Sitting of 2 June 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Clitheroe, John Thomas Walshman Aspinall, Esq. PUBLIC BILL.—2° Bankruptcy (Scotland).

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF ELECTORS IN DOCKYARDS.
MR. MASTERS SMITHsaid, he begged to ask the noble Lord the Member for London, whether he had any intention of introducing, during the present Session of Parliament, any measure for the disfranchisement of the electors in Her Majesty's dockyards?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The notice which I gave of introducing a Bill for disfranchising persons employed in the dockyards was in consequence of the Report of the Chatham Election Committee, for it seemed unreasonable to withhold the writ from Chatham without either bringing in a measure for disfranchising the dockyards, or else some Bill for preventing the exercise of undue influence upon persons employed in those places. But after I gave notice, it appeared that the measure would be one that would meet with considerable opposition, or that, at all events, would occasion a great deal of discussion, and that being the case, I do not think it would be desirable to interrupt business of great importance by a measure of this description. When the general question of the reform of the representation of the people comes before Parliament, it may be considered whether it would be possible to bring in some measure for the protection of dockyard voters, or whether they ought to be disfranchised. I do not, however, intend during the present Session, to introduce any measure upon that subject, and therefore I shall not offer any opposition to the issue of a new writ for the borough of Chatham.

INCOME TAX BILL.
On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Income Tax Bill,
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, he must appeal to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his determination, and to allow lands and houses to be assessed to the tax upon their net, and not upon their gross, value.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not undertake to comply with the request of the hon. Member. The House had had fully in its view the whole of this question during the debates on the income tax. It had been well understood at the outset of those debates that the mode in which lands and houses were valued at the present moment, unquestionably imposed on the classes charged for income tax under Schedule A a tax higher than 7d. in the pound; and it had been deliberately considered by the House whether it would be desirable to re-enact the tax with that undoubted inequality, or whether, on the other hand, it would be better to open up the whole of the question involving the comparative claims of different interests. The House had come to a deliberate conclusion on the subject, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton), and afterwards on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams). On both occasions the House had been of opinion that it would be better to retain the tax as it was; and that being so, he could not promise that the Government would now reopen so important a question.
House in Committee; Mr. Bouverie in the chair.
On Clause 9.
MR. FREWENsaid, that he had an Amendment to move upon this clause, the object of which could be briefly explained. Under the existing law, seven Commissioners were elected both by the Commissioners of the land tax, and the magistrates in each division of a county, for the purpose of hearing appeals against the assessments to the income tax; and out of the whole seven Commissioners it was frequently difficult to get a sufficient number to attend for the purpose of transacting the business. Indeed, instances sometimes occurred, when only two Commissioners were present to decide appeals. To obviate this objection, therefore, he proposed that the magistrates of each division should be ex officio Commissioners of the property
1038
tax as well as Commissioners of land tax and assessed taxes, which latter offices magistrates filled at present. He would therefore beg to move, to add to the words of the clause designating the persons who should hold the office of Income Tax Commissioners, "and all Justices of the Peace for any county, riding, or parts or division of a county or liberty."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it had been already understood that the Bill should be recommitted for the purpose of giving hon. Gentlemen who had proposed to introduce certain clauses with respect to Ireland a full opportunity of discussing them. He should therefore be brief on the present occasion; but he thought it would not be expedient to adopt this Amendment for several reasons. In the first place, it would be a very great innovation, and he doubted whether it would be any improvement upon the existing law. The law with respect to the Commissioners had hitherto proceeded upon the principle that the functions to be discharged by the general Commissioners of income tax, being of a delicate and confidential nature in many cases, ought not to be entrusted to the Land Tax Commissioners generally, but to a select body chosen from among them. Now, the hon. Gentleman proposed to depart from that principle, but without effectually changing the law so as to give his proposition a general application, for he restricted its application to a particular manner, and with reference to a particular class. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), had received many representations complaining of the unsatisfactory operation of the law connected with the present machinery; but he had heard of no instance in which the working of the Act had been found fault with through the defective number of Commissioners who attended to transact the business. Again, he was not prepared to assent to the doctrine that any person who was fit to be a county magistrate, was necessarily fit also to be entrusted with the functions of Income Tax Commissioner, and he thought it better to leave the appointment of these Commissioners to the Land Tax Commissioners generally, as the constituent body from whom they should be chosen. Another reason why the Amendment was objectionable was, that very great jealousies existed already in certain trading districts with respect to the mode in which the appeals were determined; and he was sure that these local jealousies would only

1039
be aggravated under this proposition. Believing, in short, that this Amendment would render the working of the Act more difficult, vexatious, and unsatisfactory than it was at present, he hoped that the Committee would reject it.
MR. FREWENsaid that he believed his Amendment would effect a very necessary and desirable alteration in the rural districts in particular; but he would not press it if the sense of the Committee was against it.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 13 (Duties under Schedule A, in Ireland, to be assessed on rateable hereditaments, according to the valuations under the Poor Relief Acts.—On whom assessments to be made).
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to an important alteration, or rather addition, which he now proposed to make upon the suggestion of an hon. Gentleman who had given notice of a proviso, and furnished him with a copy of it. The proviso of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald) was to the effect that, whenever any lessor or landlord of lands in Ireland, subject to duty under Schedule A of this Act, shall have paid the duty chargeable by this Act in respect of any rent not received by him at the time of such payment, and which has been subsequently lost by reason of the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of the tenant by whom such rent was payable, then, and in that case, it shall be lawful for the said lessor or landlord to deduct from and set off against the duties payable by him, in the year next following, the full amount of the duties paid by him in respect of the rent so lost. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had prepared a clause based upon precisely the same principle, and designed to carry out the same object which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment had in view; although he thought it would be inconvenient to adopt the exact words of the hon. Gentleman, because the accounts of the tax collectors must be almost hopelessly complicated by the carrying forward of claims for abatement from half year to half year. His own proposition, therefore, was to the effect that if any landlord or lessor of any tenement or hereditament in Ireland, assesed under Schedule A, should have paid the amount of duty chargeable upon him, and it should afterwards be proved to the
1040
satisfaction of the Commissioners for Special Purposes that the rent due in respect of such tenement or hereditament, or any portion thereof, was wholly and irrecoverably lost, by reason of the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of the tenant, he should be entitled to the repayment of the tax upon so much of his rent as was so lost, provided he made application for the same within six months. The principle he proposed to apply in this case was now systematically and habitually applied in England in reference to house property. In case of an absenting tenant, when it was shown that the goods of the tenant had been removed from the premises, and that the landlord had no means of recovering his rent, the custom and practice of the Revenue Board was not to exact the tax from the landlord, although, in point of law, he was liable to it. He had already stated the general reasons which had led the Government to think that on the whole the most just and effective mode would be to pass by the occupier, as far as regarded agricultural tenants, and as far as regarded small tenants. The general rule would be to go against the lessor or the rentowner for the tax.
MR. I. BUTTobjected to the alterations proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, who proposed now to legislate for the owners of land in Ireland in a manner entirely different from the legislation adopted for the corresponding class in England. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed that it should be at the discretion of the Commissioners whether the tax should be assessed upon the landlord or the tenant. They might, and he was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer they would, as a general rule, assess the landlord; therefore the Irish landowner must pay the income tax whether he received his rent or not; he must pay it in the greater number of instances before he received his income, in many instances upon income which he would never receive. In the case of the English landowner the tenant paid the tax in the first instance; he deducted it from his rent, so that the landlord only knew of the tax on a deduction from income actually received. In Ireland he must pay it in the first instance: this he would feel as an oppressive advance, and an advance on account of income that might never be paid; and they made this difference in favour of the landowner in England, where rents were punctually paid, and against the landowner in Ireland, where they were

1041
almost always in arrear. He (Mr. Butt) asked only that the Irish landowner should be placed in the same position as the English. In England he found the landlord was assessed in every case in which the holding was under the annual value of 10 l. There might be a difference in the circumstances of the country; but he was certain he made ample allowance for all of these, if he substituted in Ireland a fifteen pound for a ten pound annual value. He, therefore, proposed that in Ireland, in all cases of a rating above 15 l. the tenant should in the first instance be assessed; in all cases under 15 l. the landlord. The farmer of a holding rated at 15 l. was a man of a certain amount of independence—one from whom there would be no difficulty in collecting the tax, and one who would feel it no inconvenience to advance on account of his rent 7s. 6d. whenever he was called on. He thought this proposal would apply substantially the same rule to Ireland and England, would create no inconvenience in the collection of the revenue, and would impose no hardship upon the tenantry; and, on the other hand, would protect the proprietors from the most grievous oppression. Now, what was the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? To leave it in each case to the discretion of an exciseman whether he was to assess the ton-ant or to pass him by and assess his landlord! This was a discretion to be exercised in each individual case—not even to establish any general rule—not even to make any regulation for a district—but in the case of each particular estate, nay, of each particular tenant upon each estate, to determine at his own will and pleasure whether the tax was, in the first instance, to fall upon the tenant or upon the landlord! He (Mr. Butt) strongly protested against giving such a power to officials appointed by the Crown; he denounced it as utterly unconstitutional to leave it to any official of the Crown to determine from whom a tax should be levied. No Minister would dare to propose such a measure for England. Yet, in England, the officers administering the tax were to be appointed by local authorities; in Ireland, they were to be officers of excise—they gave no such power to the English officials. In Ireland they proposed to give it to excisemen, and yet they had argued the question of an Irish income tax as if the proposal was to extend the English income tax to Ireland. They now avowed the tax they inflicted on Ireland to be one
1042
different in every principle of its administration. He never could consent that the property of Ireland should be thus left at the mercy of the Excise. He must remind hon. Gentlemen who assumed to be the special guardians of the interests of the tenant, that if this was a landlord's question as to one class; as to another—and the largest class—it was a tenant's question too. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the tax collector the power, if he thought fit, of resorting to the tenants of small holdings, who in England never could be subject to the tax. In England, the tenant of a small holding was to be absolutely protected: in Ireland, only if the tax collector pleased. He (Mr. Butt) was not prepared to subject this class, at the caprice of the taxman, to all the inconveniences, and in their case the oppression, that would attend the collection of the tax. These were the class, and the only class, of tenants whom the collection of the tax could harass or oppress. He asked those who called themselves the friends of the tenants, were they prepared to vote this arbitrary power of extorting the tax from the lowest and the poorest occupier? He asked them to reflect in what cases this power would be exercised. Manifestly in the very cases in which it would be most oppressive. Whenever there was a difficulty in getting at the landlord, then the tenantry would be assessed. In the case of tenements in large towns, where the landlord might be unknown; in cases where the landlord was an absentee and beyond the reach of process; in cases where he was embarassed, and no mark for the tax; in the very cases in which you might expect a wretched tenantry—in all these cases the tax would be collected from them. The arrangement he proposed was infinitely better for the tenantry as a whole. Let the tenant be assessed in every case over 15 l., and in no case under it. If it protected the landlord in the one case, it protected the tenant in the other. It would apply substantially the same rule to England and Ireland; it would place the Irish landowner as to this tax, in nearly the same position as the English one; it would extend the same protection to the poorer tenantry in Ireland which the corresponding class in England enjoyed; and it would get rid of the insulting proposal of leaving it to an exciseman to regulate between Irish gentlemen and their tenants the mode of the collection of this tax.
Amendment proposed—

1043
"In page 8, line 40, to leave out the words, shall be made upon the landlord or immediate lessor of such tenements or rateable hereditaments, or, if it shall appear to the Commissioners for Special Purposes to be necessary or proper, the said assessment shall be made upon such person as the rate for the relief of the Poor shall be made upon in respect of any such property, under the provisions of the Acts in that behalf,' in order to insert the words 'in every case in which the said annual value shall amount to fifteen pounds and upwards, shall be made upon such person as the rate for the relief of the Poor shall be made upon in respect of such property, under the provisions of the Acts in that behalf, and in all other cases upon the landlord or immediate lessor of such tenements or rateable hereditaments' instead thereof."
MR. FITZSTEPHBN FRENCHsaid, he must claim precedence for an Amendment, omitting the words "in Ireland" from the clause altogether. The result of it, as it stood now, would he, to render it incumbent on the landlord to demand his rent as soon as it became due, instead of leaving "the hanging gale" over, as was the practice in Ireland. He doubted if it would be advantageous to the tenant, whom it was intended to assist; but his chief objection to it was that it was a departure from the principle of identity of legislation. That principle was only insisted on when it was necessary to tax Ireland. It was exceedingly disheartening, when he was addressing a few observations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the right hon. Gentleman should select that time for conversation with the hon. Member, though he supposed there was indeed but little use arguing the question. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, if it was advantageous to tax the landlords in the first instance, why he did not extend the principle to this country? He believed the object of the Bill was to force the landlords to drive out the small occupiers. It was one which had been sedulously persevered in by the party in power, and a great portion of the exodus which had taken place was the result. But that was not sufficient for them in their anxiety to get rid of the Catholic and Celtic population of Ireland, which was announced in the leading journal of Europe. In the justice of England he had no confidence, unless it was identical with her interest, and they could only obtain that identity in Ireland by refusing to accept any legislation which was not identical with that by which the interests of England were preserved and governed.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he objected to the clause, and he wished to know whether it would not be just as easy to come on the
1044
landlord of the occupier of 15 l. a year, as on the landlord of the occupier of 10 l. a year? It was as easy to get at the landlord of the tenant of a house, as at the landlord of a tenant of land. If it was just to except the humbler classes of tenants in England, the circumstances of Ireland rendered the same class in Ireland even more deserving of consideration.
MR. EVELYN DENISONsaid, he thought the reason given by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. French) for the Motion he had submitted, was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. The hon. Member entirely distrusted and had no confidence in the justice of England, and said the only thing he could place any confidence in was identity of taxation in Ireland with England; whereupon, to carry out this identity of taxation, he proposed to omit the words "in Ireland" from the clause.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, the hon. Member for Malton had not the plea of inexperience for misstating or misrepresenting what fell from any other hon. Gentleman. In proposing the omission of the words alluded to, his (Mr. French's) object was to render the clause applicable to the United Kingdom. He had no desire to exempt Ireland from the operation of the Bill, but he did wish to make the clause a general one.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) was one of which he could not approve. He did not sec the justice of asking the tenant, and particularly the Irish tenant, to pay for his landlord. From the census and agricultural returns of 1851, it appeared that the number of small occupiers in that year was nearly 500,000; whereas the number of occupying tenants who had holdings to the extent of 200 acres, who would come under the operation of this Bill, would not amount to more than 7,000 or 8,000. From the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on previous occasions, he found that this Bill, and this clause in particular, was altered with the sole object of putting the tax upon the landlord, in the first instance, and he was of opinion that it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.
MR. KIRKsaid, he was very much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the alteration he had introduced into this clause, by which the injustice originally contemplated was remedied. He should decidedly oppose the Motion of the

1045
hon. and learned Member for Youghal, and would cordially support the clause as amended.
MR. LUCASsaid, he also felt obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the main, for the clause be had introduced; but he wished to ask one question with reference to its operation, which he did not perfectly understand. The object of the clause, so far as he could understand it, was to exempt the occupier, in all cases in which it was not necessary for the purposes of raising the tax, from paying the landlord's share. It was, however, left to the discretion of the Commissioners as to what cases should not be exempted; and he wished to know upon what grounds the Commissioners were to regulate these exemptions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated very fairly and properly the object of the clause, subject to the single reservation of the case of occupiers of messuages of a certain value. The case of occupiers of messuages was materially different from that of occupiers of land. In regard to messuages, a different standard was fixed by the poor-law rating in towns as to the point at which the occupier became exempt, and the landlord became liable to assessment, and he bad reserved under this Bill those cases which might require some consideration from peculiar circumstances, in particular localities, in regard to the point, at which the tax ought to be taken from the occupier. There was certainly a class of tenants in messuages in whose cases the tax ought to be taken from the occupiers; but in regard to lands he did not think it would be safe to take the tax from the occupier, and the occupier only, because the Government might often have great difficulty in getting at the other party. But the case did not he between the occupier on the one side, and the head landlord on the other. The person whom the Bill proposed to substitute for the occupier was not the head landlord, but the immediate lessor; and as the immediate lessor was a person whom they might often have great difficulty in reaching, this reservation was made to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished for some further explanation with regard to towns, and would like to know when the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to say what class of occupiers were to be exempt?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, from the nature of the circumstances, it was impossible to arrive at any definite test generally applicable. Whether the landlord or the tenant would be assessed, must be left in many cases to the Commissioners to decide, though he believed the most practicable mode would be to assess the occupier.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the fact that there was scarcely an occupier rated to the poor, from 8l., 10 l., to 15 l. in Ireland, to whom the payment of the tax in the first instance would not be a great and harassing burden.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, that rents in Ireland were paid in many parts of the country but once a year, and, therefore, in many instances, they would be making the landlords pay upon incomes which they had not received.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that the new clause proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would leave it in all cases to the discretion of the taxing officers whether they would assess the tenant or the landlord. Now, according to the English law, the tenant must be assessed if his rent were over 10 l., but could in no case be assessed if it were under that sum. The object of his Amendment was to take away all discretion from the Government officers, and to enact that the tenant in Ireland should be assessed in all cases where his rent was above 15 l., and that he should never be assessed when it was under that sum.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resist the Amendment, for there was high authority to show that the landlord ought to pay all the taxes to which the land was liable.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 61: Majority 109.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, he believed the Amendment he now begged to propose would alleviate a great hardship in the mode of assessment proposed by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, without diminishing the amount received under the tax, or without altering the persons upon whom the burden was to be imposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had on a former evening stated that the tax was to be paid irrespective of the receipt of rent,

1047
because, as the owner of the rent was armed by the law with sufficient power to recover it, it was to be attributed to his own fault if he did not. If that answer had been given by a person conversant with the state of the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, he should have been entitled to characterise it as a bold and inconsiderate statement. But he acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of any other error than that of looking to the theory of the matter rather than to the practice in Ireland. He proposed, instead of assuming that every landowner in Ireland could recover his rent on the day on which it was due, to enact that if any owner of land in Ireland thought it would be an unsafe thing for him to pay his tax in advance, he should be allowed to state his unwillingness to do so in twenty days after the assessment had been delivered, and to offer to give a return of the actual receipts of the year last past; and that he should then pay upon those actual receipts, from which no deduction should be made, except for the half of the poor-rate, which the landlord in Ireland was obliged to pay. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, indeed, that this was met by subsequent clauses, which enabled the landlord to demand a return of the tax if the rent was not paid within six months after it was due, and the tenant was bankrupt, insolvent, or had absconded. But was he not aware that no tenant in Ireland expected to be asked for his rent until six months after it was due? The result of the proposed clauses as they now stood would be to inflict the greatest evil upon the occupiers of land, by making it a matter of the greatest importance to the landlord to enforce the rent as soon as possible, and to take the most stringent means to ascertain whether the tenant could pay, in order that he might either recover his rent, or satisfy the Commissioners that it was irrecoverable. Then how was it to be determined whether a small tenant in Ireland was bankrupt or insolvent? These words were a mere mockery, as applied to that class of persons. As for a tenant "absconding," every one knew that the great annoyance in the management of landed property in Ireland was, that the tenants would not abscond. They stayed in possession, and would neither pay their rent nor leave the land. Under these circumstances he thought that the proposition made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point was quite illusory, and it was on these grounds he had brought the
1048
Amendment forward, not from any personal interest, but from a wish of exempting a class of persons from a hardship which seemed to him gratuitous and unnecessary.
Amendment proposed—
"To add at the end of the Clause, the words 'Provided always, That any landlord or immediate lessor of any tenements or hereditaments in Ireland, charged with Duties under Schedule A of this Act, may, within twenty days after notice of such charge, by writing under the hand of himself or his agent, delivered to the officer making such charge, elect to be assessed in respect of such tenements or hereditaments upon his actual receipts, and thereupon the Duties shall be charged on such landlord or immediate lessor, computed on a sum not less than the amount actually received by him in respect of such tenements and hereditaments, within the year ending on the preceding fifth day of April.'"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had handled the concession which he proposed to make in a different way from his hon. Friends on the lower benches. He must say that the concession was not made to the necessity of the case, but was owing rather to the indulgence with which he desired to deal with the case, and with some recollection in his mind of the disposition which existed amongst the great bulk of the Members of that House to meet the demands that were advanced by Irish Members. With respect to the Amendment which he proposed to make in regard to bankrupt and absconding tenants in Ireland, he did not hesitate to express his apprehensions that Gentlemen connected with land in England would complain of his making such concessions in favour of the Irish landlords, and would ask to be placed on the same footing. [An Hon. MEMBER: Give us the same law as you have in England.] All he could say was, that a great number of Irish Members had made representations to the Government that valuation should be the basis of those proceedings. [An Hon. MEMBER of the Opposition: Not on this side.] The hon. Gentleman should know the rules of the House better than to make those interruptions. And a provision was introduced in the Bill to enable those persons who found they were aggrieved by the valuation, to show that the annual value was less than the valuation. That was a provision to which there was nothing analogous in England. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cairns) said the concession with respect to bankrupt and absconding tenants was illusory. He did not think it would

1049
be thought illusory if it were proposed with respect to Ireland; but with regard to Ireland every concession appeared to be thought illusory by some Gentlemen. He now came to consider the proposal of the hon. Gentleman opposite, and he had never known a proposal made to that House during the discussion on the income tax which appeared to him to be open to more fundamental objections. If there were any evil greater than another, it was that which was called self-assessment. If there was one reason more than another which disinclined people to the income tax, it was because they could not get rid of that tremendous evil of the income tax, self-assessment. At the commencement, when self-assessment was generally resorted to, they only levied one-half of the amount which the tax might have given. They had now got rid of it except in Schedule D; but here was an hon. Gentleman proposing to introduce it into Schedule A, thereby leading to fraud and demoralisation in every form, and introducing a most invidious feature, because it would not apply to the owners of land universally, but merely to the owners of land in Ireland. But suppose the hon. Gentleman had proposed it universally; let it not be thought that on that ground it would meet with a favourable reception from him. He would say, on the contrary, that having found a certain mode of levying the tax mischievous in every way, from the fraud it produced, they were not going to adopt that mode of levying that tax again. The hon. Gentleman had objected to the measure as being likely to inflict hardship upon the occupier of land by causing him to be called upon for punctual payment of his rent; but if it had that effect, he could only say that it would, in his opinion, place the relation between landlord and tenant on a better footing, and, so far from considering that an objection, he thought it an argument much in favour of the measure. The hon. Gentleman complained that the landlord sometimes did not receive his rent, and yet had to pay the tax; but he would ask him if it did not sometimes happen that a tradesman made bad debts, and yet had to pay the tax; and why should the landlord be placed on a different footing from the tradesman? The hon. Gentleman said there was a hanging gale in Ireland; but was there no such analogous thing in England? Of course there was. But the question was, were the necessary expenses of the State to be raised by a tax which
1050
should be a primary charge upon the man's income, or was it a charge that must be postponed until every local and personal demand was fully satisfied? The hon. Gentleman spoke as if the system of arrears in Ireland was a very good system; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) conceived that if this proposition tended to the punctual levying of rent, so far from considering it an objection to the clause, it should be deemed a recommendation of it; for nothing was so mischievous to the tenant as that system of long arrears. The principle they proceeded on was this, that a year's rent was received during the year; and he protested against the Amendment, as aiming at the establishment of a system entirely exceptional in favour of a particular class, and tending to bring them back into all the worst abuses that had ever prevailed in the system. The hon. Gentleman proposed by his Amendment to deduct any sum paid by the lessor during the year for poor-rate of such hereditaments or tenements; but the landlord did not pay the poor-rate—
MR. CAIRNS: He pays one half of it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Is it not paid in the first instance by the tenant?
MR. CAIRNS: It is taken from the tenant in the first instance, but he only deducts one-half from the landlord.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The tenant paid it in the first instance, and the landlord did not receive it. He was to be charged on what he actually received; but the hon. Gentleman proposed that the landlord should deduct the amount of the poor-rate which he had never received. Suppose the landlord had 1,100 l. a year, the sum payable for poor-rate was 100 l., the landlord therefore got 1,000 l.; but he said he was not to be taxed upon 1,000 l., but should deduct the poor-rate which had been already deducted. He protested against an Amendment of such a character, which aimed at the establishment of a system tending to introduce all the evils which had ever attended the operation of the tax. He would oppose the proviso on the broad ground that it introduced, without any necessity, the obnoxious principle of self assessment, and that in a form much more objectionable and exceptional than any in which it had before existed.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEthought it was hopeless to expect any justice from that House, so far as Irish proprietors were

1051
concerned, after the vote that had taken place upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt), which had been opposed by a very large majority of English Members. He considered that the income tax ought to be levied upon the ordinary valuation of property, and not upon the poor-law valuation, which was most defective and unsatisfactory. He should support the Amendment, because he believed that a fairer proposition had never been presented to the House. The measure of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be satisfactory to some of his supporters below the gangway, the Brigade; but if he appealed to the Irish Members on (Sir A. Brooke's) side of the House, they would give an opinion very adverse to it.
MR. F. SCULLYsaid, he should support the measure as an independent Member of the House, and he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration he had made; and if he had no other reason for thanking him, he would do so on the ground that the measure was objected to by the hon. Gentleman opposite. As the clause stood at present, landlords would have to pay the income tax whether they received their rents or not, and he thought the proviso would have the effect of inducing landlords to reduce their rents, which would, in that event, be more punctually paid. He might remark, that landlords would be called upon to pay the income tax in March, or April, while they would not, in many cases, receive the rents upon which the tax was paid until the months of November or December following, and he thought, therefore, it might be arranged that the Commissioners should not apply for the tax until the period of the year when the rents were paid.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that, though opposed to the clause as it stood, he was inclined to make every possible allowance for any misappreciation of the state of Irish property which his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been guilty of. He confessed, however, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to show himself so practically acquainted with the management of Irish estates as it was to be wished; for when he attempted to draw an analogy betwen the circumstances of English and Irish property, he fell into an error, which very much depreciated the estimate to be formed of his plan. He regarded the proposal of the hon. Member
1052
for Belfast (Mr. Cairns), to be a necessary corollary to the imposition of the income tax upon Ireland. For the fact was, there was no such thing as a half-yearly collection of rents in Ireland; they were collected just as one could get them, all the year round. Neither was there any such thing as audit days, as was the case in England; and instead of 2½ per cent, Irish proprietors had to pay their agents 5 per cent upon the rents coming in; while in this country and in Scotland, agents received the lesser remuneration. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dissented.] He (Mr. Herbert) could speak from experience, for he knew many properties in Scotland where the agents only received 2½ per cent. Nor had hon. Gentlemen any clear idea of what was meant by "absconding tenants" in Ireland. That term did not imply tenants who ran away. [Laughter.] His words might produce a smile, but still such was the case; for the term rather applied to such occupants of land as removed all their produce and cattle from off the farm, leaving some one in occupation who was utterly unable to meet the demands of the landlord. He therefore believed the Amendment to be quite just and fair, and should accordingly support it.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he believed that in dealing with Ireland their purpose ought to be to look rather to the collateral, than to the direct, effect of any particular measure. He could not help feeling that it was rather an Irish practice to charge income tax upon incomes never received. Nor was it, he must say, a case of self-assessment at all—the proposition of his hon. Friend (Mr. Cairns), was in noways open to any such objection.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, that having supported the proposition that was favourable to the tenant, and having now to deal with a question which had reference solely to the interest of the landlord, he should from a sense of justice and equity of the case give his vote for the proposal of the hon. Member for Belfast.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that in Ireland three-fourths of the rents did not exceed 12 l., while in England only one-fifteenth was under 12 l.; and therefore it was not right to take England as an example when laying down a principle for the collection of this tax in Ireland. He would beg to call the attention of the House to a case where an estate being in the Court of Chancery, the tenant did not pay the rent until two

1053
years were due; and he would ask how, in such a case, the tax was to be levied? Was it to be demanded from the Court of Chancery, where there were no funds to the credit of the estate, or was it from the estate it was to be levied? At the end of eighteen months or two years, a tenant might come before the Court to ask for a reduction of rent, and the rent might be reduced while the tax was levied on the high rent. That would be the case with a number of estates in Ireland at the present moment; and in other cases, the rent days in the south being the 25th of March, and 29th of September, and in the north the 1st of May and 1st of November, it would be found very difficult to levy the rate on the 5th of April.
SIR DENHAM NORREYSsaid, that when he voted for an income tax, he voted for a tax that was to be imposed on every man's income, which he conceived to be the average amount of receipts; but to tax it upon the hypothesis of what that property might be would be a grievous injustice.
LORD NAASsaid, that the English landlord merely paid the income tax on his actual receipts; and the object of this Amendment was to enable the Irish landlord to pay only as much in respect of his income as the English landlord paid in regard to his, and no more. Independent of the inconvenience of the tax, he believed that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a very severe and harsh effect on the Irish landlords. He thought the Members of that House who set themselves up to be the true friends of the Irish tenantry were perhaps inflicting as great a hardship upon that class as was ever inflicted upon them by the original Irish Poor Law Act, which had led to such disastrous consequences.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. H. Herbert) had intimated that his (Viscount Palmerston's) right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was not deeply acquainted with the management of land in Ireland; but the noble Lord who had just addressed the House had shown himself very imperfectly acquainted with the details of land in England. The noble Lord had stated that ID England landlords paid income tax only on the rent they received. The fact was, that in England each tenant paid the landlord's income tax upon the rent which the tenant was bound to pay, deducting-
1054
such tax when he came to settle with the landlord; but it did not follow that the landlord received the rent. The landlord had to get the rent as he could, and when he could. In England the landlord paid the tax only on what he ought to receive, but it did not follow that he did receive it. Moreover, if the tenant absconded, he meant in the English sense of the word, without paying the landlord's tax, the landlord must pay the tax on the whole of the rent of the absconding tenant, and even if he should lose his rent.
MR. CAIRNSsaid, in reply, he would take the case of a landlord in Ireland, with five tenants, who bad to pay him 100 l. a year each; and he would assume a landlord similarly situated in England. What was the difference between them? In England, the landlord paid no income tax till he got his rent, and if he did not get his rent he had not a shilling to pay. [Cries of "No, no!"] In the case of the Irish landlord he would be called upon to pay the tax in the first instance, and if he did not get his rent he would be out of pocket to the amount of the tax he had paid.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he thought the hon. Member had forgotten that, by the Bill as it now stood, the Irish landlord had the alternative of being assessed on the net annual value as fixed by the public valuation, or on his actual rent; and the knew that the valuation was generally below the rent. [Cries of "No, no!"] He meant, with certain exceptions. It seemed to him that the justice of the case was fully and far more satisfactorily met by the Amendment on the paper of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald), which did not interfere with any of the essential provisions of the Bill as applicable to Ireland, whilst it provided for the case of a landlord making a bad debt.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the Bill was unjust throughout; it began by taxing Ireland in a higher proportion than this country was taxed; and this injustice was carried out. It was well known that in some cases landlords never got any rent at all; and they would be in a worse position after this Bill passed, as it would make the country poorer. He should support the Amendment, believing it would tend to mitigate the injustice of the measure.
Question put, "That those words be here added."
The Committee divided;—Ayes 66: Noes 94: Majority 28.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 15.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there was no such person as surveyor of taxes in Ireland, and he therefore could not understand why such an officer should be mentioned in the clause. He also wished to call attention to the variation of the wording of the clause with that of Clause 18. As some difficulties were likely to arise from these circumstances if the measure was passed in its present shape, he would reserve to himself the right, upon the bringing up of the Report, of framing a clause that would obviate those difficulties.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when officers were appointed for collecting the tax in Ireland, the officers of excise might be made available in some cases; but these were matters of detail which must necessarily be deferred.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he still thought there would be extreme difficulty in carrying out the clause. The 18th clause provided that the assessment under Schedule D should be made by the officers of inland revenue; but that provision did not extend to Schedule A. He therefore thought an additional clause would be necessary either on bringing up the Report, or on the third reading.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 16.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the power proposed to be given under this clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the collector shall be authorised to put in force against the landlord or lessor the most stringent remedy for the recovery of the tax. Now, one of the extraordinary powers given for the recovery of poor-rates in Ireland had been the sale of the fee of the land. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was his intention to give the same power under this Bill for the recovery of this tax? He thought that such a power would be most unconstitutional.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that, under the poor-law, power was given to sell the land of a proprietor for a debt contracted by a tenant who had fled to America, or any other place. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to give a similar power under this Bill—namely, to sell the property of the landlord for income tax upon an amount of
1056
rent which he never received; and whether a power existed in England to resort to a sale under similar circumstances?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The sole object of the clause is to provide an easy remedy. [A loud laugh from Col. Dunne.] The hon. and gallant Colonel may adopt any mode of proceeding which he pleases in this House. I have seen quite enough of the insulting manner in which he conducts himself not to be moved by it. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] I must say I think the loud laugh with which he has received my statement was insulting.
The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that this is an expression which he ought not to use.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Oh, I will withdraw it readily; but I must insist on being protected against such a course of proceeding.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that his laugh was not directed against the right hon. Gentleman, but was in consequence of an observation made to him by an hon. Member near him.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg the hon. and gallant Member's pardon. It will be for the Committee to consider the best course of proceeding. It may be that the remedies provided by the poor-law are the best; but that is a practical question, and one for the Committee to consider.
LORD NAASsaid, it was most difficult to ascertain what those powers really were which the Bill proposed to give; for it referred to one particular Act, and when they turned to that Act they were again referred to another Act for an elucidation of its meaning. He would suggest that the power of recovering arrears should be the same as was given in the first poor-law passed for Ireland.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that in England the corpus of the estate could not be sold for arrears of poor-rate; in Ireland it was different, for, by a process of law, the estate itself might be reached. He did not think the Amendment of the noble Lord would give a sufficient remedy, as the original poor-law was very defective in this respect. Under the first poor-law the greatest losses were sustained in seeking to recover the poor-rate from the immediate lessor. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no intention to give power for the sale of the estate itself, in order to recover this tax, but

