, who resumed the Debate on the Tea-duties, said, the subject contained in the Petitions was one of such great importance to the country as to justify a deviation from the usual course adopted by the House to avoid discussion on petitions. He begged to say, that he dissented from the inferences in both of the petitions. With regard to that from Hull, he would dispose of it without comment, because it was only signed by one person; but the petition from the City of London was of a very different character, and, in every respect, deserving of consideration, not only as regarded the respectability of those who had signed it, but also on account of the reasons which had been urged by the hon. member for London (Mr. Crawford) in support of its prayer. The petitioners prayed that, instead of the scale of duties which had been fixed upon tea by the Bill of last year, there should be one uniform rate of duty upon all sorts of tea. A great deal had been said as to the possibility of collecting the duties; and if that had been the only question, he should not have deemed it worthy of many observations; but it was a question affecting the consumers of tea, who were, in fact, the great mass of the community. If the House looked at all articles of consumption upon which duties were levied, it would be found, that not one, excepting, perhaps, sugar, was in such general use as tea; they should, therefore, look at the subject as one involving the interest of the consumers. When his Majesty's Government last year brought in the Bill to levy three rates of duty on tea, they consulted persons of eminence in the tea trade as to the best means of carrying such a proposition into effect, and, therefore, it was stated, rather prematurely by the right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) that the plan was impracticable. He believed, that before the Government had decided upon adopting the present scale of duties, they had received information from persons connected with the tea trade from Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, and Hull, and after a very careful inquiry into the subject, which was one of very considerable difficulty, they had come to the conclusion, that the plan was practicable; and as its object was, to afford to the lower classes a good beverage at a moderate rate of duty, they had proposed the present scale of duties to the House, and the House had adopted it. He admitted, that it was introduced at a late period of the Session, and might, therefore, justly be considered as open to further discussion. Before saying anything on the arguments in favour of an equalized scale of duties, he must remark, that there was some fatality in all the fiscal regulations of this country, which by some untoward accident led the House to levy a greater proportion of taxation upon the lower than upon the upper classes. He did not charge the House with a design to do that; on the contrary, he thought that a great deal of the present inequality of taxation arose from accidental circumstances. Would any Gentleman deny, that a rated scale of duties, charging a higher duty upon the superior qualities of tea, was an act of justice? and would it be fair, that there should be a single rate of duty upon the finest and the coarsest qualities of tea? Unless it could be proved, that the collection of the revenue under the present Act was impracticable, he should not approve of one rate of duties for all teas. At the same time, he admitted, that there was great difficulty in distinguishing between the fine boheas and the coarse congous, which was a reason for equalizing the duties upon those teas. He had no objection to have a mean taken between the present scale of duties upon congou and the proposed duty upon bohea, so that this difficulty might be avoided; but, he would propose, not that the duty on bohea should be raised, but that the duty on cougon should be lowered, say, for instance, to 1s. 9d., and that a higher rate of duty should be charged upon the other teas. Let the House see what was done by the Government, and what was proposed to be done by the petitioners. The Government, seeing that it was not possible to collect an ad valorem duty upon tea after the exclusive sale had been taken out of the hands of the East-India Company, had recourse to a scale of duty, and fixed upon something like the relative value of tea. By the Government proposal, bohea paid a duty of nearly 200 per cent, whilst the fine teas did not pay more than 75 per cent on the price. This was manifestly unjust to the lower classes who principally consumed the low-price teas, adding to the existing inequality and injustice of taxation, and he would never consent to allow any addition to this injustice; on the contrary, they ought to go back to a rate of taxation proportionate to the price. It would be a manifest act of injustice to equalize the duty on all tea, and the adoption of such a course ought not to be tolerated by the House unless it could be shown, that it was impossible to collect the present proposed duties. He could not consent to have the duty on the finer descriptions of tea lowered to the rate of duties on tea of an inferior description. In stating this, he begged the House to understand, that he did not contend in favour of the scale of duties proposed by his Majesty's Government, but in favour of the principle of a scale of duties such as that proposed by the Act of Parliament, namely, that there should be low duties on the low-priced teas. If the duties were equalized on congou and bohea, all the difficulties would be removed. He believed, that the importers of tea were men beyond the reach of temptation, and would never be found guilty of defrauding the revenue. Be that as it might, it was the duty of the Government to guard the revenue. He considered that the present rate of duties should be tried, and, if applied to the quarter's sale of the East-India House, it would be seen whether it was practicable to collect the duties proposed by his Majesty's Government. In his opinion the effect of equalizing the duty on tea would be to deprive the poor consumer of tea of the benefits of an open trade to China, and would confer advantage only upon the higher classes, who would get the high-priced teas at a much cheaper rate. He, therefore, trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would well consider the subject before they altered the course which they had intimated their intention to adopt. He should have no objection to the appointment of a Committee to ascertain whether the proposed scale of duties was objectionable in its proportions, for, in his opinion, the present rate of duties on the inferior teas ought not to be more than 1s. The consumption of this country amounted to 31,000,000 lbs.; that was, about 1½lb. to every individual annually. It was, therefore, a matter of great importance; and he earnestly hoped, that Government would take pains to constitute a fair scale of duties.

must assert with his hon. colleague (Mr. Crawford), that there would he some difficulty in relation to the duties on congou and bohea teas. He had inquired particularly at the India House, of those persons under whose management the teas had been placed, and they uniformly concurred in opinion, that the rated duties would lead to fraud and confusion, more especially from the difficulty of discriminating between the lowest quality of teas rated at the high duty, and the best quality of those rated at the low duty—between ordinary congous and best bohea—the former being rated at 2s. 2d. per lb., and the latter at 1s. 6d. It appeared from the sales at the India House, that the tea dealers did not estimate this difference in quality at more than 1½d. or 2d. per lb.; that being the difference of price at which they were sold under the present ad valorem duty. One singular effect, in consequence of the application of the proposed rated duties, would take place at the next sales of tea at the India House, when those duties would first come into operation. The public would then witness the extraordinary anomaly in commercial affairs of the better quality of the same article being sold simultaneously at a lower price than the inferior quality. This must be the case, as would be obvious to every tea dealer's clerk who understood the simplest rules of arithmetic. By the mode of classification which had long prevailed at the India House, and hitherto never questioned by the trade, the upset prices of bohea at the Company's next sale would be 1s. 5d., and of congou 1s. 7d.; addling to this the rated duties, it would be the interest of the buyer to give the highest price for the inferior tea, because there would be only 2d. per lb. difference in the quality; but there would be 8d. per lb. difference in the duty. He believed that great frauds would result, from the proposed system. He found, that in the year 1832, the amount of bohea tea sold, paying a duty of 1s. 6d., was 6,500,000 lbs.; but the whole amount of teas sold was above 32,000,000 lbs. Therefore, it would be seen a very small quantity of the whole consumption consisted of bohea. Out of the whole, about 24,000,000 lbs. paid a duty of 2s. 2d., i. e. about three-fourths of the whole; so that the revenue derived but little from the teas which paid a duty of 1s. 6d. In his opinion, however, if the proposed scale were persisted in, almost all teas would soon pay duty as boheas. He thought, too, that it would be very unjust to the East-India Company, as they had, at present, a stock of 70,000,000 lbs. in their hands. If the ad valorem duty was not suffered to exist until that stock was exhausted, it was plain that an alteration would produce a diminution in price, which would occasion a considerable loss upon the whole quantity.

had taken some pains to inform himself on the proportional qualities of tea sold in the retail and wholesale line; the result was, that he thought the consumption of congou tea exceeded the consumption of the cheap teas. The annual importation of teas was nearly 33,000,000 lbs., of which 21,000,000 lbs. were congou; so that two-thirds of the revenue were yielded by the latter. He found, that in Birmingham and in Manchester one chest of bohea was consumed, while there were nine of congou; in Plymouth and Devonport, the ratio was one chest of bohea to fourteen of congou. That information he had not from one but from many tea-dealers. He would direct the attention of the members for Ireland to the fact, that one chest of bohea was only imported into that kingdom for seven of congou. In America, the scale of duties was varied, while in France it was fixed; in the former country the highest duty was 1s.; and the consequence was, the increased importation of bad teas. Some time past, a ship laden with tea was sent back from France to America because of the too inferior quality of the article. He would call the attention of the House to what had occurred in the year 1830, on the Sugar-duties, as it might apply to the present subject. Great objection had been taken by Members who sat on that side of the House, to the mode in which the quality of sugar was ascertained, yet they took a better mode then than they did with respect to tea. Now, they only judged of it by the opinion of an inspector; but the sugar was estimated by its value in the open market. The hon. Member had shown, that the great consumption of tea was in congou, and he was satisfied the Ministers must give up their present plan, by which that. description of tea was so heavily taxed.

considered, that every article admitted into the kingdom, if taxed at all, should be subjected to an ad valorem duty. If the suggestion now made was adopted, the Government would act most unwisely. If a man desired to consume an inferior article, that was no reason why he should be obliged to pay the same duty as for a superior article. The hon. member for Southwark had very fairly stated, that congou was the great article of consumption, and that the great bulk of the duty would kill upon it. That was a reason why the scale should be revised; but not why it should be done away. The price of tea could not be ascertained merely by the quantity of each description sold. The hon. member for London had stated, that the difference of price between bohea and congou was from 2d. to 2½d. per lb. Let the House look to the price these teas had borne in the United States for a period of ten years. From the year 1820 to 1829, they were the same price within a penny. In America, too, the differential duties had existed for a period of forty years, and no difficulty had been found in the mode of collection. In the United States, there had been no less than five different rates of duty; and if they had found it necessary to remodel those duties, some change would have taken place, but that had not been the case. The system had been found to work extremely well there, and he considered, therefore, that teas should pay a duty in proportion to their value; but that the scale should be revised. When the right hon. Gentleman opposite brought in the Bill last year, he (Mr. Hume) then said, he doubted the correctness of the scale of duties; but the Bill passed too rapidly through the House to be properly considered. He, however, contended, that the principle was right; and one which the Government ought to try. He would fix the scale according to the prime cost in China, because, when the trade was thrown open, the prices here would be regulated by those in China. It was true, that there might be some difficulty; but it could be got over by the same means as were adopted by the East-India Company, as well as in America and other countries. He knew it was impossible to prevent frauds altogether; but after the experience of forty years in America, by men who were very anxious upon every occasion to evade duties, he was confident the plan was practicable. He hoped, therefore, that the scale of duties would again be considered, either by the Government, or by a Committee; but that, at all events, the principle would he persevered in. With regard to what took place abroad, the House could scarcely be guided by it. It was true, that in France there was one uniform rate of duty, and tea worth 3s. a pound paid no more duty than that worth 6d. In the Netherlands, there were only two discriminating duties. They imported bohea, congou, and souchong, and the only duties were 1¼d. on black, and 2¼d. on green. The object of evasion was there so trifling, that it was not worth while resorting to it. He wished to see the principle adopted in this case extended to all articles of consumption, in order that the people should only pay duties in proportion to the quality and value of those articles.

said, that having been so long connected with the tea-trade, he could not allow this opportunity to pass without making some observations. He regretted, that it had been thought necessary to abandon the plan of ad valorem duties, as he thought it the most fair mode of assessing the duty, with perfect equality, in proportion to the qualities of the teas. But it having been found necessary to abandon this plan, he conceived, that there was no intermediate step whatever between this and the plan of a uniform scale of duties. The only argument that had been adduced in favour of a rated duty was the example of America; but there the duty was very small, in fact insignificant, and could not be compared to the large duties levied in this country; and there was no temptation for smuggling in America. He must also observe, that the chief consumption in America was of green tea, which admitted of some distinction; but, in the black teas, which were chiefly consumed in this country, no such distinctions existed. He was afraid, they were misled by the terms by which black teas were generally known in this country. They were called congous, bohea, and souchong; but these names were not given them by the Chinese, who merely described their teas as inferior, middling, and superior. All the black teas imported into this country, with a very small exception, were produced from the same plant, and in the same part of China, in what was called the bohea district. The term "bohea" was formerly given in this country to all descriptions of black tea, as might be seen on reference to one of the numbers of the Spectator, where it was spoken of as of the highest quality of black tea. The literal meaning of the term "congou" in the Chinese was "prepared or manufactured," and the meaning of "souchong" was "selected." Therefore, in fact, there was no possibility of separating these kinds of tea into three distinct classes. There was no article of consumption more liable to adulteration than tea; and he need not point out to the House, that the people of China were perfect adepts at practising frauds of this description. An experiment of the capacity of the brokers of this country in distinguishing teas was mentioned yesterday. He did not rely upon this experiment, when he had himself seen so many instances in China, of persons of great knowledge of teas deceived by the people of that country. Looking, at the difficulty of collecting the revenue, and also the still greater difficulty of distinguishing teas, he could not conceive any mode more safe and satisfactory than an equalized and uniform scale of duties.

said, this question was evidently one of fact only, for throughout all the debate, the speakers had agreed in principle. From inquiries which he had made among persons connected with the trade, he had found, that there was a great proportion of congou sent from London to Ireland and Scotland, where scarcely any bohea at all was consumed. The proportion was something like twenty to one. It also appeared, that not only did the lower classes consume a great deal of congou, but of twankay also, and the better sort of teas. The quantity, indeed, of the latter was very nearly equal to, if not greater than that of the former. It appeared to him, that the opinion of persons engaged in the trade ought to be regarded; and he saw no reason why any information which they furnished should be mistrusted. The honest trader could have no object in view, but to prevent that fraudulent system which was expected to result from the proposed scale of duties. In China, there would not be the least difficulty in procuring a fraudulent kind of bohea; and he was informed, that in anticipation of the new scale, commissions were actually sent out to China of that kind. Another great evil was this, that if once the fraudulent practice was to get a footing, it would be difficult to eradicate it. The great difficulty was, to distinguish bohea from congou. With respect to the appointment of inspectors, an indulgent one might draw the whole trade of tea to a certain part of the country, while a rigorous one would drive it away. This would greatly inconvenience not only his Majesty's Government, but all those who were disposed to act fairly and honestly. In the alteration of the present mode of levying the ditties on tea, no scale ought to be acted upon which could not be shown, not only to be thoroughly practicable, but better than the present scale. As the scale proposed by his Majesty's Ministers would not have the beneficial effects contemplated, the appointment of a Committee was probably the best mode of arriving at a sound judgment upon the subject.

said: When the Tea Duties Act of the last Session was passing through the House of Commons, I was one of the first among its Members who ventured to predict, that the scale by which these duties were to be levied, would be found unjust and impracticable. The opinion was then, I know, disregarded; but the discussion of yesterday and to-day, springing out of the petitions that have been presented, prove too clearly that it would have been well for his Majesty's Ministers, if they had then given attention to that opinion. On that occasion, I remember well, that the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Spring Rice), assumed great credit to the Government, for having, on changing the mode of levying the duties from an ad valorem to a fixed rate, paid such attention to the interests of the humbler classes, as to reduce the duty on tea, by that change, from ninety-six to eighty per cent. I undertook to show, however, that directly the reverse of this would happen, and that, instead of any decrease, the change would absolutely produce a large increase of duty, as compared with price; and so accurate was this calculation, as opposed to that of the right hon. the Secretary to the Treasury, that we have now the admission of the petitioners, as well as of the speakers on both sides of the House, that the new scale of Tea-duties, while it will reduce the rate of duty on the higher-priced teas, or those consumed by the most wealthy, from 100 to seventy-five per cent ad valorem, and lighten the tax to the rich by twenty-five per cent, will actually increase the duty on the lower-priced teas, or those consumed only by the poorer classes, from ninety-six to 200 per cent. ad valorem; far exceeding, therefore, in the difference between the two extremes, any thing I had ventured to predict, though that prediction, moderate as it was, was disregarded because of its supposed extravagance. The Ministers and the country must now see their error; and fortunately it is not yet too late to retrieve it. Hitherto, the duty has been ninety-six per cent on the selling price of the coarser teas, and 100 per cent on the selling price of the finer teas; and the place of sale being exclusively confined to the India House, in London, the collection has been extremely easy. It is now intended to change this simple ad valorem duty into a rated one, and to place a tax of a certain amount per pound, instead of determining that tax as hereto-fore by the value. The new duty is to be 1s. 6d. per pound on all bohea teas, 2s. 2d. per pound on all Congou teas, and 3s. per pound on all teas of the finer kinds, not included in these two classes. The defence set up for this classification is, that it is founded on the principle of an ad-valorem duty, and puts the higher tax on the more costly article, for the sake of lightening the burthen to the poor. This defence is, however, not merely fallacious, but absolutely false, as directly the reverse is produced by the new system. For instance, the price of the coarser kind of bohea being, at such of the continental ports as enjoy a free trade in that article, 9d. per pound, and the duty affixed to it by the new scale 1s. 6d., the rate of duty is just 200 per cent on the value. On the other hand, the most costly of the finer teas being at the free trade price of 4s. per pound, and the duty affixed to it by the new scale being 3s., the rate of duty is only seventy-five per cent on the value, thus placing heavier burthens on the poor, who are too heavily laden already, and at the same time lightening the burthen to the rich, who are the best able to bear it. One most powerful objection, then, to such a classification of ditties as this, is its positive injustice; to which might, perhaps, be added another, namely, the cruelty and impolicy of taxing any article of food at all; and tea, by the universality or its consumption, has become as much a necessary of life as almost any other article, save bread alone, and the privation of it would be felt in an extreme degree by all classes. It is admitted as a maxim of sound policy, that men should contribute to the support of the State in proportion to their respective means of wealth, as the fairest and most unexceptionable standard. But it is mortifying to observe, that when any tax is about to be taken off, or new one about to be put on, this principle is violated in the most flagrant manner. The House-tax, and the Duties on Tea, are both cases in point. The former, if fairly and equitably assessed, as a certain per-centage on the actual cost or value of the House, comes the nearest to a Property-tax of almost any that could be devised; for it may be admitted as a general rule, that as men increase in wealth, they enlarge and adorn their dwellings: and the difference is extreme between the humblest cottage of the peasant, which might be built for 10l., and the lordly mansions of the nobility, which could not be built and completed for less than one hundred thousand times as much as the humble dwelling of the peasant. That tax, however, one of the fairest and most just, if apportioned according to actual cost and value, is to be taken off, and the rich will be chiefly relieved by it; while the new duties on tea are to be so shaped as to produce three millions and a-half, or four millions of annual revenue, the chief burthens of which will fall most heavily on the poor. The poor man, who has 50l. a-year, consumes, we will suppose, a pound of tea per month; and, in so doing, he pays 18s. in the year as his share of the four millions of taxes raised on tea. The noble peer, with an income of 50,000l. a-year, will not consume more than two pounds of tea per month; and, in so doing, he will contribute 72s. in the year, as his share of the same tax raised on tea. Surely, every one must see, that if the principle of taxing men in proportion to their means of wealth, were strictly adhered to, the noble Lord, with his income of 50,000l. a-year, ought to pay duty on one thousand times as much tea per annum, as his poorer neighbour, at 50l. a-year; for then, and then only, would their respective contributions to the Exchequer be in exact relation to their power of payment: and whether the mechanic of 50l. a-year could spare 18s. or a peer of 50,000l. a-year, spare 72s. with the least inconvenience, as their respective contributions to the State, it would not be difficult to judge; nor, if there be truth in figures, and arithmetic is not wholly a delusion, can these propositions be denied or refuted. In addition, however, to these theoretical objections to the new scale of duties on tea, there is this great practical objection, that all men conversant with the subject, declare it absolutely impossible to determine the difference between the better sorts of bohea, and the inferior sorts of congou, which approach each other so nearly as to baffle the skill of the most experienced, to separate the one from the other. Who does not see, then, in an instant, that this difficulty and uncertainty will open the door to all manner of frauds?—that the temptation to enter congous as boheas, for the sake of avoiding the higher duty, will be irresistible; fortified, as the committer of the fraud will be, with the conviction that he cannot be detected, and that if he keeps his counsel, his dishonesty can never be exposed? This would be the case, even now; but a year or two hence, when the skilful and ingenious Chinese will have been apprized of the advantages of preparing the several kinds of teas, on purpose to deceive the inspectors here, all the teas imported for general consumption will be brought to England under the lower class denominations, for the sake of profiting by the lower duty; and dishonesty in dealing, and frauds upon the revenue, will thus be engendered and encouraged by our own imprudent legislation. If we add to this, the consideration, that the importation of tea is no longer to be confined to the port of London, that each outport will have to be provided with its own inspector, with whom alone will rest, without appeal, the decision of which is congou, and which is bohca;—if we consider, that on the cargo of a large ship, in which, for many reasons, it will be for some time advantageous to import the tea, a difference of the duty between bohea and congou would amount to 10,000l., all of which might be saved by the mere decision of the inspector, on so uncertain a standard as shade of colour—peculiarity of flavour—or even still more capricious tests of taste,—it must be admited, that greater temptations to fraud can hardly be conceived. This scale of the Government is clearly impracticable, and must be abandoned. Let us see, however, what remedy the merchants of the city of London propose. They recommend the abandonment of the highest and the lowest duty; and the retention of the middle one only, of 2s. 2d. on the pound, for every description of tea, so as to form one uniform rate of charge on all. This, no doubt, has simplicity in its favour, and as far as the saving of trouble, and preventing fraud can recommend it, it is deserving of attention. But surely the House of Commons will never countenance any thing so unjust, as that the tea for the poor man's family, the original cost of which is 9d. per lb., shall be taxed at three times its value, or 300 per cent., by the duty of 2s, 2d.; while the tea for the rich man's family, the original cost of which is 7s. per lb., shall be taxed at only one-third its value, or 33 per cent. by the same duty of 2s. 2d. If it sanctions such a scale as this, it will belie all its professions of a regard to the interests of the poor; it will contradict all its admiration of the true theory of taxation, that the contributions made to the revenue should be in proportion to the means of those who contribute; and it will bring down upon it the deserved condemnation of the country. The only public objects we should have in view in the contemplated change should be, to secure the full amount of the revenue which we may think fit to derive from this source, from all diminution by fraud; to make the duty proportioned to the value of the article on which it is imposed; and to offer no temptation either to the smuggler or to the dishonest dealer. To combine these objects, then, I will venture to suggest a plan, which differs both from that of the Government, and that of the London merchants, confident that, upon examination, it will be found to combine all the advantages of both, while it will possess the defects of neither. It is this;—"1. That the importation of tea from China should be confined to those ports only which will undertake to provide bonded warehouses for its reception; and where-ever the population is considerable, and the ships numerous, the means of erecting such warehouses can be easily obtained.—2. That at such ports all teas imported should be landed and lodged in these bonded warehouses only.—3. That periodical sales of such teas as the importers choose to draw from the bonded warehouses should be made by public auction once a month, on some fixed day, under the superintendance of the Customs, mid the duty being ad valorem, whether fifty, or seventy-five, or one hundred per cent. on the actual price produced at the sale, would be payable by the purchaser at the time of his withdrawing his teas from the warehouse." This is a mode by which all uncertainty as to classes and qualities would be obviated; by which all temptation to fraud would be shut out, nay, rendered impossible; and by which, at the same time, these two vast advantages would be united;—that the revenue would be collected with the greatest certainty and the least expence; and each description of tea bearing an ad-valorem duty according to its price, the consumers of the costly tea woo Id pay the heavy duty, the drinkers of the middle qualities would pay the moderate impost, and the purchasers of the cheapest tea would be most lightly taxed of all. As to the practicability of its working well, we have the experience of upwards of a century in its favour; this being the manner in which the duties on tea have been collected during that space of time—with constant commendation of its simplicity, certainty, and economy. There is one consideration of this great question, however, which has been wholly overlooked, both by the Government and the House of Commons, though it is, perhaps, the most important of all. It is that of seeking how we could augment the consumption of tea beyond its present quantity. Now, what is the actual state of the case? At the present moment, the consumption of England, Scotland, and Ireland, is thirty-three millions of pounds weight, and as the popu- lation of the three countries is estimated at twenty-five millions of persons, this makes an average consumption of about one pound and a-quarter of tea per head per annum. Every one must admit this to be a miserable pittance, compared with what would be consumed, were it not that the high price, and the high duty, combine to make it so dear, that even the most respectable families are niggardly and parsimonious in the careful doling out of tea, though profuse in every thing else because of its high price, while thousands are debarred the use of it at all because it is beyond their means of purchase. If, then, by a reduction of the ad-valorem duty from 100 to 75 or 50 per cent, the consumption could be doubled in quantity, as well as augmented in the better qualities at the same time—and there are really no persons who would not drink either more, or better tea, if the price were greatly reduced—what would be the effect? Undoubtedly this, that twice the number of British ships would be employed in importing the tea from China, a change which would give more relief to our shipping interests than any other single measure that could be named; and that for every additional cargo of tea imported from China, an additional cargo of British manufactures would go out to be consumed among the millions of that country, instead of the opium cultivated under the monopoly of the India Company, and the silver drained from the revenues of Bengal, which have hitherto been the materials with which the teas have been paid for at Canton. Our manufacturers would therefore receive as great an advantage from the augmented consumption of tea, by the demand for their productions in exchange as the shipping interest would be benefitted by the increased employment of their tonnage for its conveyance; and, therefore, in every point of view in which it can be regarded, this end is worthy the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. With these views, Sir, I beg to urge upon their attention the propriety of relinquishing their own cumbrous and impracticable plan, and at the same time of rejecting the more simple, but still more unjust plan, proposed to them by the city of London; and either themselves to reconsider the subject, with a view to some revision emanating from their own hands, or if that be difficult or disagreeable, to confide the new arrangement to a Select Committee of competent persons, before whom the details may be discussed, and some general measure founded thereon, which shall give satisfaction to the country, and combine all the advantages of simplicity, practicability, and, above all, of fairness and justice to every class engaged either in the importation, sale, or consumption, of this wholesome and agreeable article of almost universal use.

thought it was not quite fair to discuss the subject of Tea-duties on the presentation of a petition, but as so many Gentlemen had thought fit to do so, he must say something on the subject. The hon. Member who had just sat down, had suggested a plan which he could assure that hon. Gentleman was not a novelty, for it had been maturely considered by the Government. The hon. Member had a perfect right to consider his intended plan, and other hon. Members had a perfect right to consider and propose their plans; but he thought the House ought, in looking at the subject, specially to consider the principle on which the particular plan was grounded which had been proposed by his Majesty's Government, and which had been brought under the consideration of the House by the petition of his hon. friend. It was with reference to that, that he should advert to the three schemes which had been alluded to, namely, of one single duty, of two or three different rates, and of ad valorem duties, and he would show how they bore upon the present plan. The principle upon which the Government acted was not to lose any revenue by the alterations which they proposed, and, therefore, it became necessary to consider not only how to give the consumer tea at the cheapest rate, but also how to avoid any loss to the revenue. He stated that, because it might account for some of the faults which hon. Members had found with the proposed scale. But the Government having to start upon that principle—not to abandon any revenue—were obliged to fix upon such a scale as would give the same amount of revenue they at present received. In the discussion of the subject, that should not be lost sight of; and it would be found incompatible with the proposed scheme of the hon. member for Sheffield, and with the scheme of the single unvarying duty. The hon. Member for Middlesex had stated that the measure was adopted in a hurry. The fact, however, was, the subject had re- ceived very great consideration from his Majesty's Government. The hon. member for the City of London had said, that the subject ought to have been settled after communication with practical men. He could assure the House, that there had been many such communications. There had been deputations from the outports—gentlemen extensively engaged in the trade in London—deputations from, tea-brokers again and again; and the three plans, the ad valorem duty, the rated duties, and the fixed duty, had been all considered; and the result of the whole was, that it was deemed most advisable to fix the scale adopted by the Government. It appeared that a great change had taken place in the opinions of some Gentlemen who had given advice to the Government on that occasion, although, he thought, that those hon. Gentlemen had no greater information now than then. When it was said, that the Government had not given sufficient attention to their recommendations, it would be found, on the contrary, that they had received too much attention. The revenue would be much more easily collected, and it would have been much more agreeable to the Government, to have a fixed duty to collect than a rated duty. But what were the grounds upon which the Government had selected the rated duty? Their object was to give the consumer of the lowest quality of tea that tea at the cheapest rate which was consistent with the revenue. No man would deny, that taking a lower duty on the lowest qualities had been adopted to enable the poorer classes to procure bohea at a lower price. But what were the arguments opposed to the Government plan? It had been said, that they had made a mistake, that the lower classes did not consume the lower qualities of tea, but that the lower qualities of tea were consumed by the higher classes. [Cries of "No, no."] Well, then, he would ask, who consumed it? Was he to be told that no one consumed it? The House had been told by the hon. member for London, that the lower classes did not consume bohea. The hon. member for Lambeth had made a statement to show that, from the quantities of different teas which were sent to the various manufacturing towns, what he called the lower classes did not, in fact, consume that kind of tea. But what had been the state of the importation of bohea? The House were told, that the taste of the lower classes was on congou, and, therefore, that by giving bohea at a cheaper rate, they forced on the public a new taste. Now, he found, from the returns of the quantities and prices of teas sold by the East-India Company in each year during their late charter, beginning 1814–15, that the quantity of bohea sold the first year was 397,000 lbs., and of congou 21,000,000 lbs. He was aware that, in that year, the quantity of congou was unusually large, and, therefore, he would infer nothing from the sales that year. In 1815–16, there were sold of bohea, 839,000 lbs., and, of congou, 17,000,000 lbs. In the course of fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen years, the quantity of bohea that was sold had risen from 500,000 lbs. to 6,500,000 lbs. while the quantity of congou had only risen, 1,000,000 lbs. or 2,000,000 lbs. That was a fact; and a sufficient answer to those who asserted that bohea was not according to the taste of the lower classes, for, it was notorious, that the consumption of tea had greatly increased among the lower classes, while it had not much increased among the higher classes, and there was no question but the largest proportion of their increased consumption was bohea. Was it not evident, indeed, that the poorer classes would use the cheapest tea? That teas might be mixed in London, and were mixed, he had no doubt, and that might account for the small quantity of nominal bohea, and the large quantity of nominal congou which were sent away from London. But, when mixed, there would be a difference in the duty of 8d. per lb. on such of the bohea as was mixed, and thus the price of the whole would be lowered; or, on the other hand, it would operate to do away with the practice, and, either way, the public would be benefited. The hon. member for London had stated the difficulty of distinguishing the quality of one tea from that of another, and that, by making so great a difference as 8d. per pound in the duty, it would be found more advantageous to import bohea at even a higher price than congou. He was aware, that when an attempt was made to have two duties on any one article, just at that point where the qualities approached nearly, and were not so easily definable as to prevent mistakes altogether, there must always be a great difficulty; but that only applied to that particular point where the qualities run one into the other, and did not do so to the great bulk of either one or the other articles. He would state a case which was very curious, but precisely similar to the present. The House knew, that there was to be a duty upon manufactured silk; and it had been thought exceedingly difficult to tell what was plain and what was figured silk. It was almost impossible to tell; and yet there was a duty upon the one of 11s., and on the other of 15s. How, then, was it decided? Did the Custom-house Officers find a great difficulty? None at all. They had the assistance of the parties in the trade, and next they had the value of the article to serve them as a guide to show under what description of quality the silks came. So also it would be with tea. There might be some difficulty with regard to the very finest bohea and the very inferior congou, but, in other respects, there would be no considerable difficulty in deciding. What evidence had the Government before them? They were told, that it was impossible to decide; that tricks of all kinds were played in China; that Chinese ingenuity would be exercised to enable the importer to defraud the revenue; and that no man was capable of deciding upon the different kinds of tea. Why, what was the case? Forty-four different samples of tea were submitted to testers in this country during the examination on the subject, and, with the single exception of one bad hit that was made, the qualities had been exactly defined in the other forty-three instances. The hon. member for South Hampshire said, the Chinese made no distinction of black teas. He (Mr. Poulett Thomson) was aware of this; but what did their practice signify for the purpose of describing them here?

said, he regretted the right. hon. Gentleman had not been present yesterday. As he had not, he begged leave to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the catalogue of sale of the East India Company at the last quarterly sale, in which they had classed bohea and congou tea under one head. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman to explain how this circumstance could be reconciled under the action of the new scale of duties?

He was not aware that the hon. Member would have presented his petition at the morning sitting, as some petitions had been set down for the evening. The hon. Member said, in the catalogue, great quantities of tea were put down as bohea, which the East India Company stated to be congou. All the hon. Member could infer from that fact was, that it was difficult to distinguish some qualities of tea; and that it could not be easy to discriminate between fine bohea teas and low congou. He could say, however, on the authority of the brokers and other parties most experienced to whom the Government had applied, it was found to be perfectly easy to distinguish qualities. Since this matter had come under discussion, the most experienced officers of the revenue had been consulted, and they declared their firm conviction, that there would be no difficulty in collecting the duties under the new system. It was easy to imagine difficulties; but as one of those officers said, "There never was a new system tried without the anticipation of great difficulties, which disappeared as soon as the plan was put into execution." He, indeed, would be a bold man, who contended, that any system would work well before it was tried; all he contended for was, that this was an experiment worthy of trial. It would afford an opportunity of giving the consumer the chance of paying much less for his tea than he would if the object of the petition was attained, without any diminution of revenue. What had occurred in America? The duties in America an hon. Member had said were trifling. Why, they were, the lowest sixty-four per cent, and the highest, 150 per cent. The revenue arising from the consumption of bohea was 300,000 dollars; and that from the other qualities, 1,600,000 dollars. This showed that, in America, they had the power of discovering frauds, and of preventing them from being carried on to any great extent. He must confess, that he felt no small surprise to hear hon. Gentlemen making comparisons between the present measure and that proposed some time ago relative to the sugar duties, because the only reason against any discrimination of duty on sugars was the drawback. He wished to impress upon the House, though it might be hereafter advisable to change the scale of duties,—he did not deny that—that it was advisable to wait till they had the benefit of experience to guide them; and he entreated hon. Members always to recollect that the revenue must be kept up to its present amount.

observed, that the House had been told, that it would be 600,000l. more than it was last year.

said, that that probably would be the case in the present year, because the East-India Company would be obliged to sell their stock of teas; but what the duty would be in another year it was impossible to foretell. He would say to those Gentlemen who were inclined to adopt the principles of his Majesty's Government, but who, at the same time, wished a change in the scale, "Wait till the experiment has been tried; and if it does not succeed, then bring your Amendment forward."

never heard a measure defended on weaker grounds than the present. A false step might do much injury to the revenue; a spurious article might be introduced, and, therefore, the House ought to pause before it rushed rashly to any precipitate change. He could show that bohea tea was the article consumed by the poor. Formerly the bohea tea was so bad that it was not used; but, in subsequent years, it improved so much, that it was substituted for, and often preferred to, congou. Respecting the fraud that would extend to the country whence the tea came, as well as the country into which it was imported, it was a notorious fact, that bohea tea came to the country in congou packages, and it would be difficult to detect the imposition. How was it possible in outports, with so many difficulties to embarrass the judgment of the officer, to fix a certain standard by which to ascertain whether fraud was intended, or that the previous custom of shipping inferior tea in congou packages was merely continued? He (Mr. Goulburn) was an advocate for lowering the duties on tea, but he was against encouraging the introduction of an inferior article amongst the poor.

said, for many years the duties on tea in America were divided into five classes, varying from twelve to fifty cents. He wished to know, whether those duties were abolished in consequence of fraud: and he thought it desirable to have some information on the subject before adopting a scale of rated duties here.

said, he was against the present plan of Ministers. In Liverpool, and elsewhere, it was thought better to return to the former system of ad valorem duties.

could not admit, that the subject was new to the merchants of Liverpool, because free trade had been for years an universal topic. As to periodical sales in outports, recommended by the hon. member for Sheffield, it was found to be impracticable.

adverted to a letter, dated March, 1824, stating, the undersigned merchants considered the samples tried to be not a fair, judgment of the question at issue between the Government and the trade; the taste of the teas resembled each other so much, that they could not distinguish the difference.

, in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice at the close of the last Session of Parliament, and which he had felt it his duty to renew this Session, relative to the payment of Church-rates, felt that, as an inexperienced Member, he must claim the indulgence of the House; and he was sure that that indulgence would be afforded to him, as it was to all those who seldom trespassed at any length. When he first directed his attention to the compulsory payment of Church-rates, he had strong feelings on the subject of their impolicy; and in the course of the last few months those feelings had been increased ten-fold, by what he had seen passing in every part of the country. He was quite aware that it might be said, that he was hardly justified in bringing this matter forward after the notice which had been given by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could assure the noble Lord most sincerely, that he was actuated by no want of courtesy towards the Government, of which the noble Lord was a member. With the friendly disposition he entertained towards that Government, he could not show any feeling of distrust; but circumstances had lately arisen which made him anxious to procure that relief, which he considered the grievances of the Dissenters essentially demanded. It was time, that the opinion of this House should be so decidedly expressed upon the subject, as to enable it to bring it to a satisfactory and final conclusion. He might here state, that the subject which he was going to bring under the consideration of the House, was exclusively that of Church-rates; but it was connected with many other of the grievances under which the Dis- senters laboured; and was mixed up with the question of Church Reform. To remedy one of those grievances a Bill had been brought in by his noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces; but he did not know, that there was a determination on the part of the Government to carry that measure to a conclusion. Another reason why he brought the matter forward was, that the noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government was reported to have said, in another place, that he would resist the abolition of compulsory payment of Church-rates as strenuously as he would resist the separation of Church and State. No man was more anxious than he was to preserve the union between Church and State; and he deeply regretted, that the noble Lord had made this declaration, because it was one very likely to forward the object which the noble Lord deprecated. He regretted, that this subject had not fallen into more able hands,—the hands of those who, with experience of the forms of the House, would be fully able to do it the justice it deserved. He wished that it had fallen into the hands of the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, for that noble Lord, in bringing forward a Motion of this sort, would be only following up those principles which he had advocated in the early part of his political career, when he had shown himself a zealous and eloquent promoter of the principles of religious liberty. If he regretted to see that noble Lord amongst the members of his Majesty's Government, it was because he was thereby prevented from following up those principles which, in the early part of his life, he had so strenuously advocated. Every hon. Member must be aware that, in the course of the last few months, there bad been an increasing disposition on the part of the people to avoid the payment of Church-rates,—a feeling which had been growing up for many years. It had arisen in consequence of the increase of the impost, but still more in consequence of the continual and great increase of Dissenters. To what cause it was to be attributed, he would not stop to inquire, though it was, no doubt, greatly owing to the measures which took place as far back as 1819. In that year, an Act passed granting 1,000,000l. for the building of churches and chapels. That million coming from the general revenue of the country, was paid equally by Dissenters and Church- men. But, besides this, in many districts, there was a great increase of parochial taxes to keep up the churches. He need hardly say, that was strong ground for complaint on the part of the Dissenters. Perhaps it was right that he should state to the House the amount of the Church-rates. In the return of the local taxation of the country, for the year ending the 27th of March, 1827, the Church-rates were stated to amount to 564,000l. This, he could prove, was the sum which had been levied; and the House would perceive that it formed a very important item in the whole amount of the local taxation of the country. There was another return on the Table of the House, stating the amount of Highway-rates and Church-rates, for the year ending March, 1827. The total expenditure for local taxation was 9,489,687l. The next return was of a more recent date, and went more into detail. It appeared from that return, which related to the years 1830–1831, that the total sum expended fur purposes connected with the Church in that year, amounted, in round numbers, to 645,000l. Of this amount a considerable portion arose from estates, pew-rents, and fees; but no less a sum than 554,000l. was raised by that description of taxation to which he was about to call the attention of the House. The account of the expenditure of this money did not go into as much detail as he could wish; but it appeared, that the cost of the repairs of churches was 248,000l.; organs and bells, 41,000; books and wine, 46,000l.; salaries of clerks and sextons, 126,000l.; and for sundry other purposes, 184,000l. Now, this appeared to him to be a seriously extravagant amount of taxation. Part of these expenses could not now be enforced by law; but a portion of them remained in full force; and the whole were not only disgusting to the feelings of the Dissenters, but extremely prejudicial to the best interests of the Church itself. He might be asked, with great propriety, how he proposed to remedy the existing evils? His own opinion was, that no man could be justly charged for the support of a religion to which he dissented; and, therefore, the principle upon which money should be raised for the necessary expenses of the Church was exclusively that of voluntary contribution. But it would be said, that it was impossible to maintain the Church by such means. To disprove that assumption, he would refer to the case of the Dissenters, who had 8,000 places of worship; and for their maintenance they did not raise in any year less than a million. Surely, if the Dissenters could effect this, the members of the Church of England might be called upon to do something also for the support of their religion. The Dissenters not only contributed the sum which he had mentioned for the support of their places of worship, but their subscriptions, for missionary and other purposes connected with religious and moral improvement, exceeded those of the Established Church. Another unobjectionable mode by which the necessary funds might be raised, was by pew-rents. In a vast number of churches in the metropolis large sums were raised in that way. In parishes where the congregation was small, this plan could be very easily adopted. He was aware that the farmers of England were at this moment labouring under considerable distress; but he was sure, that those persons very much under-estimated their sense of religion who doubted that they would liberally come forward, if these compulsory payments were done away with, to maintain the places of worship established by their ancestors. He knew that this question was attended with many difficulties; but, in dealing with it, he thought it absolutely necessary to separate the question of Church-rates from that of tithes. He was aware, that some persons conceived that to attack the principle of Church-rates was to attack also the principle of tithes; but that such a construction could justly be put upon the proposition which he brought forward, he must beg leave to deny; and, if it could, he must assert, that he would not be instrumental in promoting a measure of that nature. He was anxious to do away with the compulsory payment of Church-rates; but he was equally anxious to preserve the property now held by the Church, and to make it available for the promotion of sound religion. Another source, besides the voluntary means he had alluded to, from which he would propose to raise the necessary funds, was the cathedral lands. There was a very great jealousy in the public mind touching any incomes connected with the Church. He did not attack the Church; but he said he thought it important that many of the foundations destined for its support should be rendered more effectually available for that pur- pose. The sums stated as belonging to these foundations were about 300,000l. per annum. They were devoted ostensibly to the purpose of keeping up the celebration of Divine Service in collegiate churches. He could mention an instance of one collegiate church, with which he was well acquainted, namely, that of Exeter, where, he was informed, the annual income was nominally 12,000l.: but a friend of his, who knew the value of the property, assured him that, if it were let at rack-rents, it would produce 70,000l. a-year, instead of 12,000l. An Act of Parliament had been lately passed to enable a lessee under the Bishop of Bath and Wells to purchase the property in fee-simple. Large sums of money might he raised in this way. He now came to a very important post of his argument. In looking at certain accounts, he was astonished to observe the progress which dissent had made of late years. In many towns, the Dissenters outnumbered the members of the Church of England. In the principality of Wales, there were more dissenting places of worship built than there were churches belonging to the Establishment. From a return which he held in his hand, it appeared that, within the six months which ended the last year, the Dissenters of that part of the empire raised a sum of 17,000l. towards clearing off the debts which they had contracted, and that, within the next six months, it was expected a sum would be raised equal to the discharge of the whole demand. He had likewise a return, showing the state of two parishes in Monmouthshire, having a population of about 16,000, in which parishes, within a few years, twenty-three places of dissenting worship had sprung up. In the war 1765 there were but two such places of worship in those parishes. In 1806, there was one more. From 1821 to 1828, there were seven built. In 1829, three were erected, and one more in 1830. He wished to call the attention of the House to the oppressive character of the Church-rates, as they affected Dissenters, and to impress upon the minds of members of the Church of England, that, by showing a conciliatory spirit to their dissenting fellow-subjects, they would best promote the interests of that Church to which they were attached, and contribute to its stability hereafter. In almost all parishes, particularly in large towns, there was at present a bitter feeling of hostility entertained by the Dissenters towards the Church of England. He believed it was yet possible to do away with the acrimony which existed. He would entreat the House to direct its constant attention to this subject, and to take warning from what had occurred in former times. There had never been a time when the Church was apparently stronger in the support of a great portion of the people of England than at present; but there had never been a time when there were greater apprehensions that inroads might be made upon it. It took a long time to bring the principles of civil and religious liberty to maturity. From the time when the civil and religious liberties of this country were established, nearly two centuries elapsed before they were placed upon a solid foundation. He had a strong hope that it would not he long before every grievance of which the Dissenters complained would be removed. One grievance of which the Dissenters loudly complained was that respecting admission to the Universities. Within the last few hours, he had received a communication, that, out of 150 resident members of the University of Cambridge, fifty had signed a petition in favour of the claims of the Dissenters. At Oxford, likewise, a great change had taken place in the general feeling. In 1829, a right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), whom he did not see in his place, yielding to a stern necessity, which was completely beyond his control as a statesman, felt it his duty to make a great sacrifice, and to give up his personal opinion on the subject of the Roman Catholic claims. For that the University rejected him; but now it had elected as its Chancellor—because, he supposed, it could not get any one to represent its feelings better—a noble Duke, who had been at the head of the administration to which the right hon. Baronet then belonged. He had already stated, that he brought this question forward from no feeling of hostility to the Established Church. He was a churchman himself, and, he hoped, a sincere one. He wished to preserve the Church in harmony with every class of the community. He wished for the removal of every grievance under which the Dissenters laboured, in order that such a union should be formed as would best promote the interests of all. There was one subject to which he would allude before he sat down, as he considered it a great obstacle to the reform which he wished to see introduced. He alluded to the indisposition of the Church to give up the fees to which it was by law entitled. He could mention an instance in which these fees were a source of great vexation. In 1827 an Act of Parliament was passed for establishing a general cemetery in London, and a clause was introduced in Act which provided that no individual should be buried there until lees had been paid to the rector of Marylebone. He really thought provisions of that soft were highly inexpedient, and he hoped the House would take the whole question up and legislate upon sound and comprehensive principles. He concluded by moving, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is just and expedient, that effectual measures should be taken for the abolition of compulsory payments of Church-rates in England and Wales."

