Sitting of 10 June 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Succession Duty.

SUCCESSION DUTIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, said that it had been his intention to resist the second reading of the Bill, and to have moved the usual amendment that it should be read a second time that day six months, because entertaining strong objections to it upon principle, he had intended to have availed himself of this the proper opportunity for opposing it on principle. But after what had occurred, he did not intend to adopt that course. He found that, in consequence of the manner in which this Bill had been postponed, his friends on that side of the House—not being at all aware when it would come on—had not anticipated its discussion until the schedules were prepared, and were therefore not now ready to enter upon it. Having consulted several of his friends who desired to express their opinions on the principle of the Bill, he thought that it would not be convenient to take the discussion that night, but to allow the Bill to be read a second time without opposition, distinctly reserving to themselves the right to discuss the principle of the Bill on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, in order that the House might go into Committee upon the measure. He hoped there would be no misunderstanding as to the day when that debate would come on—that they would have that fair notice of it to which the House was entitled, and that in the meantime the schedules would be printed and distributed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he thought, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, it would be convenient to the House to commence the discussion which he had stated his intention to raise on going into Committee upon Monday next. He had only now to discharge a pledge which he had formerly given to the House, that he would on the second reading of the Bill state generally the proposals which Government intended to make with respect to corporate bodies. The Government were of opinion that, on the one hand, it was obviously just

1381
and right that if a succession tax was to be imposed on property passing from one private individual to another, it would not be just that the property of corporations, which enjoyed the same privileges and the same protection under the law, should be exempted from some corresponding payment. The question then arose in what way that payment should be made. Corporations never die, and if the Government had adopted the plan of imposing upon them a tax, assumed or calculated to be equivalent to a succession tax, once in twenty-five or thirty years, it would have been very difficult indeed to say when that cycle should begin. Corporations would have fairly objected to its being assumed that they all died on the coming into operation of this Act. Besides it seemed more convenient, as there was nothing analogous to succession in the case of corporations, to propose a commutation in the shape of an annual tax, instead of laying on one in the lump on the capital of the property. They had then to consider in what way it should be framed in reference to the question of amount; whether the commuted tax adapted to the continuous existence of corporations should be fixed as to its amount, on the assumption that the transmission of their property was analogous to the transmission of the property of individuals in the direct line, or to its transmission from one set of strangers to another, or to what intermediate case. The Government had thought it would not be fair to take either of the two extremes. They proposed that upon corporate property, speaking generally—for there were important qualifications to that statement—there should be ultimately laid an annual tax of 6d in the pound on the net revenue as an equivalent for the succession duty; but that for the period of seven years from the 5th of April last—inasmuch as it would not be fair to cause the duty to accrue fully from the period of the imposition of the succession duty, the tax should be 3d. in the pound; but that after the 5th of April, 1860, the rate should be 6d. in the pound. Then with respect to the various descriptions of corporations, they had to consider how far this tax ought to apply to these corporations universally—how far some should be exempted, and how far other bodies ought to be considered as corporations for the purposes of the succession tax. He would glance very briefly at the different classes of corporations. It was quite obvious, with respect to municipal corporations,
1382
that the House would act safely in adopting a rule corresponding with that which had been adopted in the Act imposing, the income tax—namely, the rule which considered as liable to the tax the realised property of corporations, but exempted from the tax such of the revenues of the corporation as were derived from rates and taxes laid upon the community. With respect to trading corporations, he did not consider that they fell within the purview of a plan of this kind at all. They were corporations to carry on business; the whole proprietary interest in them was divided into shares; it was represented in the form of individual property, and in that form was liable to the succession tax. They now came across a very large and a very miscellaneous class of corporations, which must be called charitable or eleemosynary corporations. This included the charities of the City of London, academic corporations, and schools and colleges and ecclesiastical corporations aggregate, and all these would be dealt with under the proposition of the Government in the same way, namely, under the rule he had already described, and would be subject to a tax of 3d. in the pound on their aggregate revenues for seven years, and would be taxed at the rate of 6d. in the pound thereafter, as an equivalent for the succession tax. He had alluded now briefly to all the important class of corporations aggregately, with the exception of one limited class, which was not of importance in a fiscal point of view, but which interested the feelings of many persons, and he might therefore refer to it specifically. He referred to religious corporations strictly so called, and benevolent societies which were supported in the main by annual donations or by the results of invested donations and subscriptions; and with respect to these they did not propose that they should be subject to the tax at all except in reference to such portion of their property as they might have derived from bequests, or as they might have been in possession of anterior to the commencement of the present century;—because nothing was more antagonistic to sound policy and repugnant to the feelings of the House and the country, than to lay upon the donations and contributions of living persons, which really represented the principle of charity in its full and free action, anything in the nature of a tax. The House showed a just disposition to draw a distinction between that which was done by men in their lifetime

1383
as an act of self-denial out of that which they would otherwise enjoy, and that which, though they were permitted by law to give, was in reality not their gift at all, but that which they took away from their natural heirs and successors, and which was usually called death-bed charity. He had now done with the question of corporations aggregate; but a question of considerable difficulty arose from the provisions of the law which recognised besides another description of corporations under the denomination of corporations sole. He believed they were exclusively—the exceptions were quite insignificant—and they were, in point of fact, the clergy of the country. The cases of the incumbents of all our parishes, and the bishops, were cases which it was desirable for them to consider as corporations sole. The question was, how they were to be regarded? Ought the provision which had been made for the support of those corporations sole to be considerate as corporate property, and made on that account liable to the tax, or ought it to be regarded as a provision made for the discharge of certain official duties? The two views with respect to the corporate character and the official character met at this particular point, and the whole question really turned upon this—would they say they were corporations according to the doctrine of law, and, excluding their official character, subject them to the tax; or, on the other hand, would they say their incomes were a mere provision for the discharge of official duties, and that therefore they should no more tax a clergyman on his accession to a rectory than they should tax any Judge in Westminster Hall on his accession to a Judgeship? The Government had considered the question, and their opinion was, decidedly, that the sound and fair view to adopt as the basis for legislation would be this—that the provision for the ecclesiastical offices, though regarded by law as corporations sole, ought to be regarded as a provision for the discharge of certain duties, and that therefore the acquisition of those offices ought not to be taxed as a succession. He might say there was anothor very good reason—rather in the nature of a grievance as it stood—why they should not be taxed as a succession, namely, the present provisions of the law which entailed a very heavy expense upon the accession to these offices. Whether on that ground, or on the general ground, he had no doubt the House would be of the same opinion as the Government, that the
1384
large portion of ecclesiastical property that was devoted to the support of corporations sole should not be considered property for taxation under the Bill which lay upon the table, any more than the income of the Lord Chancellor or the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, and that the two kinds of succession formed equally no matter for consideration in an Act of this kind. There was only one other point upon which he wished to remark. The Government proposed to tax corporations generally, making the Bill bear upon corporations aggregate, and excluding corporations sole. He had stated what would be the exceptions to the rule. He would now state, further, that there were certain other bodies or associations of men which, although not corporations in the view of the law, would yet be considered as corporations for the purposes of this Act—namely, combinations of trustees, under whatever name, who were the actual holders and administrators of property for uses of one kind or another, and through whose hands property was continuously transmitted without a change of hands by any succession upon them. The Government Bill would be so framed that those bodies of trustees would be regarded for the purpose of the Bill as being virtually corporations, and property in their hands would be treated as if it were the property of corporations.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, the House would feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the very explicit statement he had made with respect to corporate property. He wished, however, to ask the right hon. Gentleman two or. three questions on the subject: first, he should like to know whether the proposal for imposing this tax upon corporations would form a part of the Succession Duties Bill now before the House, or whether it would come before them as a separate and distinct measure; and, if it was intended to introduce the proposal into the present measure, at what stage of the Bill it would be most convenient to bring forward the clause? He wished to know, also, whether, among the corporations aggregate liable to this tax, the right hon. Gentleman included municipal corporations in general, which, as the right hon. Gentleman would be aware, were possessed of very considerable property, though now that property was applied to public purposes. The last question he would ask was, as to how this tax upon corporations was intended to affect the corporation of the city of London?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, taking the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the inverse order in which they had been put, would first state that, with respect to the corporation of the city of London, the Bill would not make any distinction between the case of the city of London and other municipal corporations. Upon the other question put by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought he had stated, with respect to municipal corporations, that they would be brought under the action of this plan much as they were under the Act for levying the income tax—that they would be liable to pay the tax upon their realised property, but not upon the revenue derived from their taxing powers. With respect to the third question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, the view of the Government was, that it-would be decidedly more convenient to deal with this subject in a separate Bill, because the whole of the present Bill was founded upon the one idea of succession in consequence of death. That idea was not applicable to corporations; any clause applying to them would assume a different form from the rest of the measure, and it would be therefore more convenient that the subject should be treated in a separate Bill. That Bill he hoped to be in a condition to lay upon the table of the House in a few days.
MR. HUMEdesired to know in what way the property of the country was to be registered for the purposes of the Act? He conceived that without a registry it would be impossible to secure the tax upon succession that was now proposed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question of the hon. Member for Montrose was, no doubt, an important one, and should receive the full attention of the House, and ample discussion during whatever debates might take place on the Bill. When asked on a former night whether it was intended by the Government that the Registry of Assurances Bill should be pressed upon the House, in order to have it passed into a law, to become the basis of this measure, he answered in the negative, and he now repeated that answer. The Government did not think it was necessary that there should be any general registration of property with a view to this Bill; their belief was that the tax which they meant to impose might be efficiently collected without any such general registration of property as the hon. Member referred to. Therefore, whatever course the Government had taken with reference to
1386
this Bill, the general registration of property—a most important question—should not be in any manner prejudiced by the measure now before the House.
MR. WALPOLEhad understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that he was going to bring in a similar measure to that by which property was liable to succession duty on the death of the owner, and that by a separate Bill the right hon. Gentleman was about to render corporate property and property in the hands of trustees, also, liable. He wished to ask whether the exemption of corporate property would begin at the same amount as the exemption contained in the Bill before the House, where parties succeeded upon the death of another? He saw that in the Bill before the House the amount at which the exemption was to commence was to be left in blank; and he wished to know whether, in the separate Bill, the amount would be the same, whatever it might be. The question was one of great importance in reference to the property of the smaller charities vested in trustees. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could state whether a similar exemption was to be made in respect to property held by the trustees of the small charities; and, if so, at what sum the exemption was to be considered as commencing?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the minimum point at which the tax would be levied, had not yet received his attention—it was a point of detail, and he was not sure whether any exemption in the case of corporations would be necessary.
Mr. HEADLAMdesired to know whether property vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was to be entirely exempt, or whether any charge would be imposed on that description of property?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the question reminded him of an omission in his statement. The proposal of the Government would be that all ecclesiastical corporations aggregate should be liable to the tax; but the revenues of the Ecclesiastical Commission having been cut and parcelled into small amounts, or rather into given and definite amounts, which were limited as the provision for certain offices, he thought it clear that this property fell under the description, which the Government considered as attaching to the revenues of the corporations sole. Any portion, therefore, of the property which might be detached from