1057
merely to give power of proceeding in the Civil Bill Court against the lessor.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he thought the better way would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to hold this clause over for further consideration. He would suggest an alteration in the early part of the clause, where the occupier who was charged with the tax was liable to a distress for the recovery of the amount; for, supposing that this party had nothing to be distrained, there appeared to be no alternative proposed as against him. He was of opinion that the whole of the clause ought to be well considered.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONsaid, that the powers given under the Land Improvement Act for the levying of instalments had been found to work most efficiently. The sums levied had been paid very regularly, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider whether similar powers might not be put in force with advantage under this Act.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, the powers to be granted to Ireland were to exceed those which were in operation in England.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, he concurred with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ferguson) in the opinion that the powers given under the Land Improvement Act had operated efficiently in Ireland; and if that were the case, it might perhaps be a saving of expense to adopt them in the present instance.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought that however efficient the machinery under the Land Improvement Act had worked, it would be preferable to extend to Ireland the system which had been found to work so well in this country.
Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining clauses.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had now to bring up several new clauses. The first was one to which he had referred early in the evening, and which was in substitution of the one proposed by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald). It entitled landlords in Ireland to claim repayment of the tax paid on rent lost by the bankruptcy, insolvency, or absconding of tenants; and he had added the words "by the land being left waste."
MR. SPOONERsaid, he did not mean to oppose the clause, but merely to say that its principle was the same as the pro-
1058
position he had made that landlords should not be called on to pay income tax on rent which they had never received. The right hon. Gentleman had opposed that proposition, and he wished to call his attention to his having adopted the principle; and he now asked him to extend it to all land.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was refreshing to him to be found fault with for having dealt more kindly with English than with Irish landlords, for hitherto he had heard of nothing but the immunities enjoyed by English over Irish landlords. This was, no doubt, an advantage the Irish landlords possessed over the English, who only enjoyed the right as regarded houses. There was, however, some inconvenience in levying the tax in the same form in Ireland as in England; and considering that the Irish landlords were made primarily liable to the tax, he thought, on the whole, that there was a balance of advantage.
MR. G. M. BUTTsaid, he would suggest that there should be some definition of the word "insolvency," so as to make it include cases of assignments to creditors and deeds of composition.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was assured by the legal adviser of the Board of Revenue that the word would bear that legal sense; but he would look into the matter again before the third reading.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The next clause had been suggested by some observations made during the discussion on the Bill. It amended the position of parties with regard to the assessments in Schedule A. If on an appeal there was any dispute about the annual value of the land, the Commissioners now had power to order a valuation; and this clause was for the purpose of extending that advantage to the parties appealing, who would be enabled to require a valuation to be made; which power they did not hitherto have.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The next clause had been suggested by the noble Lord the Member for Northumberland (Lord Lovaine), and referred to the description of relief given two years ago under the 3rd section of 13 & 14 Vict., c. 12, which allowed tenant farmers who gained their livelihood solely by husbandry to have the power of a half-yearly appeal. It was proposed to extend

1059
that relief by making it applicable to tenant farmers who gained their livelihood "principally" by husbandry; but it was to be confined strictly to tenant farmers, and not to persons farming their own land.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The next clause had been prepared in consequence of a suggestion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), and enabled clergymen and ministers of every denomination to deduct from their assessable income charges incurred in the exercise of their professional duty. It did not exempt them as clergymen, but only put them on a footing of equality with other professions. For instance, a medical man, if he used an equipage, was entitled, as a matter of course, to deduct the expense of it from his assessable income; and, in the same manner, a clergyman who used a horse wholly and exclusively in the discharge of his professional duties, would be entitled to deduct the expense attending it.
Clause agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There was one other clause, one which had been suggested by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), and it was intended to enlarge the power of deduction with regard to bad and doubtful debts. At present, the Commissioners had no power to make allowance for bad debts, except those which were proved to be such; and although it seemed to be, in some degree, doubtful whether they had the power of allowing for debts proved to be partially bad, yet, on the whole, he believed that a more rigid interpretation had prevailed than was altogether consistent with fairness. The effect of this new clause would be to allow the Commissioners, in cases of composition, to put down as good whatever the composition amounted to; in cases of bankruptcy to allow them to put down the whole as bad, and to charge the party afterwards upon the dividends when received; and in cases of doubtful debts to allow them to make a reasonable estimate of their value.
Clause agreed to.
MR. M'MAHON MR. M'MAHON moved a clause to the effect as to the propriety of exempting a certain portion of a person's household furniture and wearing apparel from seizure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it would be impossible to introduce the clause proposed into the Bill. The question to be considered was, whether
1060
the claim of the State was a primary secondary one. The doctrine of the law was, that the claims of the Crown were paramount; and, indeed, the existence of law and order, which could only be maintained by means of the public revenues, might almost be reckoned amongst a man's implements of trade. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman, however, would place those claims in a position of inferiority as compared with those of the landlord. The proposal was certainly humane and philanthropic in its character, but its adoption would be impolitic and unwise.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. I. BUTTthen brought up a new clause. He said, by the present law, if there were any defalcation it must be made good by a reassessment of the district. That provision was just, inasmuch as the collector was in the hands of the local authorities; but in Ireland the fact was the reverse, and to apply the same enactment would be manifestly unjust. The object of the clause, therefore, was to prevent its application to the sister country.
Clause agreed to.
MR. I. BUTTthen proposed a second new clause, the object of which was to allow the Irish landlords to deduct the amount they paid for poor-rates from the income to be assessed. There was this difference in the cases of the two countries: in England the rates were paid entirely by the tenant, but in Ireland the landlord was compelled by law to pay at least one-half of the rate. Thus, if a man had a farm in England worth 100 l, net, on which the rates were 10 l., the tenant would only give the landlord 100 l., and pay the rates himself. In Ireland he would give 105 l., so that in the latter case the landlord would have to pay income tax on 5l. more than in England upon a property of exactly the same value. Besides, there was an enactment by which an English landlord, if he agreed to pay any portion of the tenant's rates, or, in other words, if he voluntarily placed himself in the position in which an Irish landlord was placed by law, he was allowed to make the deduction.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone the clause till the third reading. In its present shape he could not accept it, because from the valuation, which was the basis of the assessment, the poor-rate had already been deducted. There might, however, be cases

1061
in which the valuation was too high, and in which the tenant might appeal and prove that his rent was under the valuation. Some provision, therefore, might be necessary to meet that case.
Clause postponed.
MR. I. BUTTthen moved a third clause, the necessity for which he admitted had been in great measure removed by alterations already made. Its object was to provide, that wherever the Special Commissioners adopted the option of assessing the tenant, the latter should only be assessed to the amount which he would himself be entitled to deduct from his landlord.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he objected to the proposed enactment. It would afford only an insignificant amount of relief, at the expense of a great deal of inconvenience and expense.
MR. BUTTwould not divide the Committee.
Clause withdrawn.
Bill reported as amended.
House resumed.

CUSTOMS ACTS.
House in Committee.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the duty on raisins not of British possessions would be reduced to 10 s. per cwt., as proposed in the first edition of the new tariff?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when the Resolutions were first published, he was under the impression, according to the best intelligence he then possessed, that raisins would be of great use to the community in mitigating the serious inconvenience occasioned by the extreme scarcity of currants. It was on that account that the reduction of the duty upon raisins was inserted in the Resolutions. After that period, the hon. Gentleman gave notice of a Motion to reduce the duty upon currants also. To this proposal he could not accede. A popular proposal it might have been upon many grounds, and he should be glad if it could be adopted, on account of our relations with the Ionian islands, had it been certain that the: consumer would get the benefit, or that the revenue would recover itself. But the accounts of the prospect of supplies, and the anticipations of the future supplies, were such as put an end to the question. In point of fact, there was a currant famine. They were at double their ordinary price, and we had arrived at a state
1062
of things under which any remission: of duty would be so much boon to the persons engaged in the trade. Whether this was the case or not, it was quite plain there would be little or no recovery of revenue from the remission of duty. At that time there were also alarming accounts with regard to the produce of raisins. We derived large supplies from the Levant. The Levant was our second source of supply—certainly inferior to Spain, but likely to become more important in consequence of a reduction of duty. Alarming accounts then were received of the ravages of frost and locusts upon both raisins and currants. But there had since been a change, and a very favourable change. The fears once entertained had passed away; the frost, instead of destroying the raisins, had destroyed the locusts. What was much more important was, that the actual stock of raisins of low quality in bond in this country had become extremely large. There was at this moment in bond so large a stock of the middling and low qualities, perfectly sound and available for use, that though it was probable a high duty might exclude a considerable quantity, there was every prospect that these would be introduced into the market, and that they would supply a large portion of the population with a substitute for currants. The stock was so considerable that there was every prospect that the reduction of the duty upon raisins would not be attended with any sensible loss of revenue. Under these circumstances, it was his intention to accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman.
On the item of Cables, not of iron, new and old, tarred and untarred, on which it was proposed wholly to remit the duty,
MR. MITCHELLsaid, the proposed reductions upon cordage, which Russia supplied, was equivalent to twenty per cent. The manufacture of cordage was carried on chiefly by manual labour. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to sweep away the whole of the duty of twenty per cent upon the manufactured article. As a free trader he was not prepared to oppose this reduction, but he thought it a precipitate step. Russia supplied both the raw material and the manufactured article, and there was every facility for importing it into this country. In the execution of her own policy, Russia levied a duty upon the export of the raw material, but not on the manufactured article. The difference between the cost of the raw material and the manufactured article was 12 s. per ton.

