Sitting of 6 May 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Apprentices to Sea Service; Bridges (Ireland).

THE IRISH POLITICAL CONVICTS.
MR. C. ANSTEYbegged to put a question to the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, with respect to the treatment of the three Irish exiles by the Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land. On the arrival of the exiles in Van Diemen's Land, tickets of leave were granted to three of them—Messrs. O'Donohue, M'Manus, and O'Doherty; Mr. Smith O'Brien declining to accept one upon the terms on which it was offered—that he should give his parole of honour that he would not use his liberty to escape from the island. The other three gentlemen gave this parole, and received unconditional tickets of leave. These tickets were granted under an Act passed when Lord Stanley was the Colonial Secretary, by which the holders of these tickets were placed upon the same footing as conditional-pardon men were formerly; they had the right to hold property, and to sue and be sued as freemen. It was the opinion of lawyers consulted by these gentlemen that they had the full liberty of locomotion all over the island; and though the Governor assigned them particular districts for their residence, some of them had occasionally gone beyond the limits of their police districts, returning again within them. On Mr. Smith O'Brien's taking a ticket of leave, and coming in from Maria Island to Hobart Town, the other gentlemen named, Messrs. O'Donohue, M'Manus, and O'Doherty, went to see him and congratulate him on his restoration to liberty; and having done so, and spent two hours with him, they returned within their police districts. Mr. O'Donohue was then taken ill, and was con fined to his bed; but the two other gentlemen were brought before the police magistrates of their respective districts on a charge of having exceeded the limits of their districts. They appeared before the magistrate by counsel, and the point was argued as one of extreme doubt and difficulty. Mr. Mason, who had been fifteen years a police magistrate of the district of New Norfolk, declared that it was his opinion that these gentlemen had the privilege for which they contended, and that they had committed no offence. In consequence, however, of the law officers of the Crown in the colony having given

589
an adverse opinion, he suggested that the case should be compromised on these terms—that the case should be dismissed, Mr. O'Doherty giving his honour not to leave the district again until he had asked permission. Mr. O'Doherty having given this promise the complaint was dismissed, and a return was accordingly made by the police magistrate that the case had been dismissed. A similar compromise was made at Longstown with Mr. M'Manus. The third gentleman, Mr. O'Donohue, was confined to his bed during these proceedings, and, therefore, was not prosecuted; but as soon as the report of the proceedings before the police magistrates came to the Lieutenant Governor, Sir William Denison, he addressed a reprimand to each of the magistrates, and the tickets of leave granted to the three gentlemen named were withdrawn by a public notice in the Government Gazette of the 31st of December last. They were immediately (with the exception of Mr. O'Donohue, whose illness prevented this step) arrested and removed to the Penitentiary, their clothing was then taken from them, they were clad in the gaol dress, and sentenced to three months' probation in the ultra penal settlement of Port Arthur, amongst thrice-convicted convicts. He wished to ask the hon. Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the facts, which he had on the authority of the parties themselves and their friends in the island, were as he had stated them or not? and whether the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor was likely to receive the approbation of the Colonial Office; and whether any correspondence that might have passed between the Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemeu's Land and the Colonial Office could be laid before the House?
MR. HAWESsaid, that, with respect to the statement of facts, as the hon. and learned Member alleged them to be, he had no alteration to make at all, inasmuch as he could neither affirm nor contradict them; and he certainly thought there was some inconvenience in having ex-parte statements of fact made in introducing a simple question, which was all that he had to answer. It was perfectly true that tickets of leave were granted to the three persons mentioned by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Anstey); and it was also true that the Governor had thought it incumbent upon him, in the exercise of his authority, to withdraw the indulgence afforded by granting tickets of leave. He
590
would, with the permission of the House, read a passage from the despatch of the Lieutenant Governor:—
"I have now to inform your Lordship that I have been obliged to withdraw this indulgence from the three persons named in the margin, Messrs. O'Donohue, O'Doherty, and M'Manus, in consequence of their misconduct in acting in direct violation of the regulations applicable to tickets of leave, and, in consequence of such violation, to send them to Port Arthur."
The Lieutenant Governor goes on to state that—
"as distinct evidence was brought before me of the fact that the three persons before-mentioned had deliberately left their districts without leave; and in the case of M'Manus, after I had thrice refused permission, I directed the tickets of leave to be withdrawn."
He (Mr. Hawes) could not conceive that there was anything in the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor which deserved censure; for if he was to exorcise impartially the power conferred on him by Act of Parliament, he must make no distinctions whatever; and if persons have violated the known condition on which they accepted the ticket of leave, it is on their own heads that the consequences must fall. The Lieutenant Governor was empowered to withdraw the tickets of leave if he thought fit; he had exercised that discretion, and he (Mr. Hawes) did not see that he was deserving of censure. He should have no objection to lay on the table the despatch from which he had read extracts.
MR. C. ANSTEYthen said, that on the first day on which the House went into Committee of Supply, he would move a vote of censure upon the Lieutenant Governor of Van Diemen's Land.

METROPOLITAN SEWERS.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwould now put to the noble Lord the Member for Plymouth (Viscount Ebrington), the questions of which he had given notice:—From how many and what districts of the metropolis the sewers rate of 6d. in the pound, recently ordered, is to be collected? What sum that rate will produce? Whether the several rates are to be expended in the districts from which they are collected? What new works are proposed? And whether they are to be completed before the present Commission expires; and if not, what portions will be completed? And whether any part of the extraordinary amount about to be levied is to be applied to payments of existing liabili-

591
ties; and, if so, how much is to be so applied?
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, it was notorious that any imputation whatever might be conveyed in a question; and unless the House would consent to hear the answer, a very unfair impression might be produced; but on the present occasion a very short answer would suffice. The sewers rate of 6d. in the pound had not been levied in all the districts within the jurisdiction of the Commission, but in eight of them only. Those eight districts had a rental of above 4,400,000 l., and the sum proposed to be collected was 110,000 l. The several rates must by law be expended in the district from which they were collected, with the exception of the contribution from each towards the expense of management, and the central and other offices. A great number of new works were proposed, which he would not trouble the House with detailing. One embodying a system of arterial drainage for the metropolis south of the Thames, and another of similar character for the north side, which would each cost a large sum. There were others which had been already sanctioned by the Court, and only waited the collection of the necessary funds. The hon. Baronet (Sir Benjamin Hall) wished to know whether the new works, or any portion of them, would be completed before the present Commission expired. But, as it was notorious that the present Commission expired of itself at the close of this Session of Parliament, and as it had been announced by Government that they were to bring in a Bill which, it was to be presumed, would supersede the present Commission, relieving them from their labours, and imposing them on some other body to be approved of by Parliament, he (Viscount Ebrington) was unable to say what portion of the works would be so completed. He could only say that there were a great number of works in hand. Seven or eight miles of additional sewers had been made since the report of the Secretary was written, and some of the most unhealthy districts of the metropolis relieved. The cash overdrawn at the banker's amounted to about 5,000 l., and the liabilities now unpaid, not, as at the close of last year, to near 80,000 l., but only to little more than 40,000 l. Rates hail been made for about 110,000 l., great part of which was at present in course of collection.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLwished for some more definite information as to works now being proceeded with.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, it was impossible for him to state what works would be carried out, as under the present defective Act it was impossible to borrow more than 10,000 l., and works to the extent of more than 100,000 l. had been planned in full detail and approved of.

METROPOLITAN SUPPLY OF WATER.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONsaid, the hon. Member for Montrose had stated in the discussion of the other evening, that two or three companies were ready to enter into competition with the present water companies of the metropolis. He himself had not heard of so many; but he still wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether, in the event of a new company being formed to execute combined works of water supply, sewerage, and house drainage, for the entire metropolis, in conformity with the principles already recognised by the Legislature and the Government—(the company acting not as an independent proprietary body, but only as contractors, engaging to be subject to the terms, conditions, and control of any competent superintending authority which the Legislature might see fit to constitute for the purpose)—whether in that case the Government would withdraw their present partial measure, applying only to the water supply of the metrolis, and would sanction such an effort on the part of the inhabitants to secure for themselves the benefit of such combined works and consolidated administration?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was impossible for him to give a specific answer to a question of this nature. It assumed that a Bill would be assented to by Parliament of a much more comprehensive nature than that which he had brought in, and that it would accomplish several most important objects to the satisfaction of the metropolis. He could only say, that if his noble Friend could obtain leave to bring in a Bill of which the provisions would include the important objects stated in his question, he should be happy to consider its details, and even to see it passed in preference to the one he had himself brought in. He had not said that two or three companies were ready to contract for the supply of water to the metropolis, but that if the existing companies should re-

593
fuse the terms offered to them on the part of the Government, other parties might be found who would be ready to contract for that purpose.

POOR RATES.
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEYsaid, the object he had in view was, if possible, to relieve the agricultural districts of an oppression which weighed them down, and remove an abuse injurious to the ratepayers and the poor. Some time ago he had occasion to refer to the state of pauperism in his own county—Gloucestershire; and he found that the returns showed upon the face of them a great diminution of pauperism; but he could not discover that the cost of relief was lessened. Upon further investigation he found, that whereas before 1846 a man and his wife and six children applying for relief with a sick child were returned as eight persons relieved, it had since been ordered that they should only be returned as three. There was also a great apparent reduction in vagrancy, owing to tramps not being admitted unless they consented to do a certain quantity of work. In endeavouring to ascertain the true state of the poor throughout England and Wales, subjects had come within his notice to which he was anxious to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board. The Poor Law and the Law of Settlement required revision; great cruelties were practised under them. Applicants were bandied from place to place without getting relief, and expense was incurred without the object in view being properly fulfilled. When he recollected the atrocities of Kilrush, he felt that he might well have included Ireland in his proposition. What he desired to effect was the equalisation of the burden; for, at present, one place would be found paying 17 s. or 18 s. in the pound, while another was paying only 4d. in the pound. The parish of Bishopwearmouth paid 19 s. 9d. in the pound. He did not propose at present to deal with the rating of personal property; but it was known that the intention of the Act of Elizabeth was to render personal property liable to poor-rate as well as real property. There were other respects, also, in which a state of things such as could not have been contemplated by the Act of Elizabeth had arisen with reference to rating. An iron mine, for instance, yielding 10,000 l. a year, might have near it a coal mine which did not give a return of 200 l.,
594
yet the coal mine was assessed, while the iron mine was exempt. The distinction was unjust; but others than coal mines had escaped by a legal quibble, coal mines being the only mines mentioned in the Act of Elizabeth. The iron mines of Wales, Staffordshire, and other counties, and the copper mines of Cornwall, were all exempt from payment of poor-rate. If that property which was at present exempted were properly rated, the pressure of the poor-rate could he easily adjusted. As to the modes in which the present evils might be remedied, the clerk of the Stockport union, Mr. Henry Coppock, in a report dated 1844, after having dwelt on the evils which attended the Law of Settlement, said—
"What, then, is the real remedy, the humane and Christian-like remedy, for the evils of the present system? It is to make the relief of the poor purely national—to make every part of England where a poor man may reside really and truly his home—to prevent removal officers by law separating him from the place where his happiest days have been spent—to make the relieving officer the real messenger of charity—to relieve distress when and as soon as it arises—and to banish for ever those insane struggles and legal fights to decide from which particular local purse the necessary relief must be abstracted."
He (Mr. G. Berkeley) wished to make it national, though not altogether as Mr. Coppock proposed. To check the expenditure was the great difficulty. Mr. Coppock said—
"The local authorities, the coroner, the magistrates, and the public press would be ample means to insure sufficient relief being granted to distress—more ample than what is insured at present; because, with a local board of guardians (irresponsible as it is) its local influence has power over local authorities, over the coroner, the magistrates, and the press—a power and influence which a paid officer would not possess. The proposed plan would, therefore, not lose in comparison with the present system. Any alteration, therefore, must be in favour of sufficient relief being immediately granted to distress."
MR. Coppock proposed to make the poor-rate a charge on the Consolidated Fund. From that he (Mr. G. Berkeley) disagreed. He was for retaining local power to check unnecessary expense. He held in his hand also some clever suggestions by the Earl of Malmesbury, who proposed to take the average rate of the last seven years; to distribute to each union the sum it had expended on that average; and, if a union exceeded its average, to provide that a rate-in-aid be locally levied. Taking a seven years' average, however, would continue the abuse he desired to get rid of; and so far he ob-

595
jected to the plan recommended by the Earl of Malmesbury. Mr. Hutchinson had furnished him with a plan to which there seemed to be no reasonable objection. It proposed one equalised rate throughout England and Wales. He referred to a Return No. 735, Session 1848, for the purpose of showing the great inequality that existed in rating:—
"While Chester, upon an annual value of property of 1,574,273 l., paid but 1s. 0¼d. in the pound, and York (three Ridings) averaged 1s. 3d. in the pound upon property valued at 5,932,386 l., Buckinghamshire, upon an annual value of property of 706,265 l., paid 2s. 4¼d.; and Carnarvon, upon 174,175 l., paid 3s. in the pound."
In Clifton union, Gloucestershire, where there were twelve parishes, and the annual value of property assessed was 212,732 l., the average rate in 1847 was 1s. 9¼d.; in Dursley union eleven parishes, with property of the annual value of 47,307 l., paid 3s. 5½d. In the evidence taken before the Select Committee on Settlement and Poor Removal, he found it stated that Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, was assessed at the same rate now, when it was a rich and populous place, as when it consisted of only a few huts. The Isle of Wight was a model, on a small scale, of the plan he (Mr. G. Berkeley) advocated, all the parishes being united. Under the poor-law property might be reassessed; but reassessment was not compulsory. What he wished to have was a new assessment, and by amending a Bill now before the House, which had reference to the subject, he thought a remedy would be afforded without introducing new machinery, which he wished to avoid. To a union rating he thought there were just and general objections. It was said that an assessment so high as 1s. 6d. in the pound would inflict great injustice on localities paying a smaller amount. It appeared from a return, that in 388 unions the assessment was under 16 d. in the pound; but there were 461 unions paying over that amount, so that a greater number would be benefited than could be injured by his plan. He was happy to be able to quote the authority of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who, on the 26th of May, 1845, said, "that the freedom of industry should be promoted by a careful revision of the law of parochial settlement which now prevailed in England and Wales." He had proofs in his hand that property of the annual value of 21,958 l. paid at present 428 times more in amount than similar property valued at
596
28,297 l. He had proof that in 1843 mining property, paying to property and income tax, 1,930,700 l., the greater portion of it, contributed nothing to the poor. He found, that in 1847 the property assessed to the poor-rate was in round numbers 67,000,000 l.; the property tax in 1843 in round numbers gave a return of 85,000,000 l. In Scotland, where personal property was rated for the poor, the difference between the assessment to the poor and the property tax was only 116,000 l., the latter being the larger. Great objections were felt among many persons to interference with an old system, however unjust or partial; but he trusted that the time had come to give relief to the only class which was admitted to be in distress; and if his proposition were carried out, relief would be afforded not only to the agricultural interest, but to every one who contributed to the poor-rate. He therefore begged to move that the House should go into a Committee to consider the Resolution of which he had given notice.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he had put the Motion in rather a different form from that in which it appeared on the paper, and the House could not at once proceed to entertain his proposition in a Committee of the whole House.
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEYsaid, he would then propose to go into Committee on that day week.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That this House will, upon Tuesday the 13th day of this instant May, resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the following Resolution:—viz., That to alleviate a portion of the burthens from which the agricultural interest is at present suffering, through the payment of parochial Poor Rates, varying in many instances from 6s., 7s., 8s., 9s., to 13 s. 10 d. in the pound, there be levied an equalised Poor's Rate, in England and Wales, not exceeding 1s. 6d. in the pound, and subject to local government."
CAPTAIN HARRISseconded the Motion for going into a Committee of the House on this important subject, though he dissented from most of the details specified in the Resolution. He considered that it was a matter which, if taken up in a wise and fair spirit of legislation, might give essential relief to the depressed agricultural interest, whilst Free-trader and Protectionist could meet on this neutral ground of justice and fair play, without any sacrifice of their opinions or principles respecting the commercial policy. There was a conviction growing up in the mind of the country

597
as to the necessity of laying a rate on all classes of property, and that opinion was corroborated by a passage in the report of Mr. Beckett, poor-law guardian, who had been appointed to inquire into the law of settlement. He said he had perceived in many quarters a strong feeling in favour of a national rate, to be made on all descriptions of property, for the support of the poor. The justice of that proposition had been acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. Cornewall Lewis); and though he hesitated to pronounce an opinion upon it, and put forward the many difficulties that would attend such a plan, yet he said, in the course of his evidence before the Lords' Committee, that he was prepared to admit that, unless there was some reason in favour of a local tax limited to real property, it was more equitable to defray the expense out of a national tax that would come out of all descriptions of property. He (Captain Harris) believed that the plan which had been put before the Lords' Committee last year by Lord Malmesbury, was one that would effect the purpose they had in view. He believed by the system that noble Lord proposed they would be enabled to reach every income throughout the country, and make every man pay according to his ability for the support of the poor; while at the same time they retained the local management that was so essential for the working of the poor-law. His Lordship had ascertained the whole expenditure for the poor, for seven years previous to 1849, amounting to 5,850,000 l., for Great Britain; and he then proceeded to show that a rate of fivepence in the pound, levied on every species of income down to incomes of 30 l. a year, would meet that expenditure. The rate of poundage must, however, depend upon the general state of property; but it was thought that fivepence in the pound would be sufficient. It was proposed that the amount received should be paid into the Exchequer, and the Poor Law Board were then to ascertain, from each union and parish, what their expenditure had been during the average of seven years. That was easily ascertained, indeed they had it already in a paper on the table of the House. The Poor Law Board were to draw from the Exchequer the average sum for each parish and union according to the expenditure of those seven years. The election of boards of guardians was to be as at present—they were to be selected from the owners of real pro-
598
perty, and upon them was to rest the responsibility of administering the law. If they exceeded the sum which was remitted to them, they would be called upon to levy a rate in aid on the real property within the parish. It was to be raised on the real property, because it had been found difficult to localise funded or personal property; so that if the expenditure exceeded the sum allowed, the rate in aid must be levied on the real property. Then came the question which had been raised by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury, namely, what motive would there be for economy, for what was to be done with the surplus? In the plan put forward by Lord Malmesbury, he proposed that the surplus be applied to emigration; but it was said, Where there is a surplus, in that place emigration is least required. So that was not held a sufficient incentive to economise. The plan which had since occurred to the noble Lord was this—that the surplus in each case should be applied to the county rates. So there was a direct incentive to economy. He thanked the House for the attention which they had given him whilst he sketched out the main features of a plan, which, he felt convinced, if laid fairly before the public, would meet their approval, as it had already received the adhesion of many unions to which it had been submitted.
MR. BAINES: Sir, I hope that the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire, and the hon. and gallant Member who seconded him, will pardon me if I decline to follow them into many of the topics which they have introduced into this discussion. The law of settlement, the assessment of personal property to the relief of the poor, the ingenious plan of Lord Malmesbury, and other subjects upon which the hon. Members have touched, all involve questions of the greatest importance, which I shall be ready to discuss whenever they are brought regularly and distinctly before the House. At present, I shall confine myself to the specific proposition of the hon. Mover; but before I address myself to it, I hope the House will allow me to advert for a moment to the personal appeal which has been made to me, with reference to the accuracy of those Poor Law Returns, for which I must be held responsible. I think it a little hard that without previous notice of any kind, the hon. Mover should call upon me to explain the grounds of a change in the mode of preparing those Returns, which was adopted three years before I entered upon

599
my office. Speaking from conjecture, however, I should say that the object of those who made the change was, as the effect has undoubtedly been, to obtain results of greater accuracy and comprehensiveness than under the former system. Besides, the hon. Gentleman forgets that the comparisons which have recently been made, in order to show the diminution of pauperism, have been made by comparing the Returns of 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1850, all of them years since the change in the mode of framing the Returns, so that the Returns of those years have really all been made upon precisely the same principles, and in precisely the same form, and, consequently, admit of a comparison in all respects fair and just. But I proceed without further delay to the Resolution before the House. That Resolution affirms the expediency of providing for the relief of the destitute poor of the country by means of a National Rate. I ask, is the House prepared to sanction such a proposition? Hitherto, a national rate has met with no favour in Parliament. In 1847, a Select Committee, of which my lamented predecessor in office (Mr. C. Buller) was chairman, investigated most fully the subjects of settlement and rating. When I state the names of the Gentlemen who acted upon that Committee, it will be seen that there were among them some of the ablest Members of the House, including several who are peculiarly conversant with the subject of the Poor Laws. The Committee consisted of Mr. Charles Buller, Sir James Graham, Sir George Grey, Mr. Henley, Mr. Bankes, Mr. Evelyn Denison, Lord Harry Vane, Mr. William Miles, Mr. Poulett Scrope, Mr. Charles Villiers, Mr. Round, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Aldam, and Mr. Bodkin. The adoption of a national rate was recommended with great earnestness by several of the witnesses examined; yet such was the opinion entertained upon it by the Committee, that when they came at last to discuss the Resolutions to be submitted to the House as the result of their inquiries, no one Member appears to have made the slightest suggestion in favour of a national rate, or to have treated the subject as deserving a moment's serious consideration by Parliament. Two years afterwards, a proposition for a Committee to consider the expediency of a national rate was brought before the House by a noble Lord now deceased, then Member for Aylesbury (Lord Nugent); but the House thought it
600
so dangerous to countenance even a doubt upon the subject, that the Motion was scouted on all sides, and the noble Mover finally allowed it to be negatived without a division. Various suggestions for the relief of the owners and occupiers of land have been recently made by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli); they have been urged by him with the greatest ability and ingenuity, and with an earnestness which no one can doubt; yet I never heard from him a syllable in favour of a national rate. I repeat, then, that hitherto the scheme recommended by the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire has certainly met with no great encouragement in this House; and I shall be much surprised if the House now think it deserving of greater, in consequence of any arguments which have been used to-night. I beg their attention to the exact proposition of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire. It is professedly for the relief of the agricultural interest, and this is to be effected by an equalised poor-rate throughout England and Wales of 1s. 6d. in the pound. Now there are in England and Wales upwards of 5,000 parishes (by which term I mean places maintaining their own poor), chiefly of an agricultural character, in which the present rate is less than 1s. 6d. In some it is loss than 2d., in others less than 3d., in others 4d., 6d., 8d., and so on. The immediate effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposition would be, at one stroke, to make the rates in those places double, treble, quadruple, in some more than sixfold, and in a few more than tenfold their present amount. On the one hand you may have a parish where the management has been careful and economical, and where every case of an application for relief has been strictly and vigilantly scrutinised. On the other, you may have a parish where the system of administering relief has been careless and wasteful—a system full of mischiefs, debasing and demoralising to the poor, and ruinous to the ratepayers. These two parishes, according to the hon. Gentleman, are at once and for all future time to be put upon precisely the same footing with each other. The economy of the one will have no reward, and the extravagance of the other will entail no penalty. And this is what the hon. Gentleman calls justice. He has spoken of union rating: this is not the occasion to discuss the merits of union rating; but it clearly differs from national rating in two most important particulars.

601
First, the districts are such as experience has proved to be well adapted for a common management of all the poor within them: secondly, the areas of rating and of expenditure would be identical; the sum raised, whatever it might be, would be expended within the limits and for the benefit of the district raising it; and every person contributing to the common fund would, by himself or his representative, have a voice upon every question of expenditure. But, according to the scheme of the hon. Gentleman, a parish in Northumberland might be required to supply funds for the expenses of a parish in Cornwall, with which it could have no possible connection in the management of its poor, and over which it could exercise no possible check. Besides, in every equitable plan of union rating which I have seen, it has been considered necessary, that although equality of assessment throughout the union might be the ultimate object, such equality should be attained, not all at once, but by gradual approximation. Such was the plan advocated by some of the ablest Members who sat upon the Committee of 1847. But the plan of the hon. Gentleman contemplates an equalisation throughout the country, which shall be immediate as well as total. Such a transition must inflict the greatest injustice both upon owners and upon occupiers. Much has been said in recent discussions about the incidence of the burden of local rates; but no one can doubt, that although in the long run the charge necessarily falls upon the owner, it may also fall upon the occupier with grievous weight where the transition from one mode of rating to another is sudden and unexpected. But suppose this scheme of national rating to have been carried out, notwithstanding all these objections; how would it work? Let the House consider how much of wasteful extravagance in the management of the poor it would be quite sure to involve. What motive for economy would anybody have under such a system? If the penalty of careless and improvident expenditure is not to fall upon themselves, but may be cast upon others, who can expect any board of guardians to be at the trouble of carefully sifting the various applications made to them, so that while, on the one hand, cases of genuine destitution shall be relieved, care shall be taken on the other to detect and discourage the idle vagrant and the shameless impostor? Let the House consider whether every kind of jobbing would not arise among
602
those who had the distribution of this fund. There would be a scramble for the largest share of the common booty. To say nothing of those who from sheer carelessness, or in the pursuit of a spurious popularity, would waste the fund; others would be found to revive the frauds practised under the old poor-laws, by eking out the wages of their own labourers from the rates, and making their official character subservient to their own pecuniary advantage. There would be throughout the whole land an indefinite increase of pauperism with all its enormous evils, social, political, and moral. When it was once understood that individual applications for relief wore not to be carefully sifted, multitudes, now self-reliant, would throw themselves upon the rates; those who are now struggling on the verge of pauperism would slide into it, and those who are in would never get out. The habit and the feeling of independence would be destroyed among the humbler classes; and what greater curse could be brought upon individuals, upon families, or upon the national character? But, after all, is the hon. Gentleman's scheme practicable in a financial point of view? He says that under no circumstances is there to be a resort to the Consolidated Fund, or a greater rate than 1s. 6d. in the pound. If there is not, the plan breaks down at the very first step. I hold in my hand a statement showing the total value of the property in England and Wales rateable to the poor-rates in 1847, (the latest return derived from official sources); it amounts to 67,320,587 l. The amount levied last year under the head of "parochial poor-rates," out of which the county rates, borough rates, and several other rates are payable, was 7,270,492 l. Now, what will a rate of 1s. 6d. in the pound (which is to be the hon. Gentleman's maximum under all circumstances) raise upon the total of the rateable property in England and Wales? Just 5,049,044 l. to meet an expenditure of 7,270,492 l. So that the hon. Gentleman actually starts with a deficit of more than 2,000,000 l. And this is with reference to the present expenditure; what that expenditure might grow to in the course of a few years under such influences as I have attempted to describe, I defy any man to toll. But suppose the deficiency in each year to be no more than 2,000,000 l., how is it to be met or provided for? Either the poor must starve—which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see; or the

603
deficiency must be made up out of the Consolidated Fund, though he declares that under no circumstances is that fund to be resorted to; or his rate must exceed 1s. 6d. in the pound, though it is part of his plan that in no case shall it ever exceed that amount. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I mean any personal disrespect to him; but I must say of his scheme, which I have a right to discuss with all frankness and plain-speaking, that one more rash and ill-considered was never propounded to a British House of Commons. But the hon. Gentleman, by way of reconciling Parliament to his plan, says that the fund collected by means of his national rate is to be expended under local management. I beg the particular attention of the House to this point. I think as highly of local self-government as the hon. Gentleman can. The funds for the relief of the destitute poor have always been collected in this country within the limits of each parish, and have been expended either within those same limits, or at all events within the limits of the union to which the parish belonged. By means of local self-government, those who raised the money expended it. In this way, notwithstanding many anomalies and faults in the poor-laws, a greater degree of economy, and a more effectual check upon pauperism, have been secured than could have resulted from any system of national management. I believe also that habits of local self-government have exercised the most beneficial influence upon the character of the country. One of my strongest objections to the scheme of the hon. Member for West Gloucestershire is, that I believe, if it were adopted, this system of local management would become utterly impracticable. So much of jobbery and of wastefulness would spring up in every locality, that the nuisance would ere long become intolerable, and the country would demand, as a less evil, that the central Government should undertake to raise and expend the whole fund. Yet what an alternative would this be! A whole army of stipendiaries, who must be appointed and paid by the Government, would be necessary to discharge the duties now performed by the local authorities throughout the 15,000 districts in England and Wales, which maintain their own poor. Besides, how, in times of trouble and general distress, could any Government withstand the pressure, if it were known to hold the strings of the purse from which
604
the destitute poor were to be fed? I am persuaded that such a state of things would be pregnant with the most fatal consequences to public order and to all the best and dearest institutions of the country. Sir, upon all these grounds, and regretting only that I have been compelled to trespass upon the attention of the House so long, I think it my duty to meet this proposition with a decided negative.
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEY,in reply, said, that his Motion did not make it imperative that the rate should be limited to 1s. 6d., although, in his opinion, with proper management, it might be reduced to 4d. But even at 1s. 6d. the rateable property would be sufficient for the strict poor-rate, which was all he contemplated. However, his only object had been to raise the question, and therefore he should not trouble the House by asking it to divide.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOME MADE SPIRITS IN BOND.
LORD NAASrose to move—
"That this House do immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the present mode of levying the Duties on Home Made Spirits in Bond."
It was, in effect, the same Motion which he had the honour to submit to the House last year, the principle of which was affirmed by a majority of the House on two occasions, and which was rejected the third time by a narrow majority of one. He did not desire to make any reduction in taxation, or to interfere with that surplus which was a subject of such gratification to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The claim was one of simple justice, which should not be determined by the general state of the revenue, but on its own inherent merits. He knew it was a subject of a somewhat dry and uninteresting nature, and perhaps one of intricate detail. However, he trusted the House would give him its attention while he would state, as clearly as he could, the grounds of his Motion. The complaint he had to make on the part of those interested in Irish spirits was, that the duty was levied, not on the quantity of spirits that went into consumption, but on the quantity originally measured into the spirit receiver, or what was technically called the worm-end, so that if the spirits were left for a considerable time in bond, the owners had to pay a duty on a considerable quantity that had been lost by waste and evaporation; so that in point of fact the distiller and spirit trader had invariably to

605
pay duty, in the case of bonded spirits, on an article which was actually not in existence when the duty was paid. The distiller is the only manufacturer in this country subject to such a restriction; no other manufacturer pays duty on an imaginary article. In his own trade, too, he is exposed to unfair competition with the manufacturer of foreign spirits. By the Customs regulations the Dutchman may bond his gin, the Frenchman his brandy, the West Indian his rum; but he will pay, not on the quantity as placed originally under the Queen's lock, but on the amount as it goes into consumption; so that the home distiller and trader is subject to a loss which invariably occurs from leakage and evaporation, from which the foreign producer is totally exempt. Now, what were the objections to this just demand? They were merely these, that it was an unsettlement of a great question as arranged in 1848; that it would occasion considerable loss to the revenue, and open a door to fraud. Now how was this great settlement made? The House must remember that the distillers and spirit dealers were no parties to that arrangement. The decision of the Government was come to in consequence of the report of the Committee on Sugar and Coffee Duties, of which Lord G. Bentinck was chairman. There was no Irish Member on that Committee; there was no Irish witness called; the case of the distillers was only introduced incidentally, and in fact the whole matter was settled without reference to the spirit question at all. The House would understand him, when they heard the opinion of the Chairman of that Committee, delivered in July, 1848, when the House was in Committee on the Rum Duties. Lord G. Bentinck said—
"There was one point which the Irish Members were entitled to have placed before the House, and that was, that the Committee of which he had been chairman had inquired into the question of the Rum and Spirit Duties only incidentally; that no Irish Member was upon the Committee; that no Irish witness was called, and that consequently the distillers were entirely unrepresented."
But look to the report of that Committee. He found four sets of resolutions submitted to the Committee, and out of these four only one alluded to the distiller's case at all; that one was proposed by Lord G. Bentinck, rejected by the Committee, and the one ultimately adopted never alluded to the subject at all. He thought that might be taken as a proof that the distillers were no parties to the settlement which had
606
been come to on this subject. But, assuming that the measure of 1848 was a settlement of the question, and that the distillers were satisfied with it, what was the basis on which it was made? There was a differential duty between colonial and home-made spirits, but it was not made in any degree by way of protection; it was merely laid on as an equivalent, and a very inadequate equivalent, for the restrictions and disadvantages under which the home distillers laboured on account of the laws enacted for securing the revenue. The differential duty between the colonial and home-made spirits was 4d. per gallon. Now, the Member for Westbury said last year, that the duty on decreases formed a considerable item in the calculation on which that sum was determined; but what was the fact? The decision of the Government was come to in consequence of the statement of Mr. John Wood before the Committee; and what were the items of his calculation? Malt duty, 1½d.; increased plant, 1d.; excise restriction, 1d.; duty on decreases, ½d—4d. So this considerable item has dwindled to ½d., or one-eighth of the whole. But though the distillers thought that the 4d. duty was very inadequate recompense for the disadvantages under which they labour, they had no wish to alter the arrangement. If this differential duty is to be made a bar to their just claims, let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take his ½d., reduce the differential duty to 3½d. in accordance with the views of his own Chairman of Inland Revenue, and do not make that any longer a plea for the continuance of an injustice. But it has been said that this measure, if carried, would open a door to fraud. This is most absurd; not only would every safeguard now adopted by the revenue be left in force, but many new means might be taken to secure it. There is nothing in this plan which would prevent the same mode of measurement being practised as it is now. But other means might be taken; for instance, the spirit receiver might be placed itself in bond, and many other means might be taken, which are not now possible, to secure the safety of the revenue, and the honesty of officials. At all events, the allowance for decreases would, doubtless, greatly encourage and increase the practice of bonding, which is admitted the greatest possible safeguard to the revenue. It was said, that the adoption of the plan he advocated would occasion a considerable loss to the revenue. He had never heard of any calculation as

