Sitting of 7 July 1853

Preamble
MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Probate and Administration; Entry of Seamen; Naval Coast Volunteers: Coinage Offences (Colonies); Dublin Carriage.
2° Copies of Specifications Repeal; Sale, &c. of Lands (Ireland); Dublin Parliamentary Registration.
3a Public Houses (Scotland).

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 7 (Determination of Cottage Holdings).
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to this clause, the object of which was to convert the tenancies of persons employed by the owner of a cottage, either as agricultural labourers, or hired servants or artisans, into tenancies which might be determined by a monthly notice.
MR. KEOGHsaid, he must support the clause as it stood, because he thought it would be holding out a bonus for the construction of cottages.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, it appeared to him that the clause was intended to provide for the exclusive benefit of the cottier class.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he also should support the clause as it stood, considering that it was emphatically a clause for the benefit of the cottier tenantry.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he objected to the clause on the ground that it tended to convert the cottier class into a gipsy population.
MR. KIRKbelieved, that the object of the clause was to encourage landlords in the neighbourhood of manufactories to build a better class of cottages for those employed in the manufactories.
MR. SULLIVANsaid, he was opposed to the clause, inasmuch as it would subject the poor cottier tenantry to monthly notices.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he considered this clause to be unnecessary. The common law was, in his opinion, quite sufficient to provide a remedy for any grievance that could occur; and he should move that the clause be expunged.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 13: Majority 38.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 8.
Clause 9.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, that he entertained the same objection to this clause as to Clause 7—that it was quite unnecesary; and he should therefore move that it be expunged.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he considered that legislation on the subject was necessary, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) had adopted, in the clause under consideration, the wisest form of legislation. He should certainly vote that the clause should not be expunged; and he hoped that the Committee would pass it as it at present stood.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEthought, that the clause would prove to be satisfactory in its operation.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 10 (Dispute as to con-acre to be summarily determined).
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he must express a wish that there should be a power of appeal from the justice of the peace, in cases of dispute as to the value of conacre.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that if it were the wish of the Committee that a power of appeal should be given, he would have no objection to frame a clause to that effect.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he must protest against introducing a principle in Ireland that was not recognised in any other part of the kingdom—namely, that one justice of the peace should have the power of deciding upon these matters.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he could explain that this power was granted under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act of 1851, owing to the difficulty of procuring the attendance of two justices in many parts of Ireland.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he concurred very much with the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell); but he thought the objection might be removed

1369
by omitting the words "one of the," and thus leave the decision to the magistrates assembled in petty sessions.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the presence of a second magistrate could not always be obtained in many parts of Ireland, and, consequently, if the suggestion just made were adopted, parties would often be left without redress.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the conduct of the magistrates of Ireland was so closely scrutinised in matters of this kind, that there was no great likelihood of their acting with impropriety, particularly as it was understood that there would be a power of appeal granted.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, he wished to move that the words of the clause should be "before two or more justices of the peace," instead of "before one;" with a view of rendering the decision as to the value of con-acre more satisfactory to all parties.
Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 7, to leave out the words "any one or more than one Justice," in order to insert the words "two or more Justices."
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he could not consent to this proposition.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLwould suggest in reply to an observation of the deficient number of magistrates, that others should be placed in the commission.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he was able, from personal observation, to confirm the statement as to the difficulty of finding two magistrates to act in some parts of Ireland. In the part of the country with which he was connected, the county of Kerry, there was a district twenty-five miles long in which there was only one magistrate. It might be said, "Appoint others;" but where were they to come from? It was necessary to appoint a poor-law guardian in this district not long since, and not a man could be found fit for the office, because nobody there could speak English. At length an auctioneer, who lived in a town twenty miles off, and could speak English enough to make himself understood, was seized as he was travelling in his gig through the country, and made poor-law guardian. Upon another occasion a postmaster was wanted, and after much consideration it was determined to appoint to the office a man who was what was called in Ireland "sense bearer" to the district—a person whose business it was to carry information from one person to another. The man was duly installed
1370
in his office, when an insuperable objection to the appointment appeared in the fact of his being unable to read or write.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, it certainly was his intention to divide the Committee on this Amendment, on the ground that no such power should be entrusted to a single magistrate. He had no idea that the whole of Ireland should be legislated for in deference to the particular circumstances of a wild, outlandish place, such as that described by the hon. Member for Kerry.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 32: Majority 23.
MR. R. FOXsaid, he wished to propose an Amendment which he thought was necessary in order to render the clause more clear and satisfactory.
Amendment proposed in line 18, after the words "not being," to insert the words "landlord or agent of the estate or."
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 61: Majority 34.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 11 to 19 inclusive.
Clause 20 (Letting by con-acre evidence of sub-letting).
MR. DUFFYsaid, he objected to the clause because it provided that con-acre should be treated as sub-letting. Con-acre, it was very well known, was only let for a few months in the year; and, therefore, could not be properly considered in the character of sub letting. If this clause were passed, no man would be entitled to let con-acre but the landlord. He should, therefore, move that the words "by way of con-acre or otherwise," be omitted from the clause.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that the object of the clause was to discourage as much as possible the con-acre system in Ireland, which, it was generally admitted, had produced mischievous consequences. He, however, would have no objection to reconsider the clause with a view of meeting the objections that were urged against it.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 21 to 23.
Clause 24 (Subdivision by Will).
MR. M'MAHONsaid, by this clause if an occupier happened to die intestate, after taking a lease, the property was given in his land not to his children, but

1371
to some individual among his next of kin whom the land lord might nominate. He considered that a great and unparalleled innovation tin the existing law of the land, and he! should move an Amendment with the View of taking away that power of appointment from the landlord.
Amendment proposed, in p. 8, 1. 10, to leave out the words "be void" to the end Of the clause.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the object of the clause was to get at the proper assignee on the death of a lessee, so as to prevent any unnecessary subdivision' of the land. He was, however, willing to reconsider it.
MR. KEOGHsaid, lid was favourable to the Amendment, for he was opposed to the principle sought to be established in the part of the clause to Which exception had been taken.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEcontended that the Statute of Distributions would settle this matter in Ireland, as it did in any similar case in England, without the intervention of such a clause as this at all.
MR. MACARTNEYwould suggest that the power of appointment given in the clause should only be conferred on the landlord in the event of a lessee dying without issue.
MR. LUCASsaid, he must express a hope that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) would press his Amendment to d division.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he must urge upon the Committee the expediency of agreeing to the clause, after the assurance given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) that he would reconsider the matter with a view to amend the clause, if necessary at a future stage of the Bill.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, according to the law of Scotland, the lease, in such a case as was Contemplated in the Clause, would descend to the eldest son as the heir-at-law of the lessee, and if there was he son then it would go to his daughters, if there were any, jointly. A landlord in Scotland had no such power of appointment as Was given by this clause; and he (Mr. Dunlop) was strongly opposed to the introduction of such a principle into the relationship between landlord and tenant.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he would either consent to take the eldest son, or defer the Consideration of the clause.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he should certainly divide the Committee, because he considered the clause was unnecessary and
1372
unparalleled, unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) consented to withdraw it, with a view to its reconsideration.
Question put, "That the Words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayds 63; Noes 48: Majority 15.
On the question that the Clause stand part of the Bill,
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should divide the Committee on that clause generally. Unless he received a pledge that it would he reconsidered before the third reading, so as to meet the objections which had been urged against its hardships.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he Would urge upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) the propriety of re-Considering the clause, as a great many Members, he believed, had voted for the clause with that understanding.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he was most anxious to make the Bill as perfect as possible. He had certainly offered to reconsider the clause, upon the understanding that there would be he division upon it. Although then, he thought that those who supported the Amendment had no right to ask him to reconsider the clause, he Would, nevertheless, consent to do so.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, he wished to propose the emission from the clause of the following Words: "Under any lease or grant made after the 1st day of January, 1S54;"his object being to make the Clause retrospective as well as) prospective.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he could not con-sent to the Amendment. The clause as it stood settled the question as to mines and wastes from a given day. It would, how-ever, raise many difficulties to make the clause retrospective.
MR. MACARTNEYthought that if the Amendment Were agreed to, it would have the effect of Unsettling all the property in the country.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, what the hon. Baronet (Sir D. Norreys) appeared to desire Would have the effect of confiscation.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, anxious as he Was to secure the interest of the tenant, he could hot Consent to hand over to him the landlord's property in mines and royalties. He was cognisant of cases in which

1373
land leased for lives renewable for ever had been sold for thirty or forty years' purchase more than it would have done in consequence of the existence of mines.
MR. CONOLLYsaid, he must maintain that the clause amounted to a sentence of confiscation against the property of landlords in mines.
MR. E. BALLhoped the clause would be amended as suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Mallow (Sir D. Norreys) and further, that it would reserve all royalties and rights to the landlord in cases where those rights had been exercised.
SIR D. NORREYSsaid, he must deny that the Amendment would, as alleged, amount to a confiscation. It gave the fullest power to tenants over the lands they occupied, except in those cases where reservations had been made.
Amendment withdrawn, and Clause agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE—NAVIGATION OF THE DANUBE.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, as a number of vessels belonging to this country were at present detained in the Danube owing to the interruption of the navigation, he wished to put the two questions of which lie had given notice—whether any instructions have been sent out by Her Majesty's Government to inquire into the case of British vessels at present detained in the Danube owing to the imperfect state of the navigation of that river; and whether, in the event of hostilities with Russia before such ships can be liberated, a sufficient force will be sent out to that part to prevent their falling into the hands of hostile Powers?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the recent obstruction of the navigation of the Sulina mouth of the Danube has been greatly increased owing to accidental circumstances of weather. The river has overflowed its banks and spread over a wider surface, which has had the effect of diminishing the force of the current and increasing the deposit of mud at the bar. The particular inconvenience to which the hon. Member alludes is temporary, and no doubt when the cause ceases the inconvenience will also Cease. But I am bound to say, for a great many years past, Her Majesty's Government have had great reason to complain of the neglect of the Government of Russia to perform those du-
1374
ties which belong to it as the possessor of the territory where the delta of the Danube is situate, to clear and maintain clear that particular branch. It was my duty, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to make frequent representations to the Russian Government upon this matter, and they always admitted it was their duty to do so. They admitted that which we assert, that as they had thought fit by the treaty of Adrianople to possess themselves of the mouths of the Danube—the great watercourse, the great highway of nations, leading to the centre of Germany—it was their duty to see that it was always maintained free and accessible, according to the terms of the Treaty of Vienna. The Government of Russia did not dispute that obligation, but asserted they were always employed in using means for remedying this inconvenience. The grievance is this; that while the mouths of the Danube formed part of the Turkish territory the depth of water was sixteen feet over the bar, it is now, by the neglect of the Russian authorities, decreased to eleven feet; and even that eleven feet is reduced to so narrow a channel in consequence of obstructions oil each side—from the quantity of vessels being wrecked and allowed to remain there, forming sandbanks and obstructions—that it is very difficult for ships to pass out, except in very ealm weather, and with a very skilful pilot. There were local interests of which we were cognisant, to thwart what we are bound to believe were the intentions of the Russian Government—the rivalship on the part of Odessa, which leads very likely to a desire to obstruct the exports of commerce by the Danube, to increase the exports of Odessa, and also that little local interest which arises from the profits which bargemen and lightermen make in unloading vessels which come down the Danube, and loading them afterwards when they are outside the bar. These local feelings and interests certainly must have been allowed to obstruct without, probably, their being aware of it, the good intentions of the Russian Government, for they promised to take all effectual means, and said they would send a steam dredge to clear all obstructions at the bar. That steam dredge came; that steam dredge in two hours was put out of gear from some accident or other, and that steam dredge had to go back to Odessa for repair. We recommended that the Russian Government should pursue the method by which the Turkish Government kept

1375
the channel clear. That method was a very simple one: to require every vessel that went out to drag astern a good iron rake. It kept the channel clear, and the depth of sixteen feet was constantly kept up. I understand that, in addition to the representations which it was my duty to make when in the Foreign Office, constant complaints and representations have been made to the Russian Government; and I hope that Government will at last break through the trammels which hitherto seem to have impeded its proper action, and see that it is a positive duty which it owes to Europe to maintain free that passage, which it obtained by force of arms, and which they believe themselves justified in retaining by the treaty of Adrianople.
MR. LIDDELLhoped the noble Lord would give an answer to the second part of the question—whether, in the event of hostilities, a sufficient force would be sent to prevent British ships falling into the hands of hostile Powers?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I apprehend the question of the hon. Gentleman relates to vessels now confined within the Danube and within the Russian territory for want of water to get out. I think he will see, if by any misfortune, which I cannot at present anticipate, war should arise between this country and Russia, British ships of war cannot get them out without the water.

REMOVAL OF SMITHFIELD MARKET.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Act of 1851, for the removal of Smithfield Market, and the establishment of another market for the metropolis. Great opposition was given to the progress of that Bill by the Corporation of the City of London. They declined to have anything to do with it; but nevertheless a clause was inserted allowing them, within a certain number of months, to give notice of their intention to undertake the management of the new market. A tew hours previous to the expiration of the limited time, they made their election to shut up Smithfield and establish a new market. A plan was submitted, he understood, by the Corporation to the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), the then Secretary of State, and he approved of the site proposed, with the exception that the area was not sufficiently extensive. As far as he recollected, the
1376
area was fifty acres, and in consequence of the representations of the right hon. Gentleman it was extended to seventy: acres. There was a plan now to let out a large portion of ground on building, leases, for buildings having no connexion with the market; and he wished to know whether there had been any communication with his noble Friend by the Corporation since he had been in office in relation to this market, and whether any plan of the buildings or any views of the Corporation had been made known to him with reference to the amount of area which they proposed to adopt and use for the purposes of the market?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, no communication on the subject had been made to him since he had held his present office. The Act to which his hon. Friend referred gave but one power to the Secretary of State—the power to sanction or refuse his sanction to the site proposed for the new market; but having once sanctioned that site, no further power of interference was reserved in the hands of the Secretary of State; and the Act moreover did give to the Corporation of London a power that if the land purchase should appear to he greater than the amount required for their purpose, they might dispose of a portion of that land. His functions of Secretary of State did not extend to the length of regulating the arrangements which the Corporation had power to make.

SUCCESSION DUTY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 46 (Legal proceeding to be taken if returns are not made).
MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the clause as too stringent.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must explain that it was meant that the powers given in Clause 45, should take effect through the provisions of Clause 46, and those provisions were conceived in a spirit favourable to the taxpayers.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the clause prevented, and did not cause, vexation. It was less severe than the usual process by the Attorney General for recovering in the Court of Exchequer in all Crown cases.
MR. HENLEYwould suggest that a writ of summons to show cause should precede the issue of the writ.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he did not object to that.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, the last part of the clause was more stringent than the first, and he begged to suggest giving the Court power to extend the time for returning the account in cases requiring it.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would also accept this suggestion, and proposed words in accordance with it, which were agreed to.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 47.
Clause 48 (Power of Commissioners to compel production of Books and Documents, and to inspect Public Books without payment of any fee).
MR. WALPOLEwould suggest the necessity Of a definition of the "accountable parties" to whom this provision applied.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to insert an Amendment to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 15, line 41, to leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the words 'may make,' in page 16, line 4, in order to insert the words 'every person who, under the provisions of the Act, may deliver any account or estimate of the property comprised in any succession shall, if required by the Commissioners, produce before them or their officers such Books and Documents in the custody or control of such person, so far as the same relate to such account or estimate, as may be capable of affording any necessary information for the purpose of ascertaining such property and the Duty payable thereon, and the Commissioners,' instead thereof."
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he would propose as an Amendment, to insert the words "except title deeds and muniments, and evidences of title." He conceived that his Amendment ought to be adopted, for otherwise any person would run the risk of losing his estate by the disclosure of some defective title. The clause, as it stood, created a most inquisitorial and improper power, entirely opposed to the spirit of our law, for a court of law would not, as between contending parties, compel the production of title deeds, unless a clear case of interest in them was shown on the part of the person requiring their production. Moreover, he believed it to be unnecessary to call for the title deeds for the purposes of this Bill, for they would not disclose the desired particulars of the property, and he attached but little value to the provision that "all such information shall be deemed confidential."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was absolutely necessary that the Commissioners should have
1378
the power proposed to be given them in the clause, in order to ascertain the amount of tax to be levied, and to be sure of the proper parties on whom to levy it. The words of the Amendment were very wide, and he was advised that under them the Commissioners would not even be aide to call for and inspect the rentals of estates. To the argument that a court of law would not compel the production of title deeds unless the party requiring them showed a distinct interest in them, he replied, that the very ground on which it was proposed to give the Commissioners power to inspect title deeds was, that the Bill created on their part an interest in the property; and one object of the clause was to enable the Commissioners to obtain the particulars of the several interests in land in order to levy the proper duty. The hon. Gentleman appeared to attach no value to the provision as to the confidential character of the information required; but he believed that public officers would feel bound by that obligation; and with respect to confidential investigations made under the Income Tax Act by the Special Commissioners, he might observe, that not a single statement had reached him to the effect that that confidence had ever been betrayed.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDsaid, he thought the proposal made by the Government one of a dangerous character, and he should, therefore, support the Amendment. Under the clause, as it stood, any person would be compelled to disclose his title deeds, and might be dragged, in consequence, into that greatest of all evils, a Chancery suit, and ruined, perhaps, before he got out again. He recollected that one of the principal arguments against an Act for the registration of deeds was, that it would have the effect of publishing to the world people's title deeds, and that the result would be, that every attorney who desired a job would have the opportunity of picking holes in the title of any gentleman to his estate, and of dragging him into a court of law; and now the Government, in order to obtain a miserable amount of revenue, were going to endanger the possession of every man's landed property in the country; if it did not endanger the possession of it, it would at least drag it into the Court of Chancery, where he might be ruined by some twenty years' litigation. Unless, therefore, he heard stronger arguments than those urged by the right hon. Gentleman, he should feel it his duty to

1379
support the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mullings).
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he would prefer that the Amendment of his hon. Friend should he confined to title deeds and muniments, leaving out evidences of title. They, at least, were not wanted, and, therefore, ought not to he produced.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment had made no answer to what he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated to be the main ground and reason of access being required to such documents as these—namely, the diversity of interests in property. It was proposed now, as he understood, to exclude from inspection all settlements; but the hon. Gentleman who had spoken had not shown how it would be possible for the Government to deal with the interests of persons under settlements unless those settlements were produced. If they got rid of the consanguinity scale, and levied a uniform rate on all successions, then the question would be very much simplified; hut he had not been able to discover any means, if such a scale were adopted, of dispensing with access to these documents. If the objection were the supposed arbitrary interference of the inspecting officer, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would consent to a power of appeal being given to a superior authority, such as a Judge at chambers, without whose order no person should be compelled to produce his deeds. But the question now raised was, whether the parties were to have an absolute right to withhold their titles.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, under the term "documents," meant two things totally distinct—namely, title deeds, which ought not to be produced, and settlements, the production of which he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman was necessary. There was no reason why they should not make it perfectly clear by having two distinct clauses. It would not do to tell hon. Members there was no danger in producing title deeds. The Report of their own Commission said, that for 150 years they had been trying to carry out a system of registration; but it had been effectually opposed by the uniform opinion of every solicitor in the kingdom that there would be danger to property if title deeds were exposed.
MR. MALINSsaid, he could not conceive a more dangerous power than that proposed to be given by this clause. It was
1380
another illustration of the extreme power which the Government wished to assume over the property of every man in the kingdom. Hitherto it had been the right of every man to have the power of locking up his own title deeds, but now the Government proposed to deprive him of that power, and to allow any man to say to another, "Let me see the title deeds under which you claim, and your settlements." The hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond) was in error in supposing that settlements were not title deeds, for in many cases a settlement was often the only muniment of title. To get at the value of a man's property it would be quite sufficient to make him produce his rental. It might turn out, on the inspection of a title, that the party was not entitled; and how could any one say that some officer might not commit a breach of confidence, and cause the greatest inconvenience? If the tax could not be collected without the possession of such a power, it might be conceded, but no necessity for such a power had been shown. There could be no difficulty in as-certaining the degree of relationship or the nature of the property. It might be said, "You are bound in the case of other property to produce a will;" but a will was a registered document. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was now proposing, for the first time, to make an inroad on that sacred principle of English law, that a man's title ought not to be investigated by those having an adverse right. Without a shadow of justification, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to declare that a man's title deed was no longer his own property, and that a revenue officer would be entitled to inspect it. In the case of the income tax, from which so vast an amount of revenue was obtained, no such power was required, and yet for this tax, from which the right hon. Gentleman admitted that he expected only 460,000 l, such a power was proposed to be given without any necessity for it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman with respect to the income tax was inapplicable to the present case. In the case of the income tax there was a uniform rate levied. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish a uniform rate to be levied in the present case? If so, the land, instead of paying 1 per cent, would have to pay 3 or 4 per cent, and great difficulties would arise. Again, did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish the tax to be levied on the gross income, irre-

1381
spective of repairs? [Mr. MALINS: On the rental.] The hon. and learned Gentleman bad assumed that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was claiming an uncontrolled power over these documents, when he had stated directly the contrary. He had said that he should not object to the power of calling for these documents being controlled by a superior authority, as a Judge at chambers, and yet the hon. and learned Gentleman had after that twice said that Government claimed an uncontrolled inspection of the documents by a revenue officer. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also said that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had calculated upon getting only 460,000 l. from this tax. He never said any such thing; he said distinctly the contrary. What he said was, that at first he did not expect to get more from land itself, but that ultimately it would be much more from the tax on moneys payable out of land. After considering this subject, the Government believed that access to these documents was in some way necessary; and certainly the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford had not in what he had said helped them out of the difficulty. He wanted to know how it was possible, without documents, to deal with a case of diversity of interest created under a settlement, and at different rates of tax on those different interests. The only real answer that could be given to the proposition was this—charge a man in full, and leave him to show in what respect he ought to be exonerated. He considered it would be impossible to ascertain the charge on the property without an inspection.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, the object in view was not to check the account of the property, or find out the tax to be paid, but whether some one else ought to pay it. By the clause the production of the documents had reference only to "such" account as the party handed in. It would not, therefore, enable them to compel the production of the title in the only case wherein the right hon. Gentleman said it would be necessary.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mullings) was calculated to mislead the Committee, and would produce a result more oppressive, more onerous, and more mischievous than if the clause were allowed to remain as it was. The way in which the production of a deed would be required from a party delivering an account, would be this The account would be delivered, in
1382
all probability, with certain deductions. One deduction might be in respect of a jointure, and another in respect of a portion. Now, unless a power should be given to call for deeds to ascertain these matters, there would be an appeal to a Court of Justice to verify the account. The title deeds, in the sense alluded to, could never be inquired into. All that would be required was the document creating the interest. The production of the deeds showing the title and evidencing the manner in which the property was transmitted, would never be required. It would be necessary to ascertain, not only the relation of the successor, but his interest, and that interest would be apparent on the production of one deed alone. The law stood thus: that whosoever had an interest in the estate bad also an interest in the title deeds. The purchaser of part of an estate had a right to examine the deeds. Now, if the Government and the public had a charge on the estate in respect of duty, they would have a direct interest in the title-deeds of that estate; and if they resisted that modified and guarded examination of documents provided by the Bill, they would subject themselves to a more onerous and rigorous and oppressive examination in a Court of Justice. He thought it desirable that the production of deeds and settlements should be guarded by the interposition of some judicial discretion, and had no objection to annex a proviso to this effect:—
"Provided always, that no title deeds, muniments, or evidence of title of real estate, shall be required to be produced, unless, on application by the Commissioners to a Judge of the Court of Exchequer in England, Scotland, or Ireland, sitting in chambers, such Judge shall think proper to make an order for the production thereof, or of such parts thereof as shall be necessary; and the same shall in that case be inspected by such person, in such manner and under such restrictions, as such Judge shall think fit to direct."
That proviso would go a great way to meet the objection which had been raised, and he could not consent to give any greater limitation to the necessity and the right of inspection.
MR. BARROWsaid, the Government would have ample security as to the different rates to be charged, because the property could never be disposed of without the production of a receipt for the full payment of the duty in respect of the person charged.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "documents," to insert the words "except title deeds and muniments, and evidences of the title."
Question put, "That those words he there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 78: Majority 6.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he regretted the result of the division which had just taken place. He had himself inspected a great number of title deeds and settlements, but he never consulted one in which there was not some mistake or omission. If title deeds were to be arbitrarily inspected by Government offices in the way proposed, the old saying, that the best thing that could happen to a man would be, to have his title deeds burnt, would come true indeed. He was quite sure that the clause if passed in its present shape, would involve the land in an immense amount of litigation, without adding one shilling more to the revenue. He would move an Amendment, limiting the clause to documents of the nature of leases, plans, court, and rent rolls.
MR. BUCKseconded the Amendment. He said, he considered the clause as one of the most unjust and iniquitous which it had ever been his lot to read. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might be able to pass his Bill by majorities of five and six; but he might depend upon it, that the question would excite such an agitation in the country—create such a chaos of discontent—as would perhaps, shake the foundations of the monarchy, and destroy the established institutions of the land.
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "documents," to insert the words, "only as are of the nature of leases, plans, court, and rent rolls."
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he had listen-ed with great satisfaction to the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The fact was this, it was a combination of the Manchester school and Her Majesty's Government for undermining the land. But he begged to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that those who now professed to be his friends, were in reality his enemies, and would be the first to turn round and undermine him.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was not surprised at the course taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and hon. Gentlemen opposite, for their object avowedly was
1384
to undermine the landed interests; but it was worthy of remark, that the only Gentleman connected with the land who had spoken from the Ministerial benches had denounced the clause, and had voted against it.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he had in that House denounced the income tax as a most inquisitorial measure, and yet he was now urging forward one which was far more inquisitorial. It was very well for him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) to come down to that House with a majority at his back, and force these measures. He (Viscount Gal-way hoped that when this Bill was brought forward in another place, the consideration of the small majorities by which it had passed that House, would lead to a doubt as to whether this measure ought to be inflicted upon this country. He had received a letter from a Whig constituent, who said that this extending the legacy duty to land was the most unfair thing ever done.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the clause required nothing to be done beyond what was already authorised under the present Legacy Duty Act. The Commissioners for collecting the legacy duty were empowered to call for all papers and documents they pleased; and although it was true that the legacy duty did not affect land, he saw no reason why that description of property should be placed on a different footing from other kinds, This tax had been called a robbery; but he thought that terra was more applicable to the present legacy duty. It was monstrous for noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite to impose a tax upon legacies given to the meanest of their labourers and domestic servants of twenty times the amount which they imposed on themselves. He was delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in this and in other respects adhered to the integrity of his proposition; and he should support the clause as it stood.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he should vote for the Amendment, the whole of the arguments on the other side amounting to this—that because personal property suffered an injustice, therefore real property should do so likewise. If real property were to be taxed, let it be taken under Schedule A, instead of endangering all title to property, as these proceedings inevitably would do. If the Bill passed in its present form, it would lead to so much litigation as utterly to annul all the saving in the public expenditure which