1063
At the same time, he would beg to ask how long the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to retain the duty on foreign wood, which was a much more important article than cordage, and on which he (Mr. Mitchell) should certainly next year call for a reduction of duty?
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the best ropes and cables were not made by hand labour, but by machinery.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must complain of the large amount of revenue that was frittered away by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the present case he was not aware that any one had complained that the duty was excessive, nor would its repeal save anything in the cost of collection, nor would it even stimulate the manufacture in this country. He should propose, therefore, that the duty on these articles be retained.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the principle on which he acted was a very simple one. It was to simplify the tariff by the reduction of duties wherever they could effect it at a moderate cost to the revenue. With regard to duty-free goods, there was but one material office the Customs had to perform, that was to ascertain that the articles were really what they professed to be, and for that purpose searching was necessary. That was all that was necessary with regard to duty-free goods; with other articles, however, it was not so. However low the duty, there was the whole warehousing system involved. If the duty were only one penny, it was worth the importer's while to pay something for the postponement of the duty. Then it was necessary to charge the duty, to levy the duty, to account for it, to audit the accounts, and so on. By removing articles of this nature entirely from the tariff, great inconvenience and expense were obviated. He believed it would be found that no less a sum than 400,000 l. had been saved in expenses of collection by the abolition of Customs duties during the last few years. Of course he could not consent to the Amendment of the noble Lord.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the Committee would agree with him that articles of luxury offered a fair subject for taxation. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was surrendering upon articles of that description a sum of upwards of 10,000 l. a year, He
1064
would further observe, that the right hon. Gentleman was not practising in that case a wise economy; for while he would not be able to reduce the number of public officers by ten men, he would diminish the revenue by a sum which would pay fifty men. There was involved in such a policy an absolute waste of revenue.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expected to save in the cost of collecting the revenue in consequence of the repeal of those duties? and the right hon. Gentleman had stated in reply, that the removal of Customs duties had not hitherto led to any perceptible reduction in the cost of collecting the Customs revenue, but that it had prevented that increase in the cost of collection which would otherwise have taken place in the midst of our constantly increasing commercial transactions. But he (Lord J. Manners) would remind the right hon. Gentleman, that while the cost of collecting the Customs revenue bad increased during the last ton years, the cost of collecting the Excise revenue had considerably diminished during the same period. The right hon. Gentleman would not surely contend that the difference in these results was to be attributed to the fact that there had been no increase during the last ten years in the consumption of articles subject to the Excise duties. The fair inference to draw from their experience in that matter was, that where Excise duties were repealed, a large portion of the expense of collecting those duties was removed, while no corresponding reduction took place in the case of the repeal of Customs duties. He found that the cost of collecting the Excise duties in 1842 had amounted to 823,682 l., and that the cost of collecting those duties in 1851 had amounted to only 673,826 l.; showing a decrease in the cost of collection to the amount of 149,856 l., while the Excise duties repealed had amounted to 1,619,000 l. But in the case of the Customs duties, he found that the cost of collection, which in 1842 had been 1,254,590 l., had risen in 1851 to 1,290,756 l.; showing an increase in the cost of collection to the amount of 36,166 l., while the Customs duties repealed had amounted to 1,450,000 l. How did the right hon. Gentleman account for these facts? His (Lord J. Manners') inference from them was, that where you repealed Excise duties, you diminished the cost of collecting the remainder by striking' off a

1065
number of those persons who had been employed to collect the duties; but where you repealed Customs duties, you did not diminish the number of those who were employed to collect the remainder; you only lessened the difficulties in the way of importers. With the view of testing the opinion of hon. Members on this subject, he should persevere in his Motion, and divide the Committee.
Question put, "That Coir Rope, Twine and Strands, stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 194; Noes 68: Majority 126.
Resolution agreed to.
The Resolution for a repeal of the duty on Pictures having been put,
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he felt bound to offer his decided opposition to the proposal. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman was about wantonly to throw away 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a year in that case. He did not see how the people of England could benefit by a repeal of the duty on foreign pictures; and the Resolution was, in his opinion, so objectionable that he should take the sense of the Committee against it. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was sorry that the guardians of the public purse should be so impatient whilst he was endeavouring to maintain a Customs duty, against which, he ventured to say, no intelligible objection could be raised, and which, when repealed, would simply have the effect of reducing the revenue of the country without rendering any benefit to the community. For the reasons he had stated, he should take the sense of the Committee upon this Resolution.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I confess, Sir, that I have heard the speech of my noble Friend with the greatest regret and surprise. I really had hoped that there was no man in this House—and if there was any man I should have thought that he would have been the last man—who would have exhorted us in tones so solemn to beware how we exempt pictures while we continue to tax beer. Why, Sir, we live in a utilitarian age, and utilitarianism is supposed to be the danger of this period—and perhaps it is the danger of this period; and here we come down to a popular assembly, to do something if we can to meet that spirit of utilitarianism. We are laying out large sums of money upon the education of the people—we are endeavouring to train their taste, to educate their eye, to make them—[De-
1066
risive laughter.] Are these sentiments, then, to be received with jeers by the Gentlemen who represent the counties of England? Why, Sir, I venture to say that there is no man who could rise in an assembly of working men in this country where such sentiments would be met as they have been met by hon. Members opposite. Well, Sir, this is a serious question. It is no mere question of 2,000 l. or 3,000 l. a year levied upon pictures. The question is this—Is it desirable, or not, to make the people of this country familiar with the works of great men, whether it be in art, or in science, or in letters? Is high culture valuable, or is it not, in a nation? Sir, I think it is valuable in a nation. Upon that principle we propose to remit this duty. It is not a mere question of trade. And what are we doing? We are but following the example of those who, even in the times of Protection, adopted the same course, and who, although the tax upon pictures had remained until now, had remitted the tax upon statues and works of art of other kinds. Well, will you retain the tax upon these articles, while other works of art are admitted free? Is that wise, or is it foolish? I should have thought that this would have been the last in this long catalogue of articles which would have been subjected to opposition; and if subjected to opposition, I confess that I should have thought that my noble Friend would not have been the foremost to object. Why, I should have supposed that he would have, set himself manfully against the utilitarianism of the age. I should have thought that if he had a bias or a leaning in his mind, it was towards what is ancient, and venerable, and great, and that he would have been disposed to look down upon the mere acquisition of wealth, and to have desired to teach the people that there is much more in this world than wealth that is worth having, and worth living for. These, Sir, are the principles upon which this proposal is founded; and yet it meets with opposition from him. I will not detain the Committee, for I am convinced that the matter does not require argument.' I am satisfied that there never was a proposal—insignificant in appearance although it may be, and small in its amount—which was more in unison with the spirit of the House of Commons, or more consonant with the spirit of the people whom we represent,
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that hon. Members might fancy they were teaching

1067
their constituents to respect them because they were labouring for the cultivation of art; but, perhaps, their constituents would remember that they were ministering to the comforts of the epicures, and increasing their taste for turtle and truffles. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be as anxious to train the taste of the people in turtle as in fine arts, and had put in the same category pickles and pictures. The right hon. Gentleman was thus labouring for the epicure as well as the artist. The right hon. Gentleman was rather affected in assuming such regard for art in taking off a duty upon pictures at so much per foot. But he also intended to put on a specific duty Upon musical snuff-boxes, of so much per tune, with an additional charge for variations; so that it would be necessary to have a skilled musical professor to levy the tax. He (Mr. Newdegate) regarded the plan of the right hon. Gentleman as a blind sacrifice of revenue to the ignis fatuus of free trade.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that after the eloquent appeal that had been made in favour of art and educating the minds of the people by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Committee might be surprised to know that the great inducement which the right hon. Gentleman held out to the artisans of England to study the works of the great masters of painting in foreign countries was to remit the amount of 1s. 6d. upon every picture of a Correggio or a Raphael, with an additional duty of 1s. 6d., and 6–10ths of a penny upon every foot that such a picture might occupy. The right hon. Gentleman filled a high position, which had been occupied by many distinguished men in his time, who had not been wanting in their desire to stimulate the taste of the people; but yet the House of Commons had never heard that they had laid claim to these great and noble ideas on account of having proposed to repeal an eighteenpenny duty upon pictures. Governments in recent days had offered some 10,000 l. or 11,000 l. for a picture to be added to the National Gallery; would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what additional cost this duty of 1s. 6d. per picture, and 8–10ths of a penny per foot, would add to a picture of that sort? He could hot believe that the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest when he told them that in repealing this small duty on the importation of pictures, the Government intended to stimulate the demand for pictures, and improve the taste
1068
of the working classes. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been in earnest in what he said, but had taken the opportunity of throwing an unworthy taunt upon his opponents. After what had passed he felt bound to divide.
Question put, "That Pictures Stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 46: Majority 140.
Resolution agreed to.
On raw Apples,
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he must ask why the rates of duty were not uniform? The right hon. Gentleman's object was, of course, to prevent any protective effect. Thus there was a lower duty on apples, which we did produce, than upon oranges, which we did not produce. Why should cherries pay 2d. a bushel, and apples, 5d., and oranges, 8d.? He wished to know why it was that pines paid a duty of 2s. per dozen, while apples and pears paid only 3d.?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the answer to the hon. Baronet's question was, that it would be a very good thing if they could have all these fruits admitted free, but they were under certain necessities as to raising a revenue, and had gone as far as they could with safety in reducing duties. 2d. on cherries, an extremely perishable fruit, was as high as 8d. on oranges.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he should feel bound to take the sense of the Committee against Ministers on this subject. He should move that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEhoped his hon. Friend would not persist in the Motion, though he thought the arrangement of duties proposed by Government very unsatisfactory.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would propose an Amendment establishing a uniform duty of 6d. on all fruit.
Amendment negatived.
Resolution agreed to.
On Butter,
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he must object to the reductions on butter and cheese, as inflicting additional injustice on the agricultural interest, which had suffered so much from the removal of protection Oh cattle and dairy produce. With regard to cheese, he anticipated that the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman would occasion a certain loss to the revenue, without benefitting any class. He should, therefore,

