Sitting of 11 May 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Church Building and New Parishes Act Amendment [Bill 82], and committed to Select Committee; Sale of Mill Sites, & (Ireland) * [Bill 105]; Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) [Bill 106]; Poor Removal (No. 2) [Mr. Herbert] [Bill 96].
Referred to Select Committee—Church Buildings and New Parishes Act Amendment [Bill 82].
Select Committee nominated—Partnership Law Amendment * [Bill 26].
Committee—Prison Ministers [Bill 24]; Customs and Inland Revenue [Bill 91] (on Re-Committal); Inland Revenue [Bill 97]; Marriages Registration (Ireland) * [Mr. Monsell] [Bill 39].
Report—Prison Ministers [Bill 24]; Customs and Inland Revenue [Bill 91]; Marriages Registration (Ireland) * [Mr. Monsell] [Bill 118].
Third Reading—Stock Certificates to Bearer * [Bill 114], and passed.
Withdrawn—Assurances Registration (Ireland) [Bill 46].

DIVISION OF THE NORTHERN CIRCUIT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government intend to make any, and what, alteration in the existing Circuit arrangements; whether such arrangements will be completed before the next Summer Assizes, and will include a Winter Circuit, and in what places; and whether, on account of its extent and population, Yorkshire, like Lancashire, will have the privilege of Assizes in three towns, and, particularly, whether the Southern section of the County, comprising the Wapentake of Strafforth and Tickhill, will be allowed the privilege of an Assize Town?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that the alteration in the existing Circuit arrangements had been for some time under the consideration of the Government, and that some alteration should take place could not be doubted; but the difficulty was to determine upon the particular arrangements to be made. Various projects had been under consideration, and within the last few days a written statement had been received by the Lord Chancellor from the Lord Chief Justice and the two other chief Judges, containing important suggestions on the subject. These suggestions demanded the fullest consideration. Time had not been afforded for that consideration, and it was hardly likely that any arrangements would be completed before the next Summer Assizes. In this stage of the inquiry the other questions put by the hon. Gentleman were rather premature.

BOMBARDMENT OF BELGRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a written protest against the bombardment of Belgrade was not made and signed by the English and European Consuls, on the 17th of June 1862, which does not appear in the Blue Book on that subject; and, if so, whether it will be laid upon the table of the House?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that a protest was sent to the Pasha commanding the fortress, but a copy of that protest was not sent to the Foreign Office. He had requested that a copy should be supplied to the Foreign Office, and he did not at present see any objection to lay it on the table of the House. Upon receiving it, however, he would communicate with his hon. Friend on the subject.

BRIGANDAGE IN SOUTHERN ITALY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Three Despatches had been received from Mr. Odo Russell on a matter involving the relations of this Country with France, and also involving questions of personal honour. The first of those Despatches was to the effect that certain brigands had crossed the Papal frontier in French uniforms. The second Despatch from Mr. Russell stated that he had been mistaken—that no such event had taken place, and withdrawing the statement. The third Despatch, of which they only heard the other evening, was, it seemed, to the effect that the second Despatch was incorrect. It reiterated the first statement, and informed Her Majesty's Government that what he (Mr. Russell) had first stated was correct. The question he (Mr. Hennessy) therefore desired to put was, Whether that third Despatch, of so serious a nature, had been communicated to the French Government?
  MR. LAYARD: The hon. Gentleman has given me no notice of his Question. Perhaps he will repeat it to-morrow.

GREECE—THRONE OF GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether any final decision has been come to respecting the Throne of Greece, and whether Prince William of Denmark has accepted it or not?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There is no final decision, but I have reason to think that arrangements will be concluded to make Prince William King of Greece.

THE VOLUNTEER FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM SCOTTsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State

  1527
  for War, Whether the Act 44 Geo. III., c. 54, or any regulations for the conduct of the Volunteer Force, framed under the provisions of that or any other Act relating thereto, renders Volunteers amenable to a Military Court of Inquiry, or to Military Law, when they are not under arms, on duty, or in the uniform and accoutrements of the corps?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that no Volunteers, except members of the permanent staff, were amenable to military law, unless when they were called out for actual service, nor was a Volunteer amenable to a military Court of Inquiry. It was within the power of Commanding Officers of Volunteer Corps, if they thought fit, to summon a Volunteer Court of Inquiry, which had only power to take evidence and report for the information of the Lord Lieutenant of the County.

GUNPOWDER IN EDINBURGH CASTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, What has been the average quantity of Gunpowder kept in the Castle of Edinburgh during the last twelve months, distinguishing the various forms in which it has been made up, and whether the quantity will not be diminished; and whether there will be any objection to furnish Copies of any Reports which may have been made on the subject of this magazine by Officers of the Royal Engineers during the last four years?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that he had not all the information asked for by the hon. Member, but the quantity of powder now stored in Edinburgh Castle was 250 barrels, which was to be the maximum. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh had been made acquainted with the arrangements.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL— [BILL 24.]

  COMMITTEE.
  (Progress May 7th.)
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3 (Additional Ministers in Prisons, and Regulation as to admission of Minister).
  MR. PACKEsaid, that as one of the oldest chairmen of Quarter Sessions in the House, he could not but deprecate the charge imposed by the Bill upon the county rate. He represented a county in
  1528
  which there was, perhaps, more religious animosity than in any other in England, and the effect of the Bill would be to produce the greatest discord among the magistrates, and great antagonism again between them and the county ratepayers. He did not share in the sentiments of the Protestant Alliance, that the measure would undermine the influence of the Church of England; but he could not understand why the Government, in introducing it, should not have made it a condition that a gaol should be established in some central part of the kingdom to which Roman Catholic prisoners should be committed, where the necessary provision should be made for their religious instruction. He begged to move the omission from the clause of the words which provided that the payment of those chaplains should be made out of the county rates.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, to leave out from the words "such sum," to the word "expenses," in line 15, inclusive.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the effect of the Amendment would be to take the payment out of the ordinary rule. At present the cost of the maintenance of prisoners was borne by the country, but the cost of the establishment was a local charge. If the Amendment were carried, an exception would be introduced to the general practice. As to the erection of a central prison, it would not get rid of the objection urged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Packe.) The cost of the establishment would still have to be borne by the different localities ratably in proportion to the number of Roman Catholic convicts sent by them to the central prison.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he apprehended that the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Packe) was to secure that there should be no power of paying those clergymen out of the county rates. What he objected to, and what he understood his hon. Friend to object to, was that the ratepayers of this country should be called on to pay taxes in the imposition of which they had no voice. Had the Amendment which he himself proposed on a former occasion been adopted by the House, the heart and soul of the Bill would have been extinguished. The same result would follow from the adoption of the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He looked on the Bill as the result of a political cabal; and he believed it to be the stepping-

  1529
  stone to a great object which the Roman Catholic priests in this country had for years been endeavouring to accomplish—namely, that of putting themselves on an equality with the clergymen of the Church of England.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was ready to go to a division; but if the object of the Amendment was of as comprehensive a character as it had just been described to be, notice of it ought to have been given to the House.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was any ambiguity in the manner in which the word "they" was used in the end of the clause, which might render it doubtful whether the prisoners and not the justices might not order the payment of the clergymen?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that he did not think there was the slightest possibility of any such interpretation being given to the word.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he also wished to ask whether any clergyman to whom the Bill would apply had asked for remuneration for attending a prisoner of his own persuasion? If not, the taxation proposed by the Bill was unasked for.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he desired to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had considered the question of having the money to be paid to those clergymen provided out of funds to be voted by Parliament?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the payment were made in the manner referred to by the hon. Baronet, that would be the establishment of a new financial principle in connection with the county gaols of the country. With regard to the question of the gallant Colonel behind, he presumed that no such application had been made, since under the existing law the justices would have no power to grant any remuneration.
  MR. BLACKsaid, that in the case of the repeal of the annuity tax a great deal of opposition was raised to the penny rate, the object of which was to support members of the Established Church of Scotland; whereas if it had been for the maintenance of Roman Catholic priests, it would not have been in the power of all Edinburgh to extinguish it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it was well worth the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman whether the small sums which would be required to carry out the
  1530
  provisions on the Bill might not be provided out of the Consolidated Fund. His hon. Friend, of course, could not move a clause to that effect, but it would have to be done by the Government, and it would certainly have great effect in preventing the heart burnings which would probably arise out of the operation of the Bill. He had supported it all through from motives of justice; but he thought it was wise to do everything to make it work as smoothly as possible. If the Government would give any hope of considering the point, he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he had opposed the Bill throughout, not on religious grounds, but on account of the administrative and social difficulties it would create. If it was desirable to pass the measure, it was desirable to carry it into effect by such means as would secure the result sought to be accomplished, and at the same time produce the smallest amount of irritation. He believed that the Bill as it then stood would in the majority of instances fail in securing the object for which it was framed; and, in the instances in which it might be successful, it would always encounter the greatest amount of opposition. The success of the measure did not depend upon the exigencies of the case, but on the particular reading of different bodies of magistrates; and if the subject had to be discussed by quarter sessions and boards of guardians, a great deal of irritation would be produced. It was a remark of M. Guizot, "There are some subjects on which publicity and discussion throw light, and some subjects on which publicity and discussion only throw fire;" and he (Mr. Scourfield) believed that the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to gaols under the Bill would be a subject of the latter class. He was sure that the Bill as at present framed would do the Roman Catholics more harm than it could possibly advantage them, and he should think that in those special cases where the appointment of Roman Catholic priests to gaols might be necessary they might contrive out of the existing elements to find a solution of the question; but he could conceive nothing more absurd than to make a man's spiritual welfare dependent upon the number of his own denomination in the same condition with himself. As a chairman of quarter sessions, he had always been anxious to prevent quarter sessions being made a debating society; but

  1531
  he was afraid that this subject must lead to irritating discussion. Majorities might sometimes in matters of action tyrannize over minorities; but in the matter of talking, minorities were very frequently still more tyrannical. His experience in that House did not encourage him to look with any pleasant anticipations to the effect of the measure on the deliberations of quarter sessions. He had never listened to a religious discussion in that House without going forth, not a wiser, but a sadder man. It was with a view of preventing these discussions in courts of quarter sessions that he supported the Amendment.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that though he had supported the Bill, he could not but join with the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) in thinking it would be desirable that the payment of those clergymen should be made out of the Consolidated Fund. He wished to remind the right hon. Baronet that no Amendment had as yet been made in the Bill, consequently no Amendment of the nature proposed by the hon. Member for Leicestershire could be made upon the bringing up of the Report. If, therefore, the right hon. Baronet wished to postpone the consideration of the question until the Report, it would be necessary for him to make some verbal alteration at all events, in order to enable the matter to be discussed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it would be perfectly easy for any private Member to raise the question by moving that the expenses should be paid out of monies to be voted by Parliament; and if notice were given of such a Motion on the Report, he should be ready to give it his best consideration. Until the suggestion was before them in a definite shape, they were hardly in a position to consider it; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that it would be very easy for him to frame an Amendment with the object he had in view. He, however, thought that such an Amendment would be very inconsistent with the provision which gave the magistrates at quarter sessions the power of appointing those ministers; so that if such an Amendment were agreed to, the Home Secretary would be called upon to provide remuneration for those ministers over whose appointment he would have no control.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the
  1532
  difficulty suggested by the right hon. Baronet could be easily removed by providing that the appointment by the local authorities should be subject to the approval of the Home Secretary.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he confessed that he had heard with great pleasure the observations just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley). His right hon. Friend, however, must permit him to express the regret he felt on hearing him declare his intentions to support that most remarkable Bill. His right hon. Friend seemed now to be fully impressed with the difficulty of the case. The only ground upon which his right hon. Friend said he was prepared to support the Bill, was the ground of justice. Now, justice to Roman Catholic priests might be a very desirable object, but the ratepayers of England had also, he thought, some claim to justice. He should wish to know whether it was distinctly understood that an opportunity would be afforded by the right hon. Gentleman of raising the question of payment upon the Report?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should certainly be willing to facilitate any arrangement for the purpose; but as regarded the question as between a local rate and the annual Votes of Parliament, it was competent to any hon. Gentleman to raise that point at that time, and it was one that should be discussed in Committee, and not upon the Report?
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to understand his (Mr. Bentinek's) object. What he wished to ascertain distinctly was, whether the right hon. Baronet would give them an opportunity of discussing the question upon the bringing-up of the Report?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he understood, that if a Motion were made to that effect, the right hon. Baronet would oppose it [Sir GEORGE GREY assented], and that if the words proposed to be left out were omitted, it would not be competent for any hon. Member to move upon the Report that the payment should be made out of the public funds.
  MR. MARSHsaid, he was of opinion that it would be objectionable that the appointment of those chaplains should be made by one authority, and their payment by another. If, therefore, the ministers were to be appointed by the magistrates, they ought to be paid out of the local rates.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, that that was

  1533
  the reason why he objected to the Bill all along.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, the greater portion of those who got into gaol were offenders not so much against real as against personal property, and the Government, by what they were now proposing to do, were adding unfairly to the burdens of real property.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Amendment which had been moved would, if carried, prevent payments being made from any source whatever. If the words were omitted, there would be no room, for substituting general for local funds on the Report.
  MR. VANCEsaid, there would be some difficulty in adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire—namely, of paying the Roman Catholic priests appointed to those prisons out of the Consolidated Fund; because, in that case, the people of Ireland would have to contribute to the payment besides paying for the ministers who performed such duties in Ireland out of the local rates.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he thought there would be great difficulty in adopting the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. He was not inclined to press upon the ratepayers, but he would remind the Committee, that inasmuch as the appointment of a minister would only be made when there was a certain number of Roman Catholic prisoners in a gaol, it was not at all likely to furnish a subject of discussion amongst the local authorities, except in a few large towns.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, many hon. Members, though supporting the Bill, confessed that the measure was likely to create much difficulty, inconvenience, and heart burnings throughout the local boards of the country. He believed that it would give rise to much unpleasant feeling amongst the people of England generally. If, however, those ministers were to be appointed by the local authorities, and paid for by the State, he should like to know how any proper control over them could be exercised? He concurred with his hon. Friend near him in thinking that it was most disagreeable to have those religious questions raised, but it was not the fault of the party with which he generally acted that they were brought forward. They, however, objected to remain silent when they were raised. He should certainly feel it his duty to vote against the payment of those ministers, in any shape,
  1534
  under the Bill. He objected to the Bill on two grounds; first, that it was an invasion of a constitutional principle; and secondly, an infliction of tyranny on the Roman Catholic prisoners.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, that he had been in hopes that the principle of the measure had been decided on the second reading, but from time to time hon. Members talked as if that question was still in abeyance. One hon. Gentleman had gone so far as to say that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were engaged in a sort of conspiracy against this country. The Roman Catholic priests were continually spoken of as being engaged in a plot with regard to the prison chaplains. The priests, no doubt, wished that Roman Catholic prisoners should be attended by a chaplain of their own creed, but it was not the priest alone who entertained that wish, for the Roman Catholic laity also had that desire. Seeing that there were Roman Catholic prisoners in the gaols, that they did not know there was any priest to look after them, that they could not have the attendance of a priest without preferring a special request, which course would not be adopted by those whose condition most required the assistance of a priest—believing, therefore, that great injustice was done to the Roman Catholic prisoners throughout the country, he wished it to be distinctly known that there was a reverend gentleman in those prisons who could administer to their spiritual wants. They wanted no external ceremony; they wished to reach the conscience alone, because he believed it was through the consciences of the prisoners that there was a chance of reforming them. That such was the case had been shown by what was already done in Ireland and England, in support of which he might refer to page 496 of the Rev. Mr. Kingsbury's book on Pentonville Prison, where it was stated that the period of imprisonment was the time to work upon the feelings of the prisoners, who were then in a subdued and softened state of mind; and if religious instruction was then communicated to them, they became enlightened. If the Roman Catholic prisoners were to be subjected to the control of the prison chaplain alone, who was not of their religion, but who had all the authority of a superior officer, he (Lord E. Howard) held that it was a hard position for them to be placed in. He could not suppose that the Committee would make any objection to the

  1535
  spiritual wants of these prisoners being supplied by the appointment of Roman Catholic priests.
  MR. PACKEsaid, he had no wish to utter a word against the Roman Catholic religion. The question before the Committee, raised by his Amendment, was whether the Roman Catholic chaplains should be paid out of the county rates.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid he should like to know from the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Packe), whether he meant to suggest any other source from which payment might be made in lieu of the county rates, in the event of his Amendment being carried?
  MR. PACKEsaid, it was for the Government, not for him, to say what proposal should be made in that event. If his Amendment were carried, he supposed that the right hon. Baronet or his Colleagues would insert other words in the place of those struck out.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) was under a wrong impression when he said that Roman Catholic prisoners had no one to care for them. He could mention two or three cases in connection with a gaol which he was in the habit of visiting, in which acts of great kindness had been shown by Protestant chaplains to Roman Catholic prisoners. He had two very strong objections to the Bill. The first was, whether the House would consent to permit a subject of that kind to be raised by every bench of magistrates in every county and borough in the kingdom? Again, as to payment, if payment were to be made to Roman Catholic chaplains, he thought it ought to be made by the State. But he thought there was a prior question to be decided; and that was how the chaplains were to be appointed. At present the country had a high class of chaplains, who gave the whole of their time to the discharge of their duties. But if there were to be two or three or more, the salaries must be on a lower scale, and there would be a different class of men offering themselves for the office of chaplain; and in consequence of the inferior salaries they would have to supplement their income by other employment, the consequence of which would be that the duty of chaplain would be performed in a less satisfactory manner than at present.
  COLONEL CONOLLYthought it would be a simple act of justice that Roman Catholic prisoners should be attended by a
  1536
  minister of their own religion. The system worked well in Ireland, and he saw no reason why it should not prove equally advantageous in England.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he objected to the payment of these salaries out of the county rates, but still more to their being charged upon the Consolidated Fund. On that understanding he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leicestershire.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, there was this serious difficulty in the way of charging the payment of these chaplains on the Consolidated Fund. The control in these cases was sure to be in the hands of those who furnished the funds for payment. If, therefore, these chaplains were paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the magistrates would lose all control over them, which would create much greater evils than any which were likely to result from the Bill as it now stood.
  MR. NORRISsaid, he would suggest that the question as to the mode of payment of the chaplain should stand over until the Bill was in a more advanced stage. Hon. Members who were in the habit of attending quarter sessions were aware that the Prisons Act provided a superannuation for ministers of the Established Church who performed the duties of chaplains in gaols; and he ventured to suggest, that as the Act stood, if the justices in pursuance of the Bill appointed a dissenting minister or a Roman Catholic to attend to prisoners as chaplains, they would have not one, but two or three persons, claiming compensation on their superannuation fund.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he was glad to hear an Irish Member say the system proposed by the Bill worked well in Ireland. But the Committee should remember that the circumstances of the two countries were different. In Ireland gaol chaplains were appointed by the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, and the Roman Catholic Church, a large body of the population belonging to each of these three Churches. With regard to England the case was different; and appointing a Roman Catholic chaplain to a gaol in England would but be analogous to the appointment of a Wesleyan as gaol chaplain in Ireland, should there be in any gaol a small number of prisoners from the Wesleyan body.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would ask leave, before the Committee went to a division, to say a word or two. The

  1537
  noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) rattier implied that in discussing the question, there had been a want of becoming courtesy with regard to the feelings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Speaking for himself—and he thought he might also speak on this point for the House—he would say that there was no man in. it who would willingly say a word against any man on account of his religious convictions. The noble Lord misunderstood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire when he understood him to say he had charged the Roman Catholic heirarchy with conspiring to obtain spiritual assistance for Roman Catholic prisoners. What he (Mr. Bentinck) understood him to say was this—in which he (Mr. Bentinck) joined him—that the Roman Catholic hierarchy were combining in a plot to obtain in this country a position of equality with the Protestant clergy. He (Mr. Bentinck) attached no blame to them for being engaged in that plot; but he held that it was the duty of the British House of Commons to take care that the plot should fail. Therefore, it was in no discourtesy towards the Roman Catholics that hon. Members opposed the Bill before the House. He would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain one point. He understood him to say that that was the time to decide whether the money should be levied on the county rate or on some other fund. The question before the Committee was, whether the money was to be raised by a levy on the county rate. If it should be decided that the payment was to be a charge on the Consolidated Fund, that would entirely alter the character of the Bill. It would then become a question of Imperial legislation, and there ought to be ample time given, in order that the proposed charge on the Consolidated Fund for that purpose should be understood through the length and breadth of the country.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsuggested that the object of the Amendment would be attained by t e simple omission from the clause of the words "the justices may award him payment."
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 126: Majority 66.

  AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Atherton, Sir W.

  Agar-Ellis, hn. L. G. F.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Angerstein, W.

  Bailey, C.

  1538

  Baines, E.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Baring, H. B.

  Glyn, G. C.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

  Glyn, G. G.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Baring, T.

  Greene, J.

  Baring, T. G.

  Greenwood, J.

  Barnes, T.

  Gregory, W. H.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Gregson, S.

  Bazley, T.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Beale, S.

  Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

  Beamish, F. B.

  Grosvenor, Earl

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Gurdon, B.

  Beaumont, S. A.

  Hadfield, G.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Hankey, T.

  Bellew, R. M.

  Hanmer, Sir J.

  Beresford, D. W. P.

  Hassard, M.

  Berkeley, hon. C. P. F.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E

  Blake, J.

  Henloy, rt. hon. J. W.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Hennessy, J. P.

  Bouverie, hon. P. P.

  Herbert, rt. hon. H. A.

  Bowyer, Sir G.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Brady, Dr.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Holland, E.

  Browne, Lord J. T.

  Horsrnan, rt. hon. E.

  Bruce, Lord E.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Bruce, H. A.

  Howard, Lord E.

  Buchanan, W.

  Hubbard, J. G.

  Buckley, General

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Butt, I.

  Ingham, R.

  Buxton, C.

  Jackson, W.

  Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Johnstone, Sir J.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Jolliffe, right hon. Sir W. G. H.

  Castlerosse, Viscount

  Cave, S.

  Kingscote, Colonel

  Cavendish, hon. W.

  Lacon, Sir E.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Layard, A. H.

  Cobdon, R.

  Lawson, W.

  Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

  Leader, N. P.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Coke, hon. Colonel

  Lennox, Lord H. G.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Levinge, Sir R.

  Collins, T.

  Liddell, hon. H. G.

  Conolly, T.

  Locke, J.

  Corbally, M. E.

  Lowe, rt. hon. R.

  Cox, W.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Crawford, R, W.

  M'Cormick, W.

  Dalglish, R.

  MacEvoy, E.

  Davey, R.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Denman, hon. G.

  Manners, rt. hon. Ld. J,

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Martin, J.

  Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

  Mildmay, H. F.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Mitford, W. T.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Dunkellin, Lord

  North, F.

  Dunlop, A. M.

  Northcote, Sir S. H.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Ellice, rt. hon. E. (Cov.)

  O'Conor Don, The

  Ennis, J.

  O'Ferrall, rt. hn. R. M.

  Esmonde, J.

  O'Reilly, M. W.

  Evans, Sir De L.

  Padmore, R.

  Evans, T. W.

  Paget, C.

  Ewart, W.

  Paget, Lord A.

  Ewart, J. C.

  Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Fitzroy, Lord F. J.

  Palmerston, Viscount

  Forster, W. O.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Fortescue, C. S.

  Pender, J.

  French, Colonel

  Pilkington, J.

  Gavin, Major

  Portman, hon. W. H. B.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Potter, E

  1539

  Potts, G.

  Stirling, W.

  Price, R. G.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Pritchard, J.

  Sullivan, M.

  Proby, Lord

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Puller, C. W. G.

  Trelawny, Sir J. S.

  Ricardo, O.

  Vandeleur, Colonel

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Vane, Lord H.

  Robertson, D.

  Verney, Sir H.

  Robertson, H.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Russell, F. W.

  Vivian, H. H.

  St. Aubyn, J.

  Vyner, R. A.

  Salomons, Mr. Ald.

  Waldron, L.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Watkins, Colonel L.

  Seymour, A.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Sheridan, R. B.

  Western, S.

  Sidney, T.

  Wickham, H. W.

  Smith, J. B.

  Williams, W.

  Smith, J. A.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Wrightson W. B.

  Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W. M.

  Wyvill, M.

  Stacpoole, W.

  TELLERS.

  Stanley, Lord

  Mr. Brand

  Stansfeld, J.

  Colonel White

  Steel, J.

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Hodgkinson, G.

  Agnew, Sir A.

  Holford, R. S.

  Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Archdall, Captain M.

  Howes, E.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Humberston, P. S.

  Benyon, R.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Bernard, hon. Colonel

  Jolliffe, H. H.

  Black, A.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Blackburn, P.

  Kennard, H. W.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  King, J. K.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Bruce, Major C.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Buller, J. W.

  Knightley, R.

  Burrell, Sir P.

  Langton, W. G.

  Butler, C. S.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Caird, J.

  Lefroy, A.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Cartwright, Colonel

  Leslie, W.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Lindsay, W. S.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Long, R. P.

  Coningham, W.

  Lyall, G.

  Cubitt, G.

  Lysley, W. J.

  Cubitt, W.

  Mackie, J.

  Davie, Sir H. R. F.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Duncombe, hon. A.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Duncombe, hon. W. E.

  Manners, Lord G. J.

  Dundas, F.

  Miller, W.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Mills, J. R.

  East, Sir J. B.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Edwards, Colonel

  Morgan, O.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Morris, D.

  Egerton, E. C.

  Morritt, W. J. S.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Ellice, E. (St. And.)

  Mundy, W.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Mure, D.

  Ewing, H. E. Crum-

  Murray, W.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Nicol, W.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Norris, J. T.

  Gard, R. S.

  North, Colonel

  Gower, G. W. G. L.

  Onslow, G.

  Hamilton, Viscount

  Pakenham, Colonel

  Hanbury, R.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Hardy, G.

  Paull, H.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Pennant, hon. Col.

  1540

  Peto, Sir S. M.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Phillips, G. L.

  Thynne, Lord H.

  Powell, F. S.

  Traill, G.

  Powys-Lybbe, P. L.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Repton, G. W. J.

  Vance, J.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Vansittart, W.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Verner, Sir W.

  Scott, Sir W.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Scourfleld, J. H.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Seymer, H. K.

  White, J.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Whitmore, H.

  Smith, Augustus

  Willoughby, Sir H.

  Smith, Abel

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Smith, S. G.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Spooner, R.

  Wynn, C. W. W.

  Staniland, M.

  Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

  TELLERS.

  Sturt, H. G.

  Mr. Packe

  Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.

  Mr. Bentinck

  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He would remind the Committee that it was proposed to place upon the county rate a charge the nature and extent of which they had not fully considered. If the "minister" to be appointed under the Act was placed upon the same footing as the chaplain of a gaol or prison, in common justice he ought to be placed on the same footing in a pecuniary point of view. He must receive not only the same allowance, but the same amount of retiring pension. That change would eventually become a serious charge upon the counties. Now, he was one of those who thought it most unconstitutional to raise taxation from those who were wholly and entirely unrepresented. If such a course of proceeding were adopted, the House of Commons had bettor abrogate its functions altogether and delegate its powers to the magistrates in quarter sessions. He protested against the adoption of the principle, because he considered it unconstitutional. It might be said that it was a question of very small importance, and that probably the Bill would be a dead letter in almost every county. He believed that would be the case, for he did not think there was a county in England which would take advantage of the powers conferred by the Bill, except Lancashire. The measure would, however, if carried, cast upon the magistrates an amount of responsibility and an amount of odium which it was unfair to impose upon them. The House shrunk from that responsibility, and wanted to get rid of a disagreeable question by effecting a compromise which would prove to be worthless. As a county magistrate, he begged to protest against such a course of proceeding, and against

  1541
  making courts of quarter session the arena for polemical discussions. Perhaps his Amendment would hardly touch the grievance which he had shadowed forth, but it was the best suggestion which he was able to make. At present there was no organized body by which the opinions of the ratepayers could be elicited, but he thought it would be possible to ascertain the opinions of the ratepayers by means of the boards of guardians; and if they should consider it right and proper to adopt the provision made by the Bill, no one would rejoice more than himself. But he did think that if some protection was not given to the ratepayers, an amount of discord and disaffection would arise which it would be very unwise to create. Again, he did not see how it would be possible to limit the principle laid down by the Bill. If adopted, it must be extended still further, and larger demands would, from time to time, be made upon the ratepayers. He would say to those hon. Gentlemen who opposed him that when on their return to their different counties they were asked their reasons for their opposition, they would have to declare that it was right and proper to tax those who were unrepresented, and that they had not sufficient confidence in their constituents to intrust them with the power which he (Sir L. Palk) proposed to give them. To carry out the sentiments which he had expressed, he proposed to insert in the clause after "think fit" the words, "with the consent of the boards of guardians of any county wherein the said gaols, prisons, and houses of correction are situated."
  SIR GEORGE GREYobserved, that the effect of the Amendment, if adopted, would be to prevent the justices from paying any money without the consent of the boards of guardians. That principle, if sanctioned by the Committee, would not stop there, but would eventually become applicable to every discretionary payment made out of the rate, so that the county justices would be deprived of that administration of local funds which was now in their hands. Now, it might be right or it might be wrong to do that, but it would not be proper to bring about such a change by a short Amendment in this Bill.
  MR. SCOURFIELDexpressed a hope that the hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment to a division.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he
  1542
  would then propose to add to the clause the following proviso:—
  "That when the justices or other authorities of any borough or separate jurisdiction commit persons to a county prison, any expenses incurred under this Act shall be paid by the treasurers of such boroughs or separate jurisdictions in proportion to the population of such places and the county."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be much better to allow the matter to come under the general and ordinary arrangement of the law.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet. It would be impossible to divide the expense in these cases.
  Amendment put, and negatived.
  SIR ANDREW AGNEWsaid, he wished to express his belief that some misapprehension prevailed in the last division, many hon. Members having been frightened at the idea of the expense falling on the Consolidated Fund. He did not seek to raise any vexatious opposition to the Bill; but as he wished to take the opinion of the Committee on the principle involved in the clause, he would move its omission.
  Question put, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 166 Noes 71: Majority 95.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Qualified Repeal of portion of 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 30).
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he wished to move the insertion of words to provide that in case the visits of any minister admitted to a gaol under the provisions of the Act should have been discontinued for the period of fourteen days, then the existing law, with reference to the duty of the chaplain of the Established Church to visit all the prisoners, should again come into force in respect of the prisoners to whom such other minister had been admitted.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the attendance contemplated by the Bill was a regular one, and therefore he saw no objection to the words proposed by the hon. Member.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he would suggest the introduction of the word "licensed," or the word "ordained," in reference to the ministers of dissenting denominations, so as to provide some security

  1543
  for the character and position of the ministers visiting a prison.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in framing the Bill the term used in the old Gaol Act had been adopted. He thought the justices would find no difficulty in dealing with the clause as it stood.
  MR. HUNTpointed out, that as a prisoner was not to be compelled to receive instruction from the minister of a denomination to which he did not belong, a prisoner might altogether escape religious instruction by saying that he was of no religious persuasion.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he understood that the Church of England took credit for all prisoners who made no declaration of their faith.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that a Return relating to Shrewsbury Gaol showed that eleven prisoners had asserted that they were of no religion; and he maintained, that if the clause were passed as it stood, those eleven prisoners could claim to be excused from attending any religious service at all.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman would be met by the insertion of the words, "any prisoner belonging to any church or religious persuasion," which would exclude prisoners belonging to no religious persuasion from the operation of the clause.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, that the matter was a serious one, as it affected the discipline of the prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Church of England claimed those who were of no church at all, and he hoped that that was correct; but the Bill would prevent her doing so. In his opinion, the Bill, which seemed to be the worst Bill the House ever passed, had one redeeming quality—it would be perfectly innocuous, because he did not believe that there was a single county that would carry out its provisions. In one or two cases it was possible there might he furious fights at the quarter sessions, and perhaps occasionally a chaplain might be appointed, to be discontinued at the next sessions; but in the majority of the counties and boroughs of England he was convinced that the Bill would be a dead letter. The principle of the Bill was so bad that it would render all prison discipline impossible. But there should be no ambiguity in regard to the matter which was under consideration.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished to point out that in all probability prisoners would enter themselves as of no religious
  1544
  persuasion, for the mere purpose of getting excused from attendance at chapel.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the clause were amended as he proposed, the Bill would not affect them at all.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that the right hon. Baronet's Amendment would not meet the case of a person representing himself as a Mormonite. Or, suppose there was a single prisoner of one dissenting denomination, and no minister was appointed to attend him, he might refuse the ministrations of the chaplain and get no religious instruction at all.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the case was exactly met by what occurred with Roman Catholic prisoners, who objected to attending the regular chapel service. They were locked in their cells while the service was going on. In practice it was found that prisoners belonging to Protestant denominations did not object to attend the religious services in the chapel.
  MR. HUNTsaid, the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would meet his objections.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he wished to ask whether benevolent ladies who, following the example of Mrs. Fry, were in the habit of visiting prisoners in gaol, would still be allowed access to them. He was of opinion that a Mrs. Fry would do more good than half-a-dozen different chaplains, who, after the Bill had passed, might object to their particular preserves being poached upon.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there was nothing in the Bill to prevent visiting justices continuing to authorize the admission of these ladies.
  COLONEL SYKESasked, whether it would be competent for county boards to engage chaplains for each of the ten denominations which had recently been enumerated.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he saw no reason why they should not, if any gaol should happen to have 500 prisoners of each of these different denominations.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he doubted whether the last words of the clause were necessary. It was competent as the law stood for the keeper or the visiting justices to exempt prisoners from attending chapel if they objected to it. The rule generally was that they were locked in their cells while the service was going on, and it was overloading the statute book to no purpose to insert the words.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the object

  1545
  was simply to make the law accord with the general practice.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to propose a clause enacting that a salary should not be given to any chaplain appointed under the Bill, except to Roman Catholic chaplains. The Bill gave free access to all prisoners, and that was all Protestant Dissenters required. Whatever differences there might be in regard to ecclesiastical matters between Dissenters and the Church of England, there were no differences between their doctrinal views which would warrant the payment of separate chaplains.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the clause was unnecessary. If a Protestant Dissenting minister volunteered his services to attend prisoners in gaol, no doubt the visiting justices would accept them.
  Clause negatived.
  On Motion that the Preamble be agreed to,
  MR. HUNTinquired, whether in prisons, where ministers of other persuasions than that of the Church of England were appointed, it would be lawful for persons who might volunteer to visit the prisoners with a view to religious instruction to do so.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the law in that respect would remain exactly on its present footing. The visiting justices might still allow the prisoners to be visited just as they were at present.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to give notice that on the bringing up of the Report he would move that any persons appointed as chaplains under the Bill should have a list of the prisoners whom they were entitled to visit shown them by the gaoler, but should not have access to the prison books, or be at liberty to raise any question as to whether A or B was of any particular persuasion.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL. [BILL 91.]

  COMMITTEE (ON RE-COMMITTAL).
  Bill considered in Committee (on Re-Committal).
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2 (Provisions of former Acts to apply to this Act).
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he wished to move an Amendment on Clause 2, the object of which was to relieve railway companies from certain grievances, one of which was that they were not assessed to the income tax by the local authorities, as other parties were, but by the special commissioners in London. He could not but complain of the rigorous way they were dealt with, and of the trouble and expense to which they were put in having to correspond with the Court of Commissioners in London. In his opinion, railway companies ought to be put upon the same footing as other companies as to assessment. Another grievance was, that railway companies were made responsible for the income tax of their servants. One man might be employed at certain wages, and another succeed him at different wages, but under any circumstances that might occur the companies were made liable for the recovery of the tax.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had given notice of an Amendment in the interest of the smallest class of taxpayers which involved exactly the converse of the objection which had been made by the hon. Gentleman to the assessment on railway companies, and showed that the trouble of corresponding with the special commissioners was not so great as he feared. For his own part, he thought that railway companies ought to be re-assessed year by year. That would not entail any inconvenience or expense to the companies, as special commissioners were sent down from London for the purpose. He believed the real objection of the hon. Member was to the course taken by the commissioners in deciding what were profits and what were not. The servants of railway companies were already placed on the same footing as other servants in respect of being placed under schedule E, which ought to include the servants of all incorporated and joint-stock companies. With regard to railway companies and their servants, the liability rested, so far as regarded engine drivers, upon the principle that the engine driver was so essentially and rapidly migratory, that it was practically impossible to touch him, unless through the company. It was true that £100 and £150 were the two sore places in the working of the income tax, and when he ventured to make to Parliament the proposal for easing that class of incomes, the engine drivers was one class

  1547
  that he had specially in view. He hoped, therefore, there would be no disposition to press for a change until they had had a year's experience of the working of what he might call the new system with regard to incomes between £100 and £200 a year.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the position of the local assessors, whose receipts in the shape of poundage had, owing to recent changes, been so greatly reduced as to render their case one of considerable hardship. Those officers were possessed of the requisite local knowledge for making the assessments, and had given no offence in the discharge of their duties. It was not desirable, therefore, that they should be driven to grow disgusted with their situation. With reference to the question of re-assessment, he had since he last addressed the House upon the subject ascertained that in one county of Scotland as much as £1,500 had been lost in consequence of there being no re-assessment under schedule A. In another county there actually was a re-assessment last year.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he desired to ask whether he was right in supposing that there was to be no re-assessment under schedule A that year.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there was no intention of making a re-assessment that year under schedules A and B. The rule had been to have a re-assessment under those schedules every three years, and he was so convinced of the trouble, vexation, and annoyance which would be caused by an annual reassessment, that he would not recommend to the House a departure from that rule. He was not acquainted with the case referred to by the hon. Baronet. [Sir JAMES FERGUSSON: It was Haddingtonshire.] As to the payment of assessors, all he could say was, that while it was of course desirable that they should receive a fail-remuneration for the labour which they performed, it was undesirable to pay them in the years in which they had little or nothing to do for those in which they had duties to discharge.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he fully agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the trouble occasioned to the taxpayers by the re-assessment of a whole county, and hoped that no alteration would be
  1548
  made which would render re-assessments more frequent.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that in Scotland, where there was a valuation roll, the re-assessment was made without difficulty or trouble. He hoped that when a fresh assessment took place there would be no disposition to depart from the usual practice of assessing by local officers.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no hesitation in giving that assurance; and if any change should be considered necessary, the fullest notice would be given.
  Clause agreed to.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to move the insertion of a clause altering the mode of appeal in the case of persons assessed under £150 per annum. He should not have troubled the Committee had not petitions in favour of his clause been presented from numbers of small tradesmen in the City of London, Westminster, Marylebone, Tower Hamlets, Bilston, Brierley Macclesfield, Nantwich, Crewe, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Birmingham, Manchester, Darlington, Sunderland, and many other places. The complaint of those Petitioners, who were persons having incomes of less than £150 per annum, was, that having been charged as if they possessed a sum which would bring them under the whole weight of the income tax, they had to go a considerable distance to defend themselves before the local Commissioners; while, if they had the same power as was possessed by other classes, they might appeal in writing to the special Commissioners, who, if they were not satisfied, would have to go to them instead of their going to the Commissioners. They also wished for that opportunity of appealing to the special Commissioners, because they, like their neighbours, were interested in keeping their affairs to themselves, and were as liable as their betters to be injured in their trade by any sudden and indiscreet revelations. It was on these grounds that he moved the clause of which he had given notice. He could not resume his seat without pressing upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the suspicion which his words tended to refute, but which had been suggested to him from many quarters, that there was a great deal of hardship in the mode in which the income tax was levied. He had received complaints both from the borough which he represented and from other parts of the country of the severity with which the

  1549
  surveyors carried on the business of surcharging; and if such complaints were allowed to continue unnoticed and unredressed, they could not but produce a most injurious effect. It was very unwise to bring the income tax into so much disrepute by the disagreeable manner in which it was levied. In order to illustrate the feeling which prevailed concerning it, he would quote the following protest of seventeen taxpayers in the northern division of the county of Northampton, which was contained in a recent return which had been made on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt):—
  "We whose names are hereunto affixed beg to express our surprise at and condemnation of the arbitrary manner in which our returns made under the requirements of the Property and Income Tax Acts have been surcharged, whereby in many instances agricultural tenants have been necessitated either to pay tax on a much higher rental than they pay to their landlords (or than their land will bear), or to appeal against their assessment, at great loss of time, inconvenience, and expense. We are willing to allow all reasonable latitude to the officers having charge of the collection of the revenue of our Government, and to allow that it is right to guard against all attempts to defraud it, but submit that it is neither reasonable nor just to put the taxpayers of this part of the country to such great, and in many instances unnecessary, inconvenience as is involved in the present proceeding of the surveyor of taxes of this district."
  He believed that the discontent thus manifested, instead of being exceptional, was very general. He moved the following clause:—
  "On and after the passing of this Act so much of section 130 of the Act passed in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chap. 35, intituled 'An Act for granting to Her Majesty Duties on Profits arising from Property, Professions, Trades, and Offices until the 6th day of April 1845,' as relates to persons assessed to the income tax under £150 per year shall be and the same is hereby repealed; and every person sc assessed or charged shall, if he think fit, appeal to the Commissioners for special purposes, upon giving notice thereof in writing to the inspector or surveyor within the time limited for notices of appeal, and thereupon every such appeal shall be heard and determined by two or more of the Commissioners for special purposes."
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he had heard many complaints similar to those stated by the noble Lord, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would admit the clause, and so remove some of the difficulties attending the imposition of the tax. Under the existing system persons had to travel many miles to have their appeals attended to, and in consequence of the large number to be disposed of, they had some-
  1550
  times to perform the journey twice. It was enough for people to have to pay the tax without being put to unnecessary inconvenience in obtaining just treatment.
  MR. HUNTobserved, that the clause would remove two hardships of which taxpayers now complained—that of having to expose their affairs publicly before their nearest neighbours, and that of having to travel a considerable distance to attend the court. In his own county considerable discontent existed as to the existing system, especially on the part of small freeholders who did not come within the income tax. He would suggest that much inconvenience would also be obviated if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would direct the assessors to ask in their papers whether or not property was mortgaged, and would consent, that when there was a new assessment, the first collection should be under the old one.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could confirm the statement made by the noble Lord with reference to the discontent which existed in Norfolk on occount of the manner in which the tax was levied.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), that great inconvenience would be saved if the question were distinctly put whether or not a property was mortgaged.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the desire of the Government not to multiply re-assessments, but to go on for two years at a time, at some loss to the revenue, rather than subject people to unnecessary inconvenience. He was anxious that all who had complaints against the revenue officers should bring them forward, in order that they might be inquired into. The taxpayers happily possessed the power of keeping the ministers in order by calling upon their repretatives to bring their grievances before the House. With regard to the particular point under discussion, he came to a conclusion very different from that of the noble Lord and his hon. Friend (Mr. Williams). Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that it was in the power of the Government to levy the income tax in such a way as to be perfectly agreeable. That was quite a mistake. The process of extracting money from the pockets of the ratepayers was much more analogous to the operations of the dentist on the mouths of his patients than to any proceedings which could be carried on in an agreeable manner. That

  1551
  would sound like heresy to hon. Members who held, that as soon as all taxation was direct, it would become easy and pleasant, That was a view to which he could never attach himself. Long experience showed that vigilance was necessary on the part of the revenue officers, because the bulk of men were endeavouring to escape from the payment of taxes. They must not forget the disclosures which were frequently made, as in the case of the people in Cannon Street, who some years back made returns to the income tax exactly one tenth of the amount of those which they laid before a jury when claiming compensation. He felt bound to say that definite complaints against revenue officers were exceedingly rare. All that could be done by judgment, prudence, and moderation on the part of the officers of Inland Revenue ought to be done. Those gentlemen always laboured in that sense, and would not be honest if they did not; and he believed that the spirit in which the officers of the revenue endeavoured to act was a spirit of moderation and forbearance as well as vigilance. With regard to the particular proposal of the noble Lord, he would observe, that notwithstanding that the sum of £150 was mentioned in the clause, the Committee, as the limit of the income tax was carried down to £100, were now really concerned only with the case of persons having incomes under £100 a year. He felt some difficulty in meeting statements in regard to points of detail connected with the special working of a tax, when the parties never thought fit to lay those statements before him. He heard of them for the first time on a proposal being brought forward in that House, and thus no opportunity was afforded him of discussing them with the officers of the Board of Inland Revenue. He felt great difficulty in committing himself, by a conversation in that House, to any alleged facts or proceedings. At the same time, he was sure the noble Lord would feel that it was not desirable to press upon the Committee such a change as he proposed in what, from the first, had been a standing rule in the administration of the income tax, until an opportunity was afforded of fully investigating the statements on which the proposal was founded. With regard to persons claiming exemption on the ground of having less than £100 a year, he apprehended that they were probably under some misapprehension as to the kind of relief they would obtain in any case from being: allowed to
  1552
  appeal to special commissioners. The principal point of complaint was, that they had to travel many miles to exhibit the state of their affairs to the local commissioners. He quite admitted that the travelling was a serious inconvenience to persons of small means, but that would not be avoided by the adoption of the noble Lord's clause, for it would not be possible for special commissioners to hold a meeting in every village; and they could not be carried nearer to the doors of the people than the spots where the local commissioners at present sat. The noble Lord truly said that many of those persons were very anxious that there should be secrecy as to the state of their affairs; but he wished to point out the distinction between the case of people claiming total exemption and that of persons endeavouring to ascertain in discussions with the commissioners the precise amount they were to pay. A man paying the income tax might have £100 or £100,000 a year, and it might be of the utmost importance to him that it should remain hidden from the world on which of those two sums he paid, or that the point between them at which his income stood should not be known. The case of a man who claimed exemption was totally different; and if his income was less than £100 a year, the commissioners did not inquire whether it was £90, £80, or £70. With regard to the fact of exemption there could be no secrecy. The tax gatherer, in collecting the income tax, called at the doors of A, B, and C, and not at the door of D. Consequently, it became known that D did not pay income tax, and therefore no secrecy existed as to the only fact within the cognizance of the commissioners—namely, that D had less than £100 a year.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, all he wished was to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the grievances which he believed the Bill would inflict upon certain classes of the public in the hope that they would be taken into the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. It was not the mere disclosure of his income that a man disliked, but what he disliked was to be compelled to make that disclosure before a number of persons who were sitting around him in order to secure his liability to as high an income tax as they could exact upon the evidence which was forced from him. Now, a man naturally did not like the world to know his circumstances when he was going down in the world. There were many little details