seconded the Motion, and observed, that it was founded in equity and justified by experience. The constitution of the Church now occupied so much of the consideration of all men, that it was natural the Dissenters should look to their own interests; and they showed that they were doing so, because they were presenting petitions, praying for the removal of their grievances. He was aware that, in some instances, they prayed for the total separation of the Church from the State; but, from his knowledge of the Dissenters, he was convinced that they were more anxious for the removal of the practical grievances under which they laboured. The first of those grievances was the payment of Church-rates; and he hoped, as the question had now been brought forward, and as there must soon be some positive decision, whether in reference to the Motion of his hon. friend, or with respect to the measure of which the noble Lord opposite had given notice, the House would do the Dissenters that justice to which they were entitled. The progress of dissent was very rapid, and in no part of the country greater than in that with which he was connected. His hon. friend had stated, that in two populous parishes in Monmouthshire there was but one dissenting place of worship, and that between the years 1809 and 1830, there was an increase of not less than twenty-one to the number. He had also an account, stating that, in two other parishes, containing a population of 16,000 souls, there was accommodation at the Dissenters' places of worship, in one parish, for 12,484 persons, and in the other, for 4,725; so that altogether there was accommodation prepared for about 1,200 more than the population. The expense, which amounted to 11,500l., was paid by voluntary contributions amongst the Dissenters. In addition to this, the Dissenters were compelled, as his hon. friend had said, in many instances, to re-build churches, or to build new ones. It was said, that the abolition of Church-rates would be only a stepping-stone towards the separation of Church and State; but from that assertion he differed. The question of Church-rates was totally distinct from that of tithe. Unless something were done in the case of Church-rates, they would be a source of the greatest injury to the Church of England. On the western side of the county of Monmouth no less than three-fifths of the population dissented from the doctrines of the Church of England. A very great sensation had been produced amongst the Dissenters by what was reported to have been said in the other House of Parliament by a noble Earl at the head of the Government, who was represented as having declared, that he was prepared to defend the existence of Church-rates as warmly as the continuance of the connexion between Church and State. He hoped that, whether the noble Lord and the Government were now prepared to assent to this proposition, or to bring forward their own measure—he hoped and trusted the Dissenters would see, that the House had taken up the question, and was willing to go into it with an anxious wish to consider its merits, and to put them upon a fair footing as regarded the exercise of their religion.

said, that before he replied to any other part of the speeches of the hon. members for Exeter and Monmouth, he must apply himself to that point introduced by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, at the conclusion of his speech, with respect to what was alleged to have been said by his noble friend (Earl Grey) in his place in the other House of Parliament. It was stated, that his noble friend had declared, that he was prepared to defend the continuance of Church-rates as much as the continuance of the connexion between Church and State. Now he was perfectly satisfied that it was quite impossible his noble friend should have made such a statement. From his knowledge of the opinions of his noble friend, and his knowledge of the opinions of his Majesty's Government generally, he was satisfied it was utterly impossible that his noble friend could have actually made that statement in the other House of Parliament. This was the only contradiction he could possibly give to the statement. Not being present in the House on the occasion in question, he could not speak positively as to the terms used. With regard to the proposition made by the two hon. Members, he need not remind the House as the hon. Gentlemen had reminded it, that he (Lord Althorp) had given notice of a Motion on the subject. He should not, therefore, think it necessary to go into the question of Church-rates on the present occasion, further than to say, that he concurred entirely with the hon. Gentleman in believing that the question of Church-rates rested upon a very different foundation indeed, from that of tithes; but, hoping, as he did, that the measure which he should have the honour to propose would prove satisfactory to the House,—sure as he was, that it ought to give satisfaction,—and believing, that it would, he hoped and trusted that this notice being on the books of a measure to be brought forward by his Majesty's Government, not in the shape of a Resolution, but as an effective practical measure, Gentlemen would see, that it was not desirable at present for the House either to affirm the principle proposed by the hon. Gentleman, or to negative his proposition. It would be his duty, therefore, on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, to move the previous question. But the hon. Gentleman had entered into some statements of the case of the Dissenters. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to other grievances under which the Dissenters laboured; and, therefore, in the present state of this question, and of the country, it was desirable that he should not be entirely silent upon the different points to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. The subject which the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken most properly placed first amongst the general grievances under which the Dissenters laboured, was the payment of Church-rates; then came the subject of marriage; and thirdly that of a general registration; and although this matter concerned every class or the community, yet he was ready to admit, that the want of a general regis- tration pressed more heavily upon the Dissenters than upon the members of the Established Church. The fourth point, of which they complained was that which related to their exclusion from the Universities. These were the main points which were urged on behalf of the Dissenters. There was, also, as he was reminded by an hon. friend near him, a complaint with regard to burial in Church-yards without the ceremonies of the Church. He would state frankly his opinion upon the last of these questions first. He need not remind the House, that there was a very strong feeling amongst the people of this country on the subject of the burial of the dead; and, therefore, he certainly thought, if any other remedy for the grievance could be devised which should not interfere with the feelings of the people with respect to the burial of Dissenters in Church-yards, it would be desirable to avoid legislating on the subject. With respect to the establishment of a general register, he had already, on a former occasion, stated, that it was the anxious wish of his Majesty's Government to form such an establishment. His noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, had submitted to his Majesty's Government a plan which he thought would be effectual, but upon looking at that plan, and considering the subject in the best way they could, they were of opinion that if they attempted to carry it into effect, with the machinery which at present existed in the different parishes, such a registration would not be satisfactory; and if they attempted to form other machinery for the purpose, the expense would be so great that it would be impossible to propose such a measure to the House. Since then it notice had been given by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Southwark, of a measure on the subject. He knew not what was the principle of that measure. He should be glad if his hon. and learned friend could overcome the difficulties which, with the existing machinery, appeared to him insurmountable. But although he thought with the machinery now existing it would be difficult to establish a complete system of registration, yet he hoped that in another measure, which it would be the duty of his Majesty's Government to propose during the present Session, the machinery which was to be employed might be applied to the purposes of general registration. The great difficulty was in appointing officers for the purpose of registration. That was likely to be attended with an enormous expense; but if the officers appointed for other objects could also be employed for that duty, he hoped the object might be accomplished without any extravagant expense. He could only say, that his Majesty's Ministers, being of opinion that the greatest advantage would arise to the country from a general registration, would apply their most anxious attention to the subject, and he had a full hope that they would be able to effect the object. With respect to marriage, his noble friend had introduced a Bill which he was aware had not given satisfaction to the parties for whose benefit it was intended. He maintained, that this measure could not be arranged in a completely satisfactory manner, without being founded upon a general system of registration. But his Majesty's Government, finding the difficulties they had to encounter in proposing a general system of registration to be so great that they could not overcome them, thought it desirable to propose a measure relating to marriage only. He was aware that objections had been made to the Marriage Bill brought in by his noble friend (Lord John Russell), and if those objections continued on the part of those for whose relief the Bill was intended, it certainly would not be the policy of the Government to persevere in it. The next point to which he had to advert, was that of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities, and upon this subject he had heard that many members of the University of Cambridge were in favour of such a measure. He was happy to say, that he knew the fact to be so, for a petition had been sent up to that House pretty numerously signed, and with some eminent names attached to it, praying that Dissenters might be so admitted. As far as their admission to the University went, he could see no objection to it. It would be affording a great relief to the Dissenters, while, at the same time, it would be advantageous to the Universities, and could not be injurious to the Established Church. He looked, therefore, at this subject with considerable anxiety; he wished to see it accomplished: but seeing, that in one University, there was a strong feeling in its favour, and having hopes that by some delay it might he accomplished with the concurrence of both those learned bodies, he thought the best way would be, not to press it forward too eagerly. He hoped, therefore, that the measure would not be urged, that it should not appear to be forced upon the country until it could be done in the best possible way—that way, in his opinion, being with the concurrence of the Universities. He had stated thus much, because he thought it right that the views of Government upon the subject should be known at the earliest possible period. He should not enter into the question of Church-rates at present, as the proper time for doing so would be when he should bring forward the measure which was in the contemplation of the Government. Under these circumstances, he should move the previous question, as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member.

said, that the Dissenters would feel themselves obliged to his hon. friend the member for Exeter for the line of conduct he had pursued on the present occasion. Several of the explanations of the noble Lord who last spoke would not be, he feared, so satisfactory to the Dissenters and to the country as he, who desired the stability of the present Government, could have wished. He was, however, pleased that the noble Lord had mentioned, that it was the wish of his Majesty's Government to afford the Dissenters every facility in their power. He begged to impress upon his Majesty's Government the fact, that the great mass of the people of England sympathised with the Protestant Dissenters, and that many of the most enlightened members of the Established Church thought, that the Dissenters were not captious in their demands or complaints. Whilst he confessed himself grateful to his hon. friend for the way in which he treated the question, he could not help, on the part of the Protestant Dissenters, taking the liberty of requesting his hon. friend not to urge on the discussion at present, and thereby endanger or delay its final success. He thought that, after what the noble Lord had said on the part of the Government to which he belonged, it would be better not to press the abstract question, but wait until they saw what was to be the nature of the noble Lord's proposition. The House would coincide with him, that it was desirable to suspend all further proceedings until they saw whether the proposed measure was as just as the noble Lord anticipated, and as satisfactory as was expected and desired. Before he concluded, he begged to mention one important circumstance. The question at issue was not one of amount, but of principle. The whole sum paid in rates of this description yearly by Dissenters and others did not amount to more than 600,000.l, of which not more than 200,000l. went for repairing of Churches. When it was considered on what a great number of populous parishes these rates were levied, it would be seen that their pressure must be comparatively insignificant. The Dissenters therefore objected to the demand on principle, and in their behalf he would appeal to the candour of the noble Lord and to the liberality of his Majesty's Government, if they wished to make their proposed measure satisfactory to the great body of Dissenters, to introduce into it a clause or clauses, to exempt them entirely from the payment of Church-rates.

did not wish to interfere at present with the object which the hon. Mover had in view. He did not rise to enter into the question, whether it was fitting to abolish Church-rates or not, nor did he present himself to the notice of the House with a view of discussing the propriety of the measure which the noble Lord stated was in the contemplation of his Majesty's Government. He rose in consequence of an important point to which the noble Lord adverted, and he did so, lest, if he offered no observations upon it, he should appear to acquiesce in the noble Lord's proposition. The point he alluded to referred to the admission of Dissenters to the Universities. He did not know until very lately, that any numbers of the University of Cambridge had petitioned that House upon the question alluded to. He had not seen the Petition in question, nor, indeed, was he thoroughly aware of its existence until he had heard it spoken of by the noble Lord. Such being the fact, he dared not presume to impugn the motives of those who signed the petition. But if the noble Lord, upon the faith of this petition, would tell the House, that one of the Universities, namely, Cambridge, was in favour of the admission of Dissenters, he would willingly take it upon himself to get the great body of that University to disprove the assertion that they were favourable to the admission of Dissenters into the Universities. If it were at all possible, and he was very far from thinking that it was, to carry this point in concurrence with the Universities, the question would then, admitting this improbability, assume quite another shape. For this reason he thought it better for him to reserve all further observations for a future occasion, and at present say not one word more upon the point.

should not have spoken upon the subject, had it not been for one observation that had fallen from the hon. member for Boston; and he hoped that, as the House had listened to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman near him, the member for the University of Cambridge, it would also for a few minutes extend its indulgence to him, who had the honour of representing the other great University. The hon. member for Boston had said, that this was not a question of money, but one of principle; and he also stated, that the Dissenters would, by being exempted from rates, be relieved only from their share of the annual payment of 600,000l., out of which 200,000l. was employed for the repair of churches; and that, when this payment was divided among so many parishes, it could not be their wish to be merely relieved from pecuniary burthens. They must have some other object in view. No doubt they had; and he would ask the House, therefore, whether their object was not the humiliation of the Established Church, and whether they were not endeavouring to bring down that Church to the same position in which other sects were now placed? He begged to ask the House, whether they were prepared for this, and whether they wished to make a sacrifice of the union that at, present existed between Church and State? It was because the Dissenters considered that the payment of Church-rates was a recognition of the Established Church, and of its connexion with the State, that they desired to get rid of them. It was self-evident that such was their motive. He had lost the greater part of the speech of the hon. member for Exeter; indeed he had only heard a few of the last words of it, and those related to the connexion between Church and State. It seemed to him that on this point the hon. Member was in error. With respect to the admission of Dissenters into the Universities, he hoped the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) would reconsider the declaration he had made to the House respecting the feelings of one University in favour of the Dissenters. The petition from Cambridge had been made a great deal of; but he would say, that not a third of the members of that University had concurred in it. Since all must admit that two-thirds were greater than one-third, no one could say, that the petition alluded to expressed the feelings of the members of the University of Cambridge, or that that body was favourable to the admission of Dissenters. He had so frequently discussed the principle of Church-rates that he would say little more about them now, than repeat, that they were, both in Ireland as well as in this country, a tax upon property. He would ask the hon. member for Boston, whether he did not think so; and whether, when he was taking the house he at present occupied, he did not take Church-rates into the account as well as tithes, and every other species of tax upon that property? When the proposed Bill was brought before the House, he should discuss the question more fully, and at that time would not further trespass on the House.

