Sitting of 18 April 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Lancaster, Thomas Greene, Esq.
PUBLIC BILL.—3° Sheriff and Commissary Courts.

TAUNTON ELECTION COMMITTEE.
SIR GEORGE GREYbrought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of a petition presented by Sir Edward Colebrooke and certain electors of the borough of Taunton, complaining of an undue return at the last election. The Committee had determined—
"That Arthur Mills, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Taunton.
"That the last election for the said Borough, so far as regards the Return of Arthur Mills, esquire, is a void Election.
"That Arthur Mills, esquire, was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last Election, but that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that such bribery was committed without the concurrence or privity of the said Arthur Mills, esquire.
"That Sir Thomas Edward Colebrooke, Baronet, a Candidate at the last Election for the Borough of Taunton, was, by his agents, guilty of bribery and treating, but that it was not proved to the Committee that such bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of Sir Thomas Edward Colebrooke.
Report to lie on the table.

NEW ROSS ELECTION COMMITTEE.
MR. HEADLAMbrought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the petition of Henry Lambert, complaining of an undue return at the last election for the borough of New Ross. The Committee had determined—
"That Charles Gavan Duffy, esquire, was at the Election for New Ross, held on the 14th day of July, 1852, duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the said Borough.
"House further informed, that the Committee have ordered, that the Petitioner, Henry Lambert, do pay the costs and expenses incurred by the said Charles Gavan Duffy, in consequence of certain allegations contained in the said Petition [which are set forth]."
Report to lie on the table.

STATE OF THE COINAGE.
MR. DIVETTsaid, that great inconvenience was experienced at the present time by the public in getting a supply of small silver or half-sovereigns at the Bank; and he wished to know if the hon. Secretary to the Treasury saw any way of putting an end to the inconvenience?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that the inconvenience which had arisen, and which still existed, with regard to the mintage of the country, was one of the highest importance. He freely acknowledged that complaints were coming into the Treasury every day of the most serious inconvenience being experienced by bankers and merchants in every part of the country; but when he informed the House that two years ago the highest amount of coin that could by possibility be turned out of the Mint, was 220,000 l. a week, and that by the extratraordinary exertions of those persons by whom the Mint was now conducted, the present out-turn, instead of 220,000 l., was upwards of 600,000 l. a week, he thought the House would admit that, whatever the inconvenience suffered by the public, the authorities connected with the Mint had, at all events, not been lacking in their duty. During the first three months of the present year, there had been coined no less than 4,335,357 l. in gold, and no less than 92,862 l. in silver; and the whole number of coins, including gold and silver, turned out in the first three months of the present year was 6,100,505 l. He regretted to say, however, it appeared to him, that even at this accelerated rate the supply of coin was quite inadequate to meet the increased demand. The demand during the last ten days from the Bank of England had been equal to 100,000 l. of coined gold per day, an amount which it was impossible for the Mint at the present moment to produce. What was to be done, therefore, for increasing the supply of silver, unless some cessation took place in the demand for gold, it was difficult to say; supplying half-sovereigns increased the difficulty, as the number was two for one. The attention of the Master of the Mint had been directed to the subject, and, although he was willing to work night and day, the difficulty would be the possibility of assaying the gold.
MR. DISRAELI: Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to lay upon the table the reports of the Master of the Mint?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, there were no reports from the Master of the Mint upon
1350
the subject; but if the right hon. Gentleman would move for one, he (Mr. Wilson) had no objection to procure it. There was a report which had been moved for as to the amount of coinage for the last three months, which would be presented that evening; and any further information than that contained, and which the right hon. Gentleman required, he should be happy to furnish him with.
MR. DISRAELI: Of course, if there were no report, it was impossible for him to move for its production. What he meant, however, was the communications made by the Master of the Mint in answer to the Treasury.
MR. DIVETT: Has any project been discussed with regard to the expediency of coining quarter-sovereigns as a substitute for small silver?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, the question had been discussed, and had commanded the attention of the Government so far that he (Mr. Wilson) had requested the Master of the Mint to have a die cut, in order to make the experiment. But there were a variety of reasons against it, as well as a great number of reasons for it. He held in his hand an American dollar in gold, the objection to which seemed to be its excessive smallness. But the great reason for it was, that for every single coin which represented 1l in value, they would have four coins; and the labour of coining quarter-sovereigns would be quadruple what it was now in the coining of sovereigns.

THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT—THE BUDGET.
The House having resolved into Committee of Ways and Means,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERrose and said:* Sir, the annual exposition of the financial state and prospects of this country, even upon ordinary occasions, affords abundant material of interest to this House and to the country, and of anxiety to the person charged with the preparation of that exposition; but on the present occasion, perhaps that interest on the one hand, and certainly that anxiety on the other, are greatly enhanced by a variety of circumstances, including among them the number of separate Motions respecting taxes which have recently been made in this House, and which indicate the increasing eagerness of the people with respect to financial questions.
Political events, shocks which have enfeebled or overthrown Administrations, and

1351
which have made it necessary to adjourn from year to year questions of taxation, have likewise greatly accumulated on the present Government the task they have to discharge in that department; and in connexion with those questions, there have of late been raised discussions of a nature most deeply interesting, descending to the first elementary principles of taxation, nay, almost to the first principles on which men are united in civilised society. With a task so formidable before me, I feel warranted in addressing a special appeal to the Committee for their kindness and indulgence; for I am certain that only by their kindness and indulgence can I be enabled—I will not say to discharge the task as it ought to be discharged, for that is wholly beyond my power—but to discharge it so as in any case to be at least intelligible to my hearers.
The first portion of my duty will be to lay before the Committee the state of the account of the country. I think I shall best discharge it, by taking up the state of that account from the point at which it stood last year, when the financial department was in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli); and it will be satisfactory to the Committee to observe, that as our experience grows with the lapse of time, so do we obtain larger and still larger proof of the elasticity of the revenue, and of the progress of the productive and consuming powers of the country.
On the 30th of April, 1852, the right hon. Gentleman opposite estimated the revenue for the financial year, which bad then just commenced, at 51,625,000 l., and in the month of December, 1852, when the right hon. Gentleman had occasion to return to the subject, he was able to present to us an estimate which placed the revenue of the year at 52,325,000 l. exhibiting an increase upon his estimate in April amounting to not less than 700,000 l. And now, within the few months which have elapsed since last December, we have further evidence of the same gratifying character, for the revenue which the right hon. Gentleman then judiciously estimated at 52,325,000 l., amounted to no less, when we reached the termination of the year on the 5th of April, than 53,089,000 l., showing an increase of 1,464,000 l. upon the estimate formed at the commencement of the year.
The expenditure of the last year, as estimated by the right hon. Gentleman oppo-
1352
site on the 30th of April, 1852, was taken at 51,163,000 l., but the actual expenditure has only reached to 50,782,000 l.; and consequently you have had figures presented to you in the balance sheet which must have been gratifying to every member of the Committee, in showing a surplus of income over the expenditure for the year beginning April 6, 1852, and ending April 5, 1853, to the amount of 2,460,000 l.
But, Sir, having reached this point by a smooth and easy progress, it is now my duty to entreat hon. Gentlemen to make large deductions from the very sanguine estimate which has been made in this House—so sanguine as, considering the quarters from which it came, to excite my surprise—that because our balance sheet for the past year shows 2,460,000 l. of surplus, therefore we have that sum available for remission of taxation. That would be a too precipitate inference. Unfortunately before we arrive at that conclusion, there is one circumstance rather material to examine, and this is, what is the estimated amount of expenditure for the year that we have just commenced?
Well, when I look to that, and compare it partly as it is estimated, but chiefly as it appears on the actual votes of this House, with the estimates of the last year, I find it stands as follows:—The expenditure for 1852–53 was 50,782,000 l.; but the expenditure for 1853–54, the great bulk of which is already voted, and upon which I can anticipate, on the whole, no diminution, amounts to 52,183,000 l. Therefore, without going into other particulars, which, I am sorry to say, occasion a further deduction from the surplus of 2,460,000 l., I beg to point out that no less than 1,400,000 l., or nearly three-fifths of that surplus, are already disposed of by the charges to which you are liable under Acts of Parliament, by the votes to which the House has come for the defence of the country, and by the charges on account of the miscellaneous services, which, I apprehend, this House will not be inclined either to refuse or to diminish.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite, in December, 1852, estimated as follows his surplus for the present year:—He took a total sum of 1,600,000 l., of which, I think, he stated that, on the ordinary revenue, he would venture to anticipate a surplus amounting to between 1,300,000 l. and 1,400,000 l., and by decrease of charge for the Kafir war, a further sum of 200,000 l. or 300,000 l. These two sums put together

1353
gave a surplus, as the basis of his calculation for the year, amounting to 1,600,000 l. At that period, the right hon. Gentleman thought that the only charge against that surplus on account of coming expenditure would be the sum of 100,000 l., which he proposed to apply to light-dues and purposes connected with shipping, and 600,000 l. for the increase he anticipated on the great military services of the country. As regards the 100,000 l., the present Government have made arrangements which they hope will afford great relief to shipping, without any charge to the Exchequer; but as regards the estimates for defence made by the right hon. Gentleman, his successors in office have not been so fortunate; nor have they, nor has the House, thought it wise to confine the votes for the year within these limits.
I shall now state to the House how that surplus of 1,600,000 l. has been swallowed up. The increase on the Navy estimates, including the packet service, as it was voted in 1852, and as we found it prepared for this year (making the comparison with the estimate of April, 1852, and not for my present purpose including the supplemental vote of December), amounts to 617,603 l.
The increase on the Army and Commissariat, but almost entirely on the Commissariat, is 90,000 l.; and that increase on the Commissariat is to be accounted for by the fact that we have now reached, we trust, that stage in the hostilities at the Cape when we may consider our extraordinary votes at an end, and when the provision to be made has passed under the head of ordinary expenditure; therefore, though it is our duty to submit to the House, during the present Session, an extraordinary vote for 200,000 l., which is essentially retrospective, we have likewise to submit a vote for 70,000 l. in Commissariat expenditure, which in its character is prospective, and analogous to our ordinary estimates. So that a double expenditure, as far as the Cape is concerned, is charged on the service of the present year.
The increase on the Ordnance is 616,000 l. The Militia estimates have not yet been brought to the shape in which they will be laid on the table; but I am sorry to say that there will be a large, yet I believe an unavoidable, increase on the amount estimated last year by my right hon. Friend then Secretary for the Home Department. The estimate for the present year cannot, I fear, be expected to be much less, if at all less, than 530,000 l. I doubt if it was
1354
expected, twelve months ago, by my right hon. Friend, that the amount would be more than something like 300,000 l. If this be so, there will be a considerable increase in the expense of giving effect to that plan; and it is right that the House of Commons should know clearly the expense of giving effect to any plan, especially one which has realised, in other respects, all the most favourable anticipations formed of it. The increase of expense for the militia, as compared with the reckoning of my right hon. Friend, will, I apprehend, be about 230,000 l.
The last item in these 6 augmentations of expense is the sum of 100,000 l., added to the votes during the present year for the purposes of public education. If the Committee take the pains to put together these five items, they will find that, though the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) anticipated a surplus of 1,600,000 l. for the financial year of 1853–54, the augmentations of charge, principally voted already and in part yet to come, amount to no less than 1,654,000 l.
However, as I have already stated to the Committee, there has been a further improvement in the revenue of the country, and there are likewise some few items of public expenditure on which the Government have been able to effect some small saving.
With respect to the important and unsatisfactory charge for the packet contract service, it has been our most anxious desire to see what, consistently with justice, was to be done to amend the position of the public. We think that the amount of charge which that service has reached is wholly disproportionate with the benefit derived.
I am not at present in a condition to lay the estimate on the table, or to state exactly what the estimate will be, but I venture to anticipate that at any rate, for the first year, we may be able to effect a saving on it of not less than 75,000 l. There will also be a saving on the charge for Exchequer bills, owing to the diminution of interest, amounting to about 65,000 l.; and there will be a sum, which the House must observe is occasional in its nature, of 135,000 l., arising out of repayments to the Crown revenues, and available under the provisions of the law as ways and means, in consequence of a Bill lately passed by the House, which had reference to metropolitan improvements; and also there will be a sum available, through the liberation

1355
of the Crown revenues from a charge which heretofore affected them on the same account, to the extent of about 27,000 l. These various items will give a fund amounting to about 301,000 l.
I will now state more particularly to the Committee the items of anticipated revenue and expenditure of the country, from which they will see precisely the amount of the surplus we have to deal with. I should at the outset explain that I think it will be convenient that I should in all cases, disregarding minute inaccuracies, give my estimates in round numbers. I will now present to the Committee an account of the estimated revenue and expenditure for the year 1853–54. With regard to the expenditure, the charge for the funded debt is put down at 27,500,000 l., and the charge for the unfunded debt at 304,000 l., making a total for the debt of 27,804,000 l. The charges on the Consolidated Fund will be 2,503,000 l.; the Army estimates, 6,625,000 l.; the Navy, 6,235,000 l., not including the packet service; the Ordnance estimates, 3,053,000 l.; Miscellaneous, 4,476,000 l.; Commissariat, 557,000 l.; the militia, as nearly as I can judge, 530,000 l.; the extraordinary vote for the Kafir war, 200,000 l.; and the packet service, I think, may be reasonably taken at 800,000 l. for the present year. These items give a total of estimated expenditure amounting to 52,183,000 l.
I now come to the estimate of anticipated revenue. I take the revenue of the Customs at 20,680,000 l.; Excise, 14,640,000 l.; Stamps, 6,700,000 l.; Taxes, 3,250,000 l.; and Income Tax, 5,550,000 l. From the Post Office we expect 900,000 l.; and from the Crown lands, swelled by the addition I have already referred to, 390,000 1.; from miscellaneous sources of receipt (including, I think, about 160,000 l., being the capital of the Merchant Seamen's Fund, out of which we shall have to pay 80,000 l. during the present year on account of pensions, and the whole of the remainder, I need not say, will be absorbed long before that charge for pensions ceases) we expect about 320,000 l; and from old stores 460,000 l. To these I venture to add, though the item is necessarily one of uncertainty and conjecture, that I anticipate a saving of not less than 100,000 l. from the operations which have been proposed to the House in connexion with the exchange and redemption of stock. It may, certainly, be less, and it may, on the other hand, be more—the final result, I hope, will show a con-
1356
siderably greater saving. I venture now to take credit for 100,000 l. on that account. Adding up, then, these various items, the Committee will find that they give a total estimated income for the year of 52,990,000?l., against which we have to set the total estimated expenditure of 52,183,000 l., showing an apparent surplus of 807,000 l.
Anxious, above all, to avoid raising undue expectations, I am desirous to impress on the Committee that it must bear in mind that out of this sum of 800,000 l. an amount of 215,000 l. consists of monies which do not proceed from permanent or recurring sources, but of monies available simply for the year, and not to be repeated. Likewise, with the uncertainty connected with the item for the packet service and with that for the Channel Islands' harbours, on which my right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty and I are not quite sure whether we can or cannot venture to make a reduction in the sum printed in the estimates, it is possible that the surplus I have mentioned may fall short of being realised to the extent, perhaps, of 100,000 l. Therefore, it will be more secure for the Committee to assume that the surplus, instead of 800,000 l., will be 700,000 l., and to bear in mind that 215,000 l. out of it consists of occasional payments. At the same time, while giving this explanation by way of caution, my sanguine hope is that we shall realise a surplus of 800,000 l.
This is the state of the account of the country, as I have endeavoured to bring it up to the present moment. The Committee will not have failed to observe that in reckoning the estimated income I have included a large sum, amounting to more than one-tenth of the whole revenue, which, from 1842 up to the present time, we have been deriving from the income tax. However, the income tax has at this moment legally expired, and it will be for the Committee to consider whether or not they shall revive it. Upon that subject I am afraid that it will be my duty to trouble the Committee at some length; but before I venture on a detailed and continuous exposition of the views of the Government with respect to prospective finance, there are two incidental questions to which I shall briefly advert, on account chiefly of the position they occupied in the financial statement of my predecessor in the office I now have the honour to fill.
The first of these has reference to a particular class. Now, as regards the ship-

1357
ping interest, the House knows, from a statement already made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that Her Majesty's Government propose to afford what they trust will be found considerable benefit and relief to that interest, without inflicting an annual charge upon the public.
But there was another interest mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli), which has so much claim upon the general sympathies of the House, that respect and consideration demand that I should not leave it without mention; I mean that which is called the West Indian interest. With regard to that interest, I regret to say that there is indeed little, if any thing, that can be done by a Government, in our view, consistently with its more extended duties to the public, in fulfilment of the requisitions which that interest has preferred. With regard to a reduction of the duty on sugar, which is one of its requests, in proportion to the fall in the duty upon foreign sugar, so as to maintain the differential rate that now exists between them, it is entirely impossible for the Government to hold out the smallest hope that their recommendation can be adopted. With respect to the question of refining their sugar in bond, which is of a different character, my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Wilson) will take a future occasion of entering more at large into that question; but I regret to say that we have not discovered any method of granting that privilege in the present state of the law with respect to sugar, which would be satisfactory to the West Indians and to the refining trade, and which at the same time would not inflict very heavy loss upon the revenue. With respect to the equalisation of the spirit duties, again, I fear that really nothing remains to be done in that respect. I believe the distillers of this country consider that already the duties have been somewhat more than equalised, all things considered, in the case of the West Indies. At all events, we are not prepared to propose any change in the law in the nature of equalisation of spirit duties as between colonial and domestic produce.
There is but one way in which it has occurred to the Government that they might entertain a sanguine hope of being able, at very slight charge to this country, perhaps at no charge, to confer material benefit on the West Indies, and that is a way which if it can be effected, will, I
1358
am sure, command the approbation of this House, because it is by enabling them to economise the heavy expenditure of their own governments—a heavy, and now in many cases almost a ruinous, expenditure. In the case of Jamaica, for example, there is a public debt, the minimum rate of interest upon which is 6 per cent, and the maximum 10 per cent, the capital of the debt amounting to about 500,000 l.; and if it were possible for the Government to induce the Assembly of Jamaica to amend the vicious constitution of that island, and to place it upon a foundation that would give scope for a strict control over expenditure, Her Majesty's Government would then be disposed to recommend to this House to employ the credit of this country in the way of guarantee on behalf of the island of Jamaica. I do not now inquire whether that would entail a charge upon you; I believe it would entail none. I should be the first to assert, that there should be the utmost jealousy as to the interposition of the credit of this country between debtors and creditors out of this country; but, considering all that has happened to the West Indies, considering the effect that British legislation has had in precipitating their difficulties, I do believe that if we were able to point out a prospect of great and effectual relief to Jamaica, to be indirectly obtained through an effectual reform in its government, this House would look with a generous and a considerate eye upon any proposal for using the credit of this country in the manner that I have mentioned. What I have said refers to Jamaica, which presents at this moment by far the most urgent case of distress amongst the West India colonies; I am not sure that there is any other among those colonies which would be in a condition to request a similar interposition; if they did, it would depend upon the case they showed. I do not think it likely that such a case will arise; all I mean to say at the present moment is, that the door would not be absolutely shut against them.
I pass on now from the collateral topic of the West Indian interest to another such topic—that connected with the Exchequer Loan Fund. After all that passed in debate in December last, it was evidently the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make a full investigation into the transactions of that Board. We have instituted that investigation; we have presented the results in print to the House;

1359
they are in a form so simple, that an inspection occupying only a few minutes will exhibit them to any hon. Member. It appears from the figures there presented, that after debiting the Exchequer Loan Fund—I will not say with every folly of Parliament, but with every questionable or ambiguous grant that was made—after charging the whole of this to the last farthing, yet such has been the sound discretion exercised by the members and officers of that board in the loans they have made, that while they have afforded an immense amount of local accommodation, they have likewise realised, after paying every expense that belongs to the office, a net balance of not less than 227,000 l., which balance, if we put values such as sanguine men might perhaps put upon certain investments that have not yet been realised, it is far from impossible may be raised to nearly 1,000,000 l. of money to the credit of the entire transactions of the board. It is our candid opinion, under these circumstances, that the favourable sentiments expressed by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, in December last, in regard to the Exchequer Loan Fund, are justified by the facts, and it is not our intention to propose the abolition of that system, which we think has been both honourable to those who have administered it, and highly beneficial to the country.
I now approach a very difficult portion of the task that I have to perform—the discussion of the Income Tax. The first question that this Committee has to consider is, whether or not it will make efforts to part with the income tax at once. I do not say that such an alternative is impossible. On the contrary, I believe that by the conjunction of three measures, one of which must be a tax upon land, houses, and other visible property, of perhaps 6d. in the pound; and another, a system of licences upon trade made universal, and averaging something like 7l.; and the third, a change in your system of legacy duties, it would be possible for you at once to part with the income tax. But Her Majesty's Government do not recommend such a course to the Committee. They do not recommend it because they believe, in the first place, that such a system would, upon the whole, be far more unequal and cause greater dissatisfaction than the income tax; they believe, likewise, that it would arrest other beneficial reforms of taxation; and they believe that it would
1360
raise that difficult question in regard to the taxation of the public funds of this country in a form the most inconvenient. I might dilate upon this subject, but it is needless to do so. I leave it to those, if such there be, who are prepared to recommend the immediate abandonment of the income tax. Such is not the recommendation of Her Majesty's Government.
Now, in regard to the income tax, I wish that I could possess the Committee with the impression that constant study has made upon my own mind, of the deep and vital importance of the subject. We are too apt to measure the importance of the subject by the simple fact, that we draw from this tax 5,500,000 l of revenue. Sir, that sum is a large one, but the mention of it conveys no idea to the Committee of the immense amount and magnitude of the question. If you want to appreciate the income tax you must go back to the epoch of its birth; you must consider what it has done for you, in times of national peril and emergency; you must consider what, if you do not destroy it—and I will explain afterwards what I mean by "destroy "—what it may do for you again, if it please God that those times shall return.
Sir, it was in the crisis of the revolutionary war that, when Mr. Pitt found the resources of taxation were failing under him, his mind fell back upon the conception of the income tax; and, when he proposed it to Parliament, that great man, possessed with his great idea, raised his eloquence to an unusual height and power.
There is a description of the speech of Mr. Pitt on that occasion, written by a foreigner, a well-known writer of the day —Mallet du Pan—which I may venture to read to the Committee; I believe, after the lapse of fifty-five years, it will be heard not wholly without interest. This is an account which, in a periodical that he edited, he gives of Mr. Pitt's speech, in 1798:—
"From the time that deliberative assemblies have existed, I doubt whether any man ever heard a display of this nature, equally astonishing for its extent, its precision, and the talents of its author. It is not a speech spoken by the Minister; it is a complete course of public economy; a work, and one of the finest works, upon practical and theoretical finance, that ever distinguished the pen of a philosopher and statesman. We may add this statement to the learned researches of such men as Adam Smith, Arthur Young, and Stuart, whom the Minister honoured with his quotations."
I do not know whether this Committee

1361
are aware how much the country owes to the former income tax; but, because I deem it to be of vital importance that you should fully appreciate the power of this colossal engine of finance, I will venture to place before you, in what I think an intelligible and striking form, the results which it once achieved. I will draw the comparison between the mode in which your burdens were met, during that period of the war when you had no income tax—during that period of the war when you had the income tax in a state of half-efficiency—and during that last and most arduous period of the war, when the income tax was in its full power.
From 1793 to 1798, a period of six years, there was no income tax; from 1799 to 1802, there was an income tax; but the provisions of the law made it far less effective, in proportion to its rate, than it now is; and from 1806 to 1815, a period of eleven years, you had the income tax in its full force. Now, every one of us is aware of the enormous weight and enormous mischief that have been entailed upon this country by the accumulation of our debt; but it is not too much to say, that it is demonstrated by the figures, that our debt need not at this moment to have existed, if there had been the resolution to submit to the income tax at an earlier period. This test, I think you will admit, is a fair one; I put together the whole charge of government and war, together with the charge of so much of the national debt as had accrued before 1793, so as to make (if I may so express myself) a fair start from 1793. The charge of government and war, together with the charge of debt incurred before 1793, amounted, on the average of the six years, down to 1798, to 36,030,000 l. a year: the revenue of that period, with all the additional taxes that were laid on, amounted to 20,626,000 l. a year; there was, therefore, an annual excess of charge above revenue—charge for government, for war, and for debt contracted before 1793, but not including the charge of debt contracted since 1793—of no less than 15,404,000 l. In 1798 you just initiate the income tax, and immediately a change begins. In the four years, from 1799 to 1802, the charge for the same items that I have mentioned, which had been 36,000,000 l., rose to 47,413,000 l. a year; but the revenue rose to 33,724,000 l. a year, and the excess for those four years was diminished by about 2,000,000 l. a year; instead of an annual
1362
excess of 15,400,000 l. over revenue, it was 13,689,000 l. Now look to the operation of the tax, both direct and collateral, from 1806 to 1815, during the time when your exertions were greatest, and your charges were heaviest. The average annual expenses of war and government, from 1806 to 1815, together with the charge upon the debt contracted before 1793, were 65,794,000 l.; but you had your income tax in its full force, with your whole financial system invigorated by its effects, and the revenue of the country now amounted to 63,790,000 l.; while the deficiency in actual bard money, which during the war represented something like double the amount in debt, owing to the rate at which you borrowed; instead of being 15,404,000 l. a year, or (as it was in the second period) 13,689,000 l. a year, was only 2,004,000 l. a year, from 1806 to 1815.
Such was the power of the income tax. I have said there was a deficiency annually of 2,004,000 l., but it is fair for you to recollect, and it is necessary, in order to present to you the fact I want to place in clear view, that out of the 65,794,000 l. of charge that I have mentioned, about 9,500,000 l. were due for charge of debt contracted before 1793; so that, if you compare the actual expense of government, including the whole expense of war from 1806 to 1815, with your revenue when you had the income tax, it stands thus before you— that you actually raised 7,000,000 l. a year during that period, more than the charge of government, and the charge of war. That, I must say, is to me a most remarkable fact. It affords to me the proof, that if you do not destroy the efficacy of this engine—I do not raise now the question whether it is to be temporary or permanent, which I hold to be quite a different question, and I will go into that by and by—it affords you the means, should unhappily hostilities again break out, of at once raising your Army to 300,000 men, and your fleet to 100,000, with all your establishments in proportion. And—much as may be said of the importance—in which I concur—of an Army reserve and a Navy reserve, and of having your armouries and your arsenals well stored, I say this fiscal reserve is no less important; for, if it be used aright, it is an engine to which you may resort, and with which, judiciously employed—if unhappily necessity arise, which may God in his mercy avert!—with it judiciously em-

1363
ployed, you may again, if need be, defy the world.
This, then, is the purpose which the income tax has served—that in a time of vital struggle it enabled you to raise the income of the country above its expenditure of war and civil government, and that service so performed, was performed at a time when men do not minutely inquire into the incidence of taxation; they do not then indulge themselves in the adjustment of details, but are afraid lest they should lose the mass and the substance. But times, when the hand of violence is let loose, and when whole plains are besmeared with carnage, are the times when it is desirable that you should have the power of resort to this mighty engine, to make it again available for the defence and the salvation of the country.
Well, Sir, the income tax dropped along with the purpose of the income tax, in 1816; but it was destined to be revived. Sir Robert Peel, in 1842, called forth from repose this giant, who had once shielded us in war, to come and assist our industrious toils in peace; and if the first income tax produced enduring and memorable results, so I am free to say, at less expenditure by far in money, and without those painful accompaniments of havoc, war, and bloodshed—so has the second income tax. The second income tax has been the instrument by which you have introduced, and by which I hope ere long you may perfect, the reform, the effective reform, of your commercial and fiscal system; and I, for one, am bold enough to hope, and to expect, that, in reforming your own fiscal and commercial system, you have laid the foundations of similar reforms—slow, perhaps, but certain in their progress—through every country of the civilised world. I say, therefore, Sir, that if we rightly use the income tax, when we part with it, we may look back upon it with some satisfaction, and may console ourselves for the annoyances it may have entailed by the recollection, that it has been the means of achieving a great good immediately to England, and ultimately to mankind.
Let me now attempt to present to the Committee a closer analysis of this impost. I shall assume that it is your view, as it is the view of the Government, that we cannot, at the present moment, with a due regard to the public interest, dispense with the income tax; let us look a little into its composition. Let us attempt to investigate the
1364
charges which are alleged against it. I am not one of those who make light of those charges. In my own individual opinion it is perfectly plain, from the mode in which the income tax was put an end to at the termination of the war, that it is not well adapted for a permanent portion of your ordinary financial system. Whether it is so or not, on which there is a great difference of opinion, yet I think this is on all hands agreed, that it is not adapted for a permanent portion of your fiscal system, unless you can by reconstruction remove its inequalities. Even if you could remove its inequalities, a question into which we will patiently examine, there would still remain in my mind at least objections to it of the gravest character.
The reconstruction of your income tax would, I think, under any circumstances, be found to open up social questions of the most serious import; and the machinery of the income tax, involving, as it necessarily does, to so large an extent, the objectionable principle of self-assessment, in my opinion, can never be satisfactory to the country. First, because self-assessment leads to grievous frauds upon the revenue, and renders the real inequality of the tax far greater than any of those among its inequalities which immediately strike the public eye and feelings; and, secondly, because of the tendency to immorality, which is, I fear, essentially inherent in the nature of the operation.
But now let us examine the composition of the income tax. First, let me observe, that we are too much in the habit of speaking of this impost as merely a simple tax; it is rather a code or system of taxation. In mere bulk it is a volume; it has been elaborated by many successive strokes in successive years; it has accumulated a large mass of precedents for its application; and, in short, it is a vast and complicated system of taxation, by which we succeed in raising, in round numbers, 5,600,000 l. a year. One 28th part of this sum is 200,000 l.
Now, if you investigate the composition of Schedule A, you will find that land and houses—which I take together, because their position is substantially analogous—including the incomes charged upon them in respect to mortgages and settlements, pay no less than 12-28ths of the tax, or about 2,400,000 l.
Now, let us look at the other great element of this tax—namely, the payment that proceeds from trades. In order to

1365
get at this payment accurately, we must descend a little deeper than the mere classification of the schedules. There are in Schedule A some considerable classes of property which pay duty along with land and houses, to the extent, I think, of something like 270,000 l. a year, yet which are essentially trading concerns. For the purpose which I have in view I must likewise take out of Schedule B the sum paid for the occupation of land, and place it along with trades, with which it is essentially analogous in character. This gives me 330,000 l. more, and then I come to what I may call trades proper—namely, those which appear in Schedule D, and which pay a sum of something like 1,200,000 l. These three branches of trades in Schedules A, B, and D, contribute an income of no less than 1,800,000 l., or 9-28ths of the whole tax; and the two together—that is to say, land and houses and trades, pay 4,200,000 l., or 21-28ths of the whole tax. There remain the funds in Schedule C, which pay 750,000 l., or 1-7th of the whole tax; and salaries in Schedule E, which pay about 1-17th of the tax. Professions in Schedule D, after striking out those which partake rather of the character of trades, pay 250,000 l., or about 1-22nd of the tax. Thus we see the funds, salaries, and professions make up the remaining fourth of the tax; three-fourths being paid by land and houses, and by trades.
Now, it is said that gross inequality is the characteristic of the tax, and that it ought not to be levied—that it is unjust to levy it upon precarious and realised income alike. What income is precarious, and what income is realised? Income derived from trade would, I presume, be called precarious; and, without wishing to anticipate the judgment of the Committee, I may probably assume that this is their opinion. Now, I beg the Committee to observe that, after all, the main question is between land and trade. Everything else, in respect of bulk and magnitude, forms but a mere outlier and appendage to this, the main question. Land and houses, we find, pay an income tax of 2,400,000 l., and trade pays 1,800,000 l.; between them they pay three-fourths of the whole tax. It is, therefore, evident that the justice of the present relations between land and trade must go a considerable way, I do not say the whole way, towards the solution of the great question whether the tax is, in the main, a just tax or not.
Let us look now at the case as it
1366
stands between land with houses on the one side and trade on the other, and, if the Committee will do me the favour to follow me in the estimate I am about to enter upon, it shall be my endeavour to place the matter before them in as clear a light as possible. My first object is to show the amount of tax really paid by land. When persons say that realised and precarious incomes ought not to pay the same rates, and that, therefore, the tax should be reconstructed, they forget to inquire whether at the present moment realised and precarious incomes as represented by land and houses on the one hand, and by trades on the other, do or do not pay the same rates. Let us, in the first place, see at what rate land and houses pay. Land pays in the gross 7d. in the pound upon an income not assessed by the possessors of, the property, but by a standard independent of them; and this sum is paid without even the smallest deduction in respect of the difference between gross and net income. It is obvious that, in order to estimate how much land and houses really pay, we must deduct the whole of the difference between the gross and the net income. Nay, we must do more than this, because the owners of land and houses are not the only persons beneficially interested in this description of property; there remain behind a large body of mortgagors, encumbrancers, and liferenters, who, although they pay 7d. in the pound on their share of the proceeds of lands and houses, do not pay anything towards making up the difference between gross and net receipts.
In the Estimate I am about to submit to the Committee, I have been guided by inquiries which every member of it is as capable of making as I am. I can only say, that this Estimate has been framed in a spirit of moderation, and tested, as well as the case admitted, by reference to persons most familiar with the subject. About 80,000,000 l., the gross income of land and houses, pay the tax. At 7d. in the pound, this gives, in round numbers, 2,333,000 l. What are the deductions which ought to be allowed for the difference between gross and net income—I will not say according to an arbitrary standard of equity—but if we should break up the present scheme and construct a new one, what should we be called on, and of course I must say, what should we in justice be compelled, to allow on this score? In Scotland, among the difference between

1367
gross and net income from lands, one class are known by the designation of "public burdens." We have no analogous phrase in England; but we have heavy deductions, perhaps on the whole not less heavy than in Scotland, from gross rental. The first great item is the large charge for repairs, and under this head I include repairs for buildings, fences, and such drains as are not kept by the tenant. Repairs constitute a large charge upon land, but as regards houses it is still larger. You must allow for insurance; and also for law charges, without which it is impossible to conduct business connected with landed property and houses. You must allow—I will not say all the cost of management, but as much of it as you allow to a merchant under Schedule D—you must allow for clerks, sub-agents, ground - bailiffs, offices, stationery, receipts, and so forth. You must allow for arrears of rent, and you must likewise allow for what are called abatements of rent, which are a real deduction from income. How much shall we allow under these heads? What is the gross deduction we must make from the income of 80,000,000 l. supposed to be received by the owners of land and houses? I take it at 16 per cent. I do not think this an unfair estimate; I am certain that it is, in some instances, a very low one. If 16 per cent be a fair deduction, it is evident we should reduce the 80,000,000 l., subjected to a tax of 7d. in the pound by the sum of 12,800,000., which is actually expended before the income reaches the pocket of the owner; and, therefore, we have arrived at this point, that we have got instead of 80,000,000 l. of income, only 67,200,000 l., and this reduced amount pays a tax amounting to 2,333,000 l.
Then I come to another question upon which I must again resort to conjectural estimate. What is a fair estimate to make of the total amount of charges on land and houses, all over the Kingdom, in respect not only of mortgages, but of settlements and all other arrangements of that kind? I estimate that one-fourth part of the gross income derived from land and houses goes into the pockets, not of persons beneficially interested in them, properly speaking, but into those of mortgagees, annuitants, and others who receive under settlements. Ift hat be so, then it appears that the owners of land and houses do not receive 67,200,000 l.; but from that sum you must deduct the fourth part of 80,000,000 l., which reduces their income to 47,200,000 l. This sum
1368
of 47,200,000 l. is, then, the net receipt of those beneficially interested in land and houses. But you will justly say that the incumbrancers, who receive the 20,000,000 l., pay the income tax. Well, let us see what their quota amounts to. 7d. in the pound on 20,000,000 l. gives 583,000 l. Deduct this sum from the 2,333,000 l. paid by the owners of land and houses, and the sum of 1,750,000 l. will be left, and this is the amount actually paid on an income of 47,200,000 l. Now, if hon. Members will take the trouble to apply the figures I have stated, they will find the result to be this—that the sum of 9d. in the pound on a net income of 47,200,000 l. would amount to 1,732,500 l.; and that, consequently, under the law as it now stands, the income derived from land and houses is taxed at the rate not of 7d. but 9d. in the pound. Then, what I want to know is this—supposing there be a primâ facie case for breaking up the income tax on the ground of inequality between the two classes of payers—namely, the owners of land and houses and those engaged in trades, do you, on the whole, think that if a difference had to be made between the two classes, the difference ought to be greater than that which now exists? I do not raise the question whether there ought to be any difference whatever between the two classes, or whether the income of the year is not the just and proper object of a tax intended to provide for the services of the year; I pass that question by; but I show you that, according to a rational estimate, land at this moment pays 9d. and trade 7d. in the pound, and I ask any moderate man whether, if we were now about to establish a different rate of payment between the two classes, he would think of making the difference greater than exists at this moment?
In December last, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) proposed that realised income should pay a tax of 7d., and precarious income one of 5¼d. Now, if any one will have the kindness to compare my figures with the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, it will be found that, within a small fraction of a farthing, the rates paid by the two classes of income are at present equivalent to 7d. and 5¼d. If we break up the present income tax it must be for some object. If that object be to relieve trade at the expense of land and houses, it is well that those who may be about to sanction that purpose should consider where they are to begin in fixing

1369
the proportions of the payments to be made by different classes, and where they are to end. If it be desired to settle the question according to the views which have impressed themselves on the minds of many moderate and intelligent men, according to the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire in the Committee which sat upon this subject—namely, by making land pay about four, and precarious income about three, then I say that object is already accomplished, for the payments of the two classes bear that proportion to each other at this moment.
But let us go further in the consideration of this deeply important question. It is commonly stated that though we cannot do justice to each individual, we may do justice as between classes; and that for this purpose we must take an average of each class within itself. Now, I question the doctrine of those who propose to do justice between the various hinds of income by establishing averages for each class within itself. This is not the course advocated by the hon. Member for Montrose. The hon. Member is always consistent, and always manful; when he sees a difficulty in his path he takes no pains to get out of the way. His instinctive sense of fairness and scorn of artifice leads him, in his attempts to reform the income tax, into difficulties which a man acting as a tactician would avoid. He says, fairly appraise the property or income of each individual. But the common notion is, that incomes should be classed in averages. In the name of reason and common sense, I ask how those who demand either equality, or an approach to it, can obtain it by averaging classes of income? Look at annuities. The tables give the value of female life at 15 years of age at 25 years' purchase; but go upwards to 70 or 75 years of age, and the value of the life is only 5 years' purchase: yet you propose to average, forsooth, these dissimilar cases —to bring up the value of 5 years' purchase and bring down the value of the 25 years' purchase to a common standard. What possible average can these interests admit of? A life of 25 years' purchase is five times the value of one of 5 years' purchase. Will it be any consolation to the life of 5 years' purchase, when called on to pay three times as much as he ought on the principles of the reformers of the tax to pay, that the life of 25 years' purchase
1370
pays only half as much as he should do? Still more absurd would be the attempt to average trades. Many trades are worth 25 years' purchase. I venture to say, that if the matter be closely investigated, it will be found that many trades are better, on the whole, than perpetuities, and for this reason, that trade affords opportunities for providing for children and relations such as no other pursuit presents. Let us, however, state the case moderately, and say that some trades are worth 25 years' purchase; there are others not worth more than 5, 4, or 3 years' purchase, and how are you to average the interest of a trade worth 3 and another worth 25 years' purchase? I must enter my protest against this averaging of classes as a mode of what is called doing justice in the matter of the income tax.
There is another topic of a somewhat painful nature connected with this branch of the subject, to which I must briefly allude. We have seen that land pays 7d. in the pound, according to a standard of value which does not depend on the will or testimony of its owner. Trade, on the other hand, pays 7d. in the pound, and this poundage assessed by each trader on himself. I have no doubt that, in the majority of instances, the returns of our traders are fairly and honourably made. There are many cases, in trade, in which it is a matter of extreme difficulty to know what return to make, what really is chargeable as profit; and I believe that in not unfrequent cases the doubt is solved by the honourable trader against himself, and that he returns his profits greater than they really are. Let it not be supposed that I am going to impute to the trading classes of England generally the conduct which is pursued by some individuals. I am going to state an extreme case. It is an example, not of what has been generally done, but of what can be and has occasionally been done upon the scale I am going to show, and of what I fear on a smaller scale is often done. I will mention no names—I will violate no confidence—but I will state what happened in a great town where a new street was to be built. The persons who lived and carried on business in the old street, which was pulled down to make way for the new one, had been charged at a certain amount to the income tax. They had also, of course, made returns at a certain amount under the income tax. When the new street came to be built, they claimed compensation for the loss of their busi-

1371
ness. The amount had to be assessed by a jury. Without wearying the Committee with details, I will state the amount of compensation which these persons—in number twenty-eight—claimed; the amount awarded them by the jury, which may be taken as, on the whole, an approximation to the real value; and the amount at which they returned their profits under the income tax. Were I to descend to individual cases, it would be almost impossible adequately to describe the partly ludicrous and partly shameful aspect which they assume. I will, therefore, deal with the matter generally, and say that twenty-eight persons in all claimed the sum of 48,159 l. as compensation for their profits for a single year. The amount of compensation awarded by the jury was 26,973 l., or a little more than half what was claimed. But what was the amount at which they had returned their profits for assessment to the income tax? They claimed 48,000 l.; they got from the jury nearly 27,000 l.; but the return of profits for assessment to the income tax which they separately made had amounted only to 9,000 l.
I deeply regret that the great body of honourable men who have made the name of British commerce famous throughout the earth, less even for its energy than for its truthfulness, should be degraded by association with persons who could perpetrate frauds like these. But at the same time frauds of this kind, and in many other cases, do exist; they are inseparable from the character of the impost, human nature remaining as it is; and it is impossible, when you are called upon to consider the question of the readjustment of the tax, wholly to dismiss them from consideration.
Now, Sir, I leave this part of the question with the proposition—which I think will hardly be controverted—that as regards the state of the case between land and trade, reserving other cases for separate consideration, there is no sufficient ground to attempt the reconstruction of the income tax.
I have three other cases still to consider; and first I will take the case of Schedule E, which contains the payments that are derived from the incomes of the salaried servants of the public. I think that no class of persons is included in Schedule E, with the exception of persons connected with the Bank of England, who may not be called, in one sense or another, public servants. Some of them may be servants
1372
of local or separate authorities, as, for instance, of the East India Company; but they are, I think, all public servants, and they are generally servants of Her Majesty's Government.
With respect to the case of these public salaries, I think it is scarcely possible to distinguish between such incomes and life incomes. As they are usually held almost for life, with retirements in prospect, their durability is little inferior to that of life incomes; and their inferiority, in respect of durability, is upon the whole compensated by this— that they are usually progressive incomes, while life incomes are usually fixed. It is impossible, I think, for any dispassionate man, under these circumstances, to draw a distinction between the case of salaries and that of life incomes, for the purpose of the income tax. With regard to remissions upon salaries, the case seems to be argued rather high both ways. At present there is a movement among the civil servants of the Crown for a change in regard to their superannuation funds, which would amount to an increase of salary. The tide has but lately turned; for it is not very long since the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) made a Motion in this House—and, unless I am much mistaken, he all but carried it—for reducing salaries of this description wholesale by no less than 10 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that such salaries ought to be reduced by 10 per cent, I would suggest that it would be better to reduce them by a little less than 10 per cent, rather than break up the income tax on this account; in any case I think I shall carry general assent when I say it would be much better to deal with public salaries, if they are to be dealt with, by a separate arrangement, than to make them the occasion of an attempt to perform an operation on the income tax, which, up to this time, all those who have been responsible for our finances—if we except the right hon. Gentleman opposite —have unanimously declared to be impossible and absurd.
Now, Sir, I come to what is supposed to be the sore place of the income tax, Schedule C; and when the Committee have heard what I have to say, I will fearlessly appeal to their love of justice, and put it to them whether Schedule C, even if it stood alone, is not rather a reason why they should not break up the income tax than why they should do so. I know this is a bold challenge; but wait and see whe-

1373
ther I will not make good my position. In the first instance, I will read to the Committee a testimony that has come from across the Atlantic, simply in order to impress upon them the conviction that when we approach Schedule C, we begin to tread upon very delicate ground. We wrote to the United States to ascertain what was done in that country, where taxes of this nature are levied, with respect to the public stocks or funds, and I have here a short letter, signed by Mr. Everett, dated "Department of State, Washington, 10th of February, 1853," in which he says—
"Sir—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 9th inst., inquiring, by direction of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the public debt of the United States is subject to property or income tax in the hands of those who hold the stock, and also whether in the Acts authorising the contracting of the debts, any provision was made, exempting them from taxation?
"In reply, I have the honour to inform you, that there is nothing in the constitution of the United States, or in the laws creating the public debt, which prohibits this Government from levying a tax on that debt; the Governments of the respective States, however, can levy no such tax, as this would be an act impairing the obligation of a contract, which is expressly forbidden by the federal constitution."
It appears to me, upon a fair review of the case, that we must set out with this doctrine admitted on all hands: that we are bound to give some rational construction to those words in the Loan Acts which provide that the public dividends shall be paid free of all taxes and charges whatsoever. I think we are bound to give them a rational construction. Mr. Pitt thought the rational construction to give to them was, that you should not look at all to the nature of the source, but that you should consider the dividends simply in relation to the receiver as so much income. I am bound to say that I think Mr. Pitt's construction of the pledge was the safest and the wisest. It has, at any rate, been acted upon for more than fifty years, and under it the great bulk of the public debt has either been borrowed or reborrowed. I do not mean now to dwell upon the difficulties you might have in the case of these Acts in proceeding at this time to impose a new construction of the contract, after a former one has so long prevailed; but what I do beg you to acknowledge is, that there is only one other construction, in any sense rational, that could be given to the words in the Loan Acts, and it is this: that we are entitled to look, if we choose, not at the
1374
mere amount of annual income, but at the durability of the income, as tested by the price of the income when it is sold. I will suppose, then, the proposition now is, that we should reconstruct the income tax, in order that we may levy the tax upon something like what is called the capitalised value of the income.
Considering the circumstances under which the income tax was first imposed, and the circumstances under which that change is now suggested, I never can believe that it would be adopted by a British Parliament. Observe not only the effect which it would have upon the interest of the fundholders, but, above all, the light in which it exhibits the dealings of the State with them. When Mr. Pitt imposed the income tax, he said to those persons, "We have nothing to do with capitalised value or with price in the market; we can look to nothing but what you receive from year to year." At that time, when the fund-holder was taxed upon his income from year to year, what was the capitalised value of his income? About sixteen years' purchase. That was not far from the average capitalised value of the fundholders' income for seventeen years of the income tax, until the conclusion of peace. Suppose your new doctrines had been in vogue then, the fundholder would have paid only one-half of what he did pay; and shall I be told that, after adopting a construction most unfavourable at the moment to the fundholder, and after taxing him, and taxing him, too, at the rate of 10 per cent on the full value of his income for seventeen years, when he could only have got sixteen years' purchase for his property in the market, England and the English Parliament will now turn round upon that man, in the manner suggested, when, owing mainly to the general confidence in your strict good faith towards the public creditor, the value of his property has risen to thirty-three years' purchase? If you now determine that the capitalised value of the fundholder's income ought to be taxed, I say that you inflict the grossest wrong upon him in time of war. When he then consented to pay 10 per cent upon the value of his income, he had confidence that peace would be restored, that his income would become more valuable, that faith would be observed with him—I mean faith according to the common principles of equity and justice—and that no advantage would be taken of that rise in value. But if the British Parliament sets the example of establishing in

1375
time of war, when funds are low, the doctrine that you have nothing to do with capitalised income, and then in time of peace, when the funds are high, sets up the opposite doctrine; I will not merely say that the character of this nation will not stand as in the time of your fathers it has stood, but I warn you that you must abandon, from henceforth, the idea of taking the lead among all the borrowers of the world, and that you must prepare for a vital change in your relations with those who have hitherto trusted you.
There are persons who say, "We ought to tax incomes at different rates, accordingly as they proceed from property or from skill." In fact, they would place industrious incomes on the one side, and lazy incomes on the other. Now, in my opinion, a great deal may be said in favour of that doctrine; but observe the effect it must have with regard to the public creditor. The landholder must exert himself with respect to his land, the householder as to his house, and the mortgagee must either look out himself, or pay his lawyer for looking out, to ascertain the safety of the investment proposed for his money; and I do not believe there is any income which is perfectly and entirely a lazy income, except the income of the fundholder.
If that were so, the fundholder would enjoy an entire pre-eminence in taxation, and the degree of that pre-eminence it would rest with you to fix. I honour the sense of justice of my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), and so I honour the sense of justice of those gentlemen (the actuaries) who have recommended the fundamental reconstruction of this tax, and who do fairly adopt and abide by the durability of incomes. If they had made their proposals in 1798, I do not know that the fundholders would have had much reason to complain; but, on the contrary, I believe that, upon the whole, they would have been gainers. I think, however, that the proposal of the actuaries is unsound in principle. I conceive that it is unsound in principle to levy the revenue of the country, in substance, by a tax upon its property, for I think that income is, in the main, the proper basis of taxation. I do not mean, however, to push that doctrine to extremes: and I undoubtedly should say, if we have a property tax at all in substitution for the income tax, let us have a good and honest property tax, such as the actuaries propose. Unfortunately, these gentlemen have the plan which they
1376
recommend entirely to themselves, for no one has ever been found to propose it in this House, or, as far as I know, elsewhere. In fact, nobody will propose that plan, for every one knows it is a mathematical speculation upon paper, but not a project to be submitted to an assembly of men whose bounden duty it is to provide by practicable means for the constantly recurring wants and services of the country.
The project of the actuaries, then, I pass by, because, while it is of all the plans of income-tax reform the most self-consistent, it is also, I will not say the most impossible (for that would be a solecism), but it is placed the furthest beyond the reach even of imagination as a possible measure.
Now, I will request the Committee to go yet further with me into the consideration of one more point with regard to the funds, which I take to be highly practical in its character, and which I beg to commend to their particular attention. I have used every means in my power to analyse the manner in which the funds are held. It is, however, a matter of great difficulty. In old times there was a very general belief in the appearances of hobgoblins, and now throughout the country you may here and there find those who have a somewhat analogous conception of an awful being they call the fundholder, whom they picture to their imaginations as an iron-hearted creature, rolling in wealth, and living in worthless indolence upon the toil and sweat of his countrymen; but it is very difficult to find out whether the existence of this monster is a fact or a fiction.
I cannot obtain a complete analysis of the manner in which the funds are held. The State, as we know, has no information upon the subject. The Bank of England, which pays the dividends, knows only one circumstance, and that is, whether the dividend is paid to a joint account or a sole account. Now, a very remarkable change has been taking place of late years in the manner in which the funds are held. About fifteen years ago, the funds were chiefly held in sole accounts by individuals, and I think you may, upon the whole, take it nearly for granted that the sole accounts indicate—but I speak in the presence of practical authorities, who can correct me if I mislead you—absolute property, with some few exceptions. So lately, then, as fifteen years ago, much more than one-half of the stocks were held in sole accounts, and, therefore, represented absolute property; but mark the change that has taken

1377
place. At present the case is reversed. The whole amount of stock held in sole accounts is at the present moment 280,000,000 l., and out of that amount 60,000,000 l. represents the incomes of persons who are exempt from the income tax by reason of their incomes being under 150 l. a year. There is, therefore, a sum of about 220,000,000 l. held by persons who may be considered as holding perpetuities in the funds, and whom the reformers of the income tax would regard as entitled to the distinction of pre-eminent taxation under that tax. Now, the amount held in joint accounts was, in February, 1852, 427,000,000 l., and I have no doubt that it is at this time much more. One-third of the funds, upon the whole, are held in sole accounts, and two-thirds in joint accounts.
Now, what do these joint accounts mean? I will tell you very nearly what they mean. These joint accounts may be divided, I believe, into five classes, one or other of which may be taken as comprehending very nearly the whole. In the first place, the joint accounts include a large class of charities, and among them I reckon the great account of the Commissioners of the National Debt for Savings Banks, amounting to 33,000,000 l. These sums are all by law exempt from income tax. Then, in the second place, we have the Chancery and Bankruptcy Accounts, amounting to between 50,000,000 l. and 60,000,000 l. I don't imagine that it is the desire of this Committee, or of the reformers of the income tax, to lay upon the monies locked up in Chancery and Bankruptcy an exceptional tax. A third class which enters into the joint accounts is made up of those cases in which English firms—particularly banking firms, but other firms also—hold large sums of money on account of foreigners. I imagine that, although Englishmen who have investments in the funds more commonly hold them in their own names, it is very common for foreigners to have stock held in the names of their banking or mercantile correspondents.
It has been a popular doctrine to tax the foreigner, but I think that no person in this House would wish to tax the foreigner in this particular form. It has been a long-contested question with respect to income tax in England, whether the foreigner is not entitled to exemption altogether. The late Sir Robert Peel subjected him to equal taxation in 1842; but even that proposal was strongly resisted, and I think every Member of this House will agree that it
1378
would be very impolitic to lay an exceptional tax of this kind upon the foreigner.
The fourth class interested in joint accounts, and a very large class too, is the class indicated by life interests less than perpetuity. When Mr. Horsman made a proposal with reference to the income tax in 1848, one of his main arguments was founded on the absurdity of taxing life interests at the same rate at which perpetuities are taxed. Of late the income-tax reformers have had much less compassion for the life-interest men, and few of them have seemed to regard their case at all. My opinion is, that if the income tax were reconstructed, it would be very difficult to shut out the class having life interests from the benefit of a reduced rate, if you introduce the distinction of rate; but surely it would be intolerable to raise the tax upon the funds as far as regards that largo portion of holders who have a mere life interest.
The fifth class interested in joint accounts consists of trading companies and associations holding funded property. Now, are you to lay an exceptional tax upon the capital of persons so engaged in trade? I should say that it is very much better to leave English trade where it is, paying 7d. in the pound, in the place of the 9d. paid by land and houses, and with the power of investing money in the funds when it is convenient for purposes of banking, or for other trades, without the fear of exceptional taxation, than to break up the whole system, and sconce the trader in Schedule C, that you may reimburse him by exceptions in Schedule D. Thus then, Sir, the strongest case urged for the reconstruction of the tax is the case of Schedule C; but in Schedule C, against 220,000,000 l. held by persons in their own right, you have 430,000,000 l. not held by persons in their own right as mere individual property, and when you have established your exceptional tax against the funds, your very next step must be to exempt the whole of this 430,000,000 l. Well, Sir, that is the sum of what I have to say upon Schedule C.
I shall now touch very briefly upon the remaining case of Schedule D—that is to say, of Schedule D as respects the professions. I have made it my business, Sir, to ascertain what proportion of the whole payment under Schedule D proceeds from professional persons, and I have found that, including certain amphibious classes, it is about 300,000 l., or rather more than one-twentieth part of the whole income tax;

1379
but there are several persons who are returned as professional persons who, for the purpose of a new classification of the income tax, must be considered as traders, such as auctioneers, house agents, and army agents. The country surgeon frequently combines with his profession the trade and capital of a druggist and apothecary. Solicitors, again, in many places, are, to no small extent, considerable capitalists; their capital is invested in their trade, and the income tax must be paid upon it as it would upon capital invested in any other trade. Taking these mixed cases out, the net sum that may be said to be paid by the professions is about 250,000 l, which is about one-twenty-second part of the whole income tax.
I do not at all deny that the case of professional men appeals to our sympathies. In my opinion, it is one of the reasons which indicates that the tax ought to be a temporary tax; but I hope the Committee will pause before it rushes to the conclusion that upon account of the case of professional men—for I think I have in some degree disposed of the other cases—they will proceed to such a labour—I will not call it an Herculean labour, because an Herculean labour means a labour that Hercules could accomplish, and this I am persuaded he could not;—but to such a labour as that of breaking up and reconstructing the income tax.
It would be a pity to find yourselves compelled to break up the income tax on account of those whose case is so limited in comparison to the whole range of the tax that they only pay one twenty-second part of the amount. But then you may say, "Why not exempt them altogether; if they form so limited a part of the whole body of taxpayers, why not give them a favour?" And there is a great deal in point of feeling to recommend that course; but there is a great deal in point of feeling to recommend many things in this world of ours, upon examination of which you find insuperable obstacles in the way of your giving scope to that feeling.
I will tell you why you cannot exempt professional incomes without breaking up the scheme of the tax. In the first place, there are the auctioneers, house agents, farm agents, and others I have referred to, now nestling within the class of the professions, and whom you would have to dislodge from that class, but with each of whom there would be considerable difficulty if there were an attempt to exclude
1380
them from benefits to which persons in the position of professional men were to be entitled.
Again, you would have great difficulty in knowing what to do with the clergy. Your feeling would tend with equal force both ways. You would think it extremely offensive to reconstruct the income tax on behalf of professional men, and yet to make the clergyman with 150 l. or 200 l. a year pay the higher rate. But if you let him into the favoured category, I am not so sure that you would be pleased to extend the same favour to the dean and the bishop. You would find extreme difficulty there; but there are other and more serious difficulties than these.
Many persons holding salaried offices—not public servants—now charged in Schedule D, have certainly a much worse tenure and an inferior interest in their incomes than professional men. Above all, there is what I warned you of in respect to averaging the supposed value of the income of classes. A large class of retail dealers have an interest in their trades much inferior to that of professional men. Their shops, and trades, and businesses change hands much quicker. They are creatures of to-day, gone to-morrow; and professional men as a class, putting aside the exceptional case of sickness, are permanence itself compared with a certain and a very numerous portion of the smaller class of traders.
I must warn the Committee, likewise, that they will find the greatest difficulty when they come to consider, in the midst of this process of breaking up the income tax, the case of the life annuitants. Let me for a moment put it to you who these people are. Professional persons, at all events, are men, are beings charged by the Almighty with the care of wives and children, and generally endowed with a capacity to discharge that duty. But when you come to life annuitants, you then deal with the desolate widow, with the orphan daughter; with defenceless woman, whose right it is to expect at your hands justice, tenderness, and protection. Are their incomes precarious, or are they not? I will take some lady who has been bred in the lap of luxury, and who then upon the death of her parent, finds herself with the interest of 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. to live upon for the remainder of her days. I want to know whether that income is or is not to be subjected to the higher tax as an income from realised property? And will

1381
you then tell me that upon the daughter and the widow you will lay that exceptional tax, and yet talk of doing justice, because you put the higher tax upon her in order that you may put the lower tax upon your bankers and brewers, and upon your physicians and lawyers? I make my appeal to you as men upon this point. I am convinced, whether the views of the present Government be right or wrong, whether our propositions meet your approbation or whether they do not, that you never will consent to draw that distinction in favour of the great and energetic commerce of this country, and against the pittances on which the great portion of these women must subsist.
Sir, the unparalleled indulgence of the Committee has brought me nearly to the close of this portion of the subject, and there is but one more point in connexion with it to which I need refer. It is commonly supposed that it is either some crotchet of an individual, or the general laziness and inattention of official persons to their duties, that prevents them giving effect to the wishes which many Gentlemen laudably entertain, to see these inequalities of the income tax, which I do not deny, removed by a reconstruction. But I will point out the kind of difficulty in which you find yourselves involved when you set about that work; for I can truly and fairly say—and I think if I do not command credit for it as an individual, yet that the characters of my Colleagues will demand full credit for them—I can truly and fairly say, that it has been our most earnest desire, if we could with justice have attained that object, to consult the public feeling in regard to the proposition which we might have to make about the income tax.
We have, therefore, studiously and laboriously turned over the question again and again, and have put it, I believe, in every light in which it is capable of being viewed. And now I will just give you a specimen of the way in which, when you set about a reconstruction of this tax, you find yourselves involved. I will suppose that, if the income tax be differentiated, you will extend the favour to what are called the terminable annuities. The terminable annuities expire in 1860, and they have always been thought to afford the most favourable case—the case commonly selected for argument by way of illustration—for those who wish to break up the income tax. Of course, they will get the
1382
benefit of it. They are worth so many years' purchase, and no more, and you can tell exactly how much of the annuity in each case represents interest, and how much capital. You commence, then, by exempting the terminable annuitants. Is that all? By no means. What do you do with Government life annuitants? Must you not exempt them also? Is not their case substantially the same with the others? A man lays out money on an annuity for his life. Although the term of his life is uncertain, such an annuity has just as fixed a price in London as an annuity of the expiry of which you fix the date. On the same principle, therefore, you must exempt the Government life annuitants, as you have done to the terminable annuitants. But, if you do that, you cannot think of anything so monstrous as taxing interests for life, or for a term perhaps less than life upon leasehold properties. How will you be able to tax a man who has, suppose, a lease on which he has paid a heavy fine, and of which there is a term of five or ten years unexpired? The great bulk of the interest in the property is not his, but the landlord's, the reversioner's, and you must evidently give to the holder of such a lease, therefore, a share of the proposed exemption. Then I must again remind you of the class holding life interests in the funds. You can't draw a distinction between life interests in the funds and life interests in leaseholds. They must help to swell the goodly company of exemptions. After them come those who hold jointures and other annuities upon land. Certainly, a life annuity in the funds is one thing, and a life annuity upon land is another; but the life interest of the individual is alike in both cases. When you have got those in, what do you do with life renters, with the possessors of entailed estates, to which the successor may be a second cousin, living in the East Indies, whom his predecessors may never have seen, and in whom he has no interest? This may, I fear, be tedious to the Committee, but these are practical questions. They are a small sample of the practical questions, all of which must be faced, if we are to reform the income tax. I do not say that there are no distinctions between these different parties. There are distinctions between each of them. But what I say is this, that when you come to define those distinctions, and to try to make them the broad ground upon which you take your stand, and say, "Here you will be exempt—

1383
there you will pay the exceptional tax," there is not one of the classes I have mentioned with respect to which you will find it possible to fix it as the limit of the intended operation.
The real tendency of all these exemptions, however, is the breaking up and destruction of the tax. I do not say the "relinquishment," because relinquishment is one thing, and breaking up is another. Relinquish it for a time, and when emergencies arrive you may do as your fathers did—take down the weapon from the shelf, and make it serve you again for the ends of honour and of duty. To relinquish it is altogether safe, because it is altogether honourable. But to break it up is to encourage the House of Commons to venture upon schemes which may look well on paper, and may serve the purpose of the moment, but which will end in the destruction of the tax by the absurdities and by the iniquities which they involve. Sir, if that is to be done it must be done by those whose consciences enable them to take a different view from ours of the character and of the destiny of this great country. It will not be done by us, by men who believe, that although you may enter upon that fatal and seductive path, it will lead you into quagmire, will throw the whole finance of the empire into confusion, and will deprive you of that ready and effective resource to which hitherto you have been able in all times to look as an effectual resort open to you in circumstances of difficulty and trouble.
Sir, the general views of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the income tax are, that it is an engine of gigantic power for great national purposes, but at the same time that there are circumstances attending its operation which make it difficult, perhaps impossible, at any rate in our opinion not desirable, to maintain it as a portion of the permanent and ordinary finances of the country. The public feeling of its inequality is a fact most important in itself. The inquisition it entails is a most serious disadvantage. And the frauds to which it leads are an evil which it is not possible to characterise in terms too strong.
One thing I hope this House will never do, and that is, nibble at this great public question. Don't let them adopt the plan of reconstructing the income tax to-day, and saying, "If that does not work well, we'll try our hands at it again to-morrow." That is not the way in which the relations
1384
of classes brought into the nicest competition one with another under a scheme of direct taxation, are to be treated. Depend upon it, when you come to close quarters with this subject, when you come to measure and test the respective relations of intelligence and labour and property in all their myriad and complex forms, and when you come to represent those relations in arithmetical results, you are undertaking an operation of which I should say it was beyond the power of man to conduct it with satisfaction, but, at any rate, it is an operation to which you ought not constantly to recur; for if, as my noble Friend once said, with universal applause, this country cannot bear a revolution once a year, I will venture to say that it cannot bear a reconstruction of the income tax once a year.
Whatever you do in regard to the income tax, you must be bold, you must be intelligible, you must be decisive. You must not palter with it. If you do, I have striven at least to point out as well as my feeble powers will permit, the almost desecration I would say, certainly the gross breach of duty to your country, of which you will be guilty, in thus putting to hazard one of the most potent and effective among all its material resources. I believe it to be of vital importance, whether you keep this tax or whether you part with it, that you either should keep it, or should leave it in a state in which it will be fit for service on an emergency, and that it will be impossible to do if you break up the basis of your income tax.
Then you will ask me, "On what principle do you mean to proceed?—you have made an argument, so far as you have gone, to show that the tax cannot be reconstructed and cannot be amended; what will you do with it?"
What we wish to do, and what we shall aim at doing by the measure which I shall propose, is this:—We wish, in the first place, to put an end to the uncertainty respecting the income tax. We think it unfortunate that political circumstances have for the last two or three years led to a state of doubt in regard to the continuance of the tax, and have even begotten by degrees a feeling on the part of the public that the country is about to be entrapped unawares into its perpetuation. My belief is, that much of the uneasy feeling that prevails is traceable to that source, and I am very far from thinking that our merely asking of the Committee to renew this tax

1385
for a given term, in lieu of asking you to make it perpetual, would be sufficient to allay that anxiety or to remove that doubt.
There is a certain class of transactions with regard to which the uncertainty about the income tax operates most unfavourably—such as the terminable annuities, for example. It is very desirable that certainty should be restored on account of these transactions, and also on grounds more enlarged and general.
I think it also most desirable that effectual measures should be taken to mark this tax as a temporary tax. By this I do not mean merely, or chiefly, that I would commit the Government to an abstract opinion to be acted upon in future years. My own opinion is decidedly against the perpetuity of the tax as a permanent ordinary portion of our finances. But while I state the wish of the Government to propose it as a temporary tax, I do not ask you to rely on their words to bind them or yourselves, irrespectively of what may occur in the interim, as to what you will do under all circumstances at the expiration of the term which we propose to fix for its continuance now. I propose by positive enactment, by the measures which I shall invite you to adopt, to lay the ground for placing Parliament in such a position that at a given period it may, if it think fit, part with that tax.
Besides fixing on the tax a temporary character, we are most anxious to do what can be done, in order to meet the public feeling as to the inequality of the tax. For that public feeling we have not only respect, but sympathy, while we do not admit that it is our duty, as persons charged with the conduct of public affairs, to shape our measures according to any feeling or sentiment whatever, until we have examined the practical form which they are to take, and tried it by the light of our understanding. We propose, Sir, to introduce certain mitigations into the operation of the income tax. We propose to extend the principle of commutations, which is now applicable only to trades, to professions also. A more important mitigation which we propose to make is this: There is a general feeling that a man ought to have, at any rate, the opportunity of investing the savings he may make from his income without being liable to the income tax upon them. We do not think it possible to make provisions of that kind applicable to savings simply as such. All we can do is to say, "If you choose to in-
1386
vest your savings in the form of a deferred annuity or a life assurance, the premium which you may pay upon that deferred annuity or life assurance up to one-seventh of your income, shall not be chargeable to your income tax, but may be deducted from your income tax before it is charged." I am not at all prepared to say that we would stop at that point if it were possible to do more. At the same time, this plan has considerable recommendations. I do not say that it will completely meet the case of persons who, being afflicted with sickness, cannot, except under peculiar circumstances, insure their lives, because, unfortunately, cases of that sort it is beyond the power of the Legislature to meet. But what I do say is this—that it is a relief which will admit of very extensive application. I cannot reckon that the reduction from the receipts of the tax in consequence of it will be less—though, of course, this is a matter of uncertainty—when we look to the total amount of life assurance in this country, than 120,000 l. a year. It establishes, however, no invidious distinctions between one class and another. It is open to all those who choose to avail themselves of it; but while it is open to them all, we know that practically the classes who are in the habit of insuring their lives are just those very classes whom it is your main object to relieve by the reconstruction of the tax—namely, the classes of professional men and of persons who are dependent upon their own exertions.
I think it will be necessary, in conjunction with the proposal I have just named, to propose that Government should itself become insurers of life. If it is to undertake that charge, as will probably be the case, it will insure lives on the same principles as those on which it is now a vendor of life annuities.
But while I say that our object is to meet the public feeling as to the inequality of the tax, and while I specify these modes of going some way to effect that object, I have more to lay before you upon this subject. And pray understand me. Do not let me through my neglect be misapprehended, or fail to state clearly the position of the Government. What we understand to be the sentiment of the country, and, what we ourselves, as a matter of feeling, are disposed to defer to, and to share in, is, that the income tax bears upon the whole too hard upon intelligence and skill, and not hard enough upon property as compared with intelligence and skill. This,

1387
I say, is the sentiment which, with whatever varieties of form, has been expressed through various organs, and has awakened an echo in the public mind. I hope that I here state with accuracy, not as yet the precise measures that we propose, but the object which the reconstructors of the income tax have in view. Well, if that be their object—if they think that at present skill and intelligence are too severely pressed, and that property under the income tax pays too little, let me remind them that they must not form their judgment of the condition of classes from one single tax or from another single tax, but that they must look to the general effect of the whole system of taxation. And all I implore of them in that respect at this moment is, that they will reserve their decision upon the question whether the Government proposition sufficiently meets the case of skill and intelligence as compared with property until they have heard me throughout, if their kindness will permit them still to extend to me their patience.
Our proposition, then, in regard to the income tax is this:—We propose to renew it for two years from April, 1853, at the rate of 7d. in the pound. The Committee will recollect that I said we thought it our duty to look the whole breadth of this difficulty in the face—not to endeavour to escape it, not to endeavour to attenuate, or to understate it, but to face and to settle, if the Committee would enable us, the whole question of the income tax. We propose, then, to re-enact it for two years, from April, 1853, to April, 1855, at the rate of 7d. in the pound. From April, 1855, to enact it for two more years at 6d. in the pound; and then, for three more years—I cannot wonder at the smile which I perceive that my words provoke—for three more years—from April, 1857, at 5d. Under this proposal, on the 5th of April, 1860, the income tax will expire.
Sir, we think it far better—far more in accordance with our own obligations, and far more likely to advance the interests of the country—that we should present to you what we think—and I will tell you why we think so by and by—a real substantive plan, under which the income tax may, if Parliament should think fit, be got rid of, than that we should come to you with some paltry proposal to shirk the difficulty by re-enacting it for two years, or re-enacting it for one year, and thereby prolonging the public uncertainty and dissatisfaction, and giving rise not only to doubts as to the
1388
position of the tax, but even as to the perfect good faith of Parliament in its mode of dealing with the country. Now, Sir, we think that the descending rates which we have embodied in the proposal for the renewal of the tax will tend to show to Parliament and to the country that our intention to part with it, or, at all events, our intention to put Parliament in 1860 in a condition to part with it, is a real and a bonâ fide intention.
But you will say—and say justly—that that intention does not of itself put Parliament in a condition to part with the tax, —that it is very well to say that it shall, for two years, remain at 7d. in the pound, —that for two years more it shall be 6d., and for three years more 5d.; but that when it comes to 5d. you may find that there is still a deficiency, and that you again want the 7d., or that when you come to the end of the period with the rate of 5d. in the pound, you may find you cannot part with it. With respect to this objection I have to say, that before the close of my present statement I shall endeavour to give you full satisfaction on that point; and I will further venture to say that, whatever you may think of the plan I have to propose, no Gentleman in the Committee shall leave his place to-night with the opinion that the Government are paltering with the House of Commons, or that I am not presenting a proposal which is at any rate substantive and intelligible.
I say, Sir, that our principles, with respect to the income tax (which is the corner-stone of our whole financial plan)—our principles with respect to the income tax required of us these things:—In the first place, to mark it effectually as a temporary tax; in the second place, to meet, in a way which we think good and effectual, the public feeling with respect to the inequality of the tax; and I will very shortly explain how we mean to attain this end. But, beyond this, I wish to ask—and this is the important question to which I seek to draw the attention of Parliament—if you determine to renew the income tax, will you make its early extinction your first and sole object, or will you, in order to bring to completion the noble work of commercial reform which is so far advanced, once more associate the income tax with a remission of duties, extensive in itself and beneficial to the community? We have considered fully these two alternatives; and we have decided deliberately in favour of the second.

1389
While we propose to renew the income tax, we propose to associate it during the years which it has still to run with a great and beneficial remission of taxes. But the statement which I have already made with respect to the surplus, is one not altogether promising in this respect. He would be an ingenious Minister of Finance who should found an extensive remission of taxation on a surplus of 800,000 l., 200,000 l. or 300,000 l. of which he regards as accidental or uncertain. If we are to propose a remission of taxes, we must have funds out of which to make the remission. This is, of course, an elementary truth, but I am sorry to say that it is not wholly needless to impress it upon the House.
We have, therefore, to consider—and this, Sir, is the most invidious of all the portions of my task, upon which I am now about to enter—we have now to consider what are the means open to us, in consistency with justice, for creating a fund which, in conjunction with our present surplus, we can apply to an extensive and beneficial remission of taxes.
Now, the first question which is raised is this—if the income-tax is to be continued, shall it also be extended? And the view of the Government is this—that the late Administration were right in stating that, if the income tax was to be continued, the exemptions under it should be narrowly considered; and therefore we are prepared to deal with the question of these exemptions.
What, in the first place, let me ask, is the case of persons enjoying incomes immediately below 150 l. per annum? There may be those who say that it is dangerous to attempt to levy the income tax on incomes below 150 l.; but it is my opinion that the safety of that measure depends in a great degree—I may say mainly—on its justice; and if you can show that it is required by justice to other classes, and that it would be advantageous to the country, and even to the parties themselves who would be immediately affected by it, I am not afraid, with the confidence I entertain in the character of the English people, that there would be any danger attaching to such a measure. There were apprehensions, we know, entertained in 1842 that the imposition of the income tax in any shape would be found unpopular; but the sense of justice and enlightened prudence of the people, appreciating as they did the great benefit achieved by its instrumentality, divested it, if not of the unpopu-
1390
larity, certainly of the odious character which it was thought might generally have attached to it.
Well, now, what is the case of persons enjoying incomes below 150 l.? It is well known that persons of that class have very largely benefited by the measures consequent on the income tax up to the present time. Twelve millions of taxes have been remitted, and they have enjoyed their full share of this, without the charge of one farthing. I don't propose that we should carry the tax down to the regions where it would trench on labour. To my view it is a right and expedient principle—taking it in connexion with all the circumstances of the case—that we should not trench upon what I would call the territory of labour. That territory will probably be defined sufficiently for my purpose by the figure of 100 l. a year; and what I am saying now has reference to the case of incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. Their case is, that they have enjoyed up to the present time the full benefit of the remission of the 12,000,000 l. of taxes to which I have referred. But that is not all. If we were going to continue the income tax for a short period without any compensating advantage, then, indeed, it might not be expedient that I should ask you to extend it to a lower amount than at present; but I am going, before I conclude, to ask you to support the Government in enacting a great and beneficial remission of taxes; and I say, before you confer that great additional benefit, let us consider how far the results of our plan can be distributed equitably among the various classes of the community.
I will present to the Committee what I think they will consider some interesting results with respect to the past operation of our recent legislative remissions. With a view to the decision of the question which I am now opening, it appeared to me a matter of extreme interest to collect a number of bonâ fide cases of the distribution of the expenditure of particular families receiving different rates of income, marking the proportion in which they had each profited by the adoption of the income tax, and the measures connected with it. My right hon. Friend the head of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Baines), kindly lent me his able and effective aid, and I have thus been enabled to collect a body of trustworthy information of the kind which I am now about to present to the Committee.

1391
I shall not trouble you with the details, but merely give the general results of a few bonâ fide cases of actual expenditure, and I believe they are fair average cases, which will exhibit the actual savings which have been realised by persons whose incomes are below 150 l., and also by those whose incomes are above 150 l., in consequence of the adoption of the income tax, and of the remission of taxes, and the changes in our commercial system which were brought about through its medium. But it should be recollected that, in estimating the savings, I have taken credit for the further remissions which I am about to propose as well as for those which have already taken place.
I have collected six cases of incomes varying from 175 l. to 400 l. a year; and, after taking credit at moderate rates for the principal part of their savings, and carefully setting down the various items which go to make up their incomes, I find that their gross incomes amount to 1,359 l., and their gross savings to 63 l. 1s. 3d., making a gain of above five per cent upon the gross amount of their incomes; and even if you deduct the income tax which they have paid, there will still remain a saving of 22 l. 16 s. 6½d., or nearly two per cent upon their incomes. This, I think, is not an unsatisfactory result which I have presented to the Committee.
But I have likewise got four cases of the actual expenditure of persons with incomes between 100 l. and 150 l., and these, the Committee should understand, are not cases which have been selected for the purpose of arriving at a particular result, but are cases which have been fairly and honestly collected for the purpose of showing the actual distribution of expenditure of the two classes to which I have referred. One is the case of a country tradesman with 120 l. per annum; the second is the case of a retired Liverpool tradesman (having six children) with 120 l. per annum; the third is the case of a widow in the country, with an income from 120 l. to 150 l. (say 135 l. per annum); and the fourth is the case of a clerk in a country town, with 100 l. per annum; making a total income of 475 l., and their gain has been 29 l. 6s. 11 d., or between 6 and 7 per cent. Deducting income tax at the rate of 5d. in the pound, the savings would amount to 19 l. 9s., or more than 4 per cent. So that you see clearly from this that the persons with incomes between 100 l. and 150 l., have apparently profited
1392
by the changes in our legislation to a considerably greater extent than those with incomes above 150 l.
I ought to say that in estimating the savings I have endeavoured to keep strictly within the bounds of moderation, and that I have no doubt that the results could easily have been swelled if I had chosen. Now, Sir, it appears to us that these facts offer a rather strong reason for considering whether, when we propose to renew the income tax in the case of persons with incomes above 150 l., it is not demanded by justice that we should expect that persons with incomes below 150 l. should, to some reasonable extent, become sharers in the burden. Her Majesty's Government think that in justice we ought to make this demand upon them.
What we propose is this—we propose so far to complicate the tax as to introduce a provision that incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. shall be liable at the rate of 5d. in the pound for the whole time during which the tax is levied, so that, for the first two years, incomes above 150 l. will pay 7d. in the pound, and incomes below 150 l., 5d.; for the next two years, the one will pay 6d., and the other 5d., and for the following three years both classes will alike pay at the rate of 5d. in the pound. I estimate that this tax of 5d. on incomes from 100 l. to 150 l. will produce 250,000 l.; but as it will not be levied till the latter half of the current financial year, the sum of 125,000 l. only will come to credit in the financial year of 1853–54.
I now come to another great exemption —the exemption of Ireland. Ireland, in like manner, has received the benefit of the income tax through the changes in our fiscal system, but at the same time the equivalent which was intended to be taken has not been exacted. That equivalent was twofold. In the first place, it consisted of a duty upon spirits of 1s. a gallon, which was abandoned almost as soon as it was enacted. In the second place, it consisted of an augmentation of the stamp duties—which augmentation was indeed levied for some years; but in 1850, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood), made a great reduction in the stamp duties both of this country and of Ireland, and in that reduction disappeared the increase which was enacted in Ireland as an equivalent for the income tax. I am not able to speak with absolute precision, but as

1393
nearly as we can make out, it would appear that the rate at which Ireland now pays stamp duties on her transactions is as nearly as possible, on an average, the same as it was in 1842.
It is, indeed true that since the first enactment of the income tax, Ireland has been visited with an awful calamity, and although that scourge has been mercifully withdrawn, yet traces of it still remain in many social and economical forms, and especially in the form of a very heavy and burdensome debt. That debt is but a fraction, indeed, of the generous aid accorded by the Imperial Parliament to the necessities of Ireland; but at the same time it cannot be denied that it is a very heavy and enduring burden, not on Ireland generally, but on its most distressed parts. Those, however, who look at Ireland cannot avoid being struck by the fact that all Ireland is not alike—that there are certain districts that do not need to shrink from their full taxation—and which have no reasonable claim or plea to offer for exemption.
Let me remind the Committee what exemption means. It does not mean that we have got a bottomless purse, and that we can dispense exemptions to one man without injuring another; no, Sir, the exemption of one man means the extra taxation of another—and the exemption of one country means the extra taxation of another. And as this applies to changes in the income tax generally, so it applies to Ireland relatively to England.
What we think, therefore, is, that the case of Ireland demands very special consideration in connexion with the burdens that have been imposed on her, with respect to which I will say more by and by, as a sequel or corollary to the present branch of my subject; but, in the meantime, I have to say that we see no reason why the income tax should not be levied on Ireland, as she, through the income tax which Great Britain has borne, has received a great portion of the benefit attending the remission of taxes up to the present time, and is likely, also, to profit largely by the remissions I have to propose to the House. The produce of the income tax, which will be laid on Ireland under precisely the same conditions and for the same term as in England and Scotland—the produce of the income tax in Ireland I estimate at 460,000 l. a year; but as the tax will not be levied till some time after October next, there will be only
1394
230,000 l. to come to credit in the financial year 1853–54.
I will now give the Committee an account of the manner in which my estimate stands, as a whole, with respect to the income tax. The estimated produce of the tax, supposing there be no change in the existing system—is 5,550,000 l. Deduct life assurances (120,000 l.), of which one-half only comes to charge this year, namely, 60,000 l., there will be left 5,490,000 l. The extension below 150 l. we reckon at 125,000 l.; and the extension to Ireland at 230,000 l.; making the total for the year 1853–54, according to the proposed plan, 5,845,000 l.
I now come to another proposal for the augmentation of taxation, to which I invite the special attention of the Committee. It is one of great importance. It involves both economical and social considerations of the highest nature. I have stated to the Committee that we propose to enlarge our means by new taxation with a view to further beneficial changes in our fiscal system. That is one object we have in view. Another object is—and it is likewise an important object—to meet the public feeling, which we recognise and share, that the operation of the income tax is severe upon intelligence and skill as compared with property. I frankly own my total inability to meet the feeling which has been excited upon the subject of the income tax, by any attempt to vary the rate of the tax according to the source of the income; and that I think I should be guilty of a high political offence if I attempted it. But let me now point out to you that if you think that intelligence and skill under our system of taxation pay too much, and property too little, there are means of equalising the burdens of the two classes, in a manner which would be, on the whole, safe, honourable, and efficacious.
Sir, I refer to the question of the legacy duty—a question which it is perfectly plain cannot long be withheld from the consideration of the House. In my opinion it is a question of which the earliest settlement will likewise be the best. It requires settlement. The tax is not just as it stands. And how is it unjust? I frankly confess that I have always thought that the view of the case, as stated by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams)—who has exerted himself most effectively on this subject—I have always thought that his view, if I may say so without offence, was a

1395
most inadequate view of the state of the case. The tax is supposed to favour landed property, which I do not deny; but it also favours property which has not that claim to favour which landed property and household property might perhaps fairly urge as a ground of exemption from taxation. I am glad to hear the hon. Member echoing that sentiment. I wish to set aside the impression that the question bears on its front the odious aspect of a question of class. It does no such thing. We propose to alter it, and, subject to conditions which I will state, to extend the legacy duty to all successions whatever.
With respect to the probate duty, at the present moment we do not venture to deal with it. The probate duty itself, I grant you, calls for reform, and if the Government had the means of carrying into effect that reform in the present year, it would have been satisfactory to have done so. As it is, we are obliged at present to postpone it, but we hope that in a future and early year it will come under consideration. It is said that the legacy duty is in the nature of a tax upon property. It is a tax upon property, and because it is a tax upon property it meets the views which have been so much favoured by a large portion of this House and by public opinion—namely, that if the income tax is to bear unequally upon intelligence and skill as compared with property, then that inequality ought to be redressed in some way or other. I think this is a safe mode in which to redress that inequality, and if this is a tax upon property it is divested of the danger that attends the taxation of property generally.
The greatest mischief of taxes upon property is the liability of a constant recurrence of those struggles of classes which are often associated with them. But in carrying into effect this increase in the legacy duty, you have this great advantage, that the liability to pay occurs only within the limitation which the laws of a higher Power have ordained; that it only occurs once, on the death of a man; and that no man can die more than once. I may be wrong; but I assure the Committee that it appears to me that this is a most weighty consideration for those whose duty it is to inquire how they can best neutralise the social dangers incident to all questions connected with the taxation of property. Upon the whole, the question may thus be stated. The present adjustment of this
1396
duty cannot be maintained. You find the principle of this tax recognised in our law; you find its operation so limited by the very conditions under which it exists that there is little reason to apprehend the disturbing of a fair settlement of these duties, if once made; and you will, I think, be of opinion that this is a fair and right tax to adopt for itself, and that it is one which in other respects meets, in the best, safest, and most effective manner, the feeling which is, I know, prevalent in this House—that the present operation of the income tax is severe upon intelligence and skill as compared with property.
I propose to retain the present scale of consanguinity with one change. [An Hon. MEMBER: Oh!] We cannot go into that matter now, because the emotion of the hon. Member might produce a duellum between him and me that would inconveniently cross the course of my general statement, and we must adjourn the consideration of the subject to another time.
We propose then, Sir, to retain the present scale, but with one mitigation. Under that scale, relations of affinity are treated as strangers—a son-in-law and a daughter-in-law pay a duty of 10 per cent. We propose to place them on the footing of relations by blood. We propose that the exemption of real property should no longer exist, subject to the conditions I am about to mention. The Government propose that the exemption of settled personalty should no longer exist, and as we abolish the exemption, I now come to the question—a most grave one for the Government to consider, and one which they have carefully considered—would it be just that all descriptions of property, personalty and real property, should be charged at the same rate of duty to the legacy duty? Our opinion is that it ought not, and we think that a distinction ought to be taken, but not taken exactly in the same manner as heretofore.
It is obvious, when we regard the burdens upon property in this country, that there is a great mass of taxation that attaches to property which may be roughly called—I do not know whether the term is capable of a strict legal construction, but it will best convey my meaning—rateable property, which includes, along with real property, a great amount of leasehold, copyhold, and so forth, which is not real property, but which is subject to the burdens of real property; which is subject to

1397
taxation by the income tax, which is subject to the land tax, though, as a whole, in a somewhat less degree than land itself, which is subject to the extra charges on the transfer of property, and which is subject generally to all the charges that affect visible property as contrasted with invisible property, and especially which is liable to the great weight of local taxation. There is, between these items, a sum of 14,000,000 l. or 15,000,000 l. of taxes in the three kingdoms laid entirely on rateable property, to which not real property only, not land only, but leasehold and copyhold property also are subjected. This property is now struck in both ways; it is subject to the legacy and probate duties, and it is also subject to all the burdens incident to real property.
The Government propose to amend the whole foundation of the law, by striking a new distinction, and by saying that whatever exemption or partial advantage shall be given to real property shall be given in conjunction with it to other property which is now subjected to similar special burdens. We propose, therefore, totally to abolish, for the purpose of legacy duty or succession tax, the effect of settlement, so that the person who succeeds to personal property will pay according to his interest. He will pay upon the capital, if he succeeds to the capital; and if he succeeds to a lesser interest, he will pay on the value of that lesser interest. The Government, then, thinking it just that a less amount shall be taken from rateable property than from property that does not pay these special burdens, have to ask in what way that distinction can best be struck. It has long been the policy of this country—the result, it may be, of measures accidentally taken, but not on that account the less beneficial—that visible and rateable property should be principally taxed in the form of an annual charge. Now, it would be obviously highly inconsistent, while we leave such property subject to its heavy annual burdens, to aggravate them by laying a heavy charge upon capital. For the Government would then force and accelerate, by the pressure of fiscal enactments, changes in the tenure of this property; and that acceleration would be, in my opinion, not only unjust, but most cruel and mischievous in a social point of view.
We think that if anything in the nature of a distinction is taken in the legacy duties in favour of rateable property as against the other descriptions of property,
1398
the fairest mode in the case of an estate would be found to be this—that the successor to real and rateable property should be in all cases taxed upon the life interest only, or on a minor interest, if he has only a minor interest. It is difficult for me to enter upon a full discussion of all the reasons that have led us to that conclusion. The question is very much connected with the great difficulty of any attempt to ascertain the capital values of real property. As a matter of fact, under the social arrangements of this country, our great estates are settled estates. Leaving this subject, however, for future discussion, it is our opinion that our proposal ought to include the legacy duties, but that some remission ought to be granted to property, which is now subject to a great weight of peculiar and exceptional taxation; and we think that the best mode of framing that provision would be to charge the succession of rateable property upon the life interest of the person succeeding in the net annual income after the deduction of encumbrances.
We propose that the duty should be leviable, as was proposed by Mr. Pitt, in eight half-yearly instalments. In cases where there is a succession to a life interest, our proposal would be that the unpaid residue of the tax should drop in the event of a new succession before the last instalment is payable; but in the case of a succession in fee the whole will be charged, and if death occurs before the remaining instalment is paid, the duty will become a debt of the Crown against the estate. That is our proposal with regard to the legacy duties.
I now come to the financial results which we anticipate. The produce in the first year will be small. We do not propose to charge the new duty upon any succession anterior to the period when the Committee shall adopt the Resolution. The law allows twelve months for the payment of the legacy duties, and it will be impossible to fix the payment of the duty upon rateable property, if the Committee should adopt it, until after at least one of the ordinary periods of the payment of rent. The duty in cases of personalty will come in more quickly, but I cannot reckon upon a larger receipt from the alteration of the legacy duties for the year 1853–54 than 500,000 l. over and above the duty now received from this source. In subsequent years the amount will be greatly enlarged. I have no objection, as far as I am able, to state

1399
the results of my investigation as to future years, and I think I do not exaggerate when I say, that this tax, if it is adopted by the Committee, while it will add 500,000 l. to the income of the present year 1853–54, will add a further increase of 700,000 l. to the year 1854–5,400,000 l. more to the year 1855–6, and 400,000 l. more to the year 1856–7, making a total addition of to the permanent taxation of the country of not less than 2,000,000 l. per annum. And this, I must remind the Committee, is a tax which will leave wholly untouched the intelligence and skill of the country. It is a tax that gives the relief, and more than the relief, that you aim at by the reconstruction of the income tax, but does it without the danger which would necessarily attend that reconstruction.
MR. DISRAELI: Does that apply to the three Kingdoms?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is a general change of the law as to legacy duties, and one which takes no cognisance at all of one Kingdom or the other.
It has long been considered as a great object of financial policy to effect the equalisation of the spirit duties between the three countries. It is, however, a very difficult problem. It is very doubtful whether it will ever be entirely attained; but such an approximation to it as would stop smuggling might perhaps, at some time, be reached. It is quite plain that such an equalisation cannot be obtained without some reduction of the spirit duties in England. We must lower the English duties at a fitting time to some point, up to which the others may be raised. In the present year we do not propose to make any change in the English spirit duties, for that question is much mixed up with the licensing system, which is now under the consideration of a Committee of this House. On account of its connexion with the principle of licensing in populous districts, for the present the question of the English spirit duties must stand over. But the Government are of opinion, after a careful consideration with respect to Scotland, that there is no reason why in the case of Scotland, there should not be a moderate increase in the duty upon spirits. I believe that an increase of the duty, confined within due bounds, would not be opposed to public opinion, nor unacceptable in Scotland. An increase on the duty upon homemade spirits would render necessary an adjustment of the duty upon colonial spirits,
1400
which I only mention now in passing, to obviate misconception, without going into details.
Our proposal will be, that a duty of 1s. be added to the 3s. 8d. a gallon upon Scotch spirits—allowing the malt drawback to remain as at present. The consumption in Scotland is 7,170,000 gallons. The actual revenue is 1,315,000 l. The expected revenue is 1,633,000 l., which is a gain of 318,000 l. I may here stop to congratulate a noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas) on having attained a triumph. I ought, in strict propriety, to have reserved this until I came to Ireland, but the order of my subject has obliged me now to advert to it; and I have to apprise him that his victory is at length achieved. We propose to save the money of the distiller, and likewise the time of this House, by making an allowance for waste upon spirits in bond. That allowance for waste will be in Scotland 40,000 l,, which will give the net increase of revenue from the increase of the duty upon spirits in Scotland 278,000 l.
The Government have also anxiously considered this question as it regards Ireland. It is quite plain, I am afraid, that we can in no case stand as we are with regard to the Irish spirit duty, for an allowance for waste upon spirits in bond will entail a diminution of revenue. At present, the spirit duty in Ireland is extremely low in comparison with the duty in the two other countries. When an attempt was made to increase the tax in 1842 by 1s. per gallon, it was found most difficult to give effect to the increased duty; and we think it would not be safe to levy an additional tax of 1s. a gallon upon home-made spirits in Ireland.
But we have looked carefully to the means at our command for enforcing the levy of this tax.
In Ireland there is a revenue police, which has hitherto had the exclusive charge of enforcing this duty. But there is also maintained in that country at the public cost a large force, the constabulary, which has had no share whatever in giving information to those who have been engaged in levying the spirit duties. We contemplate a change in the relation of these two forces. I cannot say whether it will ultimately involve an absorption of the one force into the other, nor shall I now describe in what way it will be done; but the constabulary will, in a manner that we think will be effective, give their assistance in the

1401
levying of the duty upon spirits. We think that, under these circumstances, we may fairly propose an increase of duty of 8d. per gallon on Irish spirits—namely, from 2s. 8d. to 3s. 4d., subject to the deduction of 40,000 l., the allowance for waste spirits in bond. This will give us a gross gain of 238,000 l. upon the consumption of Irish spirits; but deducting the allowance for waste of 40,000 l., we have a net gain of 198,000 l. That gives from both countries—Scotland and Ireland—an increase of 476,000 l. But it is necessary that I should make an allowance for waste in England, not for the sake of English distillers, but for the sake of Irish and Scotch distillers, with whom it is a great object to bond their spirits here. There will therefore be an allowance of 40,000 l. for waste in bond in England, which will leave a net gain from the increased duty upon spirits of 436,000 l. a year.
There is one other very small augmentation of revenue that I propose, and that is, the revenue upon certain classes of licences. If the Committee examine the present scale of licences, they will see that they bear very unequally upon the minor and the greater tradesman; upon some classes it is uniform, as upon grocers and teadealers, and they pay the same, whether they pay rent to the value of 5l. or 500 l., whatever amount of business they transact. We do not propose to take up the more important questions as to those licences which are connected with the sale of spirits, wine, and beer: but we propose, in regard to the licences of brewers, maltsters, dealers in tea and coffee, manufacturers of, and dealers in, tobacco, and soapmakers, to rectify the present scale of licences, raising them at the upper end of the scale to a rate bearing some proportion to the value of the premises, or the amount of business. The gross increase of revenue arising from licences I take at 113,000 l.
The whole amount of increased taxes which we propose to levy, and which will come into the accounts of 1853–4, is as follows:—Income tax, 295,000 l.; legacy duty, 500,000 l.; duty on spirits, 436,000 l.; licences, 113,000 l.; these amount to a total of 1,344,000 l., which, with the anticipated surplus of 807,000 l., will give a fund of 2,151,000 l. available for the remission of taxation.
I cannot proceed further without stating more particularly the nature of our intentions with regard to Ireland. The Com-
1402
mittee have found that we propose to make the income tax payable in Ireland for a moderate term, and at a descending rate, as in England, and that we propose to levy an increased tax of 8d. on spirits in Ireland, which may be a net tax of between 6d. and 7d. a gallon, after allowing for the waste of spirits in bond. But I have now to refer to that case which I lately mentioned of rentcharge formed by the Consolidated Annuities. It was the opinion of the Government that it was impossible for them to arrive at a final decision upon that important subject without carefully weighing the collateral questions of finance. The annuities represent a capital of 4,500,000 l. of public money, and in dealing with them the Government was bound to have regard to the actual situation of Ireland, recovering, as it is, from a season of the deepest distress, and also to have regard to the harmony of the relations between the two countries, and they thought they could not arrive at a final decision till they had considered the general plan of finance which it might be their duty to recommend, and its bearing upon Ireland.
They now recommend a measure which, if you adopt it, as I trust you will, will advance us one great step towards establishing an equalisation of taxation between the three countries. It is true that the income tax is of temporary duration; but you will show, by levying it, that there is a bonâ fide intention and a rational prospect of equalising the taxation. At the same time, it is important that you should consider the great necessities of a portion of that country; and when you come to consider these things, it will be plain that the disposition of Parliament will be to adopt large and generous measures, and not to consider this as a mere question of money. You will consider this heavy charge—you will consider all that it represents—the recollections of the famine, the peculiar character of that awful visitation, the feelings of England to Ireland, and of Ireland to England, and you will feel the advantage of any measure that may seem to promote a more kindly tone between the two countries, and to relieve them from the relation of national creditor and debtor in which they now stand.
The Government have determined to make a large proposition. The 4,500,000 l. of Consolidated Annuities include 1,500,000 l. of debt that strictly belongs to the establishment of the Poor-Law in Ireland. That was a great social and national good—a

1403
great and permanent good to Ireland. But every good to Ireland is also a good to England. The other 3,000,000 l. consists of debts entirely connected with the famine. A Committee of the other House of Parliament have sat on this subject, and they have recommended a remission of 2,000,000 l. of this taxation. Sir, the plan of the Government, after maturely considering the whole question, is, to propose to Parliament that, from and after the 29th of last September, the Consolidated Annuities shall be wholly wiped away. They propose that the whole sum due from Ireland to England shall be remitted.
In remitting these charges, and in proposing an income tax upon Ireland, you will grant away an immense sum of money, but you will make a great stride towards that, the advantage of which I hardly know how to appreciate—namely, bringing the two countries towards the establishment of the principle of equalised taxation.
On the details of that subject I need only add, because I shall be asked what I mean to do with the arrears, that all arrears in respect to Consolidated Annuities due up to the 29th of September will be paid as they would have been if the law had continued in force. On the other hand, nothing will be collected which has become due since the 29th of September; and any money which has been so collected will be returned to those who have paid it, so as to take care that the non-paying classes obtain no advantage over those who have regularly and duly paid.
Now, Sir, we are inviting you to remit a capital sum, which was nearly 4,500,000 l., and is still above 4,000,000 l., and to remit an annual charge of 245,000 1. Three-fourths of that annuity would continue for forty years, and one-fourth for various periods of from ten to thirty years.
The taxation we propose for Ireland would in the first two years be considerably higher than the taxation we propose to remove; but if we look to the time when, as I have said, Parliament will be in a position to part with the income tax, Ireland will enjoy, and enjoy for a long term of years, a much larger remission of consolidated annuity than it will have to bear of additional burdens in the shape of the spirit duty.
So much for the case of Ireland. And now, Sir, as I have done with that most offensive part of my task, the imposition of taxation, I feel as it is said men are wont to feel—and as some of us have felt—when
1404
they have ended their long upward journey, and reached at length the summit of the Alps. Now I have the downward road before me, and the plains of Italy are in my view.
I come then, Sir, to consider the more agreeable subject of the remission of taxation—that remission of taxation to which, in whatever form, up to this moment, not from obstinacy, and not from petulance, but from a conviction of our public duty, we have thought it right steadily to decline acceding.
The first remission of taxation I shall propose has reference to the Excise Department. It is impossible to deny that there are great evils connected with the soap tax. In the first place, the system of drawbacks, which is a system incident to the use of soap in our manufactories, entails an immense loss by fraud. In the second place, this is an article of taxation which is most injurious both to the comfort and to the health of the people. In the third place, this is an article on which the pressure of the tax is so severe, that, notwithstanding the general wisdom and fairness with which your excise laws are administered—notwithstanding the drawback you grant on exportation—your productive power is crippled by the tax. You cannot compete with the foreigner; your export trade dwindles day by day; and gentlemen who have come to me to represent the case with respect to soap—well-informed gentlemen—have stated that if you will only take that bold measure with respect to the soap tax which we shall recommend, over and above the entire rate of duty, the consumer of soap would benefit to the extent of no less than 25 or 30 per cent, in consequence of the cheapened production. Therefore, for every penny of duty we ask you to surrender, we feel that we are giving double that advantage to the consumer, and a great impetus to trade.
There is one other point to which I cannot but feel that I must advert. The question of the African slave trade is one which excites different feelings among us. We have but one sentiment, indeed, with respect to the extinction of the slave trade, but there is a difference with respect to the measures to be taken for that extinction. Some have thought the means of force used are unavailing; but all agree that the promotion of legitimate commerce would be the most satisfactory, the most effective, and the most desirable of all instruments you can apply. It may be said there is a

1405
wide interval between the premises and the conclusion if I say, in order to extinguish the slave trade, repeal the soap tax. But a connexion more legitimate than this any Gentleman cannot well imagine. The map would show how many are the rivers of the coast of Africa; those rivers may for the most part each become depôts for the trade in palm oil. The quantities you may receive from that source are almost immeasurable, There are the great materials for a trade which, if you only relieve it from restraint, will show that the energy, the capital, and the intelligence of the country are as well entitled to carry away the palm in this particular industry as they show themselves to be in so many other trades.
The gross receipt from the soap duty is 1,397,000 l.; the drawback, 271,000 l.; the net receipt, 1,126,000 l.; the cost of collection, 15,000 l.; the net final loss 1,111,000 l. But with reference to the general necessity for fixing a time to commence the remission of duties, the most convenient time for this purpose in regard to the soap duty is the 5th of July. But there is also conceded to the manufacturer a power of keeping his soap in bond if it is thought fit to do so. There is already a sum due with reference to the quarter just expired, of 140,000 l., and before the present quarter is out probably 200,000 l. will be due on these accounts. We have to credit this year with the sum of 340,000 l., and the net loss for this year will be 771,000 l.
I come next to the division of the stamp duties. It is not possible for the Government, with all the means at their service, to deal with all the articles they would wish. There are articles—such as the stamps on fire insurance and marine insurance—on which they would gladly, if they could, grant remissions of taxation. But they have made the best choice in their power with the limited means at their disposal.
One subject that naturally presented itself to them, both in connexion with the income tax and likewise as bearing directly the character of a tax on prudence, and bearing it especially as against the poorer classes, is the present tax on life assurance. It bears very heavily on the poorer classes, though not severe in itself. At present it amounts to half-a-crown per cent. We propose to reduce it from 2s. 6d. to 6d. The produce is 40,000 l.—the immediate loss, or amount of relief gained, will be 29,000 l.
We propose next to deal with an article
1406
which in its present state is most unsatisfactory, and that is the article of stamps on receipts. This is a duty which does not grow as it ought with the transactions of the country, a duty which is evaded wholesale, and a duty which I must say entails very considerable inconvenience. It is not the mere question of charge that measures the burden and annoyance of a tax, but the necessity of dealing in particular papers, stamped with particular amounts, which you have to send and get as occasion requires, with trouble and loss of time: all these are little things, but all of them enter very much into the question of inconvenience, and create just objection to the tax. What we propose is, to make an entire change, and adopt a system analogous to the system found so convenient for the public with reference to postage—namely, that of penny stamps. We propose by a penny stamp on instruments for any payment in money, as contrasted with negotiable instruments, to make such payment valid. Though the first loss to the revenue will not be inconsiderable—namely, 155,000 l., it is not a loss without hope of recovery. We think that it is a loss to which the Committee, for the sake of so great a convenience, would be disposed to accede. The penny stamp crossed and defaced by the writing would be necessary to constitute a valid document of discharge. As you have to pay 3d., 6d., 1s. at present, so we propose to annex the single condition of affixing a penny stamp as sufficient. The stamp may also be attached to bankers' cheques, so as to make them valid and legal receipts, or in order to legalise their transmission from one place to another without limit of distance.
We propose to make a change with respect to those indentures of apprenticeship which are known as indentures without consideration. This is a duty which produces very little, from the charge being too high: from 20 s. we propose to reduce the duty to 2s. 6d.
The next question I have to mention is one popular with the majority of this House —unpopular with the minority. It is the case of the attornies. I must confess that I do not think the vote of the House of Commons taken upon this question would have justified the Government in proposing a remission of this duty, because we feel strongly that an isolated vote of the House of Commons, given on a particular duty, is given necessarily on considerations attaching to that particular duty, and without re-

1407
ference to the comparative and relative claims of others. But we do think, in consideration of legislative changes, which have been lately made, and which have tended, by indirect as well as direct action on the law, to diminish the business of attornies, that there might be some remission of taxation. What remission should it be? We are not satisfied with the proposal made by the profession. The profession is subject to three charges. The first is on admission to practice, which is small. The next is the charge for the annual certificate, which is 12 l. for the metropolitan solicitors, and 8l. for country solicitors; and, thirdly, the charge for articles of clerkship is put at the enormous amount of 120 l.—a charge on capital paid by solicitors in anticipation, though they may die, though they may turn out incompetent, or may by any one of a thousand accidents be prevented from proceeding to the profession. The profession said, "Take the tax off the annual certificates for those who are in the profession; leave those who have to enter to pay precisely the same." We do not think that would be a wise mode of dealing. Having made up our minds that we may propose a remission of about 50,000 l., we propose to apply this remission in fair proportion to the certificates and the articles of clerkship; to reduce certificates from 12 l. and 8l., to 9l. and 6l., and articles of apprenticeship from 120 l. to 80 l.
I come now to the question as to advertisements. With respect to that question, I hope the Committee will not consider that it indicates any disrespect for the judgment at which the majority of the House recently arrived, if, having the same object in view, and desiring to bring about some more effective modification of the present taxation, we, having been led by our examinations to believe that there is a better mode of proceeding than that which the House adopted, think it our duty respectfully to submit that mode of proceeding to the deliberate consideration of the Committee; and it is right I should say that the plan I am about to state was a plan which the Government had already adopted at the time of the debate on Thursday last. It may, perhaps, be said, "Why did you not say so!" My answer is this—that it was from no sentiment of mortification, that it was from no desire to practise an undue reserve; it was because we feel that, if the Executive Government is, with advantage to the country, ordiinarly o discharge the
1408
function of the initiative with respect to finance, it is absolutely necessary that the strictest silence should be observed—not in contempt of pressure, but yet, notwithstanding all pressure—till the time arrive when the views of the Government can regularly and comprehensively be disclosed.
What we propose with respect to the duty on advertisements is this—and financially our proposal comes within a mere trifle (within 20,000 l.) of the other. The present duty on advertisements at 1s. 6d. yields 181,000 l. We propose to reduce the duty from 1s. 6d. to 6d. [Mr. M. GIBSON: Oh!] The right hon. Gentleman could not wait on Thursday last for four days, and now he cannot wait for as many minutes. May I make that moderate demand on his patience? It is absurd, and most of all should it appear so to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, who has considered this question, to consider the duty on advertisements alone. You must consider it with reference to the other duties which affect the journals in which those advertisements appear.
I venture to say that, if you repeal the duty on advertisements simply, and leave the duties on the supplements on newspapers as they are, it is very doubtful whether a great part of your reduction will not go into the pockets of newspaper proprietors, and remain there without reaching the advertisers. You want a large increase in the number of advertisements, but you must take care that you don't subject people to taxation in another form by multiplying their advertisements. Take the case of the Times. You know it is obliged to limit its advertisements. I will not go into that subject; but there is a point beyond which, in consequence of the 1d. stamp on supplements, and the ½d. stamp on supplements, it does not pay to insert advertisements, on account of the expense of printing and stamping the supplement; and therefore a time conies when they must have a limit to the advertisements, and put a higher price on them, on account of the supplement.
What we propose is this—to reduce the duty on advertisements to 6d., and, instead of taking off the remainder of the duty on advertisements, to repeal altogether that with which the plan of the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to meddle—namely, the 1d. and ½d. stamps on the supplements of newspapers which are used for printing advertisements, And I venture to say the

1409
plan we propose is far more sure to secure to the advertiser the benefit of the reduction than the plan which you propose; because, if you remove the advertisement duty altogether, then, when advertisements come into a newspaper, they must either be limited to the present sheet of the newspaper, with the present limited space, and no competition, or they must be liable to that heavy stamp duty which discourages the printing of supplements.
The first loss on the advertisement duty and the supplement stamps will be 160,000 l.
The only other change we propose is contingent on a Bill, by which my noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department proposes to effect a material reduction in fares for the benefit of the metropolis. It is proposed to reduce the taxation on hackney carriages. A common hackney carriage pays 10 s. a week. We think there ought to be a reduction, in conjunction with the reduction of fares. We propose to reduce the duty from 1s. 5d. a day to 1s. a day, which will give a relief of 26,000 l. The relief from the remission of taxation on the entire division of the stamp duties will be 418,000 l.
With reference to the point of the duty on advertisements, I hope that, in addition to the proposition I have stated as regards the bearing of the plan proposed last week, and the bearing of that proposed by the Government, the Committee will be willing to consider the effect that is likely to be produced by sweeping away entirely any branches of the revenue, if it be not revenue of an objectionable description—that is, of a description which cripples trade, and interferes with convenience and comfort in a degree disproportionate to the contribution it procures towards the public expenditure. I really do not see how it is possible in principle to maintain any duty whatever on fire and marine insurances—any duty on a great many articles which I fear both have long been, and must long be, the objects of taxation—if the arguments against the present advertisement duty are to be pushed to such a length as to stop at nothing short of absolute abolition.
We propose also to the Committee, that they should attempt to make a reform of the assessed taxes. That is a proposition which cannot fail to be acceptable; but the operation is not an easy one. If it is to be successful it must proceed on three principles: the abolition of what are called the progressive duties; the abolition of what are
1410
called compositions; and, lastly, the abolition, or the almost abolition, of exemptions, and a substitution for the present obscure and complicated system of rates and taxes which shall be few, simple, and as nearly as possible uniform. What the Government propose is, that instead of the present duties on men servants, beginning at a minimum of 1l. 6s. 6d., and running up through a great variety of rates, an uniform rate of 1l. 1s. on servants above eighteen years of age shall be levied, and of 10 s. 6d. on servants under eighteen. Upon private carriages we propose, instead of minimum charges of 6l. 12 s., 4l. 15 s. 6d., and 3l. 11 s. 6d., running up as before to rates still higher, to charge 3l. 10 s., 2l., and 15 s. The duty on carriages let for hire, such as postchaises, will remain at 3l.; but the particulars relating to this subject will be more explicitly stated in the Resolutions. The duty on horses, beginning at 1l. 11 s. 7d., mounts up through a great variety of rates. We propose that trade horses shall remain as now, at 10 s. 6d., that the duty on ponies shall be 10 s. 6d., and on other horses 21 s. The hon. Member asks what we propose with respect to agricultural horses. We propose to leave them as they are now—exempt. We may be wrong. Exemptions, as exemptions, I do not like; but it appears to me that the case of agricultural horses is strictly analogous to that of steam power in factories. Our object is, irrespective of fear or favour, to propose what we think impartial justice to every class. I have received proposals suggesting the imposition of taxes on steam power. Of these I need scarcely say that they were summarily dismissed. Whatever my love of symmetry, I do not think it just to remove the exemption of duty which applies at present to horses employed in agriculture.
We propose to make a simplification of the duty on dogs. They are usually great favourites with their owners—not so much so with the rest of the community. There are two rates of charge at present on dogs —a duty of 14 s., and one of 8s.; and these different rates, inasmuch as they lead to much difficulty and evasion, we propose to unite at a sum of 12 s.
The immediate effect of these changes will be a loss of 87,000 l. on servants, 95,000 l. on private carriages, 118,000 l. on horses; but we have a gain of 10,000 l. in the case of dogs: so that the first loss by the remission of assessed taxes will be 290,000 l. As in the case of stamps, how-

1411
ever, our hope is that the first loss will in a great degree, and at an early period, be made up to the revenue. The assessed taxes are levied under seventy-two Acts of Parliament; and if the House wishes the system of these assessed taxes reformed, it must be prepared to support us in the principle of subjecting to moderate duties a great variety of articles, which now enjoy unwise and undue exemptions.
We propose, also, to change a system that does not strictly belong to the head of assessed taxes, but which is of an analogous character. I allude to the post-horse duties. The case of the post-horse masters is a very hard one. The present system is exceedingly unequal. The duty, which is heavy and burdensome, is levied on mileage, and is subjected to all manner of difficulties in the collection. It is raised by the issuing of tickets taken up at the first turnpike; and I may state, in the first instance, that I believe the largest postmasters in the kingdom are in London, whose principal traffic is to the railway stations, where there are in many cases no turnpikes whatever. Altogether, the system is indefensible, the duty too onerous in its amount, and, as I have said, very unequal in its distribution. We propose, in dealing with this matter, to take the plan that has been submitted to us by the postmasters themselves. Their own proposal was a very fair one, for they declared they were not so anxious for a remission of taxation as for an entire change of the system. They propose that the bulk of the tax shall be levied in the form of licences, which licences shall vary according to the number of horses and carriages. In this way we propose to make a remission of 54,000 a year in favour of the postmasters. We propose a scheme of duties on the licences for horses and carriages, which will realise a sum of 161,000 l. a year, giving, as I have said, a remission of 54,000 l. a year.
Another change falling more nearly under the head of assessed taxes than any other of the main divisions of my subject, is proposed with the view of giving greater facilities for the redemption of the land tax. The present provision of the law for the redemption of the land tax is very stringent, and its operation is in consequence exceedingly limited. You may redeem a tax of 1l. levied on the land, by transferring to the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt 22 s. a year in the Funds; but these are extremely unfavourable terms; and, instead of requiring 10 per cent more
1412
than the amount of the tax, we propose to reduce it by 17½ per cent; that is to say, we propose to take 7½ per cent less than the amount of stock which would yield an annual interest equal to the tax redeemed.
The Committee should be aware that any change made with relation to the assessed taxes cannot come into operation during the present year; and if at a future period of the Session we shall, in pursuance of my statement to-night, ask the House to pass an Act called an Assessed Tax Act, the operation of the change will be as follows. The Act will be framed to take effect in the financial year April 1854–5, and persons will then be charged upon the articles they may have kept, not from April, 1853, to April, 1854, but from 10th October, 1853, to 5th April, 1854. Out of all the losses of revenue, or commutations of taxes, under this branch of the assessed taxes, only one, involving the loss of 54,0001. on post-horse duty, would come into effect this year, and of this only one-half would come to charge—namely, from 10th October to the 5th of April.
I have still an important branch of remissions to mention. There will indeed be a loss of revenue in the plan proposed with reference to colonial postage, but on that I do not enter, as I doubt if any part of it will come into the present year. I pass on, therefore, to the important head of Customs Duties, which still remains untouched. Now, with reference to the Customs Duties, I may state that no branch of revenue has attracted more the attention of the Government, as they feel that it is here, after all, that the elasticity of the powers of the country has chiefly been shown; and they think that it is by these powers they are supported and justified in the proposal they are now about to make with the hope of producing an effective result as regards many articles of Customs Duties.
I will first, however, mention an article of importance in which we can make no change, and that is the article of wine. I refer to this tax, as it is a subject of peculiar susceptibility, and the cause of an agitation out of doors, which is almost as perilous to the wine duties as certain climates are to the growth of wine itself; and because it is desirable that if the House and the Government think no change can be made in the duty, that opinion of the House and the Government should be clearly and intelligibly expressed.
There are three plans, any one of which may be followed with regard to wines.

1413
One would be to reduce the duty to a low uniform duty of 1s. 6d., or 2s., or at most say 2s. 6d., the gallon. Now, you cannot do that unless you are prepared to sacrifice an amount of revenue for the first year of at the very least 700,000 l., besides an additional difficulty in regard to the drawback on stocks on hand, with respect to which it is not impossible that the Government might form a sturdy resolution in which the House of Commons might afterwards be induced not to concur. But, whether that be so or not, a loss to the revenue of 700,000 l. more on the article of wine is very serious; and the importance of the change in connexion with its cost will not, we think, advantageously bear a comparison with other objects that the Government have in view. Another plan would be to fix a duty of several rates on wine of different values, somewhat resembling the duty on different qualities of sugar. But if that is attended with difficulty in the case of sugar, with how much greater difficulty would it not be attended in that of wine? It has many recommendations, certainly, and this among them, that it would admit low classes of wine at a smaller loss to the revenue. But the Revenue Department would have the greatest difficulty in carrying out such a system; it would be complex in its operation; the wine trade, almost to a man, are opposed to it; and I cannot say that public opinion is so much in its favour as to induce us to attempt to carry it into effect. That being so, there is no choice for us but to say that, whatever be our opinion of the operation of the present wine duty, we are unable to propose any change in it, and we must pursue the third and only remaining plan—that is, to retain the existing duty; while we cannot propose any change in it at the present time, neither can we see any definite or early prospect of a change hereafter.
I go to the next article, which is Tea. I will not discuss the reasons that exist for reducing the tea duties. It would be idle to do so, for the question is already settled in public opinion, and I have yet work to do before I close. And, as we have agreed to make a reduction in the tea duties, so we have acceded to the general principle recognised by the right bon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), on the part of the late Administration, that it would be most unwise to make the reduction to 1s. by a single leap. It is almost demonstrable, so far at least as a negative is capable of demonstration, that you cannot have the slightest hope of such
1414
an immediate increase of supply as would indemnify the revenue, or even bring the loss within moderate bounds, and, what is of yet more importance, secure the main benefit of the reduction to the consumer.
What we propose is this, to take the first step just as it was to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman opposite last year, and reduce the duty, at once, from 2s. 2¼d. to 1s. 10 d. We have carefully considered the present state and prospects of the supplies of tea. The condition of the Chinese Empire, at this moment, is certainly not as favourable to such extended supplies as we could wish. We cannot entertain sanguine expectations that any very large addition will be made in the next twelve months, to the quantity available for the wants of this market; but, notwithstanding, we hope and believe, if there shall not exist a chronic state of revolution in China, which is a thing not to be supposed—that, so far as the production of tea is concerned, a short time, a couple of years probably, would be sufficient to put us in possession of a perfectly adequate addition to our supply.
We propose, therefore, to take the first step, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) took it, but we propose, thereafter, to proceed somewhat more rapidly. We shall take the first reduction from the date when the House, if it coincides with us in opinion, shall adopt the Resolutions. To the 5th of April, 1854, it will be 1s. 10 d.; to the 5th of April, 1854–5, it will be 1s. 6d.; to April, 1855–6, 1s. 3d.; and from April, 1856, it will be 1s. The whole time occupied in effecting the descent from 2s. 2¼d. to 1s. would thus be less than three years. We hope, with favourable circumstances, thus to bring in the supply necessary to meet increased demand, but we could not venture to recommend to the House the adoption of any shorter period for effecting the change. Again let me warn the Committee that they must not suppose that this is a change which, if we take a clear and dispassionate view of it, can be effected without a heavy loss to the revenue in the first instance.
The amount of remission, indeed, will be enormous. If any Gentleman will calculate the difference between 2s. 2¼d. and 1s. on the amount of tea consumed during the last year, he will find it come to nearly 3,100,000 l.,—a sum much too large to reckon upon recovering all at once. By the arrangement I have stated, the computed loss of the first year will be 366,000 l.; for the second year, 510,000 l.; for the third

1415
year, 454,000 l.; and for the fourth year, 604,000 l.; making altogether a positive diminution on the Customs revenue, in these years, of 1,934,000 l. But at the same time the loss, we trust, will undergo thenceforward a rapid and steady diminution.
In proceeding to consider more generally the state of our tariff, we have been desirous to carry into effect something like a new revision of taxes, and to apply to it wherever our means would permit, the following general rules: first, to abolish altogether the duties which are unproductive, except in cases where there may be some special reason to retain them on account of their relation to other articles; and, in the next place, to abolish, as far as considerations of revenue will permit, duties on articles of manufacture, except such as are in the last stage as finished articles, and are commonly connected with hand labour, in regard to which cases we have thought it more prudent and proper to proceed in the mode, not of abolition, but of reduction; in these cases we have endeavoured to fix the duties in such a way that as a general rule they should not stand, as to any class of goods, higher than 10 per cent on their value. As I have referred to 10 per cent, I may state that we have not thought it right to propose a reduction in the silk duties, which are 15 per cent. The question of the silk duties is mainly a question of revenue, and in regard to it we do not think it is an article that has the strongest claims upon our consideration; for, in so far as it is an article into the manufacture of which protection enters, the protection has mainly reference to certain classes of operatives with respect to whom it would be the disposition of Parliament to proceed carefully and with great circumspection.
We desire further, whenever it can be done, to take the mode of substituting rated duties for duties ad valorem, and to get rid in every case, except in a few instances where it is important on account of revenue, of the 5 per cent addition to the Customs duties made in 1840, which, besides raising duties, greatly complicates the transactions of business.
We propose, in many instances, where there are at present differential duties in favour of British possessions, to merge those differential duties altogether by lowering the foreign article to the level of the colonial; but where we are not able to lower the foreign article to the level of the colonial, we have not thought it would
1416
be considerate in any case to raise the duty on the colonial article. Lastly, we have been desirous to lower the duties that press on foreign articles of food which enter largely, if not into the necessaries of life, at any rate into what may be called the luxuries and comforts of the mass of the people.
Now, the application of this last rule will be as follows: as to articles of food, we propose to lower the duty on a number of articles, of which the principal are these:—Apples, from 6d. and 2s. a bushel to 3d.; cheese, from 5s. to 2s. 6d. per cwt.; cocoa, from 2d. to 1d. per pound; nuts, from 2s. to 1s. per bushel; eggs, from 10 d. to 4d. per 120; oranges and lemons, from a variety of rates, all of them high, to 8d. per bushel; butter, from 10 s. to 5s. per cwt.; raisins, from 15 s. 9d. to 10 s. per cwt. The produce of these articles to the revenue at the present moment is 571,000 l.; the immediate relief given by the deduction on the same quantities would be 262,000 l., but, with the allowance which we think may be made for an immediate increase of consumption, the probable net loss will be 185,000 l.
Besides, these articles of food, which are 13 in number, including tea, there are 123 articles which we propose to set altogether free from duty, involving a loss of 53,000 l., and 133 more articles which we propose to reduce, involving a gross loss of 70,000 l., but one which, with an allowance for increased consumption, may be taken at 52,000 l. The effect of this will be generally to effect a great simplification of the present system. With respect, however, to ad valorem duties, the Committee will recollect that the abolition of them, however desirable in other respects, will by no means simplify the Tariff. In several cases, for example in the case of musical instruments, we must introduce a number of complex descriptions to get rid of one apparently very simple one. The Resolutions I shall lay on the table will enable the House, when they come to the consideration of them, to assist the Government in determining whether in any of the cases I have stated it will not be better to adhere to the ad valorem duty. All I now say is, that if the proposal does not wear the appearance of simplicity that may be desired, it is because this change of necessity tends to multiply specifications.
The effect of these various changes in the Customs duties, as applicable to the year 1853–54, will be to produce a gross

1417
loss of 1,338,000 l., but a loss which, we trust, will again be reduced by increase of consumption to 658,000 l. And now, Sir, I will sum up the entire effect of these operations for the financial year 1853–54. The remissions of taxes we propose as applicable to 1853–54 will cause a gross loss in the Excise of 786,000 l., or a net loss of 771,000 l.; in stamps, a gross loss of 417,000 l., or a net loss of 200,000 l.; in post-horses, 27,000 l.; in Customs, altogether, the gross amount of 1,338,000 l., or a net loss of 658,000 l., thus showing a remission of taxation for the present year of 2,568,000 l., and a loss incurred by the revenue, after allowing for the degree in which the remission will be replaced by increased consumption, of 1,656,000 l.
Therefore, Sir, the state of the account for 1853–54 stands thus:—We have a surplus of 807,000 l. We invite you to grant us the means of raising, by new taxes, the sum of 1,344,000 l., making an available fund of 2,151,000 l. We propose to enact a remission of taxes, to take effect at once, that will entail a loss to the revenue of 1,656,000 l. There will remain a surplus sum of 493,000 l., of which a portion, exceeding 200,000 l., will be, not from permanent sources, but in the nature of occasional or incidental payment. The Committee will, I think, be of opinion that it would not be prudent, especially as we have in contemplation a scheme affecting the debt, to proceed with a surplus less than this. Indeed, it may appear too small; but the Committee will presently see that the following year, 1854–55, may make some addition to it.
I have still the important duty to discharge of redeeming the pledge which I gave the Committee, to the effect that the Government were not paltering with you or with the people of England about the income tax; but that when we say we propose to place you in a condition to remove it at a future day, which day we are prepared to fix, we make that proposal on the basis of calculations which, though they are of necessity less definite, and less susceptible of accurate verification than if they referred to the present moment only, yet, I think, are founded on a safe and reasonable basis.
First, let me present to you the balance sheet for 1854–5. We left the year 1853–54 with a surplus of about half a million, a considerable portion of which does not consist of permanent income. In 1854–55 you will have additional sources of income that
1418
will be available, more than countervailing the new charge. The additional charge will be—on the tea duties, 510,000 l.; on post horses, 27,000 l.; the remainder of the soap duties, 340,000 l.; assessed taxes, 170,000 l.; colonial postage, 40,000 l. All the additional charges which we now invite you to calculate upon for 1854–55 will be 1,087,000 l. Then the legacy duty will be available for the second year to the extent of 700,000 l.; the reduction of interest on the 3¼ per cents, of which, according to the usual principle of computation, one-half is taken credit for, will give a sum of 312,000 l. The second moiety of the extension of the income tax will add to this income 295,000 l.
Putting these sums together, you will find that the whole additional charge to be made for 1854–55 will be 1,087,000 l.; and the additional income which I propose being 1,307,000 l., there will be, so far as that year is concerned, a profit which will justify the Committee, I think, in giving its assent, notwithstanding the narrowness of the surplus with reference to the extent of the scheme, to the remissions which I have proposed. At the same time it is right that the Committee should have fully and clearly in view the complete extent of these remissions of indirect taxation. They will be as follows:—Soap duties, 1,126,000 l.—(I am now taking the extent of the relief or immediate loss to revenue, without any allowance for the recovery in cases of reduced duty); stamps, 418,000 l.; assessed taxes, 290,090 l.; post horses, 54,000 l.; total, so far as the Board of Inland Revenue is concerned, 1,888,000 l. Then, in the Customs duties, the gross loss will be no less than 3,084,000 l.; on articles of food—butter, cheese, and the rest —262,000 l.; on minor duties, 120,000 l.; or a total relief under the head of Customs duties of 3,466,000 l. Adding, to these various amounts the small suns I have described under the head of colonial postage 40,000 l.—the entire amount of remissions of indirect taxation to which the Government now invite the Committee to assent, will be not less than 5,384,000 l.
With this remission of indirect taxation we propose to combine the bringing about a state of things, or the rational prospect of a state of things, in which you can, if you so please, really part with the income tax. Let me now, therefore, represent to you the state of accounts which sums up and winds up the whole of this protracted statement. The remissions of indirect

1419
taxation proposed, amount, as I have just explained, to a gross loss of 5,384,000 l. Looking back to the remissions which have been made in late years, which began in 1842, and which were renewed on a very large scale in 1845 and 1846, we find that these remissions—within terms, as to some of them of eleven years, some of them of five or six years, but in the mean term of seven or eight years—have completely, or almost completely, recovered themselves.
The effect of such remissions in the way of recovery we have found to be two-fold: first, that upon the consumer of the particular article, enabling him to increase his particular consumption of the various articles; secondly, that upon the general consumer, operating for the extension and invigoration of the trade of the country, and in that way extending and widening the means of consumption on the part of the great body of the people, and so in a still more powerful manner replacing the first loss occasioned by remission. We assume, that what has happened before will happen again; that these remissions of indirect taxation, which are analogous to the remissions that have been made heretofore, will, as these former remissions have done, replace themselves in about the same time; and, I therefore, assume that, so far as these remissions are concerned, you will, by the expiration of the income tax, find these taxes very nearly in amount what they now are. I will not enter into the question of what taxes you may think proper to repeal or reduce in the interval. It is sufficient for me to provide for the remissions which I now propose, and in the proposal of which I do not invite you to undermine—but, on the contrary, I ask you to increase and confirm—the stability of the financial system of the country.
How are we to attain a rational prospect of being able to part with the income tax in 1860? The country, after so many announcements that have been made to it from time to time that the income tax was to be parted with, has become, doubtless, incredulous on the subject, and may, perhaps, conceive that we are aiming at a fictitious and undeserved popularity when we seek to show that, together with our remissions of indirect taxation, we can enable the House to surrender the income tax; but the statements shall be put plainly before the Committee—the Committee and the country can form their own judgment on them.
The amount of the income tax, as we
1420
have it now, is 5,550,000 l.; this amount will be increased, as I have proposed, by the addition of 590,000 l. The gross amount, therefore, of this duty, so increased, will be 6,140,000 l. I will not enter into a detail of its composition, and of the descending rates, but, taking the tax at 6,140,000 l., let us inquire in what condition Parliament will stand with reference to the parting with so large a sum of money. It will stand thus:—In the first place, there will be available, as additions to the permanent sources of income—legacy duty, 2,000,000 l.; spirits, 436,000 l.; licences, 113,000 l.; making a total of 2,549,000 l. towards the fund which we must provide in order to put Parliament in a position, if it should so think fit, to part with the income tax.
Then we come to the anticipated reductions of charge, which of course will be as effectual to the purpose in view as positive additions to the revenue. The first of these reductions of charge is that on the 3¼ per Cents, which we owe to the wise measure of the right hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) in 1844; that measure will bring to the account 624,000 l. Then, bad as is our case with regard to the national debt, and loth as I am to encourage extravagant expectations in that quarter, yet it must be recollected that by the regular application of surpluses, and by the lapse of annuities, we in a small way operate from year to year, both on the capital of the debt and on the annual charge. Look back for the last eleven years, and you will find that since 1842 we have reduced the charge of the national debt, by these minor measures, irrespective of greater operations, at the rate of 80,000 l. per annum. I will assume this to continue. I trust, a safe assumption, for I venture to hope that whatever the pressure upon our finances, and whoever may hold the reins of government, we shall always think it one of our main public duties—the very first of our duties—to make ample provision for maintaining the efficiency of the public service, and the credit and honour of the country. I will assume, I say, that we shall continue to have the same amount applicable to the yearly reduction of the charge which we have had heretofore; and, taking that amount accordingly at 80,000 l. per annum for the eight years up to 1861, this will give you a sum of 640,000 l.
Adding this reduction of charge, which may be reasonably expected, to the sums to be created by the new means of tax-

1421
ation—which latter I have stated to be 2,549,000 l.—we shall have an aggregate total of 3,813,000 l. Then, in 1859–60, there will fall in the heavy burden of the Long Annuities and of another large portion of our terminable annuities. The first of these is 1,292,000 l., the second 854,000 l., together they will operate a relief of 2,146,000 l. Adding this amount to the sum of 3,813,000 l., which I have already stated, you will find that, between the additional resources from taxation, and the reduction of charge which will accrue in the interval, and the falling in of the Long and other Annuities at the expiration of the period I have named, there will be an available increase of means at the disposal of Parliament, should the present plan of the Government be adopted, in the year 1860, to no less an amount than 5,959,000 l., against the 6,140,000 l. of income tax, which will be the total amount of that tax at that period. In the year 1860–1, half of the income tax at 5d. will be available. The balance I have stated will be applicable as respects the following year. The Committee may now judge whether I have been justified in the language I have used with respect to the surrender of the income tax. I have only to add that its surrender, added to the other changes we have now proposed, would make up in all a remission of taxes to the extent of 11,500,000 l.
Thus, then, Sir, if the Committee has followed me, they will understand that we found ourselves on the principle that the income tax ought to be marked as a temporary measure; that the public feeling that relief should be given to intelligence and skill as compared with property, ought to be met, and may be met, with justice and with safety, in the manner we have pointed out; that the income tax in its operation ought to be mitigated by every rational means, compatible with its integrity; and, above all, that it should be associated in the last term of its existence, as it was in its first, with those remissions of indirect taxation which have so greatly redounded to the profit of this country, and have set so admirable an example—an example that has already in some quarters proved contagious—to the other nations of the earth.
These are the principles on which we stand, and these the figures. I have shown you that if you grant us the taxes which we ask, to the moderate amount of 2,500,000 l. in the whole, much less than
1422
that sum for the present year, you, or the Parliament which may be in existence in 1860, will be in the condition, if it shall so think fit, to part with the income tax.
Sir, I scarcely dare to look at the clock, reminding me, as it must, how long, how shamelessly I have trespassed on the time of the Committee. All I can say in apology is, that I have endeavoured to keep closely to the topics which I had before me—
"—immensum spatiis confecimus æquor,
Et jam tempus equûm fumantia solvere colla."
These are the proposals of the Government. They may be approved, or they may be condemned, but I have at least this full and undoubting confidence, that it will on all hands be admitted, that we have not sought to evade the difficulties of our position—that we have not concealed those difficulties either from ourselves or from others; that we have not attempted to counteract them by narrow or flimsy expedients; that we have proposed plans which, if you will adopt them, will go some way to close up many vexed financial questions—questions such as, if not now settled, may be attended with public inconvenience, and even with public danger, in future years and under less favourable circumstances; that we have endeavoured, in the plans we have now submitted to you, to make the path of our successors in future years not more arduous, but more easy; and I may be permitted to add, that while we have sought to do justice, by the changes we propose in taxation, to intelligence and skill, as compared with property —while we have sought to do justice to the great labouring community of England by further extending their relief from indirect taxation, we have not been guided by any desire to put one class against another; we have felt we should best maintain our own honour, that we should best meet the views of Parliament, and best promote the interests of the country, by declining to draw any invidious distinction between class and class, by adopting it to ourselves as a sacred aim, to diffuse and distribute—burden if we must; benefit if we may—with equal and impartial hand; and we have the consolation of believing that by proposals such as these we contribute, as far as in us lies, not only to develop the material resources of the country, but to knit the hearts of the various classes of this great nation yet more closely than heretofore to that Throne and to those institutions under which it is their happiness to live.

SUMMARY OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Estimated Revenue.

Estimated Expenditure.

Customs

£20,680,000

Funded Debt

£27,500,000

Excise

14,640,000

Unfunded Debt

304,000

Stamps

6,700,000

Taxes

3,250,000

27,804,000

Income Tax

5,550,000

Consolidated Fund

2,503,000

Post Office

900,000

Army

6,025,000

Crown Lands

390,000

Navy

6,235,000

Miscellaneous

320,000

Ordnance

3,053,000

Old Stores

460,000

Civil Estimates

4,476,000

Anticipated Saving from Reduction of the 3 per cents

100,000

Commissariat

557,000

Militia

530,000

Caffre War

200,000

Packet Service

800,000

£52,990,000

£52,183,000

Estimated Surplus, £807,000

Increase of Revenue from Taxes and Duties proposed to be increased or extended.

Extension of Income tax to all incomes between 100 l. and 150 l. per annum, at the rate of 5d. per pound

£250,000

Extension of Income tax to Ireland

460,000

£710,000

Deduct loss by exempting from tax all sums of income devoted to life-assurance, estimated at

120,000

Net increase of Income tax

590,000

Extension of Legacy duty to real property

£2,000,000

Increase of 1s. per gallon on Scotch spirits, namely, from 3s. 8d. to 4s. 8d.

318,000

Allowance for waste on spirits in bond

40,000

278,000

Increase of 8d. per gallon on Irish spirits, namely, from 2s. 8d. to 3s. 4d.

238,000

Allowance as above

40,000

198,000

476,000

Less allowance for waste in England

40,000

436,000

Increase from alteration in scale of licences to brewers and dealers in tea, coffee, tobacco, and soap

113,000

Total

£3,139,000

Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be raised annually during the terms hereinafter limited, the several Rates and Duties following (that is to say):—
"For and in respect of the property in any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, in the United Kingdom, and for and in respect of every annuity, pension, or stipend, payable by Her Majesty or out of the Public Revenue of the United Kingdom; and for and in respect of all interest of money, annuities, dividends, and shares of annuities payable to any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, companies or societies, whether corporate or not corporate; and for and in respect of the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to any person or persons whatever, resident in the United Kingdom, from any kind of property whatever, whether situate in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, or from any annuities, allowances, or stipends, or from any profession, trade, or vocation, whether the same shall be respectively exercised in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and for and in respect of the annual profits or gains arising or accruing to any person or persons not resident within the United Kingdom from any property whatever in the United Kingdom, or from any trade, profession, or vocation, exercised in the United Kingdom; for every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount thereof—

For two years from April 5, 1853

0

0

7

And for two years from April 5, 1855

0

0

6

And for three years from April 5, 1857

0

0

5

And that on April 5, 1860, except as to the collection of monies then due, the said Rates and duties shall cease and determine.
"And for and in respect of the occupation of such lands, tenements, and hereditaments (other than a dwelling-house occupied by a tenant distinct from a farm of lands), for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof, one moiety of each of the said sums of 7d., 6d., and 5d., for the above-named times respectively."
MR. HUMEsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was so extensive that it was impossible, without some consideration, to weigh its disadvantages and its advantages. There was this great point about the statement—that it manifested the determination to carry out the principles of free trade; but he deeply regretted the manner in which the question of the income tax had been taken up. He was quite satisfied, if additions were made year after year in this manner to the taxation of the country, that the results would be extremely disastrous. He believed the Government was now about to put a pressure on the best interests of the country greater than they could well bear. He was satisfied that the taxation of the country would never be placed on a proper footing until a property tax to a large extent, and justly
1426
regulated, became a permanent source of revenue. From such a tax 8,000,000 l. or 9,000,000 l. a year might be easily raised. He regretted, too, that any increased taxation should have been proposed, considering, as he did, the expenditure which gave rise to that increased taxation worse than useless. He thought continuing a tax for the term proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, was almost making it a perpetuity, without giving the House the advantage of deciding whether or not it should be so. If they were to add to the taxation, he must express his regret that they had not adopted a simple, easy, and possible mode of raising the required amount of revenue without one-tenth of the difficulties which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had felt in bringing forward his Budget.
MR. FREWENsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some explanation of what he meant to do with the land tax.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that under the present system they might redeem a given amount of land tax by transferring to the Commissioners of the National Debt as much stock as would produce a dividend the amount of the land tax and 10 per cent more. What he proposed was, that, instead of being bound to give as much stock as would produce the amount of land tax and 10 per cent more, they might redeem it by giving as much stock as would produce the duty less 7½ per cent; that was, altogether, 17½ per cent less than at present.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he had been prepared to receive the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman with very great approbation; but he received it with deep regret, and should do all he could to induce the House to vote against it when it came regularly before them. When the corn laws were repealed, it was expected that some relief would be given to the agriculturists, and he was exceedingly surprised, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had neglected to afford them the relief of the repeal of the malt tax. As to the reduction of the duty on tea, the poorer classes would derive no benefit from it, for it had been ascertained that the greater part of the tea that was consumed was purchased in quantities from a quarter of an ounce to a quarter of a pound. The late Government was wrecked on the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and it was not unlikely the present Government might be wrecked from the same cause.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he understood that, as to the advertisement duty in England, there was to be a remission of 1s., so that it would be 6d. only instead of 1s. 6d. But the advertisement duty in Ireland was but 1s. He should wish, therefore, to know what the duty was to be in future? In Ireland there was no such thing as a supplement to a paper known, and he believed that even in London, too, the Times alone published a supplement.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the advertisement duty would be uniform in both countries.
MR. COBDENsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to remit the stamps on all supplements, or whether he meant to put the stamp on supplements with news?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the remission of the stamp duty would not extend to supplements that were simply an extension of newspapers.
MR. COBDEN: Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that supplements might go by post?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Certainly.
MR. HUMEsaid, he wished the Government would take into their consideration this absurdity—that ships built with foreign timber might be brought into this country free of duty, but timber to build ships here cannot without paying duty.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was extremely sorry to say his want of means, and not his want of will, prevented him from taking off the timber duty. If his hon. Friend would give him 300,000 l. or 400,000 l. more, he might be able to do so.
MR. HUMEsaid, that if the property tax was fairly levied it would g ve 10,000,000 l., and would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take off the timber duty, and do much more.
The House resumed.
Committee report progress.

COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he objected to the Bill being read a third time, on the ground that the measure was unnecessary. He understood the object of
1428
it was to correct a supposed misapprehension of the law on the part of Mr. Justice Erle, in a case that was tried before him at Stafford in 1851. It was supposed that he laid it down as the law, that workmen could not legally combine for their mutual protection with a view to keep up the rate of wages, or limit the number of hours during which their masters might employ them. He believed the learned Judge had stated the law correctly; but whether that were so or not, the Court of Queen's Bench had stated the law upon the subject quite correctly. The learned Judge stated that the law was quite clear, and that workmen had a right to combine for their own protection, to obtain such wages as they chose to demand, or to gain themselves any benefit; but a combination to prevent men from working, or for any such purpose, was unlawful. The case afterwards came on before the Court of Queen's Bench, and they laid down the law in the same way. He could not, therefore, think this Bill was necessary.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, it was very well for the hon. and learned Gentlemen to say the Bill was unnecessary, but he had stated no other reason against it. It was to do what was intended by the Remedial Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) several years ago. There had been great discussions between the masters and workmen for many years; and Lord Stanley, at that time a Member of the House of Commons, presided over the Committee, and a Bill was prepared, with which all parties were satisfied, and which put an end to all disputes. So the matter stood as to the necessity of the case. The Bill might be unnecessary for the Attorney General, or possibly for himself; but there had been contradictory decisions in the Courts of Law. Lord Chief Justice Campbell might lay down the law, but he was not immortal; and another king might arise who knew not Joseph, and who might decide another way. As a proof that the law was not clear, nine persons had got imprisonment for three months and to pay the costs, amounting to 3,000 l. All he asked by this Bill was to have a declaratory Statute stating what the law really was.
MR. HUMEsupported the Bill.
Question put.
The House divided:…Ayes 57; Noes 70: Majority 13.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Earl of Leven and Melville; Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Jewish Disabilities.
3a Vaccination Extension.

THE COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH.
The EARL of WINCHILSEA, after presenting a very large number of petitions for the repeal of the Maynooth College (Ireland) Act, said: My Lords, before I proceed to call your Lordships' attention to the Motion with which I shall conclude my observations, and which I hope will receive your Lordships' general assent, allow me to express my deep and heartfelt pleasure that this question is now about to be laid before you—though at the same
1292
time I regret it should not have been brought under your consideration by abler and more competent hands. I am my Lords, fully sensible how totally incapable I am to deal with this important question, owing to the humble nature of the talent I possess. My Lords, Session after Session I have waited with the earnest hope and expectation that the open and avowed attempts which the Church of Rome has been carrying on of late in this country to effect a total overthrow and subversion of our Protestant Church and institutions, and to re-establish on their ruins her lost power in this country, would have engaged the serious attention of each succeeding Government—that they would have induced them to institute a strict and searching inquiry whether these attempts, of a spiritual character, on the part of that ambitious and overweening Church, were not altogether inconsistent with the safety of the Protestant Establishment of these realms, and should not be repressed by our Protestant Government in this country, where the great principles of civil and religious liberty are not alone recognised, but may be said to be our boast and delight.
My Lords, you are aware that between two and three years ago the Pope of Rome committed one of the most flagrant acts of aggression on the Crown and dignity of the Protestant Sovereign of this great empire, as well as of outrage on the Protestant feeling, such as had never been offered in the history of mankind by one friendly country to another. Without the least previous communication on the subject, which at the least, would be but courtesy, or inquiry into the state of feeling here, and on which feeling Her Majesty's Crown is based, the Pope of Rome dared to issue a bull, by which he established a Catholic hierarchy in this portion of our Sovereign's dominions, which he had the unparalleled audacity to divide into sees and episcopates, for the avowed purpose of establishing the canon law in this realm, and also set a prince of his own selection above our heads. In the Session of 1851 the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was passed, after a whole Session being consumed, and all public business brought to a stand. Notwithstanding, that Bill does not provide against the introduction of Romish bishops into England, or offer any opposition to them; it merely prohibits the assumption of territorial titles and jurisdiction by those bishops. Even these are

1293
prohibited in a manner so guarded that evidence of the offence is difficult to be got at, notwithstanding the offence has been so openly and avowedly committed that I believe Her Majesty's Attorney General, if placed at that bar, would have little difficulty in bringing forward irrefragable proofs of the offences prohibited by the Bill. In fact, notwithstanding the strong Protestant feeling manifested at that period against this aggression of a foreign law and potentate, yet that canon law has been introduced into this kingdom with the knowledge and consent of Her Majesty's Ministers. Now, my Lords, I wish to know the nature and character of that law, and its effect on civil and religious liberty, which I hold to be far dearer than life, sealed as it has been by the blood of our fathers, and transmitted to us as a birthright. My Lords, the canon law of Rome is antagonistic to the civil law, not alone of this country, but even of the several Catholic countries in Europe, in many of which it will not be permitted to be promulgated. Now if Roman Catholic sovereigns will not permit that law to be promulgated in their dominions because it has been found to be hostile to all government and authority, I insist that, à fortiori, this Protestant State ought to take all precautions to prevent its being brought into operation against themselves by its subjects. Now if the Legislature enact laws for the government of the people of this realm, and at the same time suffer them to be rendered inoperative by the antagonistic legislation of a foreign Power, it will not be alone opposed to all independence and responsibility, but it will be a virtual handing over of the Protestant institutions of the country to the Pope of Rome. I suppose I shall be met by some noble Lord with the reply that "canon law is entirely confined to religious matters, and that the canon law cannot affect the religion of this country." God grant, my Lords, the day will never come, or that we shall live to see it, when the power of the Church of Rome may be developed in this country! and I am sure, if the Legislature and the people of this Protestant realm be but true to themselves, canon law will never find effect in this land of free and enlightened opinion, as we have seen it recently developed among the inhabitants of Tuscany. My Lords, with a view to establish and carry out this canon law in England, under the superintendence of his own hierarchy, the Pope of Rome
1294
has established an episcopate solely and expressly with that object. Now, it strikes me that we should examine into this question extensively, and also that we should investigate the nature and character of the education supplied to those candidates for the priesthood, upon whom will hereafter devolve the duty of carrying out the principles and wishes of the potentate of Rome. It is of importance, my Lords, that we should thoroughly examine this question of the education of the priesthood of Ireland, seeing the fearful power they exercise, not only by influencing their feelings, but also in compelling the consciences of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. Now, there is one college supported at the public expense where that law is taught, and the system of education adopted within its walls is a fair subject for public inquiry. Now, my Lords, the facilities which we possess for investigating the system of education and the subsequent training of the College of Maynooth, are so complete and so abundant, that I have to propose that they should be availed of; for we have at this moment before us all the great works upon dogmatic as well as moral theology—in fact, copies of all the important documents published under the authority of the Romish priesthood, and authenticated by constant and daily use in Maynooth. These documents have been placed in the libraries of the three great Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin. Perhaps your Lordships will recollect that at the time of the Papal aggression a document was published under the authority of the Roman hierarchy, which gave full and ample information, not only as to the canon law of Rome, in which the priesthood of Maynooth are instructed, but also as to the canon law which the Roman Catholic hierarchy set forth in the year 1832. Well, my Lords, in consequence of this statement, a requisition was drawn up by gentlemen of Huntingdonshire, to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, requesting him to allow these documents to be investigated by competent authority, and to have their contents certified by men of learning, character, and respectability. My Lords, I hold in my hand the book which contains the report drawn up in consequence of that requisition, and I will take the liberty of reading both the requisition and the answer. The requisition was as follows, and, as your Lordships will perceive, it

1295
was signed by the Duke of Manchester, and several other Members of your House. It said:—
"We whose names are hereunto subscribed consider it to be a matter of high importance to the security and well-being of the institutions of this country that the character and objects of the Papal canon law should be investigated and ascertained. The Pope has presumed to parcel out England into dioceses, over which he appoints bishops, who, as Cardinal Wiseman has distinctly stated, are required for the express purpose of carrying the canon law into effect. The obvious duty, therefore, of the Protestants in this Empire is to ascertain what is the canon law, to the introduction of which so much importance is attached. We have been informed that original and authentic Papal documents have been deposited in the university library at Cambridge, which demonstrate both the nature of the moral theology inculcated in the authorised interpretation of Holy Scriptures, by the Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland, for the instruction both of priests and laity, and also, which is the great point in question, the principles of the canon law, said to have been introduced into Ireland when the Roman Catholics had obtained political power in 1832. We understand that at the very time these bishops were making public professions of gratitude and loyalty, they were pronouncing, in their secret statutes, a sentence of excommunication against all heretics; that they set up a code of canon law, Benedict IV., which contains, among others, laws for the restitution of all forfeited property held by heretics—for the extermination of all heretics out of their diocese—for compelling Roman Catholics, under the heaviest spiritual penalties, to submit to and obey the temporal commands of the Pope, with others of a similar import. We therefore make our respectful request to the right worshipful the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, that he would be pleased to cause that these documents, deposited in the public library of the University, should, either by a syndicate appointed for the purpose, or in any other way that he may think fit, be fairly investigated, and a report made thereon, so that it may be known, from competent authority, what is the real character of the moral theology of Roman Catholics, as set forth in their interpretation of Scripture, and of the canon law, so far as it regards Protestants, which has been for some years acted on in Ireland, and which it is intended, by the bold step lately taken, to establish in this country. For it is manifest to us, that a code of laws involving the principles above stated, could not be permitted to work uncontrolled in the heart of a free State, without leading to consequences which it is fearful to contemplate."
And here, my Lords, is the answer returned by Vice-Chancellor King:—
"Cambridge, Feb. 4, 1852.
"My dear Sir—As I suppose that all the sheets of the report are by this time printed off, it may be satisfactory to you to be informed, that the extracts from the several documents therein referred to were duly verified by friends of mine on whom I can depend, and that I have myself taken pains to see that such corrections as my friends
1296
found occasion to supply have been attended to in the printing.—Yours, very truly,
"Rev. E. Baines. "G. E. CORRIE."
Further, I am also able to lay before your Lordships the following certificate from the University of Oxford:—
"We, the undersigned, having carefully examined the report, printed in London, 1852, on the documents of the Church of Rome, deposited in the Bodleian Library, 1840; and having compared all the extracts from these important documents cited in that report with the original works, do hereby certify that these extracts are accurately and fairly made, and convey, as far as they go, the just and true meaning of the works from which they are respectively taken, on the several subjects on which they are cited in the report."
"JOHN DAVID MACBRIDE, D.C.L., Principal of Magdalen Hall.
"R. GANDELL, M.A., Assistant Tutor, Magdalen Hall.
"Oxford, April 23, 1852."
And the following is the report made by Trinity College, Dublin:—
"We, whose names are hereto subscribed, leaving examined a book entitled A Report on the Books and Documents on the Papacy deposited in the University Library, Cambridge, the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, A.D. 1840, printed at London, and published by Partridge and Oakey, 1852, the said books and documents having been examined under the permission of the provost and senior fellows, do hereby certify that the several extracts contained in the above report having been carefully compared with the books and documents deposited in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, have been fairly made, and do accurately correspond with the same.
"JOHN HENDERSON SINGER, D.D., Archdeacon of Raphoe, and Regius Professor of Divinity, Trinity College, Dublin.
"GEORGE SIDNEY SMITH, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, and Rector of Aghalurcher.
"S. BUTCHER, D.D., F.T.C.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin.
"Trinity College, March 25, 1852."
Therefore, my Lords, we have the evidence of the truth of the documents in this report certified by able and learned men from our three Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin—by men whose high character and station supply the amplest grounds for crediting their assertions —men who were never seen mixing themselves up with parties or political contests, who endeavoured throughout their lives never to separate themselves from the sacred duties of their holy calling—men, in whose regard, if I could take the sense of your Lordships' House upon such a question, a unanimous testimony of the

1297
most honourable character would be returned. But, my Lords, we have the documents themselves, if the evidence before us is not deemed sufficiently complete, and which will fully testify to the accuracy of the reports to which I have alluded; therein we have the means of investigation ready made to hand, and which have been submitted to the process of proof. I, therefore, must assert, my Lords, that there never was presented to your Lordships a better opportunity of bringing evidence more complete to bear out this question than in the Committee which I propose to your Lordships. My Lords, it is of peculiar importance, in my humble judgment, at a moment when Rome is making every effort to establish her power throughout the world, that we should become as accurately informed as possible as to the whole bearing of a system whose dominion we shall have to contend against; for it must be remembered, that when Mr. Pitt proposed his well-known questions to the most celebrated Catholic universities, the answers which he received from them were considered a manly refutation of the worst charges made against the Church of Rome. Now, my Lords, I do not ask you to grant an inquiry into the religious doctrines of the Church of Rome. No; such an inquiry as that must be deprecated on all accounts, for it would lead to a religious warfare—to a strife of creeds, utterly unproductive of any beneficial results. But, my Lords, I demand that an inquiry shall be instituted into the moral teaching, into the social doctrines, taught at the College of Maynooth; and which I am prepared to contend are totally subversive of those great principles upon which the civil and religious liberty of the Protestants of this great empire are founded. And I am content to rest that proof upon the report in my hand—a report that will lay bare and unmask all the strange contrarieties, all the anomalies of the system which the British Parliament is recognising by its repeated votes. For if the canon law is such as I have described—if the Roman Catholic priesthood are educated as I have stated—if their system of dogmatic and moral theology be such as accounted in this report, I am prepared to contend, no matter how great the ability that meets me, that it is utterly impossible that the condition of the people of Ireland could be otherwise than what it is. And, further, if we find, my Lords, that the canon law taught at
1298
Maynooth, and under which the Romish hierarchy of Ireland has been organised, so far from taking cognisance solely of religious considerations, is almost wholly and entirely taken up with dissertations and explanations upon the temporal power and authority of the Pope—in fact, if the only spiritual element throughout these treatises is that which points to the vast powers of the Pope, which enable him, through the agency of the bishops and priests of Rome, to overcome the wishes and understanding of the people—I would then ask your Lordships, will you any longer remain in the dark upon a subject so nearly concerning the civil and religious liberty of Protestants as well as Roman Catholics, and which affects the lives of all British subjects throughout the world? And in order to allow your Lordships to judge how far this moral teaching of the priests of Rome is mixed up with instructions of a purely secular, of a purely political, character, I will read to you the following extract, which is headed

THE EXECUTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE COURT OF ROME.
"It is briefed as follows:—
"'In the bull Pastoralis Regiminis, tom. i., n. 47, laymen hindering the execution of the mandates, citations, and other provisions of the Court of Rome, are smitten with excommunications reserved to the Roman Pontiff, as also they who afford aid, counsel, or favour to those who hinder matters of this sort. But regulars and ecclesiastical persons incur suspension ipso facto, as well from the exercise of their orders as of their offices, both which censures are reserved to the Roman Pontiff; but notaries or scribes refusing to make public instruments of provisions and executions of this sort at the instance of the party, are deprived of their office of notary, and are declared infamous.'
"Here there can be no question on the subject. It is impossible that any instrument could be framed to bring a whole population more directly under the temporal power of the Pope. The bull is evidently not one of a spiritual nature; it does not even affect to be so. It is the political power —the 'Court of Rome is a political expression,' as we learn from the evidence of Dr. M'Hale (No. 17, p. 45); and here the whole body of ecclesiastics, bishops, priests, and monks, seculars and regulars, are at once suspended from their orders and offices, and reserved to the Pope; and the whole body of laymen are smitten with excommunication reserved to the Pope, if they offer the least obstruction to the mandates and provisions of the Court of Rome, or if they afford any counsel or aid or favour to those who do so. Let us just consider in one single practical point how this bull must tell upon this nation. Let us suppose in this case at this moment pending, a bull is issued by the Pope affecting the rights and prerogatives of our Sovereign and the whole empire. Her Majesty's Government bring in a Bill to op-

1299
pose it. But if a single Roman Catholic Member in either House of Parliament, whatever his opinion be, shall dare to oppose it, or to favour or aid the opposition of the Government, he is smitten with excommunication, and reserved to the Pope—so that, unless he is really an unbeliever in the power of the Church to forgive his sins, and in a temporal position to despise her threats, as a noble Lord, a Roman Catholic, has well remarked, he must choose between his duty to the Pope and his Sovereign. Such a bull as this, therefore, enables the Pope directly to wield the whole body of Roman Catholic Members of either House of Parliament who submit to his authority against the rights of our Sovereign and the dearest interests of our country."
Now, in order to exemplify the working of this system, let us suppose that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government has a measure to bring forward, deeply affecting the interests of this Protestant country; and should it chance that a single Member of Parliament attached to the Romish faith did not, at the bidding of his ecclesiastical superiors, oppose by every means in his power the progress of the measure, he will be immediately smitten with the severest penalties of excommunication. Now, my Lords, if the Roman Catholics of this country must bow to the temporal authority of the Church of Rome, under a law introduced into this country, and, as I before stated, enforced by all the fearful sanctions which Rome can bring to bear upon them, let me ask you what security have the Roman Catholics of this country that their liberties will be maintained, or what assurance have their Protestant fellow-countrymen that their allegiance to the Throne will remain unimpaired? Look at the terror under which at the late elections the priests of Rome drove their congregations to the poll. In order to give your Lordships a specimen of the teaching sometimes delivered to Roman Catholics in this country, I will read the following extract from a sermon delivered by a priest named Mawe, and which was made the subject of comment about the time of the last elections. He says—
"If there be a Catholic elector of this borough who will dare to go forward and register his vote for the English enemy, pass him by with scorn and contempt. Do not be seen to walk with him, to talk to, or associate with him. Let him fester in his corruption; be not you contaminated by any contact with a wretch so base and degraded. Despise him. If you meet him on the high road, pass over to the other side. Have no dealing with him. Make him understand that he cannot afford to brave the honest indignation of his fellow-countrymen. Electors of Tralee, you—the honest electors—who have always upheld the independence of your town, assemble in a body to-morrow; go to those unfortunate wretches, and make
1300
them acquainted with the consequences of their guilt. For my part I will confess to you what my feelings are with respect to those wretched and corrupt Catholics. Let me suppose one of those wretches prostrated by sickness. Suppose the hand of death heavy upon him, and that a messenger comes to me to attend him in his dying moments, if there were no other priest in the way I would be bound to go; I dare not refuse to attend him. But I confess to you that I would be sorry from my heart to be called upon to attend the death-bed of such a being. I would go to attend such a wretch with a heavy heart, without much hope, because I would feel that I was going to administer sacraments to one whose conscience was so seared and whose heart was so rotten at the core, that I could not have much expectation of effecting a conversion. Overpowered with the impression that I was about to visit a perjured wretch, who, for a miserable bribe, had betrayed the dearest interests of his country and his religion, and borne down with the harrowing reflection that God in his just anger might leave such a wretch to die in his sins, I would fear that my mission would be fruitless—that I could have no hope of converting a heart so hardened, so lost to every sense of duty and religion, as to vote in support of those who would trample on the Lord of Hosts."
This man, my Lords, is only a sample of the general character of the priesthood, and under such circumstances it is totally absurd for the country to shut its eyes as to what is going on. If such be the spirit inculcated at Maynooth, it was downright folly and madness to allow that institution to exist any longer. We know what Rome is effecting in other countries, and that the constitution of this kingdom is the only barrier to the establishment of Rome's thraldom over all the countries of the world. A Roman Catholic nobleman had lately said, that, friendly as he was to the extension of every privilege of his Church, he was of opinion that it was only under the shelter of the British constitution that the liberties of the rest of Europe could be extended. It is to be remarked, my Lords, that the bulls which have been sent to this country for the purpose of establishing the temporal power of the Pope, are the very same bulls which by name have been excluded from Naples, Spain, Portugal, France, and other Roman Catholic countries. If such doctrines are the result of teaching the canon law, and the canon law is introduced and taught in the college of Maynooth, then it is time that such an institution should be put down. My Lords, in introducing this question, I can assure your Lordships I have done so totally irrespective of party feeling, and without the slightest feeling of hostility to any Member of Her Majesty's Government. My only object is to uphold the Protestant religion

1301
within these realms. The noble Earl at the head of the Government has proposed to substitute a Commission instead of a Committee. I object to a Commission, because it has no power to compel the attendance of witnesses; but if the noble Earl will say that the Commission shall consist of four persons, two of whom should be recommended to Her Majesty by the Government, and the other two by those who entertain views similar to those entertained by myself, I will then withdraw my Motion; but if the noble Earl will not accede to that proposal, I must ask your Lordships to sanction the appointment of the Committee for which I now beg to move. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the System of Education pursued at the College of Maynooth, and its Results."
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I shall not think it necessary to abuse your Lordships' patience by renewing the discussion on what has been called Papal aggression, which occupied so much of your time two years ago. I confess, I think the debates on that subject cannot be looked back to with any great satisfaction by any noble Lord. My Lords, while I appreciate the feelings with which the noble Earl has introduced the subject, I cannot help saying that the Motion he has made by no means answers the observations with which he prefaced it. Surely, if he thinks the importance of the question so great, and the danger so imminent, as he has described, it is not a Motion for inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth, but which ought to have ended by proposing to your Lordships a proposition for some measure to meet the emergency he has so strongly depicted. To the bare objects of the noble Earl's Motion, I do not intend to offer any opposition. On the contrary, I think it perfectly reasonable and fitting, that over an institution endowed, established, and maintained by the State, Parliament should exercise the right of supervision and inspection, in order to see that the intentions of the Legislature have been fully and honestly carried out. But then it must be according to the intentions of the Legislature that you must inquire. You are not to expect Protestant doctrines in a Roman Catholic college. You are not to inquire, or at least you are not to interfere with or control the doctrines, the religious discipline, and the worship of the Church of Rome. These are what the Legislature
1302
meant to establish and recognise in that College. My Lords, although we say this, and support an institution which has received the sanction of the Legislature for the last sixty years, we are still told that in doing so we are abandoning our duty to our country and our God. Why, my Lords, if the noble Earl looks around he will find that many of his own friends are included in the same terms of reprobation which he would extend to us. But, my Lords, after all, what is the real object of this inquiry? The noble Earl speaks of inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth; but surely that is not the real object contemplated. The object of the noble Earl —he has more than once propounded to your Lordships—is to overthrow the whole establishment at Maynooth; to withdraw the usual grants, and annihilate the system which has been so long established and protected by Parliament. Now, my Lords, I think it is unnecessary to refer to the history of Maynooth. You are perfectly familiar with the subject, upon which we have unfortunately heard too much. But the noble Earl will recollect that the institution was founded by a Sovereign for whom the noble Earl has no doubt respect (George III). Its establishment was advised by Pitt, and supported by Burke. This institution, so founded, we see recognised by various Acts of Parliament, and it received various advantages, until at last came that great, liberal, and wise measure introduced by my late right hon. Friend Sir Robert Peel, and in this House carried by the resistless, the persuasive, eloquence of a noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Derby). The noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) delivered a speech in opposition to the measure on that occasion, and I have no doubt that he retains the opinions he then expressed on it at this moment. He said, on that occasion, "That from the bottom of his heart and soul, he believed that if their Lordships gave their assent to the measure, they would commit an act of the greatest national suicide ever committed by any civilised country since the world had been called into existence." That, my Lords, was the grave denunciation which the noble Earl passed upon the grant in 1845, which I believe to have been one of the most wise and just of any measures ever adopted in this country since the great Act of Emancipation, which the noble Earl viewed in the same light as he did the grant to Maynooth. Surely it must be the repeal of the grant he requires, and

1303
not a knowledge of the system of education pursued in the College. The noble Earl seems to forget that we have already had a very ample inquiry into the whole System of education pursued at Maynooth. In 1826 an inquiry was instituted under Sir T. Frankland Lewis, and the Commission, which, including the late Mr. Leslie Foster, fully inquired into the whole system pursued at Maynooth. They reported most elaborately, and with great pains went into the whole of the details connected with the institution. In truth, I must admit that there is much that is just in the observation the noble Earl has made relative to that inquiry superseding any that could now be proposed. I am willing to admit the public feeling on this subject; and, not desiring to check the course of any inquiry, or the acquisition of any information that may be considered necessary, I do not oppose myself to the object of the Motion, as I otherwise should be inclined to do, feeling that no urgent case has been made out for any additional inquiry. I hope, too, and believe, that the College of Maynooth has nothing to fear from any such inquiry. I believe that any inquiry will redound to the advantage and the credit of the College if such inquiry takes place; and, also, I am aware that the parties interested do not object to inquiry—they pray for any inquiry that may be thought necessary into the discipline and management of the establishment. But, although I do not oppose an inquiry into the education and discipline of Maynooth, I cannot admit that the inquiry proposed by the Motion of the noble Earl is such as your Lordships should accede to. The noble Earl says he wishes a fair inquiry. I leave your Lordships to judge of the sort of fairness the inquiry would possess, regulated and conducted in the spirit which the noble Earl has infused into his speech. My Lords, just let me remark on the course pursued by the noble Earl on this question. The noble Earl, at the commencement of this Session, put a notice on the Minutes of your Lordships' House—I think, twice in the beginning of the month of December, and on the 2nd of December he placed the following notice on the Minutes:—
"To move for a Committee to inquire whether the social and moral principles inculcated by the education pursued at Maynooth, are not opposed by those great principles of civil and religious liberty on which the Protestant Government of this country has been based."
Now this first Motion of the noble Earl,
1304
according to the common rules of interpretation, asserts, in fact, that those moral and social principles are opposed to the principles of civil and religious liberty. To say that you will inquire whether they are "not" opposed to them, is, in fact, a very near approach to the assertion that they "are" so opposed. However, this notice appeared on the Minutes of the House, day after day, for three mouths—a notice which I think your Lordships will admit to be, in its terms, offensive and insulting to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. At last the noble Earl fell into the hands of more dexterous tacticians, and they told him, no doubt, "This will not do; this Motion you cannot possibly expect to carry. This is too insulting—too offensive. Whatever you may think, or feel, or intend, make your Motion at least a little more decent in its terms;" and accordingly, in the month of March the noble Earl substituted his present Motion, namely, for a Committee to inquire int the system of education pursued at Maynooth, and its results. If that inquiry were entered into, I think it will be a matter which will keep your Lordships engaged for an indefinite period of time, from the vagueness of the terms of the Motion. I think this shows the animus of the noble Earl, and the fairness of the inquiry which the noble Earl has proposed. But, as I have said before, if the inquiry were conducted with perfect fairness, I think it would redound to the credit of the College. The noble Earl has very fully entered into what is called the question of the Papal aggression, and the alleged attempts of the Church of Rome to attain power in various parts of the world; but he has given us no reason for supposing that his apprehensions with regard to this country are at all well founded; and I do not see how the noble Earl has connected such attempts with the system of education taught at Maynooth, except in his reference to the violence and excesses of the conduct of some of the Irish priests during the last election. Well, but how does the noble Earl connect such conduct with Maynooth College? Does the noble Earl know that the priests to whom be referred were educated at the College of Maynooth? Now, I believe that that most wise and just measure of the late Sir Robert Peel, which was so powerfully supported by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), has already produced the most beneficial results. But this is to be said upon that subject, not only that no priest has been educated at the College of

1305
Maynooth since the grant has been increased—and therefore it is impossible that any such priests could have had anything to do with that election—but no one educated there since that period can have become a priest at all; for, since 1845, the curriculum of the College has been extended from six to eight years; and therefore it may be said that that Act is only now coming into operation. In addition to this new arrangement, the most able and prominent of the students of that institution are placed, for a period of three years longer in residence, on what is called the Dunboyne establishment. Therefore, it is clear, that since that grant was increased, no priests could have been ordained from Maynooth College. Much was expected from the increase of that grant, and I have no doubt that great good will accrue from it, but it has not yet had time to come into full operation. However, it has had already a most beneficial effect. In proof of this assertion, I hope I may take the liberty of reading an extract from a letter from the Lord Chief Baron of Ireland, in which that learned Judge speaks in strong terms of the advantages already derived by this institution from the passing of the late measure:—
"There is seen in Maynooth a most striking change since the grant has been increased. The number of candidates has been considerably enlarged, and the examinations are much more strict. The successful candidates for vacant places come to the College with minds far better enlightened and more fitted to receive the academical instruction afforded to them there. It is obvious, however, that the results which must necessarily follow from the reception of a better preliminary education and a superior academical course, cannot be fully exhibited until after the lapse of some time. During the calamitous years of 1846, 1847, and 1848, the mortality that then existed amongst the parochial clergy had rendered it necessary to provide a greater number of priests to supply the vacancies that then took place. The operation of the Act of 1845 has shown itself in the education of a superior class of persons for the priesthood, and the results have so far fulfilled the wise and beneficial views of the right hon. Baronet in proposing the measure alluded to."
Now, I believe, to a considerable extent, that that statement is perfectly correct, and I do not fear the result of any inquiry which is fairly and impartially conducted.
My Lords, I have said that although I do not object to any fair inquiry into this institution, I do not think, and I doubt if your Lordships can possibly think, it would be desirable that such a subject should occupy the attention of a Committee of this House, I think it would be inevitable that
1306
strong religious animosity, discord, and unseemly discussions must ensue in any inquiry of the kind by a Committee of this House. Now, if your Lordships are desirous of having a fair and impartial inquiry, to be conducted by able and independent men, I think that such will be attained in the way I intend to propose by the Amendment of which I have given notice. I trust—I need not say I hope and believe—that there is no man in this House who doubts that I will endeavour to appoint such Commission as will act according to the utmost degree of impartiality and fitness for the occasion. The noble Earl has referred to the opinion which I have expressed on former occasions in regard to a certain measure which was formerly before this House, and which he has certainly treated with much more disrespect than I did myself. Now, I do believe that none of your Lordships will imagine, whatever may be my opinions of the policy of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, that I am the less inclined to maintain those Protestant principles which I have always professed, or that I have any kind of affection or leaning towards that institution which the noble Earl seems to think I am tender about inquiring into, but into which I admit we have a full right to examine. I utterly reject any such feeling; and in order to remove any such impression, I now propose a course which, in my judgment, is the better one. With the most sincere desire to have a commission constituted in such a way as to give the fullest satisfaction to this House and the country, I make the proposition. Under these circumstances, I trust that your Lordships will see fit to reject the Motion of the noble Earl opposite, and to agree to the Amendment which I have now the honour to submit, namely—
"That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the management and government of the College of Maynooth, the discipline and the course of studies pursued therein; also into the effects produced by the increased grants conferred by Parliament in 1845,"
The EARL of RODENsaid, he had hoped that the noble Earl who had just sat down (the Earl of Aberdeen) would have declared it to be his intention not to oppose the Motion of his noble Friend, particularly when the noble Earl admitted that the country had a right to a full and complete examination into so important a subject as the one now under consideration.

1307
He (the Earl of Roden) could not agree with the noble Earl that the proposition he had made for the appointment of a Commission, the members of which were to be nominated by the Government, was a course which, irrespective of what might be the feelings of the House upon the question, would satisfy the country generally, which had manifested the greatest anxiety upon the matter, or was one which would tend to promote the welfare and happiness of this great country. He would not trouble their Lordships at any great length after the able speech of his noble Friend who proposed the Resolution. He thought that his noble Friend had so fully gone into the matter at issue as to render it unnecessary for him to trouble their Lordships by resorting to any arguments to show the dangers that were to be apprehended from the results of that system of education which was given at Maynooth. But as ho (the Earl of Roden) had for a long time, been a witness to the effects of the education given at that College, being a constant resident in Ireland, he should consider himself as guilty of a breach of his duty if he did not declare it to be his belief that that system was one which struck at the very root of social order and social peace, and if he did not take every opportunity afforded him of saying a word or two on the subject. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that eight years had gone by since they had a regular discussion upon this subject. It was in 1845 that their Lordships were pleased to pass a measure which gave to the College of Maynooth an additional grant, and made it a permanent endowment. At that period he took the liberty of warning their Lordships against the course they were then about to adopt, and he implored of that House to pause before they admitted the principle of a permanent endowment for so great and important an object. He remembered at that period he took the same course as that which his noble Friend now took by proposing the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry before they agreed to the increased grant of the endowment of the College. Their Lordships did not think proper to accede to his proposition, and he was defeated. He, however, confessed that at that period, as he did now, that he did not think any great additional information would be derived from the appointment of such Committee; but he looked to the result of the inquiry before the Committee as the ground-
1308
work for the withdrawal of the grant altogether. The House would see, from the various reports they had received, and particularly from the Appendix of the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Education, what was the character of the instruction that was given at Maynooth. They would be made acquainted with what he thought were the most dangerous tenets therein inculcated. Their Lordships had quite sufficient information before them to warrant them in demanding a more thorough investigation of the whole subject. He was told on the occasion when the measure of 1845 was proposed, that the great object of the additional grant was to give a better education to the Roman Catholic pupils in the College. Now, whether a better education had been given or not, he would not presume to say; but he was anxious that the Motion of his noble Friend should be agreed to, in order that they might ascertain that very important point. This, however, he knew—that no improvement or change had taken place in regard to the social character of the Roman Catholic priests from that time up to the present period. He thought that a reference to the course pursued by the Roman Catholic priests during the recent elections in Ireland, would leave no doubt in the minds of noble Lords as to that fact. But he was willing to allow that a very great increase had taken place in the number of persons educated in the College. Now, he believed that a much larger number of priests were educated at the College than the wants of the Roman Catholic people of Ireland could possibly require. He had the authority, not only of his own observation and that of other persons residing in the country for making that statement, but the Roman Catholics themselves; for he found in a Roman Catholic newspaper, which was recognised as the organ of the priesthood—namely, the Tablet—on the 2nd of August last, an article which deserved their Lordships' consideration. It stated that the object of the College was not only to provide an efficient national clergy for Ireland—the zeal and piety and exertions of the Irish priesthood were evident—but that it had, from the first year of its establishment to the present moment, contributed its glorious contingent of priests, not only for Ireland, but for England, for China and Japan, and that even beyond the Andes the faithful Irish missionary would be found exerting himself for the spread of

1309
the Roman Catholic faith. Now, he would ask their Lordships, and the Protestants of this country, whether when they were discussing this measure of 1845, they understood when they were assenting to the measure that the public money of this country was to be dedicated to the education of priests for those distant regions? He believed it would be admitted that that grant was solely intended to meet the alleged wants of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. If, then, in 1845, the number of priests educated in Maynooth was far more than was necessary to meet the wants of Ireland, he would ask what its condition was in 1853, with this increased grant? It appeared to him that that was a subject well worthy of their consideration. For what had taken place between 1843 and 1853? A tremendous famine had swept from Ireland a very large portion of her people. Besides the famine, there was an emigration going on, which had increased year after year; this exodus was still on the increase, and the population was therefore considerably reduced. There was, besides this, another important fact to be noticed—a fact which, as a Protestant being anxious for the dissemination of Protestant truth, he was most happy in being enabled to state—there was, besides these circumstances, a large portion of the Roman Catholic population in Ireland who had abandoned the Church to which they heretofore belonged, and had joined Protestant communions. He was aware that some noble Lords were disposed to deny or to doubt that fact. He saw some noble Lords smiling at this assertion, as if they considered that this was a mere idea of his brain; but he would ask them to visit those districts of Ireland, and to judge for themselves. He would ask those who lived there whether he was speaking the truth or not? This was another cause of the great change that had taken place in the Roman Catholic population in Ireland; and the less pretence, therefore, was there for a grant to Maynooth for a larger number of priests than was required. He was anxious to refer their Lordships to a few extracts from an interesting work, an account of a traveller who had visited Ireland during the last month, which corroborated what he had stated to the House in respect of the great diminution in the population, and of the great change which had taken place in the opinions of the people. That author stated—
1310
"From the best data I could obtain, it appears that two-thirds of Ireland belong in fee to Protestants, who hold half of it in their own hands, leasing the other half to Roman Catholics; that about five-twelfths of the present population are Protestant, and seven-twelfths Roman Catholics."
As this division of the population seriously differed from that which it had been the business of political agitators to assert, it might be well to submit the principal grounds on which it proceeded. In the year 1834, the numbers of the religious sects in Ireland were as follows—namely, of Protestants of the Established Church there were 852,064; of Presbyterian Protestants the number was 642,315; of Protestant Dissenters the number was 51,618; total, 1,516,228. Of the Roman Catholics the number was 6,437,712. The Protestants, therefore, were represented as being one-fourth of the population; but this proportion was said to be very much underrated. In the year 1841 the population in Ireland was upwards of 8,000,000, which amount ought to have increased to 8,500,000 in 1851; but it was ascertained to have fallen to 6,515,000 in that year. That great falling - off had of course been occasioned by the loss of the potato crop, by emigration, illness, and other causes attendant upon the calamity with which Ireland had during that period been afflicted. Those who emigrated were the young and the strong, and those who were left behind were the old and infirm. From these causes the Roman Catholic population were more reduced than the Protestants; so that at present their relative proportions were to be estimated as 7-12ths to 5-12ths. He had cited those facts to show how unnecessary it was at the present day to uphold or support Roman Catholic colleges in that country. With respect to another point, it was stated in the document from which he had just been reading, that the Roman Catholic priests attributed the extraordinary number of conversions to the Protestant faith which were daily taking place in Ireland to what they termed the "meal system." But such, the writer went on to state, could not be fairly maintained to be the case; nor could it, he said, with justice be argued that meal was a bribe any more than pens, or ink, or paper, or those other articles which were supplied to those poor children in Ireland who had not the means of providing themselves with those essentials to their education. Bribery he (the

1311
Earl of Roden) was well aware was an expression generally used, and many of their Lordships might have been led into the supposition that bribery had been resorted to in those cases in which children brought up in the Catholic religion joined the Protestant Church. But who was to bribe them? what were they to be bribed by? He could tell their Lordships, from his own experience, that it was from reading the Word of God, and having its truths instilled into their minds, that those children had been induced to conform to the doctrines of the Church of England. Their Lordships should remember that in Ireland the Bible was taken out of the hands of those children by those very priests who were educated in the College of Maynooth. Their Lordships should also bear in mind that in the schools established under the national system, where the priest was the patron, the Scriptures were not tolerated. That such was the case, nobody could venture to deny. He was in a position to prove to their Lordships that the Ultra-montane system of the Church of Rome was altogether opposed to the free use of the Bible. He had seen those principles of exclusive antagonism to reading the Word of God carried out in Italy against those poor martyrs in the cause of their religion whom he had had the privilege of visiting—individuals against whom no charge of a criminal character could be maintained, whose lives were unblemished, and who had suffered ten months' solitary confinement for reading the Scriptures. Let not their Lordships think that these cruelties were confined to Italy. Even in these kingdoms, in the nineteenth century, when we boasted of so much light, many of whom the Madiai were but types were at this moment suffering in defence of Scripture truth. It was because he thought the country had a right to demand a full and free examination of this subject, and that a searching investigation into the teaching of Maynooth could only be had through the medium of a Committee of their Lordships' House, that he supported the Motion. He trusted the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) would not think he meant to say anything disrespectful to him when he said he could not rely on the professions made by the Cabinet to which he belonged. He could not but bear in mind what had been his experience of the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) for many years—always foremost in defence of that Scripture Protestantism which had been the glory
1312
and happiness of the Empire. He could not also but bear in mind what had been the political course of those who proposed a Commission instead of this Motion. He could not but look at the table of the House, where he saw lying a Bill (the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill) than which a more unjust measure was never committed to paper. No one could respect the noble Earl's (the Earl of Aberdeen's) high character more than he did; but when he looked to his Cabinet he found one noble Lord a Member of it expressing himself in a manner which prevented him giving any support to that Cabinet so far as its Protestant views were concerned. He could not but remember the words written by a noble Lord a Member of this Cabinet—united as a Cabinet, though formerly disunited north, south, east, and west; and therefore, with regard to what the noble Lord a Member of it had written, he would say, Ex hoc uno disce omnes. He would read to them the sentiments contained in a letter acknowledged to be written by Lord John Russell, a Member of the Cabinet, and ask them whether they could trust the noble Lord opposite with the appointment of this Commission? The words to which he alluded were contained in a letter which he should be wearying the House to read, but there were two paragraphs in it which showed why he objected to the course pursued. The knowledge of the Bible was forbidden by the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland to those children who were educated under their control; and he sincerely hoped that their Lordships would, as far as was in their power, prevent the restriction of that knowledge, and institute an inquiry with respect to a college in which tenets justifying that restriction were inculcated. The noble Earl the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon), when at the head of the Government in Ireland, had entered into lengthened communication with various persons of authority upon the subject of the establishment of the Queen's Colleges in that country. In the course of those communications that noble Earl had addressed a letter to a Roman Catholic archbishop, in which he stated that he entertained a profound veneration for the character of the Pope, and relied implicitly upon the uprightness of his judgment, and that it was with pleasure he asked to have the statutes for the colleges submitted to his Holiness. In another paragraph the noble Earl stated that he was extremely

1313
anxious that such security should be given with respect to the system of education in those colleges as should be perfectly satisfactory to those Irish prelates who desired to see the true interests of morality and of the Roman Catholic religion promoted. Such sentiments as those to which he (the Earl of Roden) had just called their Lordships' attention, expressed by a Member of the present Cabinet, entitled him to ask how he could conscientiously entrust the noble Earl opposite with the appointment of a Commission which should have for its object to inquire into the system of instruction pursued in a Roman Catholic college, and to lay the results of that inquiry before the country? He regretted to have been obliged to trouble their Lordships at such length, but he could have no hesitation in giving his vote in favour of the Motion of his noble Friend.
LORD DUFFERIN, in rising to support the Amendment, said the speech of the noble Earl, to which he had listened with all the attention which his character deserved, he had listened to with regret; for he thought that any attempt to revive the religious animosities which must necessarily be raised by opening this subject, was much to be deprecated. He believed that many of the misfortunes to which Ireland had been subjected might in a great measure be referred to the unfortunate opinions which were held in regard to the position of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in that country with reference to the State. He believed that the Act of 1845 was but a step in the right direction towards the commencement of a right policy; and he believed that any movement which should have the slightest appearance of replacing public opinion in the condition from which it had been raised with so much difficulty, must necessarily be a subject of anxiety and remonstrance to all who had at heart the interests of Ireland. He believed that the time had passed when any man or any party could make the people of this country forget the lessons of toleration they had learnt, however much irritated they might be by the unwise proceedings of that Power which they had been in the habit of regarding with jealousy and suspicion. He believed no Ministry would dare to occupy any other position than that of the strictest impartiality. Although public opinion had not been brought to bear to carry the measures which had been passed to their legitimate conclusion, they would see that larger measures of religious equality would
1314
be conceded. So far as Ireland was concerned, the neck of Protestant ascendancy was broken, and no Ministry would ever again dare to reimpose it. He could not conceal from himself the fact that the Motion of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Winchilsea) taken in connexion with his speech, must be looked on in no other view than as an attack on the College of Maynooth; and he believed that if that House were for a single instant to concede to the noble Earl, it would be considered as a hostile demonstration against that institution on their Lordships' part also. He believed it would be considered, and justly so, a return to those unfortunate opinions which had characterised the commencement of this century, and which he had no hesitation in saying for 30 years had been against the pacification of the country, and had led to the vilest agitation that ever disgraced a country or embarrassed a Government. When he examined the speech of the noble Earl who had introduced the Motion, or that of the noble Earl who had followed him on the same side, it did not appear to him that they had succeeded in making out any case why their Lordships should depart from the principles which had been recognised in every part of Her Majesty's dominions—the Roman Catholics should be afforded the means of educating their priesthood in a decent and becoming manner. That principle was established in 1795, when the 8,000 l., which up to 1845 was the miserable pittance granted for that purpose, was first given. That principle was affirmed when, in 1845, the Parliament of the United Kingdom took the whole question into its consideration, and came to the conclusion that they would raise Maynooth into an institution worthy of the country, and endow it with 30,000 l. a year. That principle was further affirmed when the assistance of the Government was accorded to the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland, and also when grants were made to the Colonies of Great Britain of one kind or another for this purpose. What he would venture to say was, that their Lordships had no right to make Ireland an exception to the general rule thus established, and that the Irish Roman Catholics had a right to have their priesthood properly educated. But the noble Lord contended that the doctrines taught at Maynooth were opposed to the liberties and to the constitution of this country. But to this he replied, that, to any one who studied the debates previous

1315
to the introduction of this measure, it must be sufficiently apparent that those who introduced the measure were already sufficiently alive to the nature of the doctrines taught. Therefore, in his opinion, the noble Lord had entirely failed in showing that the principles now taught differed from what were known then and sufficiently patent. It seemed to him that there could be no excuse whatever for superseding the decision to which at that time their Lordships had arrived. He was very far from wishing to palliate the errors of the Roman Catholic religion. He was very far from wishing to deny that many of the pretensions of the Court of Rome were utterly inconsistent with what was due to the Crown—that the hierarchy of the Church of Rome had been guilty of acts inconsistent with the rights of the Crown. No man was more determined to resist any aggression on the part of the Church of Rome on the supremacy of the Crown; but he would venture to remind the House that Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects were not to be considered as its instigators. They had over and over again repudiated any tenets which were against their allegiance to their Sovereign. But it was one thing to guard against an act of aggression, and another to violate rights of which they were in possession, and which they had been in the habit of considering for ever secured to them. He was perfectly ready to admit—and no one who had been in the habit of studying the proceedings of the Court of Rome could deny—that an attempt would be made, if an opportunity occurred, to reestablish its ancient power; he was perfectly convinced that the Pope of Rome was only waiting for an opportunity to reestablish his authority in England. To this attempt, he believed, the Pope was constantly encouraged by persons on whom he was compelled to rely for his information as to the state of feeling in this country with respect to the Roman Catholic religion—persons who, either from personal motives or a blind zeal, misunderstood the state of things. To such an extent was this misrepresentation extended, that scarcely an Englishman could visit Rome but it was supposed it must have something to do with a change in his religious opinions. When he was in Rome he had had the opportunity of perceiving to what an extent the conversion of a person arriving from England was looked on as a fait accompli. He himself, in his humble lodging, had received the august visit of a bishop and
1316
several high ecclesiastics clothed in purple and gold, who had done him the honour of pressing him to take part in an approaching solemnity of a very grave and religious character—to assist at the baptism of a converted Jew in the character of godfather. And yet, notwithstanding that this was the opinion entertained at Rome of the state of public feeling in England, no one who could distinguish between the shifting of the current, and the deep tide that runs beneath, could entertain any reasonable doubt whatever that it was entirely in an opposite direction than towards the temples of Rome that the prejudices and feelings of the people of England flowed. It was therefore hardly worth while that, because certain persons, looking to advancement in their profession, should endeavour to inoculate the Roman Catholics of this country with Ultramontane doctrines, we should depart from the glorious position we occupied as the champions of English liberty; nor, above all, was it scarcely wise that we should mitigate and injure the force of our remonstrances, which might from time to time be called forth by the violations of those principles by other nations—by ourselves departing from the principles of toleration. He confessed it was his deliberate opinion that it was not by a perpetual crusade against Maynooth and Catholic institutions—that it was not by constantly denouncing the errors of the Church of Rome—that it was not by a Parliamentary Committee that the sacredness of Protestant institutions of this country was to be secured. That alone was sufficient security which had ever been found sufficient to secure it from all attacks whatever—namely, the grace of God, and the piety and good sense of the people. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Earl opposite would execuse him if he ventured to oppose the Motion, which he thought would be fraught with the most dangerous consequences. To the principle which endowed Maynooth, he had always given his hearty concurrence. He thought scarcely any one would be found to contend that the seminaries for the instruction of the priesthood should be conducted as before, in squalor and meanness. It was to the miserable education these priests had had, that such disgraceful manifestoes had issued from them. If the priesthood had not been allowed to grow up in the disgraceful state in which Sir Robert Peel found them, we should not have had such disgraceful exhibitions at the elections as

1317
we had had. He did, indeed, believe that if they were to press the hostile inquiry, they would be able to prove that, in affording 30,000 l. a year for this institution, they were supporting an institution tainted with error and opposed to the Church of England, which he believed to be the purest Church on the face of the earth, and of which he professed himself to be a most ardent and devoted admirer. The Romish Church had issued pretensions against the supremacy of the Crown; but he scarcely thought that any one there could doubt that those pretensions were against the opinions of the Roman Catholic body, and he denied that they had any right to believe that those pretensions were the sentiments of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. He would admit that by means of inquiry they might be able to prove that, in supporting Maynooth, they were assisting in the promulgation of error, and that all error was fraught with misfortune and misery. He was ready to admit that that might be the case; but no Government was the right tribunal to judge of religious error, or was capable of taking cognisance of it. If such error should manifest itself in overt acts inconsistent with the constitution, the law of the land was fully equal to vindicate it. In granting this inquiry, the House would incur the danger of reviving those religious animosities now happily on the point of being extinguished. Ireland had passed under misfortunes greater than any other country; but, among the many blessings likely to accrue to her from those misfortunes, not the least was the cessation of the jealousies and bitternesses which had formerly prevailed there. With respect to the Amendment, he was perfectly ready to acknowledge the principle that the Government had the right, from time to time, to institute inquiries as to how the public funds were disposed of; and, in the present state of public opinion out of doors, he thought it might probably accord with the feelings of the institution itself to consent to such an inquiry. With these observations he would now conclude by thanking their Lordships for the indulgence which they had accorded to the remarks which he had felt it his duty to offer.
The EARL of DESARTsaid, that the system of education pursued at Maynooth was one which sent forth dangerous clerical agitators and students who certainly were no acquisition to society. He thought that England and Ireland were deeply indebted
1318
to the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) for having proposed this inquiry to their Lordships; and he hoped that the proposed investigation would be full, free, and impartial, as would be the case before a Committee of their Lordships' House. Such a Commission as was proposed by the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government (the Earl of Aberdeen) might be animated by the best intentions; but they would never succeed in drawing aside the veil which would be spread effectually before them; and the result of the inquiry would be that little would be gained, and that the Commission would be held up by the Roman Catholic priests as a fresh proof of the incompetence of the Legislature to control them or to investigate their doings. As an impartial observer, and, he was sorry to say, as an actor in the contest going on between the Roman Catholic priests and the Protestants of Ireland, he knew that there was in England, and even in their Lordships' House, great ignorance concerning the social relations of the Irish people. They had not an idea of the extent to which the Roman Catholic priests carried their interference into the most minute details of social relations in Ireland. They had no idea that the priests endeavoured to instil into the minds of their flocks that they were rather antagonistic religionists than fellow-countrymen with the Protestants, and told them that their duties to the Queen, to their fellow-subjects, and to the law, were all subordinate to what they insolently called Catholicism —meaning thereby an entire Subservience to all their behests and commands. Take the relations of landlord and tenant. The landlords were for the most part Protestants, and tenants, who were in most cases Romanists, they would find that the priests were unscrupulous in exciting the latter against the former. There were, no doubt, exceptions to this, but then they were only exceptions, for the great body of the priests represented the Protestant landlords as selfish, and hostile to the tenants; persons to be mistrusted, thwarted, and despised. The people of England were too apt to take it for granted that the Irish landlords were ever ready to put the law in force against their tenantry. It was true that in the west of Ireland some evictions had taken place; but was that the work of a pampered landlord, or of one driven by hard necessity to remove those who were neither able to maintain themselves or to till the ground? They called out for a

1319
mischievous system of tenant-right; but from his own experience of the south of Ireland, as exemplified on his own estate, the tenants were in possession of valuable rights. At the last election only five of his tenants (that is, of his Roman Catholic tenants) voted for the candidate in whom he felt interested, and yet not one of the others had been since interfered with, except in being made to pay up some arrears for which they might otherwise never have been called upon. The priests seemed to imagine that they were obliged to resist tyranny on the part of the landlord by a sort of counteracting tyranny of their own, and in this way the duties of the people to the laws and to the Crown were held up in opposition to their duties towards their religion. If he were to enter into a lengthened statement of the abuses of the sacerdotal power, he should only weary their Lordships' patience. The priests took every advantage of the weakness and forbearance of their opponents, and availed themselves of every means, both mental and physical, to force the people to comply with their demands. Their Lordships knew this, but, perhaps, they were not so well acquainted with the interference lately going on in the election of poor-law guardians. They had no idea of the extent of the same religious machinery which was brought to bear in other cases, and which had been applied to force the ratepayers to vote for the nominees of the priests, and to turn out those whom they called the nominees of the landlords. The landlords had endeavoured to do their best to make the poor-law machinery work, and by their exertions the poor-law, he was happy to say, was working well. They had so altered the state of things that there no longer existed a pauper population—the poorhouses were empty, and instead of 5s. being the minimum rate, the maximum rate was now ls. This was the work of the landlords. The priests seeing it, felt that there was at work an influence counter to their own, and were running forward and trying to force it back by indecent scurrility. They were now coming forward to force their own nominees upon the ratepayers, not because the administration of the poor-law was had, but simply because the people should not return any but those who would carry out the views of their masters—the priests. These were strong expressions, but he (the Earl of Desart) could say that they were not the least exaggerated; and while he was happy to say that there
1320
were gentlemen among the Roman Catholic clergy whose conduct was entitled to high praise, still he could not help feeling and saying that they formed the exceptions to the general rule. He could meet Roman Catholics as fellow Catholic Christians without any other feeling but that of regret for their feelings, at being obliged to see the precepts of their religion violated and outraged by those who called themselves its ministers. The picture which he had drawn of the state of the Irish priesthood was an honest and impartial one, and one which a strict and searching inquiry would not fail to prove. But it should be such an investigation as would be able to penetrate the secrecy under which the Roman Catholic priests well knew how to conceal their doings. It must be more than a Commission, and must be supported by more than the mere sanction of Government. The priestly influence was on the decline in Ireland. If the influence of the priests was as great as it was, or was said to be—if by the confessional they had the same control over private feelings, did their Lordships think they would have been so unwise as to expose themselves to the world in the indecent and violent manner they had done during the late elections? Did their Lordships think they would have committed themselves to personal assaults upon Scripture readers for disturbing the Word of God, if they had felt their influence to be as great as formerly? Their Lordships might perhaps say that legislation could do nothing upon this subject. Perhaps so. Providence might do much, but still there was much for man to do. Long experience of Ireland and the Irish had led him, after much reflection, to the conclusion that in Ireland concession was not conciliation—on the contrary, it was regarded rather as a symptom of fear, than as a manifestation of good-will. If the landlords came forward boldly, they would find that the people would rally round them as a refuge from the tyranny of the priests, which had become almost insupportable even to their own flocks. The priests claimed a supremacy over the law; and if they found the least sign of weakness or yielding on the part of either landlord or Government, they proclaimed it to the country people as another victory achieved by the spirit of supremacy. He (the Earl of Desart) had heard the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) express himself in words which he had listened to at the time with the greatest pleasure. He could not remember

1321
the exact terms used, but they were to the effect that justice should be administered in Ireland with strict impartiality to Protestant and Catholic, soldier and civilian. But what, in fact, had been the result of those words? Why, that the Government had declined to prosecute the priests engaged in the contest at Six-mile Bridge. He told the Government boldly—for he had long been connected with Ireland, and knew the effects of such a weak system of government, and he knew the effect, moral and social, which had been wrought upon the priests and people by the abandonment of those prosecutions by the Government—that ten years of firm and impartial government would not obliterate the effect of that ill-judged concession to the imagined feelings of the people. It was only by truth, firmness, and consistency that Ireland could be properly or wisely governed. If they wished to see the effects of such a system, a noble Earl sat behind him (the Earl of Eglinton), who had gone to Ireland, determined to carry out his plans with firmness, consistency, and strict impartiality; and what had been the result? When his viceregal functions closed, had that noble Earl left Ireland unpopular, or attacked by a single Irishman? No; for once even the voice of malevolence had been silenced, and from all the experience he (the Earl of Desart) had of Ireland, from all he had read upon the subject, he could say that never had a Lord Lieutenant left the government of that country more universally respected, or who, by Irishmen of all creeds and classes, was more sincerely regretted on the day which saw his departure from the sister kingdom. That was the kind of government that was wanted in Ireland. They wanted truth above all things, firmness with moderation, and courage with consistency. If such a system was pursued for a short time, they would find that Ireland would no longer be the source of England's embarrassments; but that, on the contrary, it would become a firm and valuable support, bound to her by every tie of affection, respect, and esteem.
LORD BEAUMONT, after having listened attentively to what had fallen from the noble Earl who had proposed the Amendment, and from the noble Earl who had brought forward the original Motion, must acknowledge that he found little to choose between the two propositions which had been laid before the House. Whether a Committee or a Commission were appointed, the course adopted must be the same.
1322
Both must be endowed with precisely the same powers; both must receive essentially the same evidence; they must examine into the system of education adopted at Maynooth; they must ascertain carefully what books were there studied, what principles were there inculcated, and in what manner the mind was there trained for the profession for which it was intended. The same evidence must be heard before the one as before the other. Perhaps not the same witnesses exactly would be selected, but in each form the inquiry would be imperfect, unless it ascertained minutely and distinctly every part of the education inculcated. He believed firmly that the noble Earl was sincere in his proposal for a Commission, and that his intention was that the inquiry should be a searching one. He believed equally, on the other side of the question, that if the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) obtained his Committee, it would be so appointed that the inquiry would not only be searching but impartial. But the result in either case would be the same; it would be found, he believed, that the system of education adopted at Maynooth was, in its most minute details, precisely that education, that system, that course of study which was usual, which was generally adopted, which was necessary to form a Roman Catholic priest. The result of the inquiry would, he repeated, be, that the education was neither more nor less than what was necessary for a Roman Catholic priest to possess. Believing that to be the case, he said the report must come to the conclusion that the institution had fulfilled the object for which it was intended. The college of Maynooth was not established in order to bring up priests to applaud or to uphold the Protestant religion; but it was an institution to teach men to look upon that religion as a heresy, and to teach men how to meet that heresy and how to overthrow it. Those who made the original grant, and those who supported the permanent endowment of the institution, must have known that its object was the maintenance of the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, or else they were profoundly ignorant; and this being the case formerly, why should an inquiry be now asked for? He was not surprised that the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea) should have moved for inquiry, for he avowedly aimed at the destruction of the institution; but he was surprised at the course pursued by the noble Earl at the

1323
head of the Government. He could not believe that the noble Earl had the slightest intention of breaking faith on this point, and he must say, therefore, he saw little logic in the course adopted by the noble Earl, in yielding to the prejudices of the country, and merely substituting that which would be quite as effective as what had been proposed on the other side. Both the Commission and the Committee seemed unnecessary, though he did not deny but that Parliament had a right either to appoint a Committee or pass a Resolution for an address to the Crown for a Commission; yet a reason for taking this step must be shown, and up to this moment he had not heard any good reason given. As he could not propose an Amendment, unsupported as he probably would be, he had to choose between two evils in the Motions before him. Both inquiries would be equally searching and equally useless; but he would vote for a Commission in preference to a Committee, because he thought a Commission would be the shortest in its proceeding. He had no doubt the Committee, if appointed, would present a fair report upon the evidence; but that form of inquiry was not so advisable as the appointment of persons who would be quite independent, and who would put no unnecessary questions about the Pope's bulls, or the Six-mile Bridge affray, or the hundred other matters which were brought into the debate, but which had no connexion whatever with the question. His inclination was to move the rejection of the Motion, and of the Amendment too; but as he could not count on sufficient support, he would not attempt such a course. He was reduced, therefore, to join in the Motion for an address which was submitted to their Lordships by the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, he did not know that he should have considered it necessary to address their Lordships if he had not felt himself compelled to do so by the speech of the noble Lord (Lord Dufferin) who had spoken early in the debate. He had listened to that speech not without great respect for the ability it displayed, but with the greatest surprise and the deepest concern at some of the statements it contained. The noble Lord had spoken of those who disapproved of the grant to Maynooth, and might not, perhaps, be disinclined to take some steps to effect its removal, as being engaged in a
1324
crusade against the Roman Catholic religion—
LORD DUFFERINwas understood to explain that what he had said was, that those persons were engaged in a crusade against Maynooth.
The BISHOP of LONDONdenied that it was, in any sense, a crusade against Maynooth; but he thought that if there was any crusade, it was a crusade in another direction. The continuance of the grant to Maynooth was the encouragement of a crusade for the purpose of overturning that branch of the Catholic Church which Protestants believed to be the stronghold of truth; and the persons engaged in that crusade would not rest from their endeavours until they had overthrown that Church. There were many persons, who sincerely reverenced God's truth, who were strongly opposed to this grant, believing it to uphold a crusade, not for the purpose of recovering the Holy City, but for the purpose of storming the battlements of the Church. It attacked that Church which they believed to be the stronghold of truth—the golden candlestick in which the Holy Gospel was set on high to east its pure light around, and which it sought to overthrow. This was the crusade at present raised across the Channel; and if the many noble Lords in this House, and the people of this country, were determined to use every legitimate effort against the College of Maynooth, it was because they were thoroughly convinced that the persons most busily engaged in that crusade were precisely those who were educated at the College of Maynooth. He believed the teaching at Maynooth, which was maintained by an expenditure of the money of this country, was productive of infinitely more evil than good to the Irish people; and, in the present state of his information on the subject, he should, if the question were raised, feel himself bound in conscience to oppose the continuance of the grant as a misapplication of the public funds. That, he admitted, was not, however, now the question before their Lordships. The question was whether or no, before determining on a change of system with regard to the College, they should or should not endeavour, by an inquiry, to arrive at such a knowledge of the subject as might lead them to form a right conclusion. It was agreed by all that it was their duty to make an inquiry, and to arrive, if possible, at a full knowledge of the subject, with the view of

1325
coming to a right decision as to the expediency, having regard to the religious and social state of Ireland, of changing this system. The point to be decided, therefore, was, what were the best methods of arriving at the truth—which of the two courses before their Lordships was most likely to furnish them with the materials upon which they might arrive at a safe and just conclusion. Upon the fullest consideration, he was inclined to think that that object would be best attained by a Commission, and he should give his voté, accordingly, in favour of the course suggested by the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, as the surest and the safest mode of inquiry. Not to dwell upon the expediency—he might almost say the necessity—of conducting a part, at least, of the inquiry within the walls of the College itself, a Commission was more likely to collect facts, to gather together correct information, and to arrive at a just decision, than a Committee of either House of Parliament. By such a Commission the inquiry was likely to be more careful, more calm, more comprehensive, and more likely to present to the House such a mass of information as might enable them to form a judgment upon the subject, than an investigation conducted by a Parliamentary Committee. He apprehended, however, that whether a Commission or a Committee were appointed, there was a great part of the truth which their Lordships would never arrive at. If there were any secrets which it was desirable to hide from the public gaze in regard to the hierarchy of Rome, it was well known that that Church possessed and knew how to wield, and had wielded before now, a lever more powerful than any which their Lordships could employ, in order to prevent the truth from being elicited, and so convert that which ought to be a means of arriving at the truth into an instrument of deceit. To a certain extent he agreed with the noble Lord who had last spoken as to the perfect inefficiency of either a Commission or a Committee; but still he thought their Lordships were bound to make inquiry. He believed it would be no fault of the noble Earl's if the Commission he proposed to appoint were not an impartial one —if it were not composed of men eminently qualified by a love of truth, a full acquaintance with the subject, and a thorough competence to deal with it with firmness, sagacity, and honesty of purpose. Having, therefore, full confidence himself
1326
in the intention of the noble Earl to do that which would be satisfactory to the expectations of this House and of the public at large, he felt no hesitation in choosing that branch of the alternative which the noble Earl had introduced to their Lordships' notice, and in choosing the Amendment which he had proposed.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE, although he arrived at the same conclusion as the right rev. Prelate, namely, that a Commission is preferable to a Committee of Inquiry into the subject of this discussion—came to that conclusion by a course of reasoning entirely opposite to his. He believed no inquiry whatever was at this moment necessary, and it was with great pain, therefore he had heard of the intention of the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government to agree to inquiry in any form. The speech of the noble Earl, in proposing that Amendment, however, very much mitigated, although it did not entirely remove, his objections; for a greater contrast between the animus which characterised the two speeches of his noble Friend and of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Winchilsea) could not possibly exist. Still he repeated his belief that no inquiry whatever was necessary, and he believed that such an inquiry was at this moment particularly inopportune. It would have been much wiser to have let this question rest, and not to interfere with it unless they had strong and conclusive grounds for so doing. The noble Earl who had moved the original Motion had said nothing whatever to prove the necessity of an inquiry. He was not going to argue with that noble Earl the doctrines of the Church of Rome; but he said that these had nothing whatever to do with the necessity of an inquiry into the course of education at Maynooth, or into the principles upon which it was conducted. The principle upon which that establishment rested was, whether, with so many millions of Roman Catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland, their Lordships would not accord those who professed that religion an establishment which might educate their priesthood for them in a proper manner. Would an inquiry into Maynooth alter the evils or the benefits which had flowed from the system? Did any one imagine that, if Maynooth were suppressed to-morrow, the Roman Catholic religion which it inculcated, would be suppressed in consequence? The question was not at all about the Roman Catholic religion; it was as to what

1327
good would come out of such inquiry as was proposed. He thought it would have been much better to have met this Motion by a direct negative; but, taking his choice of the two evils presented to their Lordships, he should be fully prepared to vote for the Commission for preference to the Committee. He would ask the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) if the crusade which he had spoken of as existing in Ireland would be put a stop to if it were thought in that country that their Lordships were inclined to take away the only boon accorded to the Roman Catholic religion there? Were they likely to ward off the attack upon the Protestant religion, and to do good to the Established Church, if they threatened that, whatever might be the wealth of that Church, and whatever its numerical proportion to the population of Ireland, they would maintain that establishment intact, but would revoke the grant to Maynooth, and would give nothing for the education of the clergy of the great majority of the people of that country? He could not think that that would at all be a sound policy for their Lordships to pursue. He protested also against the language used by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate had said that whatever power of inquiry the Commission might have, the power of concealment on the part of the priests would be greater; and he spoke of the probable evasion of truth by the authorities of Maynooth. Now, that sort of abuse and that sort of accusation—for it was more than insinuation—it was very easy to retort from one side to another. He admitted that some of the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church had spoken very disrespectfully of the Protestant Church; but had such language been thought proper and becoming? Quite the contrary. What then were their Lordships to say to those priests if, in this place, before their Lordships, it was stated by Protestant prelates that they practised arts of evasion, if not of perjury? He, for one, protested against that language; he protested against the use of that language, and against its truth. He believed that with regard to the educational system of Maynooth they would get a perfect knowledge of that system by a Commission, if knowledge they wanted; but he did not think that what might be the canon law of Rome was a question which they should very much inquire into. He regretted that this Commission was to be issued, for he thought he foresaw very considerable trou-
1328
ble to the Government from the result of its inquiry next year, or the year afterwards. The practical permanent results of an academical foundation were not to be ascertained at the end of some seven or eight years. That was the plea often put forward for Oxford and Cambridge against proposed extensive alterations. As to the Irish priesthood, it was impossible not to recognise the privation and distress they had gone through in the performance of their duties during late years; and when their Lordships spoke of their proceedings at elections, he would reply, that they very much overrated the influence of the Catholic clergy as a clergy; and that they ought to consider that they were under the voluntary system, which forced them to indulge in language and in conduct rather more forcible than was decorous. In this country he could produce many instances where the clergy had chapels to maintain by the force of their eloquence, and where, consequently, a misguided zeal frequently took the place of that more steady, sober, and useful preaching, which was the distinction of our parochial clergy. In Ireland, also, he had seen the evils of the voluntary system, as it was called, in its influence on the unendowed clergy. Those, however, it was to be considered, were men, and it might be as men, not as clergy, that they took the part they had done in the elections.
The DUKE of LEINSTERsaid, the Amendment of the noble Earl at the head of the Government had his full support, and he was glad the noble Earl was ready to go into the inquiry. From constant residence close to the College, he was quite certain that the inquiry would be satisfactory, and that the good conduct of the priesthood would be fully shown.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYconsidered that the deep and serious anxiety manifested by thousands of persons in this country for inquiry into the College of Maynooth was sufficient necessity for demanding investigation into a public institution maintained by public funds. As the college was supported by public funds, the Legislature had certainly a right to inquire whether it had carried out those objects for which the public money had been given. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had condemned inquiry as useless, and because even the suppression of Maynooth would not suppress the Catholic religion. Now, the suppression of the Catholic religion was not looked for or

1329
expected by those who demanded an inquiry into Maynooth; nor because they thought that Maynooth would, in any result, he left without money for its support. Inquiry was sought for because thousands of persons in this country believed that a national endowment of Maynooth was a great and heinous national sin, and they wished to exonerate themselves from all participation in that public crime, and to be uncontaminated by yielding support to a system contrary to the Gospel and the Word of God. The question was limited; it touched not a repeal of the grant—it demanded only an inquiry. The noble Earl the First Minister of the Crown had referred to an inquiry which had taken place previously to 1845; but the present inquiry was to ascertain the application and expenditure of the funds since 1845. The grant was made and calculated upon the necessities of Ireland. It was stated that a certain number of priests were required for the members of the Church of Rome in Ireland. Now, what they wanted to know was, did Maynooth produce each year a number of priests equal to, greater or less than, the wants of the population of Ireland? If equal, then cadit questio. If greater, then they were not wanted, except in the Colonies; and it was clear the Legislature was going beyond its purpose in educating priests for the Colonies instead of for the Irish Church. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) had pronounced a warm eulogy on the Maynooth establishment, which eulogy suggested many topics into which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was not going to enter. But it led him to the inquiry of what was taught at Maynooth. Of course their Lordships need not trouble themselves as to the confessional or the infallibility of the Pope, because the persons educated at Maynooth were educated as Roman Catholics; and if they were educated as good and loyal Catholics, why then the College had fulfilled the conditions on which the grant was made. But the Legislature had a right to know what the principles and the system of education were. They had a right to know if the morality of Liguori or Dens was inculcated there. They had a right to know if the views of civil and religious liberty taught there were the same as those recognised by the constitution of this country, or those entertained by the Grand Duke of Tuscany? They had a right to know how the priests educated at Maynooth conducted themselves in their re-
1330
spective appointments or parishes—for it was everywhere asserted that the Maynooth priests were seditious, turbulent, and violently political—whether they were simple parish priests, or were formed upon the model adopted by Cardinal Wiseman, who had openly declared that since he could form an idea, he had taken for his model no less notorious a person than Thomas A'Becket. It was quite notorious that the priests of Ireland were charged with being at the bottom of election riots, as well as every sedition that occurred in that country. Such might or might not be the case; but inquiry should be made, if for no other reason, to set aside the charge thus made against the Irish priesthood. The Government had further limited the question by proposing a Commission instead of a Committee; and he should say he preferred the former to the latter mode of investigation. It was important that, in a matter of this kind, information should be taken on the spot; and that there should be personal, public, and open responsibility. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) had undertaken that it should consist of upright, honest, and able men; and if such were appointed, as he doubted not, it would be far better than a Committee of their Lordships' House. He trusted the Commission would be well constituted, and that it should consist of five rather than of three members, who should be expected to make a report within six months, or at least within some reasonable and limited period. At the original foundation of Maynooth it was stated, and subsequently repeated by the late Sir Robert Peel, that the great object of a home college was, that the Irish priests should receive a superior education to what they did in France and Belgium, and that they should be imbued with English and Irish feelings instead of Continental. That was the object in view for founding Maynooth; but it was universally believed in this country that the reverse had taken place. If the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) would consent to the addition of a few words to his Amendment, so as to make the inquiry embrace the "course and character of the studies pursued at Maynooth, the effect produced by the increased grant," and to ascertain the numbers educated since the increase of the grant, and the parishes or localities to which the priests had since been appointed," he doubted not much satisfaction would result; but otherwise he did not see how anything but dissatisfac-

1331
tion could result from the proposed substitution of the noble Earl's Amendment.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, that, as coming from a part of the country where the very name of Maynooth excited something like horror, and where all believed its foundation to be an error in policy, he found it a great satisfaction at the present time that he had had occasion during the last Session of Parliament, when he was not connected with any Government, nor as far as he knew likely to be so, to state the grounds on which he was prepared to deal with the College of Maynooth. He gave his hearty assent to the Amendment of the noble Earl, not only on the general and established principle that Maynooth, being a public institution, might at any and at all times be inquired into by Parliament, if Parliament so thought fit, but also because the Amendment proposed the best form of inquiry under the circumstances. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had stated it to be a great national sin and disgrace—and the argument in Scotland was universal—that a Protestant State committed a great sin when it gave Protestant funds to support a religion founded on error. If he could admit the premises, he might agree with the conclusion; but the obvious answer was, that the funds were not Protestant funds; that the public money was derived in part from the Roman Catholic population, and the principles of equity and justice required that that section of the community should receive its due amongst others. He, therefore, had never seen it to be any sin for a Protestant Government, so called, to vote money for the endowment of those differing with them in opinion. If they were not prepared to admit that principle, they must assent to the principles on which those persons acted who agitated for a repeal of the Union. Some noble Lords had objected to this inquiry altogether. He did not. He approved of the proposal for proceeding by Commission; and he confessed he could not quite understand the motives of the noble Earl who conducted the Opposition in that House (the Earl of Derby) in giving the preference to the Committee, since every noble Lord who had spoken for the Committee had expressed opinions in reference to the College of Maynooth, in which it was impossible that the noble Earl could sympathise, unless there had been some great change in his opinions between this and 1845. He (the Duke of Argyll) re-
1332
ally must take the preference of the Committee to the Commission in the debate to be the expression of opinions in favour of disendowment, and, therefore, he could not but wonder what had made the noble Earl display that preference. There had been no great public complaint—none greater than they had heard for years. Comparing the present time with 1845, they would remember that two years before that there had been a very great agitation in Ireland with regard to the repeal of the Union; the Roman Catholic priests sympathised with that movement, and the Government of which the noble Earl was a Member, had conducted a prosecution against the leader of it, and had convicted him of high crimes and misdemeanors. It was at that very moment, however, that the noble Earl came down to the House, and supported with all his powerful and persuasive eloquence, the granting of an additional and a permanent endowment to Maynooth. What had there been to justify the apparent change in his opinions? He did not imply that the noble Earl had changed his opinions; but only that from his position in reference to the question before the House, it seemed he was ready to admit that there had been disappointment felt with the result of what was done in 1845. But noble Lords opposite must remember that, so far as improvement in the character of the priesthood was concerned, there had been no time for its operation, the course of study being eight years. An argument used on a former occasion had been repeated that night, that you must not do evil that good might come; but the noble Earl opposite appeared to hold the contrary doctrine, that what was abstractedly good must be persevered in, even though evil consequences might be found to flow from it. He (the Duke of Argyll) was not prepared to say that the institution of Maynooth could be permanently maintained, if upon inquiry it should be proved that absolute principles of disloyalty prevailed there, and if political evils and political misconduct were found to result directly from the mode of teaching there adopted. But he would say, that if you proposed to found or endow a college for teaching Roman Catholic priests, you must be prepared to find Roman Catholic doctrines, and not Protestant doctrines, taught in that college. He had no doubt that the result of a Commission would be to satisfy the people of this country upon all those doubtful points for

1333
which it was legitimate that such an inquiry should be instituted, and that their Lordships would be prepared to continue to maintain that college for the education of the Roman Catholic priesthood of Ireland, to which from the number of its Roman Catholic inhabitants that country was justly entitled.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I hardly know to what I am indebted for the uncalled-for honour which has been done me by the noble Duke in thus drawing my name so prominently into the discussion on which we are engaged. But, my Lords, the noble Duke is a young man, and a Cabinet Minister, and perhaps on that account he will not take it amiss if I—as one more advanced in years, and whose experience as a Minister has been somewhat more enlarged than his—if I offer him a word of friendly counsel, and that is—let him not, as a Minister of the Crown, be so ready to make an unprovoked attack upon one whose sentiments upon the question in debate he is unable to judge, and especially upon one the nature of whose vote he is unable to determine. And, my Lords, having said this much, let me, in order to evince the perfect good humour with which I received the observations of the noble Duke, briefly illustrate my feelings by a story, which may not be unknown to your Lordships. Your Lordships may have heard of a certain powerful member of a class known in this country as "navvies:" he was a great, strong man, and not less in height than 6 feet 4 inches. Well, my Lords, it is related that this remarkable individual had the misfortune to marry a very little wife, who was in the habit of beating him a good deal; and when taxed for this by his boon companions, the poor man's reply was, "Oh, let her alone; she amuses herself, and she does not hurt me." Well, my Lords, turning from the noble Duke, who could not possibly tell how I am going to vote, I proceed to consider the very narrow issue on which we have to determine—assuming that it is now generally admitted on the part of Her Majesty's Government that inquiry ought to take place. My noble Friend who opened this question, suppressing his views with regard to the merits of the institution at Maynooth, and of the original policy which had created it, most strenuously excluded all consideration of the religious doctrines from the investigation that he asked for. He stated—and thus disposed of a considerable portion of the arguments
1334
heard of in the course of this debate—that he did not intend to inquire into the practices of the confessional, or into the various doctrines which are adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, and which, of course, it was natural to expect from the education of the Roman Catholic clergy, could not be omitted. But my noble Friend proposed to conduct an inquiry into the political results, into the social and moral effects, of the teaching at Maynooth, with regard to which I may venture to say that there is even between Roman Catholic and Roman Catholic a very great and broad distinction. My Lords, the noble Earl opposite said that it was perfectly well known beforehand what would be the result of any inquiries which might be set on foot. But, my Lords, the noble Earl will permit me to ask him, is there no difference between Roman Catholic priest and Roman Catholic priest? Is it not a matter worthy of an investigation, whether the system pursued at Maynooth turns out Murrays or M'Hales? Is it nothing for us to determine whether the course of instruction at Maynooth inculcates those high absolute doctrines which proclaim the assumption of temporal power by the Roman Catholic clergy, and which are so well designated under the title Ultramontane; or whether that system promulgates those more moderate views denominated Cisalpine, and which are certainly more reconcilable with the constitution of this free country, as well as more reconcilable to the position in which the Roman Catholic Church of Ireland did, or at all events ought, to stand? Now, my Lords, we must admit on the one hand that it is no purpose of this inquiry to examine into the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church—doctrines which are universally held by the Roman Catholic Church wherever it exists —the inquiry is solely to be into the moral, social, and political character of the education of Maynooth on the rising generation of Irishmen. The noble Earl at the head of the Government states, that, in his opinion, it is perfectly legitimate to enter upon such an inquiry, and that the country which supports such an endowment, and such an establishment, has a right to satisfy itself as to the character of its teaching, and the manner in which its grants have been applied. But my noble Friend (the Earl of Winchilsea) has stated that there is another ground upon which inquiry is called for—that, whereas the original intention of the grant of 1845 was to pro-

1335
vide for the adequate education of the priesthood of Ireland, a very strong impression prevails that the funds appropriated by Parliament for that purpose are not eventually applied solely to the purposes of Ireland; but that they are dispensed upon missionary establishments in almost every quarter of the globe. Now, the noble Earl admits the perfect right of Parliament to diminish, to augment, and even to abolish altogether this grant, should it become apparent to Parliament that the mode in which it was administered was defective. Well, my Lords, we have thus taken up two positions: first of all, we are about to inquire into matters which are a legitimate subject of inquiry—which in no way embrace or affect the principles or doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church—still less can that inquiry be considered to assume anything of a persecuting character. On the other hand, having the admission that such an inquiry is being demanded by the voice of the country—that it is not only open to them, but that it is the actual duty of the Government to grant it—I must say we have advanced a long way in the discussion of the subject, because we have therein an allowance that the clergy of Maynooth are amenable to the authority of Parliament, and that it is our duty to investigate their conduct if needs be. However, my Lords, I am free to confess, that, between the Motion proffered by my noble Friend and that of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, I can see no very great or broad distinction. My noble Friend proposes to inquire into the system of education pursued in the College of Maynooth; that is the first point. The noble Earl, on the other hand, proposes to inquire into the management and administration of Maynooth, into its discipline, and the course of studies pursued there. Now, I must say, the language of the noble Earl seems to me only to express, in words more extended, the aim and scope of my noble Friend's Motion. And, I would observe, in passing, on a comment which has been made on a previous notice which my noble Friend had given, which is alleged to have been calculated to create great pain, but which was withdrawn after it had remained on the table of your Lordships' House for some time. Now, my Lords, it is only necessary for me to remind your Lordships that the Motion fell to the ground in consequence of the necessary and unavoidable absence of my
1336
noble Friend. But, now, I have to point out to your Lordships wherein the proposition of the noble Earl opposite differs from that of my noble Friend. The noble Earl proposes to limit the inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth since the grant of 1845 was conferred. Well, I must say that that limitation is somewhat inconsistent with the argument which was used by the noble Earl himself, for did he not state that no result could be determined since 1845, for so short a period had elapsed since then that not a single pupil could be found whose course of education could have been comprised within that time? Well, then, is it not apparent that the noble Earl professes to inquire into the results of a system by which inquiry no results can be obtained, where, in fact, there are circumstances in existence which will completely neutralise his inquiry? But, my Lords, I have yet to learn that in 1845 any extensive change was made in the system of education in vogue at Maynooth. And, be it remembered, that the allegation against the college is, that for a long period of time the priests educated at Maynooth, as compared with the old race of clergymen who received their education abroad, are a less loyal, a less educated, a more bigoted, and otherwise an inferior class of persons to those who preceded them in the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church before Maynooth was established, Now surely, my Lords, if inquiry is to be made into this system—if the charge is made, that it is to the incitement of the Roman Catholic clergy that to a great degree the disordered state of Ireland is attributable —it seems to me that there is no sufficient ground for limiting the investigation into the results to be gathered since 1845. It may be, my Lords, that the inquiry undertaken may make it manifest that by the enlargement of the grant in 1845 the Roman Catholic priesthood have since become a more loyal, a more dutiful, and a more educated class of persons. I only hope that such may be the result. But, my Lords, the real question which you have to decide is this—in what manner can you best obtain information as to the results of the system of education pursued at the College of Maynooth? And concurring, as I do in many respects, with the right rev. Prelate who has addressed your Lordships (the Bishop of London), and also with the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government, I must say,

1337
that as far as my own judgment goes, I prefer the mode of inquiry suggested by my noble Friend who opened the discussion to the proposal advanced on the part of the Government. But because I make that selection, I cannot see why I thereby lay myself open in the slightest degree to the charge or supposition that in 1853 I have altered or modified the opinion which I had formed and expressed in 1845. Indeed, such a conclusion appears to me to be anything but a logical sequence from the avowals which I have now made. And I will state to your Lordships the grounds upon which I rest my preference. But let me observe, that I hardly think the noble Earl at the head of the Government does justice to your Lordships in stating that it would be impossible to constitute a fair Committee. I quite admit, along with my noble Friend, that if the Committee were to be constituted of noble Lords who entertained very strong preconceived opinions on the merits of the case, that the tribunal to whose investigation the question was submitted would be a very one-sided one; and that the inquiry would not be of the impartial character which the country had a right to demand. I confess, however, I am quite unable to divine why the noble Earl, who has all the power in his own hands, cannot place upon the Committee those who, while they held different opinions regarding the merits of the case, are yet unanimous in their desire for a full inquiry. And, my Lords, I cannot but think that in an inquiry of this sort, it is of great consequence that we should have men engaged on it who à priori are disposed to take different views. Looking, then, to the quarter whence we must principally derive our information, it is quite evident that our main source will be in the institution which is the object of inquiry; and that the greater portion of the evidence against the college must be gathered in the cross-examination of the various witnesses. It is from the conflict of various opinions—it is from the evidence brought out by the contrast of these two sets of opinions, that the truth will in all likelihood be elicited. But if the Commission of the noble Earl is to go forth, no opportunity will be afforded of cross-examination, and if the Commissioners be perfectly impartial, the result may be that you will have only the partial evidence of partial witnesses. And, my Lords, there is another point to which great weight ought to be be attached—namely, that
1338
you have not the power of examining upon oath by means of a Commission; you have no right to compel witnesses to answer questions to which they may object. You will, therefore, neither get at the truth, nor have you the power, in case perjury should be virtually committed, of enforcing the penalties attaching to that crime—in fact, my Lords, I am not quite sure that the noble Earl, if he were to attempt to enforce the taking of oaths, would not himself be guilty of a violation of the law. But there is another reason why I give a preference to the plan of my noble Friend over that of the noble Earl opposite. I believe, that without at all imputing any desire to Her Majesty's Government of blinking this question, that the public generally will attach much more importance to an inquiry where the opposing parties will be placed face to face, than in an investigation carried on at a distance in a private room, and of which the country can know nothing as it proceeds. Very much, of course, will depend upon the character and weight of the persons who may be appointed as Commissioners. Who or what they may be I cannot, of course, presume to calculate; but I will say, no matter who they may be, I must confess that both the public at large, as well as the friends and advocates of inquiry, would repose infinitely more confidence in a well-selected Committee from your Lordships' House. For these reasons, my Lords, I much prefer the original Motion to the Amendment; but if there be any strong or general feeling on the part of your Lordships in favour of a Commission, it would be better to adopt it as the unanimous decision of this House. In this respect I am in the hands of my noble Friend who introduced the Motion. My opinion is with his. I prefer a Committee to a Commission, and if he thinks proper to divide, I shall vote with him. I leave it, however, to his discretion whether he will divide, or rest satisfied with the declaration of the noble Earl opposite that he will take every possible means of securing a full and impartial inquiry into the whole subject.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, as it was my lot to give a hearty, a sincere, and, at the time, not ineffectual support to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) when he introduced the measure to your Lordships' House for establishing the College of Maynooth, I am anxious now to address a few words to

1339
your Lordships. While I agree with him that this question can be narrowed in the manner he proposes, I nevertheless entirely differ with him as to the mode in which the inquiry should be conducted; and anxious as I am, in common with the noble Earl, to protect that which may be considered as his own offspring from anything like injury, I think it may best be protected from injury on the one hand, and the object of inquiry may better be answered on the other, by adopting that principle of inquiry by Commission which has been suggested by the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Aberdeen), than by having recourse to that plan—unmanageable as it would be, and, because unmanageable, pregnant with mischief—which would be the result of the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea), a course which, I am convinced, if pressed to a division, would be rejected by a large majority of your Lordships' House. After the grave considerations which have been adduced by the right rév. Prelate above me, and by the noble Earl on the other side, as to the possible disadvantages attendant on an inquiry so conducted, I believe a large majority of your Lordships would hesitate before you plunge into an ocean which might be productive, possibly, of the revelation of a few facts, but which would, at the same time, produce much that would be mischievous—much that would be unnecessary—much that would be calculated to sow the seeds of mistrust and anger where it is most desirable that there should be concord and peace. My Lords, we do not speak without experience on this question. Many years ago—before the noble Earl opposite was a Member of this House—I, together with the illustrious Duke and others now dead, and the late Earl of Liverpool, sat on a Committee on the general state of Ireland. That Committee was selected and presided over by the Earl of Liverpool—no Committee could be selected more discreetly—no Committee could be more capable of avoiding those rocks and shoals on which individual Members are liable to split. But, my Lords, you cannot appoint a Committee which shall be free from warm feelings on both sides; and I ask you if you can remember a Committee so destitute of party feeling, or of ecclesiastical or political bias, as to be able to conduct an inquiry of this sort with the necessary temper? I do not wish to speak disrespectfully of Committees of this House; on the contrary, they have often been most
1340
usefully employed in eliciting many important facts on finance, commerce, &c., and have performed good service when faction has not so much been concerned; but considering the results of the particular Committee to which I have referred, I ask your Lordships if you anticipate much better results with regard to an inquiry such as that now proposed? No Committee was ever appointed more free from political bias, or more competent to conduct an inquiry of the sort. Yet, what was the result? It was most injurious to Ireland. There are on all such Committees a certain number of individuals, some more farsighted than others; but others whose vision is more opaque, who, in pursuit of an object, will go as far as they can go, sometimes going to the right, and sometimes to the left of that object. So it was in the Committee on the general state of Ireland. The Committee on the state of Ireland occupied two whole days in the consideration of the degree of authority to be given to the creed of St. Athanasius. It is almost indecorous to allude to this fact, but such was the case. Two days were actually consumed on this question. A right rev. Prelate was required to state on oath whether that creed was necessary to salvation; and the reply was, I remember, that "he could not say whether it was, but that a great many persons had sworn that it was." On another day, a right rev. Catholic Prelate was examined as to the efficacy of masses. He was told to answer, categorically, on oath, whether a great man who paid a great sum of money for masses entered heaven, whilst the poor man, for whom no masses were said, was excluded from heaven? The answer I well remember. It was, "that undoubtedly the masses would have their efficacy; but, for his part, considering the possible sins of the rich man, he would himself rather take the chances of the poor man." I allude to these things not certainly for the purpose of inducing your Lordships to appoint a Committee, but to point out to you the decorum, the wisdom, and the regard for propriety, which would always be observed by a Commission, which these Committees of either House of Parliament are at all times wanting in. I am strongly, therefore, in favour of a Commission. I believe my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) will have no objection to adopt some of the words suggested by the noble Earl, though whether in the Motion itself, or in the instructions to

1341
the Commission, I think is immaterial. My Lords, when the noble Earl states his doubt whether the public would be satisfied if a Committee were not appointed, I must remind him that a Commission was appointed in 1824, which sat for two or three years afterwards, I believe, and that that Commission gave such universal satisfaction that for ten years afterwards no complaints on the subject were heard. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) has stated that he would have no objection to introduce certain words suggested by the noble Earl opposite; but they would also be naturally included in the instructions issued to the Commission. Under a Commission you cannot determine the effects of the Act of 1845, because a sufficient time has not elapsed to admit of an inquiry into the operation of the Act; but there would still remain material subjects for inquiry, such as the actual state of the studies of the students, and the effect of those studies and of the discipline of the institution on the character of the students. That is a fair object of inquiry, and one of my reasons for giving my assent to the Commission would be to ascertain the character of the students, their demeanour and morality, and the peculiar nature of their studies. A Commission on the spot would best institute such an inquiry. If a Committee were appointed, they would have to bring before them professors from Ireland, who, in their turn, would have to bring over all their pupils; whereas a Commission would examine on the spot and pursue their object steadily. Does not this very debate, my Lords, show the tendency to divergence? If we cannot debate in this House for a few hours without having one noble Lord addressing to us his views upon poor-rates, and another on two or three other subjects—on the elections, for instance, while another addresses himself to the Canada Clergy Reserves, as if that question was to be agreeably anticipated before it fairly came before your Lordships' House, how is it to be expected that a Committee, which would sit for four or five hours a day, would not indulge in a variety of subjects, and feast their minds on those particular topics and views to which they are attached? I think this inquiry will answer a useful purpose. When Parliament, at the suggestion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) and of the late Sir Robert Peel, wisely made the grant to Maynooth of a permanent character, it was because the object was felt to be of a permanent char-
1342
acter—it was felt to be a paramount object that the great mass of the clergy of Ireland should be an educated clergy, as they would be less dangerous than if they were uneducated; but it was never intended to relinquish the right of inquiry into the application of that money. It will be right to inquire into the application of this money for these purposes—to ascertain that it has been properly applied, and, if necessary, to suggest to the governors of the institution the necessity of alterations; but I think it of importance that all curricula of the clergy should be maintained in their integrity. My Lords, the famine has been alluded to; but although the noble Earl adverted to it in connexion with the decrease which has taken place in the population, and to the diminution of Roman Catholics in particular, he did not connect it with Maynooth. He alluded also to the conduct of a certain portion of the Roman Catholic clergy in contributing to the agitation in that country, and in opposing the secular power. But when we blame, and not without cause, those of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland who have followed a course of obstruction, we ought also to remember that that very famine was an hour of trial, which afforded to the Roman Catholic clergy the occasion of exhibiting what has never been denied to the Roman Catholic religion—a spirit of fervent charity towards the poor—even laying down their lives to be among them and to comfort them. These virtues cannot be denied them; but it is not for the institution of Maynooth in particular that I claim these virtues and this conduct; and there is no reason why you should attribute all the evils that you ascribe to the Roman Catholic priesthood to Maynooth. No body of men on the face of the earth were ever less qualified to fulfil great public duties because they received as enlightened an education as the nature of their creed and their doctrines permitted. It is because we admit that creed and these doctrines, that we desire they should be taught openly by civilised and enlightened men, instead of being taught by enthusiasts, quacks, and impostors, into whose hands that religion might fall, which, my Lords, might be the case if you withdraw the grant you have solemnly promised to continue to Ireland, so long as that grant is administered conformably with the intentions of the Act.
The EARL of HARROWBYobserved, that if, as had been stated, the Commis-

1343
sioners would have power, without any alteration in the terms of the Motion, to inquire into the two points suggested by the noble Earl near the woolsack, namely, whether the services of the priests educated at Maynooth were confined to Ireland; and, secondly, as to the doctrines taught by them in reference to the connexion of the Church with the State, they would answer the public expectation, although, of course, the objections of those who objected to endowing the College at all would not be obviated. There were those who thought that a Protestant country ought not to endow a Roman Catholic College; and there was also a considerable impression abroad that the Roman Catholic clergy were in favour of concentrating all authority in the Pope, and abandoning the Roman Catholic National Church. If it were an instruction to the Commission that the inquiry should go to the extent suggested by noble Lords on the Opposition benches, then he thought it would be satisfactory to the public. Of the two modes of investigation proposed, he confessed that he preferred a Commission.
The EARL of ABERDEENobserved, that one of the points in the Amendment which had been proposed, that, namely, requiring a return of the number of priests who had received their education in the College of Maynooth, would naturally form one of the objects of inquiry to which the attention of the Commissioners would be directed. He believed that the Commission appointed in 1824 went fully into the question of numbers, and of course the same would be done now. But when his noble Friend proposed to go into an inquiry as to the places and parishes to which the Maynooth priests might have been appointed, he seemed to forget that it was hardly possible to obtain the information desired. He believed it would be impossible, or, at all events, very difficult, to require from the College information respecting the distribution of the persons educated there, because the College of Maynooth had nothing to do with the appointment of priests to parishes; still, it would do no harm to investigate the subject, and to gather all the information attainable. He had, therefore, no objection to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYremarked, that if the Commission to be appointed would go into the points which he had laid before the House, he should be perfectly satisfied.
EARL GREYexpressed his Satisfaction at hearing a declaration of the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) opposite, that in supporting this inquiry, and the particular form of it proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Winchilsea), he did not mean to depart from the opinions which he had expressed upon this subject in 1845. He (Earl Grey) saw no occasion whatever for this inquiry. If, however, there was to be an inquiry, he saw little reason to prefer the one before the other. If he preferred a Commission, it was only for the reason that this mode of inquiry would be the shortest, the least exciting, and the least mischievous. He, however, fully concurred with the noble Earl opposite in considering that there was no inconsistency whatever in supporting this inquiry, and at the same time adhering to the opinions so ably expressed by the same noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in 1845. There had been a good deal said in the course of the debate, which, he confessed, he had heard with great pain; and, he was sorry to say, that in that he was compelled to include the speech of the right rev. Prelate. But that pain was greatly neutralised by finding that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had given no countenance or support whatever to those views which had been pressed upon the House by the right rev. Prelate. He could not, for one, hear, without something amounting to almost repugnance, those arguments which were avowedly declared to be founded upon the presumption that those who professed the principles of Protestantism were right, and that all others were wrong. He was bound to say that he thought it was much to be lamented that such language as had been used by the right rev. Prelate towards the Roman Catholic priests, should have been introduced into the present discussion. He thought that there were many excuses to be made for the conduct of the Roman Catholic priests, for he could not help remembering that, throughout the length and breadth of the land, denunciations of their religion had been uttered in most unmeasured language. The right rev. Prelate could not entertain a stronger opinion as to the errors of the Roman Catholic Church than he (Earl Grey) did. He confessed that he could not reconcile the doctrines of that Church with the language of Holy Writ. He confessed that he also dissented from the opinions of a portion of those who professed the doctrines of the Established Church. He also dissented from the opin-

1345
ions of the Unitarians. But while he dissented from the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, could he forget that one-half of the Christian world were sincere believers in her doctrines? Could he forget that those views, which were entertained by a portion of the Protestant religion, were upheld by some of the most exemplary and excellent men in the community? Could he forget that the views of the Unitarian Church were upheld by such men as Channing, who were ornaments to the age in which they lived? What right had he, then, to proclaim that he was right, and that the others were all wrong? He could not help, then, saying that if a man was so determined to adhere to his own exclusive opinions, and to publicly maintain that he was right, and all those who differed from him were necessarily wrong, that such a person must place himself in the situation of being banished from all civil society. He, however, must again repeat, that he had heard with great satisfaction the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) state that he adhered to the opinions which he had expressed upon the subject in 1845.
The EARL of DERBY, in explanation, denied that in the observations he had made, he had either said that he adhered to the opinions he had expressed on the subject in 1845, or that he had departed from them. What he had stated was, that his vote as to an inquiry by a Committee or a Commission was not at all inconsistent with the opinions he had expressed upon this subject in 1845.
EARL GREYexpressed his deep regret at having misunderstood the noble Earl, and he still more lamented that the noble Earl did not state distinctly what his opinions were at the present moment.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAreplied. He acknowledged that his object was to obtain a repeal of the grant to Maynooth. He merely sought for an inquiry, because he thought, if it were granted, he could furnish grounds for the repeal of the grant. He had further stated, that if be could bring forward evidence to show that the grant ought to be withdrawn—that if the House refused to act upon such evidence, he would, in the face of the country, declare that they had abandoned their duty to their Sovereign and their country. If the noble Earl at the head of the Government would but assent to his nomination of two of his Commissioners, he believed in his soul that they would be performing
1346
an act which would make his Government popular throughout the kingdom, because it would then be satisfactory to the public. It was said, that the Committee for which he moved would be viewed as a mere party inquiry. Now, so far from wishing it to be a mere party inquiry, it was his intention to ask the House, as a favour, that his name should be excluded from such Committee. He wished the Committee to be composed of impartial men. He had a high opinion of the honour and impartiality of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and if that noble Earl would say that he would appoint the Members of the Commission from himself alone, without consulting any of his Colleagues, he would consent to the Amendment, and withdraw his Motion. If, however, the noble Earl refused to accept of any of the conditions he had offered, he would divide the House upon the two propositions if he were to stand alone at the bar. The House might depend upon it the people of England were with him upon this subject, and would not be satisfied without the fullest inquiry. He would ever defend his principles. He had entered public life with true Protestant principles as his sincere faith, for he felt that the happiness of the country depended upon their support and maintenance. The very first night he had entered that House he made a profession of his principles, which he had never since departed from, although they had occasioned his separation from many of his political friends, and had rent asunder many of his political friendships. He believed that if those principles were not maintained, dreadful results would happen to our great Protestant empire, and that if they were overthrown, the whole fabric of our constitution would be torn asunder —a constitution which England had ever gloried in—which had raised us above every other nation, and had made them the chosen people of the Christian dispensation. Could anything be fairer than the inquiry which he asked? That inquiry was admitted to be necessary by noble Lords on both sides of the House. He rested his case upon the canon law of the Church of Rome—a law which was utterly subversive of those principles upon which our Sovereign reigned, and our liberties were founded. He implored of their Lordships to insist upon such an inquiry as would give general satisfaction. Desirous as he was to avoid the turmoil of public life—seldom trespassing upon their

1347
Lordships' notice, still he could not, consistently with his sense of duty, consent to the issue of a Commission, because he felt satisfied that such a mode of inquiry would never give satisfaction to the country.
On Question, their Lordships divided:— Content 53: Not Content 110; Majority 57.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge

Enfield

Falmouth

The Lord Chancellor

Hardinge

ARCHBISHOPS.

Strangford

York

Sydney.

Dublin.

DUKES.

BISHOPS.

Argyle

Bangor

Leinster

Carlisle

Newcastle

Chichester

Norfolk.

Exeter

MARQUESSES.

Hereford

Anglesey

Llandaff

Camden

Norwich

Clanricarde

Oxford

Lansdowne

St. Asaph

Normanby

St. David's

Northampton

Worcester

Ormonde

Winchester

Sligo.

BARONS.

EARLS.

Abinger

Aberdeen

Arundell

Airlie

Ashburton

Albemarle

Beaumont

Bessborough

Blantyre

Bruce

Byron

Burlington

Camoys

Carlisle

Campbell

Camperdown

Carrington

Chichester

Cloncurry

Clanwilliam

Colborne

Clare

Cremorne

Clarendon

Crewe

Cottenham

De Mauley

Cowper

De Tabley

Craven

Dufferin

Cawdor

Erskine

Durham

Elphinstone

Ellenborough

Foley

Essex

Hatherton

Errol

Heytesbury

Fingall

Keane

Fitzwilliam

Lilford

Gosford

Lovat

Granville

Lyttelton

Grey

Milford

Harrowby

Monteagle

Harewood

Overstone

Morton

Petre

Romney

Raglan

Scarborough

Ribblesdale

Sefton

Rivers

Shaftesbury

Say and Sele

Somers

Stanley of Alderley

Spencer

Suffield

Wicklow

Vaux

Zetland.

Wharncliffe

VISCOUNTS.

Wodehouse

Canning

Wrottesley.

Resolved in the Affirmative; and said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned.