Sitting of 30 May 1853

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Bail in Error.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to put a question to Her Majesty's Ministers as to the present state of affairs in Turkey. The House will, I hope, permit me, not that I wish to contravene for a moment the regulations that apply to the asking of questions in this House, to preface the question I am about to put by a brief statement, in which I shall offer no opinion, but which it is necessary that I should make in order that the House may fully understand its bearing; and as the question mainly depends upon dates, I may be permitted respectfully to beg the attention of hon. Members to the statement I feel it my duty to submit. The House is aware that, since on Friday last I addressed a question to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of our relations with the Porte, the Russian Ambassador Extraordinary at the Porte, Prince Menschikoff—the ultimatum he had tendered to the Turkish Government having been refused—has quitted Constantinople. Now, it appears that Prince Menschikoff quitted Constantinople on the 22nd inst.—it would require, to communicate between St. Petersburgh and Constantinople, seven days; the news would, therefore, reach St. Petersburgh on the 29th of this month. Assuming for a moment that the Emperor of Russia might wish to act instantly and with decicision upon Constantinople, we must remember that there is a considerable fleet, and a not inconsiderable military force, at Sebastopol. It would take seven days to communicate between St. Petersburgh and Sebastopol, so that the order would arrive there on the 5th of June; and, supposing that two days were necessary for the fleet
788
to put to sea, and four days for the passage between Sebastopol and the entrance of the Straits, that would bring the dates down to the 11th of June—so that the earliest period at which it would be possible for the Russian fleet and force to be at the entrance of the Straits would be the 11th of June. Assuming, moreover, that there was no very considerable opposition to their entering the Straits from the Black Sea, the Russian fleet might anchor opposite the Seraglio on the 11th, and twenty-four hours afterwards would be in possession of the entrance of the Dardanelles, and so prevent any fleet entering from that side of the Straits. Having stated these dates to the House, which are absolutely necessary, as the House will perceive, to the proper understanding of the question, I beg to promise, also, that if on Saturday last Her Majesty's Ministers had thought proper to give directions to our Admiral at Malta to proceed with the British fleet to the Dardanelles, he could, viâ Marseilles, and by the aid of a small steamer which was waiting at Marseilles for that special purpose, receive instructions on the 2nd of June. It would take seven days for Admiral Dundas to proceed with the British fleet from Malta to the Dardanelles, and he would arrive there on the 9th, exactly two days before the Russian armament could make its appearance. Now, the question I wish to put to Her Majesty's Government is this, whether, taking the contingency to which I have referred into consideration, Her Majesty's Government have issued instructions to the British Admiral at Malta to proceed with the British fleet to the waters of the Dardanelles?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in the present state of the relations between Russia and Turkey, I feel that, as anything said here must be considered of the utmost importance, I must decline answering the question which the right hon. Gentleman has just put. I can but leave him to give notice of any Motion which he may think proper to make on the subject, and I shall be ready, at any moment, to defend the course we are now taking.

INCOME TAX BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 26.
On the Motion that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
MR. BARROWrose to move a proviso of which he had given notice:—

789
"Provided always, that in estimating the income of persons charged under Schedule B, such persons shall be entitled to deduct from the estimate of such income any source of annual interest paid for money borrowed, whereby the income shall or may be diminished."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that since Friday night he had made an inquiry on the subject of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which he thought must have been proposed in error, for he found that persons assessed under Schedule B were entitled to deductions for interest on money borrowed in the same manner as traders under Schedule D.
MR. BARROWsaid, he was happy to hear that that was the opinion of the: right hon. Gentleman, as he had proposed his Amendment in consequence of the refusal of an inspector of taxes to allow such deduction. Still, as the provisions of the Bill were very difficult to understand, and his Amendment could do no harm, and only make the matter clear, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would agree to it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must object to the insertion of the words if he was to understand that there was to be a subsequent inquiry whether the Amendment was necessary or not. He had stated what was the proper interpretation of the clause, and the inspector of taxes referred to by the hon. Gentleman was in error, and if the hon. Gentleman would supply him with the particulars of the case to which he had referred, it should be set right; but; he could not introduce an Amendment into a Bill passing through Parliament merely to correct the error of a subordinate officer of the Government.
MR. BARROWsaid, he thought that the mode in which taxes were to be imposed should be properly defined in Acts of Parliament, and not be left to the instructions of the Government. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to point out the clause in the former Acts which affected the object in question.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there was no particular clause applicable to Schedule B, but there was a general clause which allowed deductions for interest on money borrowed. He might as well take this opportunity of saying that it was his intention to bring in a clause which, with relation to Ireland, would more accurately define the mode in which these deductions were to be allowed under the Act.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished
790
to know under what clause such power of making such deductions was given? There was no difficulty under Schedule D, because persons were assessed at the incomes which they possessed, but farmers were assesssed according to the rent they paid, and it would only be by an appeal that they could obtain the benefit of such deductions as these.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, this case was not peculiar to the farmers; for manufacturers sometimes borrowed money to carry on their business, for which they paid interest, and no one pretended that they were to be allowed deductions in the income tax. If such cases were exempted, it would be impossible practically to make the Bill work.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had already stated that there was nothing peculiar in the case now under discussion; and it was not a profitable discussion, as he had said that he would bring in a clause to put the matter beyond doubt.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman, as the clause related to Ireland, to state its nature.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The clause did not relate solely to Ireland, but was a general one, which pointed out the mode in which interest on money borrowed would be deducted from income tax.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 27 and 28.
Clause 29.
MR. LUCASsaid, he wished to obtain some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the deductions allowed in respect of the incomes of ecclesiastical persons. Protestant clergymen of the Established Church were assessed under Schedule A, but were allowed a deduction for: parochial rates, taxes, and assessments, &c.; but he did not understand that an analogous deduction was allowed in the case of the Roman Catholic priest, who was assessed under Schedule D, although a Roman Catholic priest had many disbursements which he was obliged to make of considerable amount, such, for instance, as a payment to his bishop, and he was also just as liable to parochial rates and taxes as the Protestant clergy.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman had mixed up matters that were essentially distinct in themselves from one

791
another. No favour or preference whatever was given to clergyman of the Established Church over Roman Catholic clergymen as such. The clergyman of the Established Church was assessed under Schedule A solely because his income was derived from tithe or tithe-commutation rent-charge, and the deductions allowed to him were entirely allowed upon general grounds, and in no way in respect of his connexion with the Established Church. The Roman Catholic priest was assessed in precisely the same way as the Presbyterian minister or the Dissenting minister, and in the same way also as the clergyman of the Established Church, who was connected with a church possessing no endowment. No doubt the Roman Catholic clergyman and the Dissenting minister were liable to pay poor-rates; but their case in that respect was totally different from the beneficed clergyman, who had to pay poor-rates, not only upon his house, but upon the entire fund from which he derived his maintenance. He wished, however, to say that the deductions allowed to beneficed clergymen in respect of income tax must be considered upon their own grounds of equity, without regard to any other considerations. The distress which had occurred of late years in Ireland had no doubt been severely felt by the Roman Catholic clergy, as well as by other classes of the community; but he believed that his proposal to remit the consolidated annuities would indirectly benefit the Roman Catholic clergy of that country, and he hoped it might do so, for the labourer was worthy of his hire.
Mr. LUCASsaid, he claimed no peculiar exemption for the Roman Catholic clergy; but, perhaps, if he called attention to the subject on the bringing up of the Report, the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to insert general words, allowing similar deductions for disbursements under Schedule D as were allowed under Schedule A.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to give a favourable consideration to the moderate claim which the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had put forward. He thought it was worthy of consideration whether some words might not he introduced to authorise deductions from the sums to be paid by the Roman Catholic clergy on the ground of certain expenses necessarily incurred in their form of worship.
Clause agreed to; as was also—
Clause 30.
Clause 31 (Tenants of Lands who are called upon to pay arrears due from former occupiers may deduct the amount from their rent).
MR. SPOONERsaid, he begged to propose to add a proviso to this clause. As the law at present stood, there was a doubt whether a tenant who paid (as the law compelled him to do) a preceding tenant's arrears of a landlord's tax, could recover the amount so paid from the landlord, the landlord perhaps having received no rent from the first tenant, who might have absconded. He did not see why the landlord should be called on to pay when he might not have received rent for either house or farm, or on what principle the tenant was made responsible for the default of his predecessor. The taxgatherer ought to look after the taxes due to Government as sharply as the landlord looked after his rent. The object of this 31st clause was to clear up that doubt, and to enable the tenant to recover the rate from his landlord; but he (Mr. Spooner) submitted that neither the landlord who had received no rent, nor the tenant, ought to be made to pay the rate which was due from an absconding previous tenant, and it was with the view of carrying out that principle that he proposed this proviso.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Clause to add the following Proviso—'Provided nevertheless, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to compel any occupier, being a tenant for the time being, to pay the arrears of Income Tax due by any former tenant or occupier of the same lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or to deduct and retain from his landlord out of any subsequent payment of rent such arrears, unless the landlord shall have received his rent for the period for which the arrear is due.'"
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, in replying to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he would for the sake of clearness separate the case of houses from the case of lands; and, secondly, the tax leviable in respect of property from that leviable in respect of occupation. He did not deal with the case of houses, beause the principle of the law, as now administered, is this—that where rent had not been received, unless there were evidence that it had been in the power of the landlord to recover his rent, the payment of income tax in respect of that rent would not be levied. [Mr. SPOONER: It is constantly done.] No

793
doubt, in the extreme complexity of administering the law many things had taken place which would be set right if the parties went direct to head quarters, or to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; but the maxim was as he stated it. Setting aside the case of houses, then, the great question was as regarded land. Under the present law, an occupier having recently come into possession of a farm upon which there were arrears of income tax, both under Schedule A and Schedule B, was held liable for the arrears of both descriptions of tax. The hon. Gentleman's proviso did not touch any question of liability in respect of occupiers, and there were words in the clause distinctly discharging the occupier from any liability. Therefore the question between the hon. Gentleman and himself was entirely in reference to arrears of the landlord's tax. The hon. Gentleman said it was very hard that the landlord should be held responsible, as he was now, in regard to a tax upon rent which he had never received. He had stated that, in the case of houses, the directions given by the Treasury, or the Board of Inland Revenue, would be, that where there were no means of securing the rent through the absconding of the tenant, the tax should not be levied. But looking at the principle, he had no hesitation in saying that the landlord ought to be held liable for arrears of tax, because for the recovery of his rent the law armed him with peculiar powers and securities which it did not confer on the common creditor. Being armed with these powers, if he chose to settle accounts with the tenant, and permit him to quit the farm without first discharging what he owed, he must be held responsible for the payment of the tax, because it was a charge upon the land which must be defrayed before he could grant a tenant the use of the property. The clause provided that the arrears of tax should be recoverable from the incoming tenant, who was to deduct the amount from the payment to his landlord.
MR. SPOONERsaid, it was frequently the case, that notwithstanding all his vigilance, the landlord lost his rent. Suppose a man left his farm just a day or two before his rent became due, what could the landlord do? The proviso could do no harm where the landlord did not suffer the tenant to run away, and in other cases would only do justice. He must divide the Committee on it.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that if the operation of the clause was unjust in England,
794
it would be four times as much so in Ireland, where the practice of letting a portion of the rent, called "the hanging gale," stand over, was general. They were applying the provisions of a Bill intended for England, to a country to which it was utterly unsuited. The Irish landlord was placed by this clause in a far worse position, considering the state of Ireland, and the way in which rent was received, than landlords in Scotland or England.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that if the Irish landlord was really worse off than the landlords in England and Scotland, the hon. and gallant Member must remember the Irish proprietor had a good start of his brother, for he was not subject to the same charges. Let them take "repairs," for example, which were not a very heavy tax in Ireland. The proviso would alter the whole law of recovery; and when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) said the taxgatherer was bound to look after his taxes as closely as the landlord after his rent, he seemed to forget the expense of such a system. If they were to continue to raise the tax at a moderate charge, they must be satisfied with a moderate amount of labour in return. Suppose a tenant disappeared, and succeeded in spiriting away his stock from the farm without the landlord's knowing anything of the matter? The hon. Gentleman proposed that the Government should lose the tax. Now, the landlord might recover his rent at a subsequent period from the tenant as a debt; but how were the Government to recover the amount of the tax in that case?
MR. FRESHFIELDsaid, the clause as it stood would entail upon landlords great hardship. They might be charged with rent they never received, when tenants had left the land without a straw upon it distrainable; for the growing crops and the straw might be sold and removed. The whole policy of the old Act was to compel the landlord only to pay the tax on rent received; for it was always provided that the tenant should "deduct" it out of the next rent—that is, the next rent paid. But now the landlord would be liable for rent not paid.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, with reference to the peculiar advantages which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said were possessed by the Irish landlords over those of England, he was prepared to show, from

795
figures in his possession, that on account of the item of arrears the land of Ireland would contribute 11 d. in the pound on this tax. All he called upon the right hon. Gentleman to do was to give them identity of legislation in Ireland.
MR. LUCASsaid, he wished to take this opportunity of inquiring what course the right hon. Gentleman proposed to take with reference to the three clauses postponed the other night, which bore upon the liability of the occupier to pay the landlord's share of the income tax?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Government had remodelled those clauses to a considerable degree, and they proposed to retain the power of resorting to the occupier with reference to the case of houses, and dwelling-houses especially, apart from agricultural holdings. They intended to frame these clauses in such a way that, speaking generally, for the purpose of levying a tax on land, the resort, in the first instance, would be to the immediate lessor.
Question put, "That the Proviso be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 145: Majority 76.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 33 (Deduction to be allowed under Schedule A for the expenses of making and repairing sea walls and embankments).
LORD NAAS, with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer just before the division, said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not call upon the House to decide to-night without further consideration upon the clauses to which reference had been made. From the remarks which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, an alteration appeared to be made in the whole principle of the Bill as regarded Ireland.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he begged to join in the request of his noble Friend. The clauses in question involved a most important principle, and it would be only right to give the Committee an opportunity of considering them.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not wish to ask the Committee to give an opinion upon these clauses to-night. He had not the least objection, after stating what the clauses were, to print them, and propose their insertion in the Bill afterwards.
MR. FREWENsaid, there were in several parts of the kingdom—for instance,
796
between Sussex and Kent—lands in the immediate neighbourhood of the sea which were considerably below the level of the sea at high water. The only way in which the sea was prevented from overflowing was by means of large sluices, which were open when the tide was out, but shut at other times. Very heavy charges had to be paid for the drainage of these lands in this way; and he wished to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer considered this clause would not give exemption on account of the money so paid?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not apprehend that any money spent upon the drainage of the land would come under the operation of this clause. If the clause had not been limited to the case of tidal rivers, the repairs done to the banks of every ditch or brook might have been brought under it, and there would have been no end to the questions that might thus have arisen.
MR. FREWENsaid, that unless these banks on the coast were kept in repair, the land in many cases would be under the sea.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that these sea walls were not the only barriers that were set up to resist the encroachments of the sea. In fact, they formed but a small portion of the expense for the protection of the country. In the county with which he was connected, a sum of 30,000 l. had been raised for the purposes of interior drainage in connexion with these embankments, and a quantity of steam engines had also been brought into play. If allowance was made for these sea walls, surely there should be a deduction for this further preservation of extensive tracts of land. Considering the works in progress on the coast of Norfolk and Lincolnshire for the purpose of redeeming the land, these operations ought to be regarded rather in the light of national works.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this clause referred to nothing but the cases of sea walls and embankments. If the charges for drainage to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, were levied by a public rate or assessment, that case was met by another clause, which expressly allowed a deduction to be made for any charge levied by public rate for draining or fencing.
MR. LUCASsaid, that the clause as it stood at present only applied to landlords. He thought that a similar provision should be made with respect to cases where the

797
expenditure in question was made by the tenant.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not believe that the tenant ever made or repaired sea walls, or the embankments of tidal rivers.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, he was anxious to solicit the attention of the Committee to a grievance to which the proprietors of lands and houses in Scotland were exposed, and which would be much felt in Ireland, but from which English proprietors were, under all circumstances, entirely exempt. Hon. Members were aware that in England all rates were by law a charge on the occupier, and that when a landlord took upon himself the payment of them, he received a deduction of income tax in respect to them. In Scotland, on the contrary, county rates, and—with the exception of one-half of the poor-rate, and one-half of the schoolmaster's salary—all parochial assessments, were by law a charge on the landlord, including therein the maintenance and repairs of churches, manses, burying grounds, school houses, and schoolmasters' houses. He paid these burdens out of the rents, on every shilling of which he was charged income tax; and in respect of them he received no abatement. The relations between landlord and tenant were substantially the same in both countries, and there could be no reason why landlords on the north side of the Tweed should be charged with taxes from which those on the south side were exempted. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had received a memorial on this subject, signed by two-thirds of the Scotch Members, and it had only recently been his (Mr. Lockhart's) duty to submit to him a similar memorial, unanimously adopted by the commissioners of supply of the county which he had the honour to represent. He had also received remonstrances from various other quarters. He trusted, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would give his assent to the Amendment of which he had given notice. He should be equally satisfied, however, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would undertake to bring up a clause, placing the proprietors of Scotland and Ireland on an equality in this respect with those of England. If the right hon. Gentleman, however, would not give such an assurance, he must press his Amendment to a division.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the Clause to add the following words:—
"And in like manner an allowance and deduc-
798
tion shall be made for the amount of all parochial rates, taxes, or assessments charged on any lands, tenements, hereditaments, and heritages in Scotland, which by statute or custom are payable by the landlord or owner thereof."
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had directed attention to an inequality in the tax; but the question must be regarded, not with reference to that isolated point, but to the general bearing. The inequality in question was one of a multitude, which, to a great degree, balanced one another. If on the ground of this inequality Parliament allowed the public burdens to be deducted, the consequence would be that the landlords in England would say, or would, at all events, be justified in saying, that they also had great inequalities to complain of. Which did the hon. Gentleman think ought to be a first reduction—public burdens or repairs? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that repairs had the first claim, and ought naturally to be allowed before public burdens. Did the hon. Member consider that English and Scotch landlords stood upon the same footing with respect to repairs, and that the average amount paid by Scotch landlords was as great as in England? [Mr. LOCKHART: Yes.] He thought not. His impression was, that the charge for repairs in Scotland, which fell upon the landlord, was much lighter than that which fell upon the English landlord. This was owing in part to the practice of granting leases in Scotland, which generally carried the performance of ordinary repairs by the tenant. [Mr. LOCKHART: No!] He had known something of Scotch leases, and he had never known a case where a lease was granted in which the tenant did not covenant to bear the ordinary repairs; and this was also the custom in England, where leases were introduced. This was only a part of the main question, whether the landlord was to pay upon his gross or net rental. That House decided the other night, by a large majority, in favour of the gross rental; but the Amendment now be fore the Committee involved the breaking up of the whole framework of the tax. If the Amendment were agreed to, there would not only be a counter claim on the part of the English landlords for a reduction upon repairs, but also a counter claim on the part of householders. While repairs upon agricultural property only amounted to 5 or 6 per cent, in house property the repairs averaged from 10 to 20 per cent. The repairs of houses in

799
England, too, were greater than in Scotland, because the houses in the latter country were better built, and constructed of more durable materials. Then, if these inequalities in Schedule A were rectified, professional men, mercantile men, and salaried officers, would put in their claims to be assessed at a different rate; and the whole fabric of the tax would be broken to pieces. He was quite sure that the attempt to remedy such inequalities in Schedule A would be attended with great injustice to landed proprietors, because claims for exemption and allowance would be made by other classes who might show a better case for deductions. For these reasons he could not give the smallest encouragement to the Amendment before the Committee.
MR. BAILLIEsaid, it appeared that the right hon. Gentleman defended the injustice committed upon Scotch landlords in making them pay income tax upon public burdens, by the still greater injustice which was practised upon Scotch householders. The farm buildings in Scotland were more extensive and built at greater expense than those in England, but the repairs were not left to the tenant; the buildings were handed over to the tenant in such a state of repair that they usually lasted until the end of the lease without repair. The Scotch proprietor was, in his opinion, fairly entitled to the same exemptions as the English one, and ought to be placed precisely on the same footing. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted the injustice which existed as far as the Scotch proprietors were concerned, and his only defence had been, that the matter complained of was not the most unjust part of the system.
MR. SMOLLETTsaid, that by the existing landlord and tenant system in England, the landlord had some portion of his public burdens paid by the tenant; and the rules which were in force in England, ought, he conceived, to be applied to Scotland also. It was not equitable that in England allowance should be made for church rates, poor-rates, and county rates, and that it should not be made also in Scotland. He possessed no property south of the Tweed, and could not therefore say whether the cost of repairs fell more lightly upon the English than the Scotch proprietor; but he certainly did not think that the Scotch proprietors should be placed on a different footing from the English.
SIR GEORGE GOODMANsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. If these claims for deductions were listened to, the efficiency of the measure would be entirely destroyed.
COLONEL BLAIRsaid, he thought that complaints from Scotland were of such rare occurrence, that when one was brought before the House, it did not meet with the same consideration as complaints coming from other quarters usually did. The real question was not a question of repairs; all he asked was, that the Scotch landlord should enjoy the same deductions that the English landlord did. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would permit the whole case to come under consideration, and that he would allow the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Lockhart), to be added to the clause. In his opinion, Scotland did not receive much aid from the Budget of the right hon. Gentleman; but he hoped that he would reconsider his opinion and accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend without pressing the Committee to a division.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that he thought the question of public rates stood in quite a different category from that with respect to repairs, and that, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer might concede the deductions stated in the Amendment, without opening the large question to which he had referred. Although, however, he thought that, taken by itself, the Amendment of the hon. Member was founded on justice, he should not support it if it went to a division. He thought the English tenant was unduly burdened as compared with the Scotch tenant, and if that were so, he thought that on the other hand the Scotch landlords might very well bear a little injustice, as compared with those on the other side of the Tweed. Injustice, indeed, was perhaps not the word. He should rather say, they must put up with the rough justice that was incident to this income tax. As he stood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had supported his propositions in instances where the interests of others were concerned, he should not now vote against him when his (Mr. Dunlop's) own interest as a landlord was involved.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid that, the hon. Member was going to vote not only against his own interest but against that of his constituents.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 42; Noes 101: Majority 59.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he wished to make some inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the imposition of the tax on the property of Scotch municipal bodies.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that no Member of that House had been able to tell him of the nature of the grievances of which the parties referred to complained. The only representation he had received from Scotland was a representation in favour of the total exemption of boroughs; but the principle of the law was, that the property of municipal bodies should pay, as other bodies did, for the protection afforded to them by the State; but then came the question what should be done with respect to the rates and duties which contributed to the revenues of municipal bodies? He understood the practice to be, that in the case of duties levied upon articles brought into towns, which duties were imposed by Act of Parliament, the exemption from income tax was allowed; but when such duties were levied under the authority of local by-laws, they were then subjected to the tax. Such was the statement made to him; but he had not been able to obtain any particulars, and the officers of the revenue department in London were entirely without information on the subject. If he could obtain further information while the Bill was going through Committee, he should be glad to make use of it in conformity with the provisions that governed the administration of the law. If not, it must stand over for the consideration of the Executive Government.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, he understood the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to object to make an allowance to the tenant for embankments to resist encroachments of the sea; and he wished to know, if the custom were ascertained to be at variance with his decision, would he have any objection to insert a clause to save the tenant as well as the landlord?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must know the circumstances of the case before he could give any promise. The presumption generally would be, if repairs of that kind were executed by a tenant, they would be allowed for in the rent. He should be glad, however, to receive information on the subject from the hon. Gentleman.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 34.
MR. FREWENsaid, that though he had a very legitimate subject of complaint in the mode in which hopgrowers were treated under the Bill, yet, seeing the uselessness of dividing the Committee, he would, on the present occasion, content himself with reminding hon. Members of the oppressive nature of the income tax as far as that class was concerned. He had already drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the circumstances which had led him to postpone his claim until the Budget was produced; nevertheless, that had been now done, and still the grievance was unredressed. The hopgrower paid the enormous tax of about 12 l. an acre upon the raw material, and yet he was called upon to pay the income tax in addition. He should certainly avail himself of the earliest opportunity to take the sense of the House on the question.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 35.
LORD NAASsaid, he had an Amendment to move, to omit the words "one-third part of" from the clause. He thought that a very good case might be made out why landlords who were repaying loans contracted in times of Irish distress should be altogether exempted from the tax on those instalments. The right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to exclude such parties to a certain limited extent, and seemed thereby virtually to yield the principle contended for. The loans had been, as he said, contracted in times of distress—a very large portion of them not so much for the purpose of improving the land, but with the object of relieving destitution. He certainly thought it was a very hard case that the Government placed the Irish landlord in a different position from that of any other mortgagee; but they actually did so, for they charged income tax upon repayment of the principal. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would entertain the claim which he had made, the more especially as he believed hon. Gentlemen from Scotland would join in urging the demand.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the clause was a general clause, and had no exclusive reference to Ireland. The general term "rentcharges" was used in the Income Tax Act, that Act having been passed without any reference to those very peculiar descriptions of rent-

803
charge to which the noble Lord alluded, I consisting of two elements—the one interest, and the other principal. At present these rentcharges were exempt from income tax by accident, and the intention of the clause was to remedy the error. He thought it was quite clear that they ought not to be exempted. In this case Parliament, for the benefit of the landowner, had become his creditor, and for the convenience of the landowner, Parliament, instead of taking back the debt in one sum, agreed to take it by annual instalments. Now, the fact that a man was about to use any portion of his income in the payment of a debt, did not exempt that portion of income from the income tax; and they might as well exempt a man's payment of 50 l. or 100 l. to his butcher or his baker, as assent to the exemption of these rentcharges. If they once admitted the principle of such exemption, he was bound to say that there were a great number of other claims which would be made, and which it would be impossible to refuse. There was, for instance, the case of the repayment of sums borrowed by clergymen for rebuilding their parsonage houses from Queen Anne's Bounty Fund. The amount borrowed was repaid by so many annual instalments, and he had been urged to exempt those instalments from the income tax; but his reply was that they were no more entitled to exemption than any other debt which a man paid out of his income.
COLONEL BLAIRsaid, that, representing a Scotch county which had borrowed more money for drainage purposes than any other in that country, he must urge the adoption of the noble Lord's suggestion.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he believed that landowners were dealt with as mercifully as they could well expect, in being allowed to make a reduction of one-third; and he would advise the noble Lord (Lord Naas) to be content with the clause as it stood.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he begged to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the case of a party who, being tenant for life, repaid the principal sum due at once, instead of repaying it by instalments extending over a given number of years, and he hoped it was intended to give such a person the benefit of the deductions that would be allowed him in case the money was paid off by instalments.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that if a person, after paying five instalments of rentcharge,
804
paid the remainder in one sum, the clause would have no bearing upon his case.
COLONEL DUNNEthought that two-thirds would be more equitable than one-third, and there was reason why those loans should not be charged at all. In many instances the money had been expended in charity, and the landlords had received no benefit from the outlay.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 36 and 37.
Clause 38.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply to a question of Mr. Malins, said, this clause was intended as a boon to professional men. The rule with regard to trades was this, that they should pay on the average of three years. If a man were assessed on the fourth year, he would be assessed on the average of the previous three years; but if at the end of the fourth year he should show a falling off in his gains, a deduction would be made; whereas, if there had been a profit on the fourth year the taxpayer would have the advantage of it. That was the present state of the law regarding trades, and the object of the clause was to give the same advantage to professions as to trades.
MR. MALINSsaid, that professional men now made a return of their profits at the end of every year; and he thought, in many cases, it would be a disagreeable thing if they were called upon to return their average profits for three years. He was far from thinking this clause a boon.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not see any reason for objecting to it, for no one could be a loser by it. He must repeat, he considered it a boon; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman were desirous that the present mode of assessment should remain, so that the party assessed should have the option of choosing by which mode his gains should be tested, he would consider if it might not be allowed to remain.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 39 and 40.
Clause 41.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to explain that its provisions were meant to enact that an abatement of duty should be allowed to those persons who had made insurance, or contracted for a deferred annuity, on the lives of themselves or wives, in respect of the annual premiums made. He would move the addition of certain words in order to

805
meet the objection of the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop) and others, namely, that those clergy in Scotland who contributed, in accordance with private Acts of Parliament, certain sums in respect to the Widows and Orphans' Fund, should be allowed the benefit of the exemption contained in this clause.
In reply to a remark of Mr. T. CHAMBERS,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the words in this clause, "Any person who shall have made insurance on his life or on the life of his wife, or shall have contracted for any deferred annuity on his own life, or on the life of his wife, in or with any incorporated company, or any company or association registered under the Act passed in the eighth year of Her Majesty 'for the registration, incorporation, and regulation of joint-stock companies,'" were introduced in order to induce certain companies which had not yet been registered to register themselves. He considered that the Income Tax Act would confer great benefit on insurance companies by the encouragement which it held out to the public to insure; and he thought this was not an unsuitable occasion to induce those companies to conform with the provisions of the Act passed in 1844 respecting registration, which would be useful as affording authentic public information.
Clauses 41 to 46 inclusive were then agreed to.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that as to the form of the clause he would now propose, he might call it an Amendment to Clause 13, because the form of such a clause would be preserved. The proposed clause was the same as the 13th, up to the 37th line, where it goes on to say that "the assessment of the said duties in Ireland, chargeable under Schedules A and B, shall be paid by the landlord or lessor; or if it shall appear to the Commissioners to be necessary or proper, the assessment shall be made upon such persons as are liable to the rate for the relief of the poor." He now proposed to add a proviso to the clause, to the effect of enabling the party assessed, who could show that the annual value of the land was less than the poor-law valuation, to do so in the way of an appeal. The proviso would likewise give to the landlord the power of reducing the poor-law valuation to the standard of the actual amount of rent, in all cases where the poor-rate valuation was greater than the amount of rent
806
received. And in cases where the rent was greater than the poor-law valuation, the party would have the benefit of the difference. The remaining portion of the clause was framed in accordance with what he believed was the general view of Parliament on the subject. They would observe that it was the intention of the Government, if the clause were agreed to, to have the assessment made on the landlord and immediate lessor, and not upon the occupier, except in special cases. They might be asked, why they retained a discretion on that subject? He would answer that question. They had come to the conclusion that it would be better for the peace and contentment of Ireland, as well as more advantageous to the collection of the tax, that in the agricultural districts it should be ordinarily levied on the landlord or immediate lessor. But the case of messuages and the case of towns was very different. In towns and cities the occupier was the proper person to place the assessment upon. Generally speaking, in respect to dwelling-houses, factories, and a variety of other tenements, the natural and simple course would be to levy the tax from the occupier. In respect, however, to the agricultural population, he thought that the best mode was to levy from the landlord or lessor. But he thought it was necessary to retain the right of levying upon the occupier, in order to get at the immediate lessor. There might be a difficulty otherwise in coming at the proper party. There was one class of considerations connected with the working of this tax which he thought it was his duty to point out. They took for the basis of their assessment the poor-law valuation. In some cases in Ireland that valuation might, however, be above the actual rental, and in others below the actual rental. Wherever the actual rental was below the poor-law valuation, if they levied upon the occupier, they must require him, in the first instance, to pay according to the poor-law valuation, but they would leave him a remedy of recovering the surcharge. Assuming that 100 l. represented the poor-law valuation, and that 90 l. represented the actual rent, by the Bill they must levy upon the 100 l.; and the occupier, in paying himself, could only deduct 90 sevenpences from the landlord. The remaining 10 sevenpences he will be obliged to seek for by a process pointed out in the clause. This, however, was an inconvenience which could scarcely occur more than once; for, on the real

807
facts being made known to the proper officers, the demands made upon him in future would be levied according to the amount of the actual rent. After the people of Ireland had been given to understand that they were to be relieved from the consolidated annuities, and that in lieu thereof there was to be imposed an income tax which would be borne exclusively by persons having 400 l. a year and upwards, he thought it would be difficult for them to reconcile it to themselves that they should be called on in the first instance to make these payments, even though they had afterwards to get them returned from the immediate lessor. They were not familiar with that course of proceeding, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was afraid that it would tend to great dissatisfaction. It was upon the joint effect of these considerations, then, that the Government had come to the conclusion to propose to the Committee to frame the Act of Parliament in such a way as to show that the intention of Parliament with regard to the owners of land in general was, that the assessment should be made on the immediate lessor—reserving, however, in cases of necessity, the power of resorting to the occupier. The clause would contain two important provisoes—one giving any person assessed, whether the immediate lessor or occupier, on the poor-law valuation, the right of appeal to reduce the valuation to the actual annual value; the other meeting the case of the landlord whose rent was less than the valuation, and which would prevent him from being assessed to a higher amount than the rent. As to the course which ought to be taken with regard to this question, it would not be fair to press the Committee for a decision before it had had time to consider the matter. He thought, therefore, the best course would be for the Committee to allow him to introduce the clauses now, insert them in the Bill, and read them in conjunction with the other clauses, so that hon. Members might have a better idea of their effect than if they were printed with the Votes. Should that be the opinion of the Committee, he would propose the insertion of these clauses, together with the clause of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton), then get the Bill reprinted, and fix a day for the third reading, when hon. Gentlemen would have ample opportunity of discussing and deciding upon the question.
LORD NAASsaid, he did not rise at
808
that moment to oppose the clauses of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought their operation would be to create an entire new mode of assessment—a mode of assessment for which hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House were not in the least degree prepared, and which was without precedent in this country. The proposal was such that it would take some time before hon. Members would be able to form an accurate opinion of what its probable effects would be. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to consent now to the insertion of these clauses in Committee, and defer the discussion of the principles at issue until the third reading of the Bill; but that was a course which hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House could hardly with fairness be expected to assent to. He would suggest, therefore, whether they had not better report progress, give notice for the printing of the proposed clauses, and let the discussion be taken upon the question next Thursday. Hon. Members from Ireland would thus have an opportunity—a brief one, certainly—of considering their effect. It was a most unusual proceeding, however, to ask them to forego that legitimate course of fair discussion which they had in Committee, and in Committee alone, upon what, in point of fact, was an entirely new Bill.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he approved of the principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's new clauses, but he could not understand upon what ground the right hon. Gentleman asked a man to pay a tax in the first instance to which he was not at all liable. Nothing could be more vexatious and harassing than to ask a tenant to pay this tax, or to be liable to have his goods seized for it when the law said that the tax should not be imposed upon him, but upon his landlord. For the same reasons which induced the right hon. Gentleman to exempt the tenant-farmers from the operation of this tax, he recommended him to apply the same principle to the inhabitants of the towns.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the clauses were inserted now, he should have no objection to the recommitment of the Bill, provided it was distinctly understood that the discussion would be then confined to the subject-matter of the clauses themselves.
LORD NAASsaid, he would willingly concur in the suggestions of the noble Lord, with that understanding.
MR. I. BUTTthen proposed a clause

809
providing, that in calculating for the purpose of the tax any income derived from the rent of lands, the calculation should be made upon the net amount, after allowing for the poor-rate chargeable against the landlord. This question could not arise in England, because in this country the tenant paid the poor-rate. In Ireland, on the other hand, the tenant paid it in the first instance, but when he came to pay his rent he deducted one-half of it; and the law avoided any contract made between landlord and tenant, by which the tenant would undertake the entire rate. In every instance, therefore, in Ireland the landlord's real rent was his nominal rent, reducing half the poor-rate; and the clause he proposed was absolutely necessary to place the Irish landowner in the same position as the English. An illustration would make this plain. Let him suppose two farms of exactly the same value, one in England, the other in Ireland, each of the gross value, without reference to poor-rates, of 110 l. If the poor-rate in each case were 10 l., the tenant taking the English farm would pay the whole poor-rate, and he would give for the farm 100 l. a year; but taking the Irish farm, he would pay only half, and the rent would be fixed at 105 l.; but when he came to pay his rent he would hand over as part of it a poor-rate receipt for 5l.; and the landlord would receive exactly the same sum of money as the English one—100 l. But the income tax would be paid by the English landlord on 100 l., the sum he did receive; by the Irish landlord on 105 l., the sum he did not receive. But, in fact, the principle for which he contended was conceded in the Bill applicable to England, because there was a clause that if in any case the landlord contracted to pay the poor-rate, his income from the rent should be calculated after a deduction of the amount. Now, in Ireland the law made this very contract in every case. If the landlord in England contracted to pay half the poor-rate, it would be deducted from the rent on which he was to pay income tax. In Ireland, in fact, every letting was made subject to such a contract. It was manifest justice that the same consequences should follow.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the general basis of the Bill placing the rate on the poor-law valuation showed the intention of the Government, because that rate was made by law on the value of the holding after allowing for the poor-rate. The intention, therefore, was
810
to make the allowance contemplated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. But the hon. and learned Gentleman would see that it was impossible for him to carry the clause as he proposed it. If that clause were adopted in every case in which the landlord's rent exceeded the poor-law valuation, the landlord would have the deductions twice over: first, in being assessed on a valuation in which allowance was made for this very deduction; and, secondly, according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, in being allowed it as a deduction from the income of his estate. It might, perhaps, be necessary to bring up a new clause providing for cases in which the rent was below the poor-law valuation; and if on consideration he found that such a clause was necessary, he would bring it up on the third reading, but it was impossible for him to accede to the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. BUTTsaid, that upon this assurance he would withdraw the clause; but the right hon. Gentleman would find it absolutely necessary to make some provision like that he had pointed out. The cases in which the rents in Ireland were below the poor-law valuation were by no means rare. The estate of an hon. Baronet near him (Sir Arthur Brooke) was set at an annual rental 1,500 l. below the poor-law valuation.
Clause withdrawn.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he would now bring forward the clauses of which he had given notice. The principle of the first two was identically the same, and that principle was simply this—that it was desirable to limit, as far as possible, the discretionary power at present exercised by the Income Tax Commissioners, and to lay down some fixed rule in cases where there at present prevailed nothing but a contradictory practice. It was, he believed, a common impression that persons assessed to the income tax were only chargeable with the tax upon the amount of money actually received; but this was quite an erroneous notion. If they would turn to the Act of 1842, they would find it enacted that "no deduction was made for any debts except bad debts, proved to be such to the satisfaction of the Commissioners respectively." Now, he confessed that, in his opinion, the fairest rule would be that no man should be called upon to pay income tax on any greater amount of money than he actually received into his pocket; but he did not propose to go so far, or to establish any principle that would interfere with the

811
amount of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated upon receiving. He only proposed to take the two extreme cases in which a debtor either declared himself bankrupt or entered into a composition with his creditors, and in which cases all chance of recovering the debt was gone, and to enact that in those cases the creditors should be rated upon the sums they actually received. With respect to the second clause, which referred to deductions for wear and tear of machinery, there was no provision made in the original Act; but it was indisputable that in many cases such deductions were made, although he must say that all the witnesses were agreed that they were not fairly allowed under the provisions of the Act, and that the practice of the Commissioners varied considerably in different districts. Now, he thought it was desirable to lay down some fixed rule either for or against these allowances, and not to leave the matter in the present unsatisfactory state. The principle of his third clause was, not to establish a new Court of Appeal against the decisions of the Commissioners, but merely to facilitate the access to the very indifferent kind of court which at present existed.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he fully admitted that the questions involved in the hon. Gentleman's clauses were difficult and important; but it was not without serious consideration that he had come to the conclusion that it would not be wise to adopt them. With respect to the first of these clauses, what he had to observe was this, that it proposed a departure from the entire principle on which profits were at present calculated for the purposes of the income tax. The whole principle upon which the income tax proceeded was, that the payments under Schedule D were to be computed, not upon the receipts but upon the profits of the year. Now, the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was, that they should entirely depart from that principle, so far as debts, either bad, or supposed to be bad, were concerned; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must say that he was very apprehensive of the effect of this change of principle. He did not see why, as the law at present stood, it should not work in a manner generally satisfactory. He had teen told by what he might call the highest authorities, that the proper course would be, that when a debt was alleged to be bad, or partially bad, but where there was a prospect of future dividends, a fair estimate should be formed of the
812
value of the debt, and that the tax should be charged in accordance with that estimate. It appeared to him, that if any alteration was to be made in the present clause, that would be the proper mode of proceeding, because then there would be no departure from the principle of the Act. If the hon. Gentleman thought it desirable to move an addendum, providing that debts might be valued, he should not probably object to that. With respect to the second of these amendments, he confessed he doubted whether it was an improvement at all upon the law as it stood, which already provided that deductions might be made for the supply, or repair, or alteration of machinery. If the objections of the hon. Member were that there was no allowance for wear and tear, the fairest way of considering that would be to see whether wear and tear should not be specified among the articles to be deducted. His objection to the proposition was, that it first left it to the discretion of the Commissioners to decide whether it should be allowed at all, and then, when once determined on, fixed irrevocably at 5 per cent. He thought the better way would be to provide that, where necessary, wear and tear should be regarded as a matter of fair exemption; but that the amount to be allowed for it should be left to the discretion of the Commissioners. The third clause appeared to him to be very objectionable, because it would saddle the public with the cost of a double set of Commissioners and a double investigation. A man would first take his chance with the local commissioners; and if they pressed him too hard, he would then go to the Special Commissioners. The present principle of the law was, that a man should exercise his option, but he must do so at once. It might be that the hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with the local tribunals. Then the proper mode of dealing with such a question was to see whether they could amend that machinery. He confessed that he felt considerable prejudice against the machinery as it at present stood, and believed that it might be most beneficially improved. He did not, however, pretend to say that he was able, pressed as he had been with other business, to say at once what would be the best way of approaching that question, and would only say that there was every desire, on the part of the Government, to adopt such steps as, without mixing it up with the consideration of financial measures, would admit of well-considered improvements in what must be

813
considered as an old and somewhat crude system.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he hoped, whatever the fate of the first and second clauses might he, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give his best attention to the first. As a mercantile man, he could speak emphatically of the great inconvenience which arose, in practice, from the Commissioners refusing to take any cognisance of bad debts unless under acts of bankruptcy, and where dividends were paid. The cases were numerous in which a merchant made a bad debt quite equal to his ordinary income on the year; and yet, under the present system, no allowance was made for bad debts of this nature.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, that the answer of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was far from satisfactory, more particularly after he had admitted that it was very unfair to tax a man for debts which were clearly bad. The principle which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Blackett), proposed, affected the case only where debts were "ascertained" to be bad. They were not to speculate, for he admitted there was great difficulty in ascertaining the value of debts about which there might be some doubt; but it appeared to him that there was something very tangible and exceedingly clear in the 1st clause. When there was a bankruptcy the whole of the debt was to be deducted from the profits of the year in which it was declared, and in subsequent years credit was to be given for the dividend as part of the profit of those years in which a dividend was paid. He thought that this was an extremely fair proposition; and he could imagine nothing more unfair than that a trader should be called upon to pay upon the whole of his debts, and then, if a bankruptcy occurred, and all was positively lost, that the duty should not be remitted. Clearly, the tax either ought not to be taken in the first instance, or if taken, and the money were lost, it ought subsequently to be remitted.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as there appeared to be some discrepancy among good authorities as to the practical working of the first clause, perhaps the best way would be to leave the clause in his hands, with the view of its being further considered, and he would endeavour to meet the case which it involved.
MR. GEORGEsaid, he was in favour of all the clauses proposed by the hon. Mem-
814
ber for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and he hoped the Committee would adopt them.
MR. E. EGERTONsaid, with reference to the third clause, that the present working was far from satisfactory, and that, in the absence of any other proposition from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should support it.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he should support the second clause. Many manufacturers had 20,000 l. worth of machinery, and paid 1,000 l. or 2,000 l. annually in depreciation. Still they had to pay upon the whole of this, and he considered it most unjust.
MR. J. PHILLIMOREsaid, that great inconvenience arose from different principles being acted upon by local commissioners in different districts, and he would beg to express a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the third
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he could also speak to the inconvenience resulting from the want of uniformity in the practice of the commissioners: there were different regulations with regard to the depreciation allowed to shipowners in Glasgow from those that prevailed in Liverpool and Hull.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to wish the Committee to believe that it was not essential that a Bill under which a large amount of money was to be raised should be properly contrived and arranged, but as it was essential to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the money, he seemed to think it a little unreasonable that any one should object to any of the clauses. The right hon. Gentleman was not aware of the difficulty which the second resolution was intended to remedy. It was the custom for manufacturers to expend a large sum annually in keeping their machinery in good working order, and he knew that the deduction of 5 per cent proposed was considerably less than the depreciation of the machinery in the manufactories of Lancashire and Yorkshire. He was satisfied the right hon. Gentleman would not deny the abstract justice of the principle of his hon. Friend (Mr. Blackett), and, if so, he could not see what objection he could have to introduce the clause, because it was most desirable to produce uniformity in the practice of the commissioners. As to the third proposition, he must say the system by which the local commissioners were appointed, was bad, and he urged on the Chancellor

815
of the Exchequer the propriety of considering his proposition that they should be elected by the income-tax payers. The right hon. Gentleman might certainly adopt some mode of making the operation of the law more acceptable to the public, and he thought the Committee ought to insist on inserting the required alterations in the Bill. Let him make such concessions as were reasonable, in order that there might be no complaints of the tax for the future.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, that if manufacturers had a claim to deductions on account of machinery, shipowners had a much stronger claim, as their property was depreciated by wear and tear to a much greater extent.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were three propositions before the Committee. With respect to the first, he was willing to admit that it seemed to demand that something should be done regarding it. With respect to the second, it amounted to a general allowance for depreciation. This might be an equitable ground for deduction, and he was not prepared to say that it was not; but if they were to consider depreciation in machinery and ships, they would have further to consider how the admission of the principle would be affected with regard to the other great classes of taxpayers. The expenses of repairs and management being already allowed under Schedule D, it would be well for the Committee to consider how far they would be justified in making further concessions. If any hon. Gentleman could discover some mode of reconstructing the income tax, with greater justice and fewer oppressive incidents, in Heaven's name let him do it; but he warned the Committee how it carelessly opened the door to those other concessions to which hon. Gentlemen had referred.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that the absence of a right of appeal from the decision of the local commissioners had often led to great injustice. Mr. Fielden, formerly of that House, preferred to have his goods sold by public auction, than conform to that which he believed to be unjust.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, in reply, that the encouragement he had got from hon. Members was sufficient to induce him to take the sense of the Committee on the first proposition with reference to bad debts. With regard to the second proposition, he believed it would be necessary to leave the
816
definition of what was machinery to the discretion of the Commissioners.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not expect, after what fell from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blackctt) in his opening speech, that he would divide the Committee upon his clauses. If that intention were persisted in, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must point out one matter so objectionable that he would be compelled to resist the clause. The hon. Gentleman proposed, "Whenever a composition shall have taken place between a debtor and his creditors, such sums only shall be liable to income tax as shall have been actually received by the several creditors within the year for which their respective returns are made." Upon what principle should that be allowed? When a composition had once been effected, the debt could no longer be considered a bad debt, or why should not all debts due be considered bad debts?
MR. BLACKETTsaid, that as a young Member of the House, he was most unwilling to appear to act any way vexatiously; and if the right hon. Gentleman would promise to introduce a clause embodying the principle, he (Mr. Blackctt) would not divide the Committee.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he could not see why compositions with creditors should not be treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as similar cases in insolvency. If the hon. Gentleman who proposed the clauses persisted, as he hoped he would, in taking the sense of the Committee upon them, he (Mr. Butt) would gladly support him.
MR. MILESsaid, he hoped the hon. Member who moved these clauses would consider what had fallen from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be hardly fair to pin the right hon. Gentleman to a clause without affording him an opportunity of consulting the law officers of the Crown upon it, particularly after the principle had been admitted. He should recommend the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blackett) to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. With respect to the exclusion of machinery employed in manufactures, he would remark that some machinery was used now in agriculture; and if one exemption was allowed, the other must follow. But he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done as much as could be expected from him in promising to consider the first proposition.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he saw no reason why a man should not set off the value of his bad debts from his income. As the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer was willing to consider the propriety of framing a clause to meet the evil, he should recommend his hon. Friend (Mr. Blackett), to whom great credit was due for introducing the matter, to withdraw the clauses.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he had hoped for a more distinct announcement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he thought the Committee would agree that he was acting safely in withdrawing the clauses.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the principle of the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Mitchell) was correct; and if there was anything to add in the shape of a specific provision for bankruptcies, he was willing to do so.
The first and second Clauses were then put, and negatived.
Upon the 3rd Clause being put,
MR. M. CHAMBERSsaid, he must beg his hon. Friend not to withdraw that clause, which he considered to be most important. One objection to the income tax was, its inquisitorial character, and anything that could be done to remove the annoyance and vexations attendant upon it should be done. The object of the clause was to prevent unnecessary exposure before local commissioners, who might be the rivals in trade of the appellant. He thought the proposition was just, fair, and equitable, and likely to make the tax palatable.
Clause negatived.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he would now beg leave to bring forward the clause of which he had given notice. He believed it desirable that they should go as far as was possible in recognising the principle of exempting precarious incomes from the tax. The object of this clause was to extend the principle which had been recognised by the right hon. Gentleman in that very important modification of this tax which he had introduced into the 41st section of the Bill before the Committee. It was desirable, he thought, to go as far as possible, without altering the principle of the tax itself, in recognising the claims of the possessors of precarious incomes. His object, therefore, was to provide a mode by which, secure from fraud and imposition, every possessor of precarious income should be enabled annually, or at such time as he was enabled to do so, to invest, for the
818
future support of his family, or of those legally dependent upon him, such portion of his annual income as he was disposed to lay aside for that purpose. He proposed that there should be an official trustee, who should be the depositor of the sum so invested, and that every individual should be allowed the discretion either of receiving himself the interest of the sum invested, or of allowing those sums to accumulate for the benefit of the persons in whose favour the trust was drawn up.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he saw several objections to this clause. First, he doubted very much the expediency on general grounds of holding out such a decided premium to the locking up of large accumulations of capital as would be created by enabling persons who transferred sums of money to an official trustee for the benefit of their wives or children, to claim as deductions from their incomes the amounts so invested. Again, such an arrangement would be objectionable, because it would operate in favour of Schedules E and D, to the exclusion of the rest of the schedules. And, lastly, he denied the expediency of creating a machinery of this kind, so exceptional in its nature, and tending to bring about a particular disposition of property upon a large scale, and thereby interfering with the natural course of property, until Parliament had at least determined whether the income tax was to be a permanent part of the revenue of the country. If the tax was intended to be made permanent, then he could perfectly understand this proposition, although even then its expediency would admit of discussion; but surely nothing could be more irrational than to appoint official trustees and give people a bonus upon whatever funds were placed in their hands, and thereby to bring about a great concentration of property under a highly artificial form for the sake of exemption from the tax, when at the same time they were holding out the hope that Parliament might discontinue the tax. The question of the duration of the tax would in few years have to be considered; upon that point he had already expressed his own opinion; but whether its duration should be temporary or permanent, at all events do not let them prejudge that question by a collateral arrangement like the one now proposed, which would be absurd unless the tax was to be permanently continued.
Clause negatived.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he would now propose the addition of a clause, the object of which was to place the trader in Ireland upon as advantageous a footing with regard to appeals as the English trader. As the Bill at present stood, the Irish trader had no power of going to the Special Commissioners in the first instance with his complaint respecting the assessment, but could only go before them on appeal from the decision of the Land Tax Commissioners; whereas, the English trader had the option of going with his case before the Special Commissioners as a tribunal of first instance.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Irish trader was placed by the Bill upon precisely the same footing as the English trader. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue appointed the persons who were to mate the assessments; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman supposed, as he seemed to do, that the Special Commissioners were independent of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, he was entirely mistaken. What appeared to mislead the hon. and learned Gentleman was the fact that in England under ordinary circumstances, although the assessment was realty made by the inspectors or surveyors of taxes, yet the parties could only be served with the notices under the authority of the local commissioners; where in Ireland there were no local commissioners, and all the proceedings that were taken with regard to any assessment must have the previous saction and authority of the Commissioners for Special Purposes.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman was right in the construction he put upon the Bill, and it was really the case that the Irish trader was equally privileged with the English trader, nothing could possibly be more absurd than the collocation of words contained in the two clauses which the Committee had passed with regard to assessments and appeals in Ireland.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press this matter to a division, but would leave the clause for reconsideration.
MR. I. BUTTsaid his mind was fully made up as to the necessity for the clause, but he did not wish to press it against the feeling of the Committee. He begged to give notice, however, that when the Bill was recommitted on Thursday next, he
820
should again move the adoption of the clause.
MR. KIRKsaid, he thought that there being, first, an appeal to the Commissioners for Special Purposes; and, secondly, an appeal to the assistant barrister, there could be no doubt that substantial justice would be done to all parties assessed under Schedule D. He saw no necessity, therefore, for the supposed clause.
Clause negatived.
The House resumed; Bill reported.

CUSTOMS ACTS.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he did not wish to impede the course of public business, but he must enter his protest against the system of taking the duty off articles merely because the duty was not oppressive in amount. He thought the duty ought only to be remitted when it rested upon the consumer or upon the manufacturer, or when by its repeal they could reduce the expense of collection, or enlarge the commerce of the country. That opinion, he knew, was not popular in that House; but he felt the same difficulty in 1845, when the then Government proposed reductions upon a large number of articles, by which between 300,000 l. and 400,000 l. was thrown away for no purpose. He protested against the continuance of that system, because he believed that if, by this process, they threw the whole of the customs duties upon some twelve or thirteen articles of consumption, the people would rise and say that they should not be called upon to pay duty upon sugar, tea, and tobacco, while Parliament was repealing the miserable duty upon anchovies, agates, camelians, and other articles of that nature. The true principle of customs he conceived to be this—that they should throw their net over as much as they could, and not let it press unduly and heavily upon any one article, but make each and all contribute to the exigencies of the country.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his hon. Friend, who had just sat down, had expressed great contempt for duties on anchovies, agates, and cornelians, and called them miserable exactions. He did not much differ from the hon. Gentleman as to the principle, but he must express his astonishment at the conclusion to which the hon. Gentleman arrived as to the propriety of keeping those miserable duties

821
still in force. The hon. Gentleman said he would not remove Customs duties, unless by doing so he could relieve the commerce, increase the trade of the country, or benefit the revenue. No doubt the taking off the duties on agates and cornelians would do little towards any of these objects; but still he said, that whilst the removal of duties from large articles led to a great increase in the trade of the country, the removal of duties from minor articles also increased trade in the proportion of the amount of revenue formerly produced. If the hon. Gentleman said that the reduction of duties made of late years had had no appreciable effect on our commerce, he would appeal to any Gentleman conversant with subjects of public economy to say whether great relief had not been given to trade, and whether the facilities had not been largely increased by the removal of duties. He did not claim for this proposition the character of a great national benefit; but, on the other hand, there was no national object involved in the levy of the duties in question. If he was told that to remove the duties off a few small articles was bad and dangerous policy, he replied that he thought it defensible in point of reasoning; and in point of authority he was inclined to fall back on the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, that the most advantageous course was to raise the bulk of the Customs revenue from a few articles, leaving the whole range of minor articles untouched.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he must explain that he meant to speak of the proposed reductions as miserable in point of the relief to be afforded. If it were convenient to sacrifice some thousands of pounds of revenue, it would be much better to apply the sum in removing the duty from articles which entered into general consumption.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he had not been led to expect, by the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that they would have entered at that late hour on the discussion of the principle on which our Customs duties ought to be established; but as the question had been started, he did not wish, so far as his own opinion was concerned, to let the matter pass over silently. He thought there was a great deal in what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Baring). The Committee must remember, that in putting an end to Customs duties on small articles, they did not reduce the cost of
822
general collection. You might abolish almost every item of Customs duty; but if you raised your revenue from a dozen articles, the cost of collection would still remain about the same. You must examine the articles in order to charge them with duty; for if you did not, every article would come in free. Thus, one of the greatest reasons why it was extremely advisable in dealing with Excise duties, that you should entirely remove them, did not apply to Customs duties. Another reason for removal, that did not apply to Customs duties, was, that in leaving them you did not interfere with any process of manufacture. These were distinctions which should always be borne in mind in legislating on these matters. He did not think they ought to set their faces against raising moderate duties from a variety of articles. The principle that a toll ought to be paid on articles entering into the consumption of the country, appeared to him a very sound one. What they ought to oppose, under all circumstances, was excessive duties. Let him recall to the attention of the Committee, that at this moment a very moderate Customs duty, proposed by the eminent person who first brought it under consideration as merely nominal, the one shilling per quarter on grain, now yielded to the Exchequer a revenue of 500,000 l. yearly. It was unwise, in the revision of the tariff, to aim at the annihilation of duties. The leading principle ought rather to be to keep them general in application and moderate in amount, and he believed that a tariff of this kind would form a healthy and considerable source of revenue.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to enforce what had just been said as to the removal of Customs duties not diminishing the cost of collection, by reference to a Parliamentary paper just delivered. In 1842 the cost of collecting the Excise duties amounted to 862,682 l.; in 1851 it was reduced to 673,826 l., whilst during that period the total of Excise duties repealed amounted to 1,619,000 l. On the other hand there was no corresponding action of the repeal of Customs duties in diminishing the amount of the cost of collecting the Customs revenue. In 1842 the cost of collecting the Customs revenue amounted to 1,254,590 l., whilst in 1851 it had actually increased to 1,290,756 l., showing a difference of 36,166 l. The total of Customs duties repealed during this period amounted to 1,450,000 l. Thus, whilst by repealing Excise duties you could con-

823
fidently calculate on a proportionate diminution in the cost of collecting the revenue, the removal of Customs duties gave no ground for expecting that you could save materially in the collection of those which were retained, and you must absolutely not he surprised if you found the cost of collection considerably increased. He thought that, if no other reason could be alleged for postponing the consideration of the articles to which he specially objected in the Resolution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the remarkable figures which he had laid before the Committee would be in themselves sufficient. If for the sale of simplifying the tariff it were thought advisable to strike out of it 119 articles, producing 80,000 l. to 90,000 l. revenue, that was no justification for striking out eleven articles yielding 33,000 l. or 34,000 l. It might be wise so to alter duties as to combine with the largest revenue the greatest amount of importation, but he saw no reason either in the state of our finances, or in that of our foreign relations, for throwing away even a sum of 33,000 l. or 34,000 l. If gentlemen blessed with a taste chose to import pictures from Italy, or painted glass from Munich, there was no reason why they should not pay duty on the articles imported, or why their wives and daughters should not have to pay if they chose to import cambric handkerchiefs from France.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he did not want to prolong the discussion, but he could not permit the noble Lord to state as a conclusive reason against removing Customs duties the fact that he had discovered an increase of 36,000 l. on a total expenditure of no less than 1,200,000 l. in the collection of this branch of the revenue. The noble Lord bad entirely omitted any reference to the increase that had taken place in the commerce of the country; but if they looked at this they would find that the corresponding increase in the cost of collection ought to have been, not 36,000 l. but somewhere about 200,000 l. He could not at the moment state the difference in the official value of the imports, but that of the exports did not reach 48,000,000 l. in 1842, whereas it exceeded 73,000,000 l. in 1851. He remembered that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) brought forward early in the Session a Motion for the removal of Customs duties yielding no less than 1,500,000 l. to the revenue, and obtained for that proposition the support of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). If he was not greatly
824
mistaken, one of the categories particularly recommended to their attention, both by the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman, embraced the very articles under discussion, and which they were then told yielded no revenue to warrant the expenditure of such a sum in the collection. He remembered as well as possible the same arguments being used in 1846; but they had made a great advance since that time in the application of sound principles to the economy of the public finances. Were they to be told in 1853 that it was of no advantage to the trader that in a particular class of goods he was free from the interference of the Customs, and that he might bring his imports at once into the market? They had had no notice that any resistance would be offered to the present propositions; and he called on the Committee to bear in mind that the trade of the country had been held in suspense, owing to the pendency of the financial arrangements of the year. Would it be said by a Gentleman of such high respectability, and such deserved authority in trade as the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. T. Baring) that they should keep these matters longer undecided? It was absolutely necessary to terminate a suspense which benefited no interest, but injuriously interfered with the vast transactions of our national commerce.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of the figures he had adduced relative to the diminution in the cost of collecting the Excise. No one could doubt that the increase in our domestic trade had been commensurate with that of our foreign commerce, yet the fact stood untouched, that whilst the cost of collecting the Customs duties had rather increased, that of collecting the Excise duties had materially diminished. His position had not been invalidated by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and he should feel bound to take the decision of the Committee on eleven articles on which he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified in asking a remission of duty.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had appealed to him as a merchant as to the inconvenience occasioned by suspense; but the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the only two articles at all interesting to commerce were tea and soap; and when the right hon. Gentleman talked about the injury of suspence in reference to such an article as

825
anchovies, he certainly must be at a great loss for a reason for pressing forward the propositions. With respect to the other argument of the right hon. Gentleman, every hon. Member knew that the interference of the officers of Customs was not in exports. The expense of collection was not at all diminished by the removal of small duties, and there was no equivalent benefit to the consumer.
MR. CARDWELLexplained that he quoted those figures, which he remembered accurately, merely for the purpose of showing the great increase which had taken place in the trade of the country.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had charged him with inconsistency in voting on a previous occasion for a Motion made by the hon. Member for Montrose, he wished to explain that he did not vote for that Motion on the ground that it removed a number of small duties, but because it terminated protection on a number of articles consumed by the cultivators of the soil.
On the Tea Duties reduction,
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to offer any observations to the House on the present state of affairs in China?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would be happy to give, at a subsequent period, any information in his power upon this subject.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought that subsequent statements were not generally satisfactory to the public. He should like to have had some idea of the estimate which had been formed of the increase in our commerce with China in consequence of the reduction of the tea duties, and also he should like to have known if the Government was possessed of any information as to the present state of affairs in China. He would not at such a late hour lead the Committee into any discussion; but the question was, in his opinion, one of a most important character.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, that very considerable excitement had been caused in the trade by the announcement of the intention to withdraw the pound draught on tea; that a public meeting had been held in the City, at which a deputation had been appointed to wait upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that the deputation had had a very lengthened interview with that right hon. Gentleman. It had been shown to that deputation, consisting principally
826
of persons connected with the trade, that the weighing and taxing of tea were more favourable to the trade than they had previously believed; and the result was, that, although by no means satisfied with the withdrawal of the pound draught, which had been for so long allowed, the deputation admitted that they could not equitably resist the arguments and facts adduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The result of the interview was an arrangement by which the pound draught would be extended to all tea now in bond or to arrive prior to the 5th of July next; and, with this compromise, it was not desired by those who had previously been anxious for the Amendment of which he had given notice, for the continuance of the pound draught, that he should now persevere in that Motion; he, therefore, urged the Committee to pass the Resolution now before it.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not enter into details at that late hour, but would simply state that it was proposed that all tea imported and reported at the Custom-house before the 10th of July should have the benefit of the pound draught; but that, after that time, it should cease altogether.
MR. DISRAELI: The Committee should understand, Sir, that this Resolution is a most important one. We are now called upon to vote a reduction in the tea duty to the amount of nearly 3,000,000 l., and we must recollect that on this subject we have received no statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that we ought not to agree to the Vote without some statement from the right hon. Gentleman of his detailed opinions on the subject; and I say that we ought to have some estimate from him of what he thinks the increased consumption in this article will be in consequence of the gradual reduction of the duty. We ought also to have an expression of his deliberate opinion as to the increased supply which he expects from China, and we ought to have an authoritative statement from the Government whether, in their opinion, the political changes which are occurring in that country are liable to affect that increased consumption, and to promote that increased commercial intercourse which is expected in consequence of the reduction in the duty. We have not yet heard a single word on this important subject; but there are many points connected with it which ought to be fully put before the

827
Committee to enable hon. Members to express their views on the question. Without offering any formal opposition to the proposition of the Government, I think it not only discreditable to this House, but that we should be wanting in our duty to our constituents, if we have not an opportunity of calmly and properly discussing a question of this kind in which their interests are deeply concerned. The Committee must recollect that when a proposition was made by the late Government to deal with the tea duties, we purposely combined with it an article of British growth, with which tea was supposed to enter into competition. I will not enter into a long argument on the question of the malt tax; but it is well known to every hon. Gentleman in this House that the consumption of malt has been diminishing in this country; and no matter what the real cause may be, the cause which has been urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite is, that tea has become a substitute for an article of British growth and manufacture. You are now called upon immensely to reduce the duty on a foreign article, without reducing the excessive duty which is paid on an article of home growth. A proposition of this kind, I say, ought not to be brought forward at one o'clock in the morning, without any statement from the Minister, and without any opportunity being given to Gentlemen on this side of the House of submitting those considerations which they think may affect the decision of the Government. I think that, at one o'clock, it is somewhat preposterous that the right hon. Gentleman should attempt to hurry over so important a question as the tea duty—one which enters into competition with an article of home growth, and which, if carried out, will effect a reduction of 3,000,000 l. in our revenue. No estimate has been given of the probable increased consumption of tea under the unprecedented circumstances which are occurring in China, and which may have the effect of diminishing the supply from that country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it convenient to bring forward this very important subject at a more seasonable time.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not understand before this moment, and, indeed, he could hardly understand it now, that the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that it required the consideration of the Committee, whether they ought to proceed to reduce the tea duties, or to take off one-half of the malt
828
tax. He certainly had thought that the opinion of the Committee was entirely made up on this subject. He was aware that in the ordinary state of things it would have been his duty to make a statement to the Committee on this question; but considering the hour of the night, and considering, also, the great inconvenience produced by a suspension of trade in consequence of this part of the financial proposition not being settled, he thought such a statement might be dispensed with. He was not master of time and tide; he could not regulate the discussions of the House, and had been prevented by the debates on the income tax—a most important subject certainly—from bringing forward the subject of the tea duties sooner. The practical question now was, whether they would have the speech of the Minister, or their tea admitted at a lower duty? He was not so bold as to think that the commercial world would rather have a speech from him, than the tea which was locked up in bond liberated. There was a choice of difficulties, and, though he was quite ready to make a statement, he was altogether unwilling to oppose the progress of the business of the House on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman must recollect that in his financial statement he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had detailed all that the Government had to state upon the question. He then stated, as exactly as the nature of the subject admitted of, the amount of revenue expected in consequence of the change; and, with regard to China, he mentioned that, while it was in a state to inspire discomfort and apprehension as to the future supply of tea, there was nothing positive to regulate their knowledge on the subject. But, again, the right hon. Gentleman should recollect that he himself had placed this question almost beyond the possibility of debate. The measures taken by the merchants in consequence of the financial statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, combined with the state of public opinion generally, were of such a character that very little choice lay with the Government as to the course which they should take. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that discussion in that House was a very good tiling; but considering the great inconvenience that would be caused by delay, he had no difficulty as to the alternative which he ought to choose.
MR. MASTERMANsaid, he must ex-

829
press his satisfaction with what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was much more convenient to take the course he had proposed, than to keep the trade of the country in suspension by making speeches. If the Members of that House generally were as much mixed up with commercial matters as he was, they would see the importance of passing this measure without delay, and would deprecate all unnecessary speechmaking.
MR. DISRAELI: If my hon. Friend who has just spoken had been a teetotaller, which I am sure he is not, he could not have made a better speech on behalf of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman, if a correct one, would be good against their having discussion on any subject whatever. If it is understood that the moment a Minister proposes to deal with a tariff, no one is to call in question the policy he is pursuing, and is to be debarred from even asking questions regarding it, I wish to know why such questions are brought before the House of Commons at all, and not settled by the Board of Trade or by an Order in Council? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he had formally given them all the information the Government possessed on this subject; but, I am bound to say it was of a very slight character indeed. He has never yet given us any detailed statement of the increased consumption; and as to the state of China, which he says he has alluded to, I must remind the Committee that there has been three or four arrivals from China since that statement was made, and that none of those important views that have recently attracted our attention to the state of China, had then been made known. Surely it is not unreasonable that the House of Commons should wish to know what opinion the Government have formed with regard to a market so important as China. No doubt in a great change of this kind, the convenience of the trade should be considered; but surely it is not to be considered at the expense of all discussion whatever. I therefore make the reasonable request that this Resolution should be now postponed, to be brought on again on some early day—the first on which they should again meet, if the right hon. Gentleman pleased.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot speak, Sir, with the same weight or authority as does my hon. Colleague (Mr. Masterman), knowing, as he does, the feelings and opinion of the City of London;
830
but I quite agree with him in the conclusion to which he has come. Nor do I think he has in the least exaggerated the state of the question. I was under a delusion up to this moment, that if there were any one thing in the whole financial scheme of the Government upon which the House of Commons was agreed, it was the reduction of the tea duties. Why, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) himself proposed to reduce the tea duties to a similar extent. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to reduce the tea duties to 1s. per pound; and up to this moment not one word was said against that proposal. This is the first period at which the question could properly be brought before the House in this form; for it could not be proposed until the income tax had passed through Committee. But, after all we have heard, I now ask, does the right hon. Gentleman oppose the proposition of my right hon. Friend? He says he likes discussion and debate; but discussion and debate, however good things they may he, are, I think, not to be preferred where the material interests of the nation are concerned, especially where discussion and debate are not founded on any solid grounds of opposition. As to the mode in which the consumption of tea may be increased or diminished, and the present state of China, whatever is said upon those points must be to a great extent speculative. [The noble Lord then referred to a passage in the Budget-speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the tea duties, and proceeded to say:] Undoubtedly my right hon. Friend might have ventured a little more into detail, had the debate on the income tax been closed at an earlier period of the evening; but, after all, the question for the Committee to decide is, will they incur the proposed loss of revenue? Are you prepared to make those remissions? As to China, anything which may be said about the progress of the civil war in that country, must be still more conjectural than as to the amount or extent of consumption of tea. However, so far as we can learn, the march of those engaged in the insurrection does not seem to be accompanied by plunder and devastation, which often takes place in lines of march; nor does there seem to have been that interference with the pursuits of industry which might have been feared. The apprehended success of the insurrection, so far as I can learn, has not very materially interfered with the industry of the Chinese

831
population. The real question, I repeat, is, whether the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the reduction of the tea duty or not? If he declares he is, I will yield to him at once, and consent to a postponement; hut, if not, I trust we may be allowed to proceed.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, the noble Lord has anticipated the purport and effect of the observations I made, in a very disingenuous spirit, and in a manner which, I must say, is not favourable to the independent Members of this House. I do not think I was bound to say I opposed the reduction of the tea duties. [Ironical cries of "Hear!"] The hon. Gentleman is quite at liberty to indulge in that intelligible sneer, and I advise him to confine himself to that peculiar style of oratory, in which, I think, he is pre-eminent. The noble Lord says he cannot tell us what is taking place in China. Why, I believe the noble Lord finds some difficulty in stating what has taken place in Constantinople. Of course, it would be difficult for him to say what is, or what has, or what may occur in China—a question which he was not asked to answer. The late Government, however, felt it to be its duty to endeavour to obtain the best information they could upon such subjects as this now under discussion, and to state that information to the House. The noble Lord said the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given us all the information that was necessary, and he quoted five lines of his speech, which he seemed amazed at our not remembering, though it was part of a speech of five hours' duration. But still the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not given us any estimate as to the expected increase in the consumption of tea—
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER(pointing to the Resolution): There it is.
MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman has not told us how many millions of pounds will be the probable increase of consumption during the first year.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The common rules of arithmetic will inform the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. DISRAELI: The statement of the right hon. Gentleman upon such a subject ought to be clear, plain, and explicit, and to leave no occasion for the application of the rules of arithmetic. It is a question which affects some millions of the revenue of this country, and the state-
832
ment ought to be put before the Committee in an intelligible and business-like manner. The right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord admit that, but for the lateness of the hour, a more detailed statement would have been made. Sir that is my vindication, and a sufficient vindication for the course I feel bound to take. The manner in which the noble Lord asks me, do I oppose the proposal, or do I approve it, is not an ingenuous manner, for though the late Government proposed a remission of the tea duties as great as that of the present Government, it did not propose to confine its operations within so short a period; and the recent news from China certainly does not seem to justify the limiting of the reduction of the tea duties to half the term proposed by the late Government. I think, Sir, we are entitled to have a full and fair opportunity of expressing our views and opinions upon this important subject;—and I must say I do not think our request has been met in the fair spirit in which it ought to be received. The same feverish haste was evinced with respect to the financial proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. It was said there was a perfect fever in the City. I do not know whether the hon. Colleague of the noble Lord was prepared upon that occasion to vouch for the statements of the Government with the same zeal and promptitude he has done upon this; but the Committee must remember how it was pressed to avoid delay in the adoption of the proposals with respect to the 2½ per cents, and the 3½ per cents, and the Exchequer bonds; because there was such heat and fever in the country, that there could not be any delay. If the right hon. Gentleman had on the first occasion made a business-like statement, and permitted him (Mr. Disraeli) to vindicate the policy he had recommended, he would only have done that which the spirit of justice of the House of Commons would have approved of, and would have taken a course more creditable to his Government than that which he had now pursued.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANEsaid, he should move that the Chairman report progress. He thought that his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) was unfairly treated by this question of the tea duties being brought on at a quarter-past one in the morning.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if the noble Lord persevered in his Motion, the Government were bound by their pledge not to oppose it; but they

833
thought it their duty to avoid procrastination in passing these Resolutions. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had not chosen to demand delay, but he had thrown on the Government the odium of refusing it. He regretted extremely that they could not proceed, but he was bound not to force on the Resolution.
LORD ADOLPHUS VANEbegged to explain that he had no wish to obstruct the Government, nor any intention of taking part in the debate upon this question. He had suggested the delay out of fairness, and would like to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain his proposition.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been somewhat wanting in courtesy to hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House in not bringing forward the proposition in a manner that would afford an opportunity for fairly discussing it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to complain that he (Mr. Disraeli) wished to delay the Resolutions without pledging himself to oppose them. It would, however, have been perfectly open to him to say he would oppose the Resolutions; and of course the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after the general engagement he had made, would not have pressed them to-night; but he (Mr. Disraeli) would not himself oppose the Resolutions, or offer any obstacle to their passing. He hoped, therefore, that his noble Friend (Lord A. Vane) would withdraw his Motion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, if the Committee now agreed to the Resolutions respecting tea, he hoped they might be reported to-morrow. Of course, he had no right to ask hon. Gentleman who had Motions on the paper to postpone them; but at the same time he might say, that it was most desirable to obtain a decision upon these Resolutions at the earliest possible period. He could assure the Committee that there was no wish to prevent the discussion of the Resolutions relating to tea; but communications had been made to various Members of the Government, and especially to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the last week or ten days, representing that it was most important to the interests of trade and commerce that a decision on this subject should not be longer delayed.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he believed that since the Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted his financial propositions to the House, there had been a sensible rise in
834
the price of tea. He wished to know whether this circumstance might not affect the calculations upon which the right hon. Gentleman had founded his measure. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman's calculation as to the revenue to be derived from tea was founded upon an increased consumption consequent upon a falling price. He (Mr. Baring) doubted whether the consumer would derive the benefit that was expected from the proposed change, and whether there would be such an increase of consumption as would realise the expectations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought it would have been better to make at once a greater reduction, and to leave any further reduction for future consideration.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there had been no change in the condition of the tea market since his statement was made, which had materially altered the calculations upon which he based his proposal.
The Motion for reporting progress was then withdrawn, and the Resolutions were agreed to.
House resumed; Committee report progress.

HACKNEY CARRIAGES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, he must object to proceeding with a measure which involved the interests of so many persons at that late hour, and should move that the Bill be read a third time on Thursday.
MR. W. WILLIAMSseconded the Motion for the postponement of the Bill.
Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon Thursday next."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. FITZROYsaid, he should resist the proposition for the adjournment, because hon. Members would be exactly in the same position two days hence, with regard to the Bill, as they were now.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he thought the proposition for postponing the Bill was reasonable.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the result of the proposed delay would be to throw the Bill over to the end of the Session.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he had been more indulgent than usual in allowing the House to sit to so late an hour. He was now under the necessity of moving that it do now adjourn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
LORD ADOLPHUS VANEsaid, he hoped both the hon. Members would consent to withdraw their separate Amendments. The feeling in the House and out of doors was one of gratitude to the hon. Member for Lewes for dealing so ably with a very complicated question.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLtrusted the hon. Member (Mr. Fitzroy) would allow nothing to interfere with the progress of the Bill.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwould not object to the third reading, on the understanding that the Amendments might be considered in the last stage of the Bill.
MR. FITZROYsaid, if the House was in favour of postponing it until this day, he would not object to that course.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°.
Further proceeding on Third Reading adjourned till To-morrow.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES. PUBLIC BILL.—2a Sales of Bullion.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE.
The EARL of HARDWICKE: My Lords, I regret extremely that I do not see my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, as I had taken the liberty of writing to him a private note, stating it was my intention to put a question to Her Majesty's Government, through him, this evening; but seeing my noble Friend the Prime Minister in his place, and knowing well how conversant he must be with everything which relates to the foreign affairs of this country, I do not scruple to put my question now. In consequence of the great importance of the subject to which it refers, and the very pressing and momentous state in which the affairs of the Turkish Empire and Russian diplomacy now stands, I took the liberty the other evening of expressing what I believe to be the anxiety of the public, and what I know to be my own, as to the state and condition of the negotiations as then pending. Upon that occasion I ventured to express my regret that the course which had been usual in cases bearing upon diplomatic questions in reference to the Turkish Empire, had not been followed by the Government of this country—meaning thereby, that I regretted that at the time when this important question was raised, when it really seemed to involve the existence of the Ottoman Empire, and when we were in communication with Russia, we did not give a moral support to the feelings of the Turkish people in the man-

759
ner in which we had then recently and upon other former occasions done. The question which I meant to put to my noble Friend had he been present, and which I now put to my noble Friend the Prime Minister, is simply, whether instructions have been sent to Admiral Dundas, at Malta, to hasten his departure to the Dardanelles or Constantinople? I am induced to follow this course from the circumstance of the public being now informed that, on the evening of the 22nd of this month, Prince Menschikoff took his departure from Constantinople, not having succeeded in the object which he seemed to have had in view. That appears to me to bring the state of things to a very critical juncture. Believing, as I do, that the feelings of all parties in Turkey have been raised to a pitch bordering on that degree of excitement which tends to hostile operations, and that nothing has been done in the way of military preparation of any sort by any nation but France, I am led to think that the question is so critical, and the speed at which operations may now be conducted on the part of the Emperor of Russia as against the Ottoman Porte so great, that I believe it is necessary the public should be informed, not only of the opinions of our Government, but likewise of their acts and intended proceedings. I will now state why I presume to put this question, and upon what grounds; for I believe, as I said before, that it is only necessary to look at and reflect on the manner in which information may now be transmitted from point to point, and movements made, to see in what position precisely the various affairs of the different nations likely to bring about anything approaching to a collision are now placed. If it be true, as reported, that Prince Menschikoff left Constantinople on the 22nd of the present month, it is not at all improbable that on the evening of the same day, seeing his mission was entirely at an end, he would despatch a courier to his Emperor, informing him of what had taken place; and if that was so, it is probable that on this very day the courier would arrive at St. Petersburg. Assuming that everything would be done with great rapidity, and that the Emperor would despatch a courier to Sebastopol with directions for any military movements he might think fit, I think the Imperial messenger should arrive at his destination about the 6th of June. Supposing, then, that military movements are actually intended by the Emperor, and
760
that he has a fleet and an army ready at Sebastopol, which is about three hundred miles from Constantinople, and giving the ordinary time allowed for the passage of ships between those two places, it is probable that his forces could be transported to the capital of the Turkish Empire in three days by steam power and fair winds; but I give them double that time, and assuming the troops would have to be embarked, and various contingencies causing delay, I will say that the Russian vessels could not arrive at the Bosphorus before the 12th of June. Supposing, on the other hand, that Admiral Dundas was still at Malta on Saturday last, and that Her Majesty's Government, seeing the difficulty which was likely to take place, immediately despatched information and orders to the Admiral, it appears to me that he might receive those directions on Wednesday next by telegraph. No doubt the Admiral is perfectly ready to sail, and that not a moment will be lost. He has six sail of the line and seven or eight powerful steamers, and doubtless he would proceed with all haste to Constantinople, a distance from Malta of about 800 nautical miles. I take it that the best steamers run from Constantinople to Malta in four and a half days, and I take it that the Admiral could do the same, if he had the fairest possible winds and the most favourable circumstances, either for towing or sailing; but I will give Admiral Dundas double that time, and reckon that he should be at the mouth of the Dardanelles on the 10th of June, while, as I said, the Russian forces might arrive at Constantinople on the 12th. Now, it is unquestionably true that every one of these suppositions and calculations are based on probabilities, not likely, perhaps, to be realised on either side; but I still think I have shown a case which warrants me in putting the question to Her Majesty's Government, whether they have given any directions to Admiral Dundas to leave Malta, and, if so, at what period we may expect him to take his departure?
The EARL of CLARENDON[who had now entered the House] said, he had to apologise to the noble Earl for not having been present in time to hear his speech, having been unavoidably prevented from attending in his place in Parliament at an earlier moment. His noble Friend, as he was able to gather from what he had heard of the noble Earl's remarks, wished to know whether any orders had been sent to

761
Admiral Dundas to proceed with his fleet from Malta to the Dardanelles. Now, in noticing that question, he (the Earl of Clarendon) had to observe, that on Friday night the House had appeared to concur in the propriety of Her Majesty's Government not giving any explanation upon a matter with respect to which they were but imperfectly informed; and he was sure they would still more readily concur in the propriety of their declining altogether to state what directions they had given to the Admiral in command of the Mediterranean fleet.

CONVERSION OF STOCK—FUNDS IN CHANCERY.
LORD ST. LEONARDSwished to know from the Lord Chancellor what the operation of the recent Act for the Conversion of Stock was likely to be upon the interests of the suitors in Chancery?
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was glad that his noble and learned Friend had given him an opportunity of explaining this matter. By the Act of Parliament the Accountant General might signify his assent to take any one of the three species of stock, or, not signifying any such assent, he would have the money paid on the 5th of January as to some sort of stock, I and on the 5th of April as to the other. The Act received the Royal assent upon the 9th of the present month; and the time for signifying assent was to be the 3rd of June. This might appear to be a short interval, but it became perfectly obvious that the Act would have received the Royal assent some days before it did, and he therefore turned his attention to the consideration of what he had better do with reference to those suitors who had funds in that species of stock in the Court of Chancery. The sum involved was a large one, amounting to between 400,000 l. and 500000 l. His own impression was that it was not the business of the Chancellor to be entering into any speculations on the subject, but rather to be passive, and receive the money when it became payable. He had thought it right, however, to consult with the other Judges of the Court, and several of them were of opinion that he ought to assent at once to take the lowest denomination of stock, because it was the principle of the Court to invest in the lowest description of stock. As, however, their opinions were pretty equally divided, he had thought it best to see what had been done in similar cases of the con-
762
version of higher stock into lower stock; and he had found, that in all those cases, whether the new stock was to be taken by, assenting, or only if no dissent was signified, in every one of such cases his predecessors, from Lord Eldon downwards, had always elected to take the new stock. He had thought it, therefore, best to make an order directing the Accountant General to take the 2½ per cent stock, unless any one came forward to state that it would be more to his interest to take either of the other rates. He had yielded rather to precedent, and the opinions of the other Judges, than to conviction; but he had reserved three days for parties to apply for any alteration in their particular cases, and he had signified that no application should be made later than the 31st of this month, meaning to reserve from that time until the 3rd of June, to alter the course of the Accountant General in cases where it might not be thought beneficial. The Accountant General had his instructions not to signify his assent until he heard further from him. He should see what the state of the market was, and should endeavour to do the best he could in the matter; and if he thought it would be at all imprudent, he should desire the Accountant General not to signify any assent at all.
LORD ST. LEONARDSwas understood to say that he should revert to the subject again on another day.

IMPORTATION OF SLAVES INTO CUBA.
The EARL of CARLISLErose to present a petition from ladies, inhabitants of Kingston and its vicinity, in the island of Jamaica, and to put a question to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs respecting the observance of the treaties relating to the slave trade by the Government of Spain. He said: Your Lordships are aware that it is not much my disposition to obtrude myself unnecessarily upon your Lordships where I feel that I have no especial duty to perform; nevertheless, I felt myself called upon even before the recess to give a formal notice of my intention to present the petition which I now hold in my hand, both because it is upon a subject with reference to which it seems to me that any appearance of indifference would be almost criminal, and also because I should have much liked to know whether my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office of this country, or any Member of

763
Her Majesty's Government, could Lave communicated any fresh information upon the point to which it mainly refers, and which constitutes its prayer. This last object has, indeed, in some degree, been met by the conversation which took place upon the first evening when your Lordships reassembled after the recess, upon the occasion of a petition being presented by my noble and learned Friend now on the woolsack (Lord Brougham), and in whose wake, not for the first time in my life, I shall be proud to follow on the subject of the slave trade. He will not forget that I had the honour of sharing his triumphal return for the county of York—an occurrence which I shall always regard as the turning-point in that great emancipation struggle which has been brought to a victorious issue in this country. Events which have occurred since that conversation give me a fresh inducement to offer a few observations in addition to the statements which were then made. I should first of all state that the petition which I hold in my hand is very numerously signed, and comes from "the undersigned ladies, inhabitants of Kingston and the vicinity, in the island of Jamaica;" and I certainly feel, my Lords, that slavery is a question upon which women have every motive, as they have shown that they have good qualifications, to bear their part. Those ladies state, that it is under a deep conviction of the enormities of slavery and the slave trade, as they exist in various parts of the world, but more especially in the adjacent island of Cuba, that they express their confidence in your Lordships' desire to enforce the fulfilment of those treaties with the Government of Spain, by which it was provided that that inhuman traffic should be finally extinguished. They say that "nothing but a deep sense of the amount of the injury sustained would have induced them to come forth from the privacy of domestic life to endeavour, by every legitimate means, to rescue these unhappy persons from the wretchedness of their condition." They also state that they "deem it their duty to add their testimony to the many representations already made by the clergy, ministers of the Gospel, and other inhabitants of Jamaica, in reference to the present depressed condition of all the interests in the island;" and "while they would not pretend to enter into the various causes to which it may be attributed, they cannot resist the conviction that the evils of which they complain have greatly in-
764
creased since the alteration of the imperial policy respecting the British colonies, and the encouragement it gives to the cultivation of slave-grown productions." I, my Lords, of course, cannot deny my own complicity in the adoption of that policy; and, at this time of day, I still feel great doubt whether, in the course I took in this matter, I was right or wrong. This I know, that in the whole course of my Parliamentary experience I never acquiesced in any measure with so much doubt or hesitation, and there is none with regard to which at this day I should be so glad to be quit of all responsibility. However, my Lords, after several successive Administrations, consisting, like the last, of persons wholly opposed, or, like the present Administration, of many who were also opposed to those original measures—after the results of that policy have been repeatedly under their consideration, and they find themselves unable to move in the matter, I certainly cannot entertain any expectation that there is any probability, or I will say possibility, of such policy being now reversed. The petitioners go on to state that "they therefore implore your Lordships to adopt such measures as in your wisdom may appear effective with the Spanish Government, in order to put an end for ever to the iniquitous operations still going on with the connivance of the Spanish authorities in Cuba, to the detriment of their own Government, and in violation of the solemn convention into which that Government entered with Great Britain for the extinction of the slave trade." My Lords, I think it cannot be said that the ladies of Jamaica, in expressing these complaints, have not great reason for doing so. It would be superfluous in me to remind your Lordships, even apart from the conversation which look place the other night, of the engagements, under which Spain is now bound with this country in reference to the suppression of the slave trade. If your Lordships needed to be reminded of it, I could not refer you to any better quarter than to the despatch of the noble Earl the present Prime Minister, dated the 31st of December, 1843, in which the whole question is most fully, clearly, and forcibly set forth. It appears that by a treaty which dates so far back as 1817, which came into operation in 1820, and which was further confirmed and enlarged by subsequent treaties—in one of which the noble Lord now at the head of the Foreign Office took a dis-

765
tinguislied part—Spain solemnly stipulated to suppress the slave trade upon the part of Spanish subjects; and in consideration of that treaty and that undertaking Spain received from this country the sum of 400,000 l. Now, my Lords, I fear there is no reason to doubt that ever since the passing of that treaty its provisions have been systematically, wilfully, and all but continuously violated. I fear that in the long series of captains general, or governors of Cuba, very few indeed can be named who have not received bribes or hush money, to use the plain terms, for every single slave landed upon the island of Cuba, through their guilty connivance. I believe, indeed, that Generals Valdes, Concha, and Tacon, might be quoted as honourable exceptions to a course so unworthy and so deserving the most serious animadversion; and, considering the universality of the practice which had obtained, and the amount of temptation held out to them, these three officers do deserve to be mentioned with honour; but you can judge how dreadful that state of things must be when honour, in our opinion, does attach to persons merely because they have refused to enter into partnership with those whom I must look upon as the worst "manufacturers" of their species, and because they have not derived unlawful gains from fostering a traffic which, in my conscience, I believe has been the cause of more wrong and suffering than any other curse which ever blighted our globe, and which, in my mind, is sufficient in itself, even if revelation and reason had been altogether silent around us, to prove the necessity of a future state of retribution in which redress may be afforded for wrongs perpetrated with so much impunity in this life. But, my Lords, I am bound to say that when I mention the long series of captains general who have so grossly violated the engagements of their country with ours, it is still more painful to me to state that I fear suspicion does not stop with them, but that it ascends to persons who occupy much higher positions. Of course I do not pretend to address any inquiries to my noble Friend opposite respecting the justice of such suspicions; and I admit that no one ought lightly to infer the "deep damnation" which must be the consequence of their truth. But true is it, my Lords, that no sooner does any Captain General of Cuba show a disposition to respect the faith of treaties, and the laws alike of humanity and honour,
766
than very speedily, for some reason or other, he is sure to be removed in order to give place to some less scrupulous and more accommodating functionary in his stead. True it is, too, my Lords, I hear that under the present Captain General, Don Canedo, the slave trade is being carried on with unexampled vigour and audacity on the coasts of that unhappy island of Cuba, which, I can depose to by my own experience, our God has fitted to be a paradise, but which ever since the white man first set his foot there he has converted, I can use no softer phrase, into a hell. I do not propose to dwell now, except for one moment, upon the case of the Emancipados—a class of men consisting of those who were taken into the island since the treaty, and who were fully entitled to freedom under the stipulations of that treaty in their regard, but who, with a few exceptions, have been retained in slavery from that hour to the present, that slavery being the field labour of Cuba. I am aware that an announcement has lately been made that the Government of Spain would undertake to set immediately at liberty those who were entitled to their freedom in 1828, and, as to those who up to 1835 had been under contracts of service, that they should be sot at liberty at the expiration of their respective periods of service. But, my Lords, I feel that that concession, miserably short as it falls of what we had a right to expect and to exact, must be considered wholly illusory, as your Lordships will, I am sure, admit, when you remember that the calculation is, that the slave population of Cuba employed in field labour dies off in every recurring period of ten years. [A Noble LORD: Seven years.] Seven years! But even if it were ten years, you may judge how few of those who were entitled to their freedom in 1828 and 1835 respectively will now be found able to avail themselves of this "timely" boon. But if we direct our attention to the new and ever recurring importation of fresh negroes, what is the state of the facts of which we hear at present? I am informed that between the months of November and February last 5,000 slaves were landed in Cuba—that is, were known to be landed—and I fear that a great many landings take place in retired parts of the island of which we never hear. Then, since I gave my original notice, there has been a landing of 1,100 negroes, who were kidnapped from a part of the Portuguese dominions in

767
Africa, which has already been the subject of conversation in the House, and to which I need not further allude, except as to one point. I believe upon that occasion my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) stated that, through the exertions of our Consul in Cuba, to whose zeal and activity he paid a very just tribute, 300 of those slaves had been rescued from bondage. Now, I do not pause to inquire how satisfied we ought to feel at 300 being rescued, and 800 being left in hopeless servitude, because our experience of the proceedings of the Spanish Government has taught us to be thankful for small mercies. But, my Lords, can we be sure even that those 300 are effectually rescued—that they have been effectually restored to that liberty to which they are entitled? I should be glad to learn from my noble Friend that they are. I see, however, that such is not the opinion entertained by the persons who wrote the account of the transaction which appeared in the American journals. After giving an account of the landing of the slaves, of the exertions of our Consul, and of the inquiry consequently instituted, the account goes on to say:—
"The Government inquiry, as was to be anticipated, ended in additional fraud and corruption. Neither the captain nor any of the crew have been arrested. The investigation was confined to the partners, and the defendants agreed to compromise their crime by delivering 300 of the negroes to the Government. The result has only made the insular Government a larger participator in the profits of the iniquity. Some few of the negroes were released, and the rest allowed to pass into the mass of hopeless negro servitude."
I understand, from the account which I perused of what transpired the other evening, that my noble Friend himself stated that by the laws of Cuba—such laws as are observed there—it is impossible to follow the slaves into the interior when they have once passed into the possession of any proprietor, and are there enrolled among the rest of the gangs. I find it is part of the law of 1845, passed in Spain professedly with the view of putting down the slave trade, that it is in fact an express stipulation that in no case, and at no time, shall it be permitted to institute any proceedings against, nor molest in their possession, the proprietors of slaves, under pretext of their origin or precedency. A precious stipulation for relief that is, which effectually shuts the door to all inquiry after those poor wretches are consigned to the miseries of a tropical servitude! Then
768
it is suspected that in the island of Cuba this system—I was inclined to call it a "dodge," were it a proper word to apply where so much suffering forms the topic—is frequently resorted to. On those plantations on which Emancipados are employed upon contracts of servitude, when one of the original slaves whom it would be lawful to keep in servitude dies, the name of an Emancipado is returned to the Government in his stead, and the Emancipado is transferred into the name and place of the slave who died, so as effectually to put a stop to all further inquiry. Now, when we are told that these things take place—and I fear where there are slavetraders and slaveowners, and, I must add, where the Spanish Government are concerned—you must take for granted that all that may be done or can be done, will be done. I would very earnestly recommend it to the attention of Her Majesty's Government whether they could not give directions—I cannot take upon myself to say whether, under the existing law, they have not the power; but if they have not the power, whether they could not, by negotiations with Spain, acquire the power—to send the captured slavers, not into the slave courts, or before the mixed commission of the Havanah, where, even if a condemnation takes place—and I do not believe that so much complaint exists upon that ground, or that the mixed commission court, on the whole, does not perform its duty—but even if it does do its duty, it turns out out to be much the same thing for the slave as if no capture or condemnation had taken place at all—but into some free court for adjudication. I wish to know whether, instead of sending the captured slavers into a slave port for adjudication, they cannot be sent to some free port, before some untrammelled mixed commission, where justice is sure to be done? I have mentioned the 5,000 slaves who were imported into Cuba between November and February, and the 1,100 who were the subject of conversation here the other evening. Since then I have read in an American paper that 600 more slaves have been landed in Cuba in the open day, near Matanzas—the same slaves, I imagine, whom my noble Friend incidentally mentioned the other night. Amid all these disgraceful and revolting proceedings it is most satisfactory and refreshing to find how efficiently our gallant naval service is discharging its duty in these seas. The noble Lord mentioned the other even-

769
ing that in the course of this year six slavers have been taken on the coast of Cuba. Three of these slavers were taken in one day by Captain Hamilton, of Her Majesty's war steamer Vestal; and I have had the good fortune to read an account of the transaction, written by an eye-witness, which presents some of the most striking illustrations I have ever perused of British heroism on its most congenial element, and which I cannot refrain from describing to your Lordships. There was in port with the Vestal a steam-schooner, the Venus—so named, I suppose, from its being the model of piratical beauty in naval architecture—a schooner noted as the fastest vessel in those seas. It was reported to Captain Hamilton that the Venus, taking advantage of the Vestal's undergoing painting and repairing, intended to slip out of harbour, and be off on a slaving expedition. Captain Hamilton did not mention the information thus received to any one, but kept himself prepared for the contingency. That same night a tornado, accompanied with heavy thunder, springing up, the Venus seized the opportunity, and at daybreak it was reported to Captain Hamilton that she was off. The captain immediately sprang out of bed, and in less than three minutes the Vestal was under press of canvas, on her way out of the harbour in pursuit. There were 11 ships of war in the harbour at the time, and among them were some vessels belonging to the American navy; and the American crews, like good brethren, saluted the Vestal on her way with three cheers. As soon as the Vestal got outside the harbour, several vessels were discerned in the distance, mere white specks on the horizon, and at first it was not known which of these was the chase; but the Venus was presently identified by the peculiar whiteness of her sails, and pursuit was eagerly directed after her. The Vestal gained upon her; but in the course of the night another tornado came on, and the Venus was once more lost sight of. Thereupon came the question, which way should the Vestal direct her course? After some consultation it was conjectured that the Venus would steer for the Bahama Shoals—a locality of dangerous navigation for vessels of a larger description than herself. At sunrise it was found that this conjecture was accurate, for the Venus was seen in the shoals. The Vestal proceeded after her until, the lead giving as the soundings only a quarter less four, it was impractica-
770
ble for the Vestal to get nearer to the chase, and the sea was roaring with breakers. Under these circumstances Captain Hamilton thought he would try the effect of a long gun enormously charged. The shot told upon the slaveship, and she came to. Captain Hamilton at this moment discovered two slave schooners further on among the shoals. He could not follow them in the Vestal, hut, proceeding without hesitation on board the Venus, he put his revolver to the captain's head, and compelled him to steer after the two schooners, which were speedily captured. They were found laden with arms, slaving implements, &c., and there were on board one of them documents which implicated a number of persons besides those taken upon the occasion, and which authorised Captain Hamilton, on his return to the harbour, in taking possession of a large brig there, La Arragonese. As the Vestal came into harbour, towing her three prizes, she was received with loud cheers by the shipping in port, and one of the American captains made this speech in honour of her exploit:—"Well, it made my heart run over to see the old country come out so proud, and the ship pass through the Spanish fleet so silent and calm with her prizes." But, what I want your Lordships to consider is this: If these things are done in the harbour of Havannah, in the capital of the island, under the guns of the Mole, and before the very windows of the Captain General, what may not be going on along the wild and unfrequented coast of the island—an island as large as England? In bringing these statements under the consideration of your Lordships, I have no inteution of casting the slightest reproach on Her Majesty's Government for the course they have pursued in reference to this question. I know the arduous and indefatigable exertions that were made by Lord Palmerston, when he was at the head of the Foreign Department, on every subject connected with the suppression of the slave trade; I have no reason to believe those efforts were slackened under the late Administration, and I am sure I have no suspicion to express that there will be any slackening on the part of my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon). Indeed, I am not without hope that his intimate acquaintance with, his profound knowledge of, the Spanish people, their habits and character, may give him some facilities and advantages in the matter, which were not enjoyed by any of his predecessors. My noble Friend will, I

771
am sure, not deny that gross derelictions of their duty have been frequently manifested on the part of the Spanish Government. Why, talk of causes of war with Spain, sure I am that this country has been over and over again embroiled in long and ruinous war on grounds which, in my judgment, were absolutely paltry in comparison with this. Let me not be understood as expressing an opinion that this country is called upon to go to war with Spain, even for the suppression of the slave trade. I know the apathy and indifference which prevail among a large proportion of the inhabitants of this country on all such external topics, and that many of those who feel most zealously and ardently on the subject would be the foremost to discourage our having recourse to a violent physical mode of interference. But Spain ought to be told that if she does not observe her treaties—if she, almost alone of all the nations of the earth, persists in this infernal traffic—she must, if her possession of Cuba is ever endangered, be at least prepared to find this country neutral in the conflict. I do not either desire to throw the sole blame upon the Spaniards, for I am not sure that the United States, considering the liberties they possess, considering their freedom of origin, have not, by their abominable Fugitive Slave Law, committed an even greater outrage upon liberty. I will not, however, detain your Lordships by dwelling upon that point. I wish to ask my noble Friend if he has any additional facts or information to give us relative to the question of the slave trade in Cuba? I wish further to say, that I should be very glad if the Government would take into their consideration the practicability of carrying captured slavers into some free port for adjudication. Above all, this they can do, and I hope they will be disposed to do it—I trust they will maintain, nay, more, increase the efficiency of that naval force, which has done, and is doing, such admirable service on the coast of Cuba. I have now only to present the petition I hold in my hand, and to apologise for having trespassed upon your Lordships at such length.
The EARL of CLARENDON: My Lords, I should be wanting both to my noble Friend and to my own opinion, did I not, in the first place, express my admiration of the eloquent speech which he has just delivered, and bear my testimony to the perfect correctness of all the melancholy and appalling facts which he has brought
772
under the consideration of the House. I only wish it were in my power to give my noble Friend a much fuller answer than I was able to give the other night to my noble and learned Friend now sitting on the woolsack (Lord Brougham). I have nothing further to communicate; but I must repeat the same regret I then expressed, that the treaties to which my noble Friends alluded have been constantly, scandalously violated. What has been said with regard to the past Captains General of Cuba, I cannot deny to be the melancholy fact. I was glad to hear my noble Friend mention with honour the honourable exceptions to that conduct in the instances of Generals Valdez and Concha. I have not much additional information to give to your Lordships beyond that which I gave you the other night, but that little is not altogether of an unsatisfactory character. I will first refer to the suggestion of taking captured slavers into free ports for adjudication. The fact is, that Her Majesty's cruisers have no option in the matter. By the treaty it is provided that there shall be two mixed courts of commission, one in the colonial possessions of Spain, the other on the coast of Africa; and the naval officers who capture Spanish slavers, are therefore bound by their instructions to take their captures either into the port of Havannah or into Sierra Leone, whichever is the nearest to the locality of the capture. Of the vessels which my noble Friend has described as having been taken by Captain Hamilton, two out of the three were condemned in the Court at Havannah. With reference to the present Captain General, Canedo, it cannot, I am sure, be expected that I should pass any very warm eulogium upon that functionary. It is right, however, that your Lordships should have placed before you everything that officer may have to urge in justification of the course he has taken. Anticipating that allusion might be made to this functionary, I have brought down with me two despatches, which I may be permitted to quote, considering the great importance of the subject, and the desire of the country to have all possible information on it. The first document I will cite, is an extract from a letter which the late Foreign Minister of Spain addressed to Lord Howden, in which that Minister says—
"I think it expedient to state that the Captain General tells me he is making every possible effort to cheek the slave trade, and that in consequence of those efforts the slave traders are becoming very disheartened."

773
Had these words not been followed by action in corroboration of them, I should not have thought it worth while to occupy your Lordships' time with repeating them; but I have just received another despatch from Lord Howden, containing a letter from the new Foreign Minister of Spain, which conveys the actual intentions, as announced by the Government of that country, on this subject, and I am inclined to think it deserving of your Lordships' attention. It is dated the 7th of May, and the Minister says—
"In consequence of the peremptory instructions lately transmitted to the Captain General of Cuba to spare no exertions in putting down the slave trade, we have received a communication from that functionary assuring us that he was putting into execution the most energetic means for the purpose of fulfilling his instructions; and he added, that, finding the observance of the strict letter of the law impede this object, he had not hesitated to adopt extreme measures, and that, suspending the penal law of 1805, which forbids the pursuit of newly-imported slaves after they have once passed on to their purchaser's estate, he has resolved to pursue such slaves wherever he can find them, and to release them from their holders."
The Minister added, that he trusted this course of proceeding would be taken as a proof of the desire of Spain to fulfil the engagements she had made. My noble Friend may, perhaps, consider this communication as merely a promise of something that may or may not be done. I have, however, this afternoon received a further letter from Lord Howden—whose zeal in this matter has never been surpassed by any Minister of this Urown in Spain—in which he states that a communication had been received from the Captain General of Cuba, in which he informs his Government, acting upon the announcement he had made, having received information that some negroes having been landed on the island from some slave ships that had escaped the vigilance of our cruisers, and been conveyed to the estate of their purchaser, he had followed them thither, and released them, to the number of 100. I, therefore, think—however we may be disposed to withhold for the present an implicit confidence in this reformation—we may, at all events, concede that the Captain General appears disposed to act more honestly towards this country—more consistently with the honour of his own. I have only further to advert to that portion of my noble Friend's speech which had relation to the emancipados. On this subject I have the satisfaction to state, that I have received a
774
despatch from Lord Howden, in which he informs me that the Spanish Government has agreed to settle the question which has been so long matter of discussion, and that the emancipados will be placed at liberty before the expiration of the present year, on the terms which have been severally agreed upon with regard to them—the Government even, in some respects, conceding something beyond that point. The emancipados who were entitled to their liberty under the treaty of 1835, will be set at liberty at that time; and with respect to those who do not come under that class, they will obtain their liberty at the expiration of their term of servitude, or before that time, if possible. My noble Friend has expressed the wish that the Government of Spain may become more alive to the honour of their country and its true interests in this matter, than they have hitherto, in his opinion, shown themselves. I have the satisfaction to inform my noble Friend that I have received a despatch from Lord Howden that bears upon that point, and is of considerable importance; it tells me that there is a growing desire on the part of Spain to listen to the just expostulations of England, or, I may express it, to consult more its own honour; and that as a proof of this, the Foreign Office has received from the Royal Council a recommendation to furnish the Captain General of Cuba with the larger powers requisite to enable him effectually to deal with the evil—the first time, I believe, that any such recommendation has issued from that Council. I trust that the information I have now given, small as it is in amount, will not be considered altogether of so unsatisfactory or hopeless a character as that which I supplied to your Lordships the other night. I will only repeat, in conclusion, what I said on the former occasion, that it is mainly to our own exertions we must look for the effectual suppression of this abominable traffic. I have lately been in communication on the subject with my right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty, and instructions have been, and will continue to be, given by him to the officers on the station to insure that nothing which can aid this great object shall be omitted.
The BISHOP of OXFORDsaid, he rose to return his thanks to his noble Friend on the cross benches (the Earl of Carlisle) for calling the attention of their Lordships and the country to this subject. Nothing struck him more in his noble Friend's

775
eloquent speech than the graceful way in which he expressed his regret for his complicity in a political movement which must be regarded as a fatal step in this country in respect to these unfortunate slaves. He could acquit himself of any share in that Bill. He felt then that the question of free trade ought no more to have been permitted to enter into the question of the admission of slave-produced sugar, than it should have in a question of the purchase of the property of pirates, or of sharing the produce of robberies; and the more he considered the question the more did it appear to him that we were bound, as a nation, to use all lawful means in our power to undo the evil which had been incidentally done. He rejoiced, therefore, to hear that the Government were prepared to adopt a more manly tone towards the Government of Spain on this question. He could not agree with the noble Earl who had introduced this subject, that the people of this country were so apathetic upon foreign subjects, that they would not hold a Government justifiable in taking any very strong measure upon this subject. For his part, he believed that, great as might be the general apathy of the people upon all foreign and distant matters, this had always been a subject excepted from that apathy, and always would continue to be so. He believed that if the people of this country knew how they had been mocked as a nation on this subject—how treaties solemnly made had been feloniously evaded, they would, as one man, maintain any Government in any reasonable, right, and justifiable measures which they might propose for the enforcement of those treaties. He believed it was our duty to take every possible means to deliver ourselves from any complicity in this greatest of all national sins. So intermingled now-a-days were commercial and financial matters throughout the whole world, that he believed it would be capable of demonstration that that slave trade which our cruisers were endeavouring to put down upon the coast of Cuba, was, at least indirectly, if not directly, maintained by British capital; and, therefore, bethought that it became the duty of a nation which supplied capital for eyery lucrative speculation to take all possible means for compelling the enforcement of treaties so religiously and solemnly entered into.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that having on a recent occasion brought charges against the Government of Cuba, he
776
thought it right to express his gratification at hearing from his noble Friend (the Karl of Clarendon) the account he had just received of the good intentions of the Captain General of Cuba. He must, however, be permitted to wait some little time before he could be at all disposed to withdraw his charge against his Cuban Excellency; for, as they all knew, there was a place which was proverbially paved, not more with good intentions than with broken promises. However, he would wait to see whether these good intentions were followed up by performance. As to the charges against the other Captain General, two exceptions had been made; but he was still disposed to limit the exceptions to one of those generals, and that one, General Valdes. With respect to Concha, that he differed from O'Donnell and the others in one material particular, might be admitted—Concha was free from the foul stain of having profited by receiving any share whatever in that detestable traffic. It was notorious that the slave trade was carried on in Cuba—so much so, that a case mentioned that evening had occurred in open day. His noble Friend had mentioned the Americans with just praise, as having shown a proper feeling not only towards this country, but also on the subject of the slave trade, on witnessing the slaves brought into the Havannah as prizes by a British ship of war. He trusted that feeling was not confined to these individuals; he hoped that it was prevalent in the United States. But if it was so, then must be wholly groundless those accounts which we had heard of the bulk of the slave traders employed by other nations having been fitted out in the ports of the United States with American capital, manned by American seamen, and commanded by American captains. He hoped that there was no foundation for those statements; but he knew that they were rife and general throughout the country at large.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEthought both their Lordships and the country were indebted to his noble Friend for having brought forward this subject, and thus elicited the information which had been communicated. It was no small step to have obtained a promise that the liberated slaves should be followed to the estates on which they were settled; but he thought the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs underrated the importance of the information he had received; for no small

777
step had been gained by the promises obtained from Spain by this Government, to which the noble Earl had referred. The existence of the slave trade at Cuba depended entirely on the conduct of the authorities, as was evident from the fact, when slaves could no longer be landed at Porto Rico, they were taken to Cuba under false papers. After hearing such information as he had done that evening, he thought there was a chance of improvement even in Cuba. Of all the infamies practised in Cuba, none exceeded the treatment to which the Emancipados were subjected; and he feard that if the island fell into the hands of the United States, neither their position nor that of the actual slaves would be at all ameliorated.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

MALDON ELECTION.
The EARL of ABERDEEN The EARL of ABERDEEN moved that the House should agree to the Address to the Crown sent up from the House of Commons, for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into alleged corrupt practices at the borough of Maldon during the last and previous elections. He understood that a noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord St. Leonards) intended to oppose this proposition, but he was unable to conjecture on what ground. These, however, would shortly be explained. In the meantime he could only say, it appeared to him a case in which there could be no difficulty whatever in their Lordships giving their concurrence in the Address. In the Clitheroe case the House had declined to agree to an Address, but that was because the Act of Parliament had not been complied with—an objection which did not hold as regarded Maldon. In the present instance they had the report of the Committee, which stated that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the election of Members to serve for this borough, and they had embodied in that report all the proofs which that Committee obtained, and sufficient to support the description given of the practice prevalent in this borough. He believed that the general character of the evidence, and the fact that the reputation of Maldon was one of the worst in England for corruption on former occasions, fully justified his proposition.
Moved—To fill up the blank in the Address of the Commons to Her Majesty with ("Lords Spiritual and Temporal.")
LORD ST. LEONARDSthought the mode in which the noble Earl had dealt
778
with this question very unsatisfactory, the ground of objection to his Motion being the insufficiency of the evidence to support; the finding of the Committee of the House of Commons. It was upon that evidence that they should go, not upon mere general charges, or even a decision by the; Committee of the House of Commons.
LORD BROUGHAMhad read a part of the evidence, but did not feel himself bound to answer the questions, yea or nay, which the House of Commons Committee had dealt with in their Resolutions. His ground for voting for the Motion was, that he found that the Committee of the House of Commons had inquired, and had come to a unanimous decision. ["No, no!"] He said, "Ay, ay!" for though upon particular cases of bribery the Committee were not unanimous, yet they resolved unanimously that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at elections for Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Maldon. Their Lordships, on reading the evidence, would sec that there had been a good deal of bribery; and though he was not going to say that, had any of them been on the Committee, they would have been sure to find that corruption extensively prevailed, he must, on the other hand, remind them that, as it was, they saw only the minutes of the evidence, and had not the inestimable benefit of assisting at the actual examination. They had not seen the questions put, nor observed the demeanour of the witnesses; they had not had before them that vast variety of circumstances which, as his noble and learned Friends could testify, made the difference between evidence reported and evidence heard. It was just these things—the tones of the voice, the appearance of the witnesses, and their demeanour under examination—that gave rise in numbers of cases to the final impression on the mind of the Judge, an impression wholly different from what it would have been if he had only seen the questions put down, with the answers returned to them. He therefore felt himself, not merely entitled, but bound to assume, that the opinion which the Committee had come to they had come to on sufficient grounds. And whilst on this subject he would fain have made a remark or two on the conduct of the Committees with a view to preventing bribery and corruption; but for the present he purposely abstained from going into that. He might say at once though, that it was impossible that a

