our commercial marine, he believed Alderney was never used as a harbour in time of peace, and if it was merely as a fortification in time of war, was it necessary to carry our outposts 100 miles away from our own shores, and fortify an island within a dozen miles or so of the French coast, in a place where the navigation was so dangerous that few ships would venture to go near it? This was a very different thing to fortifying our own coasts. This was carrying on a war of aggression against France. He hoped the Vote would not be pressed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must deny that the works in the Channel Islands were being constructed with a view to any extensive or aggressive operations against France. The object of the works was to afford protection to our shipping trade, in passing up and down the Channel. The hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) had said truly that the want of a harbour in the locality in question, was much felt in the last war, when French privateers, issuing from St. Malo, inflicted great injury on our shipping, and were the cause of a loss not of a few thousands, but probably of millions. He deprecated war as much as the hon. Member for the West Riding; but we could not shut our eyes to the possibility of war, and the Government would neglect its duty in not taking means to protect our commerce in the event of war breaking out. The works in the Channel Islands had not been undertaken in an aggressive or offensive character, but merely to protect ourselves and our trade.
MR. MILNER GIBSONhoped the ships or war steamers which were to protect our

1005
merchant vessels would not be sent to Alderney in the event of a war, for if they were, they would be of very little use, because all the English vessels navigating the Channel kept as close to the English shore as possible and avoided the Channel Islands; and a war steamer at Spithead would afford much more effective protection to them than if stationed at Alderney. He very much doubted whether those war steamers themselves would be safe at Alderney, when the works there were completed. What character they might eventually assume, after so enormous a sum had been expended, he did not know; he had been informed that the access and egress to and from the island, surrounded as it was by strong tides and sunken rocks, would be attended with the greatest danger to their war steamers; that in running to that island on some occasions they would lose some of their most valuable vessels; and that, instead of Alderney being a harbour of refuge, it would turn out to be a harbour of destruction. Believing it would be an improper place for a harbour of any kind, and that it would be altogether useless to protect the English trade in the Channel, he should support the Motion for postponing the Vote.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGwas willing to admit his right hon. Friend's high authority on naval matters; but without meaning any disrespect to him, he might observe that this was a subject which had been considered by a Commission of naval officers and military engineers who had reported in favour of this harbour, and that the Duke of Wellington entertained a strong opinion as to the importance of this Station. He was not aware either, in a military point of view, that it was a bad position, should there be a war, to place war steamers for watching the motions of any foreign Power that might be disposed to assail us in that quarter. [An Hon. MEMBER: Cherbourg.] It was of great importance to have a station at Alderney for watching Cherbourg.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDwould suppose, as the works had been undertaken under good advice, that due discretion had been exercised as to the position which had been selected. He would remind the Committee that France had thought it necessary to expend some millions in constructing and fortifying the harbour of Cherbourg, which was within thirty or forty miles from our Channel Islands.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, that in what had fallen from him before, he had abstained from giving any opinion as to whether these harbours of refuge were in the right positions or not. He presumed that that point had been settled long before he had entered that House, and therefore he had confined himself to the more general question of the Vote.
MR. COBDENcalled upon the Committee not to spend the enormous sums set down in the estimate upon Alderney and Jersey. It was useless to complain of the excessive weight of taxation, so long as they reconciled it to themselves to spend 500,000 l. on these harbours. This was an aggressive Motion. It was an attempt to fortify a place fifty miles from the English coast; and if they had money to waste, they would not be justified in throwing it away in such a manner, It was far better to sacrifice what had been spent on Alderney, than to go on spending 500,000 l. more upon it. He believed that if these harbours were to be made now, they would never be commenced. He should propose as an Amendment, to reduce the Vote for the Channel Islands by 60,000 l.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 84,000 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray, in the year 1851, the Expense of constructing Harbours of Refuge."
MR. HENLEYcomplained of being placed in a difficulty by the course taken by the Government. This Vote was on a former occasion postponed in order that information might be produced. The information had not been laid before the House until that morning, and no one had yet had time to consider it. Under these circumstances the Committee was called upon to sanction a great expenditure, with an intimation from the Government that this was to be the last Supply night.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 57: Majority 36.
Original Question put and agreed to.
(21.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 50,000 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. HUTTsaid, as this Vote included a sum for the suppression of the Slave Trade, he was anxious to say a few words on the subject, because the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had, on Monday

1007
last, made a statement to the House which he (Mr. Hutt) would not presume to say was erroneous, but which he certainly thought was incomplete, and therefore calculated to deceive the public. The noble Lord stated on Monday night that the Slave Trade had recently undergone a very remarkable diminution. The truth of that statement he (Mr. Hutt) was ready to admit. The diminution was a very gratifying fact. No doubt it was in a great measure owing to the tenacity of purpose and characteristic energy of the noble Lord. But let them not be misled by present appearances. Let them not be misled by what had fallen from the noble Lord so as to mistake their position in ibis matter, and the grounds upon which their hopes for the future were founded. Above all, he would ask them not hastily to come to the conclusion that the painful subject which it was his duty to bring before the House in the course of last Session, relative to the merits of the African squadron, had been finally disposed of. It was not the African squadron that was suppressing the Slave Trade. That squadron was now contributing to the suppression of the Slave Trade precisely what it had contributed during the last thirty years that it had been in operation—little or nothing. Did any one suppose that after having been inoperative, or at least only partially operative (as he thought every one must admit), for thirty years, the African squadron had all of a sudden become so wonderally successful as the noble Lord would have them believe? The noble Lord appeared to have acknowledged, with great justice and liberality, on Monday night last, the exertions which had been made by the present Government of Brazil towards the suppression of the Slave Trade. It had been remarked by Mr. Burke, that the Slave Trade could only he suppressed in the country where it ended, that was, the importing country. It was notorious, that whenever the Governors of the West India Islands earnestly set their faces against the Slave Trade, the Slave Trade in those islands uniformly became almost extinct. In 1842, the Brazilian Government undertook to do precisely what they were doing now; they prohibited the sale in open market of slaves imported from Africa. The consequence was, that the Slave Trade almost disappeared. But let them mark what followed; the Brazilian Government having adopted that measure of suppression in defiance of the public opinion, were turned out in the
1008
next year. In 1847, a Committee of that House, appointed to inquire into the subject, almost unanimously reported that it appeared to them that the Slave Trade in Brazil never had attained so great a height as in the year 1847. The years 1848, 1849, and 1850, were equally remarkable for activity in the Slave Trade. Well then, he thought it was quite clear that the African squadron had not effected the gratifying results described by the noble Lord. He thought there was reason to apprehend that that vicissitude which had attended the Slave Trade in times gone by, might probably attend it hereafter. There could be no doubt whatever that the Emperor and Legislature of Brazil were most anxious to put down the Slave Trade, but it was also true that the Brazilian Government were now acting under circumstances extremely favourable for carrying out their anti-slavery purposes, which circumstances could not be expected to continue for any length of time. The pestilence which had carried off so many of the slaves imported into the Brazils last year, had deterred a vast number of persons, formerly engaged in the Slave Trade, from carrying on their former traffic in slaves. But the alarm occasioned by that mortality was not likely to last for many years. But, above all, he would ask the Committee to attend to this fact, that slaves were at that moment uncommonly cheap in Brazil. It was a fact which deserved the utmost attention, that notwithstanding all the exertions of the African squadron, notwithstanding the fleet employed on the coast of Africa and South America, the number of slaves imported into Brazil in 1848, 1849, and part of 1850, was so great that the slave market was actually glutted. And, notwithstanding the great number of slaves carried off by yellow fever in 1850, notwithstanding the unusual demand for labour consequent upon the great development of agriculture in Brazil, he could state, on the best authority, that slaves at this moment were being sold 100 per cent cheaper than in 1845. Whether the Brazilian Government would be able to interfere between the demand and supply of the next few years, would have yet to be determined. All that was certain was, that every one in this country wished that the Brazilian Government might succeed in putting an end to the supply of slave labour. He thought he had shown that there were no sufficient grounds for concluding that we were ap-