1385
had been effected by the recent law reforms. If the State stood in need of money, he for one should be found ready to vote that money by the imposition of a direct property tax. What he complained of was, not the amount of the proposed tax, but the inquisitorial nature of the measure by which it was to be imposed, and the effect which it would be likely to have in undermining the titles of the owners of real property to their estates.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Government ought to take into their consideration that under the operation of the clause before the Committee no parties whose deeds of settlement were in the hands of mortgagees would be in the slightest degree affected by its enactments. Such being the case, it was scarcely fair to compel those parties whose deeds happened to be in their own hands to submit to the production. This, he thought, was worthy of the consideration of the Government, and should induce them to reconsider the question as to the evidence of title. It was a great annoyance to the owners of real property to be compelled to produce their deeds, and he asked if the means of collecting the revenue provided under the other clauses of the Bill were not already ample? He would entreat the Government to reconsider the question. He could see no reason why the provision should be insisted upon; but he was convinced that the plan, if carried out, would occasion an immense amount of ill feeling, for there were many persons who, from some motive or another, Which it was unnecessary to analyse, had the strongest possible objection to produce their title deeds.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not admit that the production of deeds, as proposed under this clause, would inflict very serious hardship upon the owners of real property. They were to be produced only upon the authority of a Judge, and subject to the application of a Commissioner) who would be bound by the most solemn obligations to preserve the strictest secrecy with respect to them. The production of these documents, under such circumstances, could by no means, therefore, be considered as analogous to their production in the case of a dispute as to the right to an estate between conflicting parties. With respect to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the clause would have no effect so far as deeds placed in the hands of a mortgagee were concerned, he (the Chan-
1386
cellor of the Exchequer) would observe that the fact that the Bill might prove inadequate to meet all cases whatsoever, could constitute no valid objection to its enactment. In the case of title deeds it might be perfectly true that the operation of the Bill would not extend to their production if placed in the hands of mortgagees; but it must be remembered that the necessity for access to the title deeds would be comparatively very rare. That to which there would be a necessity of access was to settlements actually in force, and he did not believe that they were ordinarily in the hands of mortgagees. Mortgagees might have authenticated copies of them, but it was the duty of the trustee to have possession of them. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, that was his notion of the subject; and, at all events, the Government looked to the trustee, who was the person responsible for the settlement. The Government had freely and willingly made this concession—that there should be no question at all about the production of these documents without need proved in each case. He would impress upon the Committee, in conclusion, the force of the argument that the documents in question could only be produced upon application to a Judge, and when that Judge had ordered their production as necessary.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, if the Bill could be well or practically carried into effect without the power now demanded, he could only say that this was additional reason why they should still continue to resist the further progress of the measure. The powers proposed to be taken by this clause had never yet been conceded to any Government except in criminal cases, and to apply them in this instance would be most unjust. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the deeds were not to be produced unless a Judge should make an order to that effect; but was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the expense parties would be put to in resisting such an order? They would have to employ an attorney, and retain counsel. There must be a common law counsel who must be assisted by a conveyancer; and a vast amount of machinery must be set in motion when they wished to resist the curiosity of the Commissioners to inspect the title deeds, and the end would be that they would have to embark in a course of litigation which no man ought to be subject to. Nor, even after all this expense and trouble had been gone to, could the order of the Judge be

1387
successfully resisted, because no Judge would refuse to make an order when the Commissioners stated that the production of the documents was necessary for the ends of public justice. The proviso, therefore, about the order of the Judge was useless, while it was perfectly idle to talk about obligations of secrecy when the contents of the deeds would be disclosed to the attorney's clerk engaged in each case. If there was no other ground, that would be sufficient to reject the clause, and he hoped the Committee would do so accordingly.
The EARL of MARCHsaid, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the objection which had been raised to the production of deeds in the possession of mortgagees.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought he had already answered the question. As a general rule, they did not propose to touch such deeds, being able to obtain, as he believed, every information that was required without any reference to them whatever.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, he rose to deny the allegations that had been made on the other side, that he and his friends were consulting the interests of the great landowners. He believed in his conscience that the people who would be most oppressed by this Bill would be the small landowners, and on this point be would appeal to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, and ask him what the operation of this Bill would be among the small landowners in the county with which he was connected? The great landowners always employed men of the first respectability, in whose hands title deeds would be safe; but the small landowners went to what were generally called the hedge lawyers of the district, and it was his firm opinion that there were many such persons in whose hands title deeds would not be safe. He could tell those hon. Gentlemen who professed to represent the interests of the great masses of the people, that so far as he had watched their movements it appeared to him that there was no class of men who were greater enemies to the mass of the population than they were.
MR. GROGANsaid, he must complain of the extension of the clause to Ireland. For nearly one hundred and fifty years there had been a species of registration of deeds in that country, and those documents were enrolled in a public office. There could, therefore, be no necessity whatever for extending that provision to Ireland.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERsaid, that if all the desired information was to be found registered in Ireland, the Judge would, of course, never call for the production of the title deeds.
MR. GROGANsaid, that before the Judge could give his decision, the owner of the property might be put to considerable expense.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that in Scotland all property was registered, but he did not entertain the same apprehension as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grogan), for he felt quite convinced, that when full information could thus be procured, no Judge would make an order for the production of titles and documents. It seemed strange to him that the landed interest of England should consider their stability jeopardised by access to their title deeds being given to an appointed functionary. In Scotland every man's title deeds were registered, and were accessible to any human being, and yet he did not believe the stability of the landed interest in that country to be in at all a more dangerous position than in this. It had been stated that a great number of the title deeds to property in this country were in the hands of mortgagees, and he could not understand how it was that persons did hot object to placing their title deeds in the hands of a mortgagee, and yet felt repugnance to exhibit them, to an officer under the sanction of a Judge. So far from the measure being injurious to the landed interest, he believed that their stability would be increased by it.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he could assure the hon. Member who had just sat down, that he entertained a deep conviction that the measure was attended with danger to the landed interest. It was of the greatest importance, in his opinion, not to insist on the production of all the documents, for he knew, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty knew it as well as any man, that if a settlement were made upon property, a slight error or omission in the deed might be the cause of a person losing part or the whole of that property; and he hoped that the Committee would assent to his proposition.
SIR CHARLES BURRELLsaid, that the provision would impose new difficulties on trustees, and would be calculated to prevent gentlemen altogether from accepting the duties of that office.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 97: Majority 11.
MR. WALFOLEsaid, he now rose to object to that part of the clause which allowed the officers to take extracts and copies of the title deeds. Suppose a commissioner were to do so, and to have them in his possession when he died, they would then become the property of his executors or administrators. He considered that the power given by the present clause was a power which ought not to be bestowed upon any body of men, except under the severest and most stringent penalties. He should propose to amend the clause, by striking out the words "and they make such extracts therefrom and copies thereof as they shall think necessary for the purposes of this Act."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think there is any absolute necessity for these words, and I have no objection to their being struck out.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he must complain that penalties were imposed on gentlemen if they did not comply with the demands of the inspectors, but that there was no penalty upon the inspectors if they violated the secrecy that was enjoined on them with regard to the documents they inspected. He would propose that a penalty of 100 l. should be inserted in the clause, in the case of any such disclosure by the commissioners or their officers.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not differ from the hon. Gentleman on the principle of his Amendment. He doubted, indeed, if the penalty were high enough; but he demurred to a principle of so much novelty being introduced into their mode of dealing with public servants. They now acted upon the principle that for any misconduct public servants were liable to dismission. They now held their offices during pleasure. He feared that if they were to enact penalties for malversation, or even for negligence, it might act in a way very different from what they anticipated. There was his own office, for instance—he might commit misdeeds to which no sufficient penalty could be attached, and for which a penalty would not be the proper punishment. He should wish further time for examination before he agreed to the Amendment; but he agreed in the principle of the hon. Member.
MR. HENLEYsaid, there was a power given with regard to the Commissioners
1390
who assessed the income tax, under which any person who objected to a statement of his circumstances before the local functionaries, might go to certain officers of high standing at Somerset House, who were sworn to secrecy, in order to make that statement. He thought it would be a great security to the public, and that it would have a tendency to get rid of some of the ill feeling which this clause, in his opinion, was calculated to engender, if a similar power was given under this Bill to that he had mentioned, and if persons were allowed, if they thought fit, to produce a deed and document only to some authorised persons at Somerset House instead of the local commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no hesitation in saying that it was not desirable for local officers to have compulsory powers of inspecting title deeds, and that, where parties wished it, he would have no objection to allow them to produce their deeds before the Commissioners at Somerset House. There might be some difficulty in the mode of doing so; but he agreed in the principle, and he would take the subject into his consideration.
Question—
"That the words 'every person who, under the provisions of the Act, may deliver any account or estimate of the property comprised in any succession shall, if required by the Commissioners, produce before them or their officers such Books and Documents in the custody or control of such person, so far as the same relate to such account or estimate, as may he capable of affording any necessary information for the purpose of ascertaining such property and the Duty payable thereon, and the Commissioners,' be there inserted."
Put, and agreed to.
On the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,"
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown a disposition to modify the harsher portions of the clause, it seemed to him that even in its amended form it would give such tyrannical and inquisitorial powers that the Committee ought not to assent to its enactment. The clause was tyrannical and inquisitorial in the extreme; and if the tax could only be levied by giving such inquisitorial powers, it was an argument against the tax itself. The powers given by this clause were inconsistent with our institutions, and inconsistent with our national habits and our national character, and so inquisitorial and objectionable in