779
long time could elapse before their attention was called to this most important question, and then he should have the opportunity of asking whether they thought that the best mode of preventing bribery, corruption, or other abuses at elections was by punishing certain individuals (the Members returned) for that which had been clone, without their knowledge, by other individuals (the agents). He wished to get at those "other individuals;" and he hoped the Session would not pass over without such an amendment of the criminal law as would make it dangerous for those "other individuals" to repeat the practices they had hitherto been engaged in.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, that though his noble and learned Friend had determined, in consequence of the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, to vote in favour of the present Motion, yet he (Lord St. Leonards), acting judicially in the matter, had felt himself bound to consider the evidence; and he had carefully studied it, both before and since the noble Earl's statement that he intended to bring this Motion on, and both times had arrived at the conclusion that there was nothing on the face of that evidence to support the conclusions at which the Committee had arrived. His noble Friend had said he was satisfied with the finding of the Committee; but it certainly was not the intention of the Act that their Lordships should form their opinion on that ground. The Act of Parliament was framed for the express purpose of calling on their Lordships to form their own opinion on the matter according to the weight of evidence. This was, in effect, a judicial inquiry, and their Lordships were not at liberty to agree to the Motion, unless they were of opinion that the evidence produced showed that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed, and at the particular election, as he believed, which had led to the inquiry. The noble Earl at the head of the Government said that this borough had an evil name, and that its corrupt practices were perfectly well known; but he (Lord St. Leonards) was of opinion that they were not at liberty to act on such a statement, which ought not indeed to be made, for they were bound to act only upon evidence given on oath. Their Lordships, therefore, instead of taking for granted statements that Maldon was a corrupt borough, should make themselves masters of the evidence, and decide from it whether they were justified in
780
agreeing to this address. With respect to the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, he did not conceive that it was worded according to the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The Committee divided upon two questions: first, whether there was bribery by agents; and, secondly, whether particular persons were bribed; and on both points the Report was carried by three to two. Then came the general Resolution, which in his opinion was not worded according to the provisions of the Act. The Resolution was—"That the Committee had reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at elections of Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Maldon"—not that at the last and other elections, but at elections corrupt practices prevailed. He apprehended that, according to the right construction of the Act of Parliament, the Committee must find that corrupt practices prevailed at that particular election into which they had been appointed to inquire. This Committee did no such thing. Their report read "at elections," and that might mean two, three, or four elections before the one which was referred to their consideration. [Lord CAMPBELL: Read the words of the Act of Parliament.] Did the noble and learned Lord mean to say he could not state the effect of an Act of Parliament without reading it? [Laughter. The noble and learned Lord then left the Souse apparently in anger at the interruption.]
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought it extremely important that their Lordships should distinctly understand what was the principle which ought to regulate them in concurring or not concurring in addresses to the Crown for commissions of inquiry. He entirely differed from his noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), if he meant to say that they ought not to concur unless they saw, in reading the evidence, that the Committee must have inevitably arrived at the conclusion which they had reported to the House of Commons. On the contrary, he thought they ought to concur, unless they saw the evidence was directly contrary to the conclusion at which the Committee had arrived. In this instance no one could read the evidence without being perfectly convinced that it had been the practice at Maldon, at each succeeding election, to pay the expenses incurred at the preceding one. That might not have appeared by distinct evidence on the printed minutes; but, nevertheless, the

781
whole evidence, coupled with the demeanour of the witnesses, might reasonably have satisfied the Committee that such was the fact. In this instance, however, three or four different persons had sworn that they had so received payments of their bills; and without knowing the names of the witnesses, to which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had alluded, there was sufficient to satisfy the Committee that such was the universal practice in the borough. Under these circumstances, he thought their Lordships would not hesitate to concur in the Address.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, with great deference to his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) he must differ from him as to the duty which devolved on the House, when considering whether they would or would not concur in these addresses. Before the Act of last Session authorising the issue of these commissions passed, it was necessary that in each particular case, where it was intended to apply for the issue of a commission, with a view to ulterior proceedings affecting a borough, and not to individual Members between whom the contest for the seat might have been carried on, that an Act should formally pass through Parliament. That Act constituted an extraordinary judicial tribunal, and vested it with extraordinary powers—powers of investigation beyond the ordinary judicial proceedings of the law, and possessing in every respect exceptional jurisdiction. Such was the state of the law previous to the Act of last Session, and their Lordships would recollect the precision and accuracy with which they examined each case, to ascertain whether there were sufficient grounds for passing the Act with regard to that particular borough. Their Lordships must recollect also that on several occasions when the House of Commons, having heard evidence before a Committee, sent up a Bill for the disfranchisement of a borough, their Lordships not only examined the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, but admitted the parties to appear themselves and plead at the bar the reasons why the Act should not be carried into effect. In the notorious case of St. Albans—the first in which there was the new proceeding of a commission of inquiry—before their Lordships would consent to the Act to issue that commission of inquiry, and according to ordinary practice, they requested to have laid before them the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons.
782
Considerable time was then given for the consideration of that evidence, and upon the consideration of the evidence it was his duty, in the position he then held, to state the case and the evidence, and to ask their Lordships' assent to the passing the Bill constituting the commission of inquiry. In that case, on a subsequent occasion, application was made by the parties themselves to be heard against the Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough. In order to issue a commission to inquire, it was necessary to have a previous Act of Parliament, and before passing that Act their Lordships required to be satisfied that there were sufficient grounds to authorise the passing of the Act. To simplify the proceedings, a general Act was passed in the course of last Session, on the principle of the General Enclosure Act, to prevent the necessity of a separate Act for each inclosure. The Act ordered that the commission should be issued in the event of both Houses concurring in a joint address; and consequently their Lordships were placed with regard to the address to the Crown precisely on the same footing as previously, in giving their assent to the adoption of each Act. If, therefore, previous to assenting to the adoption of an Act for the issuse of a commission with extraordinary extra-judicial powers, they felt bound to examine and sift the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, he submitted, with great respect, that the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack was mistaken in his doctrine, when he contended it was not necessary to surround the parties with the same protection in the issue of a commission upon an address as they before thought necessary when a special Act was required. He thought, too, the noble and learned Lord could not sustain his argument—that the onus fell upon this House of proving that the House of Commons had come to a wrong conclusion, and that without such proof the address ought to issue. He considered their Lordships were no more competent or justified in issuing an address, than they were of passing an Act, unless they were satisfied the House of Commons had come to a reasonable and fair conclusion, and that the evidence gave sufficient grounds for the adoption of ulterior proceedings. And now (continued the noble Earl), having stated generally the argument as it occurs to me on this subject, I must deprecate the manner in which it has been brought to an untimely close, and

783
caused my noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) to abandon the case, and leave the House; for, my Lords, I do think that, whether you look to my noble and learned Friend's great judicial abilities, his great skill, and the deference which ought to be paid to his high position and his age, or whether you look to the circumstances of the case, and the interests involved, this is not an occasion for that levity and offensive and sneering laughter which I regretted to see the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) permitted on the part of some of his subordinates. I think my noble and learned Friend has acted in the manner due to his own character and position, in refusing to continue to discuss the question under circumstances such as those to which, for the first and I hope for the last time, he has found himself exposed; and I am sure your Lordships cannot blame him for the course which he has chosen in declining to remain where he meets with so much disrespect.
The EARL of ABERDEEN, with considerable warmth: What does the noble Earl mean? Does the noble Earl say that I permitted "my subordinates" to sneer or laugh? Who does he mean by "my subordinates?" And what does he mean by saying that I gave them permission to laugh or sneer? I can only say for myself, that I have the most unfeigned respect for the noble and learned Lord, and that I neither sneered nor entertained the slightest feeling or anything but the greatest respect towards him, and that I listened attentively to his observations. The noble Earl charges me with "permitting" my "subordinates" to do so and so; but I know none in this House who are not perfectly free either to laugh or cry, as they please.
LORD CAMPBELLregretted the course which the debate had taken. If there was blame anywhere, he took the blame to himself, for having originated what had ended in a manner that was much to be deplored. His noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards), for whose learning and character he had the most sincere respect, in reasoning upon the question before them, said that the Report did not comply with the terms of the Act of Parliament, because it did not say that those practices had prevailed at the last election. He (Lord Campbell) asked him to refer to the words of the Act of Parliament, that it might be seen that it did not require reference to the last election; for the Act only said, that if there was reason to believe that corrupt practices
784
were extensively carried on in any county or borough, or division of a county or borough "at any election or elections of such Member or Members," &c. He therefore, without meaning the least disrespect, asked him, as was done day by day in courts of justice, to read the Act of Parliament. Something subsequently happened behind which he certainly regretted, but for which he did not take blame to himself, or to any of his noble Friends, and he fully believed that his noble Friends who sat near him, did not mean the slightest disrespect to the noble and learned Lord who had just left the House. With reference to the question before the House, it was, no doubt, their Lordships' duty to see that there was evidence to justify the Committee in the conclusion at which they had arrived. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had confounded the disfranchisement of a borough with proceedings that were merely intended to institute inquiry. This was a proposal, not to disfranchise the borough of Maldon, but to make inquiry—to put the prisoners upon their trial—and to that proposal he was prepared to give his support.
On Question, agreed to.
Then the said Address was agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to acquaint them that the Lords had agreed to the Address and had filled up the blank.

PROTEST.
The following is the Protest of Lord St. Leonards against the Resolution of the House of Lords upon the Maldon Election.
"DISSENTIENT,—
1. Because this House ought, before it agrees to join with the other House of Parliament in an Address to Her Majesty praying an inquiry to be made under the Act 15 & 16 of the Queen, to be satisfied that a primâ facie case is made out by evidence to authorise the Crown to appoint a Commission to try the allegations, against the borough or place complained of. The two Houses have to inquire whether corrupt practices have, or there is reason to believe they have, extensively prevailed; and in this House no attempt was made to show from the evidence that such practices had, or that there was reason to believe that they had, extensively prevailed; and the Resolutions as to bribery were carried in the Committee of the House of Commons by divisions of only three to two.
"2. Because the Resolution upon which the Address is founded, and upon which there was no division in the Committee, manifestly because of the majority on each of the previous divisions, is not such as to authorise an Address by the two Houses under the Act of Parliament. The Resolution is, 'that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at elections of Members to serve in Parliament for the

785
borough of Maldon.' But the Act of Parliament does not seem to warrant any such Resolution as a foundation for an Address. The enactment is, no doubt, general that a Commission may issue upon a joint Address representing to Her Majesty that a Committee appointed to try an Election Petition, or a Committee appointed to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in any election or elections, have reported that corrupt practices have, or that there is reason to believe that corrupt practices have, extensively prevailed in any county, &c., at any election or elections of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament; and these words seem to point at any election or elections, but they were rendered necessary in consequence of the power to address the Crown upon the Report of a Committee to try an Election Petition, or of a Committee to inquire into the existence of corrupt practices in any election or elections. The Act did not intend that a Committee to try an Election Petition should, although they could not report that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the election referred to them, have liberty to make a Report as a foundation for an Address, under the Act, that corrupt practices had prevailed at some given former elections, much less that they should report that there was reason to believe that such practices had extensively prevailed at elections of Members for the place in question. Such a Report would be satisfied if such practices had prevailed at elections twenty years ago, although they had not prevailed at the last, or at several immediately previous elections. The intention of the Act is shown by the sixth Section, which authorises the Commissioners to inquire into the manner in which the election in relation to which such Committee may have reported to the House, or, where the Report of the Committee has referred to two or more elections, the latest of such elections, has been conducted, and whether any corrupt practices have been committed at such election. If the Commissioners find corrupt practices at the election into which they are authorised to inquire, then they may carry hack their inquiry, step by step, until they come to a pure election, when they are to stop, and not to carry further back their inquiries. Taking all the clauses of the Act together, they admit of a rational construction, but that construction renders the Resolution of the Committee in this case an insufficient foundation for an Address.
"3. Because the Address should be founded upon the Report of the Committee, supported by the evidence, and not upon any rumours or extrinsic facts, and in this case the mover of the Address in this House relied upon the fact that the borough of Maldon was notoriously corrupt, but of which notoriety there was no evidence.
"4. Because the Resolution of the Committee of the House of Commons was wholly unsupported by evidence of corrupt practices at previous elections. It appeared that large bills were left unpaid at the previous elections in 1847, but they were publicans' bills for refreshments; and, therefore, they fell under the head of treating, and, moreover, the Members had refused to pay them. The Act of 15 & 16 Vict., as it came up to this House from the House of Commons, included treating in the sixth Section; but, as treating stood on a different ground from bribery, that part was struck out in this House, and the other House acquiesced in the Amendment. The Committee
786
failed in their attempt to obtain evidence of previous corrupt practices. They asked William Lord, a bricklayer's labourer, 'They generally are pretty well paid at Maldon, are they not?'—Answer: 'I never got nothing.' 'Had you ever a vote before this time?'—Answer: 'Yes.' 'You had never got anything before?—Answer; 'No.' Mr. Oxley Parker, a warm partisan at elections for Maldon, upon being asked why he would not have acted in a particular manner, answered, 'Because I should have considered that I should be implicated in an act of bribery, and in all my transactions at Maldon I have never been asked for money for a vote, and I have never given it.' 'Do you apply that answer to this election?'—'To all elections'. 'That you say upon your oath?'—'On my oath I do, most distinctly.'
"5. Because the only bribes proved were the four mentioned in the Report; and even as to the proof of them the Committee were divided in opinion. But beyond these trifling cases there was no evidence of bribery—no fund provided, no voter applying for money, no person appointed to bribe, no general payment of expenses, and the two Members, in the plainest terms, swore that no bribery existed to their knowledge, and they had furnished no funds for the purpose; in short, from the outset, that they had determined to conduct the election upon the purest principles. The Committee resolved unanimously that it was proved to the satisfaction of the Committee that the acts of bribery were committed without the cognisance or privity of the sitting Members.
"6. The four acts of bribery relied upon were payments under the colour of payment of expenses—one of 5l. to W. Hearn, one of 2l. to W. Forster, and two of 1l. each to W. Lord and John Hills. W. Hearn, who gave his evidence in a way which drew down upon him the severe animadversions of the Committee, went from London to Maldon to vote. He claimed 5l. 11s. 7d. for banners and painting at the election of 1847, and, because Mr. Dick's people would not pay him that demand, he voted for the sitting Members. He alleged that he had been put to much expense in having another to perform his work in town; and after the election he asked 2l. 10 s. for his expenses, and he was paid 2l. The evidence clearly proves that this was all that was paid to him, and that it was paid for his expenses. Three weeks afterwards he wrote a begging letter to Mr. Oxley Parker, but not naming any sum. That gentleman sent him 3l., which he swore was a donation from himself, and that he never intended it to be repaid to him; and this is proved by an account of a few pounds which he subsequently made out and received, and which included the 2l. paid to Hearn for his expenses, but in which no mention is made of the 3l. It is perfectly clear from the evidence that this is the true view of the case; and, therefore, the Report was not warranted, as far as it stated that Hearn was bribed with 5l. Forster also went from London to Maldon to vote, and required his expenses to be paid before he voted; he demanded 2l. 5s., and obtained 2l. He attempted to make out a promise by Mr. Miller to provide him with a situation, in which he was contradicted and wholly failed. The only remaining cases are Lord's and Hill's. They were relations, and resided some twenty-five or thirty miles from Maldon, and they were taken over to Maldon by Mr. Oxley Parker's bailiff. They claimed and obtain-

787
ed 1l. each, which was paid a few months after the election for their expenses. It would be difficult to make out that any of these payments were really bribes, although they might be liberal allowances for expenses, and excessive payments under that colour may well be deemed bribery. In all the four cases the voters might lawfully be paid their expenses. There was no proof of any other payments for expenses, or in the nature of bribes, and these four cases cannot, I think, be deemed sufficient to put the borough of Maldon upon its trial. "ST. LEONARDS."
House adjourned till To-morrow.