1387
deans and chapters, and the revenue paid over to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to be thereafter distributed by them in the formation of new districts, or eking out the provision for small benefices, would be an official provision, and not liable to the tax,
MR. HUMEwished to know whether the funds left in certain cases for the payment of dissenting clergy would be put upon the same footing as the property of the clergy of the Establishment?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that where there was an endowment for the purposes of a religious community other than the Established Church, which could be assimilated to that of a corporation sole, the same benefit would be extended, quite irrespective of the question what these religious denominations might be. In cases where the funds were held by trustees the matter was one of difficulty; but the Government would come as near as they could to the principle that where property was left to religious communities, bond fide for the provision of certain official duties, it would be exempt.
MR. HUMEwished to ascertain whether funds provided for education and the payment of schoolmasters would come within the exemptions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no general exemption of a provision for the purposes of education, in consequence of the difficulty they would have in framing the measure. They should be obliged to let in all eleemosynary cases, and the construction given to it would be so wide that the whole of the corporate property might escape.
Bill read 2°.

EXCISE DUTIES ON SPIRITS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Bouverie in the chair.
Clause 1.
CAPTAIN JONESrose to move the rejection of so much of Clause 1 as imposes an addition of 8d. per gallon to the duty now payable on spirits taken out of warehouse for consumption in Ireland. The hon. and gallant Member contended that the history of these duties showed that every addition to the amount of duty was followed by a corresponding diminution in the quantity of spirits on which duty was charged for consumption, and by an increase of illicit distillation. When the duty was high in 1833, the quantity of spirits brought
1388
to charge had fallen to 8,000,000 gallons. When, in the following year, the duty was reduced to 2s. 4d., the quantity rose to 9,000,000. In the next year the quantity was 11,000,000, in the next 12,000,000, in the next 11,000,000, in the next 12,000,000, and in the next (1839) 10,000,000 gallons. Then came the temperance movement, and Sir Robert Peel raised the duty to 2s. 8d. A small falling-off was the consequence; but in 1842 Sir Robert Peel raised the duty to 3s. 8d. In consequence of the change, the quantity of spirits brought to charge fell to 5,295,000 gallons. Sir Robert Peel, however, again altered the duty from 3s. 8d. to 2s. 8d., and in the year following the reduction, the quantity of spirits charged amounted to 5,540,000, the next year to 6,000,000, the year after it exceeded 7,000,000 gallons, and the same for the next year; in 1845, however, in consequence of the famine there was some slight apparent diminution; but in subsequent years the increase was gradual until at the end of March, 1853, the quantity brought to charge reached to 8,208,000. All that proved that invariably an increase in the duty was attended with a corresponding loss to the revenue. It might not be generally known that every bushel of grain would yield two gallons or more of spirits. Oats fetched in the Irish market 22 d. per bushel; and they now proposed to charge the spirits which may be obtained from a bushel of oats with a duty amounting to 7s. 6d.; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only take into consideration the great facilities afforded by the mountainous districts in Ireland for illicit distillation, the poverty of its inhabitants, and the small size of their farms, he must see that it would be impossible to resist the temptation to illicit distillation. He would now point to the effects of the increase of duty on the Irish criminal returns. For the year 1830, when the duty was first raised, there were no returns; but in 1832 the number of detections for crimes against the revenue were 5,434, and the numbers of persons in gaol were 648. Well, the duty was again reduced from 2s. 8d. to 2s. 4d., and, as a consequence, the number of persons charged with offences against the Excise laws fell from 8,192, 1833, to 4,904, 1834, and the number of persons in gaol from 1,296, 1833, to 842, 1834. After that the duty remained steady at 2s. 4d. for some years, and crime continued to diminish until 1841, when the number of offences was but 881;

1389
while the commitments only reached to 171. In 1842, however, Sir Robert Peel raised the duty, and the effect was to double the number of offences and number of commitments; while in the last year, that of 1852, the number of offences against the excise laws amounted to 2,504, and the number of persons in gaol were 537. Now by a reference to the returns for the seven years ending in 1837 he found that the average number of gallons brought to charge each year was 11,281,000; and on comparing this with the returns for 1853, which showed, as he had stated, an entry of but 8,000,000 gallons, the inevitable conclusion must be that the difference of 3,000,000 gallons was made up by illicit distillation. He had heard the right hon. Baronet the Member for Halifax (Sir C. Wood) state upon more than one occasion—and he believed it was a sentiment which was shared in by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it was desirable to raise the greatest possible amount of revenue from the duties on spirits. But, let him ask, was that result to be brought about by the imposition of a high rate of duties? No such thing; for it was by a low scale of duties that the largest amount of revenue had been realised. Their annual average receipts under this head had been upwards of 1,400,000 l.; and in 1838 it reached its highest level, namely, 1,434,473 l., while at the present moment the duties obtained amounted only to 1,000,940 l. What they were about to do now was only a repetition of the policy of Sir Robert Peel in 1842—a policy which that right hon. Baronet based upon the idea that the organisation of the revenue police in Ireland was so perfect that under no circumstances could any increase take place in illicit distillation. That idea was, as he (Captain Jones) predicted at the time it would be, very quickly renounced; and an alteration had again to take place in the scale of duties. He was afraid that the proposition of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was based upon a similar calculation; and, if so, he believed that the result would be corresponding. He referred to the carefully prepared petitions sent from Scotland against the proposed increase to the amount of duty. One of these petitions stated that illicit distillation had provailed in Scotland to a great extent; that all the efforts made to suppress it having proved vain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1824, was induced to try the effect of a reduction of duty—a re-
1390
duction equal to nearly half the amount of the duty. The result had been most satisfactory. Crime was diminished, and in the first year, the gross amount of duty received increased very largely—about 200,000 l. he believed. He would beg permission of the House to refer to an article in the Economist newspaper, relating to the regulations under which a mixture of chicory and coffee was permitted to be sold, and the numerous instances of fraud which had occurred. It stated that high duties and restrictions never deterred the bold knave. It referred to the futile attempts of the Government to prevent the smuggling of foreign silks into this country—the success which had attended the reduction of the duties—reductions carried to such an extent as to take away the premium from the smuggler. He would say, that this article, although written with a view to the chicory question, and the frauds attending it, was equally applicable to the spirit question, then before the Committee: it pointed out the true and correct mode by which the largest possible amount of revenue might be obtained from spirits in Ireland. He believed the question to be one of the greatest consequence to Ireland, and as such he submitted his proposal to the House.
Amendment proposed, in p. 2, 1. 9, to leave out "and Ireland respectively."
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, having given some considerable attention to this question, he had laid it down as a maxim, that from spirits and other articles, not being those of necessity, they should raise the highest possible duty. The principle that he went upon was to levy the same duty on all spirits, wherever produced, and from wherever imported. With regard to Ireland, he should like to see the duty raised to 5s, It could not be good for the morals of the people to have spirits at a low price in any country. He should support the plan of the Government, and he should have done so all the more willingly, if, with respect to Scotland, they had increased the duty on spirits by 2s. instead of 1s.
MR. BAILLIEcould not believe that a Gentleman usually so well versed in statistics as the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Macgregor) had upon the present occasion consulted them, otherwise he could never have stated that it was a matter of little importance to the people of Scotland that an additional duty of 2s. or 1s. per gallon upon spirits should be imposed. For, had

1391
he clone so, he would have found that in 1823, the year in which the reduction upon Scotch spirits took place, the number of gallons brought to charge was exactly doubled. And he would also have ascertained that in 1826, two years subsequently, when the Government thought they had reduced the duty upon spirits a little too low, having imposed an additional duty of 6d. per gallon, the effect was that in the following year the number of gallons brought to charge were diminished by 2,000,000. But to maintain that the actual consumption of spirits in Scotland had been reduced to that amount would be absurd, as the fact was nothing more or less than that the deficiency had been supplied by illicit distillation.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORadmitted that an increase did then take place in the amount of illicit distillation.
MR. BAILLIE: But if the hon. Member imagined that there was no illicit distillation now going on in Scotland, he was very much mistaken. Why, it was only last winter that a very large still had been discovered in the woods near his own residence, at which no less than sixteen men were engaged; and when the officers of excise made an attempt at seizure, they met with a defeat, and the distillation was still carried on.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORwished to explain that though illicit distillation went on in Scotland, it proceeded to a much greater extent in London, where the duty levied was much higher.
MR. M'MAHONdissented totally from the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of the two hon. Gentlemen who last addressed the House. He (Mr. M'Mahon) contended that the imposition of this tax was for the purpose of carrying out the one-sided system of free trade, which enabled the manufacturers of this country to protect their own manufactures against foreign and colonial competition by high duties; to sell those manufactures in the dearest market, and then to buy the produce of agricultural labour—in a market cheapened to the lowest possible point by unlimited competition with foreign and colonial producers. Freedom of trade was a very good thing, but freedom of tillage was equally good. The whole system of free trade had tended to favour the foreign at the expense of the home producer. Throughout the whole Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no remission of duty was made to the agri-
1392
culturists; all that was done was done in favour of trade and commerce; and he (Mr. M'Mahon) did think it was most unjust to carry out that system in favour of trade and commerce at the expense of agriculture. At present the agriculturists were prohibited from raising tobacco on their lands—they could not make sugar from beetroot, without paying a duty the same as the foreign producer; they could not grow hops without paying a duty equivalent on the average to 10 l. an acre; while all excise restrictions were substantially removed from the manufacturers, and their trade was protected from competition by heavy duties on foreign and colonial manufactures. The French farmer might grow tobacco, or hops, or make sugar from beetroot, without restriction, and yet it was pretended that he came on equal terms into competition with the agriculturists of this country, who were subject to so many restrictions, under which it was impossible for them to prosper. He protested against the imposition of those additional restrictions on agricultural produce for the mere purpose of carrying out the indefensible and one-sided system of free trade.
COLONEL DUNNE, as no Member of the Government would rise to meet the question which had been raised, must enter his protest against the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The effect of the proposed increase would inevitably be the increased consumption of illicit spirits, and, consequently, of the great demoralisation of the people of Ireland. For the last few years that country had been remarkable for its habits of temperance. But when corn was cheap, and the duty on spirits was high, it was impossible that the Government could prevent illicit distillation. He believed that the increased duties would not be worth the trouble of collection, and in a few years they would be obliged to follow the late Sir Robert Peel's course, and repeal those taxes. The men enlisted latterly in Ireland were of a much more sober character than they had been previously. He would refer particularly, as a proof of his assertion, to the gallant 88th Regiment, or Connaught Rangers. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by declaring his opposition to the measure of the Government.
MR. M'CANNcandidly confessed that he was not opposed to this small increase of duty upon Irish spirits. He, however, implored of the Government not to employ that admirable force the constabulary in

1393
any of the duties that were discharged by the revenue police. The constabulary were now a most popular body in Ireland, but nothing was more calculated to injure that corps than to make them still-hunters.
SIR JOHN YOUNGadmitted that great caution ought to be, and no doubt would be, used in employing the ordinary police for the collection of revenue. At present, no resolution had been come to of the kind which the hon. Gentleman supposed. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the Irish constabulary had the general confidence of the people; and this was owing to their uniform good conduct. The practice of illicit distillation had not at any time prevailed generally over Ireland. In some large counties—Meath, for instance—there had been scarcely any. It had been for the most part confined to the poorer and more hilly districts, where oats were extensively grown, and the people were generally poor. The want of roads in those districts had also stimulated illicit distillation, but in the last 20 years much had been done to remedy this. The people were now enabled to bring their oats to market, and there was no necessity for them to resort to illicit distillation. There were good grounds to hope that this very small increase of duty might be safely made. A few years ago there was great excitement about allowances being made for waste in bond; and it was said that if the distillers had this concession made, they were quite ready to submit to a shilling duty. This had been done; and taking the allowance at an average of 2d. only, the increase of duty was really 6d., and not 8d. per gallon. He hoped that the question of employing the constabulary would be reconsidered; the increase of duty was so small that it might not be necessary. Illicit distillation prevailed very partially; farmers had greater facilities for bringing their oats to market, and the wages of labour were so good that he hoped the people would not fall into these practices.
MR. GEORGEcomplained that no answer had been given to Colonel Jones's statistics. The question had not been considered as one of Irish taxation at all. The important consideration was whether the proposed increase would have the effect of increasing or diminishing the revenue from Irish spirits. A tabular statement for the last 21 years showed that the amount of duty and the amount of revenue realised, were exactly in an inverse ratio to each
1394
other. Whenever the duty had been increased, the revenue had fallen; and vice versâ. The increase of duty had so greatly increased the temptation to illicit distillation, that the result had been a great increase of crime. It was said the distiller had received a boon in the allowance for waste. This amounted at the utmost to 40,000 l. or 50,000 l.; while the proposed increase of duty was no less than 238,000 l. Not only would the increased duty cause an increase of illicit distillation, but it might lead to illicit practices in the regular distilleries. He also deprecated the employment of the Irish constabulary in aid of the revenue police. To make them spies and informers would destroy the confidence of the country, and render the force useless. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his best attention to the tables that had been referred to, showing that every increase of duty had diminished the revenue, and tended to demoralise the people.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 38: Majority 62.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the distillers would not object to the increased duty on spirits if they were allowed to distil from malt.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, the Scotch distillers enjoyed a great advantage over the Irish distillers in the matter of the drawback. In 17 years the former had received drawbacks to the amount of no less than 4,248,584 l.; while the Irish distillers had received in the same period only 70,211 l. This was felt by the Irish distillers to be a great grievance.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, he wished to see all spirit duties equalised, wherever the article was produced, whether the increase was 1s. or 2s. He would support this Bill, but regretted that it did not go to the extent he had suggested.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhoped the Members of the Committee, and especially Irish Members, would bear in mind the emphatic testimony to the moderation of his proposition which had been borne by the hon. Member for Glasgow. No doubt it was very difficult to make this question of spirit duties at all intelligible to the unitiated; he hardly knew a more hopeless task. A cruel contest had long been raging between Ireland and Scotland on the subject of the malt drawback enjoyed by the latter. He be-

1395
lieved that, while Scotland was anxious to retain that drawback, she took very little interest in the question of allowances for waste—a boon which had just been conceded to the Irish distillers; and as it was customary with Irish distillers to keep their spirits longer in the warehouse, in order that they might acquire a mellow flavour, that allowance was of more importance to them. He did not propose to make any change with regard to the malt drawback; but he would give the Committee the assurance that the whole question was under the careful consideration of the Government—whether it was possible or not to arrange a system by which distillers might be enabled to distil from duty-free malt. That would be an immense boon to Scotland; and it might be the means of assisting them to a settlement of this great spirit-duty question on a larger and broader basis. The Irish distillers, who objected strongly to the drawback of the Scotch distillers, would be perfectly well satisfied to have the boon of distilling from duty-free malt, though undoubtedly that would be a greater advantage to the Scotch distillers. Such a proposal it would be impossible to connect with the present Bill, on account of the vast amount of revenue dependent on the collection of the malt duties, and the necessity of avoiding any opening for their wholesale evasion; these were matters which required the most minute, detailed, and elaborate consideration. A great question of that kind must not be made to wait upon the political convenience of putting forward a fiscal measure like the one before the House. The question would receive the most serious consideration; to him it would be a matter of great satisfaction if they were able to arrange it; but, at the same time, after the very fair concession that had been made for wasteage, he thought that Ireland should be content to allow the Scotch distillers to enjoy their drawback on malt. Though that malt drawback appeared to impose an extra duty on Scotch whisky as compared with grain spirits, the difference in reality did not amount to so much as was supposed, owing to the improvements which had taken place in the mode of distilling.
SIR TIMOTHY O'BRIENsaid, it was the practice of the Scotch distillers to ship their whisky to Ireland, and get the drawback there; the spirit remained in the warehouse perhaps ten years, and the distiller enjoyed the advantage all that time.
1396
It was not just to allow half the drawback to the Scotch, and deny it to the Irish distillers.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive.
Clause 15.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now state the principle on which he proposed to allow for the waste in spirits. He understood from the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) that the Irish distillers complained they did not receive the same allowance for waste that the foreign and colonial distillers received. Now, that was not a very rational complaint, because much depended not only upon the nature of the spirit, but also upon the vessel in which the spirit was kept. If there were any difficulty in ascertaining the waste of home spirits, that might be a good reason for adopting the rule laid down in the case of foreign and colonial spirits; but, in truth, there was no difficulty whatever. The maximum allowance for waste provided for in the Bill was one gallon in the 100, and he could state, from a return he held in his hand, that during the quarter ending the 5th of January, 1853, out of 2,000,000 of gallons distilled by eleven distillers in England, the officers of excise had ascertained that the actual waste of spirits was one-third per cent. In Scotland, for the same period, out of 1,250,000 gallons, the waste was one-eighth per cent, and in Ireland, out of 1,500,000 gallons, the waste was one-fifth per cent. That being the case, and seeing there was no difficulty in ascertaining the facts, it was thought far better to ascertain the actual amount rather than resort to any imaginary standard, such as that of the home and colonial spirits.
MR. GROGANsaid, there was great dissatisfaction among the distillers on this point, and he could not understand why, if the actual waste was so easy to be ascertained, the same rule was not applied to foreign and colonial spirits.
MR. BOWYERsaid, there was a committee of distillers who sat last year who gave it as their opinion that, as a general rule, it would be impossible to ascertain the exact amount of waste.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in answer to the hon. Member for Dublin, that the rule adopted with regard to foreign or colonial spirits might be a very good one for the Customs, and yet not suited for the Excise.
MR. SERJEANT MURPHYsaid, he understood the allowance for waste was not to be made till after the passing of the Bill, while the increase of duty had already taken effect. As the one was considered as a set-off against the other, he thought the allowance ought to take place at the same time with the increase.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained that as the Bill was to allow only for the actual waste, that presupposed a close inspection of the spirits according to prescribed regulations, which could not be made till after the passing of the Bill. The Government was open, however, to a reconsideration of the question if any means could be shown by which the revenue would not be injured.
SIR TIMOTHY O'BRIENasked whether any drawback would be allowed on the spirits that were now in bond, and for waste that had occurred previous to the passing of the Act?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was quite impossible to give the drawback any retrospective effect.
Clause agreed to; as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed; Bill reported.

TAXING OFFICER COMMON LAW BUSINESS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for consideration of Bill as amended read.
MR. I. BUTT MR. I. BUTT moved an Amendment, that the principal officer, instead of being a barrister of five years' standing, should be an attorney or solicitor of ten years' standing; and that the yearly salary of the assistant taxing master be 700 l. instead of 500 l. a year. He moved that Amendment out of respect to the profession to which he had the honour to belong, and in order to maintain its dignity and independence. The office was one which did not properly belong to the bar, but to the profession of a solicitor, and he protested against this system of making situations for barristers which their education did not qualify them to fill.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, the question had been fully considered, and it was the opinion of the legal Gentlemen who had charge of the Bill that the office ought to be filled by a barrister. It was said that the Government desired to transfer patronage from the attorneys to the barristers, because the latter were, politically, more powerful. But the reverse was the fact, for attorneys were possessed of far greater
1398
political influence. He (Sir J. Young) dissented from the Amendment, and hoped that the Bill would pass as soon as possible.
MR. R. S. MOOREalso opposed the Amendment because it would exclude barristers from the office of taxing master. The question was, what would be best for the public and the suitors. It was best to have one of the officers a barrister and the other an attorney, but they ought to be placed perfectly upon a par.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDwould have voted for the Amendment, had it been only to this effect, that the attorneys should be eligible; whereas it was to this extent, that they should be exclusively eligible. He denied that Irish barristers had their fair share of patronage in any department.
Amendment negatived.
MR. R. S. MOOREthen proposed an Amendment that the two masters should be placed on a par as to jurisdiction and powers.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he could not assent to this, as it would increase the salary of one of them. Moreover, this could not be done except in Committee.
MR. I. BUTTsuggested that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose.
House in Committee.
MR. VINCENT SCULLY, in the absence of Mr. George, moved an Amendment, that the yearly salary of the principal taxing officer should be 1,200 l. instead of 1.000 l. a year. Heretofore there had been two principal taxing officers, each with 1,200 l. a year salary. It was now proposed to have only one chief officer, with the reduced salary of 1,000 l. a year. The labour and responsibility were greatly increased by the new arrangement. It would now be necessary for the chief officer to give his personal attendance throughout the entire year. The amount of business done by the Irish taxing officer greatly exceeded that performed by the English taxing officers, each of whose salaries was far higher than 1,200 l. a year—he believed at least 2,000 l. a year. There existed no longer any just reason for paying officers engaged in Irish departments of the public service on a lower scale than persons filling the like offices in similar departments in England. Both countries were about to be equally subjected to income tax. The price of living in Dublin was in many respects fully as dear as in London. This had been shown to be the case in a recent article in an English

1399
Conservative newspaper—the Standard. Money had become much more plentiful, and of comparatively less value than it was three or four years ago, whilst the prices of butchers' meat had become greatly raised in Ireland, and were equalised with the prices in England. Therefore, what was an adequate salary in Ireland some few years since, might be very inadequate at present. It was a bad principle to underpay a responsible public officer, and there was no office involving more trustworthiness, or a greater amount of personal labour or professional knowledge, than that of taxing officer. There were other strong reasons that might be urged in support of his view, that adequate salaries should be provided for the Irish taxing officers, and that 1,200 l. a year would not be too high a remuneration for the chief officer. He thought the salary of the assistant taxing officer ought to be at least 800 l. a year. In regard to the gentleman whom it was now proposed to make sole principal officer at a salary of 1,000 l. a year, true it was that at present his salary as a second taxing officer was fixed some years since at 800 l. a year; but then it was proposed by the present Bill to deprive him-altogether of the patronage of an office worth 300 l. a year, and, as already mentioned, he would, by recent arrangements, be subjected to income tax. Upon the whole, he trusted the Government would see the justice of adopting his Amendment, by fixing the salary of the principal taxing officer at 1,200 l. a year. He might add that the Irish taxing office was a self-supporting one, yielding a surplus revenue of 1,200 l. a year. The Public Commissioners who had recommended a reform in the office, had not recommended any reduction in the chief officer's salary.
MR. BROTHERTONobjected to this Amendment, as being an intended "pull at the Exchequer" on the part of the Irish Members. The duties which these officers had to discharge demanded no very high order of talent, and it should be remembered that part of their salaries came out of the Consolidated Fund.
MR. WHITESIDEcomplained that the arrangement recommended by public commissioners twenty-five years ago, to the effect that there should be two taxing officers, at salaries of 1,200 l; each, had
1400
been lightly departed from. He objected to the principle of this Bill, in making a distinction between the rank of the two taxing officers. The same scale of salary ought to be fixed for both, and competent and duly qualified persons should be selected for the responsible duties they had to discharge, involving, as those duties did, the disposal of the funds of the suitors to the extent of between two and three hundred pounds per annum and upwards.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDapproved of the distinction that was drawn by the Bill between the superior and the subordinate taxing officer—a distinction which was based upon a difference in the importance of their respective duties. He thought, however, that the principal officer's salary ought not to be less than 1,200 l. a year.
SIR JOHN YOUNGdefended the original proposal of the Bill, fixing the salaries of the two taxing officers at 1,000 l. and 600 l. respectively, which he believed were amply sufficient to secure the services of two gentlemen of adequate legal knowledge, and of a character high enough to place them beyond the reach of temptation.
MR. VINCENT SCULLY, in reply, stated that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Young) was mistaken in supposing that the costs taxed by the Irish taxing officer were less than 100,000 l. a year. The precise amount taxed last year was 123,338 l., besides a considerable amount which was taxed not entered in the books—making, he should conceive, on a moderate estimate, a gross total of at least 150,000 l. a year. As it thus appeared that the reduced salaries had been fixed by the Government under a misapprehension as to the amount of business done, perhaps upon having now received more perfect information, they would consent to the increase he had proposed. He admitted that if his proposition were nevertheless still opposed by Government, he could not hope to carry it in the present state of the House; and, in that event, he would not wish to damage its future discussion by pressing it now to a division.
Amendment withdrawn.
House resumed; Bill reported.
The House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Copyholds. Reprted.—Consolidated Fund £4,000,000. 3a Burial Grounds.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
The MARQUESS of BATH presented a petition from Salisbury and certain parishes in Wiltshire, praying the House to grant no further powers to the Great Western Railway Company till they shall have completed the line between Warminster and Salisbury. The noble Marquess said that the inhabitants of the district complained of the non-completion of this line, in consequence of which they were prevented from getting coals at a comparatively cheap rate from the north of England. The Great Western Railway Company, whose conduct in this matter had been marked throughout by a selfish jealousy, had obtained a Bill for the line, not with any intention of constructing it, but simply with the view of preventing the South Western Railway Company from encroaching on what they considered to be their own territory, and having got the Bill they now refused to make the line. Nor was this a local grievance merely, but a question of national importance; for the line, if completed, would considerably shorten the distance between Bristol and Portsmouth—a circumstance of great importance in case of a necessity arising for conveying troops from one place to the other at a short notice. A great principle was involved in this question, illustrating as it did the iniquitous conduct and bad faith of the Great Western Railway Company. The Petitioners before appealing to Parliament had endeavoured to obtain legal redress; and subsequently a deputation
1360
from them had waited on the President of the Board of Trade, and on the noble Earl at the head of the Government; but in both instances they had failed in getting relief. He (the Marquess of Bath) now wished to ask if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to make any inquiry into the case; and, if so, whether they would use their influence to prevent any further powers being granted to the Great Western Railway Company until the result of that inquiry should be made public? and, in case the Government were not prepared to institute any inquiry, he hoped that at all events they would not offer any opposition to a proposal for withholding the grant of any further powers to the Great Western Company until they should give some guarantee for the completion of this line.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that this was one of a great many cases in which no doubt great inconvenience resulted to the public from railway mismanagement. It was well known that the law had decided that there was no power to compel railway companies to perform their contracts; and, therefore, he was afraid that Government could take no measures to enforce the fulfilment of these obligations. To make an ex post facto law, might have the effect of bearing hard upon other parties. Such a law might be all very well in a case like the present; but if they applied it to one case, they must apply it to all. With regard, however, to the future, the feeling of Government had been sufficiently shown by their proposing the Sessional order, which had been applied to every Railway Bill which had come before the House of Commons this Session, and which required that in the case of any railway company already in existence, and paying dividends, asking powers to construct a new line, they should be compelled to construct it within a given time under the penalty of having their dividends suspended; and that in the case of a railway company not paying dividends asking such powers, they should be called upon to pay down a deposit, which should be left in the hands of Government, and in the event of the Company not fulfilling their engagement it was provided that the deposit should be forfeited to the Consolidated Fund. It was also intended that this Sessional order should be continued in future years. With regard to the future, then, it would thus be seen that Government had taken such steps as were necessary for compelling railway companies to committe

1361
their contracts. With respect to the inconvenience which the non-completion of the railway in question occasioned to the districts of country in which it was situated, he was far from disputing that it must be very great. He would only call the attention of the noble Marquess to the fact that the powers which were granted to the Great Western Company in 1847, expired in 1854; so that next year it would be open to a new company to apply for powers to effect the works, if the Great Western Company should still decline to continue them. Under these circumstances, he did not see that the Government could interfere at all in the matter. If it should be the opinion of Parliament, or of a Committee of cither House, that it would be expedient to refuse any further powers to the Great Western Company until they had completed the lines they had already commenced, it was for them so to decide.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, it might be useful for their Lordships to know the existing state of the law on this subject. It had formerly been thought obligatory on railway companies to make the lines for which they had obtained powers, inasmuch as they got possession of the land and interfered with public rights; and a mandamus was accordingly granted by the Court of Queen's Bench to compel the construction of a line so contracted to be made. There had recently, however, been a decision in the Exchequer Chamber which set aside the judgment of the Queen's Bench, and determined that there was no power to issue a mandamus to compel a railway company to complete a line for which they had obtained an Act of Parliament. From that judgment there would be an appeal to their Lordships' House, and they would have to decide between the Court of Queen's Bench and the Exchequer Chamber.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYsaid, the principle which had been laid down by the noble Marquess that this great company should not be permitted to obtain any Bill for a new undertaking till they had completed those which they had already begun, appeared to him so plain and just a principle that he could hardly conceive it should not weigh both their Lordships and the 'House of Commons.
The EARL of MALMESBURYcould not see any hardship in the course proposed by his noble Friend. The company had made a contract with Parliament and the public, and they had been empowered to raise money on the faith of it, which
1362
money they had spent for different objects from those they undertook to carry cut, He thought his noble Friend had scarcely placed in a sufficiently strong light the great public importance of uniting, by railway communication, the Irish and the English Channel, and thus affording facilities for the conveyance of troops to any given part of the south and north-western coast. At present there was a distance of about forty-five miles on the south coast, or two days' march for troops, between Dorchester and Exeter, which was without any railway. He begged to lay on the table a petition from Salisbury, praying their Lordships not to empower the Great Western Company to make any new works until they had concluded those which had been referred to by his noble Friend.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he believed the reason why the Great Western Rail-way Company had not completed that line between Warminster and Salisbury was, that a great many travellers would pass over it to Salisbury, and then proceed on to London by the South-Western Railway, instead of going round to Bath, and from Bath to London by the Great Western Railway, according to the existing arrangement. The fact was, that no efficient control could at present be exercised over the proceedings of railway companies; and he trusted that the eyes of Parliament would at length be opened to the necessity of conferring a controlling power in that matter upon some duly constituted public body. He believed that the Great Western Railway Company had money enough to construct that line, or any works of a similar character. He had himself demanded from that company a statement of their capital, but he had not yet received that statement; and until it should be furnished to him, he would not allow any Bills of this Company to be proceeded with.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND—APPOINTMENT OF MR. KEOGH.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATHrose to move an address to Her Majesty for papers connected with the administration of justice in Ireland in certain cases. The noble Marquess said, that he had taken upon himself to discharge what he considered to be a very disagreeable duty; but not having been able to bring himself to think that it was not a duty, he had come over from Ireland with regret for the purpose of performing it. The Motion

1363
was for an address to Her Majesty respecting the interference of the Irish Government with sentences which had been passed by competent authority upon prisoners in that country. He regretted to say that sentences so passed had been frequently reversed. Now, the reversal of sentences, unless in cases where the reversal was clearly justifiable, was calculated to have a very bad effect in any country. It was calculated to have even a worse effect in Ireland, he believed, than in this country; but, fortunately, such a thing was not attempted in this country, and, therefore, they could not calculate what the feeling would be if it were. In Ireland, however, when sentences were reversed, the disorderly part of the population immediately took upon themselves to wreak their vengence upon those they disliked, while the peaceable and well-affected were discouraged. The reversal of a sentence, if passed by a magistrate, was calculated to have a bad effect, because it brought odium upon him and his office; and if the sentence had been passed by a judge, the act was one of positive censure on the manner in which he had discharged his duty. The first case to which he had to refer had arisen out of the very violent conduct of some individuals in the town of Galway. It appeared that at a social meeting which had taken place in that town at the end of January, or the beginning of February last, the band of a regiment of the line had attended, and when the object of the meeting was concluded, the band played "God save the Queen." The two individuals to whom he referred, Messrs. Timothy Fcely and Edward Roche, students of the college at Galway, hissed that performance of the National Anthem. Mr. F. G. Murphy, a magistrate of the district, remonstrated with' them on the impropriety of their conduct. The matter did not go further at the moment; but on the following day those two individuals went to a place where they had met Mr. Murphy, the magistrate, and one of them, Mr. Feely, beat him on the face and on the person in the most inhuman manner; while his companion, Roche, who had accompanied Feely to the spot, looked on, but, he believed, did not strike any blow. The case was brought before the magistrates, who sentenced those two persons for what was called an aggravated assault, to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. That sentence was passed on the 3rd of February; but on the 7th or 8th of the
1364
same month the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ordered that the hard labour should be remitted to the prisoners. Now he (the Marquess of Westmeath) could see nothing in the circumstances of the case to justify that proceeding on the part of his Excellency. The heads of the Galway College, at all events, seemed to have taken a more unfavourable view than the noble Earl of the offence of those parties; for they had thought proper to rusticate them for twelve months, while the noble Earl had remitted their sentences. He believed that that transaction, and others of a similar character, showed that the Lord Lieutenant was anxious to acquire popular favour by a sacrifice of strict and impartial justice. His Excellency had pursued a similar policy in the case of a number of persons who had been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, from twelve months to six months, and downwards, for very aggravated offences at the last election, and who had been so sentenced by Mr. Justice Perrin—a judge who was well known to deal very leniently with criminals. Again, the Lord Lieutenant had reinstated Mr. Kirwan in the position which the preceding Government had considered that he had justly forfeited by his conduct at one of the Irish contested elections; and he need hardly remind their Lordships that at the head of that Government there had been placed a nobleman who had won golden opinions from men of every party during his stay in Ireland. He wished it to be understood that he was then making no attack on Roman Catholics. He had himself many friends and relatives of that religion. There were branches of his family which occupied distinguished positions in Austria and in France, and all of whose members were Roman Catholics. He could sincerely say that he looked on the Roman Catholics of Ireland with the feelings which became one whose ancestors had all at one time professed that religion. But he could not approve of the conduct of the Government permitting the continued encroachments and aggressions of the Roman Catholic clergy—men whose hands were against every man, and who had had recourse to the most extraordinary and unbecoming proceedings for the purpose of returning their nominees to the House of Commons. In this very metropolis—-in the centre of our civilisation—nay, in the Committee rooms of the House of Commons, a Roman Catholic priest had been seen making grimaces at a witness, with a view,

1365
no doubt, of influencing the evidence he had been giving on his oath before an Election Committee. Englishmen should bear in mind the extreme audacity of such an attempt to mislead a most important public tribunal; and they should also bear in mind what must be the conduct, and what must be the influence, among an ignorant peasantry of men who could be guilty of such a proceeding as that in London. He was not then directing any general attack against the Roman Catholics of Ireland. It had recently been said elsewhere that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were not loyal. But he believed that that statement was not true. He was sure that the upper classes among the Irish Roman Catholics were loyal to a man, and were ready to show their loyalty by every means in their power. But he confessed that he was not quite so certain that the nominees of the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland were equally loyal, for they themselves sometimes said that they were not. But what were we to think of a Government who, by sanctioning the doings of these priests, placed us, to a great extent, under the influence of people who did not hesitate to declare that British affairs were vastly secondary to other considerations which they had in view? But the Government had thought fit to form an alliance with the Irish party; they had thought fit to nominate an hon. and learned Gentleman of that party to the post of Solicitor General for Ireland. He readily acknowledged the talents of that hon. and learned Gentleman; but he believed that Her Majesty's Ministers could not have been aware when they had made that appointment of an occurrence which he would state to their Lordships, while he felt that it was one of which they ought not to have been in ignorance. At the last election for the county of Westmeath, Mr. Keogh, although he did not hold, as he (the Marquess of Westmeath) believed, a single acre of land in that county, canvassed the electors in favour of a gentleman who was ultimately elected. In the course of that canvass a meeting was held in the open air, in the town of Moat, at which Mr. Keogh had, according to the testimony of three magistrates who had been listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman, used language which he (the Marquess of Westmeath) would repeat to their Lordships. "Boys," said the hon. and learned Gentleman—for in Ireland every male between the age of sixteen and sixty-five was a "boy," and the
1366
women even, who in a row could fling stones as well as the men, were sometimes included in the epithet—"Boys, the days are now long, and the nights are short. In the autumn the days will be getting shorter, and the nights longer. In the winter—in November, boys—the nights will be very long; and then let it be remembered who voted for Sir Richard Levinge." It should be observed, that Sir R. Levinge was the opponent of the gentleman whose claims were supported on that occasion by the present Solicitor General for Ireland. Now, the words he had just quoted had in Ireland at least a very serious import. In the month of January last Her Majesty's Government had obtained evidence against several persons implicated in the Ribbon conspiracy in the north of England and in Ireland; and it was a remarkable fact, that the words contained in one of the documents discovered among the conspirators in Lancashire very closely resembled those words which had been used by the Irish Solicitor General. Their Lordships might say that these words were mere gibberish—to the uninitiated they might be so, but to the initiated they were full of meaning. In that document there was the following passage:—"The summer is approaching, and the short days are gone, Friendship will flourish; yes, and then the days will get long. May freedom rule by land and sea, and death to him who shall betray!" The Solicitor General for Ireland might in the natural course of things expect to be made a Judge at no very distant period; and he (the Marquess of Westmeath) wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to raise to the bench the man who had used the language he had quoted; and three magistrates, he would repeat, would be ready to depose to the fact, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had addressed those words to a crowd in the town of Moat. The magistrate who had first communicated the intelligence to him, informed him that a poor farmer, who was standing by his side, had said to him at the time, "What would be done to me if I had used those words?" He (the Marquess of Westmeath) had referred to the case, not for the purpose of making an attack upon Mr. Keogh, but in order to show the dangerous policy which Her Majesty's Government were adopting in Ireland. That policy was evinced by the mode in which they had enlarged prisoners in that country, and it was also evinced by their conduct to the soldiers, who, after having been engaged

1367
In defending the law at Six-mile Bridge, had been placed in the dock as culprits. There was another subject to which he thought it advisable that he should refer at that moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General for Ireland had been entertained at a dinner by his constituents in Athlone; and what would the noble Lord, who had introduced the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, say to the fact, that the first toast at that dinner had been "The Pope," which had been given with "nine times nine," while the "Health of Her Majesty," which had followed, had been given "with the usual honours?" He held in his hand a list of the toasts which had been proposed at that dinner. First upon the list was "The Pope," and then came "The Queen;" and the hon. and learned Gentleman Mr. Keogh was, as he (the Marquess of Westmeath) had been informed, present upon the occasion when those toasts were thus given. He was sorry to find that the Government should have selected for a position connected with the administration of the law in Ireland a person who could be capable of entertaining sentiments and opinions such as those which had been attributed to the hon. and learned Gentleman in question. He regretted extremely to have been obliged to bring forward the topics which he had brought under their Lordships' notice that evening; but he had done so because he, believed it to be a duty which he owed to himself and to the country to call the attention of Parliament to a state of things of whose existence he could by no means approve.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that he knew nothing whatsoever of the circumstances connected with the late election for the county of Westmeath, nor of the speeches which had been delivered at the time of that election. If the noble Marquess had given notice that it was his intention to bring that subject before their Lordships, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) should have endeavoured to obtain some information upon the subject; but he had addressed his attention entirely to those points of which the noble Marquess had given notice, and was completely ignorant of the character of the speeches which had been delivered at the hustings in Westmeath. He should, therefore, without adverting further to that subject, immediately address himself to reply to the noble Marquess in connexion with the particular questions with respect to which he had placed a no-
1368
tice upon the paper. He was happy to be enabled to congratulate their Lordships upon the circumstance that the state of Ireland was at the present moment so tranquil, so free from disturbance of every description, that the noble Marquess had been compelled to bring under their notice a matter which in importance was very slight indeed, and afforded but very inconsiderable ground for complaint. The noble Marquess had stated that persons who had been condemned for certain offences in Ireland, had been arbitrarily released. The two cases to which the noble Marquess had referred were as follows;—The first case was that of two students of the Queen's College in Galway—and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) wished to assure their Lordships, with respect to the parties implicated in that case, that he had not the slightest conception whether they were Protestants or Roman Catholics. One of the students to whom he had just referred, had, it appeared, been present upon some occasion upon which the air of "God save the Queen" was played, and refused to take off his hat; upon which a gentleman, Mr. Murphy, who was standing near him thought proper to knock it off. The assault to which the noble Marquess had called their attention was the consequence of this proceeding, and the two students were sentenced to ten or twelve days' imprisonment, with hard labour, according to the Statute. But the very magistrates who had passed this sentence had forwarded a recommendation to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the effect that it would be desirable to remit that portion of the sentence which enjoined hard labour, inasmuch as those upon whom it had been passed were physically unable to undergo the hardships which would be consequent upon its execution. It was precisely and altogether upon this recommendation of the committing magistrates that that part of the punishment had therefore been remitted by the Lord Lieutenant; and he felt persuaded that their Lordships would not be inclined to condemn the conduct of his noble Friend in exercising his clemency under all the circumstances of the case. The next case to which the noble Marquess referred, was that of ten or twelve persons who had been engaged in a riot which took place at the time of the late election in the city of Limerick. Those parties were sentenced by Mr. Justice Perrin to several months' imprisonment, and a petition very numerously signed was presented to the

1369
Lord Lieutenant praying for a remission of their sentence. The Lord Lieutenant had not acted in reference to the matter with the caprice which the noble Marquess had imputed to him, but had referred the case to the Judge by whom the parties in question had been tried; and it was only in accordance with his recommendation that a portion of their sentence had been remitted. Now, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) believed that that was the course which it was usual to pursue in such cases; and his noble Friend had assured him that under no circumstances whatsoever had he remitted any sentence which might have been passed, except he had the concurrence of the Judge who passed that sentence in taking such a course. He thought it was quite unnecessary for him to make any observations with regard to the case of Mr. Kirwan, as that case had been completely disposed of by the discussion which had taken place a few weeks ago. He begged leave to say, in conclusion, that he had not the slightest objection to produce the papers for which the noble Marquess had moved. If the noble Marquess had any curiosity to ascertain the manner in which the recommendations in connexion with the cases to which he had called their attention had been made, he was perfectly welcome to peruse the documents in which those recommendations were conveyed. He should, however, decline to produce the confidential report made by the Judges, inasmuch as it was not usual to adopt such a course. That document had, he believed, not been in direct terms moved for; and he, therefore, had only to repeat that he should give his entire concurrence to the production of those papers which the noble Marquess had moved to have laid upon the table of the House.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEthought that the noble Lord opposite (the Marquess of Westmeath) had been greatly misinformed upon this matter, for he had made several mistakes in the statement which he had made to the House. Thus he had stated that the assault was upon a magistrate, but such was not the fact—there was no magistrate of the name in Galway. [The Marquess of WESTMEATH: He might be a county magistrate.] He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) said that it was not so. Mr. Murphy was no doubt a most respectable man; he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) believed him to be a young professional man of much ability; but he was not a magis-
1370
trate. The real facts of the case were these. When the student, to whom reference had been made, refused to take off his hat, he was turned out of the room, and in that proceeding Mr. Murphy made himself very conspicuous. Upon the following day this student, with another, met Mr. Murphy,' and his conduct of the preceding day having been referred to, an assault on Mr. Murphy was committed. That gentleman very properly made his complaint to the authorities; and the two students were sentenced, not to ten or twelve days, but to one month's imprisonment, with hard labour. When he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) added, that one of these students, being rusticated, lost an entire year of his academical course, he did not think that the House would consider the course pursued by the Lord Lieutenant was over lenient. With the election speeches of his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, he, of course, had nothing to do; he would, however, venture to say that the noble Marquess opposite had made words spoken during the heat of an election vastly more important than they deserved.
The EARL of DERBYthought the statement of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) quite conclusive with respect to the two cases which had been brought forward by his noble Friend. If, with regard to the first case, the remission took place in consequence of an application by the same justices who convicted, and if, with regard to the second case, the sentence was remitted in consequence of a reference made to the Judge by whom the penalty was inflicted, and in accordance with the recommendation of that Judge, he did not think his noble Friend had any strict ground for requiring the production of these papers. He understood the noble Earl to say that the Limerick case, of which he (the Earl of Derby) knew nothing, was in accordance with the recommendation of the Judge. If he stated that in his place, as a Minister of the Crown, there would be an inconvenience in asking for the confidential report of a Judge. The Lord Lieutenant, it appeared, did not act on his own mere motion, or merely on the application of parties who might be interested, but who had no right to advise the Government. That being the case, he agreed that it would be inconvenient to produce papers which involved an unnecessary interference with the administration of justice. But he thought the noble Earl

1371
and the noble Marquess opposite had both dealt rather too lightly with another part of the case, although it formed no part of the Motion—he meant the language imputed, correctly or incorrectly, to the hon. and learned Gentleman who was now Solicitor General, at the election for the county of Westmeath. The noble Marquess had hinted that there was a tribunal for inquiry into contested elections, and that such matters did not concern their Lordships' House. So far as the effect produced on contested elections was concerned, undoubtedly that was no subject for inquiry before their Lordships: there were proper tribunals to inquire whether an election was vitiated or not. But the noble Earl had treated too lightly the practical moral effect, not of the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the effect that it might immediately, or shortly afterwards, produce on the public feeling, seeing that he had been selected by the Government to fill an important office connected with the maintenance of the law. The noble Earl had said, and he was bound to believe him, that he knew nothing about these election speeches. Now it was a matter of such general notoriety that such language had been held that he could hardly believe the subject had not been brought under the notice of the noble Earl. He was bound to give the noble Earl credit for what he had stated; but it was extraordinary, when the matter was publicly and generally reported, that he should not have known, at the time of Mr. Keogh's appointment, that he had made that speech. Let their Lordships observe what had occurred. The county of Westmeath was one in which Mr. Keogh had not a foot of land. He was acting as a leader or partisan in his cause—liberal in some respects, but illiberal in others—and in that capacity, having been a Member of the former Parliament, and a candidate for a seat in the next, and intending to make his support valuable to the Government, he was reported to have warned the people that the nights were then short and the days long—that the time was coming when the nights would be long and the days short—and that that would be the time at which any person who might vote for Sir R. Levinge for Westmeath ought to look out for what might follow; and if he (the Earl of Derby) was not much mistaken, there was a recommendation that the people of that county should collect together and go into
1372
the town of Athlone, for which he was himself a candidate, armed with shillelaghs, and taking care to use them when they got there. There might in what he had stated be greater or less incorrectness of details; but he would affirm that if anything of the sort had been said by Mr. Keogh—and what he had said on the occasion had been said so openly and publicly, that the facts were easily ascertainable—then, certainly, such language, or any language of the sort, should have been taken as wholly disqualifying the person who uttered it for any office in the Government which, in the slightest degree, had reference to the administration of the law. He must say, it appeared to him that the appointment by the noble Earl of the person who had uttered this most violent and exciting language to a legal office in the Government of the country, was eminently calculated to have the effect, and he feared it had already had the effect, of shaking whatever confidence the people might have had in the sincerity of the desire of the Government to put down disorder and to uphold the law—of creating a general belief that the system of impartiality acted upon by his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Eglinton), while Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was about to be departed from.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, it was unnecessary for him, after the speech of his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) to say one word with reference to that part of the case which had been brought forward by the noble Marquess, as affecting the Lord Lieutenant; for his noble Friend had completely established his own case, and refuted every position of the noble Marquess. But there was another person whom the noble Marquess had chosen to attack, and that without having given the notice which he ought to have given, that individual being a Member of the other House, and holding office under the Government. He confessed he was somewhat surprised that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) had departed from the prudent course of not assuming upon the instant that every fact brought forward in the shape of an accusation by the noble Marquess required to be investigated. He had occupied a seat in the other House of Parliament at the same time as the noble Earl, and when a case of this kind was brought forward there by a Gentleman from the sister island, they were in the habit of saying, "I wonder whether that is an Irish

1373
fact." Now he thought he should be able to show that the fact of the noble Marquess—he did not say it offensively—was only an Irish fact; and he might describe, without offence, Irish facts to be a species of facts susceptible of being, upon analysis, considerably modified. The noble Marquess had ostensibly brought forward the case of the remission of eleven sentences in order to make an attack on the Lord Lieutenant; but its real object seemed rather to be to throw a certain amount of dirt upon an honourable Gentleman not in that House, and holding high legal office. When an accusation of that kind was made with-out notice, to use a common phrase some of the dirt so thrown would stick; and? whatever contradiction might be made twenty-four hours afterwards, a certain amount of credence would attach to the original statement. The noble Earl had improved the occasion by turning this statement against Mr. Keogh into a charge against the Government, and he said they were bound to have known of Mr. Keogh's speech, and that they ought not to have appointed the hon. and learned Gentleman under such circumstances to the office which he now held. He really did not know whether the noble Earl had suddenly found out that it was the duty of every one entrusted with the formation of a Government, to be acquainted with the speeches of every one of his followers, and that he was not only bound to ransack Hansard, but the chronicles of each county in which he may have stood a contested election, for that purpose. Above all, he did not know whether the noble Earl had suddenly become a convert to the opinion that this was especially his duty as regarded the appointment of a Solicitor General. Not many months ago—about this time last year—the noble Earl, on being asked whether he entirely concurred in every opinion expressed by Sir Fitzroy Kelly on the subject of Protection, in the county for which he was a candidate, declared that he was not responsible for what Sir Fitzroy Kelly, his own Solicitor General, had said—that he had not time to read the newspapers; and now the noble Earl turned round upon the Government, and said, with an amount of pathos which must undoubtedly have affected their Lordships, "It is certainly a most lamentable result that the appointment of that hon. and learned Gentleman to be Solicitor General for Ireland has had the effect of making many persons in that
1374
country doubt whether it is the intention of the Government rightly and fairly to carry out the law." The noble Earl must recollect that the fact of those speeches of Sir F. Kelly—which never were denied, and which could not be denied—did attach considerable doubt to the intentions of the Government of the noble Earl, and to his declarations as to a protective policy. He would not pursue this subject further, because he was fully prepared to meet the case; but he wished to remark that if on future occasions similar statements should be made, little faith ought to be attached to them, until the circumstances could be fully investigated. The noble Marquess said, he had felt it his solemn duty to bring this charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman—[The Marquess of WESTMEATH: Against the Government.] He accepted the correction most readily. The noble Marquess had preferred the charge in the performance of his solemn duty. Now, the noble Marquess was not merely a Member of their Lordships' House; he was the Lord Lieutenant of the county in which, according to his own account, these transactions took place. Had he completely fulfilled his duty in not bringing the matter under the notice of the Government before this? The noble Marquess said, he did not trust the Government, and did not think they would carry out the law fairly; and he accused the noble Earl at the head of the Irish Government of being a popularity hunter, and therefore he did not think fit to bring forward this accusation except in the present form. But that was no justification for the noble Marquess. When did this. "fact," in the sense in which he had used the term before occur? When did it take place? In June last year. Who was at the head of the Government then? The noble Earl opposite. Who was his Lord Lieutenant? The noble Earl at his side (the Earl of Eglinton). Why did not the Lord Lieutenant of Westmeath bring forward this accusation then? And if he did feel it his duty to bring it before the Government, why did not the Government investigate the charge? He did not say that that was the duty of the noble Marquess; but he certainly had no right to make party attacks on the present Government, when he did not pursue a course which he might have done in his capacity of Lord Lieutenant of Westmeath. He now came to a more important part of the

1375
case, and was in a position to give the noble Marquess a complete answer. The noble Marquess and the noble Earl said, the Government ought to be in a position to state whether this was true or not. He had already said, that, following the example of other heads of the Government, his noble Friend was not aware of any such speech having been delivered by the hon. and learned Member for Athlone. For himself, he could say that he had never heard of the accusation until it was brought forward by the noble Marquess; and he believed he might say the same for all his Colleagues. But when his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) rose to reply to the noble Marquess, he went where he thought he should obtain correct information, and there saw the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, who had authorised him to say that the speech quoted by the noble Marquess was a newspaper fabrication—that he never did make such a speech—that, to the best of his belief, not One word of what had been quoted by the noble Marquess fell from him; and the whole tenor and purport of what he did say had been entirely and utterly perverted. The reason why his noble Friend the noble Earl at the head of the Government was not able to answer the noble Marquess on this subject was, that he had had no opportunity of making any communication with the hon. and learned Gentleman. But was the noble Marquess aware, when he made this statement, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had already positively denied the accuracy of that statement? He (the Duke of Newcastle) said the noble Marquess was, because he knew that an individual had conveyed the denial of his hon. and learned Friend to the noble Marquess. And yet the noble Marquess had not the candour or fairness to inform any noble Lord on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, that he was about to make this accusation; but had brought forward this accusation against an hon. and learned Gentleman holding the important office of Solicitor General for Ireland—although that hon. and learned Gentleman denied it to a friend of the noble Marquess—and had turned it into an attack upon the Government. He thought he had satisfactorily proved that it would have been unfair to turn it into an attack against the Government, even if it had taken place; and that it was equally unfair to bring forward such an accusation, affecting the
1376
character of an hon. and learned Gentleman a Member of the other House, without giving notice of his intention to do so; and he hoped he had also substantiated the fact, as far as the word of an honourable man could go, that the statement brought forward by the noble Marquess was as baseless as the accusation he had brought against his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
The EARL of EGLINTONsaid, he was at a loss to understand how the noble Duke could draw a parallel between the case of a Solicitor General of a Government who was merely making a speech with regard to the political questions of the day, and with regard to his own private opinion upon a question which at that very time was in abeyance, and was, as avowed by his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) to be determined by the decision of the country, and the case of a private individual making a speech—if he did make that speech—in which he avowed, and openly recommended, assassination and riot. But when the noble Duke asked why, if it was the case that the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General for Ireland had made such a speech, it was not brought by the noble Marquess to the notice of the late Government in this country or in Ireland, he would tell the noble Duke the reason. Mr. Keogh was a private individual; and certainly he (the Earl of Eglinton) had no intention of recommending him at any future time to be Solicitor General of Ireland, and he believed his noble Friend never had the intention of offering him such an office; but he assured their Lordships, that if every man had been prosecuted for every violent speech he had made on the hustings at the last general election in Ireland, the law officers of the Crown would have had a very busy time. But the case now assumed a totally different character from what it did when the noble Marquess brought it forward, and the noble Earl refused to give any opinion on the subject in consequence of no formal notice having been given. The question was now one of truth or falsehood. Did Mr. Keogh, during the last election for Westmeath, on the hustings at Moat, use expressions which in Ireland, or almost any country, could boar no other construction than that he distinctly recommended to the persons he was addressing at a future period, when the long nights came, if not

1377
assassination, most violent outrage? The question was whether that was true or false. He had listened to what the noble Marquess said, and he believed what he had stated was very much the same in substance with what he had hitherto believed, and which he should continue to believe, to be the words used by Mr. Keogh upon that occasion, until the denial of them was distinctly proved. He was bound, of course, until it was proved, to believe that Mr. Keogh meant what he now said; but the noble Duke said Mr. Keogh contradicted the words now used by the noble Marquess. He would not say the exact words put by the noble Marquess were used, because he might have transposed them in such a way as to change the meaning of them; but he must say he did put great credit in the assertion he had before heard, and which was now made by the noble Marquess, that throe magistrates of the town of Moat had heard that language and believed it; but he had another and a stronger reason for believing that the words referred to by the noble Marquess were used by Mr. Keogh on that occasion. He had seen, and he had in his possession, an affidavit sworn before a magistrate by, he believed, a respectable man present upon that occasion, ascribing words almost identical with the words ascribed to Mr. Keogh by the noble Marquess. He could only say what he had heard and seen. He was bound to believe that noble Lords opposite had no knowledge of those words having been used, because they said so; and he was also bound to believe Mr. Keogh's assertion, unless that assertion could be disproved; but after what had passed in the House upon that occasion—after the assertion made by the noble Marquess that there were three magistrates ready to swear that the words were used—after he had stated to their Lordships upon his own authority that he had an affidavit to that effect sworn before a magistrate in Ireland—he thought the subject ought not to be lightly disposed of, but ought to be maturely considered by their Lordships in that House, or by a Select Committee, or by any other means that might be thought proper. He must say, that he thought the appointment of Mr. Keogh the least reputable appointment of the present Government.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he did not wish to throw any personal acrimony into the discussion; but he was almost compelled to make a remark on the
1378
last sentence of the noble Earl's speech, which would commit Members of the late Government; and he believed the noble Earl knew what he meant.
The EARL of EGLINTON: I do not know or care whom it may commit; but I will not be committed for one moment before your Lordships by any hint or inuendo. [Cheers.]
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: Then, as noble Lords opposite cheer, I suppose they wish me to state, and I will state, what I allude to. My statement is this—that I have been assured, when the noble Earl says the appointment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Keogh) is one of the least reputable acts of the present Government—and I have it on the best possible authority—that a communication was made by a noble Lord who occupied an office under the noble Earl opposite, before the completion of the arrangements of his Government, which was supposed to come from the noble Earl opposite, at the head of the Government, to inquire whether my hon. and learned Friend would take office under him. That is my answer to the statement of the noble Earl; and my reason for not stating it broadly in the first instance was, that I did not wish to bring the noble Earl (Lord Derby), who did not say the appointment of my hon. and learned Friend was disreputable, in any statement before the House. I have now made it. I did not rise for this purpose. I merely rose not to allow the noble Earl to slip out of his statement, because he has made two most opposite assertions as to his belief; he said he had the fullest intention of believing the statement of the noble Marquess until it was disproved, and also of believing his hon. and learned Friend until it was disproved; but what I want to reassert is this—there was no equivocation whatever in the denial, and, of course relying on the personal honour of my hon. and learned Friend, I made the statement to the House; but he did not authorise me merely to contradict the words stated by the noble Marquess, but a great deal more than those words; he positively and distinctly denied that any words he had uttered on the occasion referred to bore the signification represented by the noble Marquess, or that there was the slightest truth, or vestige or shadow of truth, in the accusation brought forward. I rose to make that denial as distinctly and clearly as possible.
The EARL of DERBY: I think it is my duty, after what has been stated, to

1379
say that I have heard of the rumour to which the noble Duke has alluded. I heard it, for the first time, after the appointment of Mr. Keogh had called forth a great deal of observation in Ireland, and had been loudly condemned. I heard it put about by Mr. Keogh's friends that a certain offer had been made, and I lost no time in authorising every person who might hear that, to state on my authority that I did not know, nor have I ever authorised, nor did I then believe, nor do I now believe, that any such offer, proposition, suggestion, or hint was ever made to Mr. Keogh.
The EARL of EGLINTON: I distinctly deny it on my part, and I tell the noble Duke that I did not know that such a rumour had existed.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: I stated to the noble Earl across the table the name of the individual who is represented to have made the communication to my hon. and learned Friend.
The MARQUESS of WESTMEATH, in reply, said the noble Duke had challenged him to deny that Mr. Keogh had communicated to him that he had never made the speech alluded to; and he admitted that that communication had been made; but then, on the other hand, he had the authority of three magistrates to the contrary. At the late elections in Ireland unparalleled violence had been committed, and the enlargement of the persons to whom he had referred was calculated to have a bad effect. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to bring forward a measure next Session to put a stop to bribery in England; and he trusted that they would also propose a measure to put a stop to unconstitutional violence in Ireland.
The EARL of CLANCARTYconsidered that a satisfactory explanation had been given with respect to the cases referred to in the Motion, but thought a portion of the papers moved for—namely, a copy of the Memorial in the case of the Limerick prisoners, might be produced.
The EARL of EGLINTONwas also of opinion that the explanation of the noble Earl at the head of the Government in respect to the two cases mentioned in the Motion ought to be deemed satisfactory, and recommended the withdrawal of the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Monday next.