1391
their-character that they formed an argument against a Bill which could only be carried out by such means. With these strong feelings on the subject, he should feel it his duty to divide the Committee against this clause standing part of the Bill.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 94: Majority 7.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 49.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, he would beg to suggest that power of appeal should be granted to the local commissioners, or to the Judges of the County Court.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the object of the Government to provide the best and cheapest mode of appeal possible. With respect to the local commissioners, however, he much doubted whether that mode of appeal would be satisfactory; and, besides that, the local commissioners met very seldom. He did not wish to join the operation of this Act with that of the income tax, and therefore would not give the appeal to the commissioners for the collection of that tax. Indeed, it would be better to give the appeal to the Judges of the County Court, to which he would not object if the hon. Member wished it, though he thought it would increase the expense of the proceedings.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he observed with great satisfaction the spirit in which the suggestion was met, and would propose that the Judge of the County Court should be allowed to send up the case to the Court of Exchequer in cases of difficulty. The objection to the appeal being made to that Court in the first instance was the expense.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would assent, on the part of the Government, to this suggestion. His impression, however, was, that the expense of appealing to the Judge of a County Court would, in many cases, be greater than that of making application to a Judge of the Court of Exchequer sitting in chambers.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he would recommend that the appeal to the Judge of the County Court should be made an absolute appeal, as, if a double appeal were allowed, all the business would be brought into one of the principal courts in the metropolis.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 50 and 51.
Clause 52 struck out.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 struck out.
Clause 55 (Commencement of Act)
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, that he had at a previous stage of the Bill inquired whether the tax was to be of universal application, and whether it was to be charged on succession to the estates of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to give an answer when they got to the end of the Bill; and as they had now arrived at the last clause, perhaps he would explain whether it was to apply to those properties or not?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid the hon. Gentleman was not quite right in supposing the Committee had come to the conclusion of the Bill. There were other hon. Members who had Amendments yet to propose.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he wished to move to omit the two last lines, in order to insert the words "that the Bill come into operation on the day of the passing thereof."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not consent to the Amendment. The question was one of finance, and it was the usual principle in laying on new taxes to make the tax come into operation from the day of the passing of the Resolution in Committee. In some cases, as in that of the income tax, they had gone further, and made the tax apply retrospectively, beyond the period of the passing of the Resolution. The Amendment would deprive him of two or three months of the proceeds of the tax, which he could not consent to.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought they ought to follow the precedent of former taxes, and would therefore urge his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was also anxious that precedent should be followed, but he had some notion that the usual course was not to charge the tax in all cases from a date previous to that of the passing of the Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had not stated that that was the rule in all cases; on the contrary, he believed in the case of the Customs duties a different rule had been adopted; and in the case of the income tax, as he had said, the tax was made to apply from the 5th of April, whereas the Resolution had not passed until May.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsnid, he thought this Act should not continue beyond the period fixed for the expiration of the income tax, and he would therefore move that the Act should continue in force for five years only.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that if he was right as to his view of the operation of this tax, it would be found so annoying and vexations that the complaints against it would be loud and universal. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would find in the course of five or six years that this tax would cause so much vexation and unpleasantness that the people would not bear it. They were passing this Bill nominally on the plea of putting landed property upon the same footing as personal property with reference to the duty on bequests or successions. They had passed the Bill as to real property, and as long as they maintained the present law as to the tax upon legacies, so long would he uphold the Government in placing a duty on land inherited by succession or demise. But while they subjected real property to one duty and personal property to another, they were doing that which was altogether ft distinct thing—for they were taxing not the property of people dying, and which passed from them to others by death, but they were taxing property whether personalty or realty, which was settled and disposed of by persons in their lifetime, with the intention that the settlement which was thus subjected to this tax should go free to those who succeeded them. The two classes of cases were essentially different—but he would not go over that ground again. They had had examples of the extraordinary difficulty the Government would have in trying to enforce the tax. The clause they had just passed was a proof of that. If they applied the tax for a long period of years, all the small owners of property, whether real or personal, would be put to great inconvenience in having to pay the tax by a series of half-yearly payments extending over five years, or they would be put to great expense in employing professional persons to carry it out. It would be necessary to examine into books, documents, and accounts, and overhaul ancient and modern title deeds, wills, and other muniments, to ascertain how, and where, and when the tax applied. To do this for a long series of years in respect to real and personal property, would involve an immense inconvenience to all
1394
parties. He did not wish to raise a controversy upon the present occasion; but, looking at the difficulty that must ensue, and seeing but very little of opinion in favour of the tax, not only in the country and amongst the numerous persons he had conversed with upon the subject, but even in the House of Commons—and feeling as he did, from what he had heard, that there were many Members who had voted for clause after clause in the Committee because they did not desire to deprive the Government of a large source of revenue upon which they had calculated—but believing also, as he did, that those hon. Members would not support the Bill in the abstract—and that with regard to many of the clauses they did not think them just or reasonable—he thought it no more than right that they should now consider whether they were to impose this tax as part of a permanent system of taxation, or whether they should not take an opportunity of reconsidering it at some future time, when they should have had some experience of its operation. There was nothing unreasonable in such a proposition; on the contrary, it was but following out a course they had followed in a similar case. When they imposed the income tax, they did not in the first instance put it on permanently, but they limited its duration to three years, avowedly that they might have the opportunity of reconsidering it when they had had some experience of its working. He thought, therefore, that it would be only reasonable to put on this tax in the same way as a temporary measure, and to limit its duration for five years. They ought not to forget that when the tax was first attempted to be imposed by Mr. Pitt, it was brought forward, as in the present instance, time after time, and that the majorities, great in the first instance, dwindled down gradually, until at last they became so small that Mr. Pitt was obliged to give up the Bill. In this case, also, the Government had commenced with a large majority in favour of the Bill, which had dwindled down that evening to exceedingly small ones. This convinced him that people's minds were beginning to be opened, and that it was not a tax which they thought it was just to impose, if really their object was to tax real property in the same way as personal property. Under the circumstances, he would put it to the Government whether it would be wise now to impose the tax for a longer period than live years, that they might see if, as they

1395
asserted, the tax could be levied without annoyance and vexation. For himself he was so convinced of the contrary, that if his noble Friend (Lord Galway) pressed his Amendment he would support him.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, this was not a question upon which it was necessary to trouble the Committee with any details. He could only say, in answer to his right hon. Friend, that he thought, if the Committee were disposed to impose a tax of this nature for five years only, it would indeed be a very serious question whether the Committee ought to impose a tax at all. The question at issue really was, whether the principle of this Bill was to be defeated under the colour of a Motion for limiting its duration. Although he did not share in the apprehensions entertained by his right hon. Friend with regard to this Bill, he was ready to admit that every fiscal measure novel in its nature involved certain difficulties in the first instance. Still he thought it would not be worth while to confront the difficulties attendant upon this measure for the sake of its financial advantages, if it were only to last five years, and more particularly when it was recollected that five years must elapse before the tax would come into full force. In the first year it would realise absolutely nothing, and in the second year it would produce really-very little, and it would take full five years before any single estate would actually have paid the whole amount of the duty. Again, look at what would be the effect of the noble Lord's (Viscount Galway's) Amendment in' another respect. Those who paid the succession tax during the next five years, would, under the measure of the Government, receive, as it were, an entire acquittance for one generation; but the noble Lord proposed that after they had paid the tax it should be repealed, and then they should enjoy the luxury of paying, along with the rest of the community, whatever other tax should be imposed as a substitute for the succession duty. Again, the same rule that the noble Lord proposed with respect to the succession duty, must equally apply to the legacy duty; in fact, this tax and the legacy duty were inseparably wedded to each other, and must stand or fall together. If the Committee wished the legacy duty to be limited to five years, let it deliberately say so; but, at all events, he hoped the Committee would not agree to exceptional legislation in the present instance.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) had, with himself, considered five years a sufficient term for the continuance of the succession duty; but he (Viscount Galway) had, on further consideration, suggested seven years. He would now move the addition of the following words to the clause—"And shall continue in force till the 19th day of May, 1860, and no longer."
Amendment proposed, in p. 17, 1. 22, to add at the end of the clause the words "and shall continue in force until the nineteenth day of May 1860, and no longer."
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had wished to make the suggestion which his noble Friend (Viscount Galway) had anticipated, namely, that they should adopt the period of seven years for the continuance of this Bill. And he had intended to do so upon the statement which was made by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he first introduced this proposition to their notice. The Committee would recollect that at that time the income and property tax was not renewed. He (Mr. Disraeli) had felt it his duty, on the part of the late Government, to propose to the House that it should consider the propriety of making some difference in. the rates of assessment for the several schedules of that measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not agree in principle with that proposal; or, rather, he acknowledged, virtually at least, that some difference should be established in the rates of assessment, and said that he was about to propose a measure for extending a succession duty to all settled property, and that that measure would be a compensation to those classes subject to the income and property tax, in whoso favour he would not recognise the propriety of making the difference which the late Government wished to establish. Well, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the income and property tax should be continued for the term of seven years, and he not only proposed that, but he promised that if his views were carried into effect, the income tax would terminate at the end of that period. Now, if this measure was brought forward specially as a compensation to those classes who upon one theory were assessed too highly to the income and property tax, it seemed to follow that the compensation ought to cease when the special burden ceased to be inflicted; and therefore, upon that view, of the case, it

1397
appeared to him that the term for which they ought to consent to this tax being levied should be exactly coextensive with the proposed duration of the income tax, namely, seven years. With regard to the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that if they limited the duration of this Bill, there would be arrears payable, and the hardship that would ensue from that circumstance, he might remind him that under the Property and Income Tax Act, if it should terminate to-morrow, there would be arrears of taxation; therefore, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman appeared merely to be a technical one. It had been urged that the existing legacy duty and this Bill were bound up together; it might be so in principle, but it was not so in form. This was a separate Bill, and could only be decided upon its particular merits, as they were expressed in the Bill before them. If the principle of this Bill was so just, they might rest assured that, at the end of seven years, in this age of progress, they would not have so far deteriorated that the force of truth and justice would not be as efficient and efficacious as it was now. He must protest against the principle laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that a Bill which was distinctly and palpably before the Committee could only be considered with relation to an Act which really had no legislative connexion with it. He (Mr. Disraeli) looked upon this Bill as a proposition originally brought forward by the Ministry by way of compensation for another measure which was submitted to Parliament at the same time, but which would cease at the end of seven years; and it seemed to him (Mr. Disraeli) both rational and politic that they should limit the duration of this tax for the same period.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he would not even vote for the commencement of the tax, for in his opinion it was a most detestable tax. He condemned it both in principle and practice, and would, if it were possible, throw it out altogether.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 195: Majority 70.
Clause agreed to; as was also the 56th clause (containing the title of the Bill) and the schedules.
Clauses 16 and 22, which bad been postponed, were put, and negatived.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had now to propose the
1398
addition of a clause with respect to leases for lives. The clause was so drawn that in leases for lives they should include leases for years determinable on lives; but there being some doubt about it, he proposed to insert the words, "or leases for years determinable on lives." The clause, which was in the following words, was then brought up:—
"Provided, that no person entitled at the time appointed for the commencement of this Act to the immediate reversion in any real property, expectant upon the determination of any lease for life, shall be chargeable with duty in respect of such determination in the event of the same occurring in his lifetime."
MR. HENLEYsaid, that under this Bill, if a farm were let for 300.l and afterwards happened to be let for 320 l. or 350 l. a year, an additional succession duty should be paid. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would remove the evil of which he complained.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he was now discussing another part of the Bill. They could not do what he proposed without cutting across what they had already enacted.
MR. CAYLEYbegged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain the principle of the clause, and the precise object of it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was found that the Bill, as it was drawn, applied the retroactive principle of liability to taxation on any succession ensuing upon death, with so much strictness that the present holder of landed estates that had leases on lives, when those lives determined by the death of the parties, would be liable to pay succession duty. They debated the subject, and the feeling of the Committee was pretty clearly indicated on both sides, that they should not consider the parties as liable to legacy duty. The intention of this clause was to give full effect to that view of the Committee.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen moved the insertion of the following clause with respect to life policies and post obit bonds:—
"No policy of insurance on the life of any person shall alone create the relation of predecessor' and successor between the insurers and the assured, or between the assurers and any assignees of the assured for money or money's worth, and no bond or contract made by any person bonâ fide for valuable consideration in money, for the