607
to the probable amount of that loss, and he believed it was a mere matter of speculation. His opinion was, that so far from any loss being sustained, if that plan were adopted, the revenue would be a considerable gainer. It would cause a great increase in the consumption of whisky, and that without any increase of intemperance, because the sort of spirits which would then come into consumption would be very different from that which was now consumed in the three kingdoms. The people would have ripe and proper spirit instead of the raw crude stuff, which they were now obliged to consume. With regard to the export trade in spirits, it was well known that during last year it had considerably decreased; and so far from its being a thriving trade, he found by the returns that while, during the last month, the exportation of rum from the United Kingdom amounted to 65,000 gallons, no mention was made during the last year of any exportation of spirits. Throughout the return the article of home-made spirits, which might form a valuable portion of our export trade, was not once mentioned. In point of fact, the retention of the present duty amounted almost to a prohibition of the export trade in that article. Now, let the House hear what the opinion of the spirit trade is on this subject. They state in one of their circulars—
"It is seen that in the home market the foreign and colonial producers have every advantage over the home manufacturer, and as regards the export trade the latter is not a whit hotter off. 'Tis true, compelled by the flagrant injustice of the case, the Government have attempted to stop the complaints of the injured parties by a sham concession. Whisky may now be exported, under the same regulations as affect rum and brandy—provided it he declared by the manufacturer when bonding the spirits that they are for exportation."
This so-called relief is, however, not of the slightest value, for it is manifest that no manufacturer will so place his property, that he will not be enabled at any time to dispose of it in the best market and to most advantage. To be of the least use the plan must be carried out in its entirety. It was much to be feared, that the real objectors to this just demand were the English distillers. Why? Because they do not want it: they hardly ever bond at all—they sell their spirits hot from the still to the rectifier, and, therefore, cannot require it. There were only eight distillers in England, notwithstanding the enormous quantity of spirits consumed in this country. Owing to their being so few distillers,
608
they, in effect, possessed a monopoly of the trade, and they perceived that if the plan which he (Lord Naas) desired to see adopted were carried out, and the allowance granted to the Irish and Scotch distillers, it would considerably interfere with their monopoly. The noble Lord then read the following opinions of Messrs. Logie and Haliburton, Surveying-Generals of the Excise, which was delivered by them in 1833, when the differential duty was 1s. 6d.:—
"When spirits remain any time in the duty-free warehouse, they fall off in strength often as much as five per cent, and also fall short in quantity, in many cases to the same amount. The duty is, however, charged on the original quantity and strength stored; the distiller has, therefore, not only to pay the duty in the first instance for the quantity wasted in store by evaporation and leakage, but he has again to pay for the difference in strength between 11 or 25 per cent, and the strength at which the spirits were actually taken out of store. This we consider a very great hardship, and it should, in our opinion, be immediately remedied. The board are aware that the importers of all foreign and colonial spirits may bond them duty free, and when taken out of the warehouse the duty is calculated according to the quantity and strength each cask is then found to contain, although perhaps years under bond; we think it would be but just that this equitable regulation, which the importers of brandy, rum, and hollands have so long enjoyed, should be extended to the distillers of these countries; indeed, we consider it would absolutely be necessary, in order to protect them."
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War last year said, that this was a question which concerned the moral condition of the poor of Scotland, and that he could not give the proposition his support, because it would demoralise the people of that country by increasing intemperance among them. But so far was he (Lord Naas) from agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, that his opinion was the measure would tend to improve the habits of the people of Scotland, because (as he had said before) the spirits they would consume would be of a better quality. He (Lord Naas) would be the last man in that House who would propose a measure which could, by any possibility, increase intemperance. But he felt convinced such would not be the effect of this measure. In bringing forward this question, he felt that he was pleading the cause of the poor man, for if hon. Gentlemen had seen, as he had, the constant employment afforded to the inhabitants of small counties by the existence of distilleries, and the ruin which had been occasioned by some of those establishments being thrown out of work, they would reflect before they

609
would oppose the Motion, having for its object the removal of a heavy restriction on so important a branch of industry. He hoped he had proved to the satisfaction of the House that the concession of this demand would not be an unsettlement of the question; that it was not likely to cause any great loss to the revenue; that it would not open a door to fraud; that it would encourage the export trade in spirits; that it would not increase intemperance; that it would give additional employment to the poor; and, lastly, that it would be a very important measure in an agricultural point of view, by increasing the markets to the farmer. He relied only on the justice of the case, and on that ground alone he hoped that the House would decide in favour of his Motion. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the House resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the present mode of levying the duty on home-made spirits in bond.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the present mode of levying the Duty on Home-made Spirits in bond."
MR. ROCHEseconded the Motion.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he felt bound to compliment the noble Lord (Lord Naas) for the clear and temperate manner in which he had brought his Motion forward; but as the question had been already settled by a Parliamentary Committee, and subsequently by the House, in consequence of the Report of that Committee, he did not feel it necessary to enter again at any great length into the subject. If there was one question more than another which engaged the attention of the Committee of 1848, it was the arrangement of the spirit duties. It was true no Irish distiller was examined before that Committee, nor was there any Irish Member on the Committee. When that Committee was appointed, it was not contemplated to make the spirit duties the subject of inquiry. That would fully account for the fact of there not being any Irish Member on the Committee. Although the original intention of the late Lord George Bentinck excluded the spirit duties from consideration, yet during the discussions which took place before the Committee, the rate of duty levied on colonial rum became so important a subject that the whole question of the spirit duties was necessarily involved in the inquiry.
610
Now, although no Irish distiller was examined, a Scotch distiller of great eminence and ability, and a person capable of giving the fullest information on the subject—Mr. Greig—was examined with regard to the Scotch distilleries; and, as he (Mr. Wilson) understood the noble Lord (Lord Naas) to place the claim of the Irish and of the Scotch distillers on the same principle, he thought their case could not have been left in better hands. With regard to the differential duty, although he believed the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was correct in his statement generally, yet he would find from subsequent discussions that ensued, that a more correct estimate was afterwards made as to the component parts of that 4d. which constituted that differential duty. Some misunderstanding had arisen as to the amount of deficiency of spirits in bond, arising from a considerable error in some returns which had been made to Parliament some time ago with regard to the deficiency in bonded rum. In those returns the average loss for a number of years was stated to be 3½ gallons in the 100, but on further examination it turned out that instead of 3½ it was 2½ gallons in the 100. Bearing this in mind, and taking the Scotch duty at 3s. 8d., the deficiency of 2½ gallons per 100 would amount to but a fraction more than 1½d. a gallon; and in the same proportion in regard to the Irish spirits, on which the duty was 2s. 8d. But taking the actual quantity of spirits warehoused in Scotland and Ireland in the year 1850, and estimating the deficiency by that of rum, it amounted in the one case to 11/10 d., and in the other to 1⅛d. per gallon. Again, the Irish and Scotch distillers had the advantage of the allowance, not only on the spirits which actually went into bond, and on which the loss arose, but on that which went direct from the distiller to the consumer, and on which there was no loss at all. Of 11,500,000 gallons of spirits made last year in Scotland, only 7,300,000 went into bond, the other 4,200,000 having gone direct to the consumer. It was the same with regard to Irish spirits, of which out of 8,300,000 gallons distilled, only 6,295,000 went into bond. The noble Lord (Lord Naas) had referred to the local distress arising from the falling-off in the number of distilleries in Ireland, which he attributed to the undue competition of colonial spirits. He (Mr. Wilson) was aware that the number of distilleries had diminished; but the whole tendency

611
of manufactures was for the smaller to give way before the larger enterprises, consequent on the introduction of machinery and the additional demand for capital which followed. And this, he believed, was in point of fact what was occurring in respect to the manufacture of Irish spirits; for while the number of distilleries was diminishing, the quantity of spirits made was increasing enormously. In 1841, there were 82 distilleries in Ireland, and the quantity of spirits produced was 6,400,000 gallons; but in 1850, when the number of distilleries had fallen to 53, the quantity of spirits distilled had risen to 8,236,000 gallons. The noble Lord complained of the injury the Irish and Scotch distillers were suffering from the competition of colonial spirits in the home market. Now, he found that in 1847, the year following the change in the rum duties, the quantity of home-made spirits consumed in Ireland was 6,037,000 gallons; but, in 1850, after four years of competition at the reduced duty, it had risen to 7,408,000 gallons. So that in the face of this competition, which was said to be so unequal and so unfair, the consumption of home-made spirits in Ireland had increased by 1,371,000 gallons in four years. Then there was a complaint by the Irish distillers that their trade with England had fallen off. [Colonel DUNNE: Hear, hear!] He understood the cheer of the hon. and gallant Member. But let the hon. and gallant Member look to the trade as it had existed from 1841. In that year the export of spirits from Ireland to England was 350,000 gallons; in 1842 it was 294,000 gallons; in 1843 it was 384,000 gallons; in 1846 it rose from various causes to the enormous amount of 1,418,000 gallons; and though it had since fallen, as compared with that year of extraordinary demand, it amounted last year to 828,000 gallons—a very considerable increase on the average of 300,000 gallons, at which it stood eight or ten years ago. But let hon. Gentlemen inquire whether the decrease since 1846 had not arisen from an increase in the consumption in England of British spirits of other than Irish manufacture. There could be no ground for saying that Scotland was placed in a more favourable position than Ireland, yet he found that while the quantity of Irish spirits imported into England had fallen off, the import from Scotland had increased since 1846 from 1,900,000 to 2,600,000 gals., which more than compensated for the decrease in Irish
612
spirits. The total import of Irish and Scotch spirits had increased from 1842 from 1,900,000 to 3,400,000 gals., which was the quantity imported last year. But it was said that colonial spirits, at the low duty, was successfully opposing the British spirits in the home markets, especially in Scotland. In 1841, when rum was at the 10 s. duty, the consumption of Scotch spirits in Scotland was 5,980,000 gallons; in 1850, when they had the competition of rum at the low duty, it had risen to 7,122,000 gallons. Where then was the pretence for saying that the low duty on colonial spirits was operating injuriously on homemade spirits? Taking the United Kingdom as a whole, he found that so far from the competition of colonial spirits showing any unfavourable result to the home producer, the result really was unfavourable to the colonial and favourable to the home producer. He did not mean to say the duty charged on colonial spirits was unfairly high; but there was no pretence for saying that the duty was so low that it operated injuriously on the home producer. In 1848 the quantity of home-made spirits distilled in England, Ireland, and Scotland was 22,202,000 gals.; in 1850, it was 23,862,000—an increase of 1,660,000 gals. in two years under the operation of the low duty on colonial spirits. Now what had taken place with regard to rum? In 1847 the consumption in the home market was 3,328,000 gallons; last year it was only 2,902,000 gallons, being a decrease of 426,000 gallons. With these facts before them, would any man say that the arrangement made in 1848 as to the rum duties was unfair to the home producer? The noble Lord had also referred to questions as between the Irish and Scotch distillers, and the English distillers; but the House could not well be engaged in a more delicate or difficult inquiry than into matters relating to the relative advantages of trade in the three countries. He (Mr. Wilson) believed he was correct in saying that while the Irish and Scotch distillers had the advantage of sending their spirits into this country without paying any duty in their own countries, and bringing it in here in bond, the English distiller was prohibited from sending his spirits either into Ireland or into Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] English raw spirits might be introduced into those countries, but not, he believed, compound spirits, which alone was consumed. Compounded spirit was certainly prohibited from going from this

613
country into either Ireland or Scotland; and was not this a great hardship? He therefore believed a very strong case of inequality might be made out by the English distiller, and that if there was any ground of complaint it was on the part of the English distiller, and not on the part of the Irish or Scotch distiller. For, what did he find? He found that the consumption of English manufactured spirits during the last ten years had been stationary, or something worse; for instance, in 1841 it was 5,900,000 gallons, and last year it was 5,800,000 gallons, or about 100,000 gallons less. Was there anything in that fact to induce the belief that the arrangements of the Excise had been more favourable to the English than to the Irish or Scotch distillers? The English distiller could make out a strong case, for, while his productions had been declining, the consumption of the home market of England had increased rapidly, as was proved by the export into this country from Ireland and Scotland. As a confirmation of this, he found that, while English spirits had gone back 100,000 gallons from 1841, there had been an increase in the same period of nearly 2,000,000 gallons in the Irish and 2,000,000 gallons in the Scotch spirits. Was there anything in this to make a man believe that the Excise favoured the English distiller rather than the Scotch or the Irish? Another complaint which the Irish and Scotch distillers made was with regard to the competition of rum. The duty charged upon rum was, in each division of the kingdom, 4d. per gallon more than the duty charged on the home-made spirit; and he understood the complaint they made was that this difference of 4d. was not sufficient to countervail the Excise restrictions. But he thought this complaint could not be well founded, because he had shown that, in the face of this competition, the quantity of Scotch and Irish spirits had increased more than almost at any former period, so that there was really no just ground for this cause of complaint. As far as regarded the falling-off in the amount of labour employed, he thought that complaint also was answered by the improvements in the manufacture. He had thus endeavoured to show that the complaints of the noble Mover of the Motion were unfounded. There could, in fact, be no doubt that, after the arrangement made in 1848, were the Irish distillers to succeed in obtaining an alteration
614
by which they would be still further benefited, the importers of colonial spirits, would have just cause to demand a corresponding reduction in the amount of their countervailing duty; and if that reduction, were obtained, then the relative position of the two parties would be the same as it was at this moment. He hoped the House would not listen to the Motion of the noble Lord, seeing that it could only end in the diminution of the spirit duty altogether, which was not the first duty they would concede, were they disposed to make any further reduction in the taxes of the country.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat had spoken of some arrangement agreed to in the Committee of 1848; but he (Mr. Reynolds) was not aware that any Irish or Scotch Member had been a party to that arrangement. The Scotch and Irish Members certainly never looked upon it as a settlement of the question. The hon. Member (Mr. J. Wilson) himself admitted that not one Irish Member was on the Committee of 1848, and not one Irish witness was examined before it; but, he added, that one Scotch distiller was examined before the Committee. That certainly was the crumb of comfort thrown out to the Scotch and Irish distillers by the great figure Member for Westbury. The hon. Member's speeches were remarkable for one thing—they were always full of figures. It was by the help of these figures the hon. Member thought he could succeed in persuading the Irish distillers that they were very indulgently treated. It was with utter astonishment he had heard the hon. Member quote figures which never had any existence except in his own fertile imagination. The hon. Member said that the loss from leakage and evaporation in Ireland was 1⅛d. Where had he got those figures? Then the hon. Member, crossing the Tweed, informed the House that the loss in Scotland from leakage and evaporation was 11/10 d. He should like to know where the hon. Member obtained that information also, because he (Mr. Reynolds) was unable to find it in any documents to which he had access. He held in his hand something like an official document, it being a certificate respecting 12 puncheons of Irish whisky placed in the Queen's stores in Dublin, from which it appeared that the total deficiency on those puncheons was 142 gallons; and from an accurate calcula

615
tion that represented a loss of 8¼ per cent on each of the puncheons, and not 1⅛d. as the hon. Member for Westbury represented. The hon. Member, in attempting to explain the grounds on which the countervailing duty of 4d. was imposed on colonial spirits, had once stated that 1d. was for plant, ¾d. for another kind of plant, and 1d. for something else, and then he said that these items made up 3½d. of the duty, whereas they amounted to only 2¾d. It was well known that 3½d. of the 4d. duty was intended to meet the enormous expense incurred by the Scotch and Irish in comparison with the colonial distillers. It followed, therefore, that only one halfpenny was allowed for leakage and evaporation. What was the complaint of the Irish distillers? The manufacturers of 8,000,000 gallons of Irish spirits annually used 1,000,000 bushels of oats. A barrel of oats made 8 gallons of proof whisky. Now, what they contended for was, that if they put the Irish distillers on a footing with the manufacturers of foreign and colonial produce, they must emancipate the former class—the Irish distillers—and make Ireland an exporting country. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Wilson) in coupling Ireland with Scotland, did not give the relative figures; but he (Mr. Reynolds) had endeavoured to supply the gap. From a paper lately laid before Parliament, it appeared that Scotland sent yearly into England 2,600,000 gallons, whilst Ireland sent to this country only 800,000 gallons. There was a drawback upon malt, of which he knew Scotland availed itself to an extent far greater than Ireland was enabled to do. They had, however, passed an Act in 1848, enabling Irish distillers to bond spirits in England. But whereas the spirits bonded in Ireland was only liable to a duty of 2s. 8d. per proof gallon, that bonded in England was liable to a duty of 7s. 10 d. And what was still more unjust—the Irish distiller was obliged to pay this high duty not merely on the quantity when it left the stores, but upon the quantity when it was placed there, making him pay, in fact, duty on the leakage and evaporation. The Irish distiller was thus placed in a much worse position than the Spaniard, the Portuguese, or the Frenchman, who was only obliged to pay for the quantity which was taken out of the stores, and not upon that which had leaked and evaporated. The case was harder than it at first seemed; for whereas the foreign brandy was mellowing and improving in
616
the stores, and was much more valuable when removed after five or six years, it was only charged duty upon what remained in the casks; but the Irish whisky had to pay duty in Ireland upon the full quantity, and had to pay duty in England upon the full quantity, however great the leakage and evaporation might be. Take the case of a 120 gallon vessel of Irish whisky. The distiller was obliged to pay duty on the whole quantity first measured as soon as it was taken into the stores, and it was obliged to pay according to its strength, so that though it might be 25 per cent above proof, and lose half its strength in storage, the distiller was obliged to pay according to its original strength, with (as he had already stated) no allowance for leakage or evaporation. The merits of the question, he maintained, lay in a nutshell, and ought not to be mystified in the manner which the hon. Member for Westbury had done—he had no doubt unintentionally. It had been said that this was a spirit dealer's question. He totally and entirely denied the truth of that assertion. It was a labour question and an agricultural question. He had been told that a number of the Irish representatives intended to vote against the Motion. He did not believe it. The Irish representatives, like the representatives of England and Scotland, differed among themselves upon political and religious questions; but the present question involved the prosperity of Ireland, and he believed it would be found that they were unanimous upon it. The Government had been already placed in jeopardy upon this question upon a former occasion, when they had but a majority of one. He trusted that to-night there would be a large majority against them, and that the Motion of the noble Lord would be carried.
MR. BONHAM CARTERwould oppose the Motion, on the ground that it would tend to confound the distinctions which had always hitherto existed between Customs and Excise duties—the duties in the latter case being paid at the earliest possible period, which was the simplest, the most economical, and the freest from fraud of any method that could be devised. He also opposed the Motion on the ground that at present the Scotch and the Irish distillers had a considerable advantage over the English distillers; and if this Motion were passed, it would give hem a still further advantage. He thought that if

617
there was a case for anything, it was for a Committee upstairs; but that it would be doing injustice to many parties if they affirmed the Motion of the noble Lord; and he should, therefore, give his vote against it.
MR. GROGANsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had argued against the opening of the market of England to the distillers of Ireland and Scotland. That was a strange argument to be used by those hon. Gentlemen who had opened the market of England to the whole world. Hon. Members who supported the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) asked simply that the Irish and Scotch distillers should be put upon the same footing with the importers of colonial rum—that their spirits should be measured when they came out and not when they went into bond. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) had admitted the decrease or waste of spirits in bond to be about 1⅛d or 1/10 d. The admission was of some importance, though accompanied by the declaration that it was accounted for in the 4d. of differential duty. He (Mr. Grogan) would on this matter refer to the evidence of Mr. Wood, Chairman of Excise. What did Mr. Wood say? Mr. Wood stated that the 4d. of differential duty between colonial and British-made spirits was just and right, because of the peculiar charges to which the latter were subjected. The British distiller had, first of all, the malt duty, which was 1½d.; then the increased expense of manufacture was set down at 1d.; and the restrictions to which the British distiller was subject, from which the colonial producer was exempt, were estimated to be compensated for by another 1d., leaving one ½d. out of the 4d., on account of waste and decrease in bond. Now if they received the statement of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), his noble Friend (Lord Naas) was certainly at least entitled to demand the difference between the 1⅛d. and the ½d. His hon. Friend (Mr. Reynolds) had, however, shown the diminution which took place in the spirits bonded at Dublin, and he (Mr. Grogan) could not understand how the hon. Member (Mr. J. Wilson) could reconcile that with his statement. The simple, narrow bearing of the whole question was this: if a puncheon of foreign brandy was bonded at Liverpool, and remained five or six years in bond, it was during that period mellowing and improving, and becoming more fit for the market, not at the expense of the
618
importer, because when taken out of bond he only paid duty on the then strength and quantity; but if a puncheon of whisky from Ireland was bonded at Liverpool in the same way, the duty would be paid on the quantity and strength when first manufactured, and not upon the quantity and strength when taken out of bond, though it would have decreased in the course of the five or six years, exactly the same as the puncheon of foreign brandy. Figures could not mystify the fact; that was the real state of the case. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) had endeavoured to place Ireland and Scotland in invidious comparison as to the growth of the spirit manufacture; but they were both complainants of the injustice they suffered under the Excise laws. They were not opponents on this occasion, but were, as last Session, thoroughly united against a common wrong; and if the amount of spirits manufactured had increased, there was a proportionate increase of the grievance. As to there being a more thriving trade in spirits, because the number of gallons manufactured had increased, notwithstanding the number of distillers had decreased, he thought it more advantageous that the manufacture should be distributed over the country amongst a large number of small distillers than consolidated in the hands of a few large capitalists. That was, however, beside the question. Ireland, which was an agricultural country, had in its agriculture been struck down by legislative enactments, and the question was, whether additional injustice was to be inflicted on its trade. What they asked for was, a slight modification of the Excise laws, which could not admit of fraud, but would place the Irish and Scotch bonder on the same footing as the bonder of foreign spirits.
MR. MILNER GIBSON,as a Member of the Committee on the Sugar Planting and Rum question, before which evidence and discussions of a most complex nature had been taken, wished to give the House the impressions left on his mind. He admitted what had been said with regard to the evidence of the Chairman of the Board of Excise; but he was always disposed to receive with considerable caution the statements of officials where revenue was concerned, and the statements of special interests when they came to Parliament, as in this case, to ask for an alteration of differential duties. His (Mr. Gibson's) impression was, on the whole, that as between colo-

619
nial rum, and Irish, Scotch, and English spirits, 4d. was a fair difference of duty to meet the disadvantages under which the British and Irish distillers laboured. Hon. Gentlemen who came forward on this question proposed that these disadvantages should be lessened, but that the 4d. of differential or countervailing duty should still be retained. Now if they did this, the House would very likely be occupied with complaints from the colonial rum producers, who would say that they had altered the former arrangement, and had placed colonial rum in England at a disadvantage as compared with Scotch and Irish spirits. If they increased this differential duty—this protection, as it were—he had not the least doubt that there would be such a complaint forthwith from the producers of colonial spirits. The spirit interest in the United Kingdom enjoyed great advantages. Hon. Gentlemen talked about the advantages conferred on foreigners; but let them look at the position of Irish as compared with foreign spirits. They had a duty of 2s. 8d. on Irish spirits; and how much was the duty on foreign spirits? It was 15 s. a gallon. That was 15 s. as against 2s. 8d.; and yet this was the very interest which pretended to be placed in a position of great difficulty, as if it did not already enjoy considerable advantages at the expense of the consumers of this country. A penny had been considered a fair recompense for the decrease of the spirits in bond, and he (Mr. Gibson) thought the remaining 3d. formed a reasonable compensation for those Excise restrictions imposed on Irish, Scotch, and English distillers, to which colonial producers were not subject. Under these circumstances—until inquiry were made, and evidence taken to show that the Committee which had considered the subject had formed wrong impressions—he must give his vote against the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Naas). If that proposition were carried, he (Mr. Gibson) must look upon it as tantamount to little less than a demand on the part of the distillers to have protection in some degree as against the producer of colonial rum.
MR. HUMEsaid, that from the debate they had heard one would imagine that the question before the House was an Irish one; but he had to remind the House that Scotland was equally interested in the matter. Last year he had voted for the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas). That Motion was simply this: that Irish
620
and Scotch whisky should be placed on the same footing with French brandy, Dutch gin, and Jamaica rum. It was unreasonable on a matter of this kind to raise the cry of protection. Was it fair that the Frenchman, importing 100 gallons of brandy and losing 10 gallons, should be allowed to pay for 90 gallons, while the distiller placing the same quantity of whisky in bond, and losing also 10 gallons, should be charged on those 10 gallons he had lost. He could not understand why Her Majesty's Government resisted the putting of Ireland and Scotland on an equality with the colonies and foreign countries in this matter. With these views he should certainly vote with the noble Lord (Lord Naas).
SIR GEORGE CLERK,though connected with Scotland, would not give his vote for the Motion of the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) must remember that since he first came into Parliament they had had to deal with the difficulties of permitting an intercourse in the trade in spirits between the three portions of the United Kingdom—England, Ireland, and Scotland. Owing to the necessity of raising different rates of duty, and the different modes in which the duty was assessed, it was perfectly impossible, even for those acquainted with the mystery, to tell what was the proper equivalent to charge on spirits removed from one part of the United Kingdom to another. In 1825 the difference of duties in the three parts of the United Kingdom was removed, and consequently there were no longer obstacles to a free intercourse in the trade in spirits. That was a boon to Scotland and Ireland, from which they had derived the greatest benefit. But, in addition, they were allowed to warehouse the spirits for an indefinite period, and were not called on to pay the duty until the spirits were taken out of bond for the purpose of being sold and coming immediately into consumption. A special part of that agreement for warehousing spirits was, that the amount of duty should be charged, not on the principle which regulated Customs duties, but according to the quantity ascertained when the spirits were manufactured. He should regret to see that arrangement disturbed; he had heard nothing in the arguments urged by the noble Lord (Lord Naas), or by the hon. Member for the city of Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), to induce him to consent to any alteration; and believing the alteration proposed would be unjust to the Eng-

621
lish and colonial distillers, and probably injurious to the Irish and Scotch distillers themselves, by driving the English distillers to interpose impediments to the free intercourse between the three parts of the United Kingdom, he should vote against the proposition.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it was perfectly clear that the hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down did not represent a Scotch county. His arguments were most fallacious. The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench (Mr. J. Wilson) had stated that the arrangement had existed three years, whereas the last speaker had gone back twenty-five; but he did not think the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk) bad made out any better case; for rum also paid the duty when taken out of bond, and yet the allowance was made to it which was denied to whisky. Then, again, one supporter of the Motion had stated the estimated decrease of the spirits in bond at ½d., while another had stated it at 1d. per gallon. He would, therefore, leave them to settle the difference between them, and he was sure that the House would put very little confidence in the statements which either of them had made. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) had taken notice that he (Colonel Dunne) had cheered him; but he had done so for two reasons: first, because he had admitted the general distress of Ireland; and, secondly, because he had admitted that the spirit markets in particular were considerably lower. The hon. Gentleman had made his comparison between the present period and the year 1841; but then every one knew that 1840 and 1841 were the years in which the temperance movement took place, and in which a considerable decrease had resulted from that cause. But, he would ask, why had not the hon. Gentleman taken the year 1839? He then would have found that 12,000,000 gallons of Irish spirits had been bonded, while now the annual return was little more than 7,000,000. He thought that the Irish Members and the House could not trust much to the arguments of the hon. Member for Westbury, or of the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson); and still less to those of the right hon. Member for Dovor (Sir George Clerk). It was simply a question whether the Irish distillers should be charged duty on a quantity which did not exist. He should support the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not say that he quite agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his view of the nature of the question. The question was not at all whether it was right to charge the Irish and Scotch distillers in a particular way; but whether they ought to make any change in that mode of levying the excise duties which, it was agreed by the common consent of all persons conversant with the subject, was the fairest and the safest, namely, the uniform system, which as the right hon. Member for Dovor (Sir George Clerk) had stated, was established for the benefit of the Irish and Scotch distilleries, because, without that uniformity, it would have been impossible to permit that free interchange which took place throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson) had mentioned—and the House would perfectly agree with him—the utterly opposite principle on which excise and customs duties were levied. The principle of customs duties was, that the payment should be delayed to the latest possible stage, whereas in excise duties it was desirable that they should be paid as early as possible in the manufacture of the articles, so that they might exempt the parties as quickly as they could from the supervision of the excise officer. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) who always appeared to be in constant fear of the exciseman, would not, he was sure, contravene that doctrine. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not going to impute to the noble Lord (Lord Naas) any desire to encourage fraud; but still it must be apparent that his Motion would open a door to fraud, unless they were prepared to adopt more stringent measures than the noble Lord wished to propose. It had been said that it was a question to enable the Irish and Scotch distillers to import their spirits fairly into England. Now the real question was, whether the Irish and Scotch distillers should be allowed to keep their spirits in their warehouses as long as they pleased, and only to pay duty as it came out of the warehouse, instead of at the worm's end. Such a principle would open a great door to fraud; because, under such a system, all that could be abstracted and brought away without paying duty would be a clear gain to the distiller, whereas all that was abstracted now was a clear loss to them. It was quite true that no Irish distiller was examined before the Committee of 1848; but both English and Scotch

623
distillers were examined, and the evidence of the English distillers was clear upon the point that such a system as that proposed by the noble Lord would be most unsafe to the revenue. At present the interests of the owners of spirits in bond were identical with those of the Government; for they had just as much reason as the officers of the revenue to take care that no portion of the spirits should be abstracted while it was there. If, however, the owner should be made a gainer by every gallon that could be abstracted, it was clear that a great temptation to fraud would be created. It was evident, then, that if the Motion of the noble Lord were passed, it would become necessary, with a view to protect the revenue, that many facilities now enjoyed by the distillers should be withdrawn; and that distillation should be prohibited in many places where it was at present allowed. The noble Lord had stated last year that the whole of the Irish and Scotch distillers were ruined in 1848, and last year that they were considerably injured by competition with the colonies. Now if that had really been the case, the result must have been an increased consumption of colonial spirits, and a diminution in the home-made spirits; but the contrary had taken place, and the noble Lord had therefore shown great discretion in abstaining from a repetition of that argument; because, if he had not, the facts of the case would have utterly disproved his statement. There had been an increase in the consumption of Irish and Scotch spirits of 600,000 gallons; a diminution in rum of 140,000; and in foreign brandy of 300,000 gallons. The noble Lord (Lord Naas) had said it was not a case in which a question of revenue was concerned; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged entirely to differ from the noble Lord on that point. He must take leave to appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House upon this matter, since their decision on last Friday. Supposing everything was fair—that no fraud whatever was committed, it was quite clear that revenue to a considerable amount must be lost by the proposal of the noble Lord. If duty was to be received on a less amount of spirits than before, the revenue must be less; and a loss must take place in another way, for whatever concessions were made to the home distillers, to make up for the advantages which the foreign producer had, a corresponding concession must also be made to the colonial producer,
624
so that there would be a loss, at the same time, upon colonial spirits. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were anxious to repeal the income tax, and hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were as anxious to reduce the window tax and the duties on foreign imports; but he appealed to them whether it was not equally desirable for them both not to meddle with this particular subject. He thought he might also appeal to the Irish Members themselves; for they, too, were interested in getting rid of burthensome taxes, and he would ask whether, on the whole, there could be a better tax than one on spirits? Nor could they say that they were unfairly treated, for while the English duty was 7s. 10 d., the Scotch was 3s. 6d., and the Irish 2s. 8d. Were there not rather good grounds for saying that they ought to pay as much duty as the English? He did not propose to raise their duty, but he did ask the House to maintain what was already paid. He appealed to those hon. Gentlemen who were anxious that the revenue should be maintained, to remember that last week one very largo and important amount had been put into a state at least of some jeopardy. [Cheers.] Well, he was very sorry for it, because he thought that the finances of this great country should not have been endangered by such a vote; but it was, at all events, incumbent on them that those items against which no serious objections were entertained should be maintained unimpeached. It was the duty of them all to maintain the credit of the country, whichever side should eventually succeed.
MR. NAPIERrose amid loud cries of "Divide!" He said that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had formerly said that no duty should be maintained which was perpetrating an injury. Now he believed the present Excise duty did work great injury, and he thought that the division of the other night had, at least, taught them this lesson—namely, that the House would not consent to any scheme of financial aggrandisement at the expense of justice; and it was because he considered that the present system was founded on injustice that he gave his most cordial support to the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord Naas). It was very intelligible why so much stress had been laid upon the evidence of the English distillers, because it was not to their interest to support this Motion, but quite the reverse. It appeared from a recent return, that while the Eng-

625
lish had only bonded 11,814 gallons, the Scotch had bonded 7,000,000 gallons, and the Irish 6,000,000 gallons. Now, the bonding system was a boon chiefly to the smaller capitalists; and it was, therefore, evidently the interest of the great English monopolists (for there were only eight) to prevent the Irish and Scotch from taking advantage of the bonding system. The Irish distillers were now suffering a great injustice when colonial spirits had an advantage over home-made spirits.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he was rather astonished to hear the argument of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), who said that an increase in the consumption of Irish and Scotch produce was evident proof that the duties, which were levied upon them did not in any way limit that trade; for he was under the impression that he sat among Free-traders; and as Free-traders, they knew that England had prospered under protection, yet they advocated free trade, because they said it would increase her prosperity. When the same hon. Gentleman said the loss to the Scotch distiller was only 2½ per cent, and to the Irish distiller 3½ per cent, he must have been under the impression that the smallest of these was no great loss upon some trades, at all events. Another point which he attempted to make before the House was this: In 1847, he said the exportation of home-made spirits was so much, and in 1848–49 and 50, that it was greatly increased; but that hon. Gentleman must know that it was only in 1848 the Scotch and Irish distillers got the drawback on malt, which enabled them to take it into the foreign market. There was a fallacy also relating to the difference of 4d. in the duty on colonial and home-made spirits. The rum paid 3s. 8d. per gallon, and Scotch spirits 4s.; but the Irish were in much worse condition, for there the rum paid 3s. per gallon, and Irish spirits 4s. He hoped the House would support the noble Lord's (Lord Naas's) Motion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he considered this a Motion in effect to reduce the duty on Scotch and Irish spirits. Now he thought it was perfectly obvious that, if the duties were originally fixed with a view that they should be charged in the way in which they were now charged, if they either diminished the duties by so much, or altered the way in which the duties were charged, so that they amounted to 2½ per cent less, in one way or the
626
other they diminished the duty on Scotch and Irish whisky. Therefore that was the plain question before the House. It might be a better way that all these Irish and Scotch spirits should only be charged after they had been a long time in bond. The objection to that was that it was liable to fraud; but supposing that objection not to apply, that might be a better mode than the present mode, but in that case they must arrange their duties accordingly. It was not the fact, as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. A. Hastie) seemed to suppose, that where 4s. per gallon was charged on Scotch spirits, 3s. 8d. per gallon was charged upon rum. On the contrary, 3s. 8d. was charged on Scotch spirits, and 4s. on rum. And with regard to the statement made by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Reynolds), who said was there not great unfairness if they allowed a different mode of paying the duty with regard to Irish spirits, and with regard to French brandy and Spanish rum, why, there was this to be considered, that while they were paying in Ireland a duty of 2s. 8d. per gallon, rum was paying 3s. and French brandy and Spanish rum were paying no less than 15 s. per gallon duty; and therefore it was obvious that if they gave an advantage in this way to Scotch and Irish spirits, they must give a similar advantage to colonial rum, and Spanish rum, and French brandy. Then it came to a question of reducing the duty on spirits, and he did say, that as a question of revenue, that was not a duty he was prepared to reduce. He knew no other limit with regard to these duties on spirits than to have them not too high to encourage smuggling and fraud. He thought there could be no harm in having high duties on spirits, provided always they did not encourage smuggling and illicit distillation. Well, if that was not the case, and if, on the contrary, they found, as was pertinently observed by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. J. Wilson), that these Scotch and Irish spirits had gone on increasing in quantity, while English spirits had diminished, he thought that was a reason why the House should not diminish the duties. He must say he was against this change, in the first place, because he did not wish to diminish the duty on spirits generally; and, secondly, because he was not prepared to give an unjust advantage to the producer of Scotch and Irish spirits.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he should not have risen had it not been for the observa-

627
tions of the noble Lord. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said he admitted the justice of the proposition of his (Mr. Disraeli's) noble Friend (Lord Naas), but he said it was not brought forward in a proper manner. Had it been brought forward to remedy a fault in detail, it might be considered; but as a proposition to reduce the duties on Scotch and Irish spirits, he could not for a moment entertain it. The noble Lord said they talked of the injustice to the Irish or the Scotch distiller being subjected to a taxation from which the foreigner was exempt, from which the Spaniard or the Frenchman was exempt; why, the Frenchman and the Spaniard paid a duty of 15 s. per gallon. But the fallacy of the noble Lord's observation was this—that the duty is paid by the consumer. Now, what his (Mr. Disraeli's) noble Friend (Lord Naas) was pressing on the House was the injustice weighing on the industry of the producer. The principle which the Government wished to oppose was this—that to benefit the consumer the industry of the producer shall be subject to an unjust restriction. Now, he understood that the noble Lord and his Colleagues were opposed to these unjust restrictions on industry. The noble Lord at last found refuge in this fallacy. He said, "Although I admit the injustice, still you cannot deny that the trade has increased." But because the trade was prosperous, was that any reason why it should be subjected to an injustice? If it could be shown that the prosperity of the trade was in consequence of other circumstances, those circumstances were no argument against the proposition of his noble Friend (Lord Naas). It was founded on the principle of justice which the House had repeatedly acknowledged; and the remedy was easy, and he trusted the decision of the House, as on Friday, would show that this routine in public offices, by which stereotyped reasons were given to justify their proceedings, would receive another check.
The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 159.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Bateson, T.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Bennet, P.