1069
move the omission of butter and cheese from the list of articles in the Resolution.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, that the remission which was proposed to be made in the case of glass and other articles would bear with equal severity upon the manufacturers; and that, therefore, those who were connected with land had no right to complain of being unfairly dealt with by the remission intended to be made with reference to cheese and butter.
MR. GEORGEsaid, that in the district which he had the honour to represent, a great many farmers had turned their attention to the manufacture of butter, and the improvement of the breed of cattle. Without offering any opposition to the principle of free trade, he thought the present moment ought not to have been seized for making such a reduction as that now proposed, and trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give Ireland a little more breathing time
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must inquire why the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to alter this duty? At the time when free-trade principles were first promulgated by Sir Robert Peel, that right hon. Gentleman fixed the duty on butter and cheese. What circumstances, then, made it necessary to alter it?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would venture to say, from a recollection of the transactions to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that when Sir Robert Peel fixed the duty on those articles, he fixed it with the hope that after a moderate period it would be unfixed. He thought it was quite obvious that, on the principles which that House had adopted, articles of food ought to be progressively relieved from duty.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he must declare the principle of free trade to be entirely wrong, and he believed it would result in ultimately raising the price of articles.
The MARQUESS of GRANBYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that Sir Robert Peel had fixed a duty upon cheese and butter, which he meant to be repealed. He (the Marquess of Granby) would only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman himself would follow out the same principle, and take off duties at the present only in order to impose them again at a future day. He had to remind the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal of land throughout the country had been converted from tillage into pasture in consequence of
1070
what had, on a former occasion, been enunciated by a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman. Having been advised by the right hon. Baronet now at the head of the Admiralty to take that course, it was scarcely fair that the Government of which that right hon. Baronet was a member, should propose to take away the protection, in the case of cheese and butter, which the farmers of England at the present day enjoyed. With respect to the revenue of the country, he should say that it was his opinion that it was in considerable danger. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the income tax was to be retained only for a few years. But if that tax were repealed, and indirect taxation were to abolished to the extent which the Government proposed, he should like to know from what source the revenue of the country was to be derived? The people of this country would not stand the imposition of an excise duty, unless there were, at the same time, duties raised upon the importation of the produce of foreign countries into this kingdom. He should warn the right hon. Gentleman that if he followed out the system which he seemed inclined to pursue, he would find that the revenue of the country would shortly be insufficient to meet her expenditure.
SIR WILLIAM VERNERsaid, he considered the reduction of these duties of the utmost importance, and as being calculated to do considerable injury to Ireland.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he was of opinion that these reductions, as affecting the revenue to the extent of upwards of 80,000 l., were worthy of serious consideration. He did not speak on the subject from any horror which he entertained of free trade; but because it seemed to him that the measure came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the wrong time, inasmuch as the part of the kingdom most affected by it had been dealt rather hardly with already in the financial measures of the right hon. Gentleman. The sister country was more affected by the proposed change than any part of the kingdom; and although he himself had he concern in the manufacture of butter, yet, concluding that the proposed change would affect the principal source of industry in Ireland, it seemed to him to come with a very ungracious appearance from the right hon. Gentleman.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEsaid, he should not be doing his duty unless he urged upon the Government the necessity of con-

1071
sideration before taking off the duty upon butter. The farmers had already suffered by the introduction of free trade, and now a reduction was to be made in the duty on butter, which was one of the principal articles of produce in Ireland. He should have preferred, if a reduction were to be made at all, seeing the duty reduced by one-quarter rather than by one-half.
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, he should divide the Committee on the question that butter be altogether omitted, and that the duty remain as at present.
Question put, "That Butter (not of British Possessions) the cwt. 5s., stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 49: Majority 92.
Resolution agreed to.
On Cheese,
MR. COLVILEsaid, that he thought a heavier duty than 2s. 6d. a cwt. should be imposed on cheese, which was a manufactured article. He should prefer that the present duty of 5s. a cwt. should be retained, and would therefore move that the word "cheese" should be struck out of the Resolution.
Question put, "That Cheese (not of British Possessions) to be charged on the landing weight 2s. 6d. stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 40: Majority 95.
Resolution agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he should support the Motion. There must be some limit to their sittings, and, considering the time which hon. Gentlemen had been already occupied during that day in the business of the House, and the probability there was of a long and heavy debate on the following evening upon the Indian question, he thought it only reasonable that the Chairman should then report progress.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would suggest that those parts of the Resolution to which there was no objection should be then taken, and that others, which were opposed, should stand over.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 11; Noes 125: Majority 114.
The Committee then went through the unopposed items in the tariff, and confirmed the proposed duties.
House resumed; Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Marquess of Westmeath.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Church Building Acts Amendment.
3a Common Lodging Houses; Aggravated Assaults; Sales of Bullion.

CONVERSION OF STOCK—FUNDS IN CHANCERY
The LORD CHANCELLORwished to take that opportunity of making a state-

1019
ment with reference to the subject upon which his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) had put questions to him on Monday and Tuesday last—he meant with reference to the interest of the suitors in the Court of Chancery in the funds which were now in process of conversion. He had already stated the course which he had taken on this subject, namely, that, having consulted with the other Judges, and finding that there was a difference of opinion among them, he thought that the best course he could take for the interest of the suitors would be to do as his predecessors had done on occasions as nearly as possible analogous; and that course he found had always been to assent to their taking the lowest species of stock, giving the parties, meantime, the opportunity of dissenting, if they thought fit, and of having a different order made in their case. Before he did so, however, he had ascertained that, in the opinion of those who were best able to form an opinion on the subject, the probable value of the 2½ per cent stock would amount, as nearly as possible, to 100 l. He, therefore, made an order accordingly. Unfortunately, since then the funds had fallen materially, and within the last quarter of an hour he had had an interview with the broker and other gentlemen who managed the financial affairs of the Court of Chancery, from whom he had learnt that the rate of discount had been that day raised by the Bank of England. The funds, as he had just said, having become considerably lower than when his order was issued, he felt that if he were to carry the order into execution in the present state of the money market, it would be injurious to the interests of the suitors. He was, however, placed in this difficulty, that there might be, nevertheless, some suitors who would have preferred the 2½ per cent stock, but who abstained from taking any step in the matter in consequence of his order. On the whole, he believed that the best thing he could do was to look to the current market rate, and having authentic information that, according to that rate, each 100 l. of 2½ per cent, stock would, at present, be between 3l. and 4l. below the value of 100 l., he had thought that that was a sufficient warrant for him to revoke the order. Consequently, no further assent would be given to the acceptance of that stock on behalf of the suitors in Chancery.

ALTERATION OF OATHS BILL.
Order of the Day being read for the House to be put into Committee, moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH: It is to me a subject of deep regret—respecting as I do the ability and judgment of my noble Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) by whom the measure has been introduced—to have occasion at any time to act in a manner contrary to what he suggests; but in the present case I cannot but express my hope that your Lordships will not permit the further progress of this Bill. I am ready to admit that if a Bill couched in these terms were sent up to us from the House of Commons, I should be disposed to consider it with a great degree of favour. No one could be more gratified than I should be to be relieved from witnessing and participating in those—he could hardly avoid calling them mummeries—which take place at the table of this House on the occasion of the assembling of a new Parliament. I have no desire to see again repeated, or again to take a part in those confused and inarticulate mumblings in which I am sorry to say these oaths and declarations are necessarily delivered and taken. I see in such mumblings and mummeries no security whatever for the House of Hanover; but in this Bill neither do I see any securities for the House of Hanover. I do see, that by means of this Bill, if it be sent down by us to the House of Commons, some advantage may, perhaps, be obtained by the house of Israel. But although I am not one of those who think that any advantage is derived by the House of Hanover from the oaths as now administered, I certainly think that we have had princes of the House of Hanover, and that, too, at no distant period, who thought that the oath of supremacy and the oath of abjuration were the title deeds of their family to the Throne. I have said, that if a Bill of this kind were sent up to us from the House of Commons, I should consider it with favour; but I am not satisfied with the wording of the oath as now contained in this Bill—I think it liable to all the objections which were stated by my noble Friend on the bench above me (the Earl of Derby). I think nothing can be more objectionable, or more contrary to the rules which we ought to observe in framing-oaths, than to make persons swear as to the contents of an Act of Parliament

1021
which is not bodily given in the oath itself; and especially an Act of Parliament which probably four-fifths—I may even venture to say, which nine-tenths—of the persons who are called upon to take the oath have never read. Our principle in framing an oath should be this—that the oath should contain everything necessary to the proper understanding of it—that it should be perfectly intelligible, and that it should be couched in easy, simple, and popular language; and therefore I undoubtedly think, with my noble Friend the noble Earl, that the new oath, whatever it may be, that shall be adopted by the House, should set forth prominently that the succession to the Crown is in the heirs of the Princess Sophia, being Protestants—that, in short, there should be put prominently forward in the oath both the Christianity of Parliament and the Protestantism of the Crown. But I have another objection to the Bill. I find that the terms of the oath as proposed in this Bill are these:—
"I, A. B., swear that I will be faithful and hear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will maintain the succession of the Crown as established by an Act, entitled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject;' and I do make this recognition, declaration, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me, God!"
Now, here are three substantives and three adjectives, which appear to me quite unnecessary; for instead of these six words it seems to me that the one word "oath" is the word that should be adopted. I do not like describing the oath as a "recognition, declaration, and promise," lest it should be made to appear less than an oath, and I see no necessity for the words "heartily, willingly, and truly," when there are the words "on the true faith of a Christian." For myself, I should be most willing that the oath should commence with the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in order that the Christianity of Parliament may be put forward at the very beginning of the oath. I am not disposed, by sending this Bill down to the House of Commons, to afford gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion any additional facilities beyond those which they now possess of bringing their case again before this House in the present Session. There is no debate which takes place during the whole Session which is to me so disagreeable as a debate on the Jewish Disabilities. I always give my vote upon that question
1022
with pain, but conscientiously, and I shall always adhere to the vote which I have given upon it. The Jewish gentlemen, it seems to me, come often enough before us without the necessity of our giving them a fresh opportunity of doing so. If we owed them money they could not knock at our doors oftener than they do; and I see no reason why we should afford them new facilities of coming before us on this question. I do not entertain the apprehension which some have expressed, that if this Bill should be sent back to us from the House of Commons so altered as to admit the Jews into Parliament, there would be any desertion of their duty on the part of noble Lords in this House so as to imperil in any degree the present character of the Legislature, and to afford facilities for the admission of the Jews into this or the other House. On the contrary, I trust that I could not entertain such an opinion consistently with my respect for the great majority of your Lordships' House. Whatever may be the inconvenience, I still trust that there would be a sufficient majority to defeat the Bill. At the same time, I cannot conceal from myself that there might be a majority somewhat less than that by which the measure for that purpose has already been defeated. In the discussion upon the Jew Bill, it was said that it was not fit that this House should continuously oppose itself to the wishes of the House of Commons, expressed on many occasions in successive years. Now, if the opinion of the House of Commons had been so expressed in successive years upon any political question, I do think it would have been advisable for the majority of the House to reconsider whether they could not acquiesce in the opinion of the House of Commons. But I have never treated this as a political question. I have never been able to divest my mind of the consideration that we could not admit Jews into Parliament without disparaging Christianity. It is that feeling which ever has led me to oppose their admission, and which for ever will induce me to adhere to the course that I have taken, feeling that it is impossible for me, in consideration of any continued adherence of the majority of the House of Commons to their opinions, to change my own. Therefore it is my Lords, that I now move as an Amendment, that this Bill be committed this day three months.
Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day three months.")
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, he could not have wished for a better speech in favour of the Bill than that which had been delivered by the noble Earl who had just resumed his seat. The noble Earl had called those oaths "mumbling" and "mummery;" and he had expressed his regret that he should be compelled even to witness such proceedings. Now he (the Earl of Wicklow) could not understand how any man who entertained the opinions of the noble Earl upon the subject, could reconcile to his sense of what he owed his country and his God, his opposition to a measure which was intended to remedy the very evil of which he complained. The noble Earl had answered the only feasible objection that had been urged by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) in that case, for he had told them that he had no apprehension that if the Bill should come back from the House of Commons so altered that it would admit Jews into Parliament; a majority of their Lordships would not be found to reject it. He (the Earl of Wicklow) felt no apprehension on that score: indeed it was an insult to their Lordships to suppose that those of them who thought that the Jews should not be admitted into Parliament would be deterred by any consideration of convenience from coming forward and defeating such an attempt. He trusted their Lordships would adopt this measure; and if the oaths, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord, were considered objectionable in point of expression, they could easily be amended in Committee, and made perfectly acceptable to the whole House.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that having taken the opportunity of the second reading of this Bill to express the objections he entertained to it, and concurring also in every word of the brief but able statement which had been made by his noble Friend the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Ellenborough) he did not feel it necessary to trouble their Lordships with more than a few words, to express the reasons for which, with very great reluctance, he came to the conclusion that it was his duty to vote in favour of the Amendment. In doing so he begged to assure his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) that he had no doubt whatever in regard to the intention with which he had introduced this measure; and although he could not altogether concur in the terms of the oath which his noble and learned Friend proposed to introduce, although he agreed in some of the objections stated to that
1024
oath by the noble Earl who commenced the discussion, and although he thought there were some omissions in the Bill which ought to have been supplied, yet, if he could look at this measure alone, or if he could have received it as coming up in its present shape from the House of Commons, he should have had no hesitation in consenting to go into Committee upon it, there to consider what amendments should be made in the oath, and, if necessary, in the subsequent clauses. He would only say, with regard to the oath itself, that he thought there was another omission which had not been mentioned by his noble Friend who opened the debate. Although he frankly admitted that the wording of the present oath was not altogether satisfactory, inasmuch as it had led to some differences of opinion and some doubts which they were bound to respect, yet he thought it was not undesirable that the Protestant Members of Parliament should, in the oath upon taking their seats, continue to record their protest against any usurpation of power, spiritual, ecclesiastical, or temporal, within these realms. Now, the oath as proposed by his noble and learned Friend altogether omitted such consideration. He confessed, too, he did not feel so sanguine as his noble Friend behind him appeared to do, in regard to the certainty of such an attendance of their Lordships at a very late period of the Session as would ensure the rejection of such amendments as might be introduced into this measure by the House of Commons. He must be permitted to say that he thought Her Majesty's Government would have done well if they had removed those apprehensions and those doubts, by doing that which he thought they might have done without in the slightest degree compromising their own position, namely, by giving the assurance which he ventured to ask the other night, that, as far as the influence of the Government went, they would not allow the ostensible object of this Bill to be changed by the introduction of words which would give it a totally different effect from that embodied in the measure as it now stood. But in the face of the declaration of the noble Earl opposite, that he did not consider it consistent with his duty to give any assurance to the House with regard to the course which the Government might pursue—knowing the opinions, the recently-formed opinions of some, but still he believed the intelligent and conscientiously enter-

1025
tained opinions of all the Members of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this question, namely, the introduction by a side wind of the Jews into Parliament—knowing that, on the part of the Government, there was a determination to favour those claims—and knowing that the same resolution existed on the part of a majority in the other House, that majority being sanctioned and upheld by the Members of Her Majesty's Government there—knowing all this, could he shut his eyes to the possibility, or rather could he exclude from himself the absolute moral certainty, that such an Amendment as that they deprecated would be made in the other House, and that that Amendment, if so made, would be supported by the whole strength of the Government? If, then, the Bill was to be returned from the House of Commons amended in that manner, and if their Lordships were not even to have so much power as to state their opinions and reject the Amendment, and with it the Bill, what was meant, he asked, by permitting it to go through any further stages, thus introducing a new collision between the House of Commons and their Lordships? He must be permitted again, notwithstanding what fell the other night from the noble Earl opposite, to say that the statement which was made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government in the House of Commons, to the deputation which waited upon him on the subject of the Jewish claims, desiring them to wait until they ascertained the nature and result of this Bill, had, as applying to those Jewish claims, no meaning at all, unless it meant that the friends of the Jews should wait until they saw whether the Bill would afford an opportunity of engrafting upon it something favourable to the Jewish claims. The noble Earl said, that the noble Lord made no such promise, but only told the deputation not to pursue their agitation further until they saw what the effect of this Bill would be. But why wait to see what the effect of the Bill would be, if it was not intended in any degree to affect the Jewish claims? If it was not the intention of the noble Lord to hold out an expectation that he would favour the engrafting of some principle upon this Bill favourable to those claims, then it could only be said that he used language calculated very much to mislead those whom he was addressing, and which formed a sufficient warrant for the course which their Lordships were now advised to pursue. But he
1026
must look to the possibility of another and an important Amendment, which might be introduced by the House of Commons into this Bill. Their Lordships would observe that the noble and learned Lord retained in this Bill the terms by which Jews were incidentally—he admitted it—excluded from Parliament, and also the terms of the Roman Catholic oath as settled by the Act 10 Geo. IV.; but the terms introduced into the oath which was proposed to be taken by Protestants were terms to which no reasonable objection could be entertained on the part of the Roman Catholics, and such being the case the House of Commons might think that one oath might do for both, and so exclude from the Bill the clause which contains the substance of the Roman Catholic oath. This was a matter of some importance. If he was not mistaken, the noble Lord to whom he had referred had made a declaration in his place in Parliament, that, in his opinion, it is a matter of great regret that any Roman Catholic should be called upon to take the oath, that by virtue of the position which he holds in the House of Commons he will not seek to destroy or injure the Protestant Church. Now that oath was insisted on as a security in the 10th Geo. IV., and although by several Roman Catholics it had been construed in a sense which he could not reconcile to conscience, he knew there were some who had felt themselves stringently bound to perform that part of the compact under which they were permitted to sit in Parliament, and who felt that it did impose on them a restriction binding on their conscience, which prevented them from interfering in any manner which might be detrimental to the temporal interests of the Protestant Church. The noble Lord at the head of the House of Commons had declared that he viewed that with regret; that he was sorry to see any such declaration made; that the oath is at present vindicated on the ground that the Protestant oath is one that the Catholic cannot conscientiously take. But altering, as this Bill did, the oath to be taken by Roman Catholics, see how it would strengthen the position of the noble Lord, who would say, "Why, there is now nothing in the oath required to be taken by the one which may not be taken by the other; you have a fair opportunity of giving effect to the regret I feel that the destruction of the Protestant Church Establishment may not be, like other matters, the subject of open discussion in Parliament; strike out that excep-

1027
tional oath, and give effect to those views of mine under which I hope to see Roman Catholics exempted from taking that oath, and recognising that obligation which, on the mind of many of them, does act as a stringent and binding restraint." Therefore it was not simply on the ground of the probable admission of the Jewish claims, but because he considered the Bill of considerable importance with regard to the restraints imposed on Roman Catholic consciences, that he objected to send it to a Committee at this period of the Session, knowing the alterations that were certain to be made in it in the House of Commons, with the advice and sanction of Her Majesty's Government; and that it would be sent up again to their Lordships, to be supported and passed by the aid of the Government; or, if rejected by their Lordships, then rendering all their labour vain, and renewing, for the second time, a collision between the two Houses in the course of the present Session. But if a Bill of this tendency should take its origin in the other House of Parliament, or if his noble and learned Friend, at the commencement of the next Session, would undertake to introduce a similar measure, when there would be ample time for the consideration of its details—he had no hesitation in saying that he should upon such an occasion give a different vote from that which he was now about to give; and he would willingly and frankly and rejoicingly consent to co-operate with his noble and learned Friend in placing the Bill on such a footing as would make it sufficient for the purpose for which it was intended—affording every fair and reasonable security, and at the same time couched in such terms as not to violate the most scrupulous and the most delicate conscience. Let the Bill be introduced as a separate measure—as a portion of that reform promised by the Conservative and Radical section of the Government—let it also be introduced at the commencement of the Session, and then it could be fully and fairly considered.
The EARL of ABERDEENtrusted their Lordships would excuse him for saying that this was the first time they had ever been asked to legislate on such grounds as those urged by the noble Earl—grounds which, he would venture to say, were neither respectful to the House of Commons, nor creditable to their Lordships. They had before them a Bill which it was generally considered wise and expedient to adopt. The only objections urged by the noble
1028
Lords opposite were precisely such objections as admitted of amendment in Committee—objections, some of them grammatical, some more or less important, but all capable of complete amendment. And their Lordships were asked to decline to undertake the amendment of the Bill, because, forsooth, it was possible the House of Commons might amend it in a mode of which their Lordships might not approve. It was not respectful to the House of Commons to object to a good measure, from an apprehension that they would exercise their lawful privilege of amending it according to their own views; nor did he think it creditable to their Lordships to reject a measure of which they approved, in consequence of vague apprehensions. With reference to the practical objection made by the noble Earl, that this Bill, if sent down to the House of Commons in the present state of the Session, might be returned at a time when their Lordships would be unable to deal with it, he could only say this, that although he could give no pledge as to what any Member of the House of Commons might think proper to do, he would pledge himself that no delay should take place which it was possible for Her Majesty's Government to avoid. The noble Earl was entirely mistaken in his description of what had taken place between his noble Friend the Member for the City of London, and the deputation of the Jewish body that had waited upon him. His noble Friend was then entirely ignorant of the nature of this Bill. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) was equally ignorant of its nature. His noble Friend asked him to communicate the Bill to him. But the Bill had not been printed; his noble and learned Friend never communicated the nature of the measure to him; and he was under the impression that it was, in some mode or other, a Bill intended directly for the relief of the Jewish body. His noble Friend, therefore, very naturally said, "I must wait until I sec this Bill before I can give any opinion on the subject." What the present intentions of his noble Friend might be, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) was utterly ignorant. It was for him to do as he thought proper; but he (the Earl of Aberdeen) declined to enter into any engagement or pledge on the subject. He looked upon the measure under their consideration as one with which they were bound to deal in the ordinary way. He submitted to their Lordships that they were bound, according to every dictate of

1029
reason, to go into Committee, when they admitted that in Committee all the objections which they entertained to the measure might be removed. That was the simple course which he should recommend them to adopt—a course to which no noble Lord who had spoken had objected, except from an apprehension of what might happen when the Bill had been amended according to the best of their judgment, and submitted to the consideration of the other House of Parliament. So far as he was aware, in the case of those who were friendly to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to the House of Commons, no attempt would be made to introduce such amendments as many of their Lordships seemed to apprehend; and he should humbly submit to them that, according to every just and rational mode of proceeding, no valid objection existed to prevent them from going into Committee upon the Bill under their consideration.
On Question, That "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided;—Content 69; Not Content 84; Majority 15.

List of the CONTENT.

The Lord Chancellor

VISCOUNTS

DUKES.

Canning

Argyll

Enfield

Bedford

Sydney

Buccleuch

BISHOPS.

Cleveland

Norwich

Leinster

Worcester

Newcastle

Norfolk

BARONS.

MARQUESSES.

Beaumont

Clanricarde

Brougham

Conyngham

Bolton

Lansdowne

Byron

Ormond

Camoys

Sligo

Campbel

EARLS.

Churchill

Aberdeen

Colborne

Airlie

Congleton

Albemarle

Cremorne

Bessborough

De Mauley

Burlington

Elphinstone

Camperdown

Foley

Carlisle

Hatherton

Chichester

Leigh

Cowper

Lyndhurst

Fortescue

Manners

Gosford

Monteagle

Granville

Panmure

Haddington

Petre

Kintore

Poltimore

Powis

Rivers

Scarborough

Say and Sele

Sefton

Stanley of Alderley

Somers

Suffield

Spencer

Vaux

Wicklow

Vivian

Yarborough

Wenlock

Zetland

Wrottesley.

