said, he had a petition, to which he begged the attention of the House whilst he shortly stated its allegation. It was from a gentleman of the name of Robert Mortimer, a highly respectable solicitor, of Barnstaple, in the county of Devon. The prayer of the petition was for an alteration in the Act of the 5th of George 4th relating to vagrants, and that the House might alter that Act, and remove from it those vague and ambiguous clauses which relate to vagrancy. The petition stated that two boys (brothers), named Callaghan, one aged thirteen and the other only eight years old, were singing duets in a very superior style in the village of Pilton, near Barnstaple. Their songs were perfectly harmless, inoffensive, and of a popular kind. Whilst they were so employed in amusing the villagers, some of whom were so much pleased, that they invited the boys into their houses and gave them refreshments and small sums, they were taken into custody by order of a magistrate (Mr. Bencraft), one of the new magistrates of the borough of Barnstaple. The younger boy escaped, but the other, only thirteen years old, was taken before the magistrate, who, on his own view, committed him to the borough gaol of Barnstaple for fourteen days as "idle and disorderly." The petitioner went on to represent to the House the extreme hardship and cruelty of causing a boy of tender years to be incarcerated in a dungeon for gaining a livelihood by exercising a rare and pleasing natural endowment; and humbly represented that such interference with the harmless amusements of the people had a tendency to drive them to seek recreation in the pot-house or beer-shop, which not only degraded and debased them, but proved ruinous to their families. The petitioner further stated, that in those countries where music and harmless amusements were encouraged, drunkenness prevailed to a much less extent than in England, where the people have from time to time been deprived of nearly all the open places which were formerly appropriated to popular pastimes and games. The petitioner concluded by humbly hoping that the House would speedily cause such amendments to be made in the vagrant laws as would clearly define what may properly be considered as offences under them, and place it beyond the power of magistrates to avail themselves of general and ambiguous words as an excuse for inflicting imprisonment, and treating as common felons persons who exercised their talents for the innocent and rational amusement of the people. In the prayer of the petition he most cordially agreed, and if he could only procure the assistance of an hon. and learned Friend of his, he would next session endeavour to alter and soften the vagrant laws. This case had been brought before the town-council of Barnstaple, where the magistrate who had committed the boy had defended himself by stating the boys were begging. That was denied. They certainly received sometrifling sums; but these were given as rewards for their singing. This was not the first case by a very great number where the magistrates had imprisoned persons, and sent them on the tread-mill, for singing in the open air. They should not do so with impunity whilst he had a seat in Parliament. He remembered the period when ballad-singing was encouraged by the magistrates and others; that was at the commencement of the French Revolution, when the ballad-singers were employed to sing loyal songs, to put down what were then called French principles.

presented a petition from several places praying for a Ten-hours' Factory Bill.

availed himself of that opportunity to correct a mistake into which a right reverend Prelate had fallen, when he stated, that 8,000 deserted children had been found in the streets of Manchester, which was attributed to the factory system. The truth was, that all children found straying in the streets of Manchester were taken care of by the police, the number was a proof of its vigilance, not of the evils of the factory system. Of the 8,000 so called deserted children not ten had been, as described by a right rev. Prelate in another place, abandoned. The rest had merely strayed from their homes, and by the assistance of the police had been restored to their parents. He considered it his duty to allude to this subject in consequence of having received communications on the subject, more particularly as such a statement was calculated to do much injury. It was also asserted, that the poor-rates of that place were extremely high, which indicated distress among the inhabitants; so far from it, the poor-rates were never known to be lower, amounting to only one shilling and four pence in the pound. It would be very desirable if those who were disposed to acquire correct information on these subjects would have the kindness to proceed to the manufacturing districts and judge for themselves, instead of giving currency to misstatements.

presented a petition from the proprietors of shares in the Birmingham and Derby Railway, against the Bill before the House, for the regulation of tolls on railways. He regretted, not to see the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the motion in his place, as it was his (Sir Robert Peel's) desire to know from him, what his intentions were respecting the Bill, and whether he was disposed to press it on the House during the present session. This was very necessary, as several parties who had advanced money were kept in a complete state of suspense, while others had been transferring and getting rid of their shares. He, therefore, thought it of importance, if the Bill were proceeded with, that a day should be named for taking the sense of the House on it, as he (Sir R. Peel) would consider it his duty, on principle, to oppose the measure, and he hoped the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade would state, what were the intentions of Government respecting the Bill.

believed it to be the intention of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Morrison) to persevere with his Bill; but in the absence of his right hon. Friend, he was not prepared to say what course the Government would take, on a question which was one of considerable difficulty.

was gratified in hearing the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tam-worth, declare his intention to oppose the Bill on principle, as it involved many difficulties, and was calculated to be very injurious in its tendency.

said, his constituents took a deep interest in the question, and without entering upon its merits, he would merely observe, that all they wanted to know was, what the intentions of the Government were. It was rather extraordinary, that upon a question of such importance the Government had not made up their minds; the consequence of which was, that a large amount of capital was paralysed, and extensive operations, in which the public were deeply interested, suspended.

explained. The hon. Member misunderstood him if he supposed that he (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that the Government had not made up their minds. He was satisfied that when the Bill was before the House, the Government would be prepared to state what course it meant to pursue; but he could not take upon himself to state what that would be in the absence of his right hon. Friend.

said, this Bill created alarm in every part of the empire—the more especially as being brought forward at this period, for many Bills bad already passed, and, of course, the interest in these had become vested, and the Bill could not be made retrospective—it would, therefore, be unjust to fix it upon those in progress. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Bill, and who was acting openly, fairly, and honestly, would reconsider his plan, and withdraw the Bill for the present.

said, there was a general excitement on this Bill throughout the country, and it would be necessary to have the opinion of the House on it. Something ought to be done to set the subject at rest.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and hoped the discussion would take place as early as possible, so that the public might know how to employ their capital. A great deal of capital was laid out in canals; and upon inquiry, it would be found that no inordinate profit had arisen from them.

brought up the Report on the Church of Ireland Bill.

said, that perhaps the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland would permit him to put a question to him relating to certain alterations which he perceived had been made in this Bill, and which were, as far as he understood them, of considerable importance, inasmuch as they affected the question of the surplus, after supplying the wants of the Irish Church. He understood, that the alterations went to raise the minimum of allowances in one case from 200l to 300l., and in another, from 100l. to 150l. If he understood those alterations rightly, the object of the noble Lord was to increase the income of the clergy. The question he wished to ask was, whether those alterations would diminish the surplus upon which the noble Lord calculated?

replied, that in order that the nature of the alterations might be clearly known, he intended to move that the Bill be reprinted before the third reading. He had certainly introduced the alterations to which the right hon. Baronet had adverted. One of them was that of increasing the minimum; but as his calculations had been formed upon the maximum, it would make no difference in the result, As to the glebe lands, he was sure that he had made allowance for the change.

wished to take that opportunity of expressing his surprise at the introduction of this Bill, which had been read a second time already, the nature of which he did not ascertain until it was sent to him. It appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary bills that he had ever seen laid upon the table of that House. "Without the slightest preamble, that Bill went on at once to say, that all personal tithes should be abolished. With-out any plan of compensation, without any inquiry into the effects of such a Bill, it declared that personal tithes should be abolished. Why were these tithes to be abolished without reference to any valuation, or provision of compensation for the loss of them? Was it because it was found difficult to assign any reason why they should be abolished? He had never heard of such a Bill before. There was no preamble whatever; and yet it seriously enacted that personal tithes should be abolished. To pass such a Bill as that would be a defective act of Legislation: and he felt that he should neglect his duty to his constituents, and to those whose interests he had always anxiously watched, if he did not strongly express his opinion against this extraordinary Bill.

was aware that the right hon. Gentleman took a great deal of interest in questions of this nature, but he believed that the right hon. Gentleman was not present in the House during a very long discussion which took place recently upon that question. The general sense of the House was, that personal tithes were very oppressive, that it was difficult to collect them, and that they ought not to be suffered to remain any longer. On the other hand, it had been stated that the clergy were not much interested in them. He had no objection to introduce a preamble to this effect "whereas it is expedient that personal tithes should be abolished," and so on.

said, that if the noble Lord would take the trouble to inquire, he would find that personal tithes formed the greater part of the property of many in- cumbents. To abolish these tithes without affording the slightest compensation, appeared to him to be a most extraordinary proceeding. Had he been present on the occasion alluded to, he should certainly have opposed the principle of the Bill.

said, he believed that the only personal tithe that would be abolished by the Bill, was tithe on labour. There could be no doubt that tithe on labour could be legally enforced, but to the honour of the clergy, there had been no case of their being exacted for very many years. With regard to the preamble, he believed that this was not the first Bill that had been introduced without a preamble, though such instances had but seldom occurred. He was anxious to see this Bill passed into a law, for the purpose of delivering the Church of England from a source of much inconvenience and odium.

believed that it was in consequence of a motion that he had brought forward that the House came to the determination that personal tithes should be abolished; and it was in consequence of that determination that the noble Lord had introduced the Bill in question. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) seemed to ask what reason there was for the abolition of this tithe? He would answer, the reason was, that the cause of humanity demanded it. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in what parishes did personal tithes form the greater part of the property of the incumbents? On the evening he brought forward his motion, he stated to the House, that he could find only one case in which the tithe was demanded;—that was the case of a parish in Yorkshire, the clergyman of which endeavoured to obtain 4s. 4d. from a poor day-labourer, who, in default of payment, was committed to the House of Correction for three months. Was not that fact alone a sufficient reason for the abolition of personal tithes? He was sorry the Bill did not go further, and abolish the tithe on fish. A right rev. Prelate in another place had declared that these tithes ought not to be, and could not be collected—he alluded to the Bishop of Exeter. He believed that Easter offerings were originally substituted for personal tithes, on account of their offensive character.

said, it was not with any view essentially to delay the proceedings on the Order of the Day, that he rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, but merely to insure that attention to it which it might otherwise fail of obtaining. He had been waiting for the opportunity which he thought the notice given several weeks ago by the Under Secretary for the Colonies would have afforded him to bring this subject under the notice of the House. He had attended on numerous occasions when the hon. Baronet's notice stood among the orders of the day, but had constantly been disappointed. He would now shortly recapitulate what he stated the other night, that very unjustifiable means had been taken—at least under the semblance of authority—to promote female emigration. All the postmasters in the kingdom had been directed to place placards in the most conspicuous parts of their offices, and to distribute copies among the clergy and parochial authorities, urging young women, with what he should call indecent and improper incitements, to quit their homes. The placard stated, that His Majesty's Government, in order to encourage the emigration of single women and widows of good character to Van Dieman's Land, where the number of females, as compared with the entire population, is greatly deficient, and where all who may conduct themselves with discretion and industry, may calculate in time importantly to benefit their condition, has authorised the Emigration Committee to grant a free passage to such single females, between fifteen and thirty years of age, as the Committee may ascertain to be likely to conduct themselves creditably and usefully in the colonies. The placard went on to say, "that a large proportion of those who had already gone out had married respectable settlers; and altogether the information received of the results of emigration to young women of discreet conduct, clearly demonstrated that all such had importantly benefited their condition by proceeding to this healthy and prosperous colony." Now he should be able, before he sat down, to show, that if this placard did not assert a series of untruths, as he verily believed it did, it at least painted in far too flattering colours the condition of the emigrants who had left this country. He could assure the House, from inquiry of several intelligent gentlemen, who had returned to this country from New South Wales, the region to which these poor women were invited, that two-thirds of the emigrants were irrevocably and finally consigned to prostitution. [Mr. C. Lushington; "No"!—"Order" from the Chair.] He advised the hon. Member to be patient; he would hear the statement corroborated on authority which could not be controverted. In this very Van Dieman's Land whole streets had been built for the exclusive reception of such women; and with respect to those who obtained what was called the situation of servants, to what a class were they but too frequently the servants? Very different, he apprehended, from the masters and mistresses of this or any other of the civilized states of Europe. He had inquired as minutely as possible of three gentlemen who had come from those parts to which the Government recommended farther emigration, and he found them all of the opinion that the emigration of more females to the settlements in the southern hemisphere could only prove destructive to the individuals. He might be again told, as he had been the other night, that the Emigration Committee who managed these concerns at home, were men of high character for judgment and humanity. He could only wish, if such were the case, that they would add to those excellent qualities that of a perfect knowledge of the countries and their condition which they incited their fellow-creatures to fly to, by a previous inspection made by themselves. Last year, strong inducements had been held out to British labourers to go out to the West Indies. When our countrymen, and, he might add, our country women, were displaying so much zeal to get rid of West-Indian slavery, they little apprehended that the effect of that measure would be to force whole families of our fellow-subjects over to those colonies to compete with the emancipated blacks, and that labour under a tropical sun would be esteemed preferable to English workhouses under the regulations to which they were subjected by the new law. He had reason to know, that upwards of 1,000 of our countrymen were thus sent out early last year. How many of them remained alive he knew not; but he knew that Lord Sligo, in an address to the Assembly at Jamaica, spoke of the frightful mortality which had taken place among the emmigrants. He had referred to the West Indies on account of the efforts which had been made for the abolition of the slave-trade. Now, let the House look at what the slave-trade was, even in the palmy season of its iniquity. They perhaps took and dragged the negroes by force from their native land; in this new slave-trade, as he should presently show, the victims were got out by fraud and misrepresentation. In the black slave-trade, you took them from a barbarous and savage country to one of comparative civilization; in this white slave-trade, you drag them from the very centre of civilization and Christian instruction, to a remote region, of which the accounts were most discouraging to this class of people. The Ladies' Committee in Van Dieman's Land state—

"That they are particularly anxious to call attention to the practice of sending out to that colony very young girls from the workhouses, schools of industry, or reform, or other charitable institutions. They have experienced the most painful solicitude respecting many of those who have arrived in every ship with female emigrants; and although they have exercised their best care, yet it is lamentable to observe the number of those young girls who have deviated from the paths of virtue. The Committee make this representation from the great difficulty they have always found in procuring situations, in respectable families, for girls from fourteen to sixteen years of age. Few persons are willing to take them as servants; and it has frequently happened, that after having been placed by the Committee in a situation where they would be taken care of, many have quitted those situations and sought a home with abandoned and depraved characters, of whom there are many in this town willing to receive them. The Committee would therefore most earnestly hope that, in future, none under seventeen or eighteen years of age might be induced, by any assistance from the Government, to emigrate to this colony, where the first lesson they learn is that they are free, and subject to no control but such as they are willing to submit to. The Committee are desirous to urge this point very strongly for the serious consideration of the Government, both as it affects the welfare of the young emigrants themselves, and also for the sake of the best interests of the community, which cannot be better served than in promoting the advancement of religion and virtue, and preventing the increase of immorality and crime."

What do this much-lauded Emigration Committee do upon this representation? Notwithstanding the earnest entreaties of these persons on the spot to send out no females under seventeen or eighteen years of age, they directly invite the parish officers throughout the kingdom to send out more children of fifteen, at a moment when the rigour—a rigour hitherto unknown in this country—of the new Poor Bill disgusts them with the institutions of their own country. Fifteen years of age did he say? Why, he had just been shown a Hobart-town paper of the 12th of February, in which it was proved that children under twelve years of age had been sent out. [Mr. C. Lushington: By what ship?] I cannot tell what ship. Here is the paper. He would read, the hon. Member continued, an extract from the paper:—

"The females which have come to us by the present opportunity, are of unusually tender years to be thus launched upon the world. Contrary to the stipulation, many of them are under fifteen; and about thirty, we learn, under twelve or fourteen, will require to be kept like our own orphans, and reared and educated for some years at the public expense, until fit for service. A person of common sense, whether male or female, will naturally ask these urgers of forced emigration—' If it be so fine a thing, how comes it, gentlemen, that you are not gone?' Example is better than precept—is much better than persuasion based on so rotten grounds. But no; in default of this natural and obvious inducement, flattering pictures, delusive statements, and advertisements of all kinds (paid for, of course, out of our poor acres) are disseminated in all quarters. Most sincerely do we wish that their condition may be ameliorated, though with all the welcome, the disinterested and benevolent intentions, for which the inhabitants of this place are proverbial, much disappointment must ensue. When we find that the heads of these young females are filled with such notions as that 'Van Dieman's Land is a splendid little spot, filled with pretty white cottages, each with single men, of all ranks and callings, waiting for wives,' we cannot hold scathless the authors of such delusion, seeing it is used to induce them to accept it in place of home, and all those ties which, in a female breast in particular, are at once so delicate and binding."

He had heard some Gentlemen, the other night, loudly declaim in favour of emigration generally. Upon this subject, however, he could not help having a strong conviction that there was a great deal of error prevalent—error studiously implanted and widely diffused for that purpose. Let any man look at what the first act in the process of emigration was. It was tearing our fellow-creatures from their homes, from those scenes, connexions, and associations, which in every civilized state are most dear to the heart of man, How could one contemplate the disseverment of so many ties—that was, the infliction of so much misery on our fellow-creatures without pain? "Oh, but," it was said, "we send them to a better place, where they will be better fed, and practise better moral conduct, and be ultimately more happy than they were in their native country." His answer to this assertion, if it were true, would be, "the greater the shame and reproach to that state and government under which any of its subjects can be induced to seek a foreign and unknown clime, in preference to their native land, and in violation of their natural affections." As he should not be entitled to a reply, he felt it right to anticipate some objections that might be urged against him. He was prepared to hear Gentlemen interested in these emigration plans, and who might, perhaps, have important stakes in these new colonies in consequence, give the House a flourishing account of their condition. He should reject all such testimony coming from so suspicious a source. Great stress, also, might be laid on the Reports of some Commissioners or benevolent Committees. With respect to such Reports, and the authors of them, he must observe, that they were too often made for the express purpose of carrying into effect the favourite objects of those with whom such Commissions originated, rather than after a fair and impartial investigation of both sides of a question. He would briefly give the House an example of what he meant. The Irish Poor-law Report had quoted very largely from other Reports, and among them from the English Poor-law Report, in which mention had been made of a parish called Cholesbury. The example of that parish had been made the great stalking-horse of those who frightened people into an approbation of the new Poor-law. Having heard a great deal about that parish, and of the beneficial effects of a benevolent society instituted there for bettering the condition of labourers, by letting out to them small patches of land to be cultivated by spade husbandry, he last autumn visited the place, and what he saw there would always induce him to use great caution in credit- ing the Reports of Commissioners or Committees. It was certainly true, as the Report stated, that the rents of the farms had been absorbed by the rates, and that relief in aid had been obtained from other parishes; but the House would be surprised to hear that all the farms in the parish consisted of only two, of fifty acres each. The whole of the parish contained only 162 acres, of which forty-four were waste. The sudden deaths of the two chief proprietors, and the declining powers of an aged incumbent, contributed, with other causes, to the disorganization of this little parish; and without detaining the House longer by an induction from particulars, it was certain that the circumtances of that case rendered it worth nothing as an example. As to the spade husbandry, which was the chief feature in the construction of the benevolent society, and formed a prominent part of its last year's Report, the least trace of it was not to be found in the parish. Now, if reports of a parish in England not forty miles off, were so erroneous, he might be allowed to have some doubts respecting the Reports, however official, of a country in the southern hemisphere. If he was charged with misstating facts, let a Committee be appointed to ascertain the truth. He had thought it his duty to make these circumstances known to the House, in the hope that at least some principles of moderation might be instilled into the present rage for sending our poor fellow-countrymen, and still more our countrywomen, they knew not whither. He should move that "an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to issue his Royal orders that a placard entitled, 'Emigration to Van Dieman's Land,' which the several postmasters throughout the kingdom have been directed to put in a conspicuous place in their several post-offices, and to circulate among the clergy and the parochial authorities, be withdrawn."

asked who seconded the motion?

I second the motion.

Oh, Mr. Wakley.

thought it right to state with respect to Cholesbury, that a large sum of money had been expended in the purchase of land, and furnishing the means of cultivation. He should be able to prove that the society had not been altogether unsuccessful.

said, it was not his intention to travel through the whole of the observations of the hon. Member for Berkshire, who, he thought, had pursued a very extraordinary course. The hon. Member had found a certain placard exhibited in the window of some post-office at a distance from London, offering to the notice of young persons the advantages of emigration. Now, it would not be necessary for him (Sir G. Grey) to say more than what he had said on a former occasion—that these circulars had been issued without the authority of the Government. Whatever might be the sources from which the hon. Member had drawn his information, he trusted that the people of England would not take their idea of the advantages or disadvantages of emigration, from the picture which he had drawn with the assistance of anonymous paragraphs from Hobàrt-town newspapers The hon. Member was mistaken in saying that people were torn from their families and sent to remote colonies; the fact was, that the emigration of these females was voluntary. He believed that the Committee which had conducted the business of emigration, had done so ably and prudently. He was speaking in the presence of two or three Gentlemen of that Committee, and he believed the measures which had been adopted had been productive of much good in the colonies. He would recommend the hon. Member for Berkshire to examine the Reports and authorised documents which were laid upon the table of that House, instead of collecting his information from newspapers. Considering the great number of females which went out, it was not to be wondered at if some turned out badly. The subject, however, had been taken up in the proper quarter, namely, by the colonists themselves. He could only hope that the statements of the hon. Member would be received with caution.

was deeply sensible of the indecorousness of intruding upon the public business, matters which related to himself, but he hoped the House would allow him to make some explanations in reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Berkshire, in vindication of the Emigration Committee. The hon. Member had said, that the placard which he had alluded to was unjustifiable and indecent. Before going further, he (Mr. Lushington) would premise that he had been a member of the Committee from the first moment of its organization, and that he had given his anxious and sedulous attention to its proceedings. The House would be pleased to recollect that a great disparity of the sexes existed in New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land, the males being in proportion to the females as three to one. In order to obviate this, Government had been in the habit of granting bounties to single females to induce them to emigrate to those colonies; but in consequence of their being sent out without any protection, and having to find their own passage, they were exposed to great temptation, in fact to seduction, and the most frightful excesses had taken place. A Committee of gentlemen offered their services to Government for the purpose of promoting emigration in a better form. That Committee consisted, he might say without exception, of gentlemen of the most humane and benevolent character, and men who could not be suspected of making false statements for the sake of looking well upon paper. He would beg leave to read an extract from a letter he had received from a clergyman of the Church of England, the reverend Mr. Lyte, of Torbay:—

"I was anxious to say to you, as I saw your name on the Female Emigration Committee, that we had had the ship Canton, with female emigrants on board, anchored under our windows in Torbay during the whole of the preceding week; that I had been several times on board with Mrs.—and all my family, and that we were all much pleased with the vessel and her inmates. The arrangements between decks were so good as to leave ample room for the free circulation of air; and the ship, though she had been a fortnight or three weeks at sea before we saw her, was as sweet and wholesome as if there had not been ten persons below instead of 200. I really could not have imagined it possible, unless I had actually witnessed the fact, that so many respectable females could have been collected together for the purpose of emigration, or that such excellent order could have been preserved among them. That some exceptionable persons should find their way into so large a company must be expected; and yet really, while we were on board, and we went often and stayed long, we saw not one improper act, nor heard one improper expression. On the Sunday I had the pleasure of giving them Divine service on board; I say the pleasure, because I never saw a more attentive and decorous audience. While I preached to them a kind of farewell sermon, there was scarcely one who did not appear more or less affected, Classed as the females were, as far as possible, according to their congeniality and suitability to each other, the more religious parties of them occupied the after-part of the ship, and were in the habit of having prayer together every evening, and on the Sunday evening, after I had preached to them, this little band received a request from those at the other end of the vessel, that some of them would come forward among them, and commence the same excellent practice in their quarters also, with the hope of carrying it on throughout the voyage. On another occasion we were on board of the ship while the emigrants were at dinner, and could not but remark on the excellence of the fare, and the orderly way in which it was served out. We questioned many of them as to their satisfaction with the victuals, accommodation, &c, and were pleased to find in almost every instance the utmost content prevailing, We also made a little subscription in the towns round Torbay to provide some printed calico for gowns for some of the poor Irish girls who had come on board, many of them without a change. These, though among the poorest, were also among the most well-behaved of the party, and calculated as much as any on board, to shed over our colonies those humanizing traits which the presence of virtuous women usually brings with it."

, in explanation, said, that the extracts which he had read were from the official paper, he believed, of the Government at Hobart-town, and from the documents laid on the Table by the Colonial-office. As to the denial of the affair at Cholesbury, given by the hon. Member for Shoreham, he could only repeat, that there bad not been a rood of spade husbandry dug when he visited the place, and that he had seen all the persons mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He inferred that nothing more had been done, because the Society had observed utter silence on the subject of Cholesbury in its latest Report. He had used the precaution to take a friend with him, who could confirm his statement. Having stated his views, he hoped it would be felt that he had done his duty in bringing the subject forward, and he now left the House to deal with the motion as they might think proper.

contended, that no necessity had been made out for such a measure as that before the House, and he saw no remedy in it for that which he considered an evil which was susceptible of remedy, namely, where persons had property in two different counties, they could not vote for both in consequence of the elections being fixed for the same day. Here they were prevented from exercising the franchise in both counties; and this he considered was a subject that ought to be provided for, although it was subordinate in its character. Another question was with regard to expense; and so far from diminishing expense, he thought the present Bill would add considerably to it, for the more the places of polling were multiplied, the more would the expenses of the candidate also be multiplied. He doubted very much whether the diminution of the expenses for conveyances for the voters to go to the poll, would not be equalled by the additional expenses arising from the polling places, which by this present Bill it was intended to create. Neither was he disposed to concur in the principle of confining the polling at elections for counties to one day. Another objection he had to the Bill was, that the elections were not to close until six o'clock in the evening. The consequence, therefore, must be, that they would have in some seasons to be carried on in the dark; and those persons who might desire to return a particular candidate might have the opportunity of so obstructing the poll on the part of the other candidates as to secure the return without the proper authorities being able to determine whether the obstruction was of such a nature or to such an extent as would justify the adjournment of the poll. At any rate, even if this state of things did not arise, he thought that confining elections for counties to one day would materially interfere with the exercise of the right of polling. The points to which he had referred, he considered to be well worthy the attention of the noble Lord before the Bill proceeded further.

said, that the system of reducing the days of polling in counties to two, had worked exceedingly well, and it was considered that by affording additional polling places, and greater facilities for taking the votes than at present existed, that the elections could be as easily accomplished in one day as they had been in two. He could not help thinking it an object of great importance that the Poll should be taken in one day, for he was persuaded that if two days were allowed much greater expense would be incurred, and greater opportunities given for corrupt practices to be carried on and undue influence exercised. It was an object which in his opinion might easily be accomplished: a clause of the same nature as this had been proposed in Committee on the Registration Bill by his noble Friend the Member for Devon, which had been much approved of by the House, and no difficulty was apprehended in carrying that into effect. The objections urged against this clause by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, were objections which must, and indeed were urged, with equal force against the alteration of the time from fifteen days to two. As to the objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman, that it would have the effect of disfranchising a class of voters who had property for which they would be entitled to possess the franchise in different counties,—that a person for instance possessing the franchise in Devon could not, if the time for taking the poll were limited to one day, give his vote for property situated in Yorkshire, which he might do if the time were extended to two or three days, he, (Lord J. Russell) thought it hardly possible that Parliament should legislate for such extreme cases.

could assure the noble Lord that he knew of more cases than one in which by limiting the poll to one day large bodies of electors would be disfranchised,—especially in the case of a town situate on the borders of three counties, the inhabitants of which held property in all three. This evil might easily be remedied by providing that in contiguous counties, the elections should not take place on one and the same day, in order to afford persons who had property in them an opportunity of exercising their franchises in each.

considered this as an evil incidental to the Reform Bill, and an evil which persons choosing to hold property in several counties must run the risk of incurring. He himself was in the predicament described by the hon. Member for Walsall, and lost several votes in consequence at the last election. A freeholder had always the choice for what property he would give his vote, and he (Mr. Pryme) could not conceive it proper to alter the whole course of elections in the country to meet individual cases of this kind.

would merely give the House the result of his own experience in the working of the present system in the largest electorial division of the kingdom. He could state, from his own knowledge, that the East Riding of Yorkshire, in which there were at the last election 18,000 voters, and he believed there would be 28,000 at the next, the polling was carried on with the greatest ease in two days, and he believed that, by the additional facilities afforded by this Bill, the polling could as easily have been taken in one day as two.

As the law stood at present, the objections urged by the hon. Member for Walsall might hold, but by a Bill which had gone through this House, it was provided that any voter might choose at what polling place in a county he gave his vote: whereas at present he was compelled to give it at the particular polling place of the district in which his property was situate. And surely the voter could have no difficulty even in the case suggested by the hon. Member for Walsall, in selecting the three polling places in the different counties which were nearest to each other, and so be enabled to give his vote in every one of them.

It might be true that when only two days were allowed in practice, the greatest number of votes were polled on the first day, but it did not necessarily follow that the elections should be limited to one day; for it was not quite plain that, if they were so limited, the evils apprehended by his right hon. Friend would not arise. In the first place he considered that if the proposed change took place, those residing in towns would have a great advantage over those who lived at any distance from polling-places. It was to be considered that when the poll closed at so late an hour as six o'clock, there must be greater apprehension of intimidation by the voters, than when those voters had the option of coming in to poll any time in two days. There was, too, a monopoly of carriages to be apprehended—that was more likely to come into operation where the polling was confined to one day. It might be attempted for one day but if there were to be a second day's poll, such an attempt would be defeated by the spirit it was likely to excite in the country. He considered that no evils had followed from the two days polling; no valid reason had been given for the change. As to the argument that expense would thereby be saved it was not quite certain, in his opinion that when (as they must necessarily be) the polling places were greatly increased in number, that would be the case: at all events he was convinced that a gentleman with a long purse would have much greater opportunities of using it under the proposed system, than at present and considering as he had said that no great evil had arisen from the period of two days being allowed, and that greater facilities for undue influence and intimidation would be given under the system proposed to be established by this Bill, he was in favour of the continuance of the present period.

could not help thinking that the right hon. Baronet never had the misfortune to stand for a county, or he would not have said that there was no valid reason for this change. He Lord Howick was convinced that limiting the poll to one day would make a great difference in the amount of expenses, at present very large indeed. But the right hon. Baronet objected, that it would lead to partial inconveniences and he (Lord Howick) was ready to confess that it might be possible to imagine cases in which such inconveniences might arise. But he did not believe they would be found arising to any extent. As to intimidation, he (Lord Howick) believed that in county elections intimidation was of infinitely more rare occurrence than in towns. [No! no!] He granted, that intimidation of a particular description might be more common incounties but he did not think that by limiting the elections to one day the power of the landlords would be increased. He was of opinion that the argument was much more applicable to towns than counties, with the additional polling places contemplated by the present Bill. As to a monopoly of the means of conveyance, if any such system were to be adopted, it must be known before the election took place, and must therefore be inoperative, and under the proposed system the distance which any voter would have to go would be very short indeed.

His noble Friend had said, he could conceive of some cases in which the objections stated by the right hon. Baronet opposite, might arise. His (Mr. Denison's) imagination was not, however, so fertile as his noble Friend's, and he must say, he conceived of no circumstances under which these objections could possibly hold. The great objections of the right hon. Baronet seemed to be, first, that by the late hour at which the polls would close, some voters would be compelled to travel home, perhaps eight or ten miles, in the dark; and then, that the limitation of the poll to one day would facilitate a monopoly of carriages. Now, his (Mr. Denison's) answer to both objections was the same; viz, that under the proposed system, if the additional polling places were properly distributed, no voter would have to travel such distances as to render travelling dangerous in the dark; or as to render conveyances necessary.

begged to ask the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Denison) what clause in the Bill prevented a person holding property in the northern, and residing in the southern division of a county, from having to go and give his vote in the northern division? ["the Registration Bill."] But that Bill was not yet law; and he (Mr. Goulburn) was not arguing upon that which might be, but that which really was the law.

explained; he understood, that all along the discussion was conducted on the understanding that the Registration Bill would be passed. Undoubtedly, if it were not, he should agree with the right hon. Baronet in the necessity of some alteration in this Bill.

could confirm what was stated by the hon. Member for Leeds, as to the greater number of voters in a county being polled on the first day; and he could add from his own experience that those who polled the second day mostly resided in the vicinity of the polling places; and that if there were any bribery carried on, it was almost always on the second day.

thought it extremely hard where persons had property in two counties that arrangements were not made so as to enable them to exercise the franchise in both. In towns this was provided for, and he thought a clause ought to be framed by which this difficulty might be obviated.

had no objection to fill up the blanks, by enacting that the poll should open at eight o'clock and close at five.

asked, if 6,000 voters could poll between eight and five on one day?

observed, that in winter it was often dark at half past three. He should object to the clause even as amended. The question was then put and agreed to, that the words eight in the morning, and five in the evening, be inserted in the blanks, instead of nine and six.

said, that the impression on the minds of several hon. Members was, that the clause relating to newspapers would not come on that night, and they had left the House in consequence. For himself he must say, that there was not a clause in reference to that subject, which was not a direct attack on the press, and which would not operate as a restriction on the liberty of the Press. There were now five other public Bills on the orders, which had not received discussion, and under these circumstances, and knowing full well that several of his hon. Friends had staid away under the impression that the subject would not be discussed that night, he trusted that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give way for one day, and bring on the subject the first thing to-morrow. Upon the general principle, he felt that he should be obliged to take the sense of the House upon almost every clause in the Bill.

felt called upon to state, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury, that it was not intended in any one clause of the Bill, or could it be, in the slightest degree, to impose the smallest restrictions on the liberty of the Press. There was no one clause in the Bill when presented to the House that could by possibility produce such an effect. With respect to the delay asked for by the hon. Member in reference to the subject of the stamp duty on newspapers, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) could not consent; he was ready to go into the Committee fully to discuss the clauses; and if the hon. Gentleman was disposed to object to them on the principle which he had raised, he would not hold himself responsible for delay. Every hour he was receiving complaints from the Press from every part of the country in consequence of this object having been postponed, and in consequence of hopes having been held out that the reduction would have taken place on the 5th of July, and calling upon him to proceed with the Bill. He said let the House proceed now with the measure, in order to have an opportunity of deciding upon it; and he must say that it was somewhat extraordinary that those very Gentlemen who last year professed themselves to be the friends of the diffusion of political knowledge, now raised objections on matters, to which if he were disposed to accede, nothing would be more discreditable to him. He had been asked repeatedly at what time he would bring on this question, and he had as repeatedly said that he would bring it on that night, and that he meant to limit the discussion in the first place to that part of the Bill which referred to stamps on newspapers—and that course he had determined to persevere in—a course which had been stated by his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, on Friday last. Therefore there was no reason for hon. Gentlemen saying that they had been taken by surprise in this proceeding, and he must do justice to the public. The hon. Member for Finsbury must excuse him if he refused to postpone the order of the day till to-morrow, unless such postponement were warranted by more cogent reasons than those which had been given by the hon. Gentleman. Let the division be taken on this point, and let it be seen that, whilst he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) held out to the public relief to the extent provided for by the Bill, the hon. Gentleman was the person to interpose between him and the public.

could not imagine that his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, seriously meant to divide on the question of the House going into Committee; it was very desirable that they should proceed with this very important measure. It was essentially necessary that they should agree to a reduction of duty; the only question at issue was whether the scale of that reduction of duty should be lower. The question which remained behind was one of detail in Committee; and so also were the clauses which went to prevent any persons from printing a newspaper who did not contribute to the revenue. But then arose the doubt whether these clauses were not framed with unnecessary severity? He himself had a very strong opinion that, when they reduced the duty, they ought in the same proportion to reduce the severity of the enactments by which stamp duties were regulated. He thought with the hon. Member for Finsbury that these clauses were unnecessarily severe; and he hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would allow the House to go into Committee without dividing.

had certainly heard the statement that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the newspaper part of the Bill to-night, and he hoped, therefore, the hon. Member for Finsbury would not oppose the Bill's going into Committee.

thought his hon. Friend could not complain that he had been taken by surprise, and he also begged he would allow the Bill to go into Committee.

had also understood that it was intended to proceed with this part of the Bill to-night.

insisted that such an understanding had not been entered into by many hon. Members. Neither the hon. Member for Middlesex nor the hon. Mem- ber for Bath, who were not now in their places, were aware of it.

denied that he had shown any want of courtesy to Members of that house. The hon. Member for Finsbury was the only person who had made an application to him for postponement, and if it could be shown that any other hon. Member had been taken by surprise, he would not press his motion; but as he felt that due notice had been given, it would be impossible to interrupt the public business. Before they went into Committee, however, he should move that it be an instruction to the Committee that it have power to divide the Bill into two or more Bills, an arrangement which would enable the House, if, circumstances should render it necessary, to proceed with that part of the Bill which related to newspapers as a separate measure. He allowed that this proposition was different from the one which he had formerly submitted to the House, but although he might be charged with inconsistency in pursuing a course which he had before declined to follow, he should never be ashamed of retracting an opinion if he found that it would benefit the public to do so.

had never imputed anything like inconsistency to his right hon. Friend for taking the course which he now seemed disposed to adopt, and which he thought it the most advisable to follow.

inquired whether what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be considered as an intimation that this was the only part of the Bill with which it was intended to proceed this Session?

would promise not to bring in any other part of the Bill without giving ample notice to those gentlemen who were interested, and if they should offer any opposition to its progress on account of the unreasonably late period of the Session, he would not, on the part of the Government, press the other parts of the Bill. Still he was very anxious that a measure of such extreme importance as the consolidation of this great branch of our law should, if possible, be passed this Session; and he did not yet abandon the hope that it might be carried into effect. The instruction was agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.

said that they would then proceed to the clause embracing the actual proposition he intended to make, Clause 163; and in proposing this clause, he wished gentlemen to bear in mind, that the principles which he had avowed in proposing the reduction of the stamp-duty on newspapers were principles leading him to extend protection to those who contributed to the revenue as well as to collect it; and if gentlemen could show him any one clause in the Bill which was not necessary, and justified, as far as regarded these revenue purposes, he would strike it out. He only asked the House to give him the power of collecting the reduced revenue, and of being just to the parties who paid it. In consequence of the omission of the former clauses, it would be necessary to make a new preamble for the Bill, and to leave out schedule A.

complained that the new and cumbrous machinery created by this Bill would act as a heavy clog upon the liberty of the press. By this Bill, the 60th George 3rd, the Trash Act, as it was called, was rendered even yet more burdensome and oppressive than it was at present. By the law as it stood, a pamphlet, consisting of not less than two sheets and a quarter, and sold for no less than 6d., might be published as often as the parties pleased. But by the insertion of the words, "or pamphlet" in this clause, pamphlets, whatever number of sheets they might contain, and whatever might be their price, would be placed without exception upon the same footing as what were strictly called newspapers. He should, therefore, propose as an amendment, to strike out the words "or pamphlet" from this clause.

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury seemed to anticipate that the present Bill would have the effect of imposing a duty upon a class of publications which were not entitled to pay a duty at present. When they came to the consideration of the schedules, in which the word "pamphlet" would be more particularly defined, he undertook to show most distinctly that such was not the intention. He hoped the hon Member for Finsbury would consent to defer his objection to the word "pamphlet" until they came to the schedules. If the word were to be omitted in the present clause, parties might be induced to attempt to publish a newspaper under the title of a "pamphlet," in order to avoid the duty. He repeated the declaration which he had already made—namely, that it was only his intention to charge the duty of 1d. upon such papers as, by the present law, were entitled to pay the stamp duty of 4d.

supported the clause as it stood. He should have voted with the hon. Member for Finsbury if he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen into the mistake attributed to him by the hon. Member for Finsbury. His impression was, that if they were to omit the word "pamphlet" in this clause before they had defined what a pamphlet was, parties might bring out a paper called The Morning Pamphlet instead of The Morning Chronicle, and The Evening Pamphlet instead of The Courier, with a view to evade the duty.

said, that an Act had till lately existed imposing a duty upon pamphlets, and in which, of course, was contained a clear definition of what a "pamphlet" was intended to be considered. That Act having expired, it became necessary, in his opinion, to come to a clear definition in respect to the present Bill as to what was a "newspaper."

said, that if eventually it should be considered that the word "pamphlet" would not comprehend a newspaper under another name, he should consent to its omission when the schedules were being considered. In the meantime he should press its being retained in the clause.

, referring to the words of the clause, said that it clearly comprehended "pamphlets," as in addition to "newspapers." The words were "newspaper or pamphlet," &c. If the word "pamphlet," therefore, was permitted to remain in this clause, it appeared to him that all the subsequent provisions of the Bill, must necessarily apply to pamphlets as well as newspapers—not only as respected the payment of the penny duty, but also in all the onerous restrictions contemplated by the machinery of the Bill. He thought, before they went further, that they should define more precisely what a newspaper was, apart from any consideration of size or form.

repeated that he should be quite ready to omit the word in the schedule if it were found to be unnecessary to the purposes contemplated by the Bill, and which he had already explained.

said, if he had rightly understood the Attorney-General to say, that a pamphlet was only a "sewed paper" (pan filé), it did appear to be particularly superfluous that the Bill should go on reiterating the words "any paper, or sewed paper;" and if the government really meant to take nothing more by the introduction of the word "pamphlet," it would be better to omit it.

must insist upon dividing upon his amendment.

declared that the Committee had declared that a pamphlet was a newspaper ["No,no!"] [Mr. O'Connell: "Quite the reverse"]. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said so at least, though he did not mean it.

said, that it should be recollected that provision was to be made for the free transmission by post of newspapers and pamphlets, and for facilitating in many ways the means of communication. It would be very incorrect to say that a pamphlet per se, was to be charged with a duty; but at the same time it should be recollected, that if all pamphlets were to be excluded from the duty they would also be excluded from the benefits of the Act.

hoped every hon. Member would recollect the interpretation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put upon this clause, as it might become highly important on some future occasion.

was glad to have the question which arose out of this clause brought under the attention of the Committee by his hon. Friend the Member for Chester. The fact was, that this clause was framed at the earnest suggestion of the newspaper proprietors. When this measure was first proposed, it was suggested to him by the parties to whom he had alluded, that there were often foreign expresses came in at a late hour, which contained matter of great interest, and there were often debates in Parliament which would require much more space than was afforded by the ordinary size of the paper. On these grounds, amongst others, it was urged that if a supplement of a sheet were allowed on the payment of a halfpenny duty, it would be a very great convenience and advantage to the conductors of newspapers, and would not occasion any loss to the revenue. So far he was perfectly willing to go; but if a general power was granted under the provisions of this Act to a paper, for instance, which was published once a week, of bringing out supplements on consecutive days from that on which it appeared, the effect would be to have a publication brought out and continued subject only to half the duty intended by the law. Now to guard against this obvious means of evading the imposition of the penny duty under the colour of halfpenny supplements, the present clause was drawn up, which directed that the supplement should be published of the same date and by the same parties as the newspaper itself. He begged to be allowed to say that he, in the first instance, proposed, and ultimately succeeded in effecting, the imposition of a penny duty, and he certainly was most desirous to protect it from all collusive practices. It was, at all events, a proposal which was introduced for the benefit of the publishers, and which was, in his opinion, well calculated to promote the good of the public.

thought that the penalties imposed by this clause were very disproportioned; for the printer or publisher was only compelled to pay a fine of 20l. for a violation of its provisions, whilst any person who sold such a supplement as the Act forbade, and who might, in all probability, be a very innocent person, was liable to so severe a penalty as 50l.

said, the direction that whenever a supplement to a newspaper was published, words indicating the publishing of the supplement should be printed upon the newspaper, was a superfluous infliction on the newspaper press. The fact was, that in the majority of cases, the newspaper editor did not think of publishing a supplement, till after his newspaper was in whole or in part worked off, which made it impossible to add the words required. The objects of the clause would be obtained just as well without it.

pointed out the fact that these penalties could only be put in force by the Attorney-General, and not on the information afforded by a common informer.

said, that he did not hesitate to comply with the suggestion which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to reduce the second penalty provided by the clause from 50l. to 20l. He was satisfied that the enforcement of these penalties being left in the hands of the responsible law advisers of the Crown ensured their never being imposed without an admixture of clemency and a perfect absence of all unnecessary severity.

, that before the words "printer or publisher," in this clause, the word "proprietor" should be inserted. He did not see why the proprietor of a paper should be free from those liabilities to which the printer and publisher were subjected by this clause. He believed that it would be difficult, under this Bill, to get a printer or publisher to incur those responsibilities from which those who employed him were exempted. But the fact which accounted for the terms of the clause as it at present stood was this—that it was drawn up by the proprietors of the stamped press of the metropolis, and that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of it until it was put into his hands.

said, that he was most anxious to apprise the hon. Member for Finsbury, as well as the House and the public, of the mistake into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen, when he expressed his belief that this measure was proposed by the proprietors of the stamped press, and that the Government knew nothing of it until it was placed in their hands by the parties to whom he had alluded. He was prepared to state, as a matter of fact, coming within his own knowledge, and as such entitled, he hoped, to credence, that there was no foundation whatever for such an assertion. Indeed, so far were the proprietors of the stamped press from being parties to such a measure, that they were the parties most strongly opposed to any alteration in the present system.

was understood to say, that he had heard that his right hon. Friend intended, where the proprietors of a paper were numerous, they should be represented at the stamp-office by two of the body.

wished to know why the names of the proprietors should not be known? If they were, they would take care not to leave the business of their paper to the control and superintendence of worthless agents. Why should not, he repeated, the proprietors be known, in order that they should, if the manner in which the paper was conducted deserved it, be held up to public esteem; and if it did not deserve it, and that it was made subservient to malicious motives, or to the purposes of slander, that they should be held up to public infamy. He would go farther, and say that if the proprietors were not known they should not be entitled to recover for their property.

suggested the impracticability of adopting such a suggestion as that which had been given. How could it be possibly acted upon in case the proprietors amounted to a thousand persons?

was quite willing to acknowledge the justness of the arguments of the hon. Member for Liskeard in favour of every fair degree of notoriety being given to the proprietors of newspapers. But the difficulty which he felt upon this question was that which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, namely, that which arose from a number of proprietors to one concern. He should, however, have no objection to have the names of the persons originally engaged in the proprietorship before the paper started inserted at the Stamp-office. But he feared, that if it were required upon all transfers of shares to have due notice given, such a provision would render the application of capital to the extension of newspapers almost wholly impracticable. He had it at one time in contemplation to propose that the persons who represented a certain amount of the property of the establishment should have their names inserted; but he was really deterred from doing so for fear he should be charged with imposing shackles on the press. He would now be willing to give such a proposition, if proposed by any hon. Member, a fair consideration.

thought the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard would in practice amount to an additional restriction upon the press. By the clause as it stood the public had sufficient protection in the registration of the printer, publisher, and two proprietors. He had stated that the proposition amounted to restriction, because many persons would withhold taking shares in newspaper speculations, inasmuch as they would not wish to make themselves liable to actions for libel. It was sufficient for the public to have two sufficient persons registered.

remarked, that in the case of joint-stock banks no difficulty arose as to registration, and contended that no person ought to be the proprietor of a newspaper, unless he was prepared to take his share of the responsibility for all that was published within its columns. Such a provision must, he submitted, tend to raise the character of a public journal.

submitted, that the course suggested would tend materially to deteriorate from the character of the newspaper press. Such a provision would prevent many persons from becoming proprietors, because they would be unwilling to be held responsible for all or any part of the publication to which they might be attached, and thus the control and conduct of newspapers would be thrown into the hands of less respectable individuals.

was of opinion, that it was contrary to the open character of all our customs and institutions that the proprietors of newspapers should not be known, and be made responsible for every act which they committed, to the same degree that they were in their individual capacity. It struck him that newspaper proprietors, in the same way as the Steam Companies and other companies, should be bound to register on every transfer of shares. He thought it not at all impracticable that the value of the property might be represented by a certain proportion of the proprietors.

would be glad to know by what machinery a register to the extent desired by the right hon. Member for Liskeard could be procured. The case of joint-stock banks did not in his opinion apply to that of newspaper property.

said, he was quite ready to assent to the principle of the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard, but as the question was one of some importance, he would suggest that the amendment should be deferred until a further stage, in order to allow time for the consideration of the best plan for obtaining the desired register. The only thing he should then stipulate for was, that in any arrangement to be hereafter agreed upon, no unnecessary checks should be imposed upon the transfer of the shares. It should not, for instance, be required that each transfer should be registered at the very time the change took place. His view was, and he only gave it as an impromptu, that there should be a quarterly or half-yearly register, and that it should not be requisite for a party transferring his shares to change such register until the arrival of the ensuing period. If they were to require each transfer to be placed upon the Stamp-office books on the day of its date, great inconvenience and expense would be imposed upon that department. The subject, however, was one for consideration at a future period, and he should reserve all further observations respecting it until it came more regularly under notice.