1399
payment of money after the death of any other person, shall alone create the relation of predecessor and successor between the person making such bond or contract, and the person to or with whom the same shall be made; but any disposition or devolution of the moneys payable under such policy, bond, or contract, if otherwise within the provisions of this Act, shail be deemed to confer a succession."
This clause had been very much considered by persons out of doors who were interested in this subject, and he believed that it was generally acceptable to them.
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, that the provision, so far as it related to policies of insurance, appeared to him to be satisfactory, and was an improvement of the clause on which he had observed on the second reading of the Bill, and, in fact, removed the objection then made, namely, that while it exempted the insurances made by persons upon their own lives, it left insurances made by persons upon the lives of others within the category of successions, and, as such, liable to the new tax. But in the second branch of the clause, as now proposed, which dealt with the case of post obit bonds or contracts, only one class of post obit security was provided for. It must be well known that payments engaged to be made on a death were of two descriptions: one class consisted of sums to be paid by a debtor, or by a person contracting to secure the debt of a near connexion upon his own death; the other class was of engagements by the obligor to pay upon the death, not of himself, but of another person. The clause exempted the latter class from the succession tax, and, so far, it would satisfy capitalists whose case he (Mr. Freshfield) had advocated upon a former stage of the measure, because the persons with whom they contracted were generally persons who had interests dependent, as to time, upon the death of some then intermediate possessor; but the clause did injustice to those parties who had been content to wait for payment until the death of the party giving the bond, and only on that event; and yet such cases, though not so common as the other class, were yet well known, and when they did occur, were of a meritorious description. Money was advanced to a friend in perfect reliance upon his having the means of repayment, and for which a post obit bond was taken, and although it would secure to the obligee no other preference than would be acquired under a bond in the ordinary form, yet it would he a more generous proceeding toward the obligor, because it post-
1400
poned the period of payment beyond his life, nor would any statute of limitations affect the debt. Again, creditors having received portions of their debts might have sufficient confidence in their debtor to believe that in the life of their debtor they had a reasonable expectation that the remainder would be reduced; or that, partly for that purpose, and partly for his family, he would keep on foot policies of insurance to the extent of his means; and with such expectations the creditors might be satisfied not to molest the debtor during his life, but take his bond or other contract, in the name of some trustee, for the benefit of the creditors generally; and, as the clause stood, any payment under such a contract would confer a succession. It would be no reason in support of the clause, that such a contract might enable a man to cover all the property of which he would die possessed, because the same suggestion would apply to any bond; and it was to be recollected that to protect an assignment of a policy or a post obit bond on the death of another person, it was required that there should be a bonâ fide valuable consideration in money or money's worth. He should, therefore, propose that money secured by post obit bond or contract, be put upon the same footing as money receivable under a policy of insurance, and be exempt from the succession tax; and with this view he moved as an Amendment the omission of the word "other," which would leave the provision applicable to the decease of "any person."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not accede to the Amendment, as it was evident that its adoption would lead to unbounded evasion. In that case every man's will would take the form of post obit bonds to those to whom he wished to leave his property.
MR. FRESHFIELDexplained that his Amendment only referred to bonds given for a valuable consideration.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was quite aware that that was the intention of the hon. Gentlemen; but in the practical working of the measure it would be found quite impossible to prevent bonds, not for in reality valuable considerations, gaining exemption if the Amendment were agreed to.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthen proposed the insertion of the following clause with reference to the duty

1401
chargeable on timber in place of the one (Clause 22) originally in the Bill. A point raised on a former occasion might be open to consideration—namely, whether a very small sum might not be inserted in the clause, below which it should not be necessary to have any account; but the main question was the principle of the clause:—
"Where timber trees or wood shall be comprised in any succession, the successor shall be chargeable with Duty upon his interest in the net monies which shall from time to time be received from any sales of such timber trees or wood, and shall account for and pay the same yearly: Provided, that if the successor shall be desirous of commuting the Duty, and shall deliver to the Commissioners an estimate of the net monies obtainable by him from the sale of such timber trees and wood as may, in a prudent course of management of the property, be felled by such successor during his life, the Commissioners, if satisfied with such estimate, shall accept the same and assess the Duty accordingly."
Brought up, and read 1°.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that he quite admitted that the amended clause considerably modified the one originally proposed; but it was nevertheless liable to so many objections, that if the Committee agreed with him they would have no difficulty in deciding that it should be negatived. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to charge this duty on the "net moneys which shall from time to time be received from any sales of such timber trees or wood." Now, he apprehended that in all cases of trusts or executorships, this would raise a perpetual running account, which would probably never be closed during the life of any trustee or executor. The duty received under this provision would be exceedingly small, while the annoyance and vexation to all engaged in the management of landed property would be exceedingly great. But then the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, if that was not acceptable, a proviso by which persons might commute for the moneys by estimating "the net moneys obtainable by him from the sale of such timber trees and wood as may in a prudent course of management of the property be felled by such successor during his lifetime." Now, these words, "prudent course of management," would receive a very different interpretation from different gentlemen. A tree was considered ripe for felling at very different times in different parts of the country. In his (Sir J. Trollope's) county an oak tree was not considered ripe for felling in less than about six generations, or
1402
200 years; and then there were many trees of considerably greater age which were still in full vigour. Then he found that, the proviso concluded, "the Commission., ers, if satisfied with such estimate, shall accept the same, and assess the duty accordingly." Now, as he knew no way by which such an estimate could be obtained, except by a valuation, he must say this looked very like an attempt to reintroduce the principle of "valuation" which had been so strongly objected to in the original clause, as being vexatious, expensive, and productive of litigation. He wished to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to arrive at the money received from time to time from the sale of timber. Did he intend to take the account of the seller or of the buyer? He (Sir J. Trollope) knew of no machinery by which it would be possible to collect this tax. No doubt gentlemen of large property would deliver an honest and fair account of the sums they received from this source; but timber sales were not an ordinary source of a gentleman's revenue; perhaps he did not have more than three such sales in the course of his life; and this proposition was one to tax capital not of a reproductive nature, because when a tree was once cut down there was an end of it. He thought it would be preferable to this, that receipts from timber should be assessed to the income tax in the same manner as those from underwood were at present. He believed, however, that this clause would result in so much vexation and annoyance, while the sum received under it would be so small, that he should move that it be expunged from the Bill.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that suspecting as be did anything which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he suspected any modification he might make in this Bill was a gross robbery on his part. He read in the newspaper the other day that there was a surplus. Humbug and nonsense! He knew what the Chancellor of the Exchequer's froth was, and that it had no substance whatever. This was another attempt to rob the people, in order to fill the Chancellor of the Exchequer's exchequer, and make the public believe that he was a good financier, and was working for the prosperity of the country. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was to pay the succession duty upon copyhold property? He was not speaking for himself, for he was happy to say his property was freehold.

1403
But a copyholder could not cut down timber without giving one-third to the lord, besides a fine, and he wanted to know whether duty would he charged on the whole or upon two-thirds?
MR. BUCKsaid, he knew the cases of individuals who, when boys, came into the possession of property. The timber was cut down by their trustees to redeem the land tax, but ever since it had not been touched. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed indirectly to tax the sixty or seventy years' growth, whereas if the land had been in cultivation the duty would have been assessed only on the annual return. Timber stood in so different a position from all other property, that he hoped the clause would not he pressed.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that however willing he was to tax timber, he did not think his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Trollope) had shown any cause why, since all other property was to be subject to the tax, timber should be excluded. But he wished to ask some explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He still thought the wording of the clause was not quite distinct. In the first alternative it was said "that the successor shall be chargeable with duty upon his interests on the net moneys which shall from time to time be received from any sales of such timber, trees, or wood." Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to include merely the periodical sales of timber, or did he mean that if any gentleman cut down hedgerow timber, for instance, for the purpose of relieving his farm, he should be chargeable for such cutting, or that he should keep an account for such small items, and submit them to the taxgatherer? Again, the clause spoke only of "sales of timber, trees, or wood." He (Mr. V. Smith) supposed it was intended to exempt timber used for the purposes of the estate; but, if so, he thought this should be specified in the Bill. I In the second alternative, it was said that the Commissioners, if satisfied with the estimate delivered to them, "shall accept the same, and assess the duty accordingly." But what were they to do if they were not satisfied? The question of valuation was a most material point. If the taxgatherer were to be called in to value timber, it would be most obnoxious, and extremely difficult. Besides, it was the custom in his part of the country only to value timber under six inches through, and in some parts under twelve inches through. Then he wished to know what would be done with
1404
ornamental timber? It was clear that, if not sold, it would not come under the first part of the clause; but would it come under the second portion of the clause in commuting the duty—would ornamental as well as other timber be valued?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with reference to the first question put to him, he thought he had answered it by anticipation, namely, the question whether every transaction, however small, would be made the subject of return. As the clause stood, sale, and sale only, would be the test; and he stated he had no objection to a small minimum of exemption, but it must be small to prevent evasion. With respect to timber used in the repair of the property, he did not think it possible to specify his meaning more distinctly than by saying the owner should be liable to pay in respect of moneys received from the sales of such timber. He did not know any words which would more rigidly exclude from charge timber used in repairs, and of course it should not be included in any valuation under the second part of the clause. With respect to the question, what would be done if the Commissioners were not satisfied with such estimate, the answer was they would go to issue with the party upon such estimate precisely as under any other provision of the Bill, and the question so put at issue would be disposed of by the same machinery as was provided for all points of difference. As regarded ornamental timber, speaking generally, it might be described as timber not usually cut, and if not usually cut, it would plainly not be liable to the duty. Under the first alternative it would not be liable, because the duty was levied on the moneys received from sales; and under the second alternative it would not be liable, because the estimate would be confined to net moneys obtainable from the sale of such timber, trees, and wood, as might be cut within the lifetime of the person, with a due regard to the interests of the estate. If it were not proper to fell the timber with a due regard to the interests of the estate, it ought not to be included in the estimate. It often happened timber was ornamental as well as marketable, and every year trees might be cut out of the value of 10 l. or 15 l. each. Although ornamental, it could not possibly on any principle of justice or equality be excluded from the tax. He would not enter into the general discussion, as they had been through that on a former night. They had mitigated the clause,

1405
and now the only objection seemed to be that the duty would not be worth collecting. He was not sanguine as to the proceeds; but there was something in the principle of the clause, and upon that he rested the proposition, which he was quite content to leave to the judgment of the Committee.
MR. CHRISTOPHERsaid, the policy of the Government, for years past, had been to reduce the duties on foreign timber, and here was a virtual excise duty imposed on home-grown timber. The right hon. Gentleman did not expect to get much from the tax. Was it, then, worth while to perpetrate such injustice, accompanied by an inquisitorial process so oppressive and so offensive. There would be the most vexatious contests with the excise officers as to the rate of duty—1 per cent, 5 per cent, or 10 per cent. The system of valuation was most objectionable, inquisitorial, and impracticable. He knew an instance in which the valuation of timber amounted to 5,000 l. Was it advisable in a free-trade Administration to introduce an excise duty to such an extent upon dubious valuations?
SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great improvement in the clause, and had obviated many of the difficulties which had been raised, because the landowners would now have the power of choice, and be able to proceed voluntarily. He did not think this tax ought to be stigmatised as an excise duty, He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would allow a reasonable minimum to prevent parties coming into collision with the tax collector. Supposing they wished to have a market open for their timber, they might express to the Commissioners their desire to commute, and if the Commissioners should not be satisfied, they might withdraw their offer and remain as before. There would, however, be a strong inducement to meet any offer of that kind on fair terms, because if the offer was withdrawn, they might lose their tax.
MR. HENLEYsaid, if he rightly understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman had made no satisfactory answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), whether timber cut down for repairs would be charged under this Bill. In his opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer hardly knew how these things were managed. If a holding required repair to the extent of 200 l. or 300 l, and there was timber on
1406
the estate, the owner would cut it down for that purpose. The clause now under consideration would not meet that state of things at all. But now as to the principle of taxing timber at all. Ever since the imposition of the poor-rate in this country, now more than 300 years old, it had always been held out as a great object, that the growth of timber should be encouraged, and not only was land appropriated to the growth of timber exempted from the poor-rate, but the growth of underwood was exempted for a certain number of years after it was first planted. If the clause should pass a second reading, he should then have to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a word now introduced which was not in his original proposition. That word was "wood." Every one knew that wood and timber were two separate things. The former was well understood, and known to the law; but unless such a difficulty were carefully guarded against, there would be a confusion between wood and underwood.
MR. KER SEYMOURsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that because other snccessions were taxed, timber ought to be taxed also. Now he could mention a case in point. It had often been said that it was right to rate stock in trade, but the difficulty of doing so was so great that it had been exempted. Although the clause had been greatly improved, still the difficulties would be so great that he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would make this small concession to the country gentlemen. By so doing he would in some measure meet the inequality of the income tax with regard to repairs, of which they so greatly complained.
MR. BOOKERsaid, he should oppose the clause. It was founded upon a disregard of the cost at which timber was reared, and the circumstances under which it was raised to maturity, or the purposes for which it was applied. Timber was used either as fuel for the poor, or as the staple material for our "wooden walls." It was the ancient policy of the Empire to encourage the growth of timber for the building of our Navy; and it was Colling-wood's legacy to his country—an earnest advice to increase the growth of timber. [Cries of" Divide!"] Did the Committee deem it no longer of importance to encourage the growth of the British oak? The oak only gained a quarter of an inch in growth in a year; so that it would take 100 years to grow an oak of twenty-five feet girth-