1030

List of the NOT CONTENT.

DUKE.

Sheffield

Northumberland

Strathmore

MARQUESSES.

Talbot

Ailsa

Verulam

Bath

Wilton

Camden

VISCOUNTS.

Cholmondeley

Bolingbroke

Salisbury

Canterbury

Westmeath

Hawarden

EARLS.

Midleton

Abergavenny

Strangford

Bandon

St. Vincent

Beauchamp

Bradford

BISHOPS.

Cadogan

Carlisle

Clanwilliam

Llandaff

Caledon

Oxford

Darnley

Rochester

Delawarr

St. Asaph

Derby

Salisbury

Desart

Tuam

Effingham

Winchester

Eglintoun

BARONS.

Ellenborough

Alvanley

Egmont

Abinger

Glengall

Bayning

Galloway

Berners

Harrowby

Blaney

Harrington

Calthorpe

Hardwicke

Colchester

Harewood

Colville of Culross

Jersey

De Lisle

Leven

De Ros

Lonsdale

Delawarr

Lucan

Dynevor

Macclesfield

Forester

Malmesbury

Feversham

Mansfield

Redesdale

Mayo

Rayleigh

Morton

Southampton

Nelson

St. Leonards

Orkney

Tenterden

Pomfret

Templemore

Romney

Wharncliffe

Shaftesbury

Walsingham

Stradbroke

Wynford.

Resolved in the Negative; and House to be put in Committee on this day Three Months.

POOR REMOVAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BERNERS LORD BERNERS moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. The Bill consisted of one enacting clause which he considered clear and intelligible, and perfectly free from objection. It was as follows:—"That from and after the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any justice of the peace to remove or convey, or to order to be removed or conveyed, any person to any parish in England and Wales, on the ground that he is legally settled there." The present law of settlement had been condemned by the Committee of the House of Commons in 1847. That Committee

1031
stated that it was injurious to the working classes, productive of great hardship to the poor, and a great cause of litigation, and they recommended an increase of the area of taxation. A similar view was taken by a Committee of the House of Lords in 1850. His efforts to ameliorate the moral and social condition of the poor had led him to the same conclusion, and he believed that one of the greatest boons that could be given to the labouring population of England would be the abolition of the present law of removal and settlement.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYopposed the second reading. The noble Lord said, that although many persons were prepared to go the same length as the noble Lord who moved the second reading of the Bill, yet no person had ever proposed to do so, without there being also a material alteration in the present system of rating for the poor. To do what the noble Lord asked, without such an alteration, would be to throw a very heavy burden on the towns. At present the towns materially contributed to the relief of the country parishes by giving employment to then-surplus population; but if this Bill passed, the towns would have to maintain the labourers who came from the country. The matter had already been under the consideration of the Government; but at this advanced period of the Session, considering the state of business in the other House, and that any alteration in the law of settlement must be accompanied by an alteration in the system of rating, he would suggest to the noble Lord that he should not press the further progress of this Bill.
LORD CAMPBELLbelieved that the passing of this Bill would introduce universal confusion, and be a source of misery to paupers and of ruin to landowners. The area of settlement might no doubt be enlarged very beneficially; but all that this Bill did was to entitle the poor to relief in whatever place they might happen to have settled.
The EARL of HARDWICKEadmitted that the subject was one which was discussed throughout the country, and that the poor-rates were daily pressing to a greater extent on the agricultural interest; but he did not think that their Lordships or the country were at present in a situation to accept this Bill. There could be no doubt that the law of settlement did press hardly on the labourer, by confining him within a very narrow area, and that some amendment of it might be beneficial.
1032
Though he would advise the noble Lord to withdraw the present Bill, he was convinced that the time was not far distant when Parliament would have to deal with the question.
LORD BERNERSsaid, that after the opinions expressed by noble Lords, if the Government would give him a pledge that if they had the opportunity they would bring in a Bill on the subject at the earliest time they could next Session, he would not object to withdraw the Bill.
LORD BEAUMONTconsidered that this Bill was one to give paupers the opportunity of choosing the place upon which they might cast the burden of their settlement. No doubt, a great improvement might be made in the present law, but he was not prepared to support this Bill.
LORD FEVERSHAMregretted that in consequence of the advanced state of the Session the noble Lord was not likely to carry out his measure; but be trusted that early in the next Session the subject would be taken up by the Government.
On Question, Resolved in the Negative: Bill withdrawn, by leave of the House.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION— ACCOUNTS MOVED FOR.
The EARL of POWIS The EARL of POWIS moved for the following Returns relating to the accounts in the General Reports of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners:—
"Return explanatory of Table 9a. in Appendix to Third General Report, distinguishing in each year receipts and payments on account of capital from those on account of revenue (common fund); the same as to Table 6 (episcopal fund); abstract of receipts from episcopal property, and payments for episcopal purposes, from extinction of episcopal fund, 1850, to November, 1852, distinguishing capital from revenue; abstract of receipts and payments of the common fund, from November, 1850, to November, 1852, distinguishing capital from revenue; return of fines and of purchase-moneys directed to be invested by the 6 & 7 Vict. cap. 37, sec. 6, and of the amounts and modes of such investments; return of amount borrowed by Commissioners from Queen Anne's Bounty, under the 6 & 7 Vict. cap. 37; estimate of receipts and expenditure on account of revenue for the year ending November, 1853, distinguishing receipts arising from episcopal property, and amount to be expended for episcopal purposes; return of land, stocks, money. Exchequer Bills, and other property received by Ecclesiastical Commissioners for special purposes and trusts—the investments of such property, and amount and nature of annual and other liabilities undertaken by Commissioners in respect thereof; detail of tithes sold by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, stating the parish and amount of rentcharge, and the purpose to which such rentcharge was previously applied."

1033
The noble Earl explained, that he asked for these fresh accounts because he considered the existing returns to be defective and inconsistent with each other. One objection to them was, that the Commissioners were selling a large amount of land and stocks, and in their accounts the receipts and payments on these accounts were mixed up with their ordinary receipts and payments, and that there was no distinction made between payments on account of capital, and payments on account of revenue; and the items were so mixed up as to create a great degree of uncertainty with respect to the state of property in the possession of the Commissioners. There was nothing in the existing accounts which showed the principles on which the Board was acting, and there were, besides, discrepancies in the figures as they appeared in the second and third general reports which rendered it desirable that more accurate and distinct returns should be furnished. Having quoted some statement of figures from the accounts, with the view of showing the defective mode in which they were kept, the noble Earl concluded by observing that he did not know whether those accounts had been laid before the Commissioners for auditing the public accounts, and had passed the Government audit, or not; but if they had, that circumstance afforded a proof that the establishment of a Government audit for railways would give no great security to the shareholders against improper dealing. He would venture to say that no railway company would have gone on ten years without attempting to show a balance of their capital account.
The EARL of CHICHESTERwould not attempt to follow the noble Earl in explaining the supposed discrepancies in the accounts, which, however, he was prepared to show, were quite accurate, and capable of satisfactory explanation. He was quite willing that the House should comply with the latter part of the Motion, but as to the former part, the arrangement of that information would occupy so much time that he doubted very much whether it would be ready before the end of the present Session; and on the 5th October, when the next report of the Commissioners would be presented, the returns would be not only more complete, but, he had no doubt, satisfactory to the noble Earl. With regard to the object of the noble Earl, he perfectly agreed with him that the public ought to be put in possession of a fuller
1034
statement of the expenditure and receipts of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The accounts in the reports were merely cash accounts, and did not profess to give that kind of balance sheet required by the noble Earl. It should be borne in mind that, for some years past, a large portion of the annual expenditure was from capital. The Act which empowered the Commissioners to borrow 600,000 l. from Queen Anne's Bounty, was passed for the express purpose to make annual grants in aid of poor districts out of that capital sum, until, by the falling in of leases, and the general improvement of the Church estates, the revenue became sufficient to bear these charges. He thought the information required by the noble Earl quite reasonable and proper, and had no doubt that the whole of it would be given in the next report of the Commissioners.
The EARL of POWIS,after what had fallen from the noble Earl, was content to wait till the beginning of the next Session, when another report of the Commissioners would be before them, for the bulk of the returns he had moved for, and would now confine his Motion to the last two on the list.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

INDIA.
The EARL of ALBEMARLE presented a petition from inhabitants of Bristol, praying that the permanent legislation for the future government of India may be postponed until the inquiries before the Committees of both Houses of Parliament shall have been completed. His Lordship said, it was not necessary that he should enter into the grievances which had been alleged as a reason for postponing legislation on this subject. It was admitted by every one that justice had been maladmin-istered—that public works had been neglected—that the police were insufficient—that the public debt had increased, and that the revenue had been diminishing. To one point only he would call their Lordships' attention as a reason for postponing legislation this year, and that was to the question of the material condition of the people of India, and the necessity for inquiry whether the East India Company had performed that most important duty of all Governments—to take due care of the prosperity and welfare of the people. On that subject, though the petitions from India had stated specifically numerous heavy grievances by which their material prosperity had been affected, and

1035
though a mass of evidence in various publications had been adduced in support of their complaints, they had not one official document of any sort to disprove or confirm any of the statements made in those petitions. There was a statistical department, and that department cost the East India Company 3,266 l. a year, being one-twenty-eighth more than a similar department in the Home Office; and yet there was not one document which had proceeded from that office to enable Parliament to understand what really was the material condition of the people of India. In the next place, there had been laid before the Committees of both Houses of Parliament documents amounting to 4,300 folio pages, without one word to give any clue as to the actual condition of the people of India. In that laboured apology for the East India Company, known by the name of the History of the East India Company, not one argument was stated on this subject. All that had been attempted anywhere—and particularly in that apology, which common rumour said was concocted in Leadenhall-street—had been to say that the people of India were not worse off than they were under our predecessors in the East—in other words, that we were content to place our civilisation on a par with the barbarism of Northern Asia, as represented by the Mahomedan conquerors of India; that we, the Christians of the nineteenth century, were content to say that we had not handled our subjects more harshly than the Mahomedans of the sixteenth century. But he believed it would be found that we could not afford to be measured even by that low standard. He believed that in many instances our treatment of the people was worse than that of the Mogul conquerors of India. He believed that the land tax was higher—he knew that it was much more rigorously exacted, and more in violation of the feelings of the people of India, than by the Moguls who preceded us. Again, the salt tax was four times what it was under their rule; but he would not trouble their Lordships with details. He thought this question one of the most important that could occupy the attention of the Government, and that was quite sufficient in his mind to bear out the prayer of the petition to postpone legislation, unless the measure of the Government, to be brought forward tomorrow, was very different from what he feared it would turn out to be—because giving his noble Friends in the Government
1036
the fullest credit, admiring as he did their administrative talents, he could not conceive how, during the short time they had been in office, they could have prepared a Bill sufficient to meet the material and important interests involved in this question.
Petition referred to the Select Committee on the Government of Indian Territories.
House adjourned till To-morrow.