Arkwright, G.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Bagge, W.

Beresford, W.

Baillie, H. J.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Baird, J.

Bernard, Visct.

Bankes, G.

Best, J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Blake, M. J.

Barrow, W. H.

Blandford, Marq. of

628

Boldero, H. G.

Lawless, hon. C.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Brooke, Lord

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Lewisham, Visct.

Bruen, Col.

Lockhart, W.

Buck, L. W.

Lowther, Hon. Col.

Bunbury, W. M.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Burghley, Lord

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Burroughes, H. N.

M'Gregor, J.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

M'Neill, D.

Cayley, E. S.

Maher, N. V.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Meagher, T.

Child, S.

Mandeville, Visct.

Christopher, R. A.

Manners, Lord J.

Clive, H. B.

March, Earl of

Cobbold, J. C.

Maunsell, T. P.

Colvile, C. R.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Conolly, T.

Miles, W.

Cowan, C.

Moffatt, G.

Crawford, W. S.

Monsell, W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Moody, C. A.

Deedes, W.

Moore, G. H.

Devereux, J. T.

Mullings, J. R.

Disraeli, B.

Murphy, F. S.

Dod, J. W.

Napier J.

Duncan, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dunne, Col.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Edwards, H.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Farrer, J.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

O'Connell, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

O'Connell, M. J.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

O'Flaherty, A.

Floyer, J.

Ossulston, Lord

Forbes, W.

Pakington, Sir J.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fortescue, C.

Power, Dr.

Fox, R. M.

Power, N.

Fox, S. W. L.

Rawdon, Col.

Freshfield, J.W.

Rendlesham, Lord

Frewen, C. H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Reynolds, J.

Galway, Visct.

Roche, E. B.

Gilpin, Col.

Sadleir, J.

Gooch, E. S.

Scott, hon. F.

Goold, W.

Scully, F.

Gordon, Adm.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gore, W. R. O.

Somers, J. P.

Grace, O. D. J.

Somerset, Capt.

Granby, Marq. of

Spooner, R.

Grattan, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Greenall, G.

Stuart, H.

Greene, J.

Stuart, J.

Grogan, E.

Sullivan, M.

Halsey, T. P.

Talbot, J. H.

Hamilton, G. A.

Taylor, T. E.

Hamilton, G. H.

Tenison, E. K.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Tollemache, J.

Hastie, A.

Tyler, Sir G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Henley, J. W.

Verner, Sir W.

Herbert, H. A.

Vesey, hon. T.

Higgins, G. G. O.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Hildyard, R. C.

Waddington, H. S.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hill, Lord E.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Hodgson, W. N.

Whiteside, J.

Hotham, Lord

Wodehouse, E.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Jones, Capt.

Keating, R.

TELLERS.

Keogh, W.

Langton, W. H. P. G.

Naas, Lord

Lascelles, hon. E.

Hume, J.

629

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Adair, H. E.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Adair, R. A. S.

Harris, R.

Alcock, T.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Anderson, A.

Hawes, B.

Anson, hon. Col.

Henry, A.

Armstrong, R. B.

Heywood, J.

Bagshaw, J.

Heyworth, L.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Hindley, C.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F.T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bass, M. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Bell, J.

Howard, Lord E.

Bellew, R. M.

Hutchins, E. J.

Berkeley, Adm.

Hutt, W.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Jackson, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Blackstone, W. S.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Blair, S.

Langston, J. H.

Blewitt, R. J.

Lawley, hon. B. R.

Bowles, Adm.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Lewis, G. C.

Bright, J.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Brocklehurst, J.

Loveden, P.

Brockman, E. D.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Mangles, R. D.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Martin, C. W.

Bunbury, E. H.

Matheson, Sir J.

Cardwell, E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Carter, J. B.

Milner, W. M. E.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Moncrieff, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Morris, D.

Cavendish, W. G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Chaplin, W. J.

Mowatt, F.

Clay, J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Clay, Sir W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Norreys, Lord

Cobden, R.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Owen, Sir J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Paget, Lord A.

Collins, W.

Paget, Lord C.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Palmerston, Visct.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Parker, J.

Crowder, R. B.

Peel, Sir R.

Currie, R.

Peel, F.

Denison, J. E.

Perfect, R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.

Pigott, F.

Divett, E.

Ricardo, J. L.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rice, E. R.

Duke, Sir J.

Rich, H.

Duncan, Visct.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Roebuck, J. A.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Romilly, Col.

Ebrington, Visct.

Romilly, Sir J.

Ellice, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Russell, F. C. H.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Salwey, Col.

Evans, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Ferguson, Col.

Seymour, H. D.

Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.

Seymour, Lord

Fordyce, A. D.

Shafto, R. D.

Forster, M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Smith, J. A.

Freestun, Col.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Gallwey, Sir W. P.

Stanton, W. H.

Gibson, rt. hon. M. T.

Strickland, Sir G.

Grenfell, C. P.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Tancred, H. W.

Grey, R. W.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Thompson, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, T.

630

Townley, R. G.

Willyams, H.

Trelawny, J. S.

Wilson, J.

Trevor, hon. T.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Verney, Sir H.

Wood, Sir W. P.

Vivian, J. H.

Wrightson, W. B.

Watkins, Col. L.

Wyvill, M.

Wellesley, Lord C.

West, F. R.

TELLERS.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Wilcox, B. M.

Hayter, W. G.

Williams, J.

Hill, Lord M.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker declared himself with the Ayes.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, on the extraordinary circumstances in which the Government of the country were placed. The House of Commons had now assumed, he would not say without just cause, not only the supervision of the Government of this country, but the actual Government itself. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Hear!"] He could understand the "Ohs" of some disappointed follower of Government. The Government had been obliged to make three efforts to govern the country and tax it, wherein all their plans were modified by the House of Commons. He appealed to the noble Lord himself, as a man who had been brought up in the notion of constitutional principles of government—who had been governed throughout by the idea that the House of Commons was the supervising power, marking its sense and opinion of the Government by its majority—he asked the noble Lord, was he in a position to govern this country? With the principles and wishes of the noble Lord, being, as he believed them to be, for the onward progress of the Government, was it wise, was it politic, to say nothing as to honour, to retain the power of the Government tinder such circumstances? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was all very well to say "Oh!" but let them understand what was going on. At the commencement of the Session they were told that certain things were to be done as to the tariff of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an intimation of what he intended to do; and there was not one great mercantile concern in this country that had not been affected at the present time by the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman. Let not hon. Gentlemen suppose that this was a mere party matter. He was looking at it with reference to the country itself; and, if the House of Commons was so blind to the interests of the country as to keep them in that state,

631
hanging like Mahomet's coffin between heaven and earth, let the House of Commons have the responsibility. But he appealed to the noble Lord—he appealed to him, as he had the responsibility upon that occasion, not to lend his authority to that state of things. He said then, that any Minister who regarded not only the interests of the country, but his own personal character, would not lend himself to such conditions. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] It was all very well to say "Oh!" but he recollected an instance wherein the party of the noble Lord having put the Administration of the Duke of Wellington into a minority, one who was not now on the benches of the House of Commons certainly, but who had been exalted to the other House of Parliament, so soon as the minority was declared on that occasion, rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the late Sir Robert Peel, whether he was about to retain his Government after such a division. The noble Lord lived on minorities; but it was contrary to the interests of England, contrary to the spirit of our constitution, that any Administration should retain office by the difficulties of the opposition they met with—insulted every day by the conquests of that Opposition, and unable to advance in the principles on which the Government itself was founded. The noble Lord had now been defeated four times; and he would ask the noble Lord whether, upon those defeats on matters connected with the taxation of the country—on matters which were intimately connected with all our mercantile concerns—he thought it wise, under the circumstances, to continue in the position he held? He believed the noble Lord would more fully satisfy the desires of those who wished to advance the great principles upon which he supposed the noble Lord's Government was founded, if he said, "I will not lend myself any longer to such a state of things." If the House of Commons wished to take upon itself the administration itself, it ought to have the resposibility of finding an administration that would obtain a majority.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has asked me whether I mean to retain office under the present circumstances? I believe he said he thought it injurious to the country that I should do so, and that the mercantile interests especially would suffer by that retention of office. The hon. and learned Member has a perfect right to put any question of this
632
kind with a view to the interests of the country; but he has given me certain advice with regard to my own personal character which I most respectfully decline to take. I thank him for his good intentions, but I will take care of my own personal character myself. At another period, at a period when the Government of this country was in abeyance, and those to whom it had been offered had not resolved to undertake the charge of forming a Government, the hon. and learned Gentleman said in this House that he wished me to consider that the interests of the cause of free trade were in my hands. What the hon. and learned Gentleman precisely meant, what was his object, I will not pretend to say; but of this I am fully aware, that the general interests of the country—not of free trade only, but the general interests of the country, its welfare and tranquillity—are very much dependent on the conduct of those who have at the moment the direction of public affairs. But I have not hesitated, when I thought the direction of affairs ought to be taken out of our hands, unless we succeeded in certain objects, to stake the existence of the Government upon those questions and upon those objects. I did not hesitate to do so when the question of the repeal of the navigation laws was before Parliament, and it was frankly declared that we were prepared for the consequences of a rejection of that measure; and it was perfectly understood we should have retired from office if that measure had been rejected. In the last year many hon. Members differed from the views that were strongly impressed on my own mind with regard to the efforts of this country as to the suppression of the slave trade; and I did not hesitate then to declare, that I would not retain office one day after the House had thought it right to give a hostile vote against the Government on that subject. But I think I have some right, in connexion with my colleagues, to consider what is the fitting opportunity for which I should retain office, and what is the opportunity when I should lay my resignation before Her Majesty. I am of course speaking independently of any direct question of a vote of want of confidence of this House, of which the result is perfectly plain and obvious, but I am speaking with respect to all other questions. In the beginning of the present Session, did I show any such anxiety to retain office as to make it necessary that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield should be my

633
monitor, and should inform me when the moment was come that I at his bidding should lay before the Crown my resignation? The hon. and learned Gentleman says this is the fourth time the Government has been defeated; but there is an observation which, although couched in very homely language, having been a longer time in the House than the hon. and learned Gentleman, I remember to have been made by the late Lord Castlereagh, and to which I may refer. That noble Lord, when leading a great party in this House, with respect to a vote to which the House had come against the Government for the repeal of the whole or a part of a tax, said, when we cheered very loudly on our triumph, "I advise hon. Gentlemen not to holloa before they are out of the wood." Now, let us observe, with respect to those defeats to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alludes, what they were. The first defeat on which we resigned office was with respect to the Bill of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King); but afterwards, when we returned to office, that question came again before the House, and the decision of the House was different from that which it had been originally, and the views I entertained were confirmed by a large majority. So that that first defeat was completely effaced by the subsequent division. On another occasion we were defeated on a question with respect to the management of the Woods and Forests; but that question is not yet decided, because it is not our intention to act on that resolution of the House, but to introduce a Bill similar in principle to the one we introduced last year, and the House will have an opportunity of deciding whether they will confirm the decision then come to by a majority of one, or whether they think our plan for the improved management of the Woods and Forests is one that ought to be entertained, and is preferable to that which the House at first resolved on; so that in the present state of affairs, although the hon. and learned Gentleman says we have been four times defeated, it appears that one of those defeats has been followed by a victory over those who were the cause of that defeat, and that the second is not yet decided. I come now to the third—the division which took place on the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). I do not consider that that division was of the nature of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke, namely, a division declaring
634
that the House meant to take the Government into its own hands. I consider that all those questions of taxation and burdens are questions upon which the House of Commons, representing the country, have peculiar claims to have their opinions listened to, and upon which the Executive Government may very fairly, without any loss of its dignity, provided they maintain a sufficient revenue for the credit of the country, and for its establishments, reconsider any particular measures of finance they have proposed. We come now to this question which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) has carried by the vote of Mr. Speaker. Upon that question I might repeat the observation to which I have already referred; because I remember that last year the noble Lord was equally successful; but nevertheless he did not finally alter the law on this subject; and I believe in the end the House of Commons will be of opinion either that the Motion of the noble Lord is not one to be adopted, or that, if adopted, it must lead to some arrangement of the colonial duties so as to place colonial duties on the same equality with Scotch and Irish duties. That being my opinion, I certainly shall not tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, in accordance with his request, made with that suaviter in modo which always distinguishes him, what other course I propose to take on the present occasion. These matters are matters of very grave import. The character of the Government ought not to be sacrificed, or even impaired, by submitting to frequent defeats without declaring that they could no longer carry on the Government of the country. At the same time, on the other hand, no one will deny that the resignation of the Government in the present circumstances of the country involves very grave consequences. Some may think them consequences of great good fortune; but, whether of good fortune or bad fortune, no one can deny that very grave and important consequences must follow, not merely to the question of free trade, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman once alluded, important as that is in itself, but with regard to many other questions of domestic and foreign policy, which must be affected by a change of the Government in the present circumstances of the country. All I can say is, that I trust those who have generally supported us and taken our views with regard to public policy, will give us credit for weighing on every occasion what is required by

635
the situation in which we are placed, and that while we are not disposed, on the one hand, to allow the character of the Government to be impaired and worn away in our hands, it is, on the other hand, from no sense of affront or pique that I shall propose to come to so important a decision as that of resigning our office with a view to a change of the Government of this country. It is not a question to be merely discussed and bandied about in debate, but it is a question for grave consideration. I must ask the House to leave it to us to make that decision, and making it, as I shall do, with a view to the welfare of the country, I shall not have to reproach my own conscience with having deserted the interests I am bound to support.
House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
LORD NAASsaid, he should now move a Resolution which would carry out his view.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the duties payable on British Spirits, when taken out of warehouse for home consumption, shall be charged on the quantity ascertained by the measure and strength of the sum actually delivered; save and except that when such Spirits are not in a warehouse of special security, no greater abatement on account of deficiency of the quantity and strength as ascertained at the time the said Spirits were warehoused shall be made than shall be after the several rates of allowance following; that is to say, for every hundred gallons hydrometer proof, for any time not exceeding three months, two gallons; for any time exceeding three months, and not exceeding six months, three gallons; for any time exceeding six months, and not exceeding twelve months, four gallons; and for every additional six months, one gallon."
MR. HUMEbegged to offer his approbation of the reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). It would put an end to the proceedings of the House of Commons if the Ministry were to resign in consequence of their being defeated on a question of this kind. After the decision to which the House had just come, and after Mr. Speaker had by his vote given an opportunity for another trial, he submitted to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that, as many Members had left the House not expecting that there would be another division, it would be far more consistent with the dignity of his situation to allow the Resolution to pass, and to take the opinion of the House upon the subject again, upon a future occasion, when they
636
had had notice that it would come before them.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwould leave the matter entirely in the hands of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas) who made the Motion. He thought, however, that it was perfectly fair to take another division upon this question. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] He did not wish to take any unfair advantage, but he could not see what objection there could be to another division, as he believed the House was now fuller than when the last division took place.
LORD NAASthought the reason assigned by the noble Lord for proceeding to another division was the very worst he could have put forward. The noble Lord said the House was now more full than when the division took place, but that division took place in a House when hon. Members had been attentively listening to the debate. He had been present the whole evening, and he had never seen upon a question of this kind a more attentive or a fuller House; and he thought it was rather hard of the noble Lord to ask for another decision on the question, when many hon. Members who had come in since the division had not had an opportunity of bearing the debate. He must remind the noble Lord that a different course was taken last year. The Resolution which he (Lord Naas) then put into the Chairman's hand was not opposed; and he had concluded that the same course would have been taken on this occasion. He was satisfied if it had been known that the noble Lord intended to take another division, none of the hon. Gentlemen who had supported his Motion would have left the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, it was quite impossible for him to assent to the Resolution. The noble Lord must recollect that the circumstances under which he had carried his Motion now, were entirely different from those under which he succeeded last year. Last year the noble Lord had a majority of those hon. Members who agreed with him in opinion; but, on the present occasion, he had only had a majority from the vote of Mr. Speaker, who declared that he voted in conformity with the usage of the House, in order that they might be enabled further to consider the subject.
MR. FRESHFIELD MR. FRESHFIELD moved that the Chairman report progress.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLbegged leave

637
to state, for the information of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas) that in the event of the Chairman now reporting progress, he would not, when the question came on for discussion, offer any opposition to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair. He would consent that the debate should be resumed at the precise point where it had been left off.
LORD NAASexpressed his willingness to accede to the proposal of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, on the understanding that the noble Lord had stated that no ground should be lost in the progress of the debate, but that the question should be resumed at the point where it had been left off.
House resumed.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday.

ST. ALBANS BOROUGH.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEsaid, that at that late hour, he should be as brief as possible in introducing the Motion of which he had given notice for leave to bring in a Bill for appointing a Commission to inquire into the proceedings at the recent St. Albans Election. What he had to do was to satisfy the House that there was good ground for inquiry, and that the course he proposed was the best that could he adopted. According to the evidence that was taken before the Committee, it appeared to him that the present case was analogous to the former cases of Sudbury and Great Yarmouth. In both of these cases extensive bribery was committed, and the mode in which it was conducted was similar to the present case. It appeared that when the candidate appeared in the town of Great Yarmouth, a house was taken in a convenient spot, which was entirely under the control of the Committee for conducting the election. To this house there were two accesses in two different streets, so that a person went in by a door in one street, and came out by a door in a different street. That was the case in the present instance also. An empty house was taken in a street, called Chatham-street, the exit being by an alley, which subsequently received the denomination of "Sovereign Alley," in allusion to what had taken place there. They had no proof of bribery in the present case, but they had proof that individual voters went into this house by one door; that they communicated with a person in a room in this house; that they promised their
638
vote; and that they came out by a different door. It was proved, however, that these individuals went to public-houses and exhibited gold to the amount of four or five pounds. It was true that when before the Committee they swore most positively that they had not received money in that room; but considering that they also swore that they were not in possession of any money at all, and that it was afterwards distinctly proved by respectable testimony that they were, there could be little doubt in the minds of the Committee that those persons through some one, and in some place—the probability being that it was in this room—received money in return for a promise of their vote. Now, the person who sat in that room was a person of whom the House had heard a good deal, and who was named Edwards. That person volunteered his evidence, and was ready to be examined, but he was not examined. The three persons who were examined were persons who were stated to have been bribed by this man Edwards; but, whatever the impression of the Committee might be, there was no proof of actual bribery against any individual. He adverted to this point more particularly, because the Committee had been blamed for not having adjourned the inquiry. The Committee were certainly not disposed to pass by any legitimate opportunity of obtaining evidence; but it being quite clear that the petitioner's case was one of fishing for evidence, and that there was likely to be a groping in dark, they felt bound to pursue the course which they had done. If the witnesses had been examined, they would no doubt have declined to give answers which might have exposed them to penal consequences. Still there could be no doubt whatever, looking at the manner in which the witnesses gave their evidence, and at the resemblance which the case bore to other cases in which bribery had been established, that the Committee was fully satisfied in concluding that bribery was practised. The general evidence was, he thought, particularly strong; and as his only chance of obtaining his Bill was the making out of a case from the evidence, he hoped the House would allow him to refer to it. This was the evidence of William Payne. Payne, in the course of his examination, had mentioned "Bell-metal" and "Electioneering money." He was asked—
"You speak about Bell-metal and electioneering money; is it a subject which is usually talked about, electioneering money?—We were all laugh-

639
ing; they gave money the name of Bell-metal, in St. Albans; they do not call it silver or gold.
"What do you mean by election money?—I do not know what he meant; I do not know what he did mean by that.
"Is it a common term in St. Albans; have you ever heard of election money before?—I have heard talk of people having it; I was laughing and joking, and I said I had a good mind to put up for the borough of St. Albans myself, and I would if I had plenty of money; three or four of them promised me their votes then.
"What do you mean by election money?—I do not know what they mean by it; I was always saying that I knew no man could get in without money; we were laughing and joking together.
"Do you mean money paid by the candidates?—Yes, that is what we were laughing and talking about; I said 'I will give anybody 10 l.,' and three or four of them said they would serve me.
"Do you mean to say that it is a matter of notoriety that this election money is prevalent in St. Albans?—That is what I have always been informed.
"On former occasions as well as this?—Yes; I have known a great many elections; I have been living there nearly sixteen years come July.
"Did you ever know an election at St. Albans, where there was not a talk of election money?—
No, I never knew one that I remember.
"The candidate who came without it, I suppose, would not have been very well received?—Mr. Carden was received very well; I did not hear any great talk about his money; I do not know that he spent a shilling.
"Was election money ever called Bell-metal till this last election, when the candidate's name happened to be Bell?—No, I never heard it before."
The next witness examined was Mr. Baily, respecting whom he would remark, that he was a person of great respectability, and upon whose evidence the Committee had every reason to place great reliance. He was asked—
"Did you hear any conversation there?—They were speaking about the election, about the Bell-metal. The observation was made, 'There is some of the Bell-metal going.'
"What did you understand by Bell-metal?—The money they had received from Mr. Bell's party.
"Received for what?—For their votes.
"Do you mean to say it is a common subject of notoriety that votes are bought in St. Albans?—Certainly it is.
"Are you acquainted with St. Albans?—Yes.
"How long have you been acquainted with St. Albans?—I have lived there since I was about four years old.
"Have you known other elections?—Yes.
"Has it been also a matter of notoriety at other elections, besides this?—It has also.
"Is there any common amount that is notorious as the price of a vote?—Five pounds was stated that night in the bar where this man Howard was, and it was generally understood by every one in the room that he had received 5l.; I can give you another instance.
"It is a notorious thing that money is given for votes in St. Albans?—It is. If the Committee
640
will allow me I will state what one of the parties stated to me.
"Is 5l. the standard?—Five pounds was generally understood to be the standard for a vote then.
"Is it ever less?—When there is no money on the other side, it will go down as low as 2l. or 3l., and sometimes to 30 s.
"It is a common and notorious fact that at this and former elections bribery has prevailed in the town?—Certainly it is; there is not a voter that can deny it."
Such was the evidence of a respectable witness. It might appear that there was a paucity of evidence—only three or four witnesses at most being examined in whose testimony the Committee would have been warranted in placing full reliance. It must be recollected, however, that no facilities for inquiry were given to the Committee by either party. The petitioner had summoned about one hundred witnesses, but of these the great mass were produced, and consequently the Committee had no power of making out a general case. Still, he thought the evidence to which he had referred showed that there were ample grounds for further inquiry. There were other circumstances which, in dealing with this subject, the House should keep in view. He must ask the House to turn back to 1841, and to the proceedings which took place before a Committee which then sat. Then, as now, there had been a contested election at St. Albans, and the Earl of Listowel was the successful candidate. Edwards, who had figured so much in this case, had also considerable notoriety in 1841. In that case, too, general bribery was alleged; but when the Committee were on the point of obtaining conclusive evidence, the parties, who were only anxious for the seat came to a compromise, and the petition was withdrawn. The object of the Committee was thus frustrated, but they made a special report to the House, and asked leave to lay on the table the evidence which they had taken. Parties then ran high; and though there was a good deal of discussion no further inquiry took place. With regard to the question; whether there ought in this case to be an inquiry, he thought the House ought to be bound by the recommendation of the Committee, though objections might be urged against the species of inquiry which he proposed. With regard to the fourteen days that might have been allowed to intervene under what was termed Lord John Russell's Act, this difficulty at once presented itself. What chance had the Committee, constituted as it was, of arriving

641
at the truth? There was no Bill of Indemnity, and of course any witness might have refused to criminate himself. The Committee looked for precedents, and the precedent which occurred to them was that of Sudbury. In that case, a Committee had strongly reported against the borough as guilty of bribery, and a Bill passed that House for its disfranchisement, but in the other House it was withdrawn. In the next Session, 1843, the case was again brought forward, but it broke down, and the Bill was again withdrawn. Afterwards, a joint Commission of both Houses was sent down to Sudbury, to examine witnesses previously indemnified; the Commissioners reported the existence of bribery; and upon that, a Bill of disfranchisement passed both Houses. That precedent, being perfectly satisfactory in its results, ought now to be followed. As regarded bribery, there could be but one opinion as to the necessity of checking it; and the interference of the House in this case might have that effect, at all events in St. Albans, where bribery had, unhappily, existed for a number of years.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill for appointing Commissioners to inquire into the existence of Bribery in the Borough of St. Albans."
MR. COBDENrose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice, which was to include the Falkirk District of Burghs in the proposed inquiry. He begged to state to the House that he represented a body of electors of Falkirk, whose petition he had presented, praying that in any inquiry into other places, the district of the Falkirk Burghs might be included. That petition stated that, on the day of polling, forty-one spirit shops were opened in the interest of the sitting Member (Mr. Baird); the consequence was, frightful scenes of debauchery and intoxication; and a riot was threatened, which rendered it necessary to call in the aid of the military. The petition, signed by four electors, had been withdrawn without their knowledge. If this had been done on account of the possible expense, that was an additional reason for entertaining the question now. He (Mr. Cobden) had received a letter from the Provost of Falkirk, expressing the general disappointment and surprise of the electors on the withdrawal of the petition, and stating that he had never witnessed such scenes of dissipation as took place at the last election. He (Mr. Cob-
642
den) had no feeling of hostility towards either party engaged in that election. Both candidates were advocates of free trade, and there was not much difference in their politics. He had, therefore, no personal motive in bringing forward this question. The district comprised five burghs, which were thirty-three miles apart, situate in three different counties, totally different in their occupations and interests, and it was difficult to understand why they had ever been grouped together, Up to 1841, the character of these burghs, like that of most other Scotch burghs, had been unimpeachable in point of political morality. In 1841, when the brother of the sitting Member was the candidate, those malpractices had begun; but they had been generally confined to the burgh of Airdrie, which was mainly dependent on the very extensive iron works the property of the sitting Member and his brother. In 1846 Mr. Baird resigned his seat, and the Earl of Lincoln became a candidate. He was opposed by Mr. Wilson; and at that election the malpractices, which had been confined to Airdrie alone, extended to other of the burghs. In 1847, at the general election, the Earl of Lincoln stood again, and was opposed by Mr. Boyd, and then those scenes of dissipation and general corruption, which had marked Airdrie at the previous election, became almost as bad in Falkirk and Hamilton. Then came the late contest between Mr. Loch and Mr. Baird. A competent legal gentleman had been down to the burghs, one who was totally unconnected with them, who had never been in Scotland before, and he had taken down, from the lips of individuals there, statements corroborating those of the petition. Robert Binnie, in a deposition signed by himself, in the presence of the Provost of the burgh (he had no hesitation therefore in mentioning his name), stated—
"That he was a grocer and spirit dealer at Graham's Town; that he had always voted for the Liberals, and intended to do so at the last election; that on the Friday before the nomination, Mr. Russell, one of Mr. Baird's law agents, called upon him and asked him for his vote; he declined to promise, whereupon Mr. Russell hinted that he might change his mind. The same night a party of Mr. Baird's friends called at his house and went up stairs. Whilst they were there, several working people, non-electors, came into the bar. Mr. Maclaren, one of the party of Mr. Baird's friends, came down stairs of his own accord, and seeing the people there, desired witness to give them what they wanted. He gave them drink. Whilst he was doing so, Mr. Maclaren

643
was continually looking in and out of the room, and said, 'Give them what they like; Mr. Baird is rich enough to pay for it.' Witness considered this a sufficient order, and continued to keep open house till the day of nomination (Tuesday). On the preceding Monday night there was a tremendous business doing. A number of people came and had supper in the back room; John Dick presided. They had broad and cheese, whisky, porter, lemonade, and vinegar cordial. They sat eating and drinking all the evening. They drank a good deal, and carried away a good deal. Mr. Maclaren and another were in at the time. Mr. Maclaren said, 'Well, Robert, you are getting on here famously; the steam is getting up; keep them alive. There is not a nicer party in the town than yours.' There were fifty or sixty persons there at the time, though the room would only seat twenty-five; but they were close packed, some sitting and some standing, and the kitchen also was full. Witness got them out before twelve o'clock; eleven was his usual hour of closing. Many of them were drunk, of course. The following morning was the nomination. People began to come for drink by six o'clock, and the place was quite mobbed by half-past six. They came for their 'morning,' [a term which hon. Members from Scotland would no doubt understand.] They had brandy, whisky, or anything they chose to ask for, the same as the night before. Several got drunk speedily, and he was obliged to get them away. Some were drunk by eight o'clock or half-past eight. Many had to be carried away. Witness gave two men a bottle of whisky to assist some of the drunken ones home, or to see them to a place of safety. Several boys, from ten to fourteen years of ago, were tipsy, and swearing in the street. He did not give them drink, but other people in the town did. Two foundry boys came and asked him to give them drink. There were no women drinking in his house; those who came there came to take their husbands home."
He would only read one more extract from the evidence of a person named Waugh, a grocer and spirit dealer, in Graham's Town, a suburb of Falkirk. Waugh stated—
"That on the afternoon of Monday, before the nomination, Maclaren and M'Cowie ordered him to provide refreshments, for which he (Maclaren) would be responsible, for all who came. He was to give the people plenty to eat and drink, and not to allow fighting. Two hundred came and had whisky and brandy and cordials; in addition he missed five dozen bottles, which must have been taken away. They became rather riotous about ten o'clock, when he told them he would not give another mutchkin. He sent to Mr. Potter, but the latter told him to go on and let them drink. On the Tuesday before the poll, the people came again and demanded their 'mornings.' Maclaren came again on Wednesday, and witness asked him was he to let them have any move, when he said 'Oh yes!' and the people then had fourteen gallons of whisky. There were women and boys who were all very drunk."
[A laugh]. Now, he begged hon. Gentlemen who laughed to attend to the evi-
644
dence of respectable inhabitants of the burgh, who, much to their honour, had protested against such scenes. If their example was more frequently followed, they would not have many such political Gomorrahs as Sudbury. Dr. Hamilton, medical practitioner at Falkirk, deposed to having found two youths lying drunk in the road on the night preceding the election, in such a situation that they would have inevitably been run over had he not removed them to a place of safety. On raising them up he asked one how he came there, and he answered, "Oh, there's open house at Sandy Waugh's." They had another youth with them not quite so drunk, who assisted them home. The Rev. A. M'Farlane remembered coming home past the Carron foundry the night before the nomination, and found drunken men lying about in such a way as made him shudder at the amount of demoralisation. Gentlemen might ask why he brought forward these cases of the demoralisation of the working classes, seeing that they were non-voters. But he did it because he considered the case ten times worse than that of St. Albans. There a man was taken into a room and paid 5l. for his vote; but here a more demoniacal practice was adopted; for, it being necessary to secure the votes of some publicans, two hundred individuals were kept in a state of beastly intoxication to enable those men to earn the price of their vote. He would now read the evidence of a member of a temperance society. William Arnott stated—
"That he worked in Falkirk Iron Works, and that he had a son 12 years old, who returned home on Monday night in a state of almost insensibility from drunkenness; and his wife corroborated his testimony, saying she had picked the child up in the street." "Another woman deposed that she had two sons, one 12, the other 16, and both came home so drunk on Monday that they wore obliged to be put to bed. Cowan, a general shopkeeper, stated that he had a boy eight years old, who came home very much excited, and was found to have been drinking whisky. It appeared that some of his playfellows had induced him to go to Waugh's."
He would repeat once for all that the mode adopted of corrupting the constituencies was by opening all the public-houses and allowing all comers to drink what they pleased of ardent spirits. He would not trouble the House with any statements about Hamilton, but state that, with regard to Airdrie, the burgh in which Mr. Baird lived, and which was mainly indebted for its increasing population to his im-

645
mense iron works, it was worse than anything that could be charged against Falkirk. He would ask, was it not the duty of capitalists who employed large numbers of the working classes—whether it was not their duty to lead them into the paths of virtue and sobriety? But he was sorry to say that the wealth and enormous influence of that gentleman's family had been exercised for a very differnt purpose. He would mention but one case of bribery, although ten had been proved, in one of which the Provost was implicated, and in another the Inspector of Police. In Airdrie James Whitland stated—
"That having six votes in his family, he was offered 20 l. to vote for Mr. Baird by one of that Gentleman's committee, who was not himself an elector, and added that in a place with 15,000 inhabitants, 41 public-houses were kept open, with free drink for all persons coming to the election."
He would now read the evidence of two ministers of the gospel. The Rev. James M'Gowan, a minister of the Free Church at Airdrie, stated—
"That he came into the town between four and five o'clock on the evening of the day of election, and that on the road he witnessed the most awful scenes of debauchery, drunkenness, and rioting that it was ever his lot to behold. He scarcely met a single sober individual; numbers were lying on the side of the road in a state of beastly intoxication, and among them many boys and women. It was with considerable difficulty that he reached home, he was so much jostled about. No fair was ever half so bad. It was quite impossible the drunkenness could be exceeded in any of its manifestations. Many decent persons thought the town ought to be disfranchised, and many declined to register, because they felt the disgrace of being mixed up with such beastly election scenes."
This was Mr. M'Growan's eivdence in effect. The Rev. Alexander Barr, a minister of the Established Church of Scotland, said—
"That the scenes at the last election at Airdrie were shocking. Idleness and habits of dissipation were encouraged, and trade was at a standstill. One of the members of his congregation had been prevented from attending divine service because of blows he had received in the riot."
He (Mr. Cobden) held in his hand a list of 41 spirit shops which had been opened during the election, where parties were treated without charge; and he had also a list of the sums that were paid, or partly paid, to the landlords. One received 40 l; another, 80 l.; another, 90 l.; another, 25 l. on account; another, 280 l.; another, 32 l., and so on. Now these facts were matters of notoriety in the town. There might be a difficulty in identifying the parties who had ordered the houses to be kept
646
open, but there were sufficient proofs to show that these transactions were done at the cost and under the cognisance of the hon. Member who sat in that House. There was a man there, not "the man in the moon"—but a man called "Goldy," or "the man with the bag," who had been paying some of these accounts, and he was strongly suspected to be a person of the name of Pollock, either a writer or a writer's clerk at Ayr. Now this was a point he wished a Commission to investigate. What he had stated of all these places he believed took place in a mitigated form at Linlithgow and elsewhere. The worst phases of the debauchery were exhibited at Airdrie, Hamilton, and Falkirk. And was he now to be met by the plea that there was something which precluded him from proceeding in this case? He called upon the House to deal with him as they had dealt with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roeback) on a former occasion, as if it were a case without precedent, for there was no precedent for these abominable proceedings. The character of them was that of iniquity. It was by the accidental circumstance of his mentioning Falkirk on a former evening that he had brought upon himself an inundation of information from temperance societies and other parties—amongst them the non-electors, who had petitioned for the disfranchisement of the burgh; and having looked into the circumstances of the case, he had ventured to bring them under the consideration of the House. He asked them to consider whether the elections in this country were to be carried by such processes as these?—because, if so, mark the consequences! Who would sit in that House if the path to it were through some hundred gin houses, with a bill of 200 l. or 300 l. each? The election expenses of hon. Members had been estimated at from 5,000 l to 15,000 l. Would "the territorial aristocracy" of this country, as they were called, who lived on rents, and some of whom had little money to spend, sit there? No. It was the monied people, who had hard cash at their bankers, who alone would find entrance into that House? Was this a process that would conduce to the improvement of the character of the representation, or, rather, had they not better return to the old regime of pocket boroughs, and "hereditary claims," if it were to be continued? He would rather live under an oligarchy or a despotism

647
than be governed by a majority of Members who had entered the House by such means. Was there not something due to the morality of the age? Was that House to be the only quarter where scenes like these could be heard of without emotion, and disgust, and a desire to put an end to them for the future? The temperance publications and the temperance societies had rung with horror at the recital of these deeds. He had read the declaration of ministers of the gospel speaking in detestation of them; and was this to be the only place where they wore to laugh and jeer at them, and treat them with contempt? If so, what other tribunal was he to resort to? Did they allow him to go elsewhere for a tribunal? No: they claimed sole and exclusive jurisdiction in these matters. Were the people to be allowed no appeal from the decision of that House? Was that House to claim to itself solely and exclusively the right to pronounce without appeal upon questions touching the purity of our elections? He would ask that House not to appeal to precedent for the purpose of eluding an inquiry into the case which he had brought under their notice. Let him have no excuse about technical difficulties standing in his way. All he asked for was inquiry into these proceedings. He did not ask them to unseat the hon. Member who now sat for the Falkirk burghs. He did not ask them to disfranchise those burghs. He merely asked the House not to pass unnoticed the transactions which he had brought before them. He asked them to include in their proposed inquiry into the proceedings at St. Albans the case of the Falkirk burghs, for he humbly opined that the latter case was characterised by transactions ten times more demoralising than any proceedings that had taken place in St. Albans. He begged to move, therefore, the Amendment of which he had given notice, as to including the case of the Falkirk burghs.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question to add the words 'and of bribery, treating, and corruption in the Falkirk district of burghs.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
MR. BAIRD: I don't want to stifle the inquiry the hon. Gentleman asks for, nor do I wish to perpetuate the practices which he alleges took place at my election. All I can say is that I gave no sanction to persons to open public-houses, and I believe my agent
648
did not do so either. If the House wishes to make an inquiry into the proceedings at the last election, I have no objection. With regard to the scenes of drunkenness, I have no doubt some of them took place. It is not an uncommon practice in these burghs, even when there is no election taking place, and that is partly acknowledged by one of the informants, when he said it was as bad as a fair. It is not to be wondered at there should be a great scene of drunkenness at the election, for there is a population about Airdrie that earn wages to the amount of about 10,000 l. a week; and when the principal persons of these establishments are engaged in an election, it is but natural that these men should come to Airdrie during the election, and they naturally become excited along with the other parties in the town, and having plenty of money in their pockets make themselves merry. The course of proceeding taken in this case is certainly very irregular, and such as the House cannot adopt. Still, if the House wish for inquiry into this case, I hope they will go about it in a proper way, and, as I said before, I will not object to it. The House is aware that a petition was lodged against my return; and the local agents of the petitioner went through the whole of the burghs, and took all the cases they could find; but after a precognition of two or three weeks they found they could not substantiate one single allegation against me, and therefore the petition was withdrawn. I should think that if local agents could not make out a case against me, it is not likely that an agent from London could do so.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALtrusted that there was no one in that House who had not listened with deep regret, and he trusted, with disgust, to the sad and painful proceedings which had been brought under their notice by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Mr. Cobden). No man could picture to himself such scenes of debauchery as that hon. Gentleman had described, without feelings of the deepest regret. But, although in common with many other hon. Members, he thought it would be highly desirable, under certain circumstances, that inquiry should be made into such proceedings as the hon. Gentleman had described, yet he hoped the hon. Gentleman would give him leave to suggest that the case of the Falkirk burghs ought not to be mixed up with that of St. Albans. He was quite satis-

649
fied that the hon. Gentleman was as anxious as any hon. Member could be, not to throw any impediment or any chance of impediment in the way of inquiry into the case of St. Albans. The hon. Gentleman would not forget that the Bill which his (the Attorney General's) Friend proposed to introduce, would have to go through the ordeal of another place, and they must take care that the Bill should not be encumbered, or its success endangered, by making it comprehend the case of the Falkirk burghs. The two cases stood upon entirely different grounds. They had, in the one case, the Report of a Committee, a Report founded upon evidence taken on oath. They had the Chairman of that Committee proposing a Bill at the instance and by the desire of the Committee over which he presided. Now, a Bill so introduced, if it should pass that House, would, he (the Attorney General) trusted, be sure of success in the other branch of the Legislature. But the case which the hon. Member for the West Riding had presented, although it might be one deeply deserving inquiry on the part of that House, stood upon an entirely different footing, for it rested entirely on statements to which the hon. Gentleman could not pledge himself of his own personal knowledge. These statements were not evidence taken upon oath, and, although, to a great extent, they might be true, yet there was a possibility of their being exaggerated, because it must not be lost sight of, that a petition had been presented, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Baird), with regard to the Falkirk burghs, after the last election, and that that petition was withdrawn. By the 5th and 6th Vic. cap. 102 (the Act of 1842), if the general bribery and corruption complained of did in fact exist, a petition might have been presented for the purpose of instituting an inquiry into the state of the burgh with reference to corruption at the last election, and a Commission might have been issued upon the result. The cases, then, of St. Albans and of the Falkirk burghs stood upon entirely different grounds, and he would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) that as it was unusual to engraft as it were a rider upon the proposition of an hon. Member in a case like this, that he should withdraw his Amendment, and, if he so pleased, bring it forward as a substantive and independent Motion.
MR. ROEBUCKthought that he might
650
be permitted to recall to the recollection of the House some remarkable circumstances which he had on a former occasion brought before that House. There had been six instances, after a general election, of what he had ascertained to be corrupt compromises. He had brought the circumstances on his own personal statement before the House, and the late Sir Robert Peel granted him the Committee he asked for. Not satisfied with that, they had passed a Bill enabling parties to give evidence. He had mentioned six cases, and the late Mr. Charles Buller mentioned another—Bridport; and he asked the House to engraft Bridport on his (Mr. Roebuck's) Motion, and the House agreed to do so, and then all these cases were brought before the Committee of which he was Chairman. Where, then, was the difference between the two cases? The hon. and learned Attorney General said that the one case was established on oath. But what had been done with him (Mr. Roebuck) referred only to his own personal statement. It rested on that alone. And now what occurred on the present occasion? The hon. Member for the Falkirk district of burghs (Mr. Baird) demanded inquiry. Who, then, were the objecting parties? Not the hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then there was the hon. Member branded by the statement of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. [Cries of "No, no!"] Let hon. Gentlemen wait until he finished. Thus was the hon. Member branded if he did not get the opportunity which he asked for. Who then stood between the hon. Member and his exculpation? Surely the hon. and learned Attorney General would not stand between him and it. What then prevented the wish of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire being acceded to, and thus helping the hon. Member for the Falkirk district of burghs to a vindication?—not because he needed it. Oh, no! but because he was accused. To be accused was one thing; to be guilty was another; but the hon. Member was accused, and no doubt he would be considered guilty if he were not allowed to defend himself. For what would the world say? Why, that friends who well understood the position in which he stood, when he pretended to be ready to exculpate himself, walked in and with their happy shield and most useful cloak covered him from the accusation which had been made against him. He asked was that a position to let the hon. Member occupy? He

651
assumed that the hon. Member was—and he said this with all violence to himself—innocent. Yes, in such cases as those of Boston, and Aylesbury, and Falkirk, he did violence to himself in supposing that persons were not guilty when they were charged with a knowledge of the practices of corruption. The hon. Member who had made the Motion had talked of bribery only; but corruption and treating must be included in the Motion. Would the hon. Gentleman say that one house, not to say forty-one houses, open for treating, could have been only open for purposes of patriotism? Some one with a purse ready to pay those men who presided over houses where treating of men, women, and children took place, must have been there, sent there by some one. It was a disgrace to that House to sit there, and the country would repudiate them, if they dealt with great cases of immorality, and allowed guilty parties to ride off on a mere technicality raised by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The technical objection which had been raised ought to be overruled, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baird) ought to be afforded a full opportunity of exculpating himself. This he could not do under the proposed Bill, and therefore it was right for the House to provide the hon. Gentleman with the means of full exculpation. He (Mr. Roebuck) begged of the House, if they desired to have a moral influence in the country, not to interfere, but to let the hon. Gentleman have a fair trial, for the hon. Gentleman really was on his trial; and to let him clear himself, as he said he could, from the charges brought against him. Of all the cases he had ever brought under the notice of the House not one equalled in atrocity the present case, and he trusted it would be fully sifted by the House.
MR. EDWARD ELLICEwould be the very last person to object to any such inquiry as that contemplated by the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden); but he must object to the case of the Falkirk burghs being grafted on the Bill which he had submitted to the House that night. He believed that if he consented to the Amendment, the Bill would be placed in jeopardy, and in all probability defeated. Besides, there was the inconvenience of any one Commission having to inquire into two distinct cases at different and distant parts of the kingdom. He had no objection whatever that the petitions presented regarding the
652
Falkirk election should be submitted to a Select Committee, and then legislation could follow if necessary.
MR. BANKEShad no wish to talk of difficulties in another place; the difficulties in that House were sufficient for him, to make him say that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) was utterly inadmissible. If that hon. Member had desired to defeat the proposition of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. E. Ellice), he could not have taken a better course than that which be had adopted. The precedent which had been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), was not at all to the purpose. And observe what was the consequence of the course taken by that hon. and learned Member in the six cases to which be had referred. An Act of Parliament was expressly passed, which provided for the specific case of an election petition being withdrawn previous to its trial. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not think that Act sufficiently stringent to meet his views, why did he not say so? Why subject his fellow Members of that House to the tyranny of these occasional interpositions? That Bill provided that if there were any suspicion of collusion, by means whereof a petition which had been presented against the return of any Member was withdrawn previous to trial, any person might prefer another petition against such return.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that was not the Bill to which he had referred. That was Lord John Russell's Bill, with which he (Mr. Roebuck) had nothing to do.
MR. BANKESwas referring to the remedy which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), who at the time of proposing it, was not a Member of the Government, had suggested for meeting such a case as that of the Falkirk burghs. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield ought to have adopted that remedy, and not have come upon hon. Members with his ex post facto laws, which he (Mr. Bankes) would assert was tyranny and injustice. There was a petition preferred in the case of the Falkirk election, and there appeared on the journals of the House a letter written by Mr. Coppock, the agent of the petitioner, to the Speaker of the House of Commons, giving notice that it was not intended to proceed with the said petition. That letter was published in every newspaper the next morning, and the persons who now complained of malpractices in the Falkirk

653
burghs might have presented a fresh petition if they had thought they had any case to go upon.
MR. COBDEN: They did so.
MR. BANKES: But not at the proper time. If the hon. Member chose to keep the petition in his pocket till the time had lapsed, it was his own fault.
MR. COBDENsaid, that the petition was not in his possession twenty-four hours before he presented it.
MR. HUMEsaid, that it was not an election petition, but one praying for inquiry.
MR. BANKES: Then it should form the subject of a substantive Motion. As to the question before the House, he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, since it was founded on the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee; but he would propose that the Commission should he framed in exact accordance with Lord John Russell's Bill. It was necessary to vindicate the authority of the House, and he hoped that the inquiry would be a searching one.
MR. HUMEwas of opinion that the hon. Member for the West Riding should withdraw his Amendment, and allow the Motion to be proceeded with. He also thought that the noble Lord at the head of the Government ought to imitate the conduct of the late Sir Robert Peel on a similar occasion, and give the sanction of the Government to the proposed inquiry.
MR. FORBESwished to give his testimony to the esteem in which the hon. Member for Falkirk burghs (Mr. Baird) and his family were held in the town of Airdrie. No men in Great Britain behaved with greater kindness to their workpeople than they. In addition to that, they bad built churches and made great exertions to promote education among the humbler classes in the town. An endeavour was made to get up a petition against the sitting Member for the Falkirk burghs; but that petition fell to the ground, for want of evidence, on the last day on which it could be presented to the House. The parties who promoted that petition were active partisans at the election against the sitting Member.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, as to the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ellice), which was for the introduction of a Bill for the appointment of a Commission with regard to St. Albans, founded on the report of an Election Committee, that they had reason to believe that extensive bribery
654
prevailed at the last election for the borough, he could not conceive a more legitimate ground for that measure than that which had been stated by his hon. Friend. Therefore he should have no hesitation in giving his vote in favour of the introduction of such a Bill. The hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had brought another case forward, and he should be certainly very far from saying that there ought not to be some inquiry with regard to the case, because he thought that so far as notoriety and scandal went, it was a case that ought not to be passed over by the House when brought before it by a Member of the House. But he could not agree that the two cases should be embraced in the same Commission. He thought that they stood upon perfectly distinct grounds, the one case resting on the Report of a Select Committee, and the other resting at present on a petition presented to that House, What was the course to be be taken by the hon. Member for the West Riding he was not prepared to say at present, but he was prepared to say that the two cases ought not to be mixed together, and that his hon. Friend (Mr. E. Ellice) ought to be allowed to introduce his Bill without this Amendment.
MR. FRESHFIELDfelt he should forfeit the confidence which had been placed in him by his constituents if he permitted to go unnoticed the wanton and unfounded attack which had boon brought against him by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. At the recent election for Boston, there was no music, or anything to occasion the slightest excitement, or to warrant the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned Member.
MR. LOCKHARTsaid, there was no family in the three kingdoms which had done more to promote the welfare and comfort of its dependants than the family to which the hon. Member for the Falkirk district of burghs (Mr. Baird) belonged. He had endowed churches for the accommodation of the people, and built schools for the religious education of the children, and there was no family in the kingdom more remarkable for charity or patriotic feeling.
MR. HENRY BERKELEYbegged to express his thanks to the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, for the exposé he had made to the House with respect to the election for the Falkirk burghs.
MR. COBDENsaid, he was in the hands of the House. It had been suggested that he should make a separate Motion to the House for a Committee to inquire into the Falkirk election. He thought the example of the hon. Member for St. Andrews (Mr. E. Ellice) would not encourage any other hon. Member to undertake a Select Committee. But as this matter was now before the House and the country, he thought it was the duty of the Government to say what ought to be done in this case; and he ventured to suggest that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate of Scotland would be a proper person to conduct an inquiry into the merits of the case. He would, however, withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edward Ellice and Mr. Henry Stuart.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

PAPAL AGGRESSION.
The DUKE of ARGYLLpresented nearly a hundred petitions agains the Papal aggression from various places in Scotland, and observed that the reason why he had given notice of his intention to present these petitions, was not for the purpose of raising any discussion on the subject, but simply that he might the more effectively direct the attention of their Lordships to this emphatic demonstration of public opinion, as proving how erroneous were the statements of those who represented that the feeling upon the subject of the Papal aggression was not so strong or of such general prevalence in Scotland as in other parts of the empire. A few weeks before the Easter recess, he had spoken of the strong feeling which existed upon this question amongst the Scottish people; and he had done so partly because statements to a contrary effect had been circulated in certain quarters, and partly because an impression had unfortunately got abroad that these statements were founded on fact, and that it was indeed true that the indignation excited by the encroachments of the Court of Rome was less strong and less abiding in Scotland than in any other part of the kingdom. His assertions had been contradicted in the public press by a gentleman whose respectability he willingly admitted, but whose competency to interpret the general feelings of the Scottish people he was not so ready to allow. The petitions which he had now the honour to present (83 in number) satisfactorily refuted the representations of the gentleman in question, and supplied the most eloquent corroboration that could be required of the statement which he (the Duke of Argyll) had made to their Lordships. The petitions proceeded from all parts of Scotland. They had not been got up at public meetings, but were the spontaneous expression, tranquil, but firm and emphatic, of the feeling of the people upon this important question. The petitioners expressed in
578
unqualified language their indignation at the Papal aggression, and prayed their Lordships to take the most stringent measures to repress it. The signatures to the petitions which he then presented, were, he believed, about 100,000 in number. The noble Duke then presented a petition against Papal aggression from the city of Glasgow, signed by 56,000 inhabitants; also petitions from the Lord Provost, magistrates, and town-council of Edinburgh; from the University of Glasgow; and from numerous burghs, presbyteries, parishes, and congregations of all denominations, in all parts of Scotland.
The EARL of MINTOexpressed his acquiescence in all the observations which had fallen from the noble Duke who had just presented this immense mass of petitions. In no part of Her Majesty's dominions had the sentiments of Her subjects been so strongly expressed as they had been in Scotland. All the communications which he had received from that country confirmed the opinions which had just been expressed by the noble Duke.

REGISTRATION OF ASSURANCES BILL.
LORD FEVERSHAMpresented a petition from the solicitors residing at Witham, in the county of Essex, against the Registration of Assurances Bill.
LORD STANLEYpresented a petition from the attorneys and solicitors, members of the Manchester Law Association, against the Registration of Assurances Bill, in which, though the petitioners objected to a central and metropolitan legislation, they admitted the propriety of establishing a local registration, either in counties or in union districts.
LORD CAMPBELLhad, by the courtesy of the noble Lord, seen the petition now presented, which undoubtedly emanated from a very useful and influential body of men; but he hoped their Lordships would not be influenced by any suggestions in that petition from proceeding with the measure with as much vigour as possible. He should attend to some of the suggestions which had been made; but the petitioners objected chiefly to one metropolitan office, and they wished to have an office in every district. Now, he was certain that their Lordships must make up their minds to have only one registration office for England and Wales, or none at all. Twenty years ago a similar suggestion was made by the attorneys, and most

579
eager as he was that the measure then brought forward should pass, he objected to it, as he should do now. A strong opposition to the Bill was being got up by the attorneys, and he hoped, therefore, that no time would be lost in passing the measure. It was read a second time with the approbation of their Lordships; and he was glad to see that last Session the House of Commons had given a measure of a similar character, although imperfect in its nature, a second reading, because it showed their determination to have a general registration; but there was an estate in the realm more powerful than either their Lordships or the other House of Parliament, and that was the country solicitors; and it behoved their Lordships to beware of it.
Petition read, and referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE FOR RETIREMENT OF NAVAL OFFICERS.
The EARL of HARDWICKErose to move, according to notice, for a Return of the Supplementary Estimate for the Retirement of Naval Officers. The noble Earl said, he made this Motion with the view of calling the attention of their Lordships to the plan recently proposed for facilitating the retirement of naval officers, and for decreasing the number of naval officers on the active list. The state of the naval profession was a subject of undoubted importance, and the attention of all recent Administrations had been directed to various suggestions for inducing naval officers to retire from active service, with the view of lessening the burdens borne by the public. The efficiency of the Navy was a subject which was justly dear to the country; and various suggestions had been adopted, which had been to a certain extent successful in effecting a reduction of the dead weight. In 1846, the last plan was established for the reduction of the Navy by retirement, and that system had ever since continued in operation. The two principal features of that plan were, first, that the retirement should be voluntary; and, next, with reference more to the discipline of the service than to the system of retirement, it was laid down that officers who had attained post-rank should serve at sea for six years, to make them eligible for their flag. Those who had not so served were put on the retired list some years ago; but this regulation was thought to bear hard on many Lord
580
efficient officers, and they were in consequence restored to the active list. But if the new plan for rearranging the system of retirement should be sanctioned by the Treasury, the Executive would have the power of at once causing officers to retire summarily from the service, without the right of choosing whether they would do so or not; and officers who arrived at the head of the captains' list, and who had not served their six years, would be compelled to retire, and would no longer be permitted to be called upon to serve the Crown. The first operation of this system would be that every officer on the admiral's list who had been permitted to take his place on the active list, but who had not served his six years in command of a ship as captain, would have immediately to quit the active list to be placed upon the retired list, with the permanent half-pay of a rear-admiral for the rest of his life, and could never again be called into the service. No doubt there were many officers who would be satisfied with this arrangement; no doubt it would clear the way for the promotion of many young officers, and it might even be beneficial to the public service; but what he contended was, that it involved a breach of faith and an injustice towards the 42 or 43 officers who had not served their six years, but many of whom, being on the active list, and still eligible to serve the Crown, would wish to have an opportunity of doing so; and many of these when the list had been voluntarily cleared off, would find themselves within reach of a vice-admiral's flag. It was also proposed by the now arrangement to ask for the Government, that the First Lord of the Admiralty should be entrusted with 1,500 l. a year, to be divided into ten pensions of 150 l. each, to enable him to make an offer of 150 l. in addition to their half-pay, to certain officers if they would go upon the retired list. By this summary process the list of admirals would be reduced to a hundred. No doubt many officers might be glad to see a large portion of officers struck off from the admirals' list, and so many admirals who stood in their way bought off by the country; but this mode of dealing with the senior officers might not be so agreeable to such of them as were still hale and active, and ready to go into any part of the world on the service of the Crown. The next step was to reduce the list of Captains, and the mode taken was equally summary. Every captain who came to the top of the list was to be asked if

581
he had served six years at sea in the rank of captain; and if the answer was in the affirmative, he would be placed upon the active list; but if he had not served six years, he would be told to go out by another door, and he would receive, upon the retired list, the rank and half-pay of a rear-admiral for life. He wished to point out to their Lordships how this regulation would operate. He would suppose that Captain A, Captain B, and Captain C, came before the board. The first, Captain A, might be asked a few questions by the Secretary of the Admiralty, and would admit that he was certainly a little old, sixty-five, or perhaps even seventy; that he was rheumatic in bad weather, and that there was something not quite right about the optic nerve; but if he had served six years afloat, though it might be twenty years since he was on salt water, he would be placed by the regulation on the admirals' active list. Another, Captain B, would also have served six years, in the packet service at Southampton, not at sea be it observed, and he also would be placed upon the active list of admirals. But then came Captain C, an officer who had not served six years afloat, but who nevertheless had been recently employed, was healthy, and in the prime of life, he was anxious to serve again, but cannot obtain employment. He, however, according to the regulation, must be put upon the retired list. That was precisely the way in which the regulation would work if Parliament permitted its adoption. The man who had a right to claim retirement and to repose under the shade of his laurels, and who was perhaps too old to require more, would be placed, by the operation of this rigid rule, upon the active list, while, by the working of the same rigid rule, the officer who was fit and anxious for active service in his profession would be placed on the retired list. He apprehended that this plan of the Admiralty would work in a way directly the opposite to that which was intended. Their Lordships would desire to see the retired list made an honourable retreat for those officers who had served the Crown, and were disabled for further exertion; but he was sure they would not wish to see it filled up by men who were yet strong and active, and who were perfectly qualified to serve their country. There was another way in which these regulations would work a gross injustice. A rigid rule was laid down that every captain should serve sis years afloat before he
582
should be considered as eligible to his flag. But how many captains had been offered the opportunity of serving for the prescribed period? The position in which the country had been placed for many years past had been such as to make it impossible for many officers to serve their full time at sea; and because they had not been enabled to serve, the Admiralty would turn them out of their profession—for he called placing a man on the retired list, who was fond of his profession and fit for it, turning him out of the profession. Although the regulations would give great satisfaction to those who were to rise rapidly in the service by the reduction of the captains' list from 500 to 350, he must say it was a most extraordinary way of thinning the list, to place upon the active list men who were not fit for work, and, vice versâ, men who were well adapted for active service on the retired list. The paper itself, however, in which these regulations were contained, was not very clear in conveying the intentions of the Admiralty, and was so loosely worded that it might almost be thought that it was considered desirable to leave a loophole to creep out of. The paper said—
"Their Lordships will also observe, that the arrangement includes the creation of ten pensions for admirals, the keeping open the retired list for captains, and an addition to the pay of retired captains and commanders. So far as expense is concerned, their Lordships believe it would be unnecessary to ask Parliament for an increase of the sum now included in the estimates."
A proposition was, nevertheless, made to entail upon the country an increased charge of 6,500 l. a year, though the Admiralty said that they did not believe that their plan would swell the expenditure beyond the present amount of half-pay. Another passage in the paper seemed to him to be of very doubtful import:—
"As vacancies occur in the active list of flag officers, the captain first in seniority, who has served for his flag, will be promoted (reserving Her Majesty's undoubted right of selection)"—
about which he should say a word by-and-bye. Their Lordships would observe that the words used were "who has served," not "served six years." He took it for granted, however, that the Admiralty meant to require six years' service. With regard to the Crown's power of selection, that right bad undoubtedly always existed, and he should consider it a great misfortune if that right did not exist when an officer was required for any special purpose,

583
At present it was in the power of the Crown to place any admiral in command of a fleet or squadron, or to delegate the powers of an admiral to a captain, with the title of commodore. With this admitted power, however, on the part of the Crown, the Admiralty were now going to ask the country for a sum of money, in order to enable them to commit a great injustice on a deserving class of officers, though for what purpose he did not know. He was ready to allow that the Admiralty would by these means appear to have a well-weeded active list, from which it could select able officers; but the real condition of the Navy would be the same as at present. There would be two lists, and that was all; for looking at the question as a financial saving, there seemed at starting to be but little chance of effecting one. He had thought it right to mention these circumstances to the House; but he disclaimed any intention of doing so in a hostile manner, his object being merely to show how the regulations would work if they were carried into effect.
The EARL of MINTOhad no objection to the return for which the noble Lord had asked; and, indeed, if these regulations were to be carried out, he was not the most fit person to be called upon to defend them. In many of the observations made by the noble Earl he entirely concurred. He agreed with him that there would be much injustice in taking as the best and only test of the capacity of an officer the period of three, four, or five years during which he had been in command of a ship. But he must remind the noble Earl that the prescribed period of six years' service did not originate with the present Board of Admiralty, but was enjoined by an Order in Council made in June, 1827. He thought that a very unfortunate regulation; but lie must be allowed to say, also, that some experience at sea was necessary, and what he considered objectionable was, that six years' service was the only test which was adopted.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, that the noble Earl was doubtless right as to the state of the law, but a different impression prevailed in the service.
The EARL of MINTOagain referred to the course which had been pursued since 1827, and said it was most desirable that when officers were worn out in the service, care should be taken to make provision for them.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the remarks
584
of the noble Earl (Earl Minto) had rather strengthened the case laid before their Lordships by his noble Friend. He had heard, with surprise, from the noble Earl (the Earl of Minto) that this plan was rather a recommendation proceeding from the Board of Admiralty than a plan finally determined upon by Her Majesty's Government. Of course, it could not yet have received the sanction of the Cabinet, or the noble Lord would not have been so utterly unfit as he had intimated to defend it. But, with regard to its being merely a suggestion thrown out by the Admiralty, he must say that the paper itself bore a different aspect. He found that this was a paper laid upon the table of the House of Commons as a supplementary estimate for 6,500 l., for the purpose of carrying out the plan now spoken of as a suggestion of the Admiralty, and the grounds of the proposed vote were thus stated:—"I have it in command to acquaint you, for the information of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty—that my Lord's (the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury)—are pleased to sanction the above estimate." The noble Lord's Cabinet information, therefore, came in rather late. He (Lord Stanley) was afraid it was not "a mere sketch put forward by the Admiralty not sanctioned by the Cabinet," for it appeared to have at all events the sanction of the Treasury Board, and likely to be carried into execution, in a short space of time, by the adoption of this estimate by the House of Commons. He should be glad to find, now that the attention of the noble Earl, and the attention of their Lordships, had been called to the subject, that there was yet a locus penitentiœ in that House for the Government. He would not venture to discuss professional details with which he was wholly unacquainted; but he would take upon himself to suggest the wisdom of mitigating one injustice complained of by his noble Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke). The noble Earl opposite admitted that injustice, but defended it on the ground that it would be productive of a future saving at the cost of a present outlay. By the proposed arrangement, captains perfectly competent and anxious to serve their country, were forced to retire upon half-pay, because they had not been actively engaged for six years. The period of six years was fixed upon at a time when there were a largo number of captains afloat; but now that one-tenth, or perhaps not one-twentieth of that number

585
could by any possibility be afloat, he (Lord Stanley) begged to suggest that much of the injustice complained of would be extinguished if the period of six years was somewhat diminished.
EARL TALBOTwas a little surprised to find that the regulations which had been published were not a matured plan, but only a scheme thrown out to be, as the phrase now was, a little ventilated. He admitted the importance of diminishing the dead weight of the country, but he deprecated the policy of effecting it by compulsory retirement, which would operate unjustly with respect to old officers. He hoped that the question would be considered in all its bearings by Parliament before such an injustice was sanctioned. He thought that every officer ought to have at least the option of serving before he was put upon the retired list. There was another subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and that was the recent order which had been issued by the Admiralty with respect to the examination of naval cadets. Though the examination was slight, one failure was fatal, no one being allowed to be examined a second time. It was well known that youths, though really well qualified, often failed through nervousness. He was induced to make these observations in consequence of what had happened quite recently to the son of a friend of his, who had failed in orthography, but whom he (Earl Talbot) knew to be well qualified for the profession which he wished to follow. In the Army, a second examination was always allowed, and he hoped that this case would be reconsidered, inasmuch as no notice was given to the young man that the examination would be final.
EARL GREYdid not understand his noble Friend (the Earl of Minto) to say that the measure was not one which had been decided upon by the Government. On the contrary, the paper on the face of it showed that it had been considered by the Admiralty, and sanctioned by the Treasury, and an estimate of the expense of carrying out the plan had been laid upon the table by the Government, in the House of Commons. All that his noble Friend meant was that the matter could not be considered as finally settled until the plan had received the sanction of Parliament. With regard to the measure itself, he confessed that he wished his noble Friend had given a little more notice of his intention to discuss the question, and
586
then he (Earl Grey) would have endeavoured to make himself master of the subject. As he had no professional knowledge, he could not be expected to give any opinion on the professional part of the question. But, with their Lordships' permission, he would make one or two remarks on what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite. And, in the first place, he might observe, that no officer would suffer anything in a pecuniary point of view from the regulation alluded to. The gist of the complaints that were made was this, that the feelings of officers were wounded by their being placed upon the retired instead of upon the active list. Now, no one could be more willing than he was to consult the feelings of old and meritorious officers; but, at the same time, he must say, that for the interests of the country, and of the service itself, it was most desirable that the nominal active list should not be swelled by having a large number of officers upon it who were not actually engaged on service. It was known to their Lordships, that in the other House of Parliament there was no topic more invidiously used against the Navy than the large number of admirals upon the active list, more than those who were really on service, and it was therefore most important on all accounts that that number should be reduced. The regulation which required a certain term of actual service from an officer as a qualification for the rank of an admiral, had been objected to. The Navy and Army were machines intended for war, and in time of peace some parts of those machines were liable to get out of order; but so far as the regulation went, he was bound to say he thought it an exceedingly good one. No officer ought to be employed as an admiral who had not had a certain amount of experience in the command of a ship, and no inferior post of command should supersede the necessity for that experience. Whether six years was or was not too long a period to require as a qualification, was a point upon which he would not express an opinion; but, after all, they must establish a point somewhere, and he believed that six years was the term formerly in use in the profession. It had been said, that it was hard to adopt that rule at present, when there was a smaller number of officers afloat than in 1827, when the rule was established. He thought that the noble Lord who made that remark had fallen into error; for it was a fact, that in

587
1827 we had a very much smaller number of ships afloat than we have now; and not only that, but for several years previous to 1827 we had a considerably less number of officers afloat than at the present time. In reference to another point, which had been alluded to by the noble Earl who spoke last, he would say that the regulation respecting the examination of naval cadets was an exceedingly good and desirable one. Because, what was the state of the case? They had a number of applicants for cadetships in the Navy, much greater than could be admitted; for one that was admitted, there were three or four who desired to enter the service without being able to do so. It was therefore right to select the most efficient candidates; and it appeared to him that a person once rejected after a fair examination might he concluded to be not so fit and competent as others. Besides, a rejected candidate might have a fresh nomination, which would entitle him to a fresh examination, so that he was not absolutely excluded from the service by a single failure.
LORD STANLEYbegged to make an observation in reference to what had fallen from the noble Earl, who supposed that he (Lord Stanley) had fallen into error with regard to the relative number of officers afloat in the year 1827, and at the present time. In 1827, the officers who then stood for the flag were captains of the year 1799, and so late down as 1840 the officers who stood next for the flag were captains of 1806; consequently, in 1840, the officers who stood next for promotion were officers who were post-captains from the year 1806 to the close of the war, and had therefore greater opportunity for serving the required time.
EARL TALBOTbegged to ask on what authority it had been stated by the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies that a candidate for a naval cadetship who had been rejected at a first examination could obtain another nomination, and so be entitled to a second examination.
The EARL of MINTOwas understood to say, that his noble Friend had not made the statement referred to on official authority; but from what he had gathered upon the subject, he believed such would be the case.
Motion agreed to; ordered accordingly. (Minutes of Proceedings, 39.)
House adjourned to Thursday next.