was of opinion, that in the event of a general registry of proprietors, which it was now probable would take place, it would be very desirable to constitute the Stamp-office registry conclusive evidence of title in newspaper property. If this were done, the trouble and expense of transfer deeds would be saved. Although the right hon. Gentleman had been tolerably explicit as to his views, he hoped he should be pardoned in asking him if it might go forth to the public that his suggestion had been adopted by the Government?

said, that he entirely assented to the principle of the suggestion, but reserved for further consideration the machinery by which it should be carried into effect. Had he not been afraid that by proposing such a measure, he should have laid himself open to the charge of imposing greater restrictions on the press than his duty as Finance Minister required, he should himself have made such a proposition to the House.

fully concurred in the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard, which he was glad to see so readily taken up by the Government. With respect to the machinery by which it should be carried into effect, he would reserve his opinion until the proper occasion for its expression. He hoped, however, that in its framing, care would be taken to prevent a proprietor from registering his name on the first of January, and then on the 2nd putting down the name of an irresponsible person. He thought the principle should be, that the party receiving the profits of the newspapers, should be made liable for its laches.

expressed his satisfaction at finding the Government favourable to the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard. He merely rose to suggest, that the Bill for the extension of the rights of copyright to newspaper publications would present a more fitting occasion for the introduction of the proposition than did the measure under consideration.

suggested, that it should be made compulsory on each newspaper establishment to publish the names of its proprietary at stated periods in each year. It was his great wish to see the newspaper press of England edited for the most part by the parties in whom the property was vested.

said, that as newspaper copyright had been alluded to, he could not refrain from expressing his regret that the Bill under consideration did not contain provisions for securing it. It might have been, in his opinion, with great propriety introduced. If, however, that was deemed inexpedient, he trusted that no time would be lost in bringing forward a supplemental Bill. The subject of copyright was one of great importance to the newspaper interests, and should, if possible, be brought to an understanding during the present Session.

observed, that the subject of newspaper copyright was under consideration, and that, though it was one of some difficulty, he had every reason to hope it might form the subject of legislation during the present Session, He thought, however, it was requisite to have it in a Bill distinct from the present. They were then considering a measure of revenue, into which it would be neither convenient or in accordance with precedent to introduce the matter alluded to. He would take that opportunity of alluding to another topic, on which several representations had been made to him. He alluded to the manner in which the stamps should in future be distributed to the several papers. He did not feel that he should be justified in requiring each paper to take out distinctive stamps, but as it appeared to be the wish of a great many newspaper proprietors that such a measure should be adopted, it was determined that by an arrangement in the Stamp-office, any person who should wish a distinct stamp for his paper should be enabled to procure it. He hoped, by this means, that all parties would be satisfied.

was understood to complain of the publication of the stamp return, so long as it was impossible, through the defective arrangements of the Stamp-office, to give a correct idea of the circulation of each paper. He hoped that until better means for arriving at a correct conclusion were devised, no member would think of calling for a newspaper stamp return.

admitted, that under the present system of issuing stamps, the public had no means of forming a correct judgment as to the condition of each paper; but at the same time he doubted whether, as it was not necessary for the purposes of the revenue that it should be ascertained to what papers stamps were issued, it was in his power to propose a remedy for the evil. In a measure particularly relating to revenue he did not see the justice of imposing on parties against their will, any restriction to which they might object. He thought it was quite right to allow all parties who wished for distinctive stamps to have them; but he certainly should be going beyond his jurisdiction were he to make an attempt to compel those who were content with the present system to depart from it.

disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He contended, that a distinctive stamp, if made voluntary, would not be productive of any good. The paper that did not adopt it would have an unfair advantage, as far as public impression went, over that which did. It was his opinion it should be made compulsory, or not at all attempted. In the one case a great injury might be inflicted on private property; while in the other no danger of such a result was to be apprehended. He quite agreed that in the present state of the newspaper stamp arrangements, no returns should be called for, inasmuch as they were calculated totally to mislead the public.

had always opposed the production of the Newspaper-Stamp Returns; in the first place, because he saw no Parliamentary grounds for calling for them; and secondly, from the knowledge that, under the present arrangement, they could not impart to the public any thing like a correct idea of the circulation of each newspaper. It was notorious that the present arrangement enabled one paper to take out stamps for several, and consequently to take credit to itself for a circulation considerably beyond its actual one. He hoped, however, that under the new arrangement this defect would be obviated. As regarded those papers which should adopt the distinctive stamp, it was evident the new system must prove effective; and as the Bill contained a clause prohibiting any editor or proprietor of a paper, under a heavy penalty, from procuring stamps except from the distributor of stamps at Somerset-house, he entertained great hopes that all future Returns would give very nearly, if not altogether, and for the first time, the correct circulation of each paper.

thought there was a very strong objection to the clause prohibiting editors of newspapers from procuring stamps except from the proper distributor. It often occurred that in consequence of an accidental mistake or omission, a paper had not in its office a sufficient number of stamps for a pressing publication, and was obliged to borrow of another establishment. It was well known that papers of different politics often so accommodated each other. Now if this custom were restrained, great injury might be done to property. He should, therefore, when the clause in question came under consideration, move that its operation should not extend to parties borrowing stamps for temporary convenience.

thought that the proposition of having all the names of proprietors and the transfer of shares registered was a very good one, but he considered that the cumbrous machinery for effecting this purpose was unnecessary, considering the extent of the public press, and the extent it was likely to be carried to. It would particularly operate—and he threw out this suggestion although he was favourable to the principle—disadvantageously to the country newspapers. It might be no great difficulty to the proprietors of the London newspapers to register their names at Somerset-house, but at Manchester, Liverpool, and other large provincial towns where there was a great number of newspapers, and where they would in all probability become more numerous, there would be found great difficulty in the proprietors constantly and periodically registering their names at Somerset-house. There would also be a very considerable expense, which must be paid by some person or other, and this was a point which he wished to draw under the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There would be a large expense, there must be additional clerks for this new registration, and a new office. ["No, no."] Well, he might have taken an exaggerated view of this part, but still it could not be denied that there would be great difficulty attending these alterations. He did not, as he said before, object to the principle. He believed that the adoption of the plan proposed by this Bill would very much operate against the establishment of joint-stock newspapers. He did not approve of the establishment of joint-stock banks, particularly for such small sums as 5l. per share, edited by persons very little more respectable than the proprietors themselves. He did not think that it would have the effect of improving the character of the public press or the morals of the country. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that the impression of the House seemed to be, that all the proprietors should be registered, both original and new, and that the right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into consideration.

put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was fair in this Bill, which purported to be a consolidation of old Acts, they should introduce provisions which were not to be found in any old Act—provisions more severe than had ever been proposed before. It was a most monstrous proposition that any person giving a description of his house, &c. which in any degree varied from the proper description, should be subjected to a penalty of 100l. He would move that the penalty be reduced to 10l.

said, that if they had not an exact description of the party's residence they would have nothing. There would be nothing to prevent a person printing a newspaper, and giving the residence of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He certainly must adhere to the amount of the penalty imposed by the clause as it stood.

objected to the penalties it imposed, as too severe.

said, that it would be a delusion and a fraud on his part to ask the House to impose duties, if he did not also ask the House to give him power to collect those duties. It would be a fraud on his part if he did not by all means in his power endeavour to protect the fair trader, whilst at the same time he used every exertion to put down the unstamped press. The putting down of the unstamped press was the only condition on which he could call upon the proprietors of stamped newspapers to agree to this Bill; and for his own part he could not see any difference between the case of a man who sold smuggled whiskey, and the man who sold unstamped newspapers. They were both alike a fraud on the revenue and upon the fair trader. He did not think that the penalties were by any means too severe, as nothing but severity could put down this illegal traffic.

was glad to hear that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to put down the unstamped press, but he thought that the existing law was quite strong enough for this purpose, if the right hon. Gentleman chose to carry it into effect. The Government was to blame for not enforcing the law when it was first violated, but the cause of their not doing so then was easily explained. Six years ago, agitation was very conve- nient and useful, but it was not equally convenient now to have a free press, and that the mass of the people should know what was going on in that House. If any right hon. Gentleman from the other side of the House had brought forward this Bill, the whole country would be in agitation. This Bill was the most severe against the press of this country that had ever been introduced into Parliament. He should be glad if the law were rendered satisfactory; but he contended and insisted, that the people of England had a right to enjoy a free press, and no Government would do its duty in allowing the enactment of such laws as these.

wished to ask his Majesty's Government whether the struggle in which they were engaging with the unstamped press was worth their while? The clause was calculated to bring ruin upon hundreds of persons. He was happy to see that the revenue was at this moment in a very flourishing condition, and as they had been told that this was a fiscal question, and that in the then state of the revenue it was not possible for the Government to spare the whole of the duty upon newspapers, he thought that all they required was satisfactory evidence to show that the Government, from the improving state of the revenue, could grant this boon. He had never known a subject on which the feelings of the people were more excited. The people entreated that they might have free access to publications diffusing political knowledge; and he trusted the House would respond to the wish. As to the law, salus populi was the supreme law; and no sacrifice ought to be considered too great to secure it. If they threw any impediment in the way of the people's acquiring a thorough, knowledge of what was going on in the legislature, they would be like the tyrants of old, who wrote their laws in letters so small that nobody could read them. To throw any impediment in the way of the acquisition of knowledge by the people was to do the people great injustice. Whenever laws were passed which were in hostility to public opinion, public opinion would always be found too strong for them; and by such means the law itself was brought into contempt. The new powers given to collect a smaller revenue were a greater evil than was remedied by the reduction of the stamp duty to a penny.

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had made use of an argument under circumstances in which he had never heard it used. He could understand the argument if it had been addressed to the question which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the abolition of the duty. He differed from him on this point. He retained a duty of one penny, and he gave the press an equivalent in the free circulation of papers throughout the land. But the hon. Member, not à propos to the total repeal of the duty, but à propos to a reduction of the duty, objected to the clause containing a penalty for violating the law and selling papers without stamps. Let the hon. Member bring forward a motion for the repeal of the duty. He had said, that the prisons of the country were crowded with persons for offences against the existing law; he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted it, and it was his anxious hope that this evil would be prevented. But in ninety-nine cases out of 100, these prosecutions were not instituted by the public, but vexatiously by common informers; and by this Bill prosecutions could be instituted only by officers of Government. It was odd that a contingency should happen, which, for the sake of the logic of the objectors, he hoped would not often be repeated, that whilst the object of the Bill was to relieve the press, he should be told that this was a measure to fetter and restrict the press. He had intended this as a measure of relief, and as an honest measure and an operative measure, and he knew that if the law remained in its present state, and the stamped press had a reduction of duty, the unstamped press would still go on. Gentlemen might think it very easy to abolish the whole duty, but did they think he could carry such a measure? Would they prefer an entirely free press, unaccompanied with a free circulation? Not a single individual conversant with the subject whom he had consulted had not said, that the press had a deep interest in a free circulation of newspapers throughout the empire—that this was a greater benefit than removing the penny stamp.

was of opinion that it was much better to have a free circulation under a stamp. He was not prepared to say that we were in a condition to have a free postage and no stamp; when he saw we were in such a state, he should be pre- pared to support the repeal of the stamp; till then he should support the penny stamp. He did not think that those who disobeyed the present law would disobey the new one; but that many who evaded the fourpenny stamp would pay the penny.

said, that though he was on principle an advocate for removing all taxes from newspapers, and did not concur in thinking with the right hon. Gentleman that the free postage was an equivalent for the penny stamp, (for he thought that a farthing stamp would cover postage,) yet he accepted the boon of the right hon. Gentleman. This clause only gave the power to retain the revenue, and if a tax was to be raised, it was essential to provide a sufficient power to secure the tax, but not beyond that. The part of the clause which he objected to was that which enacted, that "if any person shall have in his possession, and without a satisfactory excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on the party accused), any newspaper not duly stamped," he shall forfeit 201. for every newspaper; and that "any constable or other peace-officer" might seize and apprehend any such offender. This was monstrous; it gave a right of search, and the number of offenders against the clause would be so great, that it would bring the law into disrepute. It would be, moreover, impracticable. A keg of whiskey was not half so portable as a newspaper, and vet smuggling of spirits was carried on; and when the importation of bandana handkerchiefs was prohibited, Mr. Huskisson saw that every gentleman could produce one from his pocket. It was utterly unavailing to attempt to enforce a law against so many persons. He proposed as an amendment of the clause, to omit the words" or if any person shall have in his possession any newspaper not duly stamped."

said, he had had sent him copies of unstamped newspapers, and under this clause he might be sent to hard labour for a month. Would it not be sufficient to impose a penalty on the sale or disposal or distribution of the papers?

said, it would be impossible to collect any fiscal revenue if the Government had not the power of seizing the smuggled articles, whether in the possession of the smuggler or in the possession of any person to whom he might have transferred them. He begged to ask whether any hon. Gentleman believed the law could be enforced without the power to seize the article in possession?

observed, that under the new law an alarming power was given to constables and peace-officers, too great a power than ought to be given for the mere collection of the revenue. It was taken from a law which was not a law of England, but an Irish Act.

said, this clause would give a greater power than was possessed for the collection of the revenue when the duty was four times as high as it was now. Every person ought to be supposed innocent till guilt was proved; but the effect of this clause would be to put the person accused to the proof of his innocence. It might be said that there were some instances of fiscal laws having a similar effect, but there was this distinction between the present case and those referred to—the illegal possession of spirits or tobacco was established by showing that the one was held without a licence, but what guilt could there be in merely having possession of a printed paper? Persons might have unstamped papers in their possession without a guilty knowledge. It was believed out of doors that this Bill was meant to be a gagging Bill; he did not believe that, but he trusted it would not be persevered in, so objectionable as it was felt to be. It was impossible for any one to vote for the clause without feeling that he was voting for that which would violate every principle of justice.

urged on the right hon. Gentleman the consideration, that when laws ran counter to the public feeling they became a dead letter. The proposed law was opposed to the feeling of the country; it was considered that its object was rather to suppress intelligence than to facilitate the collection of the revenue. It would expose the poor man to great hazard, inasmuch as he might be violating the law without knowing that he was doing so. Any one might go and place in the poor man's cottage an unstamped paper, and thus render him liable to a heavy penalty. When a law was capable of so much mischief, the people would be very scrupulous in applying it.

said, he had looked at the clause in the original Act now before him, which provided that a person having in his possession a newspaper not duly stamped was subject, as in this Bill, to a 20l. penalty. The difference between the two clauses was this. The words in the 38th of George 3rd, were having "knowingly and wilfully" an unstamped paper in his possession. At present the great distribution of unstamped papers did not take place under any act of sale; they were distributed at public houses If they allowed the possession of these papers to be free from penalty, there would be an end to the penalty in other cases because they would not be able to prove the fact of sale; that would be evaded, and thus the practice would continue unabated He had no objection to insert in this clause the very words he found in the other Act namely "knowingly and wilfully," because he believed that with this alteration the Act would afford the means of meeting the cases to which he had alluded.

asked, whether the power was to be retained which the Bill gave to peace-officers?

said, the proposed Bill was a limitation of the present Act in that respect. The five hundred cases of prosecution of which there was a return before the House, were not at the instance of the law-officers, but at the instance of common informers.

said, that there were preparations already made for evading this law. He had seen the prospectus of an unstamped daily paper, to be conducted by a Member of that House. The same course, therefore, was to be pursued under the new system, and the Government were to be forced to abandon this duty as they had the former. He thought that Government should be exonerated from the charge of improper motive in this clause, which was necessary, in order to protect the revenue. It would have been better if they had gone to the fountain head, and not punished persons in humble life, who had no other way of gaining a living, and suffered persons in higher rank to pass with impunity.

said, that the effect of the clause, as he proposed to alter it, would be, as far as regarded persons having unstamped papers in their possession, to leave the law as he found it. He proposed to take the words in the statute of 38th George 3rd; those words were "knowingly and wilfully;" and he proposed further to omit the words to which objection had been made. This would throw the onus of proving the offence on the party making the charge.

said, there were provisions in a future clause (233) directly opposed to the amendments or explanations now offered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He noticed this now, that it might not be forgotten when the clause was come to.

suggested the addition to the words "knowingly and wilfully, of the words," without sufficient excuse."

observed that "knowingly" was to be interpreted persons taking the paper knowing that it was not stamped, and "wilfully" with an intention to violate the law. The clause, as amended, was agreed to.