1407
Reckoning twenty years to a generation, the tree would be taxed five times in the course of a century. There ought to be a bounty on the growth of such timber instead of a tax. [The hon. Gentleman read an opinion to this effect from a proprietor of timber, who ended by declaring that he should denude his estate of timber, and spend the proceeds himself. The correspondent signed himself "W. S. Wood."] He (Mr. Booker) deprecated any feeling of hostility towards the Government in his opposition, and only sought to do his duty to his constituents. He should give his unqualified assent to the Amendment.
SIR EDWARD DERINGwished to know whether the bark was to be included with the felled timber? It was sold separately in some places.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he must assert that in every respect timber stood upon a different footing from every other description of property. Some trees, for instance, grew as much in thirty years as others grew in 120. Each tree cost the possessor an annual rent for its sustenance, by occupying a certain portion of ground. He was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should impose such a tax. If he wished to make a hateful tax, he could not adopt a more sure method. It would be looked upon as a black mail paid to the party in that House which supported the right hon. Gentleman's most objection able Budget; and he should feel ashamed of himself if he were in any way accessory to its infliction.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 179: Majority 16.
Clause agreed to.
MR. HENLEYwould suggest that coppice and underwood should be excepted specifically, as otherwise the tax would press very heavily on plantations.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would not object to insert in the clause the words "or where timbers, trees, or wood, not being coppice or underwood."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would agree to the introduction of the words, on the understanding that he should be at liberty to consider the point again on the bringing up of the Report.
MR. MILESsaid, he wished to propose a proviso that no timber should be valued which was of less than thirty years' growth. Previous to that age, timber bore no profit whatever.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCTHEQUERsaid, he could not accede to such a proviso. There were parts of the country in which a profitable trade was driven in timber of much younger growth than that.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman referred to Scotland, he could only say that when he cut timber, of less than thirty years' growth it did not pay its own expenses.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member did not live within fifteen miles of Glasgow.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, his experience was different from that of the hon. Gentleman: opposite. The part of the country where, he lived was not at all favourable for the sale of timber; and yet, for some plantations, containing timber of from twenty to thirty-five years' growth, a party who was at the whole expense of cutting, supplied him (Mr. Dunlop) with timber to the amount of 150 l. a year.
Proviso negatived.
House resumed. Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

CUSTOMS ACTS (ISLE OF MAN).
The House having resolved itself into Committee on the Resolutions for imposing Customs Duties on the Isle of Man,
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he objected to this measure because the Bill was an infringement of the privileges of the Isle of Man, and also with the rights of property, and he hoped, that unless the Government could show that they had the consent of the House of Keys and the people of the island, that the Committee would not sanction the imposition of increased duties. The proposition had not been submitted as promised, to the authorities of the island, and he complained that provision was not made by the Government to give to the House of Keys control over the taxes it was proposed to raise. This was an attempt to bring the island, with the customs of the Isle of Man, within the general customs laws of the kingdom, for the first time; and as this was opposed to the privileges and rights of the people of the Isle of Man, he should, if the Resolutions were pressed at that late hour, divide against them. On a former occasion a question was put to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Wilson) on this subject, and his answer was, that he had the sanction of the authorities of the Isle of Man for the imposition of these duties. [Mr. WILSON; No, no!] The hon. Gentleman said "No,

1409
no but such was his (Sir J. Walmsley's) opinion. If the hon. Gentleman intended to My that he had not the sanction of the Isle of Man for imposing these new duties upon them, then it was still more extraordinary, at that time of the morning [half-past two o'clock] and without any explanation, he should be permitted to place the Resolution before them.
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that this was a mere preliminary Resolution, upon which a Bill would be introduced, and while that Bill was passing through its various stages, ample opportunity would be afforded for full discussion of its details. The Bill, although it increased duties to a small extent, removed most serious impediments to the trade of the island. He had taken the precaution, several weeks ago, to write to the Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man, informing him fully of the proposed changes. The Lieutenant Governor called the House of Keys together, and they had expressed opinions not at all inimical to the proposed changes, but had suggested some alterations and modifications, which he would take into consideration.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, that when the hon. Member for Westbury stated that the course taken by the Government was approved by the Manx people, it was impossible he could justify such a statement, which was exactly the reverse of truth. He (Sir J. Walmsley) denied that the officials of the Isle of Man had approved the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. He would throw every obstacle in his power in the way of the Resolution, and he, therefore, begged to move that the Chairman report progress.
House resumed.
Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Convicted Prisoners Removal and Confinement.
Reported.—Colonial Bishops Act Extension; Patronage Exchange.
3a Soap Duties; Public Works Loan.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE—QUESTION.
LORD BROUGHAM: I wish to put a question to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Of the importance of the question I am about to take the liberty of asking, I have no doubt; of the importance of the subject to which that question relates, no person can have a doubt I beg to premise my question by stating, as my noble Friend knows, that I have had no communication whatever, directly or indirectly, with him upon this subject—I have had no communication, direct or indirect, upon the subject, with my noble Friend at the head of Her Majesty's Government. As to putting the question, as well as to the subject of the question, I have bad no communication with any of my noble Friends amongst Her Majesty's Ministers. I put the question entirely apart from them, but I put it under a deep conviction of the importance of the question in the present crisis of affairs; My Lords, a notice stands upon our books in the name of my noble Friend the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde), which, if made to-morrow, as the notice implies; must needs bring on a discussion of all (for there can he no limit fixed to such a discussion) that relates to the present posture of affairs in the east of Europe. I know that that Motion is in safe hands, whether I regard the motives of my noble Friend in bringing it forward, or the sound discretion under the control of which he is sure to act; but my question is this—whether my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs thinks that in the present posture of affairs, no inconvenience—I might even Say mischief—may possibly arise—I may almost say may probably arise—from such a discussion at this period? If—which Heaven forbid!—all negotiation is at an end, and a rupture is inevitable, then no inconvenience can take place from the discussion. If—which Hea-

1349
ven grant!—negotiations are in such a state, and the posture of affairs is such, as almost to have attained the point of success, and the difficulty and embarrassment are at an end, then neither mischief nor inconvenience can arise: but if neither of those questions can be answered in the affirmative, then I put it to my noble Friend the noble Marquess, and I appeal to his discretion, whether it would not be well to abstain from making this Motion, for the present at least.
The EARL of CLARENDON: My Lords, it is perfectly correct, as my noble and learned Friend has just stated, that he did not communicate with me, nor, to the best of my knowledge, with any of my noble Friends near me, about the question which he has now put. The first notice I had of the intention of the noble and learned Lord was, when he just now beckoned to me, from which I thought he was about to put some question relative to our foreign relations. My Lords, in answer to my noble and learned Friend's question upon the very grave Subject that now agitates the public mind, with regard to which my noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricard) has given notice of a Motion for tomorrow, I certainly Cannot say that there would he neither mischief nor inconvenience in a full discussion of that subject at present. Unfortunately, I cannot say that negotiations have arrived at that point, or that this matter is so near a settlement, as to render a discussion upon it comparatively unimportant. But I do say that negotiations are going on; that we most earnestly hope that there may be a peaceful solution of the question and that I am sure your Lordships would be the last persons in the kingdom to do anything to interfere with that settlement. I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend that this question cannot be in safer bands than in those of my noble Friend the noble Marquess near me. I am, indeed, indebted to my noble Friend already for having once or twice put off this Motion of which he has given notice, and that lie, as well as my noble Friend opposite, has been content With Such answers as I was enabled to give Upon this Subject; and I felt that after the great delay that has taken place in bringing this question to a solution—considering, too, the very grave interests that are connected With it, and the very natural anxiety which exists, not only in your Lordships' House, but throughout the Country, to possess all the information which Her Majesty's Government could
1350
safely give—I felt, my Lords, that I ought not again to ask my noble Friend to withdraw his Motion; but I reserved to myself, in reply to him, to say nothing more than my sense of public duty allowed—more than which neither he nor your Lordships would require. I therefore did not make any application to my noble Friend to postpone his Motion, holding myself ready to meet him to-morrow. As, however, I am upon my legs, I will take this opportunity of asking my noble Friend whether he will object at least to postpone the Motion until Monday next? It is not with reference to the difficulties of the subject itself that I ask him to do this. I do not mean that from the danger of discussion, or the amount of what I should have to say upon the subject, I should ask my noble Friend to postpone his Motion until Monday next. I do not believe that the nature of things or the state of things will vary between to-morrow and Monday next. My reason for asking is, that I think it would be convenient to have this discussion in both Houses at the same time; and my noble Friend Lord John Russell is so extremely unwell that it would be impossible for him to be in the House of Commons to-morrow. My noble Friend, however, hopes to be present on Monday, and to that day, therefore, I would ask the noble Marquess to postpone his Motion. I think I can rely on the judgment and discretion of my noble Friend upon that occasion; and I am sure he will not bring forward then anything prejudicial to the pub-lie service, or, least of all, that he will not bring forward anything likely to impede the progress of the negotiations now going forward.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, it is to be expected that Her Majesty's Government must be desirous of taking the earliest opportunity, consistent with its views of the public interests, to make a statement to the House of all the transactions that have taken place, and, if necessary, to ask for the opinion of Parliament on their conduct—if necessary, to ask for the suport of Parliament in the acts they are inclined to adopt; and if that be a fair conclusion to arrive at with respect to their proceedings, I really think the noble Marquess would only exercise a sound discretion, and have in view the public convenience, if he deferred, not only until Monday, but generally, without fixing at present any day, the Motion of which he has given notice for to-morrow. I am myself so strongly impressed with a sense of

1351
the expediency of that postponement, that it had been my intention to communicate to the noble Marquess my wish that he would generally postpone that Motion. I should have done so, because I cannot think it would be desirable that any statement should proceed from the noble Marquess, however temperate that statement might be, when it would be perfectly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to make any other than a partial and lame statement respecting the transactions in question. Such a statement would not, tinder any circumstances, he satisfactory to your Lordships; and if they were to go beyond that statement, and disclose matters, for the convenience of debate, which ought at present to be kept concealed, public mischief, and not public advantage, would be caused from the discussion being forced upon us. That opinion which is stated in the last paragraph of the Motion which the noble Marquess intends to propose—"that Her Majesty may confidently rely upon the zeal and affection of this House for their cordial concurrence and support in maintaining the faith of treaties to which this country is a party, and in preserving those territorial and political arrangements upon which depend the general peace of Europe, the security of commerce, and the national independence of our ancient allies"—it may be very proper for us at some future period to declare, it may be very right for us to say, that, at some future period; there is, however, judgment in not merely saying the right thing, but in saying the right thing at the right time; and that time certainly appears not yet to have arrived. I will suggest to the noble Marquess that he should take into consideration whether in reality it will be for the public advantage that either on to-morrow or on Monday this discussion should be forced upon the House—the question being one of the most difficult and important character, on which it is perfectly impossible for Her Majesty's Ministers, consistent with their duty, to make a full disclosure of the transactions that have taken place.
The EARL of DERBY: Before the noble Marquess proceeds to give an answer to the appeal that has been made to him, I trust I may be permitted, on a question of this importance, to say a few words. The noble Marquess opposite, in giving the notice which stands on the paper in his name, though he may, of course, have mentioned the matter to his private and
1352
personal friends, did so, I think I may say, I without consulting with any political party, and without reference to any political support he might receive from one side or the other. As has been stated by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, I, as well as he, came down to the House without receiving any intimation that the question was to be brought forward by the noble and learned Lord near me, and I was unaware of his intention, until he stated, to my surprise, that he was about to bring this question under your Lordships' consideration. I was aware that it was the intention of my noble Friend who has just sat down, to make some suggestion in reference to the Motion; and I now desire to express my entire concurrence in the views expressed by my noble Friend and the noble Earl opposite. I beg to express my hope, also, that the noble Marquess will be content, notwithstanding the natural anxiety which he and the country must feel for the solution-God grant it may be the pacific solution!—of the question to withdraw his Motion, and that he will be satisfied to leave the responsibility of the question where it must rest—on the Government—and that he will not embarrass them and the affairs of the country by calling upon them to make declarations that may be inconsistent with the advantage of the public service, or, on the other hand, bring on a partial discussion, in which it would be impossible, on their part, to enter fully into the question. I rise, not so much to express my concurrence in the view of my noble Friend who last addressed your Lordships, as to express a hope that if this course which we suggest shall be taken in this House, it will be also deemed expedient that a similar course should be taken in the other House of Parliament. I think my noble Friend the Secretary of State of Foreign Affairs has rested his request for a postponement till Monday on the ground that a similar postponement has taken place in the House of Commons; and I am sure your Lordships, and the Members of the other House of Parliament, are equally aware of this—that it would not be proper to have one House of Parliament altogether silent in the discussion of foreign affairs, while in the other House there should be a partial statement, made by an individual Member, which will be either answered imperfectly, or not answered at all. The course that will be pursued by the hon. Gentleman who has given that notice of Motion in the

1353
other House, must rest with himself alone; but as the noble Earl has made an appeal to the noble Marquess, and as I cannot make a similar appeal to the hon. Gentleman in the other House, I have merely to say, that whenever the question is discussed it should be discussed fully, and whenever it is discussed in one House, a simultaneous discussion, under circumstances exactly similar, should take place in the other House of Parliament.
EARL GREY: If I rightly understood the reply of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the question put to him by the noble and learn I ed Lord (Lord Brougham), he distinctly stated, that it was out of his power to deny that a discussion upon this subject at this moment would not be unattended with mischief and inconvenience. Now, I think after that declaration from the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the propriety of postponing the discussion must be obvious to every one. And I cannot think that any scruple which my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) may have in asking that this Motion may be postponed because he has before made a similar request—I cannot think, I say, that any scruple of that kind ought for a moment to stand in the way of my noble Friend endeavouring to prevent this discussion coming on until such a time as, in his judgment, knowing when it may safely take place, it may be brought on. That it should ultimately take place—that a subject of such deep importance should be discussed, and fully discussed, in both Houses, is, I think, obviously necessary; but, on the other hand, even those who have no other means of information on the subject than can be obtained from the public papers, can hardly doubt that, at the present moment, a discussion upon this subject in both Houses of Parliament can hardly fail to be attended with some risk of increasing existing irritation, and diminishing the chances, which I trust are still great, of preventing any unfortunate breach in the peace of the world.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: May I beg that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will repeat the expressions he has used respecting the inconvenience of proceeding with my Motion? I did not understand his observations in the same sense as my noble Friend near me.
The EARL of CLARENDON: In answer to my noble Friend, I hare to state that I
1354
repeated, or intended to repeat, the words of my noble and learned Friend opposite. I said I could not deny that there might be mischief and inconvenience in bringing on a full discussion of this subject at the present time; but that I did not think it right to ask my noble Friend to put off his Motion again, because I would reserve to myself the right to say nothing in reply which I thought would be detrimental to the public service.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I deeply feel the responsibility that is thrown upon me—a responsibility that is the greater, because, as the noble Earl opposite has rightly said, I certainly consulted no Member of this House, much less any party in this House, with respect to this question, or the Motion I might make, or as to any part that might be taken by leading Members of this House thereupon. After what has been said by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I cannot of course think of proceeding with my Motion. When I am told on authority that I incur a risk, even the slightest, of increasing the difficulty of this critical moment, or that I incur any risk, no matter how slight, of causing inconvenience and mischief at such a moment—I cannot for an instant hesitate to stop in the course which I thought it would be advisable to adopt. At the same time I may be permitted, without at all discussing the question, to say that there seems to have been, amongst some noble Lords who have spoken, a misapprehension of the Motion which I thought it was my duty to place on the notice paper. Into the whole of the question as regards this House, I certainly did not intend nor wish to enter, because an important part of that question, when it comes to be fully discussed, must be the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. I certainly did not think that I could in any way arraign or touch them by insinuation or supposition, much less could I attempt to laud them, until all the papers connected with the subject were laid before your Lordships. But what appeared to me was this—that in the present state of affairs (there being certain circumstances public and patent to the whole world) an expression of opinion by the British Parliament at this moment could not fail to have a very great effect on the course of events. With your Lordships' permission, I am willing to withdraw the notice on your Lordships' table; but you must understand clearly and distinctly

1355
that I do so only on the supposition, and with the anticipation, that the Motion of which notice has been given in the other House of Parliament will likewise be postponed. I certainly have thought, and notwithstanding what has been said my opinion remains unchanged, that at this critical moment an expression of opinion by the two Houses of Parliament, and of the feeling which I am sure must animate them, and, from what I see by the organs of publie opinion, I can confidently say does animate every man in this country, in Parliament and out of Parliament—an expression of the firmness which, I trust (and which I do not wish to insinuate the slightest doubt of), is to be found in Her Majesty's Councils—I say the expression of such a feeling and such an opinion at this moment, it did seem to me, would not be without particular weight, not in increasing hostility, but in averting that which appears to me, if vigorous steps are not taken to prevent it, may lead to a general and tremendous war, such as, thank God! has not been witnessed since 1814. These were the views with which I thought it right to ask your Lordships to consider the circumstances of the case as it now stands, not with reference to details with which we are unacquainted, but with reference to all those great facts that have been published to the world by authority, and on which no doubt can be entertained by any assembly, or by any individual. In the discussion of those facts. I believe, no material difference would be found to exist; but, lest I should incur even the possible risk of causing difficulty, I do not hesitate as to taking the course which it is my duty to take, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will withdraw my notice of Motion.
EARL FITZWILLIAM: Before this question entirely passes away, I am desirous—not to provoke any further discussion, hut in order to place before the public the fullest information that can be obtained—to ask the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the document—an unauthorised copy of which I hold in my hand—is believed by them to be authentic, or if it has been or is in the possession of Her Majesty's Government? It is dated from Peterhoff on the 14th, otherwise the 26th of June, 1853. It says—
"It is known to our faithful subjects that the defence of our faith has always been the sacred duty of our ancestors. From the day it pleased
1356
the Almighty to place us on the throne of our fathers the maintenance of the holy obligations with which it is inseparably connected has been the object of our- constant care and attention; these, acting on the groundwork of the famous treaty of Kainardji, which subsequent solemn treaties with the Ottoman Porte have fully confirmed, have ever been directed towards upholding the rights of our Church."
Having stated the circumstances which appeared contrary to the faith of treaties to the great Powers with which Russia was in relation, the document concluded with these remarkable words:—
"But if, through stubbornness and blindness, it desires the contrary, then, calling God to our aid, we shall leave Him to decide between us, and, with a full assurance in the arm of the Almighty, we shall"—
these were words very remarkable—
"go forth to fight for the Orthodox faith."
That is, your Lordships will agree with me, a most remarkable document, and I am desirous—and I believe your Lordships will be desirous with me—of knowing whether Her Majesty's Government hag reason, from anything that has been communicated to them, to think that document really proceeded from the quarter whence it seems to be dated?
The EARL of CLARENPON: In answer to my noble Friend, I have only to say, we have received that document from Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg; that it was furnished without comment, simply as having been published on the day on which it was sent to us by post. We have no further information on the subject. I believe that in the translation which appeared there were some faults, not of much importance, but one of them struck me as the noble Earl read the concluding sentence now, in which he read—"We shall go forth to tight for the orthodox faith." The words should be, "We shall go forth to fight in defence of the orthodox Church." There is not much difference, but the latter words are nearest the sense. In other points the translation was tolerably correct.
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid, he was under the impression that his noble Friend (the Earl Fitzwilliam) was about to remark to their Lordships on the main question, otherwise he would have wished to have addressed a few words to the House in reference to it; but as now it had been agreed to post pone its further consideration, he should not attempt to return to it. He must say, however, that their Lordships ought to be assured by

1357
Her Majesty's Government that, as far as in them lay, they will endeavour to effect a similar postponement of the discussion on Monday next in the other House; for it could be no compliment to their Lordships to be suspected of not having sufficient discretion to carry on such a debate, while it was declared that it was quite open to the House of Commons fully to enter upon it. He therefore must say, that he thought they ought to have the confident assurance of Her Majesty's Government that, as far as they had power to do so, they would use their exertions to bring about a similar postponement in the other House of Parliament to that which the noble Marquess opposite had this evening consented.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: It is quite impossible for the Government to give instructions with respect to the order of business in the House of Commons. All we can do is, to exercise any influence we possess to do our utmost to prevent the discussion.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: And also to assure us that if the efforts of Government fail, your Lordships shall not be debarred from the same right of discussion as the other House. The Government may not be able to prevent the Motion coming on; and, if so, I am, I confess, one of those who think the inconvenience might be less by a discussion in this House also.

WILSON'S (HAMPSTEAD) ESTATE BILL.
LORD COLCHESTERmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. It was really nothing more than a private Bill, but it had been made to assume the character of a public Bill in consequence of the importance attached to it by the interest which a portion of the public took in the property to which the Bill applied—namely, the manor of Hampstead, including Hampstead-heath. It had been said that this was a Bill to empower Sir Thomas Wilson to enclose Hampstead-heath, and to grant it out on building leases. A strong feeling in opposition to the Bill had been consequently raised. He could, however, assure their Lordships that the Bill was not intended to have any such effect. It was not for enclosing Hampstead-heath, or any other land whatsoever. Its only object was to give to Sir Thomas Wilson power to grant leases for a longer term than he possessed the power to do under his father's will. There was no person who would be more opposed to the enclosing of Hamp-
1358
stead-heath than himself; but there was no provision whatever in this Bill that would give the slightest facility for such a step. When the Bill was before their Lordships on a previous occasion, the opinion of the Judges was taken upon it, and was given in its favour. The noble Lord then pointed out the nature of the several provisions of the Bill, and concluded by moving that it be read a second time.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, that he should say "Not content" to the second reading of this Bill; but he begged at once to observe, that those who opposed the second reading of the Bill were not anxious to interfere with the rights of Sir Thomas Wilson in disposing of his property in whatever way he might think proper, under and in accordance with his father's will by which he had obtained it. He had the full benefit of the property devised to him by his father's will, and no one wished to disturb him in it; but it was quite another thing when he came to Parliament, and asked for powers which the will of his father did not confer upon him. Their Lordships, before complying with such a request, were bound to inquire whether the powers asked for would, if granted, be beneficial or injurious to the public. His belief was, that the granting of such powers would be most detrimental to the public interests. This Bill had been before their Lordships four several times already, and had been as often rejected; and he hoped that on this the fifth time, the rejection would be final to this persevering and tiresome application. It was a Bill to enable Sir Thomas Wilson to grant building leases of his land at Hampstead. He understood the noble Lord to say that no such power was demanded; but it was clear from the contents of the Bill that a power was demanded to grant building leases for ninety-nine years—a power that would very much intrench upon open spaces and impede the free circulation of the air which they at present enjoyed. He understood at the time the will was made, the property was not available for building purposes; but, since then, a road had been made called the Finchley-road. Now, the inhabitants of Hampstead and the neighbourhood would have no objection to Sir Thomas Wilson building on either side of that road, which presented a very great frontage; but Sir Thomas demanded a power to build elsewhere. If the powers now sought to be obtained had been unintentionally omitted from the will of the late

1359
Sir Thomas Wilson, there might have been a strong ground for the present claim; but it really did appear that it was the decided determination of the testator that the land in question should not be built upon. Sir Thomas Wilson, therefore, asked their Lordships to give him powers which he did not possess under his father's will, and powers which it was not intended he should possess; and his opinion was that the giving of such powers would be greatly to the disservice of the community.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert "this day three months."
The EARL of WICKLOWsupported the Bill. The argument of the noble Earl was inconsistent with itself. He first said that the powers asked for ought not to be granted, because they would be in violation of the provisions of the will of the late Sir Thomas Wilson; and then he immediately added that the people of Hampstead would not object to the present Sir Thomas Wilson building on the sides of Finchley-road, which would be equally a violation of his father's will. Their Lordships were appealed to by the opponents of this Bill, not upon the justice of the case, but merely on the ground that Hampstead-heath happened to be very convenient for the public. But, in his opinion, it would be most unjust in their Lordships to consider the convenience or even the health of the people in 'that locality when debating this question, He agreed that any alterations in the 'neighbourhood of Hampstead-heath would be a great inconvenience to the public; that, no doubt, was an argument in favour of the public buying the land, hut it was no argument for refusing to the owner of that land those powers which were necessary to his full enjoyment of it.
LORD CAMPBELLstill adhered to the unfavourable opinion which had been expressed with respect to this Bill when it was before their Lordships in 1845. Each of the four previous Bills which had been introduced with respect to this property had been rejected on deliberate consideration by that House, and with the sanction of his distinguished predecessor, Lord Denman, who was not in the habit of giving his opinion without grave deliberation, and who had the most perfect respect for the rights of property. The only opinion which the Judges had given on this matter was, that no person having a vested interest in this land would be injured by this Bill; but they had given no opinion as to whether it would prejudice the copyholders of the
1360
manor of Hampstead or the public at large; or as to whether it was a proper Bill for that House to pass. Indeed, those Judges who were Members of their Lordships' House—of whom Lord Denman was one—had voted against it in 1845. The clear rule was, that the will of the donor of any property should be upheld, unless something had occurred since his death which there was reason to believe would have caused him to make a different disposition of his property had he been alive. Now not only was this not the case here, but there was strong evidence that the late Sir Thomas Wilson had, from good feeling towards the public and his friends at Hampstead, intentionally withheld from his son the power of granting building leases for 99 years on the portion of his property to which this Bill referred.
LORD REDESDALEwas bound to say that he considered this to be a very hard case. It was that of ground which, from the extension of the neighbouring suburban districts had become very valuable, and its owner came to Parliament and prayed for those powers which in an ordinary case would be granted as matter of course, without objection being made. The real question was, whether the late Sir Thomas Wilson, if he were now alive, would have granted such powers with regard to building leases as those proposed to be given under this Bill? His belief was, that the late proprietor would have done so; his will was dated in 1796, and he afterwards made codicils by which he granted building powers over a portion of his estate nearest to his family residence at Charlton. It was to be supposed that he would still more readily have granted such powers with respect to a locality at a considerable distance. The ground in question had been lately opened up by a new road, and was being built up to every day. It was quite false to say that this was a proposal for the enclosure of Hampstead-heath; it related to land which was the private property of Sir Thomas Wilson, and over which no one else had any right.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, it was perfectly true that if the late proprietor were alive he would need no Act of Parliament whatever to enable him to do what was proposed in this Bill. If the gentleman who now advanced the claim should chance to die within six months, his successor could, without any authority from that or the other House of Parliament, grant building leases over every part of the es-

1361
tate. The embarrassment in this case arose wholly and solely from the casualty of this gentleman being at an advanced period of life without an heir, and the estate being entailed collaterally. He thought it necessary to say this, because for many years he had heard of this measure as one in which the lord of the manor asked powers not rightly belonging to him, for the enclosure of Hampstead-heath.
LORD COLCHESTER,in reply, stated that this Bill did not give Sir Thomas Wilson the power of building upon Hampstead-heath; or any part of Hampstead-heath; and if their Lordships would agree to the Bill, Sir Thomas Wilson was quite willing that any clauses should be struck out which might appear to give such power.
On Question, That "now," stand part of the Motion,
Their Lordships divided:—Content 19; Non-content 21: Majority 2.
Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this day three months.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S EUROPEAN TROOPS BILL.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had extracted the substance of this Bill, empowering the East India Company to augment the number of their European troops both in India and in this country, from the Ministerial measure relating to the Government of India. It was on the supposition that the House of Commons would agree to that clause of the measure that he had done so, thinking that no time should be lost in making preparation for the defence of the country, and that it would be advisable that they should pass this part of the measure at once, as by doing so they would save six weeks. He, therefore, took the earliest opportunity of submitting to their Lordships the means by which that course could be secured. If his noble Friend at the head of the Government should think it desirable to accept his offer, he would most willingly give up the charge of the Bill into his hands.
The EARL of ABERDEENwould only observe that this measure appeared to be one of an unprecedented character. There must be something very urgent in the circumstances in order to justify such an unusual proceeding, and he was not aware of any such circumstances. He thought there was no reason whatever why this provision should not come before them six
1362
weeks hence, and he could not adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that under these circumstances of course it would be quite idle for him to press the second reading of the Bill.
The Order of the day for the Second Reading read, and discharged.

SOAP DUTIES BILL—FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved—"That the Bill be now read a Third Time."
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHwished to call their Lordships' attention to some considerations of great importance, which arose on the proposition for the third reading of this measure. When the Bill was first brought into the House of Commons three months back, it formed part of a great system of finance, founded apparently on the supposition that the happy state of peace which had lasted for nearly forty years would endure for an indefinite period longer. It was proposed, therefore, as part of a peace Budget. But since that time a very great change had taken place in the position of this country. At this moment a French fleet joined to an English fleet was at the mouth of the Dardanelles; and it was to be apprehended, undoubtedly, that the officers in command of the fleets must have certain instructions for acting, under certain circumstances, in co-operation for the defence of our ally the Sultan of Turkey, and such action, if the case should ever occur, would be war. We had likewise assembled such a fleet as was perhaps never got together since the peace—though still not so large as we might need—at Spithead. That squadron was assembled for the purpose of defending the coasts of this country; for if that action took place, and there should be war at the mouth of the Dardanelles, it must be perfectly well known to their Lordships that within three weeks of that time a very much stronger Russian fleet than any which we could show, with troops on board, might be at the mouth of the Thames. He must, therefore, say that the circumstances in which we now stood were altogether different from those under which the Bill was originally proposed. It was then part of a peace Budget, and it might now probably be regarded at this time as part of a war Budget, which would have to be proposed for the

1363
purpose of meeting the new circumstances in which we were placed. He thought it most expedient, under such circumstances, that Parliament should hold its hand for a, short time. The noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department had very prudently said that it was not expedient, and not consistent with the public interests, that they should at the present moment enter into a general discussion of our relations with Russia, and the existing position of the Eastern question. If the noble Earl could not see daylight as to the ultimate result of the negotiations in progress, and could pot look forward with certainty to a pacific solution of the question, surely that must be a reason for their Lordships to guide their course accordingly. The same reason which deterred the noble Lord from speaking on details, should deter their Lordships from reading a third time a Bill for the repeal of a tax which gave very considerable assistance to the revenue, every shilling of which they would want, if the result of the present negotiations should be unfavourable. Therefore, he should beg leave to suggest to Her Majesty's Ministers (that it would not be expedient to read this Bill a third time until the state of affairs was such as to make it possible for the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department to enter into a full explanation of all that has taken place to affect our relations with Russia.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he must be excused from dwelling upon some of the topics touched by his noble Friend. With regard to the suggestion his noble Friend had made for postponing the Bill before their Lordships, he could only state that it was his earnest hope that no such resources would be required to meet any such necessity as that to which he had adverted. But if, unfortunately, he should be mistaken in that hope, and if the greatest calamity that could befall this country should be imminent, why, even then, he did not think it was the duty of the House of Lords to interfere and prevent the relief afforded to the people by the repeal of these duties. If it should so happen that the House of Commons should determine that this country shall be placed in a state of war, why, the House of Commons would undoubtedly provide the means for carrying it out.
The EARL of DERBYmust say that he altogether differed from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), in his view of the relative duties of the House of Com-
1364
mons and the House of Lords. They were not in the same position as was the House of Commons when the Bill was first laid before them; they were asked to consent to the measure as part of a general system of taxation sanctioned by the House of Commons. The noble Earl must admit that noble Lords on the Opposition side of the House, during the present Session, had given ample proof that they were not disposed to bring that House into collision with the House of Commons, or to refuse the imposition of any tax that might be demanded as requisite for the public service. But he must concur with his noble Friend near him in thinking that at a time when they were in a state of painful suspense and anxious uncertainty as to the possibility of maintaining the peace of Europe, it was their duty not to neglect the state of the finances, or to abandon lightly sources of revenue immediately available, amounting to something like 400,000 l [The Earl of ABERDEEN: 1,200,000 l.] That made the case of course much stronger. His noble Friend did not ask them to refuse their consent to the measure sent up to them by the House of Commons, but he asked them to be quite satisfied, before they passed it, that the circumstances were the same in which the Mouse of Commons was placed when they thought it expedient and practicable to take off this amount of taxation. The noble Earl must be well aware that there was a great difference between the imposition of a tax that might be required for the public service, and abstaining from taking off a tax until they knew whether the revenue would bear the loss. They had had a statement made of the financial position of the country, and even supposing peace to be altogether uninterrupted, and no larger expenditure to he incurred by our preparations, he would not say for war, but for averting war, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not enabled to show a surplus exceeding 280.000 l., according to the last estimate. If, then, they should be compelled, not to go to war, but to make any extraordinary efforts, or to incur any extraordinary sacrifices, was it wise to surrender 1,200,000 l. of revenue. Would it pot be prudent to keep that amount in hand, in order that the House of Commons might have an opportunity of judging whether under the new circumstances they could afford to dispense with this tax, without danger of having to resort to other taxes in order to meet any emergency that might arise?

1365
He was inclined to think that the wisest course would be that suggested by his noble Friend, of postponing the third reading of the Bill for a fortnight or three weeks—a course which would produce no effect whatever upon the revenue, although it might pro-duce some little uncertainty, but which un-certainty arose, in fact, not from the proposition of his noble Friend,, but from circumstances of a very important character, namely, the preservation of peace, or otherwise. Was it a prudent or a wise course in the prospect of that uncertainty to take a step that would absolutely deprive the Exchequer of more than 1,000,000 l. of revenue, when they had the alternative of waiting a fortnight or three weeks to see whether the tax could. he taken off with safety to the public. It appeared to him that a short delay was the course dictated by prudence and sound sense, and that the other course was unsuited to the present circumstances of the country, and was incurring a risk which he could not but think would add seriously to the responsibility now weighing upon Her Majesty's Government.
The EARL of ELLENEOROUGHmoved that the Bill be postponed for a week.
Amendment moved, to leave put "now," and insert "on Friday the 15th of this instant July."
EARL GRANVILLEcould not help thinking that it would he infinitely the wisest course to leave the responsibility of this case with the Government. If the Government assumed that responsibility—weighing, on the one side, the great alarm and inconvenience which the adoption of the proposition of the noble Earl would occasion to the mercantile community, and feeling, on the other side, perfect confidence that if the honour and interest of the country required us to enter into a war, there would be no difficulty whatever on the part of this rich and spirited country in finding the necessary means—he really hoped that his noble Friend would not press his Motion to a division, or that, if unfortunately he should do so, their Lordships would not concur with him.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he apprehended that although the noble Earl might not press his Motion to a division—supposing that the Government took upon themselves the responsibility of resisting what he considered a very wise suggestion, and supported by most sensible, clear, and rational arguments, he still must say that he was happy the Motion
1366
had been proposed, if it were only that it had elicited from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and from the noble Earl the President of the Council, an expression of confidence that, at the shortest notice, the resources of the country would be found in such a state as to enable us to meet any emergency which might arise. Nevertheless, he thought it would be wise if for a short time they held their hand, as the noble Earl advised; and lie did not see that any interest could be injured by that course. For although it might be true that a pertain degree of alarm might be created by it, it would pot the less create a confidence in the determination of the Government to uphold the honour and interests of the country at any cost, and that confidence would place the commerce of the country on so sure ft basis that it would bear no proportion to the disadvantage which might result to the country from the repeal of the tax. If, however, the Government, feeling that they had ample resources at their command to meet any dangers or difficulties that might possibly arise, and, therefore, assumed the responsibility of refusing the assistance offered to them by the preposition of the noble Earl, he did not suppose that it would be desired to force it upon them, though he thought it would he wiser if they accepted it.
LORD BEAUMONTconsidered that the whole question rested on the responsibility of Government. If their Lordships had the assurance of Government that they were prepared to take the whole responsibility of meeting any emergency that might, occur, he thought that they ought to trust them to that extent; hut it was only on that understanding that he should accede to the proposal for passing this measure.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he should certainly not withdraw his Motion. On the contrary, he wished that it should appear on the Journals as an indication of his opinion of the absolute necessity, under present circumstances, of keeping all the resources they could in their hand for the public protection. At the same time, he knew it would be quite idle for him to divide the House. He certainly did not feel that he could place the same degree of reliance on the Government, as that which seemed to be placed on them. by some noble Lords who had spoken. If the responsibility of Government could fit out a fleet, he should be perfectly satisfied; but knowing, as he did, that it could do no

1367
such thing, it could not in the slightest degree be a matter of consolation to him to throw upon the Government the onus of meeting that difficulty.
On Question. That "now" stand part of the Motion,
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.
House adjourned till To-morrow.