1009
proaching the certain extinction of the Slave Trade; and, above all, he thought he had stated sufficient to show that it was not by means of the African squadron that we were to arrive at so gratifying a result. At that advanced period of the Session he did not wish to trouble the Committee with further observations upon this subject; but before he sat down he would venture to make one remark with respect to the expense of the African squadron. A vast deal of pains had been taken to conceal the real expense occasioned by our efforts to put down the Slave Trade. A Committee of the House of Lords (presided over by the Bishop of Oxford) sat last year upon this subject. That Committee stated that the expense of the squadron had been greatly exaggerated. He (Mr. Hutt) would not charge the Bishop of Oxford with having uttered any thing Jesuitical; but that was a sentence of most oracular ambiguity. What was meant by the expression? However, the Bishop of Oxford had appended to the Report of the Committee a statement, from which it appeared that he set down the expense at 160,000 l. per annum. With very great labour he (Mr. Hutt) had obtained information from different departments of the Government on this subject; and he was inclined to believe that this Commission to put down slavery cost us between 600,000 l. and 700,000 l. They voted annually 7,000,000 l. for the support of their Navy; and if they considered the amount of their squadron on the coast of Africa, he did not think that they would consider the amount had been understated.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am sorry that it so happened the other evening that I did not wait until we had an opportunity of hearing the opinion of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt) on this subject; but the House, on that occasion, appeared to wish that I should then make the statement which it was anxious to hear. And although I was sorry to make it in the absence of my hon. Friend, yet I can assure him that it was not from any disrespect towards him, or from any wish to take advantage of his absence. My hon. Friend stated, in the outset of the observations which he has just made, that many, or at least some, of the statements which I made were erroneous, though he did not impute to me any intention to misrepresent. He omitted, I think, to specify in what the error consisted. And in fact, as far as I understood the drift of what he stated, he did
1010
but confirm the result of everything which I said on a former evening. The result of my statement was the great diminution of the Slave Trade—and that my hon. Friend has now completely confirmed. I never stated, either then or at any other time, that I relied entirely on this portion of the squadron on the coast of Africa, for accomplishing the object we have in view. My statement has always been that that is an essential element in our plan of attack, but that that alone could not be expected fully to accomplish our object. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, that for the full accomplishing of the suppression of the Slave Trade, you must act upon the point where it ends; but I differ with him entirely as regards his opinion that it is unnecessary to exert any action upon the point where it commences. You must apply your means both at the beginning and the end, and then you may expect to attain success. Now, my hon. Friend says I did full justice, as I meant to do, to the very valuable and praiseworthy course which the Government of Brazil is at present pursuing in this respect. The circumstances which led to that were many, and the causes are various, external and internal. There has been no doubt a great change produced in public opinion in Brazil. Perhaps the change is not so great as the increase which has taken place in the expression of an opinion which for a long time has prevailed among the native Brazilians. The party that supported the Slave Trade, and the practices of the Slave Trade, were chiefly foreigners—Fortuguese and others. The real Brazilians had long felt not only the disgrace, but the curse, which the Slave Trade inflicted upon their empire. But I must tell my hon. Friend that the two parties in Brazil—that party on the one hand who practise, and patronise, and support the Slave Trade, and that party on the other hand who, from patriotic and enlightened feelings, wish to see it cease; these two parties did look with the most anxious feelings to the proceedings of the Committee of my hon. Friend, to the Report of that Committee, and to the decision which this House would pronounce thereupon; and that everything that was corrupt, and base, and disgraceful in Brazil clung to the opinions of the Report of the Committee of my hon. Friend, and that everything that was honourable and patriotic in the country, was anxious that the Government should pursue and persevere

1011
in the course which had been taken for the suppression of the Slave Trade. My hon. Friend was very near doing, at that period, very great mischief on this subject. Sir, I remember it was stated by a great philosopher, that half of the evils of mankind arise from the vices of men, but that the other half arises from their erroneous opinions. Now I must tell my hon. Friend that, though I give him full credit for the utmost sincerity in the opinions which from time to time he has expressed upon this subject, and though I am convinced that he himself would be far from desiring to witness the atrocities and calamities which the enforcement of his opinions would have occasioned—I must tell him that the opinions which he has expressed, and which I am afraid he still entertains, would, if they had prevailed, have opened the floodgates of iniquity upon the world; that they would have deluged Africa and America with misery and crime, and would have produced results which, I am sure, my hon. Friend, when he calmly considered the matter, would never have forgiven himself for having been the unintentional instrument of producing. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend has stated that in which I fully agree with him, namely, that we must not trust too confidently that that which now exists will be entirely permanent. My hon. Friend has made a little mistake in his statements. He says that the price of slaves in Brazil has varied 100 percent. It has varied 100 per cent, but in the opposite direction to that which he has stated to the House. He says the price of slaves is 100 per cent lower than it was. I believe I can inform him, on the best authority, that it was this year higher 100 per cent, as compared with what it had been a very short time before. [Mr. HUTT: When?] I think about January the price rose to double of what it had been in the course of the preceding year. But he has also made a mistake in the amount of slave importation in the year 1850. It is quite true, as he states, that in 1847,1848, and 1849, the amount of importation was very great; but in the year 1850, the amount imported was rather less than one half of what had been imported in the year before. [Mr. HUTT: I only spoke of the beginning of the year 1850.] The beginning—well; just so. I took the whole year. But the great diminution has been in the present year, when the action of the Brazilian Government has come into full play. I quite agree, however, with my
1012
hon. Friend that however great the success at present may have been, it is not complete; that we must not reckon too speedily upon its being permanent; that we must continue to exert those means which have produced that succcess; that we must give to the Brazilian party who wish to get rid of the Slave Trade, that support which has enabled them to accomplish the results upon which we all congratulate ourselves; and then I think that, in the course of no distant period, this country may rejoice at the success of that constancy, that perseverance, that generous determination of the British.nation by which (and not by any conduct of this House or that Government, who have only been the organs of national feeling upon this subject) this country will have the satisfaction of having accomplished a work which, if nations as well as individuals reap the benefit or meet the punishment of good and bad actions, will, I trust, tell to the advantage of the British people.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he wished to offer a remark on the somewhat lofty flight in which the noble Lord had described the results that in his view would have followed from the adoption of the opinions entertained by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt). He (Mr. M. Gibson) had always been induced to believe, and the evidence he had read strengthened that belief, that the squadron on the coast of Africa, though unable to prevent the Slave Trade, was nevertheless able to increase the horrors of the middle passage, and had occasioned a greater waste of life than if the Slave Trade had never been interfered with by force of arms. The noble Lord had himself admitted that during the years 1847, 1848, and 1849, while under the active operations of the squadron the Slave Trade was increasing rapidly, and that it was only when the Brazilian Government, acted upon by public opinion, had come zealously into the field, that we witnessed the gratifying result of its diminution. He had always contended that there was only one power in the world which could put it down in Brazil, and that was the formation of public opinion against it. It was that power which had put it down in the British colonies, and that would abolish it in Brazil. Opinion had progressed faster in Brazil with reference to its abolition than it had done in this country. It took thirty years to convince the English bishops that the trade was a sin and a curse; it also