agreed, that it would be better that such a measure should emanate spontaneously from the members of the Administration, than have the appearance of being forced upon them. He should, however, take that opportunity of recording his own conviction of the impolicy and injustice of requiring from the Dissenters the payment of Church-rates when they erected, entirely at their own cost, their own chapels, and supported their own ministers. They had, besides, rendered eminent service to the State, by affording instruction and religious consolation to a large portion of the country. He trusted, therefore, that the measure in contemplation of the Government would prove satisfactory, and give complete relief to the Dissenters.

regretted, that any objection should exist to the admission of Dissenters to the Universities. He could not conceive why they should not be allowed to participate in the benefits of these Universities, seeing they belonged to the same community. He could not forget, that there was a time when the Protestants themselves were interdicted from education in these Universities. He could not forget, that the representatives of the Universities at that period might have risen up and declared that no Protestant ought to be admitted. Happily those days had passed away, and he trusted more liberal days had arrived. He hoped much from the annunciation of the noble Lord, and ventured to anticipate, that, ere long, the Dissenters would be admitted to all those advantages without entertaining a wish to infringe on the benefits due to the Church of England. Dissenters had no wish to deprive the Church of its benefits, but at the same time they felt it hard to be excluded from the University honours, as was the case with a member of his own family, who was obliged to forego the benefits of the institution because he could not take the test necessary as a qualification. He agreed with the hon. member for Boston as to Church-rates, that the principle was the consideration, and not the amount of the money; and he hoped, therefore, the measure contemplated by the Government would not fall short of relieving the Dissenters altogether from this impost; for if it fell short of that, the Dissenters would not be satisfied. With respect to the Bill for regulating Dissenters' marriages, he had no doubt but that it originated in the best intentions; but still the Dissenters were dissatisfied with it, because they could not consent to remain upon a footing inferior to their fellow subjects, by getting from another Church a rite which they should have from their own. If the noble Lord had allowed the bans of marriage to be published in Dissenting chapels instead of in the churches of the Establishment, he thought the measure would be unobjectionable, because it was going to the Established Church to render an account of all marriages, that the Dissenters chiefly objected to. He hoped, that the objectionable parts might yet be obviated, and he believed the best wishes existed with the Government to satisfy the Dissenters; for no body of men in the kingdom had done so much service for the present Government as the Dissenters, who had consequently a right to look to Government for support. He could not consider the claim of Dissenters to burying according to their own rites in Church cemeteries as any great hardship upon the Established Church, for the Dissenters were called upon to pay their share for the ground; and it was not, therefore, unreasonable that they should be allowed to bury their dead according to their own rites. It was the wish of the Dissenters to keep up a good understanding with Ministers, and he trusted the latter would render the measure in contemplation unobjectionable.

agreed with the hon. member for Boston, that this question was one of principle, and the principle seemed to him to be this, shall there, or shall there not, be a Church Establishment? If all who dissented from its communion were to be exoncrated from contributing towards keeping up the edifices in which religious rights are celebrated according to the forms of the Established Church, on what ground could they be called upon to concur in defraying the maintenance of its Ministers? It was urged, that the Dissenters were subjected to the expense of erecting and keeping up their own places of worship: was it not equally true that they supported their own clergy? Might they not, therefore, on a similar ground, and with equal justice, claim exemption from paying any share of the incomes which the law assigned to the Episcopal incumbents of this land? He felt quite persuaded, that the one demand was only the fore-runner of the other, and would be urged with still greater force and plausibility, when the concession, now insisted on, should be made good. He considered that the property of this country, whether belonging to Dissenters or to members of the Church, had, from time immemorial, been liable to this impost, and, without at present entering further into the consideration of a subject, on which discussion had better he waived until a future opportunity, he should express his opposition to the Motion of his hon. friend, because he thought it militated, in an alarming degree, against the principle of maintaining an Established Church in this country.

thought the question one entirely of principle, for no Christian sect ought to be called on to pay for the religion of another Christian sect. It was only the principle of common sense and of common justice. He was sorry the Universities were not open to the Dissenters. In the University of Dublin they had a case in point. Catholics had admission there for some years, and Dissenters were admitted long previously; and yet the Established Church had still all their usual advantages from that institution. The exclusion from the Universities was a superfluous insult to the Protestant Dissenters. These exclusions ought to be done away with, and if the Dissenters would only act for themselves, and make use out of the House of their influence so as to show Ministers what they had to fear from them—if they would only make "a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull altogethe,"—they would obtain more than ever they could expect from their courtesy towards the present Government.

rose for the purpose of addressing a few observations to the House in reply to what had fallen from the hon. member for Leeds as to the manner in which Government had received the complaints of the Dissenters. The hon. Member said, and said truly, that the Dissenters were the warm friends and supporters of civil and religious liberty. He acknowledged with pleasure, that he had always found them ready to support principles of Liberty and aiding those who were her friends. But it would be in the recollection of the House, that when he and his noble and hon. friends were out of office, it had been their constant aim to protect the Dissenters in the enjoyment of their just rights, or assert their claim from time to time in that House to all the immunities, privileges, and liberties, enjoyed by the rest of his Majesty's subjects, and that since they had been in power they had endeavoured to realise, as far as they were able, the promises they had made, and the expectations they had held out to the great body of Protestant Dissenters. The present Ministers were the friends of the just claims of the Dissenters, because they were the friends of civil and religious liberty, and they had neither been impelled formerly in what they had done, nor were they impelled now in what they were about to do, for the relief of the Dissenters, by what the hon. and learned member for Dublin had alluded to,—namely, by the fear of menaces on the part of that body—any more than they had been, in another instance, deterred by the fear of menaces on the part of their constituents, from urging the claims and advocating the cause of that religious liberty of which the hon. and learned member for Dublin himself now enjoyed the benefit. A great portion of the Dissenters, a large portion of the people of England, were opposed to the Catholic question, but the Members of the present Government supported the Catholic claims, as they bad supported, and did support, the claims of the Dissenters, because they were both founded upon the two great and leading principles of civil and religious liberty. Their main object through life had been the advo- cacy of those principles. They were men bound together as a party for the support of those principles; out of power they had endeavoured to forward them—out of power they had succeeded in getting a great portion of the just claims of the Dissenters conceded; and now that they were in power, there surely should be no doubt and no want of confidence in them as to their bringing forward, in due time and season, the question by which the Dissenters would find, that all their claims would be satisfactorily arranged. The hon. member for Leeds had said, that the bill regarding the marriages of Dissenters had been found fault with by them, as rendering them, in some degree, subservient to the Established Church. It was unfair, on their part, to view it in such a light, and, he trusted that, on calmer consideration, they would not adhere to such an interpretation of that measure. It was not so intended—it never was framed or brought forward for such a purpose. Those who started these objections were not, he was certain, aware of the difficulties which were to be encountered by those who attempted to legislate upon a subject of so much delicacy. The objectors had referred to the case of the Quakers, who were suffered to enjoy unmolested their own forms of marriage, christening, and so forth; but they seemed to overlook the real and obvious distinction between that class of people and the great body of Protestant Dissenters. The Quakers constituted, as it were, but one family, and were numerically a small body of people, providing, within themselves, for almost all their social wants, and regulating their respective concerns with each other by a sort of domestic government. In all these respects, there was nothing in such a people that any Government had anything to dread from leaving them the privileges of marrying and christening according to their own long-established forms. It would be a widely different thing to extend those privileges to so large a portion oft he whole population as the Protestant Dissenters now formed. One obvious consequence would be, to open a fearfully wide door to imposition; for instance, it would be in the power of any one, merely by pretending that he was a Dissenter, to solemnise marriages, without any regard to the restraints which were now wisely enforced through the medium of Church regulations upon the rash formation of such solemn contracts. Indeed, the practice, in these cases, would soon be far less reputable even than that practised on the other side of the borders by persons to whom young people, escaped from their friends, resorted to contract marriages not within their power in their own country; and a man would have only to set apart a room in his house, and adopt the pretext of being a Dissenter to enable him to inflict an unlimited injury on that part of society whose simplicity and defenceless condition ought to make them the particular subjects of the law's protection. This was the view he had taken when considering what ought to be the provisions of the Marriage Bill. The House, however, would never see a termination to these evils until they had established a national registration. To be of practical utility, it was necessary that registration should be complete, embracing all classes of his Majesty's subjects, and also that it should be compulsory. Fully impressed with this idea, he was not inclined to propose an imperfect measure, nor was he disposed to press so important a matter on the attention of the Legislature without the fullest preparation being made to insure its accomplishing these great national objects. From the information procured from various quarters in reference to these subjects, he thought it was likely, after the Poor-laws were settled, they might see their way to a general national registration next year, which should embrace all classes, and include marriages, deaths, and births,—all matters of much importance to families in ascertaining kindred, and the distribution of property. He would assure the hon. member for Boston, that if he (Lord John Russell) had many years ago, in his place in that House, felt it his duty to push the just claims of the Dissenters by every argument and effort within his reach, he would not now, when he possessed some influence, display less anxiety or zeal to procure for them every possible extension of their civil and religious liberty. In giving, however, this assurance to that body, he must accompany it, by adding, that he was, at the same time, prepared to support and uphold the Church of England as by law established, convinced, as he was, by experience, that it was a national benefit, and mainly instrumental in securing the religious liberty we had so long enjoyed.

was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject under the consideration of the House; but as his Majesty's Government intended to take it up, he hoped the hon. mover was not prepared to press it with breathless haste. He hoped the assurances given to night by his noble friend would give general content and satisfaction, for the present, to the Protestant Dissenters generally. The House would see that, in following the project of Government as to the proposed general registration, they would have the whole benefit of the information, influence, and weight, that Government, and Government alone, could bring to bear on a measure of such great national interest. Instead of following an isolated measure, or the mode of legislating which had been so ruinously pursued for the last fifty years, by partial acts, to meet each particular evil that pressed on a sensitive portion of society, they should act as became grave and able legislators, and anticipate, by a great measure, the growing wants of the community. He was aware, as well as most who heard him, that if it were ever brought to issue in that House, there was a majority within those walls determined to give the Dissenters the whole of their just demands. Whatever might be the fate of any Bill intended to effect that object in the other House of Parliament, they, as the real representatives of the Dissenters and the whole population of the United Kingdom, backed, as they were, to-night, by the assurance of a Minister, who never pledged his word without an honest intention to redeem it with honour, would be sure, in the end, to prevail, and ensure to these classes of religious professors that which they were strictly entitled to in the eyes of both God and man.

rose to express his satisfaction with the assurances which had been given to the House on this subject by the noble Lord. He hailed that declaration with the utmost satisfaction, and would willingly leave the subject in the hands of his Majesty's Government. He would, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Motion.

rose to submit to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the origin and present state of a lottery purporting to be carried on under the authority of Parliament, and entitled the Glasgow Lottery, and into any other lotteries, foreign or otherwise, of which (since the legal discontinuance of lotteries) schemes, tickets, or shares, have been circulated in the United Kingdom. From the manner in which the announcement of the particular lottery to which be wished especially to call the attention of the House had been made, it had been promulgated to the community, that it was carried on under the sanction and authority of Parliament; yet not a single Member of the House was aware that he had ever given his sanction to the revival of lotteries in this country, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had himself on a former occasion declared, that he was not in any degree cognizant of any measure at all tending to sanction such a proceeding having been submitted to or passed the Legislature. The noble Lord had characterised the measure in terms so strong and so just, that he (Sir Robert Inglis) might almost rely upon that declaration as the foundation upon which to rest the present Motion. The noble Lord had characterised the transaction as connected with a fraudulent proceeding. With such a declaration, that the authority of Parliament had been fraudulently obtained, he felt satisfied that the House would think him justified in insisting upon an inquiry. The title of the Bill from which the alleged authority was derived, was completely at variance with the provisions which it established. The title was a Bill for Altering and Improving certain Streets, from the Cross of Glasgow, to Monteith-row, and in its provisions the word lottery was never mentioned. Such, however, had been the case in all bills passed for the purpose of enabling parties to dispose of property by lottery, and he would instance the Bill for disposing of the buildings in Pickett-street and Snow-bill, wherein the law affecting lotteries was specially alluded to, and a clause inserted to relieve the parties from liability to the penalties to which under the old law they would be exposed. So also in the cases of the Boydel, Tomkins, and other property, but otherwise in the present instance. He did not understand the noble Lord in his remark to attribute personal fraud to the parties who obtained the Bill, to the solicitor who had framed it, or to the contractors. Neither did he make such an accusation, but he did contend that the House, with such a Bill before it, never could have conceived it possible that such a proceeding as the Glasgow lottery was contemplated; nor did he believe such a proceeding could be warranted or sustained under the Bill. He thought, however, that though the parties might have been guilty of no fraud in bringing the Bill before the House, yet they had made themselves responsible for all that might ensue under the old law passed in the reign of Queen Anne. The great object, however, he had in view, was not so much to punish any party, however improper might have been their conduct, as to prevent a recurrence of similar measures in future. If any encouragement was given by the House to such a course of proceeding, this mode of raising money, not for the fiscal purposes of the State, but for contractors, would in twenty instances be revived and repeated in the course of next year. He had heard with regret, in the course of last week, the hon. member for Sussex, and the hon. member for the city of Dublin, urge the establishment of lotteries, not for national purposes, but to carry into effect particular objects. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had claimed a lottery in aid of a ship-canal; and another hon. Member sought for similar assistance for the completion of the Thames-tunnel. However he might look with anxiety for the complete termination of the latter undertaking, yet he should object to recourse being had to such suspicious aid as that to be derived from the revival of lotteries—a system of raising money which had ceased even for fiscal purposes, and ought not to be renewed in aid of the shareholders in a tunnel or a canal at the expense of increasing a spirit for gambling, which was at once destructive of the morals of the people, and injurious to the best interests and resources of the nation. There had been transmitted to him from Ireland a circular letter, bearing the signature of the hon. member for Leominster, in which that hon. Gentleman lamented that lotteries were not more prevalent in this country. He entertained no such feelings of regret, but, on the contrary, he maintained, that if the Government entertained such a principle, instead of being (as it ought to be) the guardian, it would become the corruptor of the public morals. He had first called the attention of the House to this subject in the month of April, 1833, when the announcement of only one lottery had been made, but had not followed it up, under the perfect conviction that the whole business would be closed with that single transaction, and that therefore it would be unnecessary for Parliament again to interfere. Besides this, an appeal ad miscricordiam had been made, and it had been represented that any parliamentary interference would he ruinous in its effects to many individuals. This information, coupled with the feeling that the evil would soon cease, had induced him not to revive the matter. But no sooner was the Parliament prorogued than new advertisements appeared, announcing a second lottery; and the House need not be reminded that a third was now about to be proceeded with. He had been informed by a gentleman who had authorized him to state his name if required by the House, that if Parliament had interposed before the second drawing, the contractors would have suffered no loss, as the contract was not completed; but now, from the implied sanction of the Legislature, consequent on its not having interposed, a third lottery had been determined upon and announced. He had stated sufficient ground he thought to induce the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the House, to accede to his Motion for inquiry: indeed, he did not anticipate any opposition from more than one hon. Member. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee in the terms already stated.

said, that upon a subject so immediately referring to Scotland, where lotteries were so generally deprecated, he felt it his duty to second the Motion of the hon. Baronet. He had himself much regretted to hear propositions suggested to the House for the revival of lotteries, for the advancement of either public or private works. Rather than see such a course adopted he should hope that measures would be taken by the Legislature to prevent any participation by the people of this country even in foreign lotteries.

said, that as his character had been in some degree involved in the question before the House, he begged to state that he knew no more of the Bill which had been alluded to than did the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair. He stood merely in the situation of one of the lottery-office keepers of the metropolis, and though it might be conceived he was implicated in the expression of the noble Lord opposite, that the Bill had been fraudulently obtained, he must disclaim all knowledge of the measure, which was introduced and passed before he had the honour of a seat in the House. It appeared that the Bill received the Royal Assent on the 30th of July, 1831, and it was not until the month of February following, that any person connected with lotteries knew that such an object could be effected by its provisions. It was not until six months after the passing of the Bill that he heard from Glasgow that such a lottery was to be disposed of, and he was just as much surprised when he learned that lotteries were to come up again, as if he had been informed that St. Paul's-church had walked to Tower-hill. He hesitated not to declare, that the conduct of the lottery-office-keepers in the transaction would bear the fullest and strictest investigation. To that investigation he was ready to give every facility in his power, and had even communicated to the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, his perfect willingness to second the Motion for an inquiry. He had hoped that the hon. Baronet would have pursued the usual courtesy in such cases practised by hon. Members, by informing him (Mr. Bish) of his intention to bring forward the subject twelve days subsequent to the first drawing, so that he might have been in his place upon the occasion. The next occasion on which the subject was brought under the consideration of the House, was on the presentation of a petition from some gentleman, complaining that he had purchased a sixteenth share which had come up a blank. He (Mr. Bish) was not present on that occasion, the petition having been presented at the morning sitting, at a time when he was engaged upon the Warwick Election Committee. The next thing that he had heard of the matter was, an allusion made to it by the hon. member for Bridport. It was then postponed, though several gentleman had come up from Glasgow, and other long distances, for the purpose of meeting the investigation, from which he had never shrunk, feeling satisfied that the office-keepers and those with whom he was concerned would come off with honour to themselves, and with satisfaction to the country at large. In answer to the allegation, that the Bill was smuggled through the House, he begged to state, that no Bill had been subjected to closer scrutiny. The alleged smugglers of the Bill in the first instance were, Mr. Monteith and Mr. Archibald Campbell—gentlemen holding the highest character of honour and integrity in that part of the country. The Bill went regularly through every stage, and was all but out of the House when Parliament was dissolved, in consequence of the result of General Gascoyne's Motion. In the succeeding Session it had been introduced by Mr. Dixon and Sir Michael Stewart. He was himself a very humble individual, perhaps the most humble individual in that House; but then he was a Member of Parliament, thanks to his constituents at Leominster; and he thought that the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, had not treated him with the courtesy due from one Member to another. The hon. Baronet had forfeited his word, at least he had written to him on one occasion to say, that he would bring this question forward at a particular time, which he did not. The hon. Baronet had, in the course of his speech, said something about the Thames Tunnel as well as lotteries in general. He must acknowledge that he was favourable to lotteries, and as the House had lost 4,000,000l. by abolishing lotteries, he thought they ought to have some good reason for it. They had, however, confounded the illegality with the legal part of a lottery. They might as well say, that a newspaper was bad, because a scurrilous article occasionally appeared in it; or that religion was a bad thing because we had some times profligate parsons. But to return to the Thames Tunnel. He had the opportunity of knowing that many persons of the highest distinction approved of its plan, and were desirous of seeing it completed. The Duke of Wellington had signified his admiration of the undertaking; and he had no doubt that, if it had not been for the change of the Government, that it would have been completed. By lotteries 4,000,000l. had been lost to the country, as he had said before; he thought he had as good a sense of morality as the hon. member for Oxford, but though we had lost 4,000,000l. of revenue, we had not gained four pennyworth of morality, by doing away with lotteries. There was less gambling in a lottery than in any Bill that was brought into Parliament. All he saw around him were gamblers; all men were gamblers; and he could not help, on that point, reading to the House the opinion of Mr. Jefferson, not long since President of the United States. Mr. Jefferson said,—'If we consider games of chance immoral, then every pursuit of human industry is immoral, for there is not a single one that is not subject to chance; not one wherein you do not risk a loss for the chance of some gain. The navigator, for example, risks his ship in the hope (if she be not lost in the voyage) of gaining an advantageous freight. The merchant risks his cargo to gain a better price for it. A landholder builds a house on the risk of indemnifying himself by a rent. The hunter hazards his time and trouble in the hope of killing game. In all these pursuits you stake some one thing against another, which you hope to win. But the greatest of all gamblers is the farmer. He risks the seed that he puts into the ground—the rent he pays for the ground itself—the year's labour on it, and the wear and tear of his cattle and gear, to win a crop, which the chance of too much or too little rain, and the general uncertainty of weather, insects, waste, &c., often make a partial or total loss. These then are games of chances, yet so far from being immoral, they are indispensable to the existence of man.' In America, lotteries were employed to build chapels, to found seminaries, to clear swamps; thus promoting the benefit of the country, the benefit of towns, and the comfort of religious congregations. He dared say, that those people had as good a chance of going to Heaven, as if they went regularly to a parliamentary-built church.

said, that the hon. Member had accused him of violating his word. With respect to the engagement which he contracted with the hon. Member, having thought that something of this kind would probably come before the House, he had come down with copies of the correspondence which passed between himself and the hon. Member on the subject. The hon. Baronet read the extract of a letter, to show that he had only bound himself not to originate the question at a particular time, but that he put in his claim to be heard at a future time.

did not know who had committed the offence, but all that the hon. member for Oxford had to do was, to substantiate the fact that an offence had been committed. It appeared, however, to him, that the House would trench upon the province of the Law-officers of the Crown if it proceeded to examine into this point. Lotteries by the common law were illegal, and therefore required a distinct Act of Parliament to make it lawful to engage in a lottery. But this was also illegal by Act of Parliament, and he would refer, to prove his assertion, to the wording of the Act itself. The hon. Member quoted the Act to show, that it only authorized the dividing the property into lots. Under these circumstances, he should vote with the hon. member for Oxford.

would not have mentioned in that place anything that had come to his knowledge in a private capacity relative to Mr. Monteith; but having a place which brought no emolument with it whatever, that of one of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners, he had occasion to meet the gentlemen who conducted the undertaking. Now, this gentleman, with one or two others, had come forward as guarantees to the Government for the repayment of an advance of Exchequer-bills. Now he thought that in this fact there was a good reason for his hon. friend's persisting in his Motion. As Shakspeare, who was a player, had said "All the world's a stage," so the hon. member for Leominster said "All the world's a lottery." As to the morality of lotteries, hon. Gentlemen should recollect the times when lotteries existed, to be able to form a judgment upon it. These held out a temptation to servants, and persons of small means, to invest their little savings in the purchase of a share of a lottery-ticket, instead of laying them up in a savings-bank. With regard to the question before the House, he thought facts enough had been adduced to show that inquiry ought to be made. Before he sat down he must observe that he had heard, shortly after the Bill was passed, that a lottery was to grow out of it; and he warned a gentleman who, from being connected with the Government, might have an influence over the promoters of the Bill, to take care that no lottery was established.

said, it was impossible for the Government to guard against the manner in which a money lottery had been grafted on this Bill. He had had occasion to refer to the papers connected with the subject that morning; and, if the Motion were agreed to, they might be laid before the Committee. The individuals who had carried the Bill through the House had dealt with it as a mode of disposing of property by lot among purchasers; but the Government had never contemplated conferring on them a power of ingrafting money obligations, and money prizes, on the scheme. He believed that all the inconvenience which had arisen had sprung from a matter which was not at the time in the contemplation of those who had promoted the Bill.

said, that an inquiry ought to take place. It was proper to inquire if the Act was improperly obtained, or if the clause was improperly introduced. If money were taken in this way out of the pockets of the people, it would be a species of State swindling. That money, if wanted for State exigences, might be drawn from their pockets by a direct tax.

said, he should not object to the Motion.

had read the Act with great attention before any notice had been taken of the power it gave, and he saw nothing about a lottery in it. The Law-officers of the Crown were certainly quite blameless in allowing the Bill to pass, but the best way to acquire information on the subject was to look at the Act itself. This, besides giving the power to divide the property into 3,000 shares, permitted that an unlimited number of additional shares should be created, when the original shares were hardly worth anything, and permitted the decision of everything relating to the shares to depend upon the shareholders, whose vote was to be final. As to the immorality of a lottery, to be sure as a species of gaining it was immoral, but he did not really mean to preach sermons in that House. What was stock-jobbing?—was that not gaming? There were many individuals who made their fortunes by a good lie. The fluctuation of a-half per cent. made many wealthy men. The rumours of a war—a bloody insurrection—might place a man in possession of a large estate. But on this point conscience was seared. Should, however, such a thing as a lottery come before the House, hon. Members would move heaven and—worse regions, to put down the abomination. He did not know after all, whether, if a great public measure was to be promoted by a lottery, such iniquity attached to it as some hon. Members seemed to suppose. In his opinion, with great deference to those who dissented from his view of the case, as Parliament had allowed a lottery to be created, it ought not now to interfere; but if they objected to lotteries, why they need not allow them in future to be established.

observed, that, when gambling was going on to such an extent as it notoriously was amongst the higher classes, it rather appeared to him that the House would be straining at the gnat after having swallowed the camel, if it should now exercise its power to put an end to this Glasgow lottery, the more especially as it was well known that tickets in any of the foreign lotteries might be obtained by persons who were so disposed. He contended that it would be unjust to put an immediate end to a speculation in which so many persons held shares. He begged to assure the House he was not of the number: he had no ticket.

took occasion to remark that he should not oppose the nomination of Mr. Bish on the Committee, although he had abstained from putting down his name, as by his own statement it appeared that he was a contractor. It would be most likely that the Committee would be happy to avail themselves of Mr. Bish's evidence as a witness.

, in rising to move for "a Select Committee to consider the present state of the Law of Libel, and to report their opinion to the House," said, that in bringing under the consideration of the House a subject of no common importance, he begged to have it understood at the outset, that he was not about to indulge in any fanciful theory of his own, with respect to the Law of Libel or propose any extensive alterations of the law. He was only anxious to have the question fairly brought before the House, and to have such changes as might be deemed necessary or expedient made with the advice and by the assistance of a Select Committee. The start- ling incongruities of the present Law of Libel had been long felt and acknowledged. The subject had frequently been made a matter of complaint, but never yet of inquiry, in any way which could lead to the effect of a sound practical Reform of existing errors and abuses. In the existing Law of Libel there were many matters of grievance affecting all persons connected with the public Press. All classes of his Majesty's subjects indeed were liable to be affected by the operation of this law; but such was the state of society now-a-days, that in considering this question, the House might almost exclusively direct its attention to those individuals engaged in our periodical publications. Those persons very frequently had occasion to feel the inconvenience and injustice of this law. In the first place, there was the penal nature of the law as affecting publications. A man, after a decision in the case had been made, was declared to be guilty, although he might have committed no moral offence which would justify the application of the term. Undoubtedly an author might fairly and properly be declared to be guilty if he violated the principles of fair discussion. That no man could dispute. In like manner so might the publisher who, either in his own person, or by his agents, or from want of due care, gave circulation to libellous matter. The interest of the public required that the man should be held responsible for what he published. But the law as it stood involved all parties in the guilt who might be concerned in the publication, albeit they might be perfectly unacquainted with the libellous, matter. Now this, decidedly, was a grievance, and occasionally worked great injustice. The question, however, was, how was this to be remedied? The Committee would have to inquire whether, consistently with safety to the public, and with security to private character, an alteration in the operation of the law, with respect to such parties as were not cognizant of the libellous matter, might not be made. The subject was full of difficulty, and would merit the most patient consideration, for it was evident, that if one man might sell a publication, and not be held in any way responsible for its contents, means would be afforded by which libels might easily be circulated, and all parties concerned, the author and the conscious publisher included, would escape punishment. This was a course obviously unsafe. But was there not some middle course? Might not there be some such expedient as this made use of—might they not do away with the extreme severity and unfairness of the law by declaring that the simple act of publishing, or assisting in the publication, should not constitute a crime, but that it should be further necessary that the prosecutor should bring some proof of knowledge of the publication upon the part of the accused, or of malice in some shape or form? Perhaps if some distinction of this kind were drawn, the ignorant and the innocent might be suffered to escape untouched by the law, while the original author and the conscious publisher would be still exposed to punishment. This would be one subject to which the serious consideration of the Committee might be advantageously given. Another subject of complaint was, that authors and publishers were subjected to much hardship from the want of a good definition of the Law of Libel. To restrict libel within narrow limits would be to foster and encourage the circulation of libellous matter. If, however, they made the definition very large, it would subject those connected with the periodical press to infinite inconvenience, and manifold hardships and injuries. Learned Judges had described a libel as anything that might prove injurious to the feelings of any man. This was manifestly absurd. If it were held to be correct, no author could be for a moment safe in writing or publishing. There was, accordingly, extreme difficulty in furnishing a definition of libel in the abstract, and this was a part of the subject which he thought well worthy the consideration of the Committee. The subject had indeed been often discussed out of doors, but it was only a Committee such as he proposed which could come to any safe and judicious decision on the subject. He could not be expected in the present instance to go into all the details to which, no doubt, the Committee might beneficially address themselves. There was one point, however, to which he felt it necessary to refer particularly; it was one of the most important which could possibly come under their consideration. He meant in what manner, how, and to what extent, the truth of the libel should be brought under the consideration of the Jury, whether in criminal or civil proceedings. As the law stood in criminal proceedings, the truth of the libel could not be taken into consideration at all, while, in civil cases, the allegation of truth could be brought forward, and if it were proved, was conclusive. Now, he thought there was error on both sides. In the first case, malice was implied from the libel, and certainly therefore, the consideration of truth or falsehood, as a matter of palliation, should not altogether be excluded. He was not prepared to say to what extent it would be well to admit the consideration of the truth of the libel; he did not know how far it would be advisable in criminal proceedings for attempts to destroy private character to admit the truth as a palliation, much less a justification of the libel. It was difficult to go to the extent, that every man had a right to publish anything of any body, provided only it were true. It had been suggested, that some such rule as this should be established—that if the publication charged as libellous should be proved to be true, that should be an answer to the implied malice. As the law at present stood, a libel carried with it the imputation of malice. It was vain for a defendant to prove the truth of the publication, and that he never entertained a suspicion that it contained libellous matter. It a man maliciously published that which was not true of another person, it was fit that he should be punished for so doing. In many cases it might, not be right to publish matter which was true, but it never could be justifiable to publish what was not true. Some such rule as that which he had adverted to might possibly be adopted, and it was a point worthy of inquiry. At present he was inclined to think, that if a Jury should find that a defendant had published a libel innocently—that was to say for a good purpose, or without express malice—the evidence of the truth of the publication should protect him from the implied malice. In proceeding by simple action, the consequences resulting from the present law were really absurd. If the defendant could succeed in proving the libel to be true, no matter how injurious or cruel it might be, or how malicious soever the motives might be which prompted its publication, the person libelled could obtain no redress. Was it right that a person who had sustained the most serious injury to which he could be exposed—namely, the loss of his character—should be unable to obtain redress, because the fact which had been published, and which perhaps had occurred at an early period of life, and under circumstances which palliated its apparent enormity, could be proved to be true? He would mention two circumstances which would prove the inconveniences of the existing law, as regarded both criminal proceedings and those by simple action. Not long since a person was criminally indicted for publishing a libel which alleged that a certain individual had been convicted of forgery in France. The proceedings of the French court by which the prosecutor had been condemned to the galleys were produced, and the defendant's counsel was very anxious that they should be read in evidence, but the Judge of course refused to permit that to be done. Now, this was a case in which it might have been not only excusable, but laudable to have published the fact of the prosecutor having committed forgery. Suppose the individual had been about to obtain a situation as confidential agent to a company in which want of integrity on the part of the individual holding it would have been the greatest misfortune that could happen to the proprietors, the publication of the fact of his previous misconduct would have been a useful and laudable act. Was it then, he asked, a wholesome state of law which would compel a Jury to find a verdict of guilty in such a case? At all events, it must be admitted that this was a point which ought to be inquired into; and therefore he proposed that it should become the subject of investigation by the Committee, if the House should think proper to appoint one. He would next mention a case which would strikingly exemplify the inconvenience of the Libel-law as regarded proceedings by civil action. The transaction to which he was about to refer occurred ninny years ago, but it had made a deep impression on his mind at the time, and, therefore, he had no doubt that he should be able to state the circumstances connected with it correctly. A young woman had, in early life, been seduced by a man of title; but after living with him for a certain time she became ashamed of the course of life she was pursuing, and taking the opportunity of escaping from it, she retired into a distant part of the country, where her seducer was unable to discover her. She obtained a situation, in which she conducted herself with so much propriety that she not only gained the good-will of her employers, but was appointed to a responsible situation in a public establishment. Some years after, her seducer discovered the place of her retreat; and having in vain made proposals for the renewal of their intercourse, he hit upon the expedient of depriving her of the means of subsistence, thinking that he should then succeed in his attempt to possess himself again of her person. He, therefore, published in the town where she resided the history of her early life. The consequence was, that the unfortunate woman lost the esteem of the friends whom her subsequent good conduct had procured her, and she was deprived of the appointment by means of which she obtained her livelihood. Was not this woman entitled to compensation? Yet, if she had brought an action against her persecutor, he would have justified, and she would have been turned out of court, with the aggravation to her misfortune of having incurred a useless expense. Was it fit that the law should remain in such a state? There was another point to which it was important that the attention of the Committee should be directed. Much had been said on the subject of ex-officio informations; and it must be admitted, that the power which the Law Officers of the Crown exercised on this point might be perverted to bad as well as used for good purposes. It would be for the Committee to inquire whether this power could be altogether abolished; but his own opinion was, that it would not be safe to prevent the Law Officers from having recourse to it in certain cases. It was possible, however, that some arrangement might be devised by which the subjects might be protected against any hardship in this mode of proceeding. Perhaps the course which was pursued in Ireland might be adopted in this country with advantage. In Ireland it was the practice, he understood, for the Attorney-General to call the parties before him previously to filing an information, which afforded an opportunity for explanation of the circumstances under which the publication had taken place. This practice also operated as a protection against the adoption of proceedings by the Attorney-General without due consideration. There was another course of proceeding which had been the subject of much animadversion; and he was rather surprised at that circumstance, because, as it was administered in this country, it was less objectionable than any other mode of criminal proceeding—he alluded to criminal informations granted by the Court. In such a case the defendant had this peculiar protection, that the Court would not grant the information unless the prosecutor was able to negative the truth of the libel, and thus the prosecutor was deprived of the advantage which he would obtain by proceeding by indictment. Another advantage attending this mode of proceeding was, that the Court having all the circumstances of the case before it, could interpose its advice, and probably terminate the dispute without the case proceeding to trial. No person who reflected on the subject for a moment could doubt, that it was much more easy to get a Grand Jury to return a Bill than it was to prevail upon the Court to grant an information. The Grand Jury examined only the prosecutor's witnesses, but the Court of King's Bench compelled the prosecutor to negative the truth of the libel before it would grant an information. Another point to which it was desirable the attention of the Committee should be applied, was the construction which Judges had put upon Mr. Fox's Act. That Act constituted the Jury the Judges of the law as well as of the fact, and yet, until latterly, when the practice had somewhat altered, the Judges seemed to think that they had a right to perform the duty which the law imposed upon Jurymen. In early life he had frequently heard Judges tell Juries they were bound to state that in their opinion the publications which formed the subjects of prosecution were gross and scandalous libels. If any doubt existed in the minds of those learned persons as to the construction of Mr. Fox's Act, it was advisable that it should be set at rest by some enactment. of the Legislature. There was another Act, the 60th of Geo. 3rd.—one of the Six Acts—which also required consideration. By that Act a very severe penalty was indicted upon a second offence, and as the law now stood, it was probable that the consequences of the second conviction would fall on the innocent party. He hoped that an alteration might be made upon this point without being productive of any danger. The Committee might also take into consideration another provision of the same Act, which authorized the seizing of copies of the publication in the possession of the defendant after conviction of libel. It might not, perhaps, be considered unjust to prevent the circulation of what a Jury had declared to be libellous, but it would be the duty of the Committee to suggest some plan by which the exercise of the power in question should be attended with as little danger as possible to the rights of present slate of the law as regarded property. The points to which he had adverted, were those which bore upon persons engaged in printing awl publishing, but it must not be supposed that the inconveniences of the law were all on one side. Experience proved, that, in many instances, the law was insufficient to afford protection to the public, or to private individuals. Great difficulty was at present experienced in getting at the parties who ought to be responsible for libels. The writer of the libel was unknown, and some nominal and fictitious party was put forward to bear the responsibility. This was a grievance, not only to the party libelled and the public, but also to the respectable part of the Press—to those persons who intended honestly and honourably to discharge the duties of the profession to which they belonged. If, by inadvertence, one of the latter description of persons should admit libellous matter into his publication, he must abide the consequences; but, in the other case, the publishers of the libels enjoyed impunity. Some plan might, perhaps, be devised to provide greater security for the punishment of persons engaged in the habitual publication of libels. At present the person who was proceeded against was usually either abroad or in prison. It might not be an easy nuttier to place this part of time Libel-law on a more equitable footing, consistently with the rights of all parties concerned, and with that freedom of discussion for good purposes which no suggestion of his should ever tend to abridge; but he trusted, that the Committee would attempt to effect such a desirable object. He wished it to be understood that he was anxious to leave to those who were usefully carrying on the profession of writing, printing, and publishing, the utmost freedom of discussion, from which the country had derived such great benefit, whilst he would deprive another class of the power of covertly libelling their fellow-subjects without being responsible for their proceedings. He would briefly advert to another point connected with the present state of the Law of Libel—namely, the Stamp-duty on publications. The parties who evaded the law regarding Stamps, found a ready means of circulating libels, and he was bound to say, that libellous matter, at present, was principally found in unstamped publications. It would be for the Committee to consider whether the present state of the law as regarded stamps on publications did not tend to encourage licentiousness, and whether it would not be proper to put all parties on a level. Although the notice which he had given was limited to the Law of Libel, it was obvious, that it would be necessary for the Committee to take into consideration the state of the law respecting slander, than, which it was scarcely possible to conceive anything more absurd. In looking over the catalogue of words which were slanderous, no reason appeared for their insertion, except that they had been decided to be slanderous. Why should an affirmation be slanderous in the City of London, and not slanderous out of the city? Yet such was the state of the law. He had been anxious not to detain the House longer than was necessary, and, therefore, he had very briefly adverted to several points which he thought would properly become the subjects of investigation before the Committee, from whose labours he sincerely thought that much good would result, not only to those who were engaged in printing and publishing, but to the public at large, for whilst he was desirous of protecting the utmost freedom of discussion within the limits in which it could be safely permitted, he was at the same time desirous of repressing that most odious system of persons obtaining their subsistence by the injury and pain which they inflicted on others. Whatever might be said as to the necessity of allowing the utmost latitude for the discussion of political affairs, there was no Member of that House who did not look with abhorrence on the system of private libels. At present it was always imputed to a man who proceeded against a libeller by a simple action that he did so for the sake of obtaining compensation, and, therefore, persons were forced, as it were, to proceed criminally, and then they laboured under this disadvantage—that they might come out of Court with verdicts in their favour, but with all the world believing the libels which they had prosecuted. He concluded by moving that "a Committee be appointed to consider the present state of the Law as regards Libel and Slander."

did not rise to object to the Motion, on the contrary, he was glad that this most important subject was to be brought under the consideration of a Committee for deliberate consideration. If the Motion he had made, and the Bill he had introduced upon the subject, and which had been for some time before the House, had acted in any degree (he did not mean to say it did) as a stimulus to the Government, he should certainly feel proud that he had made an effort so far successful as to induce Ministers to take up a subject of such deep and important interest. From the very clear and able statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, one thing, at least, was fully and satisfactorily proved—that nothing could be more frightful than the present Law of Libel. It was, indeed, a most atrocious law, whether they regarded its fiscal arrangements, the judicial interpretation put upon Statutes, or the want of definition of what constituted a libel. It was a late that was almost unendurable, and, indeed, that would not be endurable at all if it were not that its very atrocity prevented men froth having recourse to it for redress. No man thought of having recourse to the Libel-law in vindication of his character, and thus it was, that the very severity of the law enabled persons to violate it with the most perfect impunity, and the dissemination of libels became a source of uninterrupted emolument. That was the necessary result of such a law. The hon. Gentleman had fully and very accurately stated the defects of the law, but he had held out but little consolation in the hope of improvement. The mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be more anxious for the repression of slander (an object sufficiently desirable in itself) than for the establishment of free discussion. That appeared to be the leading idea in the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind; and he (Mr. O'Connell) regretted, that he had not given more attention to the important question of establishing the right of free discussion. It was of the last importance that the conduct of public servants should be open to fair and impartial examination, and this he thought should have occupied the principal portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention. The publication of falsehood should be punished, as should also the publication of truth in some cases, though very rarely, The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the prosecution of persons engaged in publication; but he had forgotten that these persons—to news venders he (Mr. O'Connell) alluded, for it was obvious that to this class of persons the hon. Member referred—were seldom prosecuted. Recourse was generally had to an action for damages, and one farthing damages generally carried from 100l. to 200l. costs. For that evil the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested no remedy. There was no remedy, in fact, unless they regulated the actions brought; and the only way of doing this effectually was to lay it down as a general principle, that for the prevention of frivolous prosecutions, they would inflict the costs on the party instituting them. This appeared to him to be the only means at their command for the solution of the difficulty of discouraging frivolous and improper actions, and, at the same time, of protecting the honest against the circulation of libels. The hon. and learned Gentleman had addressed himself to that definition of the subject—the Law of Libel—and he (Mr. O'Connell) must express his regret at the mode in which it had been treated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. They had an admission that nothing was more vague than the definition given at present, viz., that anything was a libel that one person might write which might hurt the feelings of anybody else. Nothing could be more vague; so absurd was it, indeed, that it was astonishing it was the law. True or false, if a publication hurt a man's feelings, it was a libel. Here we were, living in civilized society, yet crime amongst us was so uncertain in its nature, as to be comprised in these general terms. We had a definition of an offence, that definition having, in fact, very little meaning in it; or rather, he might say, that it meant everything, because there was nothing precise in it that would give ns time least knowledge of the law. Considered in the abstract, such a state of the law was surprising. But what remedy did the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest? None at all. He did not hear the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest a word to bring libels within the category of crime. Everything else in the way of offence was distinct and defined; then why not apply the principle to libel? He would tell them why. This law had been an instrument in the hands of the Courts of Law from the time of the Star Chamber to the present moment, which they never failed to use against any one who had the audacity to attack men at the head of affairs, and against whom no other means existed of arraying public opinion. There was, he apprehended, no better elucidation of the fact to be given than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to Fox's Bill. It was manifestly the intention of the Legislature, in passing that Bill, that the Judges should not interpose their opinion as to what constituted libel at all. Yet he had heard a Judge go this length—"You have a right to decide; you decide on oath; I am sworn as well as you; I have a right to give my opinion, and I tell you on my oath that this is a libel." Fox's Act had enabled the Judges to take this course. He mentioned this fact to show them how unsafe it was to leave the Libel-law in the hands or the Judges; and how necessary it was for the Legislature to confine the Libel-law within definite bounds. He would have punished as a libel anything that could be properly so considered; but as to public matters, why not leave them to be discussed as angrily as the party pleased, and as violently as they pleased? People ought to be allowed to attack anything in the abstract, and ought to be restricted only when the attack was personal. He had been thirty years in his profession, and he now declared, that he did not know what libel was. But what slander was, he thought he knew well enough—that had a definition. Slander was anything which charged any crime whatever. Why not make the Law of Libel depend on a similar principle? Why not define it to be anything which, being published, charged a man with crime? Adding, as in a case of slander, anything which charged a man in trade, or other employment, with incapacity, that was calculated to injure him therein, a similar principle being applied to persons in civil, naval, or military employment. The hon. and learned Gentleman considered it would be monstrous to allow the truth to be a justification in every case; was it not equally monstrous for the truth to be no justification in any case? He would not recommend that it should be a complete vindication in every case, but let its proof have its due weight with the Jury. In the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded, it would prove a serious aggravation of the crime, He (Mr. O'Connell) decidedly objected to criminal informations. By this process they tried the facts by the affidavits of the parties interested, which was a direct encouragement to perjury. The Judge, instead of making the rule absolute on the trial, might just as well at once proceed to pass sentence; because the only question that remained for the Jury to try was, simply whether the publication had ever taken place. It was next to impossible that Juries could acquit in cases of criminal information, the event being decided as to the publication being libellous. Such a system was replete with the greatest and contradictory to the first principles on which jurisprudence should be founded. As to ex-officio informations in the present day, with the multiplication of Sessions to sittings in Term, they were quite unnecessary. Proceedings, when indispensable, ought to be instituted before Grand Jurors, and the Crown-lawyers should be deprived of the power which ex-officios gave them, of torturing whom they pleased. A reference had been made to the practice in Ireland. That practice, however, could not be said to exist. An attempt had been made by one Attorney-General to introduce it, but without success. The citing of parties before such an authority, was considered to be a hint to them that they were to go to make terms with the Attorney-General; when, if they were sufficiently abject in their apologies and general deportment, they stood some chance of escaping any further prosecution. He repeated, that the only way of putting a stop to frivolous and vexatious actions, was by allowing the costs to be given against the plaintiffs in certain cases. He hoped, that the Committee which was to be appointed would not be composed of individuals who all thought in one way on the subject.

would not then go at any length into the subject, but there were one or two points to which he felt it right to advert. One of the greatest evils of the present law was its uncertainty, and that was the defect first to be remedied. On the subject of ex-officio informations, he could not at all agree with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. He certainly did not regard them as interwoven with the Constitution. Sir M. Hale distinctly said, that they were bad, and must fall; and the Committee, of which Lord Somers was a member, had used similar language. The present arrangement with respect to costs was extremely bad; and he decidedly thought the plan proposed in the Bill of the hon. and learned member for Dublin worthy of the best consideration. He was ready to give the hon. and learned Solicitor-General every praise for taking up the subject, and he trusted and believed the result of the Committee would be such a plan for the improvement of the law as would give general satisfaction.

approved of the spirit in which his hon. and learned friend (the Solicitor-General) had taken up the question, which he regarded as one of the utmost importance. The present state of the law was most unsatisfactory, but he would, on that occasion, content himself with expressing his readiness to render any assistance he could in the proposed inquiry.

trusted the Solicitor-General would reconsider his opinions with respect to criminal informations. They were in his view a most unsatisfactory mode of proceeding. To prove that, he would mention a case. A magistrate had been charged with punishing with undue and, indeed, cruel severity, three little children for stealing vegetables. Well, the fact was, the Magistrate had punished but two little children, and therefore, he made an affidavit that the charge was untrue, and obtained a criminal information, although the charge was substantially true.

thought, that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General having stated what were his views and opinions, might as well have brought in a Bill at once, instead of delaying a measure for the redress of the existing grievances, by referring the matter to a Committee. He would be glad to know what, in the opinion of the hon. and learned gentleman, constituted libel in a public case? It was well known that in State prosecutions the truth of an alleged libel could not be given in evidence. In cases of private libel, it was right and just that the Jury should have the privilege of determining whether the matter was maliciously intended, and to decide upon the motive; but in public cases, he (Mr. Sheil) was of opinion, that truth should, in every instance, be considered a complete justification. The conduct of Ministers, if canvassed only as to their public proceedings, and avoiding everything of a private nature, should be open to the fullest animadversion, and in all remarks concerning them the truth ought to be admitted in justification. The hon. and learned Solicitor-General had not given any sufficient or satisfactory reason why the form of ex-officio informations should still be adhered to. It made too great a distinction between cases of public and private libel to allow the Attorney-General to file his informations at once. In private cases there was some substitute for the power of a Grand Jury, but continuing the right of filing ex-officio informations, prevented such substitute in cases of public libel.

said, that his hon. and learned friend (the Solicitor-General) had not stated any fixed opinion as to any intended alteration of the law. He had called the attention of the House to the defects of the law generally without pointing out particular remedies. He had admitted that there was no definition of libel, and marked it as one defect in the law, but without pointing out what the definition should be. All he had insisted on was, that on this, as well as on many other points, they ought to go into an inquiry. As to ex-officio informations, he (Lord Althorp) owned, that he was not partial to them; but at the same time he thought the Government should not be without the power of filing them. The hon. and learned member for Tipperary (Mr. Sheil) seemed to think that these informations provided no substitute for the intervention of a Grand Jury. He thought they did. In the first place, it was not at all probable that any ex-officio information would be laid, except in cases in which a Grand Jury would have no difficulty in finding a Bill if it were laid before them; though for many reasons it might, in some cases, be advisable to lay the information rather than go before a Grand Jury with a Bill. Then it should be considered that no such information could be laid except on the responsibility of the advisers of the Crown, and that in itself was a substitute for the intervention of a Grand Jury. He would not admit, that this was so good a substitute, speaking generally, as that in the case of criminal informations for private libels; but still, though not partial to its use, he repeated, that, he thought it was a power which the Crown ought not to be deprived of. With respect to cases of libel against public men for their public conduct, he should say, that in almost every case the truth of the allegation ought to be allowed to be given in evidence, but still he could cite an instance in which such a course would not meet the justice of the case. In the last war a writer, at a time when an expedition was in preparation, stated with reference to the transports used for conveying troops in a former expedition, that they were not seaworthy. That was the fact; yet, when the circumstances were considered that another expedition was in preparation, and that the object of the writer was to excite a mutiny in the troops about to be sent out, no one could doubt that allowing the party to prove the former fact would be no good justification. This would show, that truth in every case even of public libel would not be a good justification, though he admitted that in general it ought to be allowed in public cases. The great difficulty was to say what was a public and what a private libel. He knew, that it was actionable to say, that a man was unfit for his station or business in private life; but he did not think it ought to be a libel, to say that a public man was not fit for the office he held, yet he knew, as the law now stood, the contrary opinion was held. In the case which had been mentioned by an hon. Member on a former evening, respecting Lord Hardwicke, of whom it had been said, that he was rather famous for breeding cattle and sheep, than for the law,—now he should not consider any such charge if brought against him a libel at all. This showed the difficulty, as the law stood, of saying what was libel and what was not, and showed the necessity of an inquiry on the subject, and in the propriety of that inquiry he fully concurred.

rose to bring forward his promised Motion for a further inquiry into the proceedings at the general election for the city of Coventry, in 1832. He had been for some time anxious to bring this subject forward at an earlier period of the evening, but he had found it impossible to do so. His notice was of long standing, and he had received the assurance of the right hon. the Secretary-at-War, that he would concur in any measure which would protect the people of Coventry from such riotous proceedings as took place at the elections for that city. In order to bring the matter more immediately under the consideration of the House, it became necessary that he should read a portion of the evidence taken before the Committee on the recent inquiry. He was the more desirous to do this as, upon inquiry, it might turn out, that the Attorney-General should be directed to prosecute the ringleaders in the desperate outrages which took place at the election of 1832. One witness stated, that there was a mob of at least 2,000 persons, who had been hired in the neighbourhood of the city for the express purpose of acting as bullies at the Coventry election, and that they were paid no less a sum than 5s. per day each. The chief leader and director of this band of rioters, was a person named Richard Randall, under whom they committed the most atrocious outrages upon the voters opposed to them; outrages which he trusted, that House would visit with the most exemplary punishment. By this Richard Randall the mob were hired, paid, directed, and led on. On a signal from him, which was usually given by raising or thrusting forward his arms, they rushed or "fell on" indiscriminately upon all opposed to them. And, to use the words of one of the witnesses, they were "to beat the electors soundly and to leave 'em alive, but hardly." So that, in fact, the opponents of Ellice and Bulwer, the predominant candidates, were obliged to keep at home, not daring to present themselves at the hustings to vote. It was right the House ought to know who the individual was who furnished the funds by which these outrages were fomented and encouraged; and if that Gentleman were present, he would state the matter broadly to his face. That Gentleman had, it appeared, derived all the benefit which arose from these acts of violence; and when he found that hon. Member taking an active part in Committees of that House, he cared not whether a Committee were appointed or not, he was determined to do his duty to the aggrieved parties by laying their case fairly before the House. The hon. or rather the right hon. Gentleman to whom he alluded was no other than the Secretary-at-War. He would state it openly to his face, if he were present; but, as he was not, he stated it fairly in the presence of his colleagues. The House need not be under any apprehension that he would overstate the facts, for the facts were themselves of so atrocious a nature, that it would be next to impossible for him to colour them. A witness named Johnson, one of the bullies, stated, that the money he received, was paid by Randall, who led them on and walked first. John Thomas said, that Randall paid them; that they were in bodies of 100 each, and that Randall gave them tickets to eat and drink what they pleased at the sign of the Half-Moon. This witness went on to say, "At the booths we cut them (their opponents) down, and kicked them about like foot-balls; I mean the Light-blues; we all had a punch at them as could. We were told to leave them alive, and hardly. Whenever I saw any on them near the booths, I dragged them by the hair to the booth; we beat them and kicked them as long as we liked, and then the constables came and took them away, they dared not interfere before. A person, named Hammerton, was one of the leaders, and, I believe, that he is now in the Custom-house, filling the office of Tide-waiter, or some such office." Now, he begged the attention of the House to this fact. When it became publicly known, that no further steps were to be taken against the offending parties, the Sheriffs, who were partisans of Messrs. Ellice and Bulwer, made Randall a peace-officer of the town; thus placing this person, who was a publican and a prize-fighter, over the citizens whom he had been hired to ill-use. Was it not an insult to public justice to find that such a person should not only escape punishment, but should be rewarded for his conduct? He had mentioned the right hon. Secretary at War as being connected with these proceedings. It appeared from the evidence of Johnson that he was so. Johnson said, "We met Mr. Ellice in his carriage near the London-road. Mr. Bulwer was with him." Another witness said, "Mr. Ellice made speeches, and we were ganging about, milling all we could find. Young Ellice was there [This, Mr. Halcomb said, was a son of the right hon. Member.] He joined us." One of the Committee asked this witness a few questions:—"When you saw the Light-blues what did you do?"—"Why, we knocked 'em down." "Did you do any thing else to them?"—"Yes, we knocked them about, and ripped them up." "Then you did not consider it any disgrace to knock men about and ill-use them in this way, so you were paid for it?" And here, said the hon. Member, I beg the attention of the House to the answer of the witness:—"They ought to be responsible who employed us to do so." What did hon. Members think of this? It was true they might not attend to his statements, or they might run from the House to witness a boat-race, while he was stating these facts, but still he was determined to his duty. Another witness said, there was a general cry for Mr. Ellice; the cry was, "Ellice, Ellice, you devil!" When a person remonstrated with the Sheriffs against these outrages, the answer of the Sheriffs was, "Oh, you would not mind it if it was on your side;" and Mr. Ellice observed, that it was not worse than the election of 1826, and that such proceedings were usual at all elections. The hon. and learned Member went on to read the evidence of a Lieutenant Perkins, R.N., who sat in a window opposite the polling-booth, and who stated, that it was not safe for any of the adverse party to go to vote; for himself, he said no consideration could induce him to do so. It was usual, when the Light-blues made their appearance, to seize upon them, and, after beating them, to "rip them up," that was, to cut the clothes from their backs, and throw sometimes the persons, and sometimes the clothes, back into the booth. One person was thrown into the booth merely with his shirt on, and his small-clothes hanging over his heels. He had done every thing in his power to bring the guilty parties to justice. He tried to have the Sheriffs called to the Bar of that House, but he failed; and then he gave notice of his present Motion. Some of the complaining parties had written to the hon. Member opposite (whose upright intentions no one presumed to doubt), who was Chairman of the Committee, and received from him an answer, stating, that as the publication of the report of the Committee had preserved the city of Coventry from riot at the last election, and as, in that report, they had stated their opinions of the conduct of the Sheriffs, they did not think any further steps necessary; so that the only result was, that Randall, the ring-leader, was made bailiff of Coventry. The House must, he was sure, feel with him, that it was too bad the guilty should thus be allowed to escape. He would not say one word respecting the hon. Member below him (Mr. Bulwer), were it not that he expected to be answered again as he had been before—"The electors of Coventry have got well threshed, as they deserved." It appeared that in 1802, 1803, 1820, 1827, and 1833, there were reports of Committees setting forth similar abuses at elections in Coventry. He had now fulfilled his pledge, and he would leave it to the House to decide upon it. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for the appointment of a "Select Committee, to make further Inquiry into the proceedings at the general election for the city of Coventry, in December, 1832, and to consider and report to this House thereon, and upon the best means of providing for the future prevention of Riots, and for preserving the peace and freedom of Election at Coventry, and that such Committee be chosen by Ballot, two Members being appointed by this House."

said, that the reason why no further proceedings had taken place was, that there was no earthly reason for them. It appeared that the riot had arisen from one party taking forcible possession of the booth; and it was natural that the other should resist. The Committee did not think this a sufficient ground for further proceedings. At the last election, booths had been fixed in different parts of the city, and no such scenes had taken place.

said, that if he thought he held his seat in the House by a voluntary participation in such scenes as the hon. and learned Member had described, he should walk out of it without offering a word in his defence. The hon. and learned Member who had vindicated the purity of Stafford, and the tranquillity of Warwick, had, however, read the evidence ex-parte only; the opposite evidence, contradicting what the hon. Member had read in every particular, he had not alluded to. The riot lasted but a short time, and had been caused by the other party taking forcible possession of the booth. One of the candidates (Mr. Thomas) had declared, that he had experienced the fairest and must honourable conduct on the part of his opponents; yet the hon. and learned Member was now doing all he could to keep alive the spirit of violence in Coventry.

was surprised that the hon. and learned Member, professing that he was actuated by no party spirit, but solely by a love of pure impartial justice, should call upon the House to form an opinion upon a view of the evidence of one party only. The hon. Member had entirely kept out of sight the evidence on the opposite side. The hon. Member (Sir George Grey) proceeded to refer to other evidence contained in the Report, and also to documentary evidence in the Report, in order to show, that the actual facts were very different from what they had been represented to be by the hon. and learned member for Dover.

attached (in accordance with the Report of the Committee) the blame to the Sheriffs, as returning officers, for not taking necessary precautions. He did not see, after the evidence of the peaceable election which had taken place in April, and the precautions established by the Reform Bill, any necessity for special legislation with regard to that borough.

objected to the decision of a Select Committee being re-opened. He regretted that a Report, conveying such strong censure as this, should have been allowed to be on the Table of the House without being taken up, and the returning officers called to the Bar. If the House passed over the gross violence which had taken place at the election for this city, it would be as injurious to the cause of purity of election as if it had passed over instances of gross corruption.