Sitting of 12 May 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Discharged Prisoners' Aid; Crown Private Estates; Retiring Pay, &c. (British Forces, India); Universities (Scotland) Act Amendment; Local Government Supplemental; County Elections (Ireland); Elections (Ireland).
2o Corrupt Practices at Elections; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland); Lunacy (Scotland); Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment.

THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, On what grounds and at whose suggestion the Class Fees have been increased, and many bursaries abolished in the University of Aberdeen, without previous communication with the authorities of the University?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEin reply said, he believed the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to two ordinances which had recently been passed by the Commissioners of the Scotch Universities, and which were at present awaiting the assent of the Privy Council. But as the Government were in no way responsible for those ordinances, and as they had been passed under powers vested in the Commissioners by an Act of Parliament, while there were recognised modes of bringing them under the notice of the Privy Council, he did not think it right that he should then enter into any consideration of their merits. He had to state, however, that the revision of the Class Fees in the University of Aberdeen, and the regulations with regard to bursaries, had proceeded in a great degree on the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners who had inquired into those subjects in the year 1826, and the result had been not to increase, but rather to diminish, the expense of passing through the University. He believed also that the Commissioners had not come to any conclusion without previous communication with the authorities of the University.

TRAFFIC THROUGH PARK LANE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALCOCKsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he sees any objection to allow hackney cabs to pass through a portion of Hyde Park, in order to avoid Park Lane, which is now rendered almost impassable at times owing to the traffic to the Exhibition?
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was aware that Park Lane was too narrow for the traffic which it was at present required to accommodate. But the proper remedy for that inconvenience would be to widen Park Lane, or else to give an outlet towards the north from Hamilton Place. He was afraid, however, that if the traffic
  1558
  which at present passed through Park Lane was transferred to Hyde Park, the inconvenience would be transferred with it, and a new obstruction would arise in a place which had hitherto been free from it; and, under those circumstances, he was not prepared to adopt the measure to which the hon. Gentleman had referred.

  PROPOSED SOLDIERS' INSTITUTE AT PORTSMOUTH—QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, If a Soldiers' Institute will be formed at Portsmouth, in conformity with the Report of Captain Pilkington Jackson?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Government had taken a Vote for the creation of Soldiers' Institutes without stating at what particular places they were to be established. He should be prepared to appropriate a portion of the sum towards providing an Institute at Portsmouth, but its precise site had not yet been determined on.

  MURDER OF MR. THIEBAULT IN TIP PERARY.—QUESTION.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he has any official information to the effect that the recent Murder in the county of Tipperary was committed about 3 p.m., at a most open spot on the public highroad, within two and a half miles of the Police Station at New Inn, and three and a half miles of those at Cashel and Golden respectively, and that its commission was not known to the Police at New Inn until 7 p.m., at Cashel until 8 p.m., or at Golden until the following morning?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that he could only repeat what he had stated the other evening. He was not aware of the exact distance of the scene of Mr. Thiebault's murder from the police barracks named by the hon. Member, but no doubt his information was correct. As regarded the commission of the offence, the whole of the parties suspected of being implicated in the murder were arrested on the night succeeding the outrage.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had not given any answer to the question, which had reference to a subject of very great importance. The question of the hon. Member for Tipperary was not directed as to whether any person

  1559
  had been arrested on suspicion of the murder. What they wished to know was, whether it was a fact that a heinous murder had been committed at 3 o'clock in the afternoon; and, although the police barrack was within three miles and a half of the place where the outrage was committed, no information was received at the barrack until fully four hours after the murder had taken place.

EMBASSY CHAPEL AT PARIS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the following Questions respecting the Account for Civil Contingencies:— Whether the Item "for Votes proposed to be taken for New Services" refers to money spent for objects for which the sanction of Parliament had not already been obtained; and whether the "Net Loss on the sale of a Chapel in Paris" of £2,000, is the difference between the purchase money which had been paid without the sanction of Parliament and the sum obtained by sale when that Vote had been disallowed; and if so, whether the sum of £2,000 thus disallowed should be charged on the Fund for Civil Contingencies?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the first question of the noble Lord referred to the expenditure of the year 1860–1. The money had been advanced by the Treasury, and it was afterwards paid out of a Vote passed by that House in the course of the last Session. These were sums that were urgently required, and which it was necessary to pay before the expenditure had been sanctioned by Parliament. In answer to the second question of the noble Lord, he had to state that the money for the Chapel at Paris was paid out of the Civil Contingency Fund. When the Vote was refused by the House, it became necessary to sell the Chapel, and the proceeds of the sale were applied in payment of the advance made by the Government; but the sum so realized was less by £2,000 than the amount of that advance.

  SALES IN THE ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he now wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether in the Return No. 202,
  1560
  recently laid upon the Table of the House, the "total amount of purchase-money, £5,940,989," comprises the value of the Estates which were sold in the Encumbered Estates Court; or whether this item refers merely to the amount of the purchase-money of Estates already brought into the new Landed Estates Court? He asked the question, not because he doubted the accuracy of the Return, but because some persons imagined that the £6,000,000 mentioned included some of the sales under the old Encumbered Estates Court.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the figures in the Return referred to sales under the new Landed Estates Court. The amount sold under the old Encumbered Estates Court was about £21,000,000.

TURKEY AND MONTENEGRO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, he rose to ask, Whether any information has been received by the Government with reference to a defeat of Hussein Pasha in the Herzegovina, announced by telegram from Ragusa, by way of Vienna, and with reference to other reverses which the Turkish Troops are said to have sustained?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would recommend his hon. Friend not to pay too much attention to telegrams from Ragusa, unless he wished to judge of them in a non-natural sense. So far from the Turks being defeated, he believed, as far as the Government had received information, that they had been successful in their operations. There was no doubt that they had sustained some losses, and, through treachery, a party of Turkish irregulars had been seized by the Montenegrins. He might add that the Turkish Government were acting with great moderation, although exposed to great provocation. He did not know who sent those telegrams, or whether they were sent for stock-jobbing or other purposes.

CAPTAIN COLES'S CUPOLA SHIELD.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Cupola Shield, on board the Trusty floating battery had not been altered from the condition in which it was used in the practice firing which took place when it sustained successfully the shots from a 68 and a 110-

  1561
  pounder gun, it being now proposed to submit it to an experimental firing from a 150-pounder gun; and whether Captain Cowper Coles, of the Royal Navy, the Inventor of the Shield, had been consulted on the propriety of using such a severe test in the present state of the Cupola Shield; because, if not, he considered Captain Coles's interest and patent might be seriously prejudiced?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the Admiralty had been in communication with Captain Coles with a view of preparing the shield, as far as possible, according to Captain Coles's own wishes?

  TASMANIA—CONVICTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask, Whether the Papers for which he had intended to move on the subject of claims made by the Colony of Tasmania for the maintenance of Convicts from England will be laid before the House if he withdrew the Motion.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Correspondence was comprised in the Annual Reports upon our Convict Establishments, and would shortly be in the hands of Members.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILT.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read. [Bill. No. 90.]
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that in the course of the last session he called the attention of the House to the very inconvenient form in which the Supply Bill was submitted for the consideration and decision of the House; and he regretted to find that the same objectionable form, or something very like it, had been adopted upon the present occasion. He believed the House had become aware, from the confusion of the debate which had taken place on the second reading of the Bill now under consideration, that it was impossible to discuss with any advantage on that stage of the measure the principle of any of the various proposals which it contained. The House, by accepting that form of Supply Bills, were virtually abandoning that which had always been considered one of their principal functions—namely, the exercise of a careful control over the mode in which taxation was imposed upon the people. They decided last Session that they would not require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to divide his then Supply Bill so that
  1562
  they might deal separately with each of the great charges proposed in the Customs, in the Excise, and in the income tax. He regretted that decision. The result was that afterwards, in the course of last Session, a Bill was introduced relating to the Inland Revenue which was, in point of fact, supplementary to the Supply Bill, and which contained a vast aggregate of provisions, most of which, however anomalous, were absolutely necessary to give vitality to the taxation which the House had sanctioned; but that Bill was of such a complex character, that it had been designated by the hon. Member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote) as an "omnibus Bill," and still more appropriately by the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) as a "plum-pudding Bill." So obvious had it become that the House could not in that case have performed the functions intrusted to it, that on the urgent representations of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman was induced to divide the measure. But let the House consider what was the form of the present Bill. It was exactly like the Bill of last year, an "omnibus" or "plum-pudding" Bill. In it they had provisions for the imposition of a vast amount of Customs duties, for the continuation of and for alterations in Excise duties, for a considerable change in the Stamp duties, and for the reimposition of the income tax under a new process of collection. Now, no one had attempted to discuss those proposals on the occasion of the second reading of the measure, because any such discussion would have been absolutely futile. The necessary result of entering upon it would have been that one Member would have spoken of the Income Tax, and of the altered manner in which it was to be assessed and levied; another would have dilated on the changes contemplated in the department of Stamps; a third would have rushed into the Customs, and a fourth would have stated the objections which his constituents entertained to the proposed mode of dealing with the Excise. It was manifest that such a debate must have been simply a game of cross questions and crooked answers. The only opinion which the House could give on the second reading of such a Bill was, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a nice man or an objectionable character. The discussion must have been reduced to an examination of the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that was the course actually taken on

  1563
  the second reading of the measure. They had a discussion as to the propriety or the impropriety of the Chancellor of the Exchequer having gone down to Manchester and made a financial speech in that populous city instead of having addressed his observations to that House—and he (Mr. Newdegate) really thought, that so far as related to the discussion of that Bill on the second reading, the right hon. Gentleman might just as well have spoken in Manchester as in the House of Commons. Then let them look at the position in which they would have been placed if any condemnation had been expressed of any considerable part of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman had introduced. He would then have got up and told hon. Members in one of his eloquent diatribes that they might entertain whatever opinion they thought fit with respect to him and his conduct; but that if they ventured to vote against the second reading of the Bill, they would be virtually voting for repudiation, because the House had already granted in Supply the men to be kept on the rolls of the army and of the navy, and the military and naval establishments which were considered necessary for the defence of the country. He would have said, if the House had objected to the second reading of the present Bill, there could be but one interpretation put upon their Vote, and that was that they intended to repudiate the obligations which the country had contracted to the public creditor; for the amount of taxes which it was proposed to impose under that measure was £24,000,000 or £25,000,000, and that was a sum nearly equivalent to the whole of the interest of the National Debt. Under these circumstances he believed hon. Members would see, that if that House intended to deal practically with the financial proposals in the Bill, it ought to be divided into probably as many measures as there were schedules attached to it. Schedule A related to the Customs, Schedule B to the Excise, Schedule C to the Stamp duties, and Schedule D to the whole mass of the income tax; and he asked whether the continuance and the alteration of any one of those great branches of taxation did not form a sufficient subject for a separate Bill? But the effect of framing the measure as it stood was that no adequate discussion could take place either on the principle involved in the proposed taxation or on the mode in which each tax was to be levied, except in Committee on the Bill.
  1564
  If in the Committee they attempted to discuss one point they would find it so involved with other matters contained in other portions of the Bill that the discussion would have no effect whatever. If the Bill were divided, each matter might be discussed and determined upon its merits, and that too with very little loss of time. He would not move that the Bill should be divided; but having called the attention of the House to the matter, he had done his duty. He could not, as an individual Member, prevent such a course of proceeding as that proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he could not help thinking that, if persisted in, it would entail great difficulties, and induce restriction on the House of Commons which might produce lamentable results to the country.
  MR. BASSwished to repeat the objections he had already urged to the Bill before the Speaker left the chair. The Bill was without any precedent in one respect. It imposed taxes to the amount of £5,000 upon a small body of individuals—a measure which had never been heard of before. He objected to the principle introduced by the Bill. It could not stop at this point—either it must be carried further, or the House must retrace the step it had taken. The right hon. Gentleman said the brewers would obtain an advantage by the substitution of an addition to their licence for the duty on hops. But that could not be the case, because he imposed the tax in another shape. He (Mr. Bass) was surprised at the acquiescence of Members connected with the agricultural interest, especially those who represented the barley-growing districts, in the proposal to increase the malt duty. He was told that the change was approved of by the brewers in London; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was almost unanimously disapproved of by the country brewers. He denied that the proposition had been approved of by the brewers; and he believed that when the right hon. Gentleman paid the drawback on the stocks on hand, he would have a deficiency instead of a surplus of £180,000. The right hon. Gentleman said that justice to the common brewers required that in increasing the cost of their licence he should impose a tax on private brewers. Now, on the part of the common brewers, he (Mr. Bass) disclaimed any such compensation. If there was any compensation in the measure, it was a mere shadow; and, besides,

  1565
  it would be a most vexatious measure to those whom it would affect, and would certainly be unproductive. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would amend this part of his proposition, and not subject the public brewers to the odium of having fixed upon their private competitors this miserable impost.
  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very fond of taunting hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative side of the House with the success of the French commercial treaty, which he seemed to regard as the panacea for all our financial evils. Now, he (Mr. Duncombe) quite admitted that anything which tended to strengthen our commercial relations with France must be of a beneficial character to both countries:—what he objected to was, the mode in which that treaty was effected and the time it was carried out. He objected altogether to the principle of making the financial arrangements of this country depend upon a treaty with a foreign country, combining our budget with a French commercial treaty, and mixing up direct and indirect taxation. That was a most objectionable principle; and when the right hon. Gentleman said that it had conferred benefits upon the country, he was rather exaggerating his case. He doubted if the treaty had conferred much benefit on the working classes. The chief articles which had been exported to France in consequence of that treaty were coal and iron, and it was obvious to every one who had any knowledge of the subject that neither the coal nor the iron trade of this country was in a depressed state be fore that treaty was made; whereas, on the other hand, the articles which had been imported from France were not articles which were largely consumed by the working classes of this country. Another thing worthy of remark was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have been able to have effected that treaty if he had not been guilty of a public injustice and a great political inconsistency. The income tax, the House would remember, was, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, to be taken off in the year 1860; but when the time arrived for its total abrogation the right hon. Gentleman actually doubled it, the secret being that it was necessary to do so in order to provide for the gaps made in the revenue in consequence of the Anglo-French treaty. Then, again, the right hon. Gentleman
  1566
  proposed to abolish the paper duty in 1860, and actually did succeed in passing a Bill to that effect through this House. Fortunately, however, the House of Lords exercised their undoubted prerogative and threw out the Bill, and so diminished the deficit in the revenue by more than a million. In the following year the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in getting a measure for the repeal of the paper duty passed, although Her Majesty's Opposition had plainly told him that he could not do without it, and that, even if he could, it was not a tax which he should have chosen to remit when the income tax was so high and the tea and sugar duties stood at the war rate. The right hon. Gentleman said that remission of those taxes would have involved a much larger amount. What of that? Such a proceeding would have only been a reduction of the duty, not a total remission of the tax. The paper duty, he apprehended, was gone for ever, and could never be reimposed; and the right hon. Gentleman always chose to lose sight of that fact when he spoke upon revenue questions. Well, then, in the present Budget he made a proposal to remit the hop duty, and to impose an extra licence duty on brewers and home-brewed beer, which was an injustice which was not decreased by the remission of the hop duty. Such a remission, it was also to be observed, would only benefit a very small portion of the agricultural interest, while the imposition of 1s. per quarter on malt, and a duty on beer, would subject the great body to an obnoxious and inquisitorial tax in the shape of brewing licences. The arrangement was tantamount to increasing the malt duty, and the malt duty was already an unpopular tax, and could not be depended upon as a permanent source of revenue. Under these circumstances he objected to the form in which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to introduce this Bill, agreeing as he did with his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire that it was a most objectionable process to mix up so many financial measures in one Bill. The fact was that, the House of Lords having established its right to reject a Money Bill if they chose, the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to make separate Bills of his budget propositions, thinking, no doubt, that if they were all included in one measure, the House of Lords would not take upon itself the responsibility of rejecting it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, by

  1567
  the form of his Bill, while endeavouring to assail the prerogatives of the House of Lords, did, in fact, curtail the privileges of the House of Commons by diminishing the opportunities of discussion. They had not now the same opportunity of discussing the various points of the Budget as when they were introduced as separate measures; and he had not the slightest doubt of the soundness of the judgment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire when he stated that the time would come when the practice of including all the propositions of the Budget in one Bill would be very inconvenient and a serious public disadvantage. A good deal had been said on various occasions in that House upon the importance of reducing the expenditure, which seemed now to have reached a rate of £70,000,000 a year. This he thought far too high; and it would be a great advantage if it could be reduced; but looking at the state of Europe, looking at the state of America, and looking at the various causes of the present high rate of national expenditure, he could not indulge in any very glowing anticipations with respect to the reduction of the expenditure within the next two or three years. In those circumstance it was most important that the financial affairs of this country should be conducted in a fair, just, and equitable manner; and it was because he thought the financial management of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was open to criticism that he had not hesitated to rise in his place and enter a protest against it.
  MR. LOCKEobjected to the 12th clause, which he contended had no right to be in the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to repeal the duties on hops, both British and foreign; but if they searched the Bill from end to end, they would not find a word on that subject. This was a remarkable fact, as Clause 12 directly interfered with the rights of the owners and holders of hops. At present, the English grower of hops, after drying them, was liable to pay on the 1st of January 14 s. per cwt., whether the quality of the hops was good, bad, or indifferent. What was the position of the foreigner? The foreigner was enabled to bring his hops into this country without paying any duty at all, and put them into bond; and when he took the hops out of bond to sell them, and not till then, the duty was paid. The foreigner, therefore, had an advantage over the English merchant. In addition to
  1568
  that, the English hop merchant had a right to export his hops to a foreign country and receive back the amount of duty which had been paid upon them. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to do away with that right, and he provided by one of the clauses in this Bill, that if previous to the 16th of September, 1862, the English hop merchant exported hops, he could not re-import them for the next six months after that date, although foreign hops would then be allowed to be imported duty free. That was a glaring injustice done to the home producer. When the duties on paper, foreign timber, wines, and other articles were repealed, a certain amount of drawback was given, and it was extremely unfair to deny it in this instance.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had given notice of a Motion to allow a drawback to brewers on the hops which they had in their hands at the time of the passing of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he intended to take off the duty on hops, and to recoup himself by putting a duty on beer. If the hops had already paid duty as hops, and were subsequently rendered liable to a duty as beer, it was obvious that they would be taxed twice over. He therefore asked the right hon. Gentleman to allow a drawback on hops, in order that his darling expedient of taxing beer might be adopted. He wished to know what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do on that point.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had put the case of the hop merchants a little stronger than he was entitled to do. The right to a drawback upon the exportation of hops was given when there was a duty upon their importation, so that if they were exported and the drawback obtained, a duty would have to be paid upon their re-importation. If, however, that right was to be continued after the abolition of the import duty, the holder of a stock of hops would be able not only to export his hops and obtain the drawback, but immediately to re-import them and take the chance of the English market.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that although the imposition of a tax upon private brewers was but fair to the trade, still he believed that neither the brewers in London nor those in the country were inclined to hold the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his promise in that respect.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think that it would be convenient to the House that he should follow in the track of hon. Members who had opened questions of great breadth and importance not immediately connected with the scope of this Bill. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had referred to the framing of the Bill, a question which involved matters of controversy that had been very carefully considered in former years, and upon which the House had arrived at a deliberate conclusion. He had no desire that that controversy should be revived; but, if it were, it would be better that it should be revived with the fulness and gravity of consideration which its importance deserved. On similar grounds, and also on others, he should decline to follow the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Duncombe), because he could not conceive any task more hopeless than to endeavour to mitigate the displeasure with which that hon. Member regarded the financial proposals which he had made on behalf of the Government. So far was this displeasure carried that the hon. Member could see nothing but hostility to the landed interest in a Bill the only important new proposal of which with regard to taxation was to remove a tax from an agricultural product, so far, at any rate, as its immediate incidence was concerned, and lay it upon a class of traders. And let the House look at the other proposals of the hon. Member. The hon. Member complained that it was a breach of faith on his part not to obtain the repeal of the income tax in 1860, but, at the same time, he said that our expenditure amounted to nearly £70,000,000, and in another part of his speech, apparently referring to declarations which fell a few nights ago from the leader of his party, he took the opportunity of recording his dissent from those declarations, and said that he did not see how there could be any material reduction of expenditure. At one and the same moment, and in one and the same breath, the hon. Member declared there must be an expenditure of £70,000,000, and that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been guilty of a breach of faith in not obtaining the repeal of the income tax. To ordinary minds those propositions were a little difficult to reconcile; but, as the hon. Gentleman was able to reconcile them, the most becoming course which he could adopt would be to leave him in possession of that
  1570
  satisfaction, and not attempt to dispute their reconciliation.
  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBEexplained that he had said that he thought an expenditure of £70,000,000 too high.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad then misunderstood the hon. Member. He certainly understood him to say, that looking at the condition of Europe and at the circumstances which had led to that expenditure, no material reduction could take place at present. To the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke), who was always so vigilant in guarding the interests of his constituents, he might more conveniently reply when the House, having gone into Committee, came to the clause to which it referred; and with regard to private brewing licences he would only say that he never proposed those licences as an essential part of the financial scheme of Her Majesty's Government, and that it was a matter upon which they should feel themselves at liberty to give way to what might appear to be the prevailing sense of the House.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that what the right hon. Gentleman had just told them was what he was always in the habit of saying when discussion was inconvenient. He said he would not follow all the points of the discussion, because he did not wish to raise a controversy. That might be a very convenient course for the right hon. Gentleman to follow, but it was not very likely to meet with the approbation of hon. Members. Then the right hon. Gentleman resorted to the plan of putting his own construction on what fell from hon. Members, and then proceeding to argue upon it. The right hon. Gentleman accused his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Duncombe) of inconsistency; but he had misrepresented the purport of his hon. Friend's observations. He (Mr. Bentinck) understood his hon. Friend to blame the Chancellor of the Exchequer for getting rid of sources of revenue which, without resorting to new burdens, would have enabled them to meet their financial necessities and to deal with the income tax with which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was of all men pledged to deal. Hon. Members opposite seemed almost as much to misunderstand the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to misunderstand his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) had recommended the abandonment of the

  1571
  duty on private brewing, and said that such a course would add but little to the deficit. Why, it seemed as if the plans adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last three years had been designed for the purpose of producing a deficit, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) seemed to understand the feelings of the hon. Gentleman still less. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained that the foreigner had a great advantage over the Englishman. The right hon. Gentleman's object had always been to give the foreigner an advantage.[A laugh] The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be amused at the suggestion; but he appealed to the House whether the policy of the right hon. Gentleman had not been to take money out of the pockets of the English people and put it into the pockets of the foreigner? Those hon. Members who dissented from that opinion had better controvert it. The right hon. Gentleman had on various matters preached in one way and acted in another. Having agreed—as he must have done in his official capacity—to the whole of our expenditure, he had systematically, and both directly and indirectly, discouraged that expenditure. He had invariably gone out of his way to declare that the expenditure, for which he was responsible, was in excess of what it ought to be, and that no man regretted it more than himself. The right hon. Gentleman had succeeded, to use a phrase of his own, both in "deluding the nation and embarrassing the Government" by the financial policy which he had pursued. The right hon. Gentleman had stated this to be a time of exceptional circumstances—that there was great distress arising from causes that had never existed before. He (Mr. Bentinck) was quite willing to admit that the causes of the existing distress had never been known before. But what he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this, was not that distress foretold before it occurred; and did not he and his colleagues wilfully and in the most determined manner, when their attention was called to the subject, deny the possibility of the occurrence of the distress of which they now complained? As one of those who took various opportunities of alluding to the subject—so repeatedly, indeed, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government suggested that the remarks would probably be reprinted once a fortnight—so
  1572
  frequently did he remind the noble Lord of the probability of the consequences of the coming distress that the noble Lord took exception to the number of reminders; and the noble Lord himself stated, towards the close of the Session, that he was convinced there was no reasonable expectation of a decrease of the revenue from the distress of which the Chanceller of the Exchequer now complained. The Government, although warned of what might be expected, were determined to be revenged on those in another place, for the purpose of gratifying a few men on their own side of the House who had an interest in the penny newspapers, and the country was now suffering from the occurrence of that distress the possibility of which the Government so emphatically denied. He could not avoid taking the opportunity of reminding the Chancellor of of the Exchequer of two proposals which he had made some years ago. At that time the right hon. Gentleman was at considerable trouble to give a legal sanction to the practice of gambling on the Stock Exchange. Now his great object seemed to be to transfer that vice to another class of society, and to encourage gambling among the lower orders. But that was not the only meritorious proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The effect of the 9th clause would be to encourage a large amount of tippling where it would not otherwise take place; and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of vice to be so created would be compensated by the wretched sum of money which he expected to gather into the Exchequer from that source.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that while he could not concur in all the financial propositions, he was not disposed to agree to the wholesale condemnation which, had been passed upon the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The general policy of relaxing commercial restraints on foreign commodities was one which hon. Members would not venture to resist; but there could be no doubt that the particular details for carrying out that policy were a fair subject for criticism At the time when Sir Robert Peel introduced his new commercial system there was a general chorus of approval throughout the country; but he (Mr. Griffith) did not see why relaxation should have been carried so far as had been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and why a moderate duty should not have

  1573
  been imposed on all the manufactures of foreign countries, and why the Customs should have been denuded of so many articles of revenue. A duty of 10 per cent on foreign silks and similar articles would not have infringed the principle of free trade in the slightest degree. Some points of general policy had been referred to on that (the Opposition) side of the House in respect to which he did not agree. They were said to be willing to support a policy in Italy entirely different from that of which the public approved, and that they looked with approbation on a policy which would preserve to the head of the Roman Catholic Church his present temporal power. Was that a policy agreeable to the Conservatism of England, or of the sister country? No; it was the policy of the Holy Alliance which they were thus called upon to approve. But the times of 1815 were not the times of 1862. We were just then recovering from the waves of a great convulsion, and were willing to adopt almost any expedient for the promotion of peace and quietness. The question of the supremacy of the Pope was not then agitated. ["Question!"] We were now dealing with a question affecting £25,000,000 of money, and he considered that a legitimate occasion for referring to general topics. Would it accord with the feelings of the country if any party in the House were to raise a finger or spend a silver of taxation in supporting the ancient state of things in Italy? If there were any such men in the House, they were very few in number, and would be repudiated by the country. Nothing could be more foreign to the feelings of the people of this country than the exercise of any influence in support of a power which they believed to be erroneous and contrary to the liberties of mankind.
  House in Committee. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  Clause I agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Provisions of former Acts to apply).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he had intended to call attention to the operation of the Excise Act with regard to private houses; but there was an idea abroad that the right hon. Gentleman meant to get rid of the difficulty in another way, and he would like to know what was the fact, as it would probably save him the trouble of making any remarks on the clause. He wished to know how the Bill would affect the opera-
  1574
  tion of the Excise Act in reference to private houses.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was ready to give a pledge that under this Bill no question could be raised as to the application of the Excise Act to private or dwelling-houses.
  Clause agreed to; as were Clauses 3 to 7 inclusive.
  Clause 8 (Penalty for brewing Beer (not for sale) without Licence, 10 l.)
  MR. BALLremarked, that the observations which had just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer induced him to hope that his feelings were softening towards the agricultural interest. If so, he hoped to achieve a victory on the present occasion, and would much rather do so than make a speech; and therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman intended to give up the clause, he would not address the Committee on the subject.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I will put my hon. Friend out of his pain in a few words. This proposal regarding private brewing was a proposal which the Government thought it to be their duty to make, upon the ground that when they were about to impose upon the brewers for sale a charge in lieu of the hop duty, abstract justice undoubtedly required that they should propose a corresponding charge upon private brewers. They were sensible that some inconvenience must attend the operation of that charge; but it was a choice between two difficulties, as is commonly the case in all matters of legislation. After what I have heard to-night stated in this House by my hon. Friends the Members for Derby and Maidstone, I cannot but feel that the relative weights in the scales are altered, and I admit that the principle of volenti non fit injuria does apply after such a declaration from Gentlemen of such influence in their places in this House. Undoubtedly, the charge is a small one, and I can quite understand the argument of those who say the advantages of economy in brewing for sale are such that the charge to be paid in lieu of the hop duties may be put out of view entirely. After that declaration I can have no difficulty on the part of the Government in making over to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ball) the triumph he desires, cordially congratulating him upon the success which he has obtained; and I hope (although the hope is a faint one) that the hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Duncombe) will, after the character I have received from

  1575
  the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, not think me irreconcilably hostile to the Agricultural interest. I shall, therefore, not press the proposal for a licence upon private brewers, and when you, Mr. Massey, put the clause, I shall allow it to be negatived.
  MR. BALLsuggested, that as the right hon. Gentleman had given way on a point of comparatively small importance, he should take into consideration one of much graver interest. Upon all occasions when he proposed the remission of taxation upon different articles of consumption, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that reduction of taxation did not always mean diminished revenue. Now, if he would only carry out this principle with regard to the malt tax, he would bestow a great boon upon the agricultural interest, and would afford a great accommodation to the country at large.
  THE CHAIRMAN,interrupting the hon. Member, said, that this Bill did not deal with the malt tax, and the clause now before the Committee referred to a specific tax on beer.
  Clause negatived.
  Clause 9 (Occasional Licence may be granted to Victuallers to sell Beer, Spirits, &c., at such Time and Place as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall approve).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he wished to draw attention to the Amendments of which he had given notice, and also to state, that there might be no misunderstanding on the subject, that the object of this clause was not to raise revenue; it was a matter of police regulation, and must be judged upon its own merits, irrespective of the fact that a small revenue would be derived from it. The clause applied to certain descriptions of public assemblies a principle which had already been recognised by the law as applicable to certain other descriptions of public assemblies. The law had provided for such public assemblies as were periodical and recurring with regularity, but the law had omitted to provide for such public assemblies as were occasional, although in principle the two cases were alike. When large public assemblies took place there, was a disposition among a portion of the community to provide themselves with liquor, and this disposition was generally found to be so strong, that, in fact, liquor always was provided. At any rate, it was not an object on the part of the Go-
  1576
  vernment to facilitate a provision of liquor in cases where such provision was not already made, and he proposed to leave it not only to the discretion of the Commissioners of Excise, who would be bound under this clause not to grant an occasional licence except where it was thought conducive to public order, but he proposed also to leave it to the discretion of the local authority—namely, the magistrate, to determine whether a licence should issue or not. At present the local authority, however expedient it might be deemed with the view to public order, had no power to issue, nor had the Board of Inland Revenue power to issue such a licence, and the consequence of this was, according to complaints which had reached him from various quarters, that liquor was provided for these assemblies, but clandestinely, in part by licensed victuallers, and in part by persons altogether unlicensed; and the traffic, therefore, had not been under the supervision of the police. The effect of this clause would be to give to a particular class of people already licensed to sell liquors the exclusive right of providing them on these particular occasions; and having given that exclusive right to those persons, who would themselves be under the control of the police, they would become the most effective auxiliaries in preventing the sale by unlicensed persons who would not be under the supervision of the police. At present, when a licensed victualler sold at a regatta, or any occasion of that kind, strong liquors, he found there unlicensed people doing the same, but he did not give information against them because he had no title to be on the ground himself; and in cases where a traffic of that character was likely to take place, it was wise on their part to interest those over whom they could have a hold, and who might assist them in enforcing the law against those who might endeavour to evade it. As the clause was at first proposed it would have left the authority exclusively in the hands of the Commissioners of Excise—that was, the Board of Inland Revenue—they would have had a right to grant the licence, not only on fiscal grounds, but having regard to public order. He was of opinion that it would be an improvement to the clause if the power was given to the local authorities; and the Committee would understand, that if his Amendments were adopted, it would rest entirely with the magistrate having jurisdiction in the place to determine whether the licence should issue or not. Provision had been

  1577
  made that no such licence should avail to authorize the sale of liquors on the Sunday; and he should also propose an Amendment in line forty-three, which would prevent authority being given for the sale of liquors during the night—that was to say, that the sale would only be permitted within the hours after sunrise and before sunset. He therefore proposed to insert the words, "and with the consent of a magistrate having jurisdiction at the place of sale."
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEobserved, that "the magistrate having jurisdiction on the spot' was any magistrate in the county, and by the Amendment, therefore, as it stood a licensed victualler could obtain the licence from any magistrate with whom he might happen to have influence. That would be an unwise provision, and might give occasion to great offence in the neighbourhood where the assemblage took place. He thought the power ought to be restricted to magistrates sitting in petty sessions within the district, to the chairman of petty sessions, or to some really responsible authority.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was glad to find that some alteration was to be made in the direction now proposed. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have done well to have embodied in this measure the clause introduced last Wednesday into the Public-houses Bill for Scotland. The clause to which he referred had reference to occasional licences, and provided that the consent of two justices of the peace, having jurisdiction in the district where the licence was to be granted, should be obtained before any such licence should be issued by the Excise, and that the whole bench of magistrates should have power to make regulations for the sale of liquors under such licences. By adopting this clause they would secure the advantage of assimilating the law for England and Scotland. The Act of last Session repealed the former Acts, that allowed only beer to be sold at fairs and races; and the sale of all excisable liquors was now permitted. This tended to make every public assembly a place of debauchery. Instead of enlarging the permission for the sale of liquors, it ought to be brought under the control of the law, as in Scotland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause as framed for the Scotch Bill.
  MR. PACKEthought that the licence ought to be granted by two magistrates instead of one.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERremarked, that if the House had determined as to the mode of arranging such a clause for Scotland, that was a very clear and important precedent, affirming the principle of the proposition before the Committee; but he thought the proper result from that was, that they should exclude Scotland from the operation of this clause. He admitted the force of the objection taken by the hon. Baronet to the jurisdiction of a magistrate who might not be acquainted with the district or the circumstances of the case; and he would suggest, therefore, with the view of requiring that the magistrate should be locally acquainted, to insert these words—"usually acting in petty sessions for the district." It had been suggested that these licences should be signed by two magistrates; but he was inclined to think, as the operation would only last, perhaps, for one or two hours, or at the most only from sunrise to sunset, that it would be imposing too heavy a burden upon the magistracy to require the attendance of two of their number for the purpose. The argument that this was a measure tending to increase the consumption of spirits, was in the nature of an objection to the principle of the clause, which it appeared had been affirmed by the House a few days ago for Scotland. He believed, however, that the fact would be the reverse. It would substitute a controlled and regulated sale for what was at present unchecked and irregular. He thought it would be better to give the power to one justice of the peace.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEthought the licence of two magistrates was quite in accordance with all recent legislation that required magistrates to act. It would be no more inconvenient to obtain the signatures of two justices than of one.
  MR. PULLERhoped the hon. Baronet would not press his objection. Whenever an Act spoke of two justices of the peace, a meeting in petty sessions was contemplated; and in a small matter, such as in granting occasional licences to sell beer for a few hours, to require that two magistrates should come together, perhaps from a long distance, for the purpose, would be creating unnecessary difficulties, the extent of which would be understood when they remembered how difficult it was sometimes to get two magistrates together to transact the ordinary business of the petty sessions.
  MR. WARNERquite concurred in the opinion, that some further restriction was

  1579
  required than the signature of one magistrate, for half-a-dozen magistrates might licence as many different publicans to sell beer and strong drinks in places where, perhaps, nothing of the kind was required. He would suggest that the words should be, "a stipendiary magistrate or two justices of the peace."
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEthought the whole matter should be left in the hands of the Excise, without the interposition of the magistrates at all. If the Excise authorities were allowed to grant occasional licences for a period not exceeding three days, they could send to the police a list of the names of those persons to whom such licences had been granted, and that would be sufficient to give the police jurisdiction.
  MR. LAWSONthought there was a fallacy in the argument that no more intoxicating liquors would be sold than were sold now, because the legalizing the sale of any article must tend to increase its sale. The working classes honoured the right hon. Gentleman, and esteemed his policy, and he sincerely joined in those feelings; but the right hon. Gentleman could not do a greater injury to the working classes than by facilitating the sale of intoxicating drinks, and thereby promoting disorder and immorality.
  MR. WYLDsaid, the effect of the clause would be most injurious in the mining districts of Cornwall, on the occasion of the pay meetings. In the Cornish mines 500 or 1,000 men were paid their wages on a particular day; and if the clause stood, there would be enterprising publicans availing themselves of it, and tempting the men to spend their earnings in drink. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet the Member for Petersham (Sir William Jolliffe) if he intended to press his Motion for the rejection of the clause, because if he did not do so, he (Mr. Wyld) would certainly move that it be struck out.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that if his objections were not removed, he should certainly divide the House against the clause.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the question raised was a curious one, and had been discussed in a curious way. It had been discussed as though it was not well known that beer was sold now at these places. But people did not assemble at cricket-matches and wakes and fairs without having beer. Make what laws they pleased, the people would have beer. The great thing they had to do was to prevent their having it
  1580
  in excess. This very discussion would convince anybody that this was a subject not easy to legislate upon. He believed, after a not very short experience, that it would be better to leave the law as it stood; because if any irregularities were committed, the magistrates would give information to the Excise authorities, and they could exercise their discretion in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head; but he (Mr. Henley) knew more about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman did. He knew many cases in which the magistrates had communicated with the Excise, and the Excise had laid informations. It was a thing that did not occur often, as the people were wise enough not to go to extremes. The people of England were not such fools as they sometimes obtained credit for being. They knew how to be merry and wise. If there were any excess, the Excise on a proper communication would lay an information. He knew this, because he had had the pleasure, or nuisance as it might be, more than once in his lifetime of hearing these informations. He thought there would be great difficulty in the clause being made to suit everybody. The hon. Baronet the Member for Petersham (Sir W. Jolliffe) wanted two magistrates, while the hon. Baronet near him (Sir J. Trollope) did not want any magistrates at all. Now, what would happen if the Excise should grant licences to everybody who asked for them at 5s. each? Why there would be four or five publicans at every wake or fair, where only one was needed, and then they would use all sorts of temptation to induce the people to go to them. It was impossible to stop the people having beer. Every village in his county had a cricket match once a year. A barrel of beer was brought to the spot, and in the evening there was a dance. What harm was there in that to anybody? and yet they would come with a stringent Act of Parliament, and say the people shall not drink a glass of beer after sunset. These meetings were usually held about Michaelmas, when the sun set about six o'clock; but the dance did not commence till about half-past nine, and the people were not to have a glass of beer while they were dancing. He did not believe the clause could be enforced, and therefore his advice to the right hon. Gentleman was to withdraw it altogether.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that notwithstanding the inti-

  1581
  mation from the right hon. Gentleman, he must correct an important part of his statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that beer and strong liquors were universally drunk at these meetings. [Mr. HENLEY: I said nothing about strong liquors—only beer. Well, beer—and the right hon. Gentleman said there was no harm because the Excise interfered whenever there was cause. He could not agree that no harm was done when the law was systematically broken. He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he knew more about the subject than himself, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had the best sources of information regarding it. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Excise could interpose for the protection of the public morality was founded on a fundamental mistake. The necessity for the clause arose from the fact that the Excise had acknowledged that they were powerless to enforce the law, and had been compelled to issue general instructions to their officers not to interfere. [Mr. HENLEY: Hear, hear!] He had the best authority for stating that there was no case of interference within the recollection of the officials at Somerset House. He held that the tendency of recent legislation had been to place such indulgences as this under some sort of government, and must therefore adhere to the clause. He was quite willing, however, to amend the clause so as to require the signatures of two justices of the peace. He would, therefore, put his Amendment in the following words:—
  "And with the consent in writing of two Justices of the Peace usually acting at Petty Sessions, in Petty Sessional Divisions within which the place of sale is situate."
  MR. ROBERTSONsaid, there was no such clause in the Scotch Bill as the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had stated. The clause to which he probably meant to refer was intended merely to afford an extension of the hours of business to hotels on the occasion of a public ball or similar entertainment.
  MR. AYRTONobserved, that the clause sanctioned the sale of liquors not merely beyond the regular hours, but in any place whatsoever within the district.
  MR. LESLIEtrusted the clause would not be extended to Scotland. The clause in the Scotch Bill answered every purpose.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought this clause was very much out of place in a Bill of this kind, which was to raise £25,000,000 of taxes. It ought to be
  1582
  considered as a provision in a Bill dealing with the whole licensing system, which was acknowledged on all hands to be in a most unsatisfactory state. The whole system required to be remodelled. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the clause, and embody it next year in a Bill reforming the whole licensing system.
  MR. BENTINCKhoped the clause would be rejected altogether.
  MR. BARROWfelt that the scheme for legalizing the sale of liquors was the best way of placing that sale under effectual control. In the present temper of the country it was impossible to enforce the existing law. Not merely at cricket matches and fairs, but at Volunteer meetings, beer was necessary, and it; ought to be supplied in a legal manner.
  MR. KER SEYMERsaid, that for the first time they had heard in the House an advocate of the Maine Liquor Law; but he had better bring in a permissive Bill on the subject, in order that it might be fairly discussed, than attack the Chancellor of the Exchequer for giving those facilities for drinking beer which the people desired. Englishmen would have beer just as the higher classes would have iced champagne at dinner. They could not put down drunkenness by an Act of Parliament, and they must look for such a result to the general improvement in the habits of the people. That process was going on at present, and he saw no reason why they should not allow a man who liked his beer to have it.
  MR. BAINESreminded the House that as the clause stood it was proposed to allow spirits to be sold as well as beer at fairs, which was a very serious matter, and would be dangerous to the morality of the people. Drunkenness, as they well knew, led to every description of crime, and be implored the Chancellor of the Exchequer to adopt the advice of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and leave the law as it at present stood.
  MR. WARNERproposed the insertion of words excluding spirits from the operation of the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that to adopt the Amendment would only lead to the violation of the law, and give rise to the odious employment of common informers.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn; Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed to.
  MR. BLACKBURNmoved an Amendment excepting Scotland from the operation of the Act, calling the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the foot that there was already a Bill in the House regulating the sale of beer and spirituous liquors in Scotland.
  MR. STEUARThoped the Committee would not sanction the principle of applying one law to one part of the kingdom and another to the rest.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed,that the hon. Member seemed to forget that the whole of the law regulating public-houses in Scotland was different to that of England. He had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEthen rose to move the total rejection of the clause. He should have been glad if he could have escaped dividing the Committee on the question; but he felt that not to enter his protest against this measure would be to fail in doing his duty to the country. He must therefore call the attention of the Committee to the evils which he believed would be the result of this measure. He thought that there was not a Member on the other side of the House who would not admit that much evil was caused in this country in consequence of a large part of our revenue being derivable from the sale of excisable liquors. There was not a single magistrate to be found, whether he resided in a rural district or a manufacturing town, who would not tell them that crime was greatly aggravated by the facilities afforded for obtaining drink. Under those circumstances, and believing this to be an extension of the power of vending intoxicating liquors, he felt it impossible to permit the Committee to give their assent to such a clause without appealing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to persevere in pressing it. His right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had said that he believed that the clause, even if it passed, would be attended with little effect. It would certainly not prevent the people drinking beer, and he had no wish whatever to prevent the people drinking beer. He had, however, a strong wish to prevent the extension of intoxication, which, he believed, would result from the passing of this clause. What was the meaning of increasing the consumption of intoxicating liquors? it meant more crime of all kinds, more starvation, more deserted families; it meant every misery which
  1584
  could afflict the rural population and the humbler classes of this country; and if by passing this clause they aggravated—as he feared they would do—the amount of intoxication, they would inflict a great and lasting injury upon the country which, would far outweigh any advantage that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would derive from the increased revenue resulting from consumption. Depend upon it they could not increase the consumption of intoxicating drinks in this country without increasing its charges. They would add to the expense of prosecutions, they would add to the charge of maintaining the poor, and they would add to many other charges if they passed this clause. Let the Committee consider how large was the extent of ground thrown open for the first time upon which spirituous liquors were to be drunk; for they were going to extend all over the country the facilities with which spirits could be obtained. Such a proceeding, he was quite sure, would prove a fertile source of national misfortune— far greater than the evils which were incurred from the passing of the Beer Act. Independently of all these considerations, see how unjustly this clause would operate. Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to exclude beer-shop keepers from selling beer at fairs, and give an exclusive right of supplying it to the comparatively small body of licensed victuallers— for that would be the effect of the clause—and henceforth those who sold spirits, beer, and tobacco, would be permitted to supply the people at all fairs and on occasions of festivity. If the Chancellor himself did not contemplate the evils which he said would arise from passing such a clause as this, let him ask his hon. Friend the Secretary for the War Department what he supposed would be the condition of the neighbourhood of our permanent camps and military stations? Remember that the sale of spirituous liquors at such places would not be carried on by the respectable class of licensed victuallers. They would not have the quiet orderly keepers of the best licensed houses vending liquors in such places; but the licences were to be granted indiscriminately, and they might have people going down from London making a permanent business of attending country fairs; and they would have a sort of cheap-jack ambulatory gin-shop wandering all over the country, demoralizing the inhabitants, and spreading the worst of vices, because the parent of

  1585
  all others, throughout the land. They would, in point of fact, exclude by this legislation alike the beer-shop keeper and the licensed victualler from supplying refreshments at such places; and upon all these grounds he did hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would adopt the advice of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire, and leave the law as it stood, rather than pass this clause, amended as he admitted it to have been.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that having for some years had the pleasure of sitting under the presidency of the right hon. Baronet, as chairman of the Court of Quarter Sessions, he knew how difficult it was for almost any person to obtain a licence to sell spirits; and he reminded him that, after all, the magistracy would have the means of checking the evils he anticipated if they should arise, by withholding the licence.
  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee d divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 63: Majority 53.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (British Hops re-imported chargeable with Duty for Six Mouths after 16th September, 1862).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would now reply to the question of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) before the Speaker left the chair. In his financial statement he announced that the Government were prepared to repeal the hop duty upon the condition that the greater part of it should be levied in another form. Since then many representations, as might be expected, had been made in favour of granting a drawback on hops. There were two main arguments urged in favour of that being done. One was with regard to the case of hop factors in London and the other great ports: they represented that it would pay these parties to export their hops, and keep them abroad for a sufficient time at a profit, and that therefore it would be much better to make a payment to them directly rather than that money should be wasted by exporting the hops for the purpose of bringing them back again. There was another argument made use of by some brewers, not by all. They said—"You are going to put on us a sort of commutation for the hop duty in the shape of augmented licence. We shall begin to brew in October with hops upon
  1586
  which we have already paid the duty; and yet upon the beer thus brewed we shall have to pay the tax which is to be levied as a substitute for the hop duty: we shall therefore in effect pay the duty twice upon the same article." Now, this question of drawbacks was not a question to be settled on principle; but it seemed only just that a concession should be made. His hon. Friend the Member for Southwark referred to the drawback which was granted last year on paper and on wine. Now, with regard to both those cases, the drawback was a simple boon to the parties who had stocks on hand. The reason in the case of wine was an engagement they had entered into; the reason in the case of paper was that unless they had allowed the drawback, they could not have kept the trade alive, and they would have received no duties from spring until autumn. Neither of these considerations applied to the present case. But still there was an argument very fairly urged by factors, who said they could export the hops and thereby get the drawback. Under these circumstances Government had considered what concession they would make, and they had come to the conclusion that they would be justified in asking the Committee to grant to holders of British hops on September 15 a pecuniary allowance at the rate of 7s. per cwt. He should therefore propose to pass the present Bill through Committee as it was, because it contained in the 12th clause and the schedules the conditions upon which the Government plan was founded; and he would give notice to-night to insert in the Bill a provision to grant 7s. per cwt. on the stock of hops in hand on the 15th of September. If these provisions were satisfactory to the Committee, the plan would go forward to the country as it was originally announced, subject to that single modification. On the other hand, if those conditions were not satisfactory to the Committee, Government would have no option in the present state of the finances but to recede to the position which they occupied on the 3rd of April. He thought they had gone to the utmost limit that equity would allow. They would have no alternative but to let the matter drop. He need not say that it would be with great regret that he should fall back upon such an alternative, as expectations had been raised which he should be sorry to disappoint. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark would not persevere in his Amendment.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he could not see the justice of the principle on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposal was based, for he could not perceive the difference between the case of hops and the case of other articles on which duties had been reduced or removed and drawbacks allowed. Unless the stock of hops in hand was so considerable that the difference between the 7s. rate and the 14 s. rate would embarrass the hon. Gentleman's finances, he hoped the principle of justice would be acted on, and that the full allowance would be made. He would, however, accept the proposition rather than that the bop duty should continue.
  MR. LOCKEalso considered the concession insufficient; but as the parties interested were at the mercy of the Government and the House, he saw no hope of inducing the right hon. Gentleman to improve his offer. He had expected that a much larger sum than 7s. would have been accorded, seeing the position in which the trade now stood and the losses they had sustained during the last two or three years.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that under the circumstances, he should accept the offer made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and should withdraw the Motion which stood in his name, leaving it to the right hon. Gentleman to do what was required in this matter.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the allowance of 7s. per cwt. would be a temptation to the hop factors to export their hops, as they would, on re-importing, be entitled to the whole 14 s. The expense of sending their stocks abroad, of warehousing them, and bringing them back at the end of six months would, he was informed, be about 4s. and it was hardly worthy of Parliament to put the trade to such an expense.
  MR. BASSwas anxious to know what amount the right hon. Gentleman computed he would have to pay to the hop factors for drawback. In the case of paper the drawback amounted to 150 per cent more than had been reckoned for.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was impossible to ascertain the quantity of hops in the country. Some facts would induce the belief that the stock was very large, and others that the stock could not possibly be so large, because his hon. Friend (Mr. Bass) had himself consumed so many. Upon a conjectural estimate, probably the drawback of 7s. per cwt. would cost the country between £50,000 and £100,000.
  Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 13.
  Clause 14 (9 Geo. 4, c. 18, granting Duties on Cards and Dice, repealed).
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had never heard that card-playing was conducive to the morality of any human, being; and whatever might have induced the right hon. Gentleman to facilitate access to beer, he could not understand on what ground he proposed to facilitate access to cards. He wished to know on what ground the proposition was made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not think that an assembly whose members had every facility of access to cards, and to whom price was no object, ought to be so extremely fastidious when a proposition was made in favour of those to whom the question of cost was one of some importance. He did not propose the reduction in the same sense as he had proposed the reduction of duty on a large number of commodities for the health and advantage of the people. It was simply a question of superseding a law that was constantly evaded—substituting an honest system for a dishonest one, which encouraged dishonest men at the expense of the fair-dealing trader. The quantity of cards sold without paying any duty at all was enormously out of proportion to those on which the duty was paid, and he believed that by reducing the duty to 3d. a larger amount of revenue would be raised than by retaining the duty at 1s. He did not want either to proscribe or to encourage card-playing. His object was to obtain a certain amount of duty.
  MR. BENTINCKremarked, that if the object of the right hon. Gentleman was not to encourage card-playing, that certainly would be the result of a change cheapening the article which was indispensable for the purpose.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTinquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal the duty on dice, which at present amounted to a prohibition?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that owing to the impracticability of enforcing the payment, the duty on dice had been practically repealed for some time under a Treasury order.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 15 to 28 inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (The Sums assessed under Schedules (A.), (B.), and (D.), for 1861, to be taken as assessed for 1862).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it had been the intention of the Government, as the Bill was originally framed, to have no new assessment under Schedule D in the present year, believing that they should thereby be sparing a great number of persons a great deal of trouble. He found, however, that the public opinion on the point was very much divided, and the Government had therefore decided on having a new assessment under Schedule D, but not under Schedules A and B. Of course the assessors would, under the circumstances, receive the bounty. He moved to amend the clause accordingly.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTasked, whether, in some cases, this clause would not make the local Commissioners responsible for the acts of persons whom they did not appoint?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,did not think any such inconvenient consequences were to be apprehended.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, it would appear by the construction of this and a subsequent part of the Bill, Clause 31, that there was an intention entirely to override the present system of appointing collectors, and to assume for the Commissioners powers which hitherto had belonged to the parish alone.
  MR. BARROWthought that the assessors should be appointed by the Income Tax Commissioners to whom they were known; such was the case in the country, and the consequence was that a re-assessment was hardly ever required.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Commissioners referred to were not the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, but the local Commissioners.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, the objection taken was, that no alteration ought to be made in the existing system of collection and assessment, of which the fundamental theory was that the people should tax themselves.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as there was to be no new assessment under Schedules A and B, there would be no assessors; and, consequently, it would be impossible for assessors to present the collectors named by the parish. The clause merely sought to provide for the lapse which would otherwise be created.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEasked, whether assessors would not be appointed under Schedule D?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, great complaints were made of the harsh operation of the system of quarterly payments. Many persons, especially clergymen, who received their money half-yearly, were obliged to pay taxes on their incomes three months before they were received.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the Committee would see that he would not be justified in coming to the Committee and asking for £25,000 for the assessors on Schedules A and B for doing nothing. On Schedule D the work was done, and on it it ought to be paid.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYwished to call the attention of the Committee to a practical grievance, and hoped he should obtain its assent to a fair remedy, though it must also have the sanction of the Government, as it would involve, to a small extent, an outlay of the public money. In some parts of the country great numbers of income tax payers were summoned to have their appeals heard. Of these many had to attend twice for this purpose. In many cases the appeals were not heard at all; in the majority of cases the appeals were confirmed. He wished to impress on the subordinate officers a little more care in their mode of summoning persons liable to the tax. The proviso he proposed to add to Clause 29 would give to persons whose appeals were not heard, or, on being heard, were decided in their favour, the reasonable costs of 6d. per mile on the distance from their homes for each day of their attendance. This would have a tendency to check the practice of reckless summoning. There was a direct precedent for giving such costs in the Act 48th of Geo. III. The taxpayers were entitled to have their time and their duties considered. The tax ought not to be made infinitely more odious by the manner in which its machinery was worked. The subordinate officers required some check of the kind he proposed, to make them more careful in this matter. The charge the proviso would entail was not great, and the Government would be a gainer by inducing a better feeling among the taxpayers than existed at present. The hon. Member moved that the following proviso be added to Clause 29:—
  "That all persons entitled to appeal from assessments of income tax, who shall attend the meetings of the Commissioners when duly summoned, shall be, if the appeal is not heard, or, if heard, is decided in favour of the appellant, entitled to costs at the rate of 6d. a mile from their place of abode for each day of such attendance;

  1591
  such costs shall be given in a certificate from the Commissioners, and shall be paid in such manner as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury shall direct."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Motion was informal, and could not be submitted to the Committee; but regarding it as an appeal to the Government, which could come from no one with greater title to respect and considerate attention than the hon. Baronet, still it was impossible to entertain it. The real principle involved was that all subjects of the Crown should be reimbursed out of the taxes for the trouble which they might be legitimately called upon to take in respect of the payment of taxes. No one could know the full extent to which such a principle, if once admitted, would necessarily lead. They could not levy any tax without imposing an additional tax in the shape of time and trouble. He admitted that they were bound to make this as light as possible; but he could not admit the principle that such trouble ought to be represented in money, and that repayment should be made out of the public purse. If there were abuse or an excessive use of power by public functionaries, it was a proper matter for the notice of the Government, or of the House when the Government failed to do their duty. The carelessness, the indiscreet and improper use of power, or the insolence of Government officials, was to be treated as a fault and an offence, and punished accordingly. A Return [No. 172] which had been recently laid upon the table with respect to a number of appeals in a district in Northamptonshire conveyed a most fallacious impression. It gave the House to understand that a Government officer had to deal with about 1,000 cases, and in 800 of them he was wrong. He was so startled by the Return that he at once called for an explanation. The business of assessing fell upon local officers; and when they did not do their duty, it was thrown upon the surveyor. In this particular district no less than 3,248 properties were entirely omitted by the parochial assessors, and the surveyor had to surcharge in 2,720 other cases. It was not possible for any man who, through the gross default of the local officers, was called upon to deal with nearly 6,000 assessments, instead of exercising a general supervision, to show minute circumspection in the circumstances of each case, and he thought the surveyor deserved praise for the manner in which he had encountered the difficulty, rather than cen-
  1592
  sure. Of the 5,985 cases, 1,297 were disposed of by him upon his own responsibility; and out of those remaining there were only 979 appeals; of the 979 appeals 219 were confirmed, and 760 were either discharged or the assessment reduced. The result proved that in seven cases out of every eight the surveyor was absolutely right, and in only one case out of fifteen was he wrong in his judgment. The case was eminently illustrative of one thing—the extreme imperfection of the working of the system under local officers. It was right he should mention how appeals under the income tax arose; for the Motion of the hon. Baronet proceeded on the assumption, that wherever a party was called upon to appeal, presumptively there must have been some excess on the part of the Government officer in charging him. Now, that was not so. The officers were obliged to charge all property; and when once charged, there was no other mode of getting relieved than by appealing. It was neither the fault of the Government or of the parties—it arose absolutely out of the structure of the tax itself. They were quite inseparable from the nature of the tax. A large majority of those appeals were confirmed, but it would be absurd to compensate the parties by payments out of the public purse. He believed that so far from the charge on the public being insignificant, if the principle of the hon. Baronet were adopted, it would entail a very heavy charge. Then there were those who neglected to make a return of their incomes, and were assessed conjecturally, and a great many appealed against their own returns, and obtained their correction; but surely they were not entitled on that account to payment out of the public purse. This discussion would certainly tend to dissipate the unhappy delusion which prevailed in some quarters, that if a tax be only direct, its collection must be attended with no difficulty. If Government officers misconducted themselves, nothing was easier than to call them directly to account, through the Government or in that House. The case of collectors was different. They were not Government officers. The control over them was in the hands of the Commissioners. But he was bound to say, as the result of a very extensive experience as to the collection of income tax, that although these local officers were not under direct Parliamentary control, in general their duties were discharged not only with fide-

  1593
  lity, but with considerable care and caution; but to say that compensation should be allowed for the default of local officers to taxpayers at the charge of the Exchequer, involved a principle which was full of danger. He therefore could not assent to the Motion of the hon. Baronet—he should object even to any approach to its principle.
  THE CHAIRMANinterposed and said, that as the Motion of the hon. Baronet involved a grant of public money, in the absence of any recommendation of the Crown to that effect it could not be entertained by the Committee.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEcalled attention to the extraordinary harshness and severity with which the law had been enforced in Northamptonshire, particularly in the district of Peterborough. The people had been scourged to the utmost; the surcharges which had been made were most irritating, and, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own admission, 1,200 appeals had been struck off as not sustainable.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to set the hon. Baronet right. There were 1,200 cases where parties were not brought forward, no trouble being given. They were exempted before, and the exemptions were continued.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEunderstood there were 2,720 cases of surcharge, and of these a very small number were sustained. These proceedings had created quite a ferment in the county; and if the tax was to be collected on that principle, the Government would be compelled, as a far stronger Government was compelled in 1816, to abrogate the tax, whatever the necessities of the country might be.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, that the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) was not in the House, because he was too unwell to attend. He had been taken suddenly ill while on a Committee of which he was a member, and had been ordered not to leave his house.
  MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, he could himself bear testimony to the frequency of surcharges in two districts with which he was well acquainted. Numbers of the small freeholders had besought his interference, under the mistaken impression that as a magistrate he could procure redress. In one instance a curate, whose whole income was only £100, was surcharged without any reason; and, as he was assessed in two different districts, he had to spend a couple of days in attendance at the public-houses where the appeals
  1594
  were heard. It was ultimately found that he had been certified by mistake
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he could also: bear testimony to the unnecessary harshness with which the income was in some cases assessed; and as it was not a popular tax in itself, care ought to be taken that it was not rendered still more disagreeable by the mode in which it was assessed and collected. But he rose to point out that by the Customs Consolidation Act it was provided that in inquiries by the Custom House authorities, very similar to those under consideration, the persons summoned were entitled, on the certificate of the magistrate, to reasonable expenses. The principle held good in the present instance.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that there seemed to be a general system of sending surcharges right and left throughout the country without consideration. The people generally strongly objected to the mode of appeal prescribed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had acted in a very singular manner with regard to the income tax. He had squeezed five quarters into the year, and thus kept the applications for income tax perpetually before them, he believed that nothing would tend more to the extinction of this abominable tax than this petty mode of collecting it. He hoped the public would continue to state their grievances. With regard to the Return from North Northamptonshire, it was strikingly to the point, and set forth complaints which demanded immediate attention. The petitioners complained of the various methods resorted to for surcharging them, by which agricultural tenants were made to pay on a much higher sum than they actually paid for rent; and they had been vexed and harassed, and put to every conceivable expense and trouble.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was an entire mistake to imagine that any undue pressure had been authorized in the collection of the income tax. The estimate of the tax for last year was £10,350,000, and the return was only £10,365,000. That did not look as if any stringent or novel means had been employed to extract money. A new assessment must always be attended with considerable difficulty and inconvenience.
  MR. SEELYstrongly urged the justice of repaying to a man who had been unjustly surcharged the money out of pocket by the appeal.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that the proposal for renewing the income tax came with a

  1595
  bad grace from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was more than any other man pledged to its repeal. As we were saddled with the tax, however, it ought to be made as little burdensome in collection as possible. He did not, for a moment, impute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer participation in the abuses connected with its collection. There was another abuse which was somewhat general, though of course it would not be proper for him to mention names or places in connection with it. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Then how are we to find it out?] He did not ask for any remedy in the particular case, but to inquire whether the Government would deal with the practice as an offence in the event of its being brought to their notice. He had had a letter from a gentleman of great respectability, who stated that on their appeal day, the 6th October last, many parties attended to prove their exemption from the tax. The surveyor required a printed form to be filled up, and the surveyor's son filled up many of them and was paid from 1s. to 2s. 6d. in each case for so doing. This was done in a room apart from the Commissioners; but, on a former occasion, the surveyor himself pursued the same course. He (Mr. Bentinck) wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever heard of such a practice, for it was believed to be general in many parts of the country, and whether he would deal with it as ail offence?
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, that what he most strongly objected to in the income tax was its inquisitorial character. No doubt surcharges were frequently made unjustly; but the grossest cases of fraud upon the revenue were perpetually occurring. Frequently, when very large profits were known to be made in trades, either no returns, or returns obviously false, were made; and surcharges were made sometimes to the extent of £15,000 and £20,000 a year, which were paid without a word. He hoped the services of the surveyors were duly appreciated by the Government. They were a class of men who endeavoured to do their duty fairly, and deserved support; and he hoped they would not be deterred from doing their duty by the charges that had been made against them that evening.
  MR. WHALLEYconfirmed the very great dissatisfaction that was felt at the surcharges in the neighbourhood of Peterborough. But with respect to the com-
  1596
  plaints that had been made, he found that he should not be justified in bringing them before the House, seeing that those surveyors had acted merely in discharge of their duties. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether this description did not confirm the view that it was quite impossible for him to sustain this particular portion of the income tax? Why should not the taxes in Schedule B be raised in the nature of a land tax?
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONdrew attention to the complaints which had arisen in Shropshire in consequence of surcharges, and suggested that some instructions must have been given by Government to cause these surcharges.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcomplained that the hon. Baronet should have made this statement, when he had just told the Committee that there were no such instructions; and he challenged a further investigation into the matter. With regard to the statement of the hon. Member for West Norfolk, there was very little use in stating cases without names. If the names were given, he could make inquiry and ascertain the facts, but not otherwise. At present, he could only state that no person had ever complained to him of payments exacted by any officer of the Government for preparing or filling up forms or returns. Very recently he had heard that persons had employed some man in the room of the Commissioners, and paid him 6d., apiece for filling up their returns. He did not understand that he was a person in the employment of the Government. As far as he was able to judge, it would not be the duty of a Government officer to fill up returns; still less would it be compatible with his duty to accept payment for filling them up.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONbegged to explain that he was out of the House when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his observations, or he certainly should not have said what he had said.
  MR. BRADYbore testimony to the faithfulness and fairness with which the surveyors of the income tax discharged their duties.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that no general charge had been made against the surveyors.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he could confirm what had been said by other hon. Members by what had come within his own experience last autumn, and which convinced him, that if assessments were made every

  1597
  year to the income tax, it would soon come to an end; for the necessary curse which attended a re-assessment would cause a blister of such a kind, that unless a little time were allowed for it to heal, there would be one universal kick against the tax from one end of the country to the other. He believed that every district throughout the country could make a similar return to Northampton, for there were numbers of people holding small cottages and other property who could not get off the tax except by some process they satisfied the Government officers that they had no other property of sufficient amount to render them liable to it. The first day of appeal this happened. They had a whole string of appeals. The parties came in one after the other, a few simple questions were put them, and then they were dismissed. The surveyor, when the proceedings were over, was asked if some means could not be devised by which this could be avoided, and he said the same thing would occur at every meeting. This was one of the curses incident to the tax. He had never seen any disposition whatever on the part of the surveyors to act with oppression, and he could not, as an honest man, refrain from standing up and saying so. The tax was a curse in itself. It was a most painful thing to examine humble people as to whether they made £98 in a year or £102. For his sins he had had to go through many such examinations, hut he had never seen any attempt on the part of the officers to put an extra squeeze on. He thought they did their duty fairly between the Crown and the subject. The tax had gone on for twenty years, and it had claws in all directions, and those claws, from the very nature of the tax, were continually extending, and the curse would become greater the longer it lasted. He could not hope to live long enough to see it got rid of, but he felt that the longer it lasted the greater would be the desire to get rid of it.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGEBYsaid, the grievance he complained of was that a number of persons were summoned—poor cottagers and others—they were dragged from their homes several miles, and then their cases were not decided. Instructions should be given by the Inland Revenue Department that no more persons should be summoned than could have their grievances heard. He was sure, with regard to this tax, that the country would ultimately come to the position they were in
  1598
  in 1816, when Lord Brougham recommended that all income tax papers should be burnt by the least reputable person in the State.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that the reason he had taken no notice of the hon. Baronet's complaint was that it did not depend upon him or upon any Government officer, who should be summoned, but it was done by the authority of the Commissioner. If the hon. Baronet could point out anything that the Government could do to remedy the evil, he should be happy to entertain the proposition; but he was afraid that it was incident to the nature of the tax, and he was convinced that the payment of compensation in such cases would only make matters worse. The hon. Baronet seemed astonished at the increase in the assessment last year as compared with former years. Last year was the first new assessment for five or six years, and of course in a district like that to which the hon. Baronet had referred, the value of property had risen considerably; and if no increase had taken place in the assessments, it would have been a proof that the officers of the Government were neglecting their duty.
  MR. HENLEYobserved, that the hon. Baronet was not correct in speaking of persons being summoned; they were amerced, and notice was given that upon a certain day they could appeal, and no possible skill could enable either the Commissioners or surveyors to know how many would avail themselves of the right.
  MAJOR EDWARDSquite agreed as to the hardship of poor people being required to attend again and again at the court before their appeals were heard, and suggested that in these cases the principle adopted in the Revising Barristers' courts should be followed, and that costs should be allowed to persons where the opposition to their claim was frivolous or vexatious.
  Clause agreed to; as were also the remaining Clauses and the Schedules.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; to be printed as amended [Bill 109]; recommitted for Thursday.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution, £116,695, Science and Art Department, reported.
  MR. BARROWtook occasion to ask why the Highway Bill had been so frequently postponed. The evidence taken before the Select Committee had now been

  1599
  ordered to be printed, though it was understood, when the Committee was appointed, that no evidence was to be taken.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no evidence had been taken, and it was the proceedings of the Committee, not evidence, that had been ordered to be printed. The Bill stood for Thursday, but he did not think it could be brought on then; and, if 80, Monday next would be the first opportunity for considering it, though other pressing business might prevent its discussion on that night.
  Resolution agreed to.
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL,—2a Register of Voters.
DISTRESS IN LANCASHIRE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had given his noble Friend the Presi-

  1533
  dent of the Council private notice of a Question he was about to put, on a subject of painful and general interest. Their Lordships had, no doubt, all heard of the great distress now unhappily prevailing in the cotton manufacturing districts of Lancashire, and of the admirable manner in which it was borne by the people. Nothing could exceed their dignified and noble bearing under the trials they were called upon to sustain. Their endurance was not to be measured by the amount of physical privation which they had to contend with. To his certain knowledge many, who, by great industry had, during the period of prosperity—a period extending over the last five or six years—invested very considerable sums, by which they hoped to make provision for, perhaps, premature old age, had been compelled to expend the whole of their savings, in procuring sustenance for themselves and their families, since the commencement of the distress; so that when again they should be able to recommence work by the removal of the cause which had for a time put an end to the demand for their labour, they would have to recommence under every disadvantage the task of making provision for the future. But, notwithstanding all their privations, and all the difficulties to which they were exposed, he wished their Lordships to remark the good sense and sound judgment which these operative classes had displayed throughout. They had been guilty of no excesses; they did not complain of their employers, nor attribute their sufferings to social distinctions; nor did they expect that they could be ameliorated or remedied by any interference on the part of the Legislature or of the Government. It was admirable, also, to see the good understanding which prevailed between the employer and the employed in an emergency in which both were such severe sufferers. No doubt very large fortunes had been amassed in this branch of industry, and some few employers were not fully sensible to the demands of their duty; but a great many of the manufacturers, in order to afford employment for their hands, were carrying on their operations at a serious loss; others were expending considerable sums in the shape of contributions for the relief of the workpeople; and the consequence was, that the most happy understanding existed. If their Lordships contrasted this state of feeling with that which had existed during former periods of manufacturing distress, they
  1534
  could not but be gratified with the increase of intelligence which was manifested among those classes of our population. Several modes had been suggested by which the distress might be temporarily relieved. First, there was a proposition for a large grant from the Consolidated Fund. That, however, he apprehended, would not be received with much approbation in any quarter. There was also the resource of private contributions. Although, undoubtedly, he was far from saying that sympathy might not be shown in the way of contributions. But that was not the mode in which he believed the people would desire to be relieved. He believed they would prefer to receive relief from the administration of the Poor Law, in so far as it could be made adequate for the purpose and to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Therefore it was that he wished to ask his noble Friend if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to advise anything in the shape of a relaxation of the rigid rules of the Poor Law in respect to relief, more especially in respect to the labour test. He would oven now have the labour test applied to those who were idle and not disposed to work. But it must be borne in mind that these people were destitute from no cause which they could control. They were disposed to work if work could be found for them to do; and in the present state of the trade, when there was no employment for them, and they were consequently driven to ask for relief, the enforcement of the labour test would be most cruel and injudicious. This was especially the case with regard to the class of persons employed in many branches of the manufactures carried on in these cotton factories, and which required very delicate handling, and could not be performed by persons whose hands were hardened by rough work. To set such persons to break stones would be not only to expose them to much unnecessary suffering as a condition of the relief afforded, but would in many cases deprive them of the means of earning their bread when a revival of trade took place, and their labour was again in demand. Then, again, to put men to outdoor labour, and expose to drenching rains those who had been accustomed to work in the heated rooms of factories, would be to bring on them other inevitable disorders. He hoped, therefore, his noble Friend, on the part of the Government, would be prepared to give, in answer to his question, an assurance that some relaxation would be

  1535
  made in the administration of the Poor Law relief, especially in regard to the labour test. But, whatever the decision of the Government, he was sure they would join with him in the expression of sympathy and respect for the admirable conduct of those honest but industrious and suffering men. He begged to ask his noble Friend, Whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise some temporary relaxation in the administration of the Poor Law relief, especially as regards the labour test, in order to meet the present emergency?
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, he was not aware that this Question was to be put, but he could not allow the opportunity to pass without expressing his feeling of deep sympathy for the sufferings endured, and of respect for those who bore them, with the patience and manly fortitude so well described by the noble Earl. He joined cordially in his expression of admiration for the conduct of the people of Lancashire in their distress; and he felt confident they would continue to show the same noble bearing whatever trials might still await them. Connected as he had been through life with the district, he necessarily regarded their sufferings with the greatest interest and sympathy. He had lived among the people of Lancashire, and knew them to be amongst the most industrious, intelligent, and well-conducted of the labouring classes. He had known them from the highest and most wealthy classes to the most needy and hard-working, having lived among them in the days of their highest prosperity and passed among them many and many an anxious day in periods of the severest trials and distress. He knew the enlightened views and liberal generosity of the richer classes, and he was equally acquainted with the manly courage, the love of country, and attachment to the principles of justice which characterized the poorer classes of that district. He therefore was not surprised that the conduct of all classes in the present crisis had been such as to command the approbation of their Lordships and of the country at large. He certainly did hope, not only that the attention of the Government, but of all classes, would be extended to that district during the fearful trial which he feared was yet awaiting them. It would be felt, on the one hand, that their suffering was not occasioned by any fault or misconduct of the people, but in consequence of the firm adherence
  1536
  of the Government to the law of nations in not interfering with either of the belligerents in the contest unhappily going on in America. But, at the same time, they would all feel that a case of greater difficulty or of more grave responsibility could scarcely arise than that which was presented to the Government in dealing with the sufferings of these people. It was easy to satisfy their own feelings by calling for relief from the Consolidated Fund, or from private subscriptions; but it was imperative, that while every facility should be afforded for making those resources applicable for the relief of distress, they should nevertheless proceed upon those sound principles which alone could render such relief a blessing to those to whom it was extended. He was confident that the Government in this great emergency would not fail to act under the guidance of sound principle and with a due regard to the ultimate consequences as well as the immediate effect of their measures upon the condition and permanent well-being of the manufacturing population.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it must have been satisfactory to the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) to have an opportunity of expressing his own feelings, which were those, he was sure, of the House generally, as they were those of Her Majesty's Government, in favour of the class in whose behalf he had pleaded. It was impossible for any one representing the Government to deny that very great distress did exist in the cotton manufacturing districts, and that much individual suffering had resulted; or to withhold his sympathy and admiration at the manner in which that suffering and destitution had been met both by the employers and the employed. At the same time, so far as the facts were known to the Government, that distress was not quite so general as had at first been imagined. There were great numbers of persons wholly out of employment, no doubt—large numbers, also, were working half instead of whole time; but there were others, again, in some districts who were employed at nearly full time. Great sympathy had been manifested for the suffering class both in Lancashire and in the adjoining counties; and he thought great judgment had been shown by the manufacturers and employers of labour, as well as by the guardians of the poor of the several unions, in the mode which they had adopted of meeting the distress. With regard to the steps taken

  1537
  by the Government in reference to the administration of the Poor Law, and in especial regard to the labour test, he had to answer with reference to that test, that it was to be remembered that there was already power in the boards of guardians to dispense with that test for a period not exceeding three weeks at their own discretion, in cases of emergency, at the end of which time they must report to the Poor Law Board; who, if they saw sufficient reason, might permit the discontinuance of the test for a still longer period. It must also be remembered that there existed a large class of operatives who would desire to perform some labour in return for the relief that might be afforded to them. The great object of the Government in dealing with the Poor Law authorities was to see that the rules and regulations of the law were conformed to, but at the same time to make them so elastic that they might at all times be made available for meeting cases of pressing emergency. Her Majesty's Government had considered the subject most anxiously, and had come to the same conclusion that the people of Lancashire themselves had come to—namely, that the resources of Lancashire were as yet sufficient to meet the emergency. Up to the present time he believed there was nothing in the case, either in the number of persons thrown upon the relief fund or the amount of the rate, which should cause serious alarm, or lead to the opinion that the Poor Law would be inadequate to meet the demand upon it. Except in one or two parishes, the rate had not yet readied any very high amount; and those parishes had, under the existing law, power to call upon the adjoining parishes for aid. With regard to the capability of the district, he reminded their Lordships that six years ago the ratable value of the property of the district was £7,000,000, and it had since considerably increased. There was no reason to suppose, therefore, that the resources of Lancashire would fall short of the demands which might possibly be made upon them in the present exigency. He found that committees were beginning to be organized to aid the local authorities in the administration of the relief, by ascertaining the wants and claims of the distressed people; and the Poor Law Board had sent down a most experienced Inspector, a gentleman who had been for five or six years engaged in an adjoining district of Lancashire, and who enjoyed the confidence of the authorities, to co-operate with
  1538
  the guardians. That gentleman, Mr. Farnall, would confer with the magistrates, with the clergy of all denominations, the Poor Law guardians, the committees, and others; he would endeavour to place their local committees in harmonious working with the local authorities, would advise the guardians as to the best means of providing labour or other tests for those who might become the objects of relief as circumstances suggested, and would originate and put in force such other measures as were calculated to load to the most satisfactory solution of the difficulty. The noble Lord (Lord Overstone) had referred to the feeling of sympathy exhibited by the manufacturers, and he (Earl Granville) admitted that it was impossible to speak too highly of their conduct, taking them as a body. No doubt a certain number of the manufacturers had shut up their mills, and thereby contributed to the general distress; there was no doubt that in other parts the manufacturers were a little inclined in some instances to cast a burden upon the Poor Law guardians which in some sort belonged to them; but there was no doubt that the majority were animated with the best feeling towards those they employed, submitting to very great sacrifices themselves in order to alleviate the suffering of their hands, and were taking that course of prudence and humanity which was most likely to avoid those consequences which an injudicious course of conduct would produce. With regard to the operatives, it was impossible to speak too highly of them—their patience, their submission to the will of God, their perfect knowledge of the secondary causes that have led to the difficulty, their feelings for the sacrifices to which their employers are exposed, their appreciation of the relations between the Government and the people, and their understanding that Government, not having mixed in social affairs of this kind, are not responsible when distress arising from any failure in the demand for labour takes place, and further, their knowledge that the Legislature was wholly inadequate to meet such an emergency. Knowledge of these facts, and the conduct which that knowledge has produced, reflect most creditably upon the operatives of that large district, and speak for that increased intelligence and intellectual improvement, as well as that great improvement in their moral character, to which the noble Lord has so properly borne testimony. It was with great satisfaction that he was enabled

  1539
  on his own part, and on the part of the Government—he believed he might say on the part of all their Lordships—to express their admiration of the conduct of these poor people, together with their deep sympathy for their sufferings.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he could not refrain from bearing his testimony, from personal knowledge, to the admirable manner in which the manufacturing population of Lancashire, both employers and operatives, had met a calamity which was almost unparalleled in the history of England. Nothing, on the one hand, could be more admirable than the patience and submission which the operatives had displayed under privations which they had little reason to anticipate; and, on the other hand, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had only done justice to the great majority of the millowners when he said, that at considerable loss to themselves, they had carried and were carrying on their works for the sole purpose of furnishing employment to the population around them. It was to be remembered, moreover, that many of them had most generously and liberally contributed from their private purses to the relief of the distress around them. He was entirely satisfied with the statement which the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had made as to the course which the Government were pursuing. The very last resource to which, under circumstances such as the present, any population ought to have recourse, more especially a population upon the whole so well to do as that of Lancashire, was assistance from the public purse; and he certainly should not be disposed to hold out to the distressed districts any expectation of their receiving, until they were reduced to the last extremities, any aid from that quarter. He thought the Government had taken a judicious course in sending down a confidential agent to communicate with the boards of guardians, the relief committees, and others engaged in the work of relief, and to keep the central Board constantly and thoroughly informed as to the particular condition of each district. As to the statement that the present distress was not so great as on some former occasions, he thought the Poor Law authorities might themselves be misled—he was afraid that statement was true only of Lancashire as a whole. Although it might be correct to say that there had been times when Lancashire was in greater distress than at the
  1540
  present moment, yet he believed that in particular towns and districts, such as Manchester, Blackburn, Preston, and Wigan, distress was never more general or pressing. The Government, no doubt, were right in their determination to use, as far as they could, the machinery of the Poor Law for the relief of the distress but it ought never to be forgotten that among the manufacturing operatives there were thousands who would bear any amount of suffering and privation rather than submit to the degradation, as they deemed it, of applying for parochial relief. Their Lordships must not, therefore, think that the funds administered by the Poor Law Board would, however liberally they might be applied, be sufficient to meet the distress which in many instances prevailed to so great an extent. Those who were suffering from that distress must look to assistance from private sources, and he was sure private charity would not, on an occasion which called so loudly for its aid, be found wanting. Contributions were, he rejoiced to say, proceeding at the present moment from persons locally connected with Lancashire to a great extent; and he might also state that many persons, in their anxiety to do their duty under the circumstances, were quietly and unostentatiously subscribing funds, the subscription of which might hereafter seriously interfere with the rendering of that public assistance which the public generally might feel they were called upon to make. He was therefore anxious that it should be understood, that if hereafter it should be found necessary to make an appeal to the country at large, the disposition and liberality of persons immediately connected with Lancashire should not be estimated by their assumed ability to contribute to any public subscription; because he felt assured a very unjust measure would be taken of the efforts which had been, and which were continuing to be, made locally if any one were to say, "It is not right that the Lancashire manufacturers should apply to us for assistance, seeing as we do from the published list, how small is the sum which they themselves subscribe who are locally interested." He might add, that while he was satisfied, on the one hand, that the people of Lancashire were bearing the distress which had fallen upon them with a patience, a resignation, and a resolution which did them the highest credit, he was, on the other hand, convinced that many were exerting them-

  1541
  selves to the full extent of their means to relieve that distress; and he felt assured that when these means were, if not exhausted, greatly reduced, those who so exerted themselves would not appeal in vain to the sympathy and liberality of their fellow-countrymen to meet an exigency for which their own funds might be insufficient, and to cope with which the Poor Law furnished an inadequate machinery. The last resource, he believed, to which the manufacturing population of the North would desire to have recourse would be to present themselves as petitioners for relief from the public funds of the country.

REGISTER OF VOTERS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. [Bill No. 43.]
  LORD LYVEDEN,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, it was a measure to facilitate the registration of voters for the convenience of the constituencies throughout England and Wales, by providing an alphabetical Index to the Register of Voters in Counties, Cities, and Boroughs. The Bill had been passed through the Commons and sent up by a large majority, and the Members for South Lancashire and Middlesex had supported it. Under these circumstances he hoped their Lordships would assent to the second reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill had studiously neglected to point out how his measure would prove advantageous or useful to the counties. On the other hand, as he believed a very considerable expense would be thrown on the counties, and that the measure was wholly unnecessary, he should oppose the second reading.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that no great interest had been manifested in the other House of Parliament in respect to this Bill. It was evident that the measure would impose a very considerable expense upon counties, and he was quite at a loss to see what possible advantage would accrue from the passing of the measure. The present system of registration was quite sufficient. When the revising barristers had concluded their duties, they sent the revised lists of electors to the clerks of the peace of the counties and the returning officers in the boroughs
  1542
  respectively, who arranged the lists alphabetically and had them printed. He submitted that that course of practice was found to be quite sufficient for all practical purposes. The result of passing this Bill would oblige the authorities to print the names of the electors twice instead of once; and, consequently, in such a borough as the Tower Hamlets, where the electors numbered 29,918 names, the expense would be doubled. As the noble Lord has given no satisfactory reason for incurring those extra expenses, he trusted that the second reading of the Bill would not be assented to.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONobjected to the measure. It effected no more than was already done by a far better and more useful arrangement. The Bill merely doubled the existing register. The Bill ought not to pass, at any rate, in its present compulsory form. The matter ought at least to be left to the option of the counties and towns.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Bill involved no great constitutional question of any sort; and as the House of Commons had agreed to it by a large majority, it would, he thought, be most ungracious on the part of their Lordships to refuse the second reading.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwould not press his objection to a division.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

RIVER SHANNON—PETITIONS.

  MOTION FOR SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presented Petitions from various places in the West of Ireland, praying for Inquiry into the Causes of the great and frequent Inundations of the River Shannon and its Tributaries, and into the Effects of the Works constructed by the Shannon Commissioners of 1839, and said, he had given notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. The noble Marquess said he regretted to say that he had received a notification from the noble Earl the President of the Council to the effect that his Motion would be opposed, and he was therefore compelled to go at some length into the subject. He was afraid that the Government had not a due appreciation of the importance of the matter, or of the case of justice involved. He was sure they had not given proper

  1543
  attention to the subject, but had simply taken the statements laid before them by the Irish Board of Works—statements which, he regretted to say, were fallacious in every respect, and audacious in some respects; and he would undertake to prove what he asserted, if a Committee were appointed. He did not want to inquire too narrowly into past errors, but merely to seek a remedy for existing evils; and that remedy might be provided without one shilling cost to the State, except for the inquiry itself. The Board of Works had, indeed, offered an inquiry, but it was of so limited a nature and so clogged by conditions, that it could not be accepted. The great body of water caused by the overflow of the Shannon and the lakes from which it arose, slowly making its way to the sea, had produced a state of things which every traveller in Ireland had noticed as the greatest disgrace to the country. The land along the Shannon from Limerick to Lough Allen, a distance of 150 miles, might be called a bog. In the last century several Acts had been passed by the Irish Parliament, with a view to improve the navigation of the river, and from time to time since then various improvements had been made with the same object. In the year 1831, under the Government of Earl Grey, certain works were projected, which were afterwards so badly executed that at present they were a positive nuisance; and when the landowners who were affected applied for a remedy, the objection of the Board of Works was that they were necessary for navigation. The Board stated that since the works had been made with a view to navigation solely, the landowners were out of court, because the river could not be improved without injuring the navigation. The Board laid it down very distinctly, that it was futile to expect "perfect drainage combined with navigation, the first principles of each system being in direct opposition." Anything more absurd and untrue never was uttered. The first thing that was wanted with a view to navigation and for drainage was, to get the command of the river; and the first step towards that object was to deepen and widen the channel. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), when Secretary for Ireland in 1831, gave such instructions to Colonel Burgoyne with respect to the improvement of navigation and the reclaiming of vast tracts of land which were periodically inundated, as showed that he was of a very different opinion from the Board of Works. Under Sir
  1544
  John Burgoyne, Mr. Rhodes made a survey, and suggested a plan which, if it had been properly carried out, would have given complete command over the waters of the river and prevented the calamities that had since occurred. Then came the Act of 1836, the fourth section of which provided, that the Commissioners appointed under the Act should, while providing for the improvement of the navigation, make out a plan and estimates of the works proper to be executed for otherwise improving the river, for confining its waters, and for preventing the inundation of the contiguous lands. The Act also suggested that the taxation to be levied should be proportioned to the benefit to be derived by the respective landowners. The Commissioners made a Report in 1837, and another in 1838. In the latter they asserted that the landowners would be amply repaid for the local taxation that might be levied, partly by the improvement in the navigation, and partly by the improvement of their land. About ten years afterwards, the powers of the Acts of Parliament having been meanwhile transferred to the Board of Works, a Report was presented, in which it was asserted that the low lands were then rarely flooded. He did not hesitate to declare that this representation was entirely untrue. He did not deny that some good had been done, but he asserted that the particular lands to which the Commissioners adverted wore injured, and not benefited; and, moreover, that the inundations were not less but more frequent. If their Lordships would give him a Committee, he undertook to prove this, and to show that a great amount of property was sacrificed in the most wanton and unnecessary manner. It was often asserted that Irish proprietors would not drain and improve their land. But in this case they wanted to lay out their money hi draining the land. The Government, however, had the key of the drainage of the whole country, and the Board of Works would not allow the question to be investigated, because they knew how much incapacity and misconduct would thereby be exposed. The allegation that the Board of Works had nothing to do with the Shannon previously to 1850 was not true; for though the formal transfer, under the Acts for Improvement of the Shannon from the Commissioners to the Board of Works only took place in that year, an Act passed in 1846 gave the Board in reality that power which was subsequently made the subject of a formal but unnecessary transfer. The

  1545
  question now was as to the remedy which ought to be applied to an admitted evil. The Board stated that all the crops ought to be removed from the land before October —as if there were no floods before October; the fact being that the land was now often covered with water in spring, summer, and autumn; and one day's rain last week or the week before was sufficient to cover with water the lands contiguous to the Shannon and the Suck. He did not mean to say that none of the works executed on the Shannon had effected any general benefit; but he did allege that as regarded some portions of the country these works had been productive of positive mischief, owing to the manner in which they had been executed. The subject was connected with the peace of the country, for the people in some districts exposed to the inundations were not inclined to bear their calamity very quietly when they saw that a remedy might easily be applied by their own hands. If the landlords and clergymen had not interfered, it was highly probable that the peasantry would have carried some of the dams away. No doubt that would have been a malum prohibitum, but he must say that in his conscientious opinion it would not have been a malum per se, because the removal of those dams would have been a benefit to the country. The cry of the Board of Works was, "Oh, you are going to injure the navigation." He denied that assertion. He and those who acted with him were desirous of effecting that improvement in the navigation which, in many places, was now imperatively required. It was only a few weeks ago that a boat loaded with provisions for the people in the west was stopped because it could not pass through the canal of Lough Allen. The original plans had been so botched by the Board that in some places the navigation was even dangerous. With the disgraceful condition of public works in the district to which he was inviting their Lordships' attention, it was almost impossible to believe that there could be a Board of Works and a Lord Lieutenant in the country; and the talk about promoting useful works and extending drainage on private properties sounded like an absurdity and a mockery. The authorities boasted that there were 232 miles of navigation open; but were they on that account to leave the centre of Ireland for ever a swamp? At the very time when the Commissioners were pleading their inability to erect flood-gates, or to make any
  1546
  improvements whatever, they had balances in their hands, as shown by the Parliamentary Returns, of from £8,000 to £10,000. It was true that, with regard to the accounts of the Board, he had not the ability to understand them. It was a great exaggeration to say there was anything like famine in Ireland; but there was, undoubtedly, great distress and want of employment in these very districts. What he asked was a fair and impartial inquiry into a state of things which reflected discredit on the Government and the country. He defied the Government to contradict what he had stated. He pledged himself to prove all he had advanced if a Parliamentary inquiry were granted. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Causes of the great and frequent Inundations of the River Shannon and its Tributaries, and into the Effects of the Works constructed by the Shannon Commissioners of 1839 upon the Navigation and upon the Drainage of the Country; and how far such Works were in accordance with the Plans referred to in the Statute under which they were undertaken."
  THE EARL OF GRANARDsaid, that this was a question in which the people of the district referred to were most deeply concerned, and he therefore wished to say a few words in support of the Motion of the noble Marquess. No doubt the objects of the Legislature in passing the Shannon Improvement Act were twofold—to promote the thorough drainage of that part of the country, and to render the river available for navigation. In both these objects the Commissioners had thoroughly failed. The present state of the Shannon was a permanent impediment to the arterial drainage of the country, for by the present arrangements the waters of the Shannon were brought back to swell the tributaries, and to flood the whole country; for, with a want of foresight difficult to account for, the Commissioners made their calculations without reference to the development of the arterial drainage, and without reflecting that waters which used to take, perhaps, two or three days in getting to the Shannon would, owing to the new system of drainage, reach that river in so many hours. The lands near the river were let for a very high rent, but owing to the recent inundations, by which a pernicious sediment was deposited, they were useless for fodder, and only grew a considerable crop of rushes. The damage done last year was not less in amount than

  1547
  £100,000; and at one time 300 acres of his lands were under water. The noble Lord, having read letters from Colonel Greville, M.P., from the Treasurer of the County of Leitrim, and others, detailing local grievances, proceeded to say that it was found impossible to obtain any redress from the Board of Works, and it was therefore felt necessary to come to their Lordships and see what could be done by way of a Parliamentary inquiry. Unless the people of the country saw some prospect of their wrongs being remedied, he greatly feared some act of violence would be committed which might seriously endanger the public works on the Shannon. An attempt of this sort was made last year at Rootkey on the 16th September, the papers relative to which were laid on the table, which was only prevented by the meritorious efforts of Captain Hawley, a local justice of the peace, residing in the neighbourhood. Then as to the much vaunted navigation of the river, it was a complete failure. In the first place, no vessel drawing six feet of water could make use of the river; and no two of the locks were of the same length. To show the wisdom of the proceedings of the Commissioners, at one place they had blown up nine feet of rock, only to be replaced by nine feet of wall. After having borne taxation to the amount of £300,000, the proprietors and inhabitants had now put up with nine years of useless remonstrance; they had memorialized every one whom they could memorialize; but the only replies they received were, that the matter was "receiving best attention," that it was "under consideration," and that sort of thing. They had accordingly taken confidence and appealed to their Lordships to relieve them from the intolerable evils under which, they were suffering. He thought, if the inquiry were granted, the Shannon might be made what it ought to be—useful to the country—instead of continuing a bad imitation of the Nile without its fertilizing influence.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the patience of the noble Earl, which had lasted nine years, must have been exhausted during this debate. The noble Marquess had indulged in language which, if not un parliamentary, it was, he thought, most undesirable and most unfair to use against public servants who had not seats in that House. The noble Marquess had accused the Board of Works of being fallacious in their statements, and completely
  1548
  ignorant of their business. When he (Earl Granville) remembered that amongst the persons so assailed were Sir John Burgoyne, General Jones, and the present respected chief of the Commission, Sir Richard Griffiths, who from his (Earl Granville's) personal knowledge when he visited Ireland last year, was a most popular and highly respected person, he felt that whilst the language used by the noble Marquess could not injure the Commissioners, it showed that his noble Friend did not feel much confidence in the strength of his cause. He also thought that the noble Earl (the Earl of Granard), whom he was happy to hear speak with so much facility, would do well to avoid, in dealing with local matters, attempting to influence the Government with threats of popular disturbance. With respect to the state of the case—by the Act of Parliament passed for the improvement of the Shannon it was provided that the works, when completed, should be handed over to the Board of Works; and in pursuance of that provision the works, having been declared complete, were handed over to the Board some twelve years ago. He thought it hardly reasonable that their Lordships should be called upon to re-open an inquiry into the execution of works which were completed when they were handed over. No doubt, some alterations had been since made, but not one without the sanction of successive Governments. They were supposed to be improvements, and what additional expense had been incurred had been thrown on the general taxpayers, and not on the adjoining counties. Her Majesty's Government felt bound to rely on the statements of their own officers, and from them it appeared that that average rise of the river was three feet less than it formerly was. It must be remembered, also, that improvements in drainage increased the liability of rivers to flood, until a channel was made by the action of the river. As to the navigation, Her Majesty's Government received indisputable proofs that it was highly prized and was greatly on the increase. After the large expenditure that had already taken place on the Shannon, they were of opinion that it was not desirable that more public money should be spent on the navigation of the river or in the drainage of the surrounding country. But Her Majesty's Government were ready, if the lords-lieutenants of counties would engage to assist, to join in an inquiry as to what measures might be taken to improve

  1549
  the drainage of the land or to prevent its being flooded by the river. But the inquiry must not take place under one engineer only, who would be supposed to be under Government influence. One engineer must be appointed by the residents and another by the Government, and thus an inquiry both useful and economical might be carried out. He trusted, under these circumstances, his noble Friend would not persevere with his Motion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it appeared to him that the points of difference between the noble Marquess and the Government lay in a very narrow compass. His knowledge of the subject extended to thirty years back, he (the Earl of Derby) having been the first to give instructions for a Commission to inquire into the navigation of the Shannon and its tributaries. No doubt, very largo sums had been spent on this double object of the improvement of the drainage and the navigation, and it was now a matter of complaint that the evil, instead of being abolished, had been increased. That, no doubt, was a matter of fact which their Lordships might inquire into. Now, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) said the Government were quite willing to institute an inquiry by two scientific persons. He (the Earl of Derby) believed that the noble Marquess would admit, that if such an inquiry could be had, it would be more advantageous than a Committee of the House. He understood, however, that the Lords of the Treasury accompanied their offer with certain conditions, one of which was that the half of the expenses of the preliminary inquiry should be defrayed by the proprietors; another that the measures recommended by them to be adopted should be carried out at the whole expense of the proprietors, under the superintendence and control of the Board of Works. To that he imagined there would be no objection. But it was further provided that no measure should be proposed which was injurious to the navigation of the river. He thought that this clause might prohibit scientific persons from bringing forward effectual schemes for draining the lands, lest they should propose anything injurious to the navigation; whereas it might be that decided improvements in the drainage might be carried out with very slight injury to the navigation. Her Majesty's Government might, he thought, still reserve to themselves the right of withholding their sanction
  1550
  to any scheme that might be proposed, and thus sufficiently preserve the interests of the navigation. If this clause were with drawn, he should not object to the inquiry as proposed by the noble Earl. He thought that this was a subject for inquiry; but if the noble Earl insisted on the conditions he had mentioned, he (the Earl of Derby) should be disposed to vote in favour of the noble Marquess's Motion.
  EARL GREYentirely concurred that it would be far more satisfactory that an inquiry should be made; and he thought the expense would be so small as to make it a matter entirely unworthy of consideration that it should be levied on the landowners. He thought, if there was to be an inquiry, it would be far better that the scientific persons employed should not be fettered by any conditions.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think it desirable to depart from the arrangement that the Government should bear one part of the expense of the inquiry, and the parties interested the other. He was quite ready to assent to the suggestions made by the noble Earl opposite, to the effect that the inquiry made by the two persons appointed in the way which he had mentioned should be unfettered. It would, of course, afterwards be open to the Government to take any course which they might deem right.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid: My Lords, I am glad that, although at the eleventh hour, Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to concede to the demand for a scientific inquiry into the state of the River Shannon, and the effect of the navigation works upon the drainage of the adjacent lands. My noble Friend who introduced the Motion for a Select Committee has been reproached for the very strong terms in which he animadverted upon the conduct of the Board of Works. My Lords, I think it right to remark to your Lordships, that my noble Friend did no more than give expression to the feelings of indignation with which the sufferers in general from the Shannon floods view the injury done to their lands by the blundering manner in which the navigation works were planned and carried out by that Board—feelings greatly aggravated by the refusal on the part of the Government to allow of the wrong complained of being even inquired into. It was, in fact, as much as to declare than an acknowledged evil should remain unabated; that the whole of that great area of land in the

  1551
  west and centre of Ireland, injuriously affected by the pent-up waters of the Shannon, should so for ever continue, precluding the development of the resources of the soil; and that notwithstanding the heavy assessments to which, under the Act for improving the Shannon navigation, the adjacent counties had been subjected for the purpose, as the Act required, of opening and clearing the course of the river from its source to the sea, and so confining its waters within their natural channel as to prevent any future inundations, the cesspayers must rest satisfied with knowing that their money had been expended in such entire disregard of those salutary provisions of the Act, that the current of the river had been artificially obstructed, and that their lands were, in consequence, in some places more than ever flooded. No application was made for the expenditure of any public money; no favour of any kind was looked for; no private interest sought to be served at the expense of another, still less at the expense of the public. The Shannon proprietors only demanded what, upon every principle of justice and sound policy, the Government ought at once to have granted—they demanded that the impartial and scientific inquiry, now so tardily conceded, should be instituted, and to be empowered to have at their own cost such works executed as might be recommended, consistently with navigation of the river, for the drainage and reclamation of the adjacent lands. Their memorial, when presented to the Lord Lieutenant, was received by his Excellency with much apparent favour, in presence of the Chief Secretary, Sir. Robert Peel, and of the Chairman of the Board of Works, Sir R. Griffith. The most flattering assurances were given, and it was stated that a general measure for arterial drainage would be brought in. The deputation, in fact, retired, feeling satisfied that their memorial would be favourably considered; that at a very early period there would be a large amount of profitable employment given, that would afford relief to a considerable extent in the prevailing distress; and with a conviction that this appeal to Parliament would not have become necessary. I certainly failed to gather from the speech of the Lord President of the Council for what reason the Lords of the Treasury thought proper to disavow the conduct of the Irish Government, and to return that most ungracious answer to the memorial
  1552
  which is now upon the table of the House. Let me, for a moment, call your Lordships' attention to it. Their Lordships, though individually most respectable, do not, be it remembered, number among them a single Irish representative, and, I am sorry to say, have in this case manifested very little concern about the interests of Ireland. How do they deal with the Irish memorial? After noticing the large expenditure that had been made upon the Shannon navigation works, they say, that "having regard to the time which has elapsed since the works were certified by the Shannon Commissioners as being completed, their Lordships decline to sanction an inquiry being now made into the question, whether the Shannon Commissioners did, or did not, carry out all the works which may have been in contemplation at the time they were authorized to proceed with the Shannon navigation improvement." From hence it would appear that because, for upwards of ten years, the Government have refused to pay any attention to the representations and complaints made regarding the injury to property arising from the Shannon works, and the total disregard by the Shannon Commissioners of the provisions of the Act of Parliament as to the drainage of the river, the injury done is to be perpetuated, and all question of a remedy for a grievous wrong forbidden. It appears to me, on the contrary, that each succeeding year, by adding loss to loss, was but an aggravation of wrong that called loudly for redress. The minute then proceeds—
  "Their Lordships further distinctly decline to hold out any expectation that any further grant can be made from Imperial funds towards these works."
  This, my Lords, was a most gratuitous refusal of what was not asked, but, on the contrary, in the terms of the memorial, very distinctly disclaimed: it was an expression of illiberality where it ought not to have found place. Their Lordships may, perhaps, have apprehended, that inasmuch as Ireland is now taxed to nearly double the amount she was ten years ago, there might have existed an expectation of some benefit in return from public expenditure; or, more likely, they felt that the injured might, with undeniable justice, demand that they should not be specially taxed anew to repair the blunders of the Government engineers. But the memorialists put forward no such claim. They viewed the evil of the obstructions in the course

  1553
  of the River Shannon as one the removal of which would confer great benefit upon the adjacent lands, and were satisfied that, in proportion to benefit conferred, those lands should pay for it. Their Lordships then proceeded to say that, "as regards the flooding of the lands adjoining the river, they have no reason to believe, from the information they have obtained, that any lands near the river are more liable to flooding now than formerly." In saying this their Lordships seem altogether to have ignored the fact that the memorialists, the owners, and the occupiers of the lands in question, had made a very different representation to them, and certainly they were as trustworthy and more competent informants than any subordinate officers of the Government. But what does the information afforded to their Lordships amount to? "That no lands are more liable to flooding than formerly." Why, it was expressly set forth in the Shannon Improvement Act that the river should be opened and cleared, and the waters confined within their natural channel, so as to relieve the contiguous lands from inundations; and was it reasonable to expect that the occupiers of those lands, after the district had been heavily taxed for the Shannon improvement, should be satisfied because their Lordships had been informed that no lands near the river were more liable to floods than formerly? Their Lordships, however, then proceed to state that, under certain conditions, they are willing to consent to an inquiry by two engineers — one to be appointed by the Government, the other by the Shannon proprietors; but such were the conditions and restrictions upon the inquiry, that the offer could not be, and, probably, was not intended to be, accepted. The discussion this evening has, however, led to the abandonment of those restrictions which would have rendered the inquiry of no value whatever, and to a substantial, though ungracious, concession to the demand as originally made, not quite, however, to the full extent, as all the works are to be executed under the superintendence and control of the Board of Works. I have some doubts whether the parties interested will be satisfied to have the works placed under that sole control. A very strong feeling exists that the Board of Works, when acting as Shannon Commissioners, were either totally incompetent or had wilfully thrown away,
  1554
  upon works worse than useless, the enormous sums that were intrusted to them. For my own part, I have no doubt that they did make a great and very costly blunder in their management of the undertaking. But I have too high a respect for the character of the Chairman of the Board, Sir Richard Griffith, to believe that he would sanction or concur in anything he did not believe to be right, or that his associates could be altogether unworthy of confidence. I believe, that if the nature of the work to be done is clearly defined, there would be as good security for its being well and economically executed under the superintendence of those Gentlemen as of any engineer, however eminent, that the Shannon proprietors might appoint. The evils arising to the country from want of drainage through the Shannon as the main artery are such that all minor considerations should yield to the great object of having it accomplished through the deepening and clearing of the river channel. I would even say that if the maintenance of the navigation were inconsistent with such a work, its value is not to be compared with the importance of increasing very largely the productive powers of the country, improving its sanitary condition, and providing permanent and beneficial employment to a peasantry whose holdings are now rendered unimprovable, the fruits of whose industry are always deteriorated and often swept away by untimely floods, and whose dwellings are rendered damp, comfortless, and unwholesome by the exhalations arising from the pent-up waters. The navigation, it is true, has cost above half a million, but what is it worth? Why, the tolls do not even cover the expense of maintenance. It is not, however, sought or desired to do away with it, but only to have it provided, as Parliament originally contemplated, by deepening and clearing the river course, instead of throwing back the waters and raising the levels by artificial dams. Be it recollected, too, that by increasing the productive powers of the land, the inland navigation, as well as railways, would obtain the support of increased traffic, and the community at large the benefit of the development of the national resources. I am glad the Government has given way to the legitimate demands of the Shannon proprietors, although some advantages, especially in the investigation of matters of account, might have arisen from the inquiry by a Select Committee.

  1555
  All I will further say is, that the subject has been brought forward and pressed on public grounds, and on public grounds only; and I trust that the concession just now made, though due rather to the intervention of the two noble Earls who lately addressed the House than to the free will of the Government, may conduce to the attainment of the important object for which the Motion for a Select Committee was made.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that if there was a man to whom the people of Ireland owed the deepest obligations for carrying into effect local improvements, it was Sir Richard Griffith. He rejoiced that an arrangement had been acquiesced in for carrying on an inquiry by scientific persons, as Parliament could not thereby be precluded from exercising its judgment on the subject afterwards.
  THE EARL OF ST. GERMANSsaid, he also wished to bear his testimony to the zeal and ability of Sir Richard Griffith, and to the benefits produced by the works that had been executed by the Board of which he was the head on the navigation and drainage of the Shannon. He trusted that his noble Friend would not assent to any work which would affect the navigation of the Shannon, which had been materially improved of late years. He contended that the drainage of the country had been also improved by the works that had been executed. It appeared to him that it was hardly fair to argue from what occurred during the last two years, which were remarkable for a most unusual fall of rain, that those inundations of the Shannon were of common occurrence. He did not think that any works which could be made would totally prevent floods.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he understood that one engineer was to be appointed by the Board of Works and the other by the landowners on the banks of the Shannon. If that were so, the consequences would probably be that they would differ in their reports. He did not know whether the noble Earl the President of the Council would be satisfied with the report from each engineer, but he thought they ought to have power to appoint an arbitrator.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was satisfied with what had taken place, and had no objection to an inquiry according to the terms proposed by the noble Earl the President of the Council.
  1556
  He would repeat that never were such barbarous works executed as those upon the Shannon. Not a single dam had been erected according to the original plan, from Limerick to Killaloe. The strong fact of his case was that false levels had been taken, and mistakes made, that no ingenuity could explain away.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD MONTEAGLE moved for Copies of Memorials to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury from the Chamber of Commerce of Limerick and the Grand Canal Company of Ireland, respecting navigation of the River Shannon.
  Motion agreed to.

  TRANSLATION OF COLONIAL BISHOPS.
  THE EARL OF POWISwished to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to a notification in the London Gazette, from which it might be inferred that Colonial Bishops stood on a different footing from other Bishops, and that it was necessary for the new Bishop of Colombo, on his translation from the see of St. Helena, to be reconsecrated. As this was clearly an error, perhaps the noble Duke would see that it was corrected in a subsequent number of the Gazette.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the translation of a Colonial Bishop was very rare, and that the present was, perhaps, the first instance in which it had occurred. The error arose from the clerk having copied the ordinary form on appointing a new Colonial Bishop, when consecration was necessary.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwould suggest that an explanation of the error should be inserted in the Gazette.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he would take care that the correction should be published.
  House adjourned at a quarter-past Eight O'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.