1013
took years of conflict in both Houses to produce a similar impression on the minds of the most moral men. We ought to encourage the feeling in Brazil, and give the Brazilians full credit for what they had done; and in this and other ways we might materially assist a cause we had so deeply at heart. On the contrary, the course which England ought to take was to cherish the rising spirit, and to give it prominence in accounting for the great results which had happened, and for the as great results which were anticipated. He hated the Slave Trade, and condemned the fruits of the Slave Trade as strongly as it was possible for any man to do. All that he dissented from was the doctrine that we alone, and we only, had accomplished the results before us. He wanted to get rid of the intolerable conceit which would be manifested if one country was permitted to suppose that by a coercive process it had compelled another country to do certain distasteful things. And as now, according to the admission of the noble Lord, the Brazilian Government was taking efficient steps to put an end to the Slave Trade, he (Mr. M. Gibson) wished to ask the noble Lord whether the Government of England was prepared to act in accordance with the promise made by the Earl of Aberdeen, when he introduced the Act known as the Brazilian Act, whereby the English cruisers were authorised, without any reference to treaty rights, to deal with Brazilian ships in the manner permitted by the laws of England on the Slave Trade? The promise of the Earl of Aberdeen was, that he would propose the repeal of that Act whenever the conduct of the Brazilian Government would justify him in doing so; and what he (Mr. M. Gibson) now asked the noble Lord, was, whether he could hold out any hope that the present Government would come forward to repeal the obnoxious Act—an Act which the present Lord Chancellor, in and out of his place in Parliament, had pronounced to be in violation of the law of nations, and only Adopted because of the power of a strong country over a weak country? He (Mr. M. Gibson) thought that a promise of this character in a matter of this kind was in the nature of a stipulation, and was to be regarded as not less binding on the Government succeeding than on the Government which entered into the engagement. The words of the Earl of Aberdeen were distinct, [The hon. Member here read the words extracted from a despatch wherein
1014
the Earl of Aberdeen intimated that the English Government was far from desiring a continuance in the mode of adjudicating on Brazilian ships taken by English ships, practised without the justification of a treaty; and that the British Government would he ready to recommend the adoption of other measures to Parliament, so soon as the Brazilian Government, by its policy, enabled them to do so.] The noble Lord would perhaps state if, in his opinion, the proper time had come for the repeal of the Brazilian Act.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not consider that the time has come.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he saw a great inconsistency in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat. The right hon. Gentleman concurred in the opinion of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) that the squadron was inefficacious, and that the improved policy of Brazil would not be permanent; and yet he proposed to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to abandon those very means on which it would be the noble Lord's duty to fall back, upon the failure of the influences now applied for the suppression of the infamous traffic. The right hon. Gentleman contended that the squadron had done little or nothing, and that the policy of the Brazilian Government had done everything in effecting the result. But what had induced the new policy of the Brazilian Government? The noble Lord had spoken of the decrease in the Slave Trade in 1850; and the reply was, that this was true only as respected the latter part of the year, because in the early part of 1850 the Brazilian Slave Trade had been most prosperous. But what had been the state of affairs, then, in this country? On the table of the House of Commons had been a Report, sanctioned, he was sorry to say, by the majority of a Committee, strongly recommending the abolition of the squadron. This fact was immediately known in Brazil; and well therefore might the Slave Trade have been prosperous. The Report of the Committee was contended against by the noble Lord at the time, with all the force of his influence, in a manner which was greatly to his credit; and when the news of the result arrived out at Brazil, the prosperity of the Slave Trade immediately ceased. The hon. Member did not contend but that, in the latter part of 1850, it was entirely reduced and ineffective. The hon. Member said

1015
the diminution was owing to the change in the policy of the Brazilian Government. Was there no evidence of the cause of the change? After the evidence had reached Brazil that this House had reversed the opinion of its Committee, and had supported the Government and the Executive of Great Britain in the determination to repress the slave traffic, the Foreign Minister of Brazil, in the Chamber of Representatives, said, in reference to a dispute which had unfortunately arisen with this country—
"We (the Government of Brazil) will do everything to maintain the dignity of our country against all assaults; but if you imagine that when a country like Great Britain has set herself in earnest for the extinction of the slave trade, you can maintain it, you greatly deceive yourselves."
And that declaration was received with applause. Surely, after this, it was easy to understand why the policy of Brazil had changed. The right hon. Gentleman had said that our own bishops had only been convinced of the crime of the Slave Trade after thirty years of agitation and discussion, and that, consequently, we could not expect as rapid convictions on this question in Brazil. But there could be no doubt whatever that the Brazilian policy had been very rapidly changed after certain events. He (Mr. Cardwell) denied most emphatically, however, that they could attribute the benefits effected to the recent policy of Brazil. Would the Slave Trade have been lessened in Cuba if it was not owing to the squadron? He believed that the whole evidence substantiated the real value of our squadron. The hon. Gentleman said, that what was happening now had happened before in 1842. In 1842 the Brazilian Government attempted to repress the Slave Trade. In 1842 a part of the fleet on the coast of Africa was withdrawn for the Chinese expedition, and notwithstanding the policy of Brazil being then in favour of repression, the diminished efficacy of the squadron was immediately felt in the increased prosperity of the Slave Trade. The House had to look, in deciding on the value of the squadron, to what had taken place before the change of policy on the part of Brazil. Above 2,500 miles on the African coast were exempted from the horrors of the Slave Trade; 22,000,000 of people had been made secure and free; and 22,000 tons of British vessels were engaged in the palm-oil trade in those places where no other trade, but the trade in slaves had ever before been known.
1016
They had relieved the whole coast of Africa from this trade, with the exception of the coast occupied by the Portuguese colonies in the south; and here there were particular difficulties, not the least of which, at certain times, had been the absence altogether of the squadron. No one had ever contended that a perpetual police of ships on the African coast was the only means of repression of the Slave Trade. There were two other great influences coincidently at work—the one commerce, and the other Christianity. And how, he would ask, could commerce he carried on, and Christianity make progress, where rapine and piracy were permitted to prevail? In preventing rapine and piracy we gave protection to the beginnings of legitimate trade until they had grown up and gained strength; and by the presence of the squadron we taught the natives of Africa that they could not get a profit by the Slave Trade, because we were determined to prevent them, and that they could get a profit by other traffic, because in any other traffic we were willing to encourage and to support them. We had gained, it was certain, all that it was possible to gain, down to the Bight of Biafra, and even in many places south of the line. The hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves admitted that by the combination of measures, by the squadron, and by the new policy of Brazil, the Slave Trade on the coasts of Brazil had been almost annihilated. He (Mr. Cardwell) concurred entirely in what had been said by the noble Lord as to the true philanthropy on this subject which influenced his hon. Friend (Mr. Hutt); and he was sure that the admission, that in the whole course of this century the traffic in slaves had never been so slight, would be on all hands most gratifying. Some months ago, it was beyond doubt, there had been great dissatisfaction and discontent among the people of England on this matter. That dissatisfaction, however, had never been excited on the mere score of expense. The public did not desire to have the character of England brought in question by failure, and did not desire to throw away 1,000,000 l. annually in an endeavour which was generally represented as unsuccessful. But now that the great fact had been admitted—now that it was allowed that the traffic in slaves had never been so low, he would not be afraid of any appeal which, under such circumstances, might be made to the people. And having himself the honour to represent that valu-