  1553
  in connection with, his affairs which it might be important for such a man to keep from the public eye. The grievance of such a person might not, however, be so great as that of individuals whose transactions were on a much more extensive and important scale. The right hon. Gentleman said that the question of £150 a year, as the point at which, exemption ceased, was no longer in existence. Now he (Lord Robert Cecil) had looked most attentively into the two Acts on the subject; and, as far as his judgment went, the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman incorporated the clause of the Act in which £150 a year was made the lowest point for taxation Consequently, some confusion upon the matter would, he thought, arise. Passing from that point to a much narrower question, he wished to explain the reason why he could not lay before the right hon. Gentleman those specific cases of hardship to which he had referred in general terms. When a man was going down in the world, he naturally felt the hardship the greater, and the injustice or over-zeal of the surveyor pressed upon him with peculiar severity. That was the very time at which least of all he wished to have his circumstances published to the world; that was a time when he felt it was all-important to his interests to have his affairs kept as secret as possible. Under such circumstances, he (Lord Robert Cecil) should never think of divulging the details of his case. He therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not draw from the mere absence of details, or the facts not specifically mentioned, the conclusion that there were no grounds for the complaint, or that the officers were working the Act as quietly and as gently as possible. He believed that the taxpayer was perpetually trying to escape from the hands of the surveyor, and that such cases caused a reaction on the part of the surveyor, who, in the excess of his zeal to counteract such a system, allowed himself sometimes to be betrayed into acts of hardship and injustice.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought his noble Friend was under some misapprehension. The Income Tax commissioners did not hold an open court. Three commissioners, or two at all events, sat in a small room with their clerk and surveyor, and those gentlemen were sworn to secrecy. As far as the commissioners were concerned, they did not take much interest in small incomes, and there was no reason why the recipients of those incomes should
  1554
  not state freely their complaints. The surveyors had very difficult duties to discharge, but they readily paid attention to suggestions by the commissioners. The proper check was in the hands of the commissioners, who had only to intimate with firmness their opinion when they found the surveyors acted harshly, as he had known them sometimes do in assessing profits under Schedule D. He thought, however, that, upon the whole, the tax was levied with as little trouble and as much care as money could possibly be extracted from any one.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he was sure the class of persons who had small incomes would feel very much obliged to the noble Lord for calling attention to the subject. He was glad to hear the assurance which had been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was convinced that if the pain was reduced to a minimum, the object of the noble Lord would be realized.
  MR. SCOURFIELDasked whether any encouragement was given to those officers who collected the tax without harshness, and whether any discouragement was given to those who added unnecessarily to the irritation of the persons assessed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that those officers who made unjust charges were placed in an unfavourable position with regard to promotion. The hon. Member for Northampton had suggested that a column should be inserted in the Schedule in order that reductions claimed in respect of mortgages might be specified. Now, he asked the House to consider what would be the consequence of calling upon those who possessed property to declare the amount of their mortgages. He thought such an arrangement would not be regarded with approval.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, that his experience as a Commissioner convinced him that instead of the surveyors too strictly discharging their duty they were too lax in that respect. He never knew an instance of a person being really charged too much, and the mistake not rectified.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was not sorry that his noble Friend had called the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the subject. He could not say that he was hopeful of any of the difficulties to which he had referred being amended; but the right hon. Gentleman had promised to turn his powerful and acute intellect to the matter; and as he could split hairs better than 19–20ths of the House of Commons,

  1555
  he might devise some mode, in consultation with the officers of Inland Revenue, by which some of the irritation produced by those blisters might be lessened. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeded, he should give him unusual credit for it, but his own opinion was that the irritation was incidental to the tax itself. As the right hon. Gentleman had said, the greatest difficulties occurred in cases of exemption; but when persons claimed exemption, they ought not to grudge a reasonable amount of trouble to secure it. He had never seen anything unfair, harsh, or capricious in the conduct of the surveyors, but it was easy for any one to send a letter by post, calling attention to any particular case, when the wrong would probably be remedied. The surveyors were sure to be hated by every one, and he thought they went out of their way to relieve the public as far as possible from a good deal of trouble in connection with this odious tax. The commissioners had to find out whether the butcher, the baker, or candlestick-maker had an income of £98 or £100 a year. A Chancery suit was nothing to it. They had to find out how much profit was made out of a sack of flour, or when a beast was killed how the profit was affected by the weather and by the state of the markets, to say nothing of that blessed item bad debts. Or, perhaps, these wretched commissioners had to discover how much profit a schoolmaster with nine children made out of his boys, by an inquiry into how many pounds of meat were consumed by the boys, some of whom had large appetites, some small appetites, and some no appetites at all, and how many maid servants were necessary for the boys and how many for the nine children. All these questions had to be discussed, and he was bound from his experience to bear testimony to the ability and forbearance with which the revenue officers carried on their work and assisted the commissioners in arriving at a decision.
  Clause withdrawn.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.

INLAND REVENUE BILL— [BILL 97.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Clubs to be licensed for the
  1556
  selling of excisable Liquors to their Members) struck out.
  Clauses 2 to 8 were agreed to,
  Clause 9 (Lower Hates of Duty on Stage Carriages licensed to carry not more than Eight Persons).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would move to leave out "one halfpenny" in line 26, and to insert "one farthing," and to add to the end of the clause the following words:—
  "And for and in respect of every mile which any stage carriage licensed to carry more than eight passengers at one time shall be licensed to travel, the duty of one halfpenny."
  Since he had had a seat in that House he never knew a clearer case of justice than that which he had to submit to the judgment of the Committee, and to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Continual attempts had been made, ever since the introduction of railways, to obtain a fair and uniform duty on passengers travelling by stage coaches and railways. The difficulty was to say in what manner these taxes should be levied consistently with equality. In 1837, when a charge of one-third of a penny was paid by railways, and a farthing by stage coach passengers, a Committee was appointed to consider the subject. They reported that great inequality existed, the travelling by animal power being heavily burdened, while travelling by steam-motive power was lightly taxed by comparison. They recommended the abolition of all the taxes on public conveyances at the earliest possible period. That Report produced no result, and in 1839 the subject was brought under the notice of the House, but the state of the revenue did not admit of a change. Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted that there was an inequality in the rate of taxation, which it behaved Parliament to consider. The late Sir Robert Peel admitted that the owners of the older description of vehicles were suffering from the introduction of railways, and that it would be unfair on the part of the Legislature to give them an unequal share of taxation to contend against. In 1842 the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day introduced a Bill to carry the principle that had been laid down, and the taxes on stage carriages and railways were re-adjusted. Stage carriages were charged1½d. per mile and railways 5 per cent on the gross income derived from passengers. That was thought to be a fair settlement of

  1557
  the question; but since then the equality had been again disturbed by the general Act which compelled railway companies to send one train a day to convey passengers at 1d. per mile. In 1855 the subject was again brought before the House in connection with a transaction which occurred in the north of England, where the owners of stage carriages had made a private arrangement to reduce their own rate of taxation. General Wyndham in that year moved a Resolution, that, in the opinion of the House, the law relating to stage carriages ought to be modified. The Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day, Sir George Lewis, said, that if he had to submit a supplementary Budget, the question of the mileage duty would be entitled to a prominent place in it; that if a favourable opportunity arose for the re-consideration of that class of duties, he was quite alive to the objections which had been urged against them; and the right hon. Gentleman added, that these duties ought to be remitted whenever the state of the revenue allowed of their removal. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) concurred in the opinion, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who closed the debate, said, that seeing that the Government had the authority of the House for taking the matter into consideration with a view to the modification of the duties, he was not disposed to oppose the Motion. The consequence was, that the Government fixed the duty at 1d., and there it had since remained. Before the Committee, which sat two years ago, of which the late Sir George Lewis was a member, and of which he had the honour to be Chairman, attention was called to the mileage duties, and it was shown that there were altogether different rates upon the different railways. Some had a larger amount of cheap traffic than others; and whenever passengers were carried at a less rate than 1d. per passenger per mile, they claimed exemption from duty in respect of these earnings; and that exemption, although it was perfectly illegal, was allowed by the Government, in order to keep itself in harmony with the companies. The only deduction which could properly be made was in respect of what were called Parliamentary trains running once a day in each direction. The result was that the duty, instead of being 5 per cent as originally imposed, was reduced to less than 3½ per cent on the large railways, and even, in, some cases,
  1558
  to 1 per cent. What was the case of 'the omnibus proprietors? Since the establishment of a great concern in London, publishing its accounts, and carrying on business as a joint stock company, the most accurate data had been procurable. From these it appeared that the omnibus company was in receipt of £582,000 annually, out of which it paid a tax of £52,000 a year, being nearly 10 per cent on its gross earnings. Those persons who had stage carriages throughout the country were still more aggrieved; but although they might grumble, being isolated individuals, they had no opportunity of making known their case to the public. It was only now, when the circumstances of the country enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Budget not provoking much discussion or opposition, that he felt it his duty to enter into special questions of grievance or injustice connected with finance, and to some extent, he might therefore say, that he brought forward the subject at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman. The Resolutions affecting the railway companies seemed rather to have fallen behind, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he was waiting for detailed statistical information. When those accounts were received, he would see that the charge on the railway companies was really taken at 3 per cent, while the charge on stage carriages might be taken as ranging at about 10 per cent. He had never heard but one reason suggested for the inequality to which he referred, and that, although specious, was unsound. It was said that railways were the owners of the road, while omnibuses ran upon the public roads. But, because the railway companies had made a complex machine of an iron road, and a steam engine, which they said was more economical than horses upon a common road, that was not a matter with which Parliament had anything to do. As well might a different duty be levied upon long cloth manufactured by handloom to that which was levied upon the produce of great and expensive machinery. The proper test of taxation was the gross earnings. The railways had obtained a large exemption, from duty upon the plea that they convoyed passengers cheaply, at the rate of 1d. per mile. But he had a long list of omnibus fares which did not exceed that rate; and if the omnibus proprietors possessed the same influence as was enjoyed by the railway companies, they would

  1559
  be wholly exempt from taxation. The duty, no doubt, in its origin was a sumptuary tax paid by the richer classes, and as such was a legitimate source of revenue But the incidence of the tax had changed, for it was not the rich who rode in omnibuses, but to a great extent the working classes, who were thus conveyed from the districts where they lived to the places where they worked. The amount involved was not such as to indispose the Committee to deal with the question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made some rather weak appeals, that his surplus should be regarded as a sacred fund, but he had had already to re-consider his propositions upon one or two points. It was true that upon those points greater influence had been brought to bear than he could boast of; but the right hon. Gentleman, the other evening, made an appeal to the justice and firmness of the House, which had so powerful an effect that all considerations of party were abandoned, and all concurred in condemning that with which every one was satisfied before. He hoped that upon that occasion the right hon. Gentleman could see that there was a necessity for dealing with the grievance, and would yield to the appeal made to him. The effect of his Amendment would be to reduce the duty paid by stage carriages by one-half, and accordingly he moved to reduce the sums inserted in the clause in that proportion.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 26, to leave out the words "one halfpenny," and insert the words "one farthing."
  GENERAL BUCKLEYsaid, he had hoped, from a conversation that he had had with the right hon. Gentleman, that he would agree to some remission of the tax. He had laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer the case of a coach which, in the county which he represented, travelled forty miles a day, and afforded the only public conveyance which the inhabitants of the villages through which it passed possessed. That coach paid £52 a year in taxes; and as the gain was very small, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not be indisposed to make some remission in favour of that class of vehicles, in order that they might not be obliged to stop running.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, when appeals such as were made by the hon. and gallant Member were presented to his notice, he was naturally desirous of meeting them as far as
  1560
  lay in his power. There were, no doubt, many taxes which it was desirable should be remitted; and, certainly, it would be a happy state of things if, as far as locomotion was concerned, there were no taxes at all. But it was his duty, in the office he held, to measure his acts by his necessities, and he would endeavour to state those necessities to the Committee. It must not be supposed that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman was limited by the terms in which it was couched. He could not look at the duties upon locomotion with regard to one portion only. The first effect of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if carried, would be to deprive the revenue of £70,000 a year, and the Government were not prepared, under existing circumstances, to acquiesce in that proposal. But the duty upon stage carriages was only one portion of the revenue derived from locomotion, which amounted to £775,000 a year. The railways paid £387,000 a year; stage carriages paid £144,000; hackney carriages, £104,000; and post-horse licences, £138,000. With regard to the duty on hackney carriages, the case, no doubt, was peculiar. Some years ago Parliament compelled hackney carriages to reduce their fares, but omnibuses still charged what they pleased. During the Exhibition period there was a great augmentation of traffic, and the consequence was the omnibus fares were raised. The hon. Member had omitted to point out, that owing to the peculiar nature of the control which the omnibus proprietors had over the traffic, the immediate consequence of an increased demand was increased fares. Therefore, if the House considered the case of stage carriages they must also consider the hackney carriages and the post-horse licences. The railway companies would also fairly be entitled to raise a question for themselves as they were in immediate competition with stage carriages all over the country. The four branches of revenue were associated together, and it was impossible to open one for the purpose of reduction—first, because of its direct effect upon the revenue; and next, because its indirect effect would be to give rise to fresh demands in other quarters. The hon. Member had stated that his arguments in favour of maintaining the surplus were very feeble; and, as inroads had already been made upon that surplus, the hon. Member tranquilly inferred that further inroads might be made upon it without detriment

  1561
  to any one. The surplus which he had proposed to maintain was about £530,000, and lie had stated on the part of his Colleagues their intention steadily to resist all invasion whatever of that surplus. But he did not presume to place revenue arising from proposals which he intended to make, and which had never received the approval of Parliament, on the same footing with revenue arising from established sources. The surplus stood at about £400,000; and he trusted that the Committee would not think, with the hon. Member, that his arguments for its maintenance were weak. He did not speak of the revenue from locomotion as a revenue which ought at all times, and under all circumstances, to be retained. But he thought that the intention of the country was not to fritter away public revenue at the present moment by minute remissions in favour of this or that class, but rather to husband its resources with a view to the attainment of objects in which the whole public had an interest. These taxes upon locomotion were taxes with regard to which every reasonable and enlightened man would say that the more they could be reduced the better. But how stood the case? The statement of the hon. Member on the subject, though able, was not, quite fair and impartial. He said that stage carriages were subject to a payment of 10 per cent, while railways only paid about 3 per cent; and he added that it was not a legitimate argument to justify the distinction by any reference to the peculiar circumstance that railways found their own roads and stage carriages ran on roads provided for them. By an ingenious artifice, the hon. Member mixed up together bodies of stage carriages, which were very differently circumstanced indeed. The country stage carriages, for which the hon. and gallant Member near him (General Buckley) had pleaded, helped to make their own roads, since they paid turnpike tolls. But the country carriages were by no means the chief clients of the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton). His London clients, in their published statements, objected to the partial reduction proposed to be given in the Bill in the case of smaller carriages. They declared, that if the reduction were carried out, many large vehicles paying £3 3s. a year and a penny a mile, would be replaced by smaller ones, paying a licence duty of 10 s. yearly and a halfpenny per mile. Well, it was rather hard that in the
  1562
  exceptionally favourable condition which the London omnibus proprietors enjoyed, having their roads made for them, they should object to the relief proposed to be given, upon no exceptional or arbitrary principles, to smaller carriages, which did help to make their roads. It was commonly said that misfortune tended to soften the heart and make us compassionate towards brethren in affliction; but the clients of the hon. Member seemed in this respect to be rather in the rear of the average of mankind. He would, however, grapple with the real argument of the hon. Gentleman by saying, that the comparison between the percentage upon railways and that upon stage carriages in London, must obviously be unjust, because the tax upon stage carriages fell upon rolling stock alone, while that on railways fell on rolling stock and on roads. The hon. Member contended that the road was no part of the instrument by which the passenger was carried. It seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) an astonishing doctrine, for they did not travel in the air. To justify the comparison of the hon. Member, a proportion of tax ought to be imposed in respect of the roads traversed by stage carriages, for probably three-fourths of the expenses of railway companies had been incurred in laying down their permanent way, and only one-fourth in providing the rolling stock. The hon. Gentleman also said, that the remission of duty made to railway companies was illegal, and he complained that railway companies, being influential and powerful bodies, obtained a degree of favour which their competitors did not. The hon. Member was wrong in that statement; for if he referred to the Act of 1844, he would find that these exemptions were made in favour of the low-priced trains, and were not limited to a single train a day—the Parliamentary train.
  He wished to call the attention of the; Committee to what had been done at various times in regard to these duties. Down to 1839 the rate of duty on carriages conveying above fifteen persons was 3d. a mile. Since that time the size of stage carriages had been greatly increased, while the amount of the tax upon them had been greatly reduced. Prom 1839 to 1842 the duty was2½d. per mile. From 1842 to 1855 it was 1½d. In the latter year, Parliament considered the incidence of the tax upon railways and stage carriages respectively, and remitted one-third of the tax upon omnibuses. The hon.

  1563
  Member for the Tower Hamlets argued, that as railway trains travelled at less than a penny a mile, omnibuses ought to go free; but when a train travelled at a penny a mile, it did so from station to station, and a passenger, by counting the number of miles he wanted to go, was able to tell the amount of his fare. That was not the ease with an omnibus, because, though for the whole journey the rate might be under a penny per mile, the vehicle did not travel from station to station at that rate. For instance, a passenger entering an omnibus at Charing Cross and travelling only as far as Regent Street certainly would not be carried for the rate of a penny a mile.
  MR. AYRTON: Neither would he be carried for such a distance in any railway train at the rate of a penny a mile, because there is an Act which provides that railways need not take anything under a four-mile fare.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was showing that the principle of distances was a test in the case of railway fares, whereas the distance the passenger was carried was not a test in the case of omnibuses, and that therefore the cases were different. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of the low earnings of the London General Omnibus Company; but he ought to have entered into some explanation with the view of showing how far the low profits of that company were to be accounted for by the expenses which it had gone to in driving competitors off the line, because it was a matter of notoriety that the drivers and conductors of independent proprietors made frequent complaints against the managers and drivers of the London General Omnibus Company for driving them off the road. He observed that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets shook his head at that statement, which showed that the hon. Gentleman did not read the police reports in the newspapers. However it was, competitors to the London General Omnibus Company disappeared after a short time. That was a matter of which the House of Commons could take no notice, but it was one which ought to engage the hon. Gentleman's attention when he made an appeal for the company on the ground of their low earnings.
  The point, however, to which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) wished
  specially to call the attention of the Committee was the general position of the finances of the country. If the
  1564
  Committee thought it right to go on without a surplus—if the Committee thought the claim now made was the only claim on the surplus which existed—let them support the hon. Gentleman. But as there were abundance of other claimants, with good cases, calling for reduction, and as the claim now put forward directly menaced a very considerable sum, and indirectly menaced a considerably larger sum, the matter deserved their serious attention, inasmuch as it involved the maintenance of that moderate revenue which was necessary for the public service. Still, the Government had looked into the case of the proprietors of omnibuses, and had endeavoured to relieve them as far it was possible to do so without detriment to the revenue of the country. No doubt the greatest pressure in respect of the charges on those vehicles was felt in the case of lines where there was but small traffic, such as those from small railway stations, and where the omnibuses were also taxed for the road they travelled on. The Government had endeavoured to meet that case by a considerable remission of taxation. At present, a licence of three guineas and a mileage of 1d. per mile were charged under all circumstances, no matter what the size of the vehicle or how small the traffic. Besides, the licence must be paid for the whole year, though the traffic might be only for a portion of the year. In the first place the Government had drawn the distinction between small carriages—carriages carrying not more than eight passengers—and large ones; and it was to be remembered that omnibuses used in the North and in London carried from twenty to forty passengers. They reduced the licence on small carriages from three guineas to 10 s.; and they were further justified in doing that because they believed that the present high rate of licence duty in respect of these small vehicles had the effect of checking enterprise. Then they reduced the mileage from 1d. to ½d. per mile in the case of that class of vehicles to which he was referring; and the 10 s. licence might be divided into fractions, according to the portion of the year for which it was paid. He did not think that these reductions would result in any loss to the revenue. He calculated that an increased traffic would recoupe the revenue on the reductions. In respect of large carriages they had endeavoured to do justice also. For the future it would not be necessary for that class of carriage to pay the whole

  1565
  three guineas before obtaining a licence. The licence year would expire on the 31st of October instead of the 30th of September, and licences might always be had at any period of the year for the period of the licence year then unexpired. In some parts of the country the season closed at the end of September, and the Bill therefore provided that licences might be taken out for any of the four quarters of the year. He had said that he expected an increase of traffic from the remission in the case of the taxes on small omnibuses in rural districts; but he hoped no hon. Member would argue from that admission that an increase might also be expected if similar remissions were made to the London General Omnibus Company. In the former ease the pressure of expenses confined the traffic; but in London the omnibus traffic was a large and increasing one. For these reasons he could not consent, by agreeing to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to weaken those financial arrangements which he thought the House had allowed to be reasonable—looking to the actual and possible wants of the country—to the necessity of maintaining the solidity of our finances, and to the general condition of the world, which could not be separated from financial considerations.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, that long as he had been in the House, he never remembered a Chancellor of the Exchequer giving up a tax without a struggle, nor had he ever heard a Chancellor of the Exchequer admit that the relief proposed by any private Member was exactly the relief which ought to be given. A great deal of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had been devoted to the praise of what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do for carriages in the rural districts; but the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not only relieve the rural carriages a great deal more, but would relieve those in towns altogether. If the right hon. Member justified his taxes on town omnibuses in excess of railways, because they had not to find their own roads, surely he ought to hand over the excess for the benefit of those who did supply the roads. But the truth was the right hon. Gentleman had made up his mind to stick by his Budget—as far as he could. He did not wish to say a word in favour of additional tayation on railways, but omnibus proprietors could scarcely help complaining of the manner in which they were treated in comparison
  1566
  with railways. In London they were exposed to competition with railways. The opening of the Metropolitan Railway, for instance, had reduced the earnings of four omnibuses starting from the neighbourhood of the terminus from £2,960 in 1862 to £786 in 1863. The loss must fall, after all, on the public, for the omnibuses, if they were unfairly burdened, would be worse horsed and worse managed altogether. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman had shown some little consideration for the rural districts, as opposed to the metropolitan, and he regarded it as a rather remarkable concession. He did not wish to take any part in the combat between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, but he was very much struck with a remark that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that, in his opinion, taxes on locomotion ought to be low. Now, if there was any one point to which taxation might be directed, without prejudice to anybody, and with benefit to the community at large, he (Mr. Bentinck) thought it was on locomotion. Locomotion was one of two things. It was either a matter of luxury, or a matter of business. It was agreed on all hands that luxuries of all kinds ought to be taxed. If a tax on locomotion for purposes of business, without detriment to that business, could be levied, it was desirable that it should be done with the least possible inconvenience. It might be said that excursion trains ought not to be taxed. Now, he believed they were the source of nine-tenths of the accidents which occurred, and he doubted whether they really tended to promote the health of those who profited by them. He did not think that going 120 miles at a cheap rate, was the best way of disposing of a man's time; and believed that it might be spent in a much better way. He did not think that there could be any better tax generally speaking than that on railway travelling.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for he regarded cheap locomotion as one of the greatest boons that could be conferred upon the public. He had always been in favour of low fares and speedy communication between all parts of the Empire; and he therefore

  1567
  trusted that the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed at no distant day the liberation of locomotion from all taxation. With respect to any rise of fares in the metropolis, that might be traced to the high licensing duties, and he was of opinion, that if there was an entire free trade in omnibuses, high fares would be avoided.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, his proposition applied to the stage coaches in the country as well as to the omnibuses in the City. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have it that the tax in question was a tax upon coaches and the rolling stock of railways; but in that he was opposed to all financiers, who regarded it in this light, that it was a tax upon passengers—a point which had been admitted by all the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, and by the late Sir Robert Peel. It had nothing whatever to do with the tax whether passengers were carried by one mode of conveyance or by another. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell the Committee that the omnibus proprietors besides that tax paid £18,000 a year for the roads; and if they paid less tolls, it was because the inhabitants generally preferred to pay a house tax for that purpose. But the right hon. Gentleman thought himself entitled to levy a heavier tax on the omnibus proprietors on that account. It was a fact, that the omnibus proprietors were not able to make a fair profit by their business at present; and surely, when the railway below the road was exempted from taxation, it was not just that the omnibus running above should be heavily taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given an imperfect denial to his statement that those railway exemptions were illegal. But the law required that the exemptions should take effect only when the railway company ran a train at a penny a mile, allowed a certain weight of luggage to be carried free, and the train stopped at every station. But excursion trains, as they were carried on, were not exempt by law; and he would say more, the Government were aware that they were not exempt; and more than that, the exemption was given in order to make matters work smoothly between the railway companies and the Board of Trade. The consequence was the railway companies were not paying their full share of taxation, while the burden was borne by other parties. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had indeed thrown out an indefinite hope that the tax would
  1568
  be done away with. But why were they to be amused with those sensation propositions? The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that if he yielded in that case, he would be obliged to remit £700,000; but his (Mr. Ayrton's) demand was limited to £70,000, which would be recouped by the increase in the number of omnibuses. If the House took off a duty which was so excessive as nearly to sink the traffic, it would be sure to give a new impulse to it by the remission. That was a well established fact, and one which had been often dwelt on by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. But now the right hon. Gentleman said, if the tax were taken off, nothing would be recouped. The right hon. Gentleman made this distinction, that the train carried its passengers from station to station, while the door of the omnibus was always open and one might get out of it when he pleased. But what difference did that make. The omnibus conveyed passengers at a penny a mile, and the railway company professed to do the same; but while the railway company charged for part of a mile as for the whole, the omnibus charged for part of the distance in the same way. In short, it was a case of the simplest justice; but the right hon. Gentleman was frightened about his surplus. The Chancellor of the Exchequer looked upon his surplus just as a mother after several miscarriages looked upon her production. It was the most extraordinary creature, the most lovable creature in the world; everything would injure it, it was to be cherished as the most admirable thing in nature. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some assurance that he would take the matter into his consideration, or, if not, that the Committee would give such practical suggestions, with a view to the removal of those inequalities, as would induce him to do so.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman again into the general question, but would merely point one error into which he had fallen in the repetition of his vague assertions. The hon. Gentleman had asserted that the exemption granted by the Government to certain railway trains was illegal. The hon. Gentleman had read the 6th section of the Act, but had stopped there. If he had read the 8th section, he would find that a discretionary power was given to the Executive to dispense with any of the conditions required with regard to the conveyance of

  1569
  passengers by any such cheap trains as aforesaid. [Mr. AYRTON: Yes, Parliamentary trains.] The words were, "by any such cheap trains."
  Question put, "That the words ' one halfpenny' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 35: Majority 46.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 10 to 20, inclusive, were likewise agreed to.
  Clause 21 (In certain cases excisable liquors may he sold under a Publican's occasional licence after sunset).
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask an explanation of the changes which were contained in the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when the occasional licences to publicans for a certain temporary purpose were passed, a good deal of jealousy had been expressed; indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was one of the principal organs of that jealousy, and the consequence was, that the clause had been made a good deal too restrictive. Very possibly he might have to propose some further relaxation before the measure got through Parliament. The clause removed restrictions on the sale of liquors after sunset and before sunrise, but only on the occasions specified—for instance, on the occasion of any public dinner or ball—and it enacted that under an occasional licence liquors might be sold during such hours before or after sunrise or sunset as should be allowed and specified in that behalf in the consents to be given by the justices of the peace for the granting of such occasional licence. It had been mentioned to him that in some other cases the restriction to sunset was rather too severe. For example, a cricket match was carried on within a few minutes of sunset, and it would be hard to require absolutely the cessation of the sale of liquors at the moment the sun set. In such a case he proposed that a little discretion and some small margin should be given. With regard to Clause 22, it was intended to remedy an error into which he had been led from over-confidence in the judgment and too great a-readiness to acquiesce in the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Ayrton). Before the Act 25 & 26 Vict, passed, publicans were permitted, without an Excise licence, to sell liquors at fairs and races. The hon.
  1570
  and learned Gentleman took away that privilege from the publicans without the knowledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it became unlawful to sell liquors during fairs and races without a licence. The object of Clause 22 was to restore to publicans the privilege they before enjoyed with respect to fairs and races.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the effort had been to get the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider moral questions in connection with Excise licences. He had heard that a good deal of debauchery had been repressed by the change to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. Now, he wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that in the Act relating to public-houses in Scotland the matter had been carefully considered in reference to the question of occasional licences; and he trusted that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to enlarge those licences, as he was now doing, he would also alter the law by which they were to be issued.
  MR. HUNTobserved, that the conditions under which occasional licences could be obtained were rather oppressive to the publican, it being sometimes very difficult to procure the consent of two justices residing in the same district as the person seeking for the licence, as was required. He would suggest that it would be sufficient if a licence were signed by one magistrate living within seven miles of the place for which the licence was required.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken in thinking that an unnecessary amount of restraint was imposed on those publicans who, as a condition of obtaining a licence to supply certain articles on a particular occasion, were compelled to travel over the country to find two justices both acting in their district of petty sessions. He would therefore be disposed to accede to such an Amendment as had been suggested if the hon. Member moved it, or he would propose it himself on bringing up the Report. He had not received any complaints of the abuse of occasional licences. A letter had been published complaining of a great amount of drunkenness on some public occasion in the West of England; hut, on careful investigation, it appeared that the gathering, which was a large one, had been conducted in an unusually satisfactory manner, and that the cases of drunkenness were remarkably few.
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he hoped Scotland would be excluded from the operation of the clause.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that Scotland was already without the operation of the enactment
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

ASSURANCES REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 46.]—BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order for Committee read.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the measure had been introduced in the first instance owing to the action of the Law Society in Ireland, in 1860. Last year, he might add, the Law Society had taken up the subject, with the Report of Colonel Leech before them, and had, through a Committee, made a Report, adopted by the council of the Society, to the effect that the proposals of Colonel Leech generally were satisfactory, and that certain improvements in reference to the system of registration were required. After some years of gestation the Government introduced a Bill corresponding in all points with the recommendations of the Law Society of Ireland. During the previous year that society petitioned that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee, and that Session the Bill was re-introduced. The second reading was postponed, in order that the House might have the advice and assistance of the right hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Whiteside) in its discussion. That right hon. and learned Gentleman in a long and able speech severely criticised the Bill, but did not end by moving its rejection. He did not then reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because the hour was late, and the objections taken to the measure were, moreover, such as could be better dealt with in Committee; and the second reading was agreed to. Since then, however, the Law Society of Ireland had met to reconsider the question; and although the Bill had originally been introduced at their urgent recommendation, they now turned round and said it must receive their strenuous opposition, and that no measure on that subject was necessary. One circumstance that had weighed with the Government in taking up the question was the
1572
fact that there had been a very great accumulation of arrears in the Registry Office. But, strange to say, the officers of that department, who could not in the last twenty years work off those arrears, had very lately summoned up such an extraordinary amount of energy that they had all now disappeared. Under all those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government could not hope to obtain the assistance and support which would be necessary to secure the passing of the Bill, and therefore they did not think it expedient to proceed any further with it. He begged to move that the Order for going into Committee upon it be discharged.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he congratulated the Government upon the discretion they showed in withdrawing the measure, the details of which, as they stood, were so impracticable and full of inconsistencies that they never could have been approved by those who knew anything of the local affairs of Ireland. The Committee of the Law Society of Ireland had given their sanction to it, but the general body of solicitors had since met and overruled the opinion of that smaller body. His hon. and learned Friend had given excellent reasons for not proceeding with the Bill; and if he had only exhibited similar energy in supporting it when it was last under discussion, he might possibly have succeeded in carrying it. The press of business thrown on the Registry Office by the Incumbered Estates Court having lately slackened, the officers had been enabled to clear off the arrears which had been referred to.
MR. BUTTsaid, some of the clauses in the Bill he should have opposed, while others, if passed, would have effected great improvements in the law. It was absolutely necessary that legislation in regard to some points connected with the registration of assurances should take place during the Session, in order that certain questions should be settled. He regretted that the Bill should be withdrawn.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he must protest against measures seriously affecting the landowners of Ireland being proposed and withdrawn at the instigation of a body of solicitors.
MR. HASSARDsaid, he believed the Bill had fallen through because there was no information before the House upon which legislation could be based. He trusted, however, the subject would not be dropped altogether by the Government.
Order discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

CHURCH BUILDING AND NEW PARISHES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 82]. SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in moving the second reading, said, that as he intended to accede to a Motion on the paper for referring the Bill to a Select Committee, he would not trouble the House with many observations on the present occasion. The Bill aimed at the entire repeal of nineteen Acts of Parliament, and the partial repeal of seven more. Its object was to consolidate and reduce into a coherent and consistent system the material provisions of those Acts. Of course, some Amendment and alteration had been necessary; but the Bill was essentially one for the consolidation of the existing law, with only such modification as was requisite for producing harmony and consistency. The Bill had been prepared for him by a gentleman who perhaps had as much knowledge as any one living on the subject—namely, Mr. Stevens; and in revising it, it had been his desire to avoid any innovation, one way or another, with reference to the important and much disputed question of church rates. Accordingly, all the clauses in the present Church Building Acts which could be said to contain any positive or affirmative legislation on the subject were proposed to be left exactly as they stood in the old Acts. The Bill also steered clear of some questions connected with the working of portions of the acts consolidated, which had led to recent litigation in the courts of law, and as to the effect of which different opinions might be entertained. It would not have been proper, in preparing the Bill, to seek to alter the law; but it would he competent in the Select Committee, or afterwards for any hon. Member, to make any proposal that he might deem expedient.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had exercised a wise discretion in resolving to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. So far from opposing the second reading, he thought every friend of the Church and of common sense was indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman for preparing that elaborate Bill for the consideration of the House. He had some observations to make upon certain clauses, especially those relating to the subject of pew rents, but would reserve them till a future occasion.
  MR. REMINGTON MILLSsaid, he had to complain of the omission from the Bill
  1574
  of the 18th clause in Sir Robert Peel's Act, which contained a provision against the levying of church rates for the support of district churches. It was understood when the Acts authorizing the constitution of new districts were passed that no church rates were to be levied for the support of the churches to be erected under them. Doubts had lately been expressed by Dr. Lushington, the Dean of the Arches, whether, as the law stood, such rates might not be imposed; and it was therefore most important that no provision should be omitted from the Bill which would carry out the understanding upon which the House had acted in legislating for the constitution of these new districts.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he could bear witness to the existence of the understanding to which his hon. Friend had referred. Unless he received an assurance that a provision would be inserted in the Bill to carry out that understanding, he should move an instruction to the Committee upon the subject.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it was no doubt understood that church rates should not be leviable for the support of these district churches. The question was one for the Select Committee, and no instruction would be necessary.
  Motion agreed, to:—Bill read 2°.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in moving that it should be referred to a Select Committee, explained that the insertion of the clause from Sir Robert Peel's Act would not have met the views of the hon. Member for Wycombe, because it was upon the words of that clause that the doubts of the learned Judge referred to had arisen.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was glad that the hon. and learned Solicitor General had acceded to the wish of several hon. Members to send the matter before a Select Committee, which was the only competent tribunal to deal with it; but he hoped that the question of church rates and pew rents would not be discussed by the Committee.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he had hoped to have seen a complete consolidation of the Church Building Acts during the Session, but at the same time he thanked the Government for having directed their attention to the subject, and expressed a hope that the labours of the Select Committee would not be thrown away.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, it was not satisfactory that after a pledge had been given in 1856 that the districts

  1575
  which had been referred to should not be liable for church rates, that question should be referred to a Committee.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.
  And on May 13, Committee nominated:—
  MR. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Mr. CARDWELL, Lord JOHN MANNERS, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. PULLER, Mr. HENRY SEYMOUR, Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, Mr. WALTER, Mr. REMINGTON MILLS, Mr. MOWERAY, Mr. LOCKE, Mr. HUNT, Mr. FRANCIS SHARPE POWELL, and Mr. SERJEANT PIGOTT:—Five to be the quorum.

DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 106.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading road.
  MR. PEEL MR. PEEL moved the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, he thought it desirable that the Bill should not be read a second time without some explanation of its object.
  MR. PEELsaid, that the object of the measure was to provide for the arterial drainage of Ireland through the instrumentality of drainage boards representing the proprietors of lands; and power was given to enable the drainage boards to obtain advances of money for the purpose from the Commissioners of Works in Ireland.
  LORD NAASsaid, he thought the Bill a great improvement on the measure brought in by the hon. and gallant Member for Limerick county, and it was likely that under the provisions of the Bill works of great public utility would be undertaken.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL [MR. HERBERT.]

  [BILL 96.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HERBERT MR. HERBERT moved the second reading of the Bill; the object of which was to assimilate the law in Ireland, with respect to English and Scotch paupers, to the English law in respect to Irish paupers.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he had no objection to the principle of the Bill, but in Committee he should propose one or two Amendments, as it was his intention to propose similar Amendments in the English law, in order to prevent certain irregularities in the removal of Irish paupers to Ireland.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

  PARTNERSHIP LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Select Committee on the Partnership Law Amendment [appointed May.25]:nominated—
  MR. SCHOLEFIELD, Mr. THOMAS BARING, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. CAVE, Mr. WILLIAM FORSTER, Mr. GEORGE, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. GEORGE GRENFILL GLYN, Mr. KIRKMAN HODGSON, Mr. MALINS, Mr. MOFFATT, Mr. MURRAY, Mr. POTTER, Mr. VANCE, and Mr. WEGUELIN:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Elections during Recess * (No. 84); Marriages, & (Ireland) * (No.93).
Report—Corrupt Practices at Elections * (No. 94); London, & Dioceses * (No. 95); Augmentation of Benefices * (No. 99).
Third Reading—Hares (Ireland) * (No. 52), and passed.
Royal Assent—Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 16]; Local Government Act (1858) Amendment [26 & 27 Vict., c. 17]; Inclosure [26 & 27 Vict., c. 18]; Consolidated Fund (£20,000,000) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 15].

ITALY—CASE OF MR. BISHOP.

  PETITION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYrose to present a Petition from the Reverend Alfred Bishop, Sector of Martyr Worthy in the Diocese of Winchester; and in reference to that Petition to call the Attention of the House to the Proceedings of Her Majesty's Government and their local Agents in the Case of the Petitioner's Son, Mr. James Bishop, now a Prisoner in the Fortress of Alexandria, undergoing a Sentence of Ten Years' Imprisonment.
  A Petition on such a subject from such a source is fortunately without parallel. It required a combination of circumstances hitherto unexampled to induce a person in the station of the Rev. Mr. Bishop to break through the habits of a retired life and to
  1502
  call your Lordship's attention to the cruelties of a foreign Government exercised towards a son who had quitted his home without the most remote idea of dabbling in politics abroad, but simply to seek, through the favourable influences of climate, restored health for his sickly frame, having for many years previously lost the use of his limbs. Before proceeding to state some important circumstances which I think should cause the Petitioner's appeal to be received with favour, I will at once dispel a general prejudice founded on the repetition of a falsehood, that Mr. James Bishop was a convert to the Roman Catholic religion. Now, though I do not hold that the English Government is at all less bound to extend protection to British subjects at home and abroad on account of their religious profession; yet had this conversion been a fact, there is no doubt that it would have been a personal mortification as well as on higher grounds a misfortune to his father, a respectable minister of our own Church. Yet so persevering was this misrepresentation that I myself believed it till I received, a few days ago, a letter from the Petitioner saying there was not the slightest foundation for the allegation.
  The necessity for this Petition is, that our agents abroad seem to share the general impression that, for the first time in the history of this country, the Government, in the hands of the noble Lord, has been the active partisan of usurpation when founded on revolution. It is in this spirit exclusively that Mr. Bonham and others are shown to have acted. But it is important, to the fair consideration of this special case, that we should trace the various contradictions of the Foreign Office in dealing with these questions. There is not, in the case of Mr. Bishop, the slightest pretence that he was levying actual war against a Government de facto; his antecedents and his actual physical condition mark this as impossible. But when sympathies are made criminal, to an extent that absolves the Government from any responsibility for the safety of a British subject, it is necessary to point out, that though the noble Lord showed great favour to the Garibaldian insurrection in its first stages, yet when the noble Lord had to decide whether the legitimate authority so long established and so universally acknowledged in Naples was transferred to Victor Emmanuel by the plebiscite, nothing could be more positive than the declara-

  1503
  tion of my noble Friend, that the plebiscite was utterly valueless for such a purpose. This declaration must be coupled with his first dictum on taking office—that Victor Emmanuel should recollect that his occupation of the territories of: others was only provisional, and that no territorial limits could be finally changed except by a European Congress.
  These official opinions, promulgated from such a source, may have induced English residents to suppose that fair latitude for the expression of their sincere opinions was left both to them and to the Neapolitan people, and that to discuss those opinions could not fairly enter into an aggravated charge of conspiracy. It is true, that some months after the noble Lord had refused to acknowledge the plebiscite, he stated that he would be guided for the future by the result of the Parliamentary elections; and when only 30,000 electors, out of a population of nine millioes, voted, my noble Friend, upon this abortive result, recognised the title of King of Italy, although he had repudiated the act upon the validity of which the new order of things was alone founded About a year had elapsed between the date of the noble Lord's despatch giving a qualified acceptation of des faits accomplis, by recognising the title of the King of Italy, and the arrest of Mr. Bishop upon his way from Naples to Rome when this sickly young English gentleman was seized, and has ever since been guarded and punished as a dangerous enemy to the great design of a united Italy. What the circumstances connected with that arrest were, was first made known in all its details by a letter to The Times of the 11th of April 1862. The arrest was not founded upon information which justified the step, though this first step was afterwards perverted to their own purposes. They knew literally nothing against him, for the police who so brutally ill-used him, told him "that he was an impostor; that his passport was false—that he was a German, and no Englishman." The arrest, with all the needless violence which accompanied it, may be left to Mr. Bishop's own description, which I shall read—
  "Naples, 11th April, 1862.
  "I left Naples at four o'clock on the morning of the 2nd instant, intending to go to Rome, and occupied the seat which is vacant for one passenger in the courier which conveys the letters parterre traversing the route of Capua, Gaeta, and; Terracina. At Gaeta I was asked for my passport; gave it, and received it back again without any
  1504
  remark being made. We continued our way till the carriage arrived at the Delegation, where it was stopped by four policemen, and I was forced out of the carriage—as they pretended—to speak to the Delegate. On going up stairs, I found myself in a room occupied by a number of the police, and two young men who called themselves Delegati. These were the same who had asked for my passport but a few moments before. I asked what they wanted, and what their motive could be in acting with such suspicion and violence. The only answer I received was an order to the police surrounding me to search me and my luggage. I remonstrated, and showed my passport, which had the visé of the British Consul at Naples, and that of the Roman Consul. I was answered by a coarse laugh, and told to hold my tongue, for that I was a Swiss in disguise, and no British subject at all, and that they, the two Delegati, would teach the Government how to deal with all such reactionists. The order was given to the police to search me (my things lay already strewn about the floor, where they were left). Nothing was found among them. They then proceeded to search my person—stripping me of my shirt, and forcing me to take off even my shoes and stockings. This lasted some time, as I refused to submit, and was held by four men, whilst the rest stripped me of my clothes. Great violence was used, and I was left completely exhausted, being in a very weak state of health, and told in the most insulting manner to dress myself. I expostulated, threatened, asked, but all to no purpose, except to bring down upon me a torrent of abuse and bad language. Nothing had been found apparently to satisfy them, and there only remained my writing desk, of which they had not found the key. They threatened to break it open if I did not open it of my own accord. I refused to do so, declaring that I preferred returning to Naples, or sending a telegraphic despatch to the Questura and my Consul, who would be able to satisfy them. They refused to listen, declaring that they were the authorities of the place; and as for my Consul, I had none, for the Swiss were no longer tolerated in the Kingdom, and I was the last to be sent away.
  "The courier then appeared, saying that he could not possibly wait any longer, and that if I were not ready to go on, he must leave me behind. The two authorities answered for me that I was detained by them, and could not continue my journey. I asked why? and was told I had come with a false passport, and should be taken back to Naples. I protested, but in vain. The room was full of police, who prevented me from stirring hand or foot, for I was surrounded by them. The courier was a Piedmontese, and said to me in German, But you speak German: I don't believe you can be an Englishman, for I heard you talking in German to your friend who accompanied you to the door of the carriage at Naples' He turned to the Delegati, assuring them that I was either an Austrian or a Swiss. …. As soon as he had left, I was again attacked to make me open my desk. Having many letters which had been given me by friends to take to Rome, I persisted in refusing to give the key, which they had not been able to find. I was called the most obscene names by the two authorities, one of whom declared that he would see whether I were an Englishman or not, and challenged me to fight him. …. The fellow

  1505
  who had challenged me then came up, and harangued me after the manner of a savage, and told me I had 'given the last proof of not being an Englishman by not accepting his challenge; that I was a vile Royalist—he was sure of it, and he would teach my—entrails to respect Italia, and to know what the blood of Garihaldists such as his was worth.' My answer brought such a blow from his fist at my chest that I reeled hack, and fell over the chair which stood behind. Another man entered, and poked his fist under my chin, telling me it was all right, I should soon he done for."
  If the petitioner's son had been a revolutionist, and the Piedmontese authorities been the servants of a regularly-established Monarchy, can any one doubt that before now the noble Lord would have presented all the facts of the prisoner's statement in the shape of a blue-book? Can it be believed possible that such brutality can have been practised with impunity towards any traveller, much more towards an English gentleman? And still more, that no attempt at redress should be made by the Consul? That, inflated by the importance of his small official dignity, he never condescended to comfort this English gentleman—he never visited him when in prison—he allowed him, without any remonstrance, to be tried for the minor offence of insulting the authorities, because, when stripped, searched, insulted, struck, and challenged to fight, he exclaimed, not unnaturally, "By such acts you will never make a united Italy."
  It is now eight months since, at the request of the petitioner, I first entered into communication with my noble Friend opposite on the case of Mr. James Bishop, and it is ten months since I have been fully put in possession of all the facts of the case, partly through the father and partly through the mother of the prisoner, a lady whose personal energy, sustained by maternal affection, has enabled her on many occasions to supply the place of her husband when he was detained by various duties connected with his pastoral home.
  On the 7th of September last, whilst my noble Friend was still in Germany, I wrote to him a private letter pointing out all the hardships of the case. I will, on this occasion, only press one point connected with that correspondence. In his reply to my statement of the repeated complaints that I had heard of the careless and indifferent manner in which Mr. Bonham had neglected his duties, the noble Lord replied, "I entirely approve of his conduct." Now, it should be known whether, when his noble Friend conveyed
  1506
  his entire approbation of the conduct of Mr. Bonham, he was aware, that when the Questore of Naples had suggested to the Consul that he could extend indulgence to Mr. Bishop as an English subject—that, in short, he could give him conditional freedom, the Consul had replied—"Treat him as a Neapolitan." This, Mr. Bishop gives as the
  dictum of the Consul, on the authority of the Questore himself. Even if Mr. Bonham did not recognise the extent of lawless tyranny which these words would authorize; if he had not thought it worth his while to inquire into all the aggravation of prison horrors of which we have latterly had many authentic details, still it is necessary we should know whether the Secretary of State approves the principle involved in that declaration; because, if he does, it is evident that his predecessor in the Foreign Office should lose not a moment in repudiating his former dictum—that an Englishman had only to say "Civis Romanus sum" to secure special protection. Such an idle boast is quite inconsistent with the practical interpretation of his duties by Mr. Bonham when his decision was—"Let him be treated as a Neapolitan.'' And if the Prime Minister does not in consequence retract his former boast, it is evident he is deceiving British travellers abroad by holding out a promise of special protection, which under the present Government they will not receive. Before presenting this Petition to your Lordships, I saw the petitioner, and requested him to point out the principal grounds for complaint. The answer was, that his son had been kept in prison six months before trial—that he was placed in a penal prison, being charged with political offence—and that when he was from severe illness removed to the infirmary, so far from being an amelioration it was the reverse, because he was placed in a room separated only by a curtain from a patient dying of typhus fever. So far as to personal treatment. The petitioner naturally lays great stress on the testimony of Signer Bax, one of the first advocates at the Neapolitan Bar, as to the numerous irregularities and illegalities which marked the whole proceedings. Signor Bax, it should be said, was not chosen by the prisoner on account of political sympathies or from any other cause, but was appointed by the court for that office on the death of the advocate he had selected. I shall as concisely as I can bring some of the main facts before your Lordships, by quoting the account of

  1507
  the trial sent home by a brother of the prisoner, an officer in the 22nd Regiment, who went to Naples to be present at the trial—
  "You know probably by this time that James is condemned; the sentence is ten years to the galleys ! The first part of the day was absorbed in hearing two witnesses from Gaeta as to his having abused them. All they said was, that he had called them assassins and infamous fellows … They differed in their evidence; so the first day went for nothing. The second day began earlier, and finished at 5·30 p. m. Not one single witness for conspiracy, which was the main charge. Much as I was prejudiced, of course, in my brother's favour, I was astonished at the lack of evidence against him. Three times did the judge and Procureur General interrupt James's advocate. The latter, Bax,. spoke nobly, forcibly, and with the pluck of an Englishman. Even he did not hesitate to address himself particularly to the President, and on his oath declare that the whole of the proceedings were illegal in every point. Who ever, even in our courts, heard of an advocate speaking with more boldness? 'I commence the defence of Mr. Bishop by declaring that everything that has been done is totally illegal and illogical.' … Then with the criminal code in his hands he read out the law which declared that no one could be found guilty of conspiracy who was not proved to have accomplices, and not even then if they were under three in number. … Jem's advocate admitted that his client was cognizant of conspiracy, but read out the new Italian law, which does not allow a man to be guilty of conspiracy merely for being cognizant of it.… The consul did not attend the trial, but sent a clerk. No wonder the judge was severe when he saw the consul thus disowning James."
  As is said in the Petition, it is not our province to deal with the verdict, except inasmuch as the apparent unfairness of the trial furnishes additional ground for making diplomatic efforts against so severe and so unjust a sentence. But the complaint of Signer Bax is consistent with the fact, when he states that Mr. Bishop was only cognizant of a conspiracy, without taking any steps to carry it into effect, and that by the present Neapolitan law such a position is not an offence. How many Englishmen during the last quarter of a century have had cognizance of conspiracies against the Governments under which they have been living, and how much surprised they would have been to have found themselves in consequence undergoing a sentence often years' imprisonment. It has been the normal condition of so, many travelling Englishmen, whenever there have been complaints against a foreign Government, to like to be flattered and consulted, and their opinions asked upon matters which do not the least con-
  1508
  cern them. Even my noble Friend opposite, unless he is much belied by his Italian intimates and confidants, ought to feel some sympathy for Mr. Bishop. In the year 1856 he spent some months in Italy, principally in Tuscany. Except when I had the pleasure of seeing him in my house, my noble Friend lived exclusively with that set which was called the Piedmontese set, and who were afterwards known as Count Cavour's Conspirators. He hardly ever entered into any discussion with me on Italian affairs. But the Prime Minister, Signer Baldassaroni, told me that the members of his set boasted to all who would listen to them that he was acquainted with all their plans and approved them. I told Signer Baldassaroni that I was sure there was no truth in these assertions, because I know the language he had held only four years before in Parliament, whilst still Prime Minister, as to the miserable results of the last revolutionary attempt in Italy, and the praises he had specially lavished upon Tuscany and its Government, as he had recollected it formerly. Signor Baldassaroni accepted these assurances in good part, but said that this did not prevent those with whom he lived from attributing to him directly contrary opinions. In the year 1858 the Avocato Salvagnola, who was constantly in the noble Lord's house whilst he was still at Florence, went to England, and returned in the autumn, saying that he had had many confidential conversations with Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, and they might depend upon their assistance. Soon after the Peace of 1859, I was told by many Tuscan friends of mine that the Avocato Salvagnola had just returned to Florence from Turin to urge the annexation; and referring to the change of Government which had just taken place in England, said, "It is all right now, since all this was settled with Lord John in 1856." My Tuscan friends said that all, whether reactionary or revolutionary, believed the statement as to the solidarityée of the noble Lord with the origin of the conspiracy, from his having, a very few days after the Peace, recommended in a despatch that the Piedmontese Commissioners, whilst still at Florence, should summon a popular Assembly to settle the fate of the country. On the other hand, it is right to give the noble Lord the benefit of the untrustworthy character of his chosen companion. It was Signor Salvaguola who promulgated what my noble

  1509
  Friend would call his dogma—Colla verityà non si governa; but taking into account the difference of age and station, I think Mr. Bishop had nothing to learn in the article of prudence from the noble Lord.
  It has been stated that when Mr. Bishop was asked whether, if he obtained a pardon, he would leave the country, he replied, "No!" That statement was not correct. On one occasion young Mr. Bonham went to Mr. Bishop, and said to him in a patronizing manner, "Supposing we were to get you released, would you consent to leave Italy." Mr. Bishop, very much annoyed and excited, replied by asking whether Mr. Bonham came to make him the offer; "Oh no!" said Mr. Bonham, "I only want to know what you would do in the case supposed. Mr. James Bishop said, in describing his sufferings, that he had been so ill-used that he wondered he was still sane. Perhaps I may best bring his case home to your Lordships by reading a part of his letter in his own words, as addressed to his parents—
  "Santa Maria Apparente, Nov. 22.
  "A fortnight ago I was taken very ill, with cold and dreadful pains, & I sent several letters to Mr. Bonham, and got no answer. I begged the director to have something done for me, as I was daily getting worse—my room being constructed between two currents of air. No one came to me, and I lay getting worse. Then an affair occurred in the prison which well-nigh killed me. The prisoners in the lower part of the prison had made an attempt to escape, which was discovered, and the informer was assassinated by them. The result of this was, we were all put under lock and key; and in my state I was left alone without help for twenty-four hours. This completely did for me; and when the brutes came their second round, they found me in a dreadful state; and had it not been for a young surgeon, a fellow-prisoner, I should have been again left to my fate. He insisted on leeches being sent for, and sat up all night nursing me. I had paper brought, and wrote again to Mr. Bonham, and about noon his son came up, quite astonished to find me so ill. The dreadful vomiting returned while he was there, and he left me, for I could not speak. … On the the third day young Bonham came again, and brought Dr. Pincoff. I got a little better till the next day, when my throat became nearly closed, and I was unable to lie down. What I have gone through in suffering no pen can tell. While I was so bad, they repented, I suppose, of having let me get so ill in that room, and moved me into another where I now am. …. I only wonder that I am still sane. Racked with pain, my head swollen to an enormous size, unable to swallow. …. To remain in prison during the winter will be my death … There is not only no place to make a fire, but none is allowed. To give you an idea of how they treat me, when I was at the worst Dr. Pincoff said, 'Ask for another bed, yours is breaking down." Of whom ! 'Of the director.' I smiled, and explained to him that
  1510
  during the first four nights of my imprisonment I had slept on the earthen floor, beds not being allowed to political prisoners; that I had had to buy my own; that I applied to the directors, the gaolers, all in vain; and I should have had to lie on the ground in my all but dying state had it not been for a fellow-prisoner who lent me the tressels from under his own bed."
  "Dec. 11.
  "I am still in the half of the room I told you of. The other poor fellow remains on the other side of the curtains. I cook the little I can eat on the earthen stove, which is on the sick man's side of the curtain. Dr. Pincoff says I must eat. He has been to see me, but was obliged to light a cigar, owing to the stench from that poor man's side. When the cigar was burnt out, he left me.
  "The second ease of typhus had died in the division of the room I occupied."
  I am quite at a loss to understand why the Piedmontese authorities should view with such peculiar severity the offence of constructive conspiracy. It shows a complete absence of all moral consciousness. Not only did their arch-apostle Count Cavour boast in their own Parliament that he had been a conspirator for twelve years, but conspiracy is the basis of their whole system.
  In bringing forward the case of the petitioner, I have endeavoured as far as possible to avoid touching on any points not indirectly or directly connected with it. This has not arisen from any want of materials the most authentic, confirming statements which I have already made in this House during the last few years. To all who do not continue wilfully blind, the light of truth has begun to pierce through the dark mysteries and intrigues which envelop Italian affairs. But I feel that, in the interest of my client, I had better on this occasion omit many topics on which in connection with past events I might have much to say. I will now conclude, and bring the question to its practical issue by quoting an extract from the last letter of the prisoner to his parents—
  "Alessandria, April 23.
  "I begin to feel all that I have lost in flesh and strength during this year's confinement. It is not so much in the failure of my physical strength that I feel the sad effects of all this, but in my mind; I often quite lose my memory, and cannot regain it. Sometimes I become profoundly ignorant of even the simplest things, and make use of words and objects quite in a wrong way. I often find the greatest difficulty in fixing my attention even on, a thing that interests me much.
  "God knows whether I can hold out strong to the end."
  To any one who has anxiously studied the indications of that sure process by which the human mind is overthrown, there

  1511
  is in these few words, as sad as they are simple, the foreshadow of a future worse than death. I would conjure my noble Friend, if he would hereafter free his conscience from the consequences of diplomatic delays and defeats to which he has hitherto submitted, to lose not a moment in procuring the liberation of the prisoner. Let him remember, that if hope deferred maketh the heart sick, it also tends to make the mind a blank; and if this unheard-of sentence is not at once remitted, the parents have too much reason to dread that, if still alive, the victim may be at last restored to them in a state equally unconscious of tardy relief or of protracted persecution.
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDsaid, he supposed it was generally agreed that Mr. Bishop deserved some punishment. He (the Duke of Sutherland) visited him in prison at Naples in February last, and found him confined in a comfortable room, having a beautiful view of the bay from the windows, and furnished with two arm chairs, a bed, and a couch. He was treated with every consideration and forbearance. They knew to their cost that he wrote letters; and he was allowed books, which was not usually the case with prisoners. He asked how it was Mr. Bishop had books? and was told, it was because he was considered weak in the head, and was a friend of Lord Norman by. With regard to statements which had been made in the House of Commons—["Order!"]—in another place—["Order !"]—
  THE EARL of DERBYrose to order. It would lead to endless inconvenience if Members of their Lordships' House were to make speeches in reply to those made in the House of Commons. It was also contrary to the rules of the House, and he hoped that their Lordships would discourage it, and that the noble Duke would not proceed further with the observations he was about to make.
  THE DUKE OF SUTHERLANDapologized for being out of order. With regard to statements which had been made out of doors, he could give a direct contradiction to the representation that the Neapolitan prisons were overcrowded; and, as to their being filthy, they might be dirty, judged by English notions, but they were cleaner than the homes of the people of the country. As to there being no beds, there was not a gaol in Naples which was not well provided with beds. He recommended the noble Marquess to go abroad and speak with Mr. Bishop, and make acquaintance
  1512
  with his friend, and he thought the noble Marquess would then take a less active part in defending Mr. Bishop.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he was exceedingly surprised at the statement of the noble Duke who had just sat down—at hearing from the noble Duke language directed against this unfortunate prisoner, who, it must be remembered, was a political offender against the Government of Italy The noble Duke, himself occupying a high station, had held language which he had listened to with regret. Instead of hearing his noble Friend say that Mr. Bishop was well off, when he was suffering from imprisonment and from the loss of his liberty, which an Englishman loved better than anything else—language which went to represent that his position was rather a pleasurable one than otherwise—he (the Earl of Hardwicke) should have expected different language from his noble Friend. He was astonished to hear from him expressions which led to the inference that he considered him rather a well-to-do man than not. When the noble Duke came to weigh his words with consideration, and estimate their effect on his own mind, he (the Earl of Hardwicke) thought he would find them rather worthy of his own condemnation than approval. The position of this gentleman was one which invited the most profound sympathy. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) had undertaken the task of presenting a Petition from a man who asked for the assistance, support, and countenance of their Lordships on behalf of his son, who had been condemned for a trifling charge of a political character, involving no offence against morality and no personal misconduct; and sympathy he was entitled to receive. He was punished because he differed in political opinion from the Government under which he lived, and because he carried letters from some friends of his addressed to friends of theirs who had joined in the overthrow of the ancient Government. From the very first the Italian Government ill-used him. They treated him, not like a gentleman, nor even like a human being. They then, properly enough, brought him to trial, and what was the result? A sentence certainly, but one which the most eminent lawyers in that country said was contrary to the law of the land. The sentence was ten years' imprisonment with hard labour. From the latter part of the sentence he was exempted, but he was still suffering the former.

  1513
  What must their Lordships think of the position of a man so placed, who had already undergone one year's imprisonment, and had endured the greatest contumely and hard usage? What was now done would prevent any future Mr. Bishop from again meddling in Italian politics. Surely the Government would make a representation to the Government of Italy, and procure the remission of a punishment which was heavier than Mr. Bishop would have been liable to had the offence been committed in this country. If, after all their brag about promoting the cause of Italy, they could not obtain Mr. Bishop's release, the less the Government said about their influence the better.
  EARL GREYsaid, he could not hear the offence of Mr. Bishop called a venial or trifling one, without entering his protest against such a view of the case. By the acknowledgment of the noble Marquess himself, Mr. Bishop had carried treasonable letters from the friends of the late dynasty to the King of Naples at Rome, in order to facilitate measures for carrying on the atrocious brigand war that was now desolating Southern Italy. Was that a venial offence? It seemed to him a very serious thing. Suppose that, after our own revolution of 1688, an Italian had been discovered carrying treasonable letters from the friends of the Stuarts in the Highlands to the Court of St. Germains, how would he have been treated? Would he have been likely to get off with ten years' imprisonment? Would he not have been tried for high treason? Would not the carrying of these letters have been deemed an overt act of treason; and if he had been found guilty, would he not have expiated his offence on the gallows? As to foreign intervention, though it was possible that our Government might have listened to a neighbouring Power, if it confined itself to a mere prayer for mercy, it was certain that the great English statesmen of that period would not have paid the slightest regard to any foreign claim to be heard as of right; and it was quite out of the question for our Government to interfere, as some noble Lords seemed to desire, with the Italian Government, as of right. Such an interference in the affairs of other countries as that which Mr. Bishop had committed, was at any time a very grave offence. He had great tolerance for even very outrageous acts on the part of the inhabitants of a country in resisting their own Govern-
  1514
  ment, if they believed it to be unrighteous; but when foreigners, who had nothing to do with the matter, took a part in intestine commotions, they only aggravated their bitterness and intensity. Mr. Bishop, on the score of his health, had claim to their Lordships' sympathy; and considering how bad a state of health he seemed to be in, and that he was little likely to be able to do any injury to Italy, he thought it would be a judicious and gracious act on the part of the Italian Government to pardon him on condition of his leaving the country; but this was entirely a question for the consideration of that Government. Under the circumstances, the sentence was a lenient one, and it afforded no fair ground of complaint on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He could not sit down without expressing the regret with which he had heard that and former speeches of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby). He could not but lament that there existed, in some quarters in that House, a sort of disposition to make the worst of the state of things in Italy. Surely it was impossible for any man who cared for freedom or for the interests of mankind to take other than a deep interest in the success of the great experiment now going on in that country. When their Lordships remembered for how many years Naples had groaned beneath a tyranny, the most odious and the most despicable that ever existed on the face of the earth, could they help being deeply anxious for the success of the efforts now being made to unite the different parts of Italy under one monarch and under a free Constitution? The success of the experiment was as important to the world at large as it was to the Italians themselves. Every one had an interest in the establishment of another great kingdom, strong enough to be really independent. It had always seemed to him a great security for the peace and well-being of Europe that there should be as many great, powerful, and well-constituted nations as possible, the majority of which would always be ready to check aggression on the part of any of their body. Was it not a little hard that at every opportunity the worst interpretation should be put by the noble Marquess on the measures of the Italian Government? For his own part, when he looked at the difficulties of the Italian Government, he was really astonished at the success which had already been attained by the new Italian kingdom. Let their

  1515
  Lordships remember by what slow degrees good order and a settled administration were established in this country after the Revolution. The difficulties of the English Government for half a century—indeed, up to the Jacobite rising in 1745—were, however, as nothing compared with those of the present Government of Italy. In this country a free Constitution had existed for ages. No doubt, it had been grossly infringed by the Stuarts, but all the forms of a free Constitution, remained intact, and above all there had been that system of local government by which the people had practically exercised the power of managing their own affairs. But in Italy there had been nothing of the kind. Italy had consisted of a number of States. Some of them had been governed in the most miserable manner. The people had enjoyed no training in the management of their own affairs; the administration had been for years sunk in the deepest corruption. Such being the case, could any one be surprised if for several years there should be great disorder and confusion in the Government, and that in many parts of the country serious crimes should be committed? But what did we see? There was a Parliament sitting for the whole of Italy, and carrying on the business of the country in a manner that commanded the admiration of Europe. Their Lordships saw the action of a regular Government in the improvement of the laws and the consolidation of an army, while the people were manifesting a degree of patriotism and independence that gave the greatest hopes for the future. Under such circumstances, mast it not give great pain to every friend of liberty to hear the measures of the Italian Government, the conduct of the Italians, and the prospects of Italy, studiously represented in the worst light by the noble Marquess? He doubted whether the tone of the noble Marquess was really quite fair to Mr. Bishop himself; but, be that as it might, he could not without a protest hear it said that the offence committed by Mr. Bishop was a venial one.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was personally acquainted with the family of Mr. Bishop, who was a neighbour of his in the country, and he had more than once communicated with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary on his case. In no sense whatever could he justify Mr. Bishop's conduct—on the contrary, he was very strongly of opinion that any stranger,
  1516
  and still more any Englishman, going into a country distracted by civil warfare, and mixing himself up in their quarrels by taking the side of one of the parties, must run the risk attaching to his conduct. He ought to have counted the cost; and if he found himself suffering a severe penalty, he had no one but himself to thank He would go a step further, and say that when, the civil war being at an end, and victory having clearly declared itself in favour of one of the two contending parties, a stranger stepped in and mixed himself up with plots and conspiracies, by carrying letters of a treasonable character for the defeated party, and tending to subvert the Government de facto, whether de jure or not, he was guilty of a still more aggravated offence, and had himself still more to blame for the results. On the other hand, though an Englishman, acting in the manner he had described, forfeited, to a great extent, the protection of his own Government, he did not think he forfeited it altogether; or, on the other hand, that he alienated that amount of consideration which, on the ground of humanity or comity, the foreign Government might show him as the subject of a friendly ally. Under these circumstances, he thought it a duty for which the Government of his own country was accountable, to see that he was brought before a fair and impartial tribunal; and secondly, that the sentence pronounced upon him, if he was found guilty, was not one disproportionate to the circumstances of the case, or contrary to humanity itself. With regard to the trial in Mr. Bishop's case, he must frankly and honestly say, that he did not believe there had been any unfairness or injustice shown towards Mr. Bishop as the result of the action of the Government itself.
  There might have been some disposition to strain the law, but he did not think that charge was imputable to the Government. But, on the other hand, looking to Mr. Bishop's state of health, and to the fact that he could do no mischief at all to the Italian Government, he thought it would have been more graceful, and more worthy on their part, to have borne in mind that he was a subject of the country which had, during the last three years, given to the Italian people such a marvellous contribution of sympathy and moral support, and to have passed a slight sentence—because, after all, ten years' imprisonment in Mr. Bishop's miserable state of health was almost equivalent to the punishment

  1517
  of death. He hoped his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary would be able to adopt this view of the case, and to press it upon the Italian Government, with all the weight which representations from him would naturally possess, both from his public position and from his own personal character, and that the result would be some mitigation of the penalty. He agreed with his noble Friend who had just spoken from the cross benches (Earl Grey) that in these matters somewhat more allowance ought to be made than persons were in the habit of doing for the difficulties under which the Italian Government was placed. It was true that the Italian, in common with almost every other continental Government, was affected with the vice of indifference to the legality of its measures. Foreign Governments seemed unable to take in the necessity for dealing with things and persons according to law and the constitution; they preferred to deal with the special case by providing a special remedy, whether that remedy were in their eyes legal or illegal. It was a vice prevailing not merely in Italy, but over the whole continental system from beginning to end. It ought, however, to be borne in mind that the Italian Government had to contend with the overwhelming difficulties inseparable in the nature of things from the fusing of three or four different races and languages, and of three or four different sets of sympathies and feelings; while the magnitude of that task was increased by the inherited difficulties with which they had to contend in the misgovernment bequeathed by their predecessors. He had been led into these observations by the remarks of his noble Friend on the cross benches; but his object in rising had mainly been to impress as strongly as he could upon his noble Friend the expediency of making representations to the Italian Government with the power and force with which he naturally could deal with such a matter.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, after what has just fallen from my noble Friend, I have no hesitation in stating to the House what is the course that I have taken in regard to Mr. Bishop. In the first place, I must say I feel sincere sympathy with that gentleman; he is a clergyman, I believe, of most respectable life, performing all his duties very satisfactorily, and having a son who was afflicted with a complaint of the spine, which, I believe, confined him on his back for some years.
  1518
  Afterwards, this son was able to go abroad for the sake of a milder climate; and it was an additional misfortune to Mr. Bishop, that when in Italy his son, instead of attending to his health or to those objects of recreation and interest which must attract any traveller journeying in Italy, took part in the troubles of that country, and made himself a violent partisan of the late King of Naples. Mr. Bishop, therefore, has been a most unfortunate person, and I do not know whether I should not count as an additional misfortune that the case of his son has been taken up by my noble Friend opposite. The Italian Government naturally enough say—while we are obliged to punish persons who are guilty of high treason, and who are constantly conspiring, we cannot show particular favour to Englishmen or Frenchmen, for then we should incur the reproach of Italians who may also be convicted, and who would accuse us of acting in a partial spirit. From the first, however, no exertions of mine have been wanting, and from an. abstract of the proceedings which has been made by the Foreign Office I will give a few instances to show what the course of Her Majesty's Government has been. My noble Friend says that on the 11th of April 1862 there was a letter in The Times from Mr. Bishop himself, stating that he had been arrested on the 5th of April. On the 15th of April Sir James Hudson was instructed to urge his immediate trial, and in a few days afterwards that, if convicted, his life might be spared. Further correspondence ensued, and Her Majesty's Government again urged that he should have a speedy trial. To those representations—which were all at the time that could be properly urged—the Italian Government replied, excusing the delay on the ground that their tribunals were undergoing a great change, and that trial by jury was about to be introduced. On the 5th of September Mr. Bishop's case was brought on for trail, and on the following day he was found guilty of conspiracy, and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, with forced labour. My noble Friend says that Mr. Bishop was convicted against evidence. I do beg your Lordships not to endeavour to make this House a Court of Review of proceedings in Italy. The Judge put three questions to the jury:—1st, Was Bishop guilty of conspiracy? 2nd, Was he guilty of endeavouring to induce Prince Torelli to enter into a conspiracy? 3rd, Was he guilty of outrage-

  1519
  ous language when he was arrested? All these three questions the jury found in the affirmative. That conviction was appealed against, and the case was heard before the regular Court of Appeal, which confirmed the original finding. After a prisoner has been convicted by a judge and jury, sentenced, and that sentence confirmed by a Court of Appeal, I do not think it is right that one of your Lordships should get up, and taking the place of counsel for the defence, declare that the foreign Court decided against evidence, and was not justified in the course it took. I had a letter a few days ago from a gentleman who has recently returned from Italy—I mean the Principal Librarian of the British Museum (Mr. Panizzi). He says, that although he was not in Naples at the time Mr. Bishop's case was heard, he attended political trials in Naples, and had been astonished at the calmness and dignity of the judges, the intelligence shown by the juries, and the fairness with which they listened to the evidence in each case. Acccording to all that gentlemen heard, the case of Mr. Bishop was conducted with the same fairness, impartiality, and intelligence that had been displayed in the other cases. The evidence of such a person as Mr. Panizzi, just returned from Naples, ought surely to be taken into account when this House is invited to condemn the action of foreign tribunals. I think my noble Friend who spoke last (the Earl of Carnarvon) said that the sentence of ten years with forced labour passed upon Mr. Bishop was too severe. I believe that is the sentence which, by the Criminal Code of Naples, is affixed to the crime of treasonable conspiracy. It appears evident from the conduct of Mr. Bishop that he is not a person of very strong mind, and he was hardy a man who would be supposed to have taken up the part of a conspirator. Prince Torelli was a person who was known to hold liberal opinions; but it was supposed that he was discontented with the existing government, and that he might possibly be induced to conspire to overturn it. But it was evident to these crafty conspirators, who were engaged in an attempt to disturb the Government, that there would be great risk in attempting to get Prince Torelli to join in their conspiracy; because it was not unlikely, that so far from joining in their plot, he would denounce them to the Government. Therefore, what did they do? They went to Mr. Bishop, and got him to write a letter to Prince
  1520
  Torelli, asking him if he would join the conspirators. He wished to know whether Prince Torelli was inclined to commit treason or not? Bishop said it was a piece of innocent curiosity with which he wrote that letter; but it was evident to everybody else, except to the counsel of the prisoner, that there was a deep conspiracy, and that the conspirators, not liking to risk their own necks—to put their own necks into the noose, and subject themselves to what might be a capital conviction—went to this unfortunate Mr. Bishop, and got him to engage in this treasonable conspiracy, and expose himself to the risk to which they were not willing to expose themselves. Immediately we heard of the sentence, which was pronounced on the 6th of September, Sir James Hudson was instructed on the 22nd of September to request Mr. Bishop's immediate pardon, not on the ground that he was not guilty; but, that being a simple person, and not deeply implicated in the conspiracy, and being a person in an infirm state of health, anything like a sentence to the galleys for ten years would endanger his life; and I said that if such a case were brought before the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this country, the ground of danger to the prisoner's health alone would probably be thought sufficient to gain the remission of his sentence. The Italian Government replied, on the 4th of October, that they could not comply, but inquiry would be made into the state of of Mr. Bishop's health; that, meanwhile, hard labour should not be enforced; and, that during the pendency of the appeal, he should be treated with every possible leniency. This, I believe, was by the order of General Marmora. Sir James Hudson was requested to make another appeal to Signor Rattazzi, and endeavour to obtain a remission of the sentence; but Signor Rattazzi refused to listen to the appeal. On the 26th of December, Sir James Hudson addressed an official note requesting Mr. Bishop's pardon from the clemency of the Government; and pending the decision of the Government, his removal to a maison de santé. Mr. West was instructed on January 12, 1863, to request his release on account of his bodily infirmities, in which case his father would guarantee that he should leave Italy, and not return to it. On the 26th of January, Mr. West reported by telegraph that the King would not con-

  1521
  sent to Mr. Bishop's pardon, but had remitted the hard labour, and had commuted the service in the galleys to imprisonment in a fortress. In the beginning of the year, on the 3rd of February 1863, Mr. Bishop was transferred from Naples to the fortress of Gavi, at the foot of the Appenines. On the 14th of February, an Attaché to Her Majesty's Legation at Turin was sent to Gavi to see Mr. Bishop. The climate was stated to be too severe for him. Mr. West was, on the 23rd of February instructed to make a strong protest as to the treatment of Mr. Bishop as a political prisoner, and again to request his release in the strongest manner. The result was, that on the 28th of February last the Minister for Foreign Affairs informed Sir James Hudson that Bishop would be transferred to an infirmary at Alessandria; and, that on the first fitting occasion he would propose his pardon to the King. On the 5th of March, Sir James Hudson reported Mr. Bishop's removal to Alessandria; and since then we have heard nothing more about him. We have the Foreign Minister, however, declaring that on the first fitting occasion he would propose his pardon to the King. Now, my Lords, I ask, is this a case in which the noble Marquess can fairly represent me as having been indifferent to these applications on behalf of Mr. Bishop? Mr. Bishop had involved himself in the political troubles and conspiracies of Italy. Everybody knows that a man who engage in a treasonable conspiracy does so at his own risk; he perils his life for an object that he thinks worthy the sacrifice if he should fail. Mr. Bishop being found with these letters in his possession, he was duly brought to trial by the Italian Government, before a duly constituted tribunal; he was convicted by the jury, and sentenced by the judge according to law, which sentence has been commuted; and we have since received the assurance from the Italian Government, that on the first fitting occasion they will propose that he shall be pardoned. I cannot help believing your Lordships will think that I have been a better friend to Mr. Bishop than the noble Marquess who has tonight brought forward his case. I must say I think that Her Majesty's Government have adopted the best course they could in reference to this matter. I said, on one occasion, to the Italian Minister, whom I knew very well—"If you would do me a personal
  1522
  favour, release Mr. Bishop." I repeat, therefore, I have been a better friend to him than the noble Marquess in bringing the case before your Lordships and the public, and so far rather committing the Italian Government by the course he has taken. The Italian Government have considerable dread of my noble Friend—he is a very formidable person to them; and he can hardly expect the Italian Government to release one of his friends because he is his friend; but, at all events, my good offices have not been withheld. My noble Friend has reverted to the time when we were both in Italy, living together as friends. That is a time to which I can always refer with pleasure. At the same time, my noble Friend says that the society in which I mixed was different from that with which he was familiar, mine being of the kind called "Liberal." That is very true. My noble Friend had a perfect right to have his own friends and political associates in Italy; but I thought, the society I mixed with much more pleasant, because those Italians with whom I associated were full of knowledge in literature, full of all taste in regard to art, and therefore, setting aside their opinions, they made a very agreeable society, to which I was very happy to be admitted. I can remember, when they complained of the illegal things that were done by the Grand Duke, I said, "Why don't you send up a petition?" "Oh," they said, "but that is illegal. Not more than three persons are allowed to petition, and we should be punished. Besides which, it is a principle with us not to exceed the law in any way." There was nothing very treasonable in that. I certainly did understand, that if ever there should come a time of crisis for Italy—if the Grand Duke joined Austria against Italy—it was not likely their loyalty would stand that test, because, as they said, "We are for Italy above all." The Grand Duke did, unfortunately, decide for Austria and against Italy, and the result is known. A friend of mine, Signer Salvagnuoli, came to me when my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) was at the head of the Government, and asked me, "What if we endeavour to oppose Austria? Would the House of Commons be ready to assist us?" I said, "Not the least in the world. There's no chance of their assisting you at all." Upon which Signor Salvagnuoli replied, "Then, our only chance is to go to France." I replied to him in the words

  1523
  of an Italian sonnet, which warned them against using the sword of another nation to work out the freedom of their own; but, at the time, I had not the smallest doubt, that if Signer Salvagnuoli, Count Cavour, and other Italian patriots could obtain the assistance of France in their endeavours to overthrow the domination of Austria in Italy, they would gladly accept it. And I must say that I am not now prepared to blame either of those men for that—or rather to make it a reproach to their memory, for they have now both departed this life. If, as they believed, and as I believed (for I had witnessed the proceedings of the Governments of Italy at that time), these Governments, and especially that of Naples, were a disgrace to Europe, and a source of suffering and misfortune to the people under them, I am not surprised that these men should have availed themselves of any means within their reach for getting rid of them. With regard to the present state of Italy, I have nothing to add to what was so well said by my noble Friend on the cross bench (Earl Grey). The Italians are making a great experiment to carry on the Government of Italy, one and free. They are endeavouring to give effect to their constitution; and I say, may they prosper in that attempt! There was, as my noble Friend truly stated, a Revolution in this country, of which we are very proud, and by which we gained our liberties. Yet many people think that the conduct of our Government after the Revolution was not altogether without fault. Some people think that the execution at Glencoe was a harsh measure, and that unnecessary severities were exercised after the surrender of Limerick. Certainly, all the acts of our own Government at that period were not so scrupulously without fault or spot that some foreign Government might not have had much to say against it. I really think, my Lords, that the time has come when we ought to respect this Italian Government, and not attempt to interfere with the decisions of its tribunals, or the general conduct of its administration. The Italians are a nation of extraordinary quickness and talent, now engaged in building up a Government which shall give to every man freedom, and thereby open the way to prosperity and happiness. We should all rejoice in the prospect that lies before them, and not attempt, like my noble Friend opposite, to find out particular defects, and endeavour
  1524
  to cast blame on them for what is perhaps the inevitable consequence of the changes that have taken place.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYthen replied. As his noble Friend accused him of constantly depreciating the Italian Government, he would ask him whether he read the authentic and official reports of what took place in the Turin Chambers, because it was upon those documents that he founded his accusations against that Government. One of the King's Ministers boasted in the Turin Parliament that he had himself conspired in 1859. In the same Chambers it was stated, on the authority of a Parliamentary Commission, that in a year and a half 4,000 persons were killed in cold blood by the King's troops. Moreover, according to the declaration of a public man made in the Turin Parliament, there were now 18,000 political prisoners in Naples. Would his noble Friend call that an improvement? These were some of the things which made the rule of King Victor Emmanuel in Naples so different from that which everybody two years ago expected it would be. He was not to be deterred from telling the truth, and he must claim to exercise his privilege as a Member of that House whenever he thought that circumstances demanded it. He had lived longer in Italy than his noble Friend, and he ventured to say that in his opinion the independence of that country was as assured as its unity was impossible.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.