1017
able commerce which came to the ports of this country from South America and round the Horn, from India, and from China, he would say that he was not prepared for any miserable economy to surrender the African seas to the purposes to which Sir Charles Hotham and every naval officer competent to give an opinion had declared they would be converted—as the nest and abode of pirates; the dealers in that infernal traffic which was the scourge and disgrace of human nature.
MR. HUTTmust appeal to the hon. Member whether he really meant to say the squadron, in its operations, had distinguished between ships going to Cuba and those going to Brazil?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the sources of supply were entirely different. The squadron had extirpated the Slave Trade in the northern parts, from which Cuba solely derived its supply; but had not extirpated it south of the line, in the Portuguese colonies, which supplied Brazil, and for the reasons he had given.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISrose to acknowledge the obligation which he and all who had taken part in the suppression of the Slave Trade felt, to the noble Viscount, who had now, he would not say completed his work, but had so far advanced his efforts for its suppression as to justify the most sanguine hopes of his ultimate success. None of them looked for the suppression of the Slave Trade to any one means, and they agreed that other means as well as the squadron were inevitably necessary. He was bound, however unwillingly, to say that he entertained still all the objections he had felt last year to that measure of commercial policy by which with one hand they had opened a market to slave labour, while with the other hand they sought to prevent it. He would not say another word to disturb the tranquillity and harmony of the discussion; but, thanking the noble Lord for the part he had taken, he begged, in conclusion, to express a hope that the noble Lord would extend to our colonies on that coast the benefits of steam navigation, which had contributed so greatly to the commerce and civilisation of other parts of the world.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, there were several Votes under the head of Civil Contingencies, on which it would be necessary for him to take the opinion of the Committee. The first was a vote of 349 l. 13 s. 1d. for the expenses incidental to the passage of the, Bishops of Gibraltar, Barbadoes,
1018
Jamaica, Antigua, and Newfoundland. He thought it was quite sufficient to give the bishops free passage in Her Majesty's ships, without maintaining them on the way. There was then a vote of 137 l. 19 s. 6d. for constituting and appointing the Bishops of Quebec and Montreal, and a sum of 75 l. 15 s. for entertaining the Danish Governor on the coast of Africa. These were small sums, but he objected to their allowance, on account of the principle involved. There was also a charge of 250 l. 7s. 1d. for robes, collars, badges, &c, for knights, and 184 l. 4s. for the marshal of the ceremonies. Surely the gentlemen who received the honour of knighthood might afford to pay for the decorations incidental to their newly-acquired honours. There were other items, however, of more importance, to which he objected on the ground of principle. There was an item of 2,844 l. 3s. 6d. for the expenses of the Queen Dowager's funeral; an item of 612 l. 2s. 7d. for the funeral of the Princess Sophia; and another of 353 l. 7s. 1d. for that of the Duke of Cambridge. Now, when it was borne in mind that the late Queen Dowager had an allowance of 100,000 l. per annum, and Marlborough House, on which 10,000 l. had been expended to make it fit for her reception, independently of annual grants for repairs, &c, he thought it too hard that the public should be saddled with the expense of her funeral. Her late Majesty had left a large sum of money to her relatives in Germany, and it was only fair to the people of this country, who had made her such an enormous allowance when living, that her assets should bear the expense of her funeral. The Princess Sophia had also a large allowance from the public, and the charge for her funeral ought also to be borne by the property of which she died possessed. With regard to the charge for the Duke of Cambridge's funeral, the remarks which he had made with reference to the late Queen Dowager applied with equal cogency to that item. The late Duke received an allowance of 27,000 l. a year for a great number of years, and left a large amount of property behind him, out of which his funeral expenses ought to have been paid. There was next a charge of 100 l. for auditing the accounts of Maynooth College. To this item he was also opposed, for he had never heard of such a charge on account of any other institution of the kind. He would read over the items to which he intended to object:—

1019
"Expenses for passages of the Bishops of Jamaica, Barbadoes, Gibraltar, Antigua, and Newfoundland, 349 l. 13 d. 1d.; Constituting and appointing Bishops of Quebec and Montreal, 137 l. 19 s. 6d.; Entertainment of the Earl of Elgin, 78 l.; Entertainment of the Danish. Governor on the coast of Africa, 75 l. 15 s.; Robes, collars, badges, &c, for knights, 250 l. 7s. 1d.; Marshal of the Ceremonies, 184 l. 4s.; Funeral of the late Queen Dowager, 2,844 l. 3s. 6d.; Funeral of the late Princess Sophia, 612 l. 2s. 7d.; Funeral of the late Duke of Cambridge, 353 l. 7s. 1d.; Auditing the accounts of Maynooth College, 100 l.; Episcopalian clergy of Scotland, 1,200 l."
Why should the people of this country be saddled with these expenses? He should propose that these items should he disallowed.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 44,218 l, 10 s. 3d. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that the Vote taken last year for Civil Contingencies was 100,000 l., but the sum actually expended was only 65,000 l.—a pretty conclusive proof of the desire of the Government to promote economy. With respect to the items for the travelling expenses of the bishops, he had only to remark that these allowances had for a considerable time past been regularly made, and therefore no new principle was involved in the Vote. The stipends of these bishops were not large, and some of them, as, for instance, the Bishop of Gibraltar's, was supplied from voluntary sources. It was, therefore, only reasonable that their travelling expenses should be defrayed, especially as they were exceedingly moderate—the charges for the visitation of the Bishop of Antigua, for instance, only amounted to 19 l. 15 s. The next item, relating to the charge for entertaining the Danish Governor, arose on the occasion of the cession of the Danish forts on the coast which had been purchased by this country, and could not occur again. The charges for badges, collars, &c, of knights had formerly been borne on the Civil List, until they were transferred to the Civil Contingencies. The charges for Royal funerals had also been always defrayed out of the Civil List, for it had never been the custom that members of the Royal Family should be compelled to make testamentary provision for their obsequies. If the principle of these charges was admitted, it would be difficult to find fault with the
1020
amounts themselves, for they were exceedingly moderate. With respect to the Queen Dowager's, the fact would doubtless remain in the memory of most hon. Gentlemen that Her Majesty had left a paper requesting her funeral to be of a very unostentatious character. Though, of course, it was on a somewhat extensive scale, it was an exceedingly modest one, considering her exalted rank.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had ever felt the greatest respect for the late Queen Dowager, but would have been better pleased not to have seen the expenses of her funeral taken out of the pockets of the people. He would have been glad to join in a testimonial to her virtues in a monument, or in any other way; and he could not vote with the hon. Member in denying that tribute to her estimable character. He would have been much better pleased if the hon. Member had included the vote of 1,065 l. for the salaries and expenses of the Commissioners for the Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations, as it was called. He had heard the Crystal Palace described as an amicable and harmonious confederation; but he only entertained one opinion about it—that it was a gross fraud on the public, raised up by whom and for what purpose? For a little popularity to certain individuals, one great Personage was fed and clothed by this country, and he regretted that that illustrious individual had adopted a course which more than another was injurious to the people of this country and to the respectable tradesmen who would be impoverished hereafter, and which did no credit to himself. The Exhibition had brought up a vast number of unsuspecting people from the country, who would be obliged to part with a good deal of their money in order to gratify their curiosity, and who would then go back to their several parishes without being able to pay their tradesmen. "Evil communications corrupt good manners." Nine months hence would show the country the consequences of the Exhibition. He objected to it because it encouraged the foreigner, who would go home and laugh at them, and say, as he believed an eminent foreigner had said, that Englishmen were digging their own graves. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had never yet gone to see the Exhibition, though he did not pledge himself that he would not go; but he declared that at the present moment he had not the slightest curiosity to see what he believed

1021
to be mere trash and trumpery. [Cry of "Oh!"] An hon. Member cried "Oh!" He supposed he was a Commissioner, who had got hold of some of the public money, and who hoped to get more. He wished to know from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended to keep up the building in Hyde Park? whether, in fact, they would dare to keep it up after the contract which had been entered into to the contrary? With respect to the sum of 1,065 l. which was now asked to pay the expenses of the Commissioners, he begged to say that if it was true that the Commissioners were extracting so many hundred thousands of pounds out of the pockets of the people by tricks and manœuvres which a conjuror would be ashamed of, he did not see why the Commissioners' expenses should not be paid from that source. Rather than see them paid out of the public purse, he confessed he would be willing to pay them himself. With respect to the building, be sincerely wished that some visitation from above—some storm of hail, or the like—would knock it end over end, and then there would be no continuation of it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to inform the hon. and gallant Member that, as he might have learnt from the newspapers, he was always open to the receipt of conscience money; and that if the hon. and gallant Member would transmit him the sum required for the expenses of the Commissioners, be would promise him that it should be acknowledged in the Times.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman received public money; he (Colonel Sibthorp) did not; would the right hon. Gentleman join him in paying the sum in question?
SIR HARRY VERNEYcould not agree with the hon. Member for Lambeth with respect to the item for robes, collars, badges, &c, for knights. He thought that this was an expense which fell legitimately upon the public—seeing that these decorations were usually conferred upon naval and military men for their public services. Indeed, he thought that these honours ought to be conferred without any expense whatever to the parties receiving them. Instances had come under his knowledge where some of the higher military orders had put individuals to very serious expense.
MR. EDWARDSregretted he had not had the advantage of hearing the speech of
1022
the hon. Member for Lambeth, having been absent from the House at the moment, and therefore, along with many others, he felt himself placed somewhat in a dilemma as to his vote. In the first place, he believed that the money asked for had already been paid, and he did not see how the House could well disallow it. In the next place, he approved of some of the items, while be disapproved of others. For instance, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had never voted the appropriation of the public money for the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland or elsewhere, and yet here he was called upon to vote 100 l. for auditing the accounts of Maynooth College, and another large sum towards the support of the Roman Catholic clergy in Canada. Unless the hon. Member could give some satisfactory reason for including so great a variety of interests in the same category, he (Mr. Edwards) would decline voting altogether.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, that this vote arose out of the transference of the expenses of Maynooth College from the Annual Estimates to the Consolidated Fund. Formerly those expenses came annually under the revision of Parliament; but, in consequence of the change which took place a few years ago, it had become necessary that the accounts should be carefully audited.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Lewis) had reminded the Committee of the testamentary direction of the late Queen Dowager, that her funeral should be conducted without ostentation and in a simple manner, in accordance with her character. Now, it did not appear to some Gentlemen that the expenditure which took place was quite in accordance with that direction. It was said that a very large sum, amounting, he believed, to about 1,000 l., had been paid in the shape of fees to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor. He wished to know if that was true?
MR. CORNEWALL LEWIScould not state how much had been paid to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, but he believed that a considerable sum had been paid.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, in that case be should wish the Vote to be postponed till they had an accurate statement of the amount of the fee so paid. The Dean and Chapter of Windsor were about the richest ecclesiastical corporation in the country, and he could not understand why the public should he called upon to pay

1023
this sum for the interment of the late Queen Dowager. To any proper payment there could be no objection; but the payment of such a fee as 1,000 l. for the deposit of a body in the Chapel Royal, and to a rich ecclesiastical chapter, performing few or no duties whatever in their ecclesiastical capacity, was one of the grossest cases ever brought before the notice of that House. He hoped the Vote would be postponed till they had some explanation. If it wore not postponed, he should vote against it.
MR. SPOONERhoped some further explanation would be given respecting the sum said to be paid to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor for the funeral of the late Queen Dowager. Surely some of the Members of Government could explain it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not state exactly what this sum was. It was paid by the Lord Chamberlain's department. He would state tomorrow on the Report what it was.
MR. MOWATTsaid, this charge in the public Votes was a flagrant violation of decency, considering the very large income of 100,000 l. a year which her late Majesty had enjoyed, and that she had died in possession of very considerable property. The Dean and Chapter of Windsor, like all other chapters he was acquainted with, had seized on the opportunity of adding to their improper gains. On this ground the Vote ought to be postponed, that due inquiry might be made, and these corrupt bodies exposed, if necessary. Bearing in mind the prodigious revenues of the late Duke of Cambridge, and the ample amount settled on the present Duke, the Government ought not to have lent themselves to the outrage on public decency of saddling the expenses of the late Duke's interment on the country.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 69: Majority 26.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, he must complain of the course pursued in fixing the annuities payable by the electoral divisions of each union in Ireland under the 13th and 14th Victoria, cap. 14. The Poor Law Commissioners had referred to each union to say how long a period it required to repay the annuity; and each union fixed of course as long a period as possible. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fixed some arbitrary rule of his own from which he refused to deviate, whatever the individual
1024
circumstances of the case might be. The result was that the whole matter was left in doubt and uncertainty—the consequence of its being in the hands of the Treasury instead of in the hands of the Poor Law Commissioners. He had applied to the Commissioners for information with respect to three unions in the county which he represented; but all he could learn was that the annuity was fixed at the maximum, and therefore no information was necessary. In respect to three other unions in the county of Donegal, in which he was interested, he found that the annuity was fixed at twenty, at thirty, and at forty years, and it turned out that the union which had suffered the most was that which had to pay in the least time. He had understood that the expenditure of 1849 was taken as the basis; but that was a most unfair test, as the potato crop was that year the best since the famine. If the years 1848 or 1850 had been taken, the expenditure would have been found to be such as to make the union of which he spoke entitled to have the payment extended to the longest period. He also complained that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer should have taken his basis of calculation of the expenditure of the union from Schedule B, which was notoriously inaccurate. The right hon. Gentleman professed to regard local circumstances, and yet the actual levy was 9s. 7d. in the pound, instead of the 5s. 10 d. put down in Schedule B. The right hon. Gentleman, in that particular instance, had certainly disregarded both the equity of the case, and local circumstances.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not plead guilty to the charges made against him. The provision of the law was that the payment should be made in twenty years; but that, in the case of the most distressed unions, it should be extended to forty years. The unions—not unnaturally, perhaps—wished that in any case the period should be forty years; but that he thought unfair, and would not accede to the suggestion. The reason the year 1849 was fixed upon as the test of expenditure was because it happened to be the year preceding that in which the Act passed. He could not be supposed to know the circumstances of all the unions in Ireland, and was compelled to act upon the report of the Poor Law Commissioners in respect to local circumstances. He stated distinctly that in every case which had been brought under his consideration,

1025
a longer period had been given in reference to the circumstances of each union.
MR. CLEMENTSsaid, he was one of the guardians of the Milford Union, and he wrote to the Commissioners to ask what they were doing, and they refused to inform him, saying they were acting not for themselves, but for the Treasury. He then wrote to the Treasury, but they took care not to reply to him until he returned here. He pointed out to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer that as regarded that union, his figures were wrong.
SIR PERCY NUGENTadmitted that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was right in endeavouring to get hack the money as quickly as possible; but he hoped that he would take the several cases into consideration, and have a revision, which would settle the matter more satisfactorily to the guardians.
SIR LUCIUS O'BRIENsaid, the Committee was not at all aware of the burdens cast on some of these unions. In the Tullagh Union there was a charge of 2s. 10 d. to meet these repayments, which would last for forty years, independent of the current expenses for the relief of the poor, which amounted in one electoral division to 15 s. 10 d. in the pound. The aggregate of the rate which had been levied in Ireland for the last two years amounted to 4,000,000 l. In some other unions the rate amounted to as much as 15 s. in the pound. He asked how it was possible for any people to contend against such a state of things?
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that if a rate of 15 s. 10 d. had been levied on any union in Ireland, the rate in aid must have been most unjustly and unfairly distributed. He hoped his right hon. Friend (Sir W. Somerville) would inquire into the facts alleged by the hon. Member for Clare.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that he hoped the hon. Baronet would mention the name of the particular union in which the rate of 15 s. had been levied, in order that he might ascertain whether the statement was correct.
COLONEL SIBTHORPmoved the reduction of the Vote by 1,065 l. 17 s.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding 48,934 l. 0s. 3d. be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge of Civil Contingencies, to the 31st day of March, 1852."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 81; Majority 48.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed to:—
(22.) 469,829 l., Commissariat Department.
(23.) 44,613 l., Half-Pay Commissariat Department.
On the Vote of—
(24.) 809,496 l., Post Office Packet Service,
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he begged to draw the attention of the House to the proposed naval retirement scheme, as affecting naval officers of long and distinguished service, who may not have completed their six years' command at sea, through no fault of their own; and with a view of affording them the benefit of the equitable provision for the Army in reference to the required six years' field-officers' effective duty in that branch of Her Majesty's service. He urged upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the propriety of reconsidering his scheme, seeing the injustice which he proposed to commit upon officers of distinguished services.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGdid not wish to reopen the question to which the hon. and gallant Officer referred. He had been pressed on a former occasion to hold out expectations that it was his intention to reconsider the subject, but he held out no expectation of the kind. He had stated that the plan he had proposed, and indeed any other plan which was at all efficient, must be based upon the principle of removing certain officers from the active to the retired list. It was his object to remove the lower class of officers, the commanders, and lieutenants, but he could not fairly and justly do so without dealing in the same manner with the higher class of officers, who had strong and powerful interest both in that and the other House of Parliament. He thought, however, it was only a matter of justice that a plan which affected the prospects and feelings of the lower class of officers should apply also to those higher in rank. It must not be supposed that there was any injustice done to those officers. By the old practice, officers who received their flags rose upon the list till they obtained a certain amount of pay, but they were never employed upon active service. All he asked was, that they should rise in rank just as they did before, that they should receive exactly the same pay, and that they should be placed upon the reserved list, their services being called for only in cases of extreme

1027
necessity. He did not think this arrangement would subject them to any hardship or injustice. If the Committee should decide against him, he would bow to their decision; but he thought it would be most unfair to deal with the lower class of officers upon principles different from those on which they dealt with the higher class.
MR. J. A. SMITHconsidered that it would be very unjust that an officer who had been unable to complete his full service in consequence of illness brought on by the discharge of his duties, should be deprived of the benefits of the naval retirement scheme: such exceptional cases deserved the attention of the Government.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, that in his opinion the motives of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Baring) had been greatly misconstrued; but in endeavouring to defend the right hon. Gentleman, he had, on several occasions, brought odium upon himself. He thought, however, that the plan of the right hon. Baronet would operate unjustly with regard to many officers who might have served double the time required in vessels of an inferior rate; as, for instance, brigs and corvettes. Why, when Sir John Ross returned from the North Pole, was he to be told that he was not fit to remain on the active list? He (Sir G. Pechell) maintained that there were many men upon the active list who were not so eligible for command as some of those who were placed on the retired list. He would ask whether there were not some officers on the active list, with regard to whom there was a regulation, or an understanding, that they should not have the opportunity of hoisting their flags?
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, under the existing arrangement it was in the power of the Admiralty to keep an officer from advancing by not employing him. The First Lord had the power over the post captains of keeping them unemployed and waiting their turn, thereby heaping a stigma upon them. But the system extended to a lower grade. A commander, unless he had been two years afloat, could not be promoted. With the lieutenants it was just the same, and they must be afloat a certain period. He knew that the list of officers was a large one, and that all could not be employed; but what he wanted was to see fair play, and that interest should not prevail. Those lieutenants who had not served two years could not become commanders, and the effect of that was that more than
1028
half the lieutenants never got beyond that rank. There they stayed, there they lived, and there they died. But who had placed them on that list? After thirty-five years of peace the Government found themselves so overwhelmed with the number of officers, that they were obliged to have a reserved list, a retired list, and an active list. The injustice was not so much in giving away the public money as it was to the service. There were many reasons why the scheme should be reconsidered, and he hoped that the First Lord, to whom he gave credit for a wish to reform the abuses of the Admiralty, would be so good as to reconsider it. But he would advise the Committee to watch over the fair, just, and equitable interests of the officers of the Navy. They had seamen; but if they had not efficient officers to command them, they would rue the day.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the hon. and gallant Officer had sketched exactly the picture which he (Sir F. Baring) wished to improve—the state of the Navy. There was a large list of captains who could not be employed; the same with commanders. The very evil was that you had a larger list than you could employ, and the reduction of the list was what he had in view. No system could be devised by which some gallant and efficient officers were not left unemployed. It was an evil which had been creeping on from day to day, and he had been most anxious to find a remedy for it. Notwithstanding all that had been said, he felt that the arrangement which had been made was one which would be not only beneficial to the service, but one which he had reason to believe was not disapproved of by some of our most efficient officers.
LORD NAASwished to know why iron steamships were excluded from the contract packet service. In no science had there been so much improvement of late years as that of building iron steam vessels; and the persons connected with it declared that the superiority of iron over wood in the construction of large vessels was undoubted. One gentleman said that if there was a likelihood of these vessels being employed in the packet service, he could build one of 4,000 tons that should average a speed of eighteen miles an hour. Therefore it was a question for the Committee, whether the Admiralty were justified in the orders they had given upon the experiment being made, and whether they were justified in excluding those iron ships from the

1029
packet service? The practical effect of the Admiralty regulations was, that those who were inclined to build large vessels were deterred from doing so. He doubted whether the inaptitude of iron vessels in time of war was a sufficient justification for excluding them from the packet service.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he must refer the noble Lord to the evidence that lad been taken before the Committee, where it had been arranged that the vessels by which the packet service should be performed should be fitted for war. Those were the terms of the contract; and it had unfortunately turned out, upon experiments which had been instituted at Portsmouth by the Government, that an iron ship was not a good war vessel; and, in short, that so far as present experience went, it was utterly unfit for warlike purposes. Under these circumstances, the Government, in carrying out the plan according to the intentions of Parliament, had excluded iron vessels from the contract service. If the noble Lord could prove by experiment that ion ships were available as war ships, then he would render more services than one. After more experience it might not prove impossible to make them available, and iron had been proved to be the cheapest material; but, under present circumstances, it could not be done.
SIR THOMAS ACLANDbegged to draw attention to the propriety of establishing a line of packets along the western coast of Africa down to Fernando Po—a subject, he could assure the Committee, of great interest to many persons. No measure could more tend to elevate that extensive line of country from its present condition of barbarism. He also wished to know if any new arrangements had been made with the American or Peninsular and Oriental Companies to prevent them from being called upon by the Government to touch at, or depart from, any port that might be thought proper? He thought Plymouth or Falmouth would be better than Southampton. Since Southampton was selected as the point of departure, a great change had been made in the facilities for communication by railway with the western ports.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, there was nothing in the contract to prevent a change in the port of departure and arrival, on payment of fair compensation to the contracting companies.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that upwards of 800,000 l. was voted for the packet service.
1030
He hoped that the Government would not lose sight of the recommendations of the Committee which sat on this subject, and would give notice when the time for renewing these contracts arrived, in order that the country might derive as much advantage as possible from public competition.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the recommendations of the Committee had been considered, and a fair opportunity would be given for public competition when the time for renewing the contracts arrived.
MR. SCULLYsaid, he must complain of the very inadequate and defective provision that was made by the Post Office authorities for the conveyance of letters by cross posts from one town to another in the south of Ireland, It often happened that letters which had only to be conveyed some twelve or fourteen miles, were de-laved.same days on the road.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould promise that the matter should engage his serious attention. He would inquire into it, and see whether it might not be possible to adopt effective measures for the redress of any such grievance as that alluded to by the hon. Member.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that nothing could be more absurd than some of the Post Office regulations in Ireland. A letter from Mullinshone to Clonmel, twelve moles distant, was sent round by Dublin, and had to travel 200 miles before it was delivered. The mail bags, instead of being conveyed by rail, were often carried by a pedestrian postman, or else in a jingle, which travelled only at the rate of four miles an hour.
MR CLEMENTScomplained that the steam packets plying between Holyhead and Kingstown travelled at too slow a pace. They could make the passage much more rapidly, being good boats, were it not that they were prevented from so doing by the terms of the contract between the Admiralty and the company. The contract was given at so very low a rate that the company had to travel slowly in order to save fuel and spare the machinery.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the boats travelled at a rate sufficiently rapid for the requirements of the public service. They maintained a good uniform pace, and delivered the mails according to the time respired by the conditions of the contract. He had Hot heard that the Post Office

1031
authorities had to complain of delays or want of punctuality.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following Votes:—
(25.) 103.700 l. Disembodied Militia.
(26.) 500,000 l. to discharge the like amount of Supplies.
House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act Amendment.
2a Inhabited House Duty; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Turnpike Trusts Arrangement; United Church of England and Ireland; Churches and Chapels (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Residences (Ireland).
3aMilitia Ballots Suspension; Assessed Taxes Composition; Public Works, Fisheries, &c.

IMPORTATIONS OF FOREIGN FLOUR.
The EARL of STRADBROKEpresented petitions from millers in the south of Ireland, and also from millers in the Isle of Ely, Hereford, Nottingham, and Northamptonshire, praying for the imposition of a duty upon the importation of foreign flour. The noble Earl observed that the millers in the south and west of Ireland, were greatly reduced in circumstances, in consequence of the enormous importations of foreign flour which were taking place in Ireland. He understood that there were 321 mills of the first class in Ireland, and that the capital invested in them amounted to 3,000,000 l. The result of the legislation of Parliament in the last few years had been to impoverish the milling trade, and to deprive a large number of persons of their employment. The petitioners in England and Ireland denied that there was any want of skill on their part in the manufacture of flour, but that it was impossible for them to compete successfully with the foreign millers under, the present system. He was assured that the quantity of wheat now grown in Ireland was much less than, usual, while the imports of foreign flour had increased enormously.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it would be impossible to give protection to the miller, without also recognising the claim of the farmer to protection. He was far from denying that there was at present great distress among the millers in the south of Ireland; and it must be remembered that they could not have the same advantages as the millers of London and Dublin and other large ports, where there was access to enormous importations of foreign grain. He protested against any attempt by legislation to improve the condition of the millers as a class. Unless the noble Lord could prove that the manufacturer of flour was in a different position from the manufacturer of any other finished article, he made out no case whatever. He did not think,

973
however, that the trade of the millers generally was so bad, seeing that though there was a large importation of foreign flour, there was a back set in the increased importation of foreign grain, which must go to the miller.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, there were some points connected with this question of the millers, that ought to he fully considered. One point was, whether it was not desirable to encourage the importation of grain, rather than of flour. One advantage of importing grain would be, that the bran could be used for feeding cattle. At present there was a premium on the importation of flour. He thought this was a question altogether separate from the question of free trade.
EARL GRANVILLEremarked that there was now double the quantity of grain and the same quantity of flour imported that were imported in 1847 and 1848.
EARL GREYsaid, the importation of grain or flour was a question entirely for the parties. It was not the business of the Legislature or the Government, to influence the parties one way or the other. All they had to do was, to take care that the very small duty they laid on was in a fair proportion, so that they levied the same duty on flour as on wheat, and then the parties must choose for themselves which they imported.
The EARL of GLENGALLpresented petitions from West Norfolk, Waterford, Armagh, Athlone, and other places, with the same prayer. He assured their Lordships that the greatest alarm continued to be felt in Ireland, in consequence of the still increasing importations of foreign flour. The importations within the last five months exceeded those of the similar period of 1850 by 1,300,000 cwts. Upwards of 25,000 families were dependent for a subsistence on the milling trade in Ireland, and if the land were thrown out of wheat cultivation, they would, of course, lose the sources of their employment. He understood that a less quantity of wheat was sown during the present year than for many years past, and that in one county alone, the falling-off was equal to 11,000 acres. Ireland was at one time noted as a corn-growing country; but the course of recent legislation had been so hostile to the production of native corn, that whole districts which were once devoted to the culture of wheat were now covered with grass, and the agricultural population were flying by hundreds and thousands from a
974
country where they could no longer practise those arts of industry to which they had been from birth habituated, This was one of the principal reasons why the land in that unhappy country was every day falling out of cultivation, and why the population was dwindling away. The fact was, that by the free-trade system, a blow had been struck at the prosperity of Ireland, from which it was not likely that that country would ever recover. Nor would England escape unscathed from this fatal error, for the enormous emigration of Irish labourers into this country was daily depressing the labour market, and would not fail ultimately to operate most injuriously on the fortunes of the English labourer.
LORD BERNERSexpressed his entire concurrence in the sentiments which had fallen from the noble Earl. It was his firm belief that if the free-trade system were not altered, neither the Irish miller nor the English farmer would be able to compete with the foreigner.
Petitions read, and ordered to lie on the table.

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that in the present state of the House he would not detain their Lordships longer than to state that this was a Bill to relieve the public from a tax of a much more grievous and objectionable character—the window tax—for the repeal of which the country had been calling for many years. The amount of the revenue raised by the window tax was about 1,800,000 l., and the anticipated revenue to be raised by the house tax was 700,000 l. He was opposed in principle to any relief from taxation which imposed one tax in the room of another; but, looking at the character of the tax to be repealed, and that which the present Bill imposed, he thought the relief so great as to justify the measure proposed. The greatest relief that would be given by the repeal of the window tax and the substitution of a house duty, would be in the great agricultural counties, which would be relieved to the extent of three-fourths, four-fifths, and six-sevenths, of what they at present paid. The classes who would next be benefited would he the middle and poorer classes in large towns. The noble Marquess concluded by moving that the Bill be read a Second Time.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, this tax

975
formed one main element in the financial arrangements of the year, on which he could not help animadverting. It appeared that 1,100,000 l. of the revenue were now to be sacrificed; but upon what principle was this year's budget arranged? Why, permanent taxation was remitted—that upon which the public credit mainly depended—and temporary revenue was retained; and of this temporary taxation, the income tax, by an Amendment forced upon the Government, was retained for one year only. On the one hand 1,100,000 l. of permanent revenue were thus sacrificed; and on the other, more than 5,000,000 l. of income tax was renewed for a year, so that in the event of the House of Commons not renewing it again, there must be a permanent deficit exceeding 4,000,000 l. He observed that even the noble Marquess was sensible of the inconvenience generally attending the substitution of one tax for another, even although the tax substituted might be less obnoxious than the one removed. This might be found to apply to the substitution of a house tax, for the window tax. He warned his noble Friend that the public mind was peculiarly constituted in respect to taxation: it was singularly sensitive to the inconveniences of existing taxation—easily oblivious of the evils of taxation remitted; and he predicted that objections would soon be urged against the new house tax—the more because the tax was new. Indeed, for his own part, past experience, whilst acting under Lord Althorp, taught him that a house tax was open to serious objections; for it depended on valuation, which was always open to dispute, being a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact; whereas the number of windows was a plain matter of fact. He believed that the remission of the window tax would be complained of as chiefly relieving the higher order of houses, especially large mansions like Longleat or Woburn Abbey, whereas the house tax would fall lightly on such houses; so that the new house tax would have the appearance of bearing more hardly on the poorer than on the richer classes. The tax would press more heavily on such houses as the "White Lion," or the "King's Arms," than on magnificent mansions, the rateable value of which might not be so great; value necessarily depending not on the cost, size, or beauty, but on practical considerations, such as the returns for a business, connexion, situation, &c. He was
976
far from considering this to be unjust, for such houses would produce more of rent, if brought into the market, than the mansions of the rich and noble. He foretold that there would be hereafter as great a struggle on this house tax as upon the former one. He also anticipated, that if there were admitted to be a necessity for retaining the income tax permanently, there was no excuse for refusing to remedy the anomalies incident to it. He deprecated the principle of sacrificing an important portion of the permanent revenue because it was unpopular, and for the purpose of facilitating the financial arrangements of the year. He could not approve of these arrangements, the practical effect of which was that the property tax, peculiarly a tax for a period of public exigency, was substituted in time of peace, and without modification, in the place of a fixed and permanent tax. Let the property tax be perpetuated, if it were thought necessary; but let it not be renewed from year to year in this way, accompanied by the repeal of permanent taxes, and at a sacrifice of the financial interests of the country. He objected also to the exemption of all houses under 20 l. per annum; as he always had objected to the exemption from the income tax of incomes under 150 l. a year—a proposition which appeared to him (in the abstract) perfectly Jacobinical, unjustifiable, and unreasonable; for it countenanced the idea that persons who did not possess a certain amount of income were to be relieved from contributing to the resources of the State, as being not interested in the public expenditure, and deriving no advantage from the Army, the Navy, and the judicial establishments of the country. As to the income and property tax, he must again repeat, that if they intended to perpetuate it, they should never do so by renewals, for these continual renewals had the effect of placing the tax itself in danger, and led to repeals of other taxation that produced no good to the general interests of the country. On all these grounds he objected to the Bill, and to the financial arrangement of which it formed a part.
The EARL of STRADBROKEdid not approve of the Bill, nor of the exemption of houses under 20 l. a year. The natural effect would be that there would be a great temptation to build houses of small value, and persons would escape the tax who derived large incomes from that class of houses, while those whose houses were

977
of a little greater value, and were, perhaps, less wealthy, would pay. There was no limit to the injustice of this principle when once admitted; and he thought such a tax should be paid equally by all classes, as all were equally benefited by the protection of the law and the police, or the naval and military establishments of the country.
EARL GREYprotested against the accuracy of the statement that the window tax was to be repealed because it was unpopular, and not because it was objectionable. Inquiries of late years, in which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had taken so active a part, led to the conclusion that the operation of the window tax on the health of the people made it absolutely necessary that it should be repealed. In substituting, then, another tax on the dwellings of the people, no fairer principle could be adopted than to make the tax fall on the value of the houses; and he believed that it would, eventually, fall on the persons most able to bear it, the ground landlords. The window tax was unpopular, because it was liable to decisive objections on the score of health. He concurred in the sentiments of his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) regarding the inconvenience of the position in which Government had been placed by the income tax having been voted only for one year; bnt he was willing to trust to the desire of the country and the House of Commons to maintain the national credit. He had formerly expressed the opinion that incomes under 150 l. a year ought not to be exempted, and that opinion he still maintained. There were, however, fiscal considerations to be taken into account; and, from the difficulties intervening, it had been thought scarcely worth while to collect the tax on incomes less than 150 l. He could never, however, understand the grounds on which parties who had money in the funds had the income tax returned to them, because their incomes were said to be less than 150 l. a year. He would in like manner admit that the remission from taxation of all houses under 20 l. value was not a correct principle; but it must not be forgotten that there would have been a great practical inconvenience, if in substituting one tax for another they had imposed on a vast number of persons a heavy burden to which they had not before been subjected.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYhad sincere pleasure in bearing his testimony to the important service which the Government had rendered the country by repeal-
978
ing the window duty. The tax had interfered most seriously with the moral and physical well-being of the people. Now that the tax was repealed, great facilities would be afforded for improving the dwellings of the working classes, and from such improvement he anticipated that great good was destined to accrue. The relief was not to be estimated by the mere money relief. The window tax had interfered with the operations of the Society for Improving the Dwellings of the Poor. They had been obliged to construct a great number of separated dwellings at the sacrifice of considerable expenditure, which might to a great extent have been saved had they been able to erect them all under one roof. In the case of one building with fifty tenants under the same roof, the window tax would have added about 70 l. or 80 l. to the annual rental. The relief which had been afforded was great, and it would result in increased health and the improved moral condition of the vast proportion of the community.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEconcurred with the noble Earl who had just sat down as to the improvement in the sanitary condition of the people, which must necessarily result from the repeal of the window duty.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, the whole of these discussions tended to a much larger view of the subject than they at first indicated, since they showed the infinite difficulty of adjusting direct taxation upon an equitable principle. The income tax had been originally agreed to to accomplish a certain purpose—namely, the repeal of other taxes; but now that that object had been attained, he did not think they should go on repealing one indirect tax after another, and maintain the obnoxious principle of direct taxation. The whole of these conversations and the objections urged against this and all other direct taxation, went to show that we must found the finances of this country, in the main, on indirect taxation. So far as his (the Duke of Argyll's) own opinion went, he was not a Protectionist; at the same time, if it were admitted that the finances of the country should be mainly raised by indirect taxation, we must go upon this broad principle—that small taxes must be raised over the largest possible surface; we must tax those articles which were most extensively used. There was no abstract objection whatever to a tax upon bread, any more than to a tax upon light, or clothes, or any other article. All taxes were in themselves an evil; and

979
if taxation was not imposed upon the principle of protection, he did not know upon what abstract ground any one could say that indirect taxation should not be raised from food. The question was, how you could best raise a sum of money equitably from all classes. If it were desired to raise a larger sum from the rich than the poorer classes—which was only reasonable—then the articles used by the rich should be taxed—their carriages, horses, servants, &c.; but the other classes of the community should not be exempted; but there should be raised in small sums, upon those articles which were universally used, a considerable portion of the taxation of this country. It was one of the evils of a weak and feeble Government making its way through the storms of opposing and divided parties, that it was unable to act upon any one broad principle of finance, and that it had to resist the pressure against an unpopular tax, by substituting in its stead some other tax, which Government itself confessed to be founded on a false and erroneous principle.
The EARL of CARLISLEdid not rise to defend the strength of the Government, or the principle of direct taxation; he wished merely to observe that if the noble Duke intended to hold out, as a means of getting rid of the income tax, a reimposition of duty upon the admission of food, he would not do much to advance the views he professed, when he said he was no Protectionist.
